Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 May 2001

98 contributions from 32 members. The official report.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

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

First, I apologise for the fact that I have only now placed my statement in the Business Office. I plead Standing Order 18, on the basis that there were certain things that I had to bring up to date in relation to serology.

I am pleased to be able to report that the foot-and- mouth disease situation remains essentially unchanged since I last made a statement on the subject on 14 May. It is now more than six weeks since our second outbreak was confirmed, and there are currently no worrying suspects under investigation in Northern Ireland. As our thoughts turn increasingly to our longer-term strategy, it is absolutely vital for the farming community to keep its guard up.

Farmers must not fall into the trap of assuming that foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland has passed into history. It is too early for that sort of assumption, and if the industry is to get back to normal again soon, it is important that the remaining controls on animal movements be observed to the letter. If that does not happen, we could find ourselves back to square one with further foot-and- mouth outbreaks here. Recent events in Great Britain are a sharp reminder that it would be disastrous for farmers to assume that foot-and-mouth disease has already been eradicated. I was delighted to hear that the Republic of Ireland is now recommencing exports following the outbreak. My objective is that we will soon be able to follow suit.

As I announced last week, I reopened the question of regionalisation of Northern Ireland for foot-and-mouth disease purposes at a meeting with the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr David Byrne, in Brussels on 22 May. He was very supportive of our case. So long as we have no further cases of foot-and- mouth disease, and so long as we have satisfactorily completed the first phase of our serology testing, I am confident that we will be able to secure full regionalisation status for Northern Ireland in early June.

The serology testing, which I explained in my last statement to the Assembly, is proceeding very well. In the surveillance zones, we have now met the EU’s testing requirements and are carrying out the final interpretation of the results. This has involved the blood sampling and testing of over 170,000 sheep from over 3,000 flocks.

Almost all the necessary Pirbright examinations have been carried out, with negative results. I await the results from three flocks to complete the serology, thus allowing me to seek regionalisation for Northern Ireland.

My policy throughout the crisis has been to take no chances on the spread of the disease, but I have tried to ease controls on the movement of livestock as soon as it was safe to do so. Two situations continue to cause serious problems — the continued prohibition on the movement of sheep to common grazing and the continued ban on livestock marts. My chief veterinary officer will reconsider common grazing, and I will make a further announcement in the next few days. It is still too early to countenance reopening of livestock marts, but I hope that the support package announced by the Executive last week, which made specific provision for the marts, will go some way toward helping the mart owners. As with all these measures, I will permit the marts to reopen as soon as veterinary advice suggests that it is safe.

Looking further ahead, we will need a recovery plan for the industry, which has been battered by a succession of crises, not just foot-and-mouth disease. In Northern Ireland, the vision exercise is being revisited and updated to take account of foot-and-mouth disease, and it will give an important local dimension to any recovery strategy. The industry has its own ideas of what needs to be done, and my Department has opened discussions with its representatives. Industry representatives will have an input to the vision exercise before a preliminary report is issued in September. All the interested parties will be able to respond to the formal consultation exercise in the autumn. The outcome will be a package supported by the Executive. It should provide a basis for a more secure future for the industry in Northern Ireland.

The UK is considering national measures to help those who have suffered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease. My officials are fully involved in that work and will ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from that exercise. The foot-and-mouth situation is resolving satisfactorily, and, as long as there are no last-minute setbacks, we are on target to achieve regionalisation and can return to normality over the next few weeks. That is the best outcome we could have expected, but it depends on the farming community’s continued vigilance over the next weeks and months.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am glad that there are no more outbreaks of foot-and- mouth disease and that we are heading back to normality. We need a recovery plan, which will be welcomed by the farming community. I hope that everybody remains vigilant and helps to control the outbreak. Is there any possibility of an easement on lambs going to marts? That would be a sensible move. Instead of 30 or 40 trailers, one lorry could collect all the lambs at a collection point. That is vital, because lambs are ready, and they need to be killed or they will become too fat. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

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

I am considering the provision of collection points at marts so that farmers will be able to deliver lambs there to go on to the marts.

I am looking at that at the moment, and I hope to be able to move on it soon.

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

Every time we meet, the problem seems to diminish. Nevertheless, caution is still the key word. Given the fact that outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease are still daily occurrences in Yorkshire, Cumbria, et cetera, and now that the holiday season is just around the corner, will the Minister detail her plans regarding precautions at our ports to deal with the risk of holiday traffic between GB and Northern Ireland?

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

I can assure Mr Bradley that we will be keeping up our vigilance at the points of entry, which is the main danger zone at the moment — that and complacency. We will continue with the precautions that are in place, and we will continue to be vigilant at the ports. We ask for co-operation from the public and particularly for people travelling over here, if they have been anywhere near farms or farmland, to go through the spraying procedures that are available at the ports for them. We are also looking at marinas and other areas that could be a source of the infection’s entering Northern Ireland.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

How extensive are investigations likely to be following the accusation that Linden Foods has altered carcass grades? Will an investigation be conducted in other processing factories to ensure that the practice is not a common one among processors?

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

Can the Member repeat the first part of his question?

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

How extensive are investigations likely to be following the accusation that Linden Foods has altered carcass grades?

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

I assure the Member that that will be investigated.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the fact that we are probably moving towards more flexibility and less risk of further outbreaks, given that there are continuing sporadic outbreaks in England regardless of the precautions that have been taken so far.

Is everything well regarding antibodies in the sheep population at present? If so, can there be more flexibility in the opening of the countryside and the easing of controls? Is anything liable to pop out after, for instance, 7 June?

With regard to the recovery plan, I am concerned that farmers are going to have to take a loss for animals that have passed 30 months in age. It concerns me that that is classed as consequential loss and is for the Public Accounts Committee to look after.

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

I reiterate a word of caution. I note that Mr McHugh said that we now have less risk. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that we have less risk. There is a danger that the farming community might be a little complacent. There is still a risk, although we have so far managed to contain the spread of the disease.

In relation to the antibodies, there are three cases from the 170,000 animals whose blood tests have been examined at Pirbright. We await those results, but that is only three out of a very large number. We have to continue the serology testing in all the areas outside the surveillance zones, and I will not rest happy until I am totally assured and can assure this House that we have totally eradicated any risk of the disease. I am not yet at that point. For that reason, I am very cautious every time I take a step toward relaxing the controls that we have had.

In fairness, the industry has, so far, appreciated the need to balance the risk of spread with the needs of the farming community. I have managed to make easements that have been welcomed by the farmers, particularly allowing the inter-farm movement that has allowed sales to take place on that basis.

In relation to the recovery plan, which is being dealt with by the vision group, the first step is the opening up of our markets, which, all being well, I hope to achieve at the Standing Veterinary Committee in early June.

With regard to consequential compensation, I think that Mr McHugh is aware that that is being looked at on a UK-wide basis. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive have made an input to that, and we will certainly be ensuring that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of anything that accrues to the industry in the UK. The consequential impact to farmers will be looked at in exactly the same way as that for other people who have suffered because of foot-and-mouth disease. I am very anxious to be able to pay as much consequential compensation as possible, but we have to recognise the limited resources within which we work. I recognise that there is a real problem; the Executive have already moved in relation to rates relief, for the marts in particular, and we are still inputting to the UK consideration.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement. I especially welcome the fact that today she is able to make a relatively upbeat statement. Without wishing to detract from it, I am slightly surprised that she has made no mention of the precautionary cull of a sheep flock in south Antrim about 10 days ago, and I wonder if she will make a statement on that. With regard to her comments on serology testing, is the Minister confident that we can make the case for regionalisation within Northern Ireland merely on the completion of phase one of the serology testing and that no further test results will be needed? Will she also inform the Assembly whether she has any proposals at this stage for the individual tagging of sheep?

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

In relation to south Antrim, the Member is referring to a farm where I think we culled 64 sheep — I am not terribly sure of the number, but it was a routine cull. I explained some weeks ago that as we proceeded with serology testing there would be situations where we would be carrying out precautionary culls. I did not think it necessary to raise fears by putting everything in the public domain, although people do need to know that there is the possibility of a precautionary cull based on the results of blood tests.

On regionalisation, I have a commitment from Commissioner Byrne that he will support it unless there are further outbreaks of the disease. The Commission will, of course, require serology testing to have been done in the surveillance zones, and the surveillance zones to have been lifted, before that can happen.

There are no proposals, as yet, on tagging, but we will be consulting with the industry, and we will be considering it because clearly there will be a need for many measures to be taken once we examine what has happened in recent months. Tagging will certainly be one of the issues that we will look at.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement this morning. The Minister has stated that she hopes that regionalisation can be achieved by early June. If blood sampling were complete, can the Minister state how long it would take to carry out the laboratory tests? We know that there was some initial difficulty in getting staff to take the samples, and I am led to believe there is now some difficulty in the laboratory. Can she give us a time frame, and can she also clarify how soon the restrictions in the 10-km zone might be lifted or eased?

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

The Department is up to speed on laboratory testing; we are carrying out 10,000 tests a day. That is a considerable amount. Additional veterinary staff are at work taking all the bloods, and that is also a huge undertaking. I am satisfied that everything possible is being done.

Some of the tests have to be sent to Pirbright, and my Department has no control over the time that that process takes. I presume that Pirbright gives priority to suspect foot-and-mouth disease cases, rather than serology testing, and, therefore, it takes longer for serology test results to be returned.

I shall remove the 10-km surveillance zones as soon as I get the all-clear on the serology tests relating to those areas.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister’s statement; each statement that she makes brings us closer to easing the restrictions on the movement of stock.

Are the three flocks for which the Minister is awaiting serology test results all from one area, or is there one flock in one area and two in another? If the three flocks are in one area, cannot the other area have its 10-km surveillance zone lifted first?

I hope that the Stewartstown, Ardboe and Coagh area will be the first to have the 10-km zone lifted. That area is full of beef cattle, and farmers have cattle that are going over age and over fat. The relaxation of regulations on Tuesday 15 May meant that 19 cattle got to Dungannon Meats. Does the Minister consider that other farmers whose cattle are over age will be compensated in the same way as the farmers who were able to move cattle to Dungannon Meats? It is unfair that some farmers receive the full price for their cattle and others lose out.

Everyone is worried about the outbreak of foot-and- mouth disease in other areas such as Yorkshire. The Department and associated bodies must ensure that there is no relaxation of the controls on people coming into the Province. The Department must be diligent in its efforts to prevent the spread of infection.

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

The three flocks to which the Member refers are in one area. The 10-km surveillance zones will be removed simultaneously by the EU Commission, and its decision will be based on the completed test results. I hope that that decision will be announced in the next few days.

The Member spoke about losses on cattle aged over thirty months. That loss is consequential on the situation, rather than a direct loss. It cannot be treated any differently to anyone else’s consequential losses.

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

The Minister will be aware of the important role played by the Agriculture Committee during the prolonged foot-and-mouth disease crisis. Is the Minister aware that the Chairman, Dr Paisley, left last Friday’s meeting to electioneer in Portadown? Will the Minister renew her — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member must ask the Minister questions about her statement. What is being raised is not a question on the statement but is verging on criticism of the Chairperson of the Committee.

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

It is an important point.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If that is the only question that the Member has to raise, I must say that it is not in respect of the statement.

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

I was coming to my question, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am content for the Member to put a question which is relevant to the statement, but this is not an opportunity for him to raise matters that are entirely extraneous to the Minister’s statement.

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

I am guided by what you say at all times, Mr Speaker, but I was simply asking the Minister to encourage Members to continue attending Committee meetings while the crisis lasts.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member may wish to do that, but that is not within the Minister’s responsibility, and it is not in the statement.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The entire farming community is breathing more easily, because we have been free from foot-and- mouth disease for six weeks. Are the precautions at the ports and airports being stepped up and kept firmly in place because of the sporadic outbreaks and hot spots in Lancashire over the weekend? Can the Minister be more specific and tell us whether regionalisation will be announced on or before 7 June, and whether the markets can enjoy a similar opening date?

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

I thank the Member for his questions. We will continue to be as vigilant as ever at the ports and airports. I recently spoke to a journalist from Britain, and she said that she was very impressed with the stringent precautions she experienced when she arrived at the airport here. I hope that that will help to reassure the Member. We will not be relaxing our guard.

I cannot say for certain when we will get regionalisation until I receive the final results of the serology tests. I assure the Member that, as soon as I am in a position to do so, I will move on the issue, because I recognise the importance of regionalisation for the industry.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. I am getting a great many phone calls about livestock payments that are long overdue. What is the hold up, given that farmers are currently under a lot of pressure as a result of foot-and-mouth disease?

I was not overly happy with the Minister’s statement about the payment for cattle over 30 months old. The Minister must take into consideration the loss to the farmer who has cattle over 30 months old. He is left in limbo, through no fault of his own. The payment for those cattle at market value is half the normal price. She must take into consideration that that is not the farmer’s fault.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Questions are not an opportunity for Members to make speeches on matters which may be of importance; they are an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister. If the Member has a further question to ask he is free to do so, otherwise I will ask the Minister to respond.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. That is all.

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

I presume that the Member is referring to compensation payments. To date we have paid £2·9 million in compensation to farmers, and we have a further £1·3 million processed and ready to issue. The total estimated compensation is roughly £5 million. There are still some outstanding appeals that we are dealing with.

I have, however, allocated additional staff to the payment of compensation, and I expect all payments, subject to queries which have to cleared up, to be with farmers within a few days.

In relation to the problem of farmers not being able to get over-30-months old cattle out, I recognise and sympathise with their position. The Member said that he is not satisfied with my response, but he is aware that resources are a huge issue and that other sectors have suffered severe consequential loss. It would not be right for the Executive to differentiate between one sector and another. However, if resources are to become available, they will have to come from within the block and from other areas, which Members will have to consider. We will be part of the UK discussions about consequential loss, and I will ensure that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of any compensation available.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the two component parts of the Minister’s statement — the element of caution and the need for continued good housekeeping in farming and the element of hope that it may be possible to relax the bans.

Will the Minister assure us that her Department is taking all necessary steps to bring about a speedy return to normality? We are approaching summer, and the tourist industry needs all the help it can get.

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

I can assure Mr Wilson that we are taking all necessary steps, including balancing the need for a return to normality with the need to minimise risk. The last thing I want to do is risk a return to square one, which would have severe consequences, not just for the farming community but also for tourism. We are trying to ensure that, as soon as possible, we can allow a return to normal events, especially for angling, a sport that is dear to Mr Wilson’s heart.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and regard it as a good progress report.

Does the Minister have any plans to meet her counterpart in the Republic, Mr Joe Walsh, the Minister for Agriculture, to raise issues relating to the reopening of export markets there?

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

I take it that the Member is referring to regionalisation. I have no immediate plans for a meeting with Mr Walsh, although I do speak to him regularly by telephone. My officials are in regular contact as well. I have no reason to suppose that Mr Walsh will not be as supportive as he was during our last efforts towards regionalisation. Commissioner Byrne has given us a commitment, and I am fairly confident that we will be moving to regionalisation shortly, barring any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I might be deemed to have an interest in the matter I am about to raise.

I thank the Minister for her statement —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I suggest that the Member declare his interest before he asks his question.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Am I supposed to give details?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If the Member is declaring an interest, he would be best to state it at the start rather than at the end of the question.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I am not sure what the answer to that is, Mr Speaker, because I do not believe that technically I have an interest. However, because I might be deemed to have an interest, I am simply mentioning it before someone else does.

To get to the substance of the matter, I note the continuing progress in the serology testing, which I welcome and trust will continue at the same rate, because it is essential to restore confidence in our livestock.

I am aware that there is a delicate balancing act between the need to keep up precautions against the spread of foot-and-mouth disease and the interests of other rural industries, particularly in my constituency of North Antrim where the Glens of Antrim and the Causeway coast are significant tourist attractions. Tourism is probably the most important part of its economy. Assuming that serology testing continues at the current rate until the end of June with continuing satisfactory results, will the Minister be in a position to declare these areas safe for all visitors? Will she also be able to work in concert with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Industry, who is bringing forward a package of measures to try to retrieve what remains of the tourist season this summer?

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

I am aware of the difficulties that have affected that area — and particularly the North West 200. The Member is aware that we have reopened the Giant’s Causeway and moved as far as we can on that. It is impossible for me to say exactly when I can relax all the regulations. The guidelines now state that visitors are welcome to Northern Ireland, and to the part of North Antrim to which the Member referred, as long as they stay away from farm land and farm animals. This allows a fair amount of leeway for people to visit various centres. The Giant’s Causeway is a case in point — the upper path must remain closed, but the lower path is open because it is not near farmland.

I reassure the Member that I am aware of the efforts that Sir Reg Empey is making and of the £1 million that he has allocated for the recovery of the tourist industry. I am anxious to facilitate that in any way providing we take account of the risk assessment.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I note that the Minister has already raised the question of regionalisation with Commissioner Byrne. However, is she satisfied that the British Government support her efforts?

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

I am satisfied that the British Government support my efforts to gain regionalisation. The Prime Minister gave me his commitment on that some weeks ago, and that still stands.

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

In common with all Members I welcome the positive statement that we are moving towards normality and the end of this tragedy. Can the Minister reaffirm more positively the question asked by the Deputy Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee about pick-up points for animals being transferred for slaughter? For example, the Strangford-Down Co-operative is based on the concept of a gathering point. It is important, in terms of manpower and cost, to have collection points at marts or other places which can accommodate the farmers in this difficulty. I welcome the prospect of common grazing for sheep being made available in the next few days.

The Speaker may rule me out of order on this, but I also welcome the fact that the racecourse meeting will be held in Downpatrick on 1 and 2 June.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is correct — he is out of order on that.

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

Mr McGrady has already written to me about the Strangford-Down Co-operative. At that time I was not in a position to give him any consolation, but we have moved on. I appreciate the difficulty in bringing small numbers of lambs to slaughter.

In reviewing that situation, I hope to establish collection points at the marts, which will also include the Strangford-Down Co-operative.

Budget Timings

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on Budget timings.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement, on behalf of the Executive, on the proposed timetable for the Budget 2002-03.

When I presented the 2001-02 Budget to the Assembly on 12 December 2000, I acknowledged the concerns expressed by the Committee for Finance and Personnel about the time constraints of the exercise. I agreed that we should, in future cycles, ensure that the presentation of the draft Budget should take place as soon as possible after the summer recess.

I want to put on record the Executive’s commitment to meeting that target and to set out the proposed timetable for the key planning and financial events between now and December, when the Budget for 2002-03 needs to be agreed.

This statement concerns the Executive’s approach to the planning of public expenditure for the year beginning in April 2002. The process runs from now until December, when we will seek to settle an agreed Budget in line with the Programme for Government, which will form the basis of spending plans for all Departments and other public sector bodies.

Some further steps will be taken on that next month, but they are likely to coincide with the completion of spending allocations for the current financial year, which began on 1 April 2001. The final approval of the Main Estimates and the related Budget (No 2) Bill will complete the process for 2001-02, which began last autumn.

It may also help to remind Members of the cycle of events that lead to decisions on financial allocations. Those processes have their roots in the Good Friday Agreement, which prescribed that an annual budget should form part of, and be guided by the principles and priorities of, a programme for Government, which is an expression of the Executive’s key policies.

For 2001-02, the Assembly’s agreement of the Programme for Government and the Budget that I proposed separately on behalf of the Executive was the culmination of many months of collective effort, involving determined and focused co-operation between the Departments, the Assembly and its Committees.

The production of the 2001-02 Budget was a first major success of our evolving institutions. It provided a visible and tangible demonstration of how positively and constructively devolution can work for the whole community. It was a notable achievement that we must now build on.

Central to that is the establishment of robust procedures to enable the Assembly to discharge its scrutiny role and to exercise its power to modify proposals as required in the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The timetable sets out the steps that we propose to put in place to deliver on that commitment between now and December. They key dates are set out in the table attached to the copies of the statement, which have been distributed to Members.

Delivery of this Budget cycle in the available time, within existing procedures, is demanding. It will need careful management if the expectations of Members and Committees about consultation are to be met and if we are to promote equality of opportunity through those measures in line with the agreement and section 75 of the 1998 Act.

We sometimes face constraints because, as I explained in 1999 and 2000, our decisions must be developed into detailed allocations for many budget holders in the public sector. If that is to be achieved for 1 April 2002, we must have a clear outcome from the process before Christmas.

However, the approach that I am setting out today will secure improvements to ensure that the Assembly has as much time as possible to consider the Budget proposals for the following year, in the context set by the Programme for Government, so that proposals can be improved in December and in the future after an acceptable period of scrutiny.

The vote on the Budget each December should be seen as the main authorisation of spending plans, and it follows that we should provide the best possible procedures for that purpose. The proposals set out in the indicative timetable will provide for the Assembly Committees to be involved at the initial stages, starting before the summer, and before the Executive consider a draft Budget. That process was not possible last year.

In addition, there may be over two extra weeks this autumn, compared to the time available in 2000, for the Assembly to scrutinize the draft Budget. However, the timings are subject to change to suit the circumstances required. To achieve this fuller consideration the process will be triggered early — effectively from today’s statement. This will be followed by a statement on the Programme for Government and a pre-Budget statement in June. The statements should be made as soon as possible before the summer so that the Executive’s indications of the key issues facing the Administration are understood and can be the subject of debate in the Assembly and between Departments and Assembly Committees.

To inform this process we will provide short position reports in June showing the main issues affecting the spending plans of the Executive and the Departments. It is likely that these statements will coincide with Assembly business on the Main Estimates for 2001-02. They are two distinct processes, and I hope that the timing of the business can be managed in a way which helps that distinction. We will meet to debate and vote on the motion seeking approval of the Main Estimates for 2001-02 and then consider the Budget (No 2) Bill. The key point is that the Estimates concern 2001-02, while the Budget process set out in today’s timetable is the beginning of the cycle for 2002-03.

The Finance and Personnel Committee will have an important role in collating and channelling the views of all Committees to me. This will apply, in particular, at the next phase when it can draw together the views and conclusions of each Committee following scrutiny of the report on their Department’s financial issues prepared by the Executive. I welcome the Committee’s advice and assistance throughout the process and at several key stages especially.

This consultation, which will be part of a wider process, should not be limited to examination of the information presented on Departments’ expenditure. It should examine implications for equality and New TSN and be informed by scrutiny of other material available such as departmental plans and the public service agreement targets set out in the Programme for Government.

Committees also need to consider how the priorities set out in the Programme for Government may be refined and developed in the light of experience in the past year and new developments. Many of the policy and organisational issues which Committees have been considering with their respective Departments recently will impinge on the Budget. In this way we can ensure effective examination and identification of changing financial priorities at departmental level and at a wider strategic level through the central role of the Finance and Personnel Committee. The key aim is to ensure that we can meet the Finance and Personnel Committee’s request for the draft Budget to be introduced as soon as possible after the summer recess. The timetable before the Assembly today will allow the Committee some time to consult and consider the issues affecting Departments. We want to achieve as much as possible before the recess.

Better information will be available to Committees and to Ministers, and that will contribute to consideration of the issues.

Two stages in the timetable will help to draw the process together. First, it would be helpful if the Committees could give their preliminary views for consideration to the Committee for Finance and Personnel by 6 July. Secondly, if that Committee could provide me with some views by the end of August, it would be possible to take them into account when the Executive are considering the proposals for the Programme for Government and the draft Budget in early September. Neither deadline is a guillotine on the work, as there will be scope to hear more from all Committees at later stages. Contributions at the times I have mentioned would, however, be particularly useful.

Between the end of August and mid-September, the Executive’s work will concentrate on developing and refining draft proposals for the Programme for Government and the Budget, with a view to introducing these documents in draft to the Assembly in late September. That would fulfil the desire expressed by the Committee for Finance and Personnel in its report last year.

If the draft Budget were introduced in late September, rather than mid-October as last year, that would offer more time to Committees for consultation on and consideration of the proposals. They will also have the benefit of the earlier material in the Executive’s position reports. Comments could be channelled through the Committee for Finance and Personnel. As at the stages before and during the summer, I shall rely on that Committee to assist by working with the other Committees and channelling views to me.

A further key stage of the work between 24 September and December will be consultation on the equality implications of the proposals. We intend to prepare the way for this by making the Executive’s position reports widely available, so that those who wish to contribute will have information before the presentation of the draft Budget. During that period, the Assembly Committees will also consider the proposals for the Programme for Government and the public service agreements.

The Executive will need to review the Budget in the autumn and decide on any revisions, depending on the views expressed in response to the draft Budget. Before that stage is reached, it should be possible to have a full debate on the draft Budget on foot of a motion from the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The Executive will thus be able to reflect more fully on Assembly views than was possible last year.

I would like to hear further from the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the precise sequence of events. As last year, however, it might be best if the Committee were to report to me after that Budget debate. The Executive could then reflect on that report in its review of the Budget, which will also be informed by the concurrent work on the Programme for Government.

The intention is that all the strands of work I have mentioned, including the views of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the reaction to the equality consultation and the Executive’s review of these and other relevant factors will come together in a statement to the Assembly on the revised Budget in early December, leading to an Assembly debate and vote by 10 December.

The Assembly should note that there is no Treasury spending review this year. In some respects, this year’s work will be a transition to the spending review of 2002. That will see the completion of the changes to resource budgeting.

As we consider the issues in this cycle, we can draw on an extensive range of material which includes the public service agreements as set out in the Programme for Government, the details of the Executive programme funds and especially the indicative plans for 2002-03 and 2003-04 as shown in the Budget presented to the Assembly last December.

Given the transitional nature of this year’s arrangements, we do not anticipate a major recasting of the Budget, but we will need to address some key issues; hence, the approach that I have described today. Some business must be done in June on the Estimates and the Budget (No 2) Bill for 2001-02. However, that is separate from the Budget process for 2002-03 that is beginning today.

There will be Programme for Government and pre- Budget statements in June on the main issues that must be addressed for 2002-03. Preliminary financial information will be supplied to the Committee for Finance and Personnel and other departmental Committees, and I shall seek the views of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which will reflect the views of other Committees as well as its own, by the end of August.

The Programme for Government proposals and the draft Budget will be considered by the Executive in early September and introduced to the Assembly in late September, after which the Committee for Finance and Personnel will take evidence from the Department of Finance and Personnel and other statutory Committees on the draft Budget. There will be consultation on the equality implications of the Programme for Government and the draft Budget, and there will be a substantive debate on the draft Budget in November, as part of the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s work to collate and channel comment on the Executive’s proposals. Our aim is that the revised Budget will be announced to the Assembly in early December and debated and voted on a week thereafter.

I hope that Members find the explanation of the intended procedures and timetable helpful as an indication of what is planned and that it will inform Committees’ planning of their programmes.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement; it launches the Budget debate. I hope that all Committees will take up the debate with their Department.

Can the Minister assure Members that the statutory departmental Committees will be given adequate time to consider all the stages of the financial process? There was some slippage this year. In future, we should start the process again at the end of a term. Committees must be able to scrutinise the proposals with their own Department. That has not happened as early this year as we would have liked. Why has that consultation not happened? Were Ministers directed to consult their Department on the proposals?

Will Committees have the opportunity to scrutinise the Supply resolution to ensure that it reflects each Department’s needs? Members should be given the opportunity for a debate in October. The date for the debate has moved to November, but the Committee has made it clear that it wants a debate in October, to give it enough time after the debate to produce a report and consult the other Committees.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I acknowledge the Committee’s input to our proposals on timetable and procedures.

Neither the Executive nor the Department of Finance and Personnel is applying time constraints. I said last year that Committees did not need to wait for me to fire a starting gun to begin consideration of their Department’s spending plans. I know that people have a particular interest in seeing which bids succeed and which fail.

However, I hope that the departmental Committees will develop the role that they have to play in contributing to the thinking of Departments. Committee involvement should also help to ensure that Departments make sound plans to underpin bids. Departmental Committees can make a contribution towards that work, even outside the Budget cycle.

I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee that the full debate, on a motion tabled by the Committee for Finance and Personnel, should take place in adequate time before the Committee is due to give a report to me. The precise timing and sequence of events needs to be resolved.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his detailed statement and for the enthusiasm that he and his Colleagues have displayed for what is potentially a hypothetical exercise. The exercise provides the right template for the future, although the plans for the future might be delayed.

Resource account budgeting is new to all of us. Does the Minister intend to offer a tutorial about the structure of the new accounts? To the best of my knowledge the record of assets that is held by Departments is not ready yet. The new accounts system will have a significant part to play in future planning for Departments, and I hope that it will improve the planning for capital expenditure. When will the figures be available?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his compliments. I believe that we will use the procedure, and I hope that we do so constructively. The Member’s points about the implications of resource accounting and budgeting are well made. One of our aims is to use the system to enable better planning for the Executive.

I would be happy to consider how to format tutorials on resource account budgeting. We could provide seminars on a request basis for different Committees or by organising parties or Committee Chairpersons. We might consult with the Committee for Finance and Personnel on how best to provide the information.

The published accounts will be available in October 2002. The Valuation and Lands Agency has a role in the ongoing work on assets. When we have further information on the matter we will make that available to the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he agree that his statement is further evidence of devolution of power’s working? That process that we have discussed demonstrates the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to influence the allocation of resources through the MLAs of all parties. Members work closely together on Committees, although some people say that that is not the case. Our Committee had expressed some concern about the timetable, but I welcome the detail of the programme. We are somewhat reassured, although still a bit concerned, about the amount of time that is available. However, the system is a good step forward, and the template should enable progress.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the comments from the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. Through this timetable we have tried to give the Committees more time not only to consider the draft Budget, but also for input and reflection prior to Executive consideration. That is noticeably different to what happened last year.

We want to ensure that through the Committees, MLAs can make a contribution on spending plans in advance. Committees should not have to wait until the draft Budget is available and then work in a purely reactive way. Committees have already done a range of work involving different service areas and programmes, and they have comments on those issues. There is no reason why those comments on spending plans for next year should not have been communicated to the individual Departments. I hope that Committees will welcome the greater amount of time made available to them by this timetable, and that they also recognise the sound material that is already available to them on which they can base their contributions.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I have been particularly critical of the process over the last couple of years. However, I must give credit where it is due. The Minister’s statement gives us the opportunity and the ability to move forward in a more efficient manner.

As has already been mentioned, the Budget is the most important issue that can come before the House because it affects everyone in Northern Ireland. It is important that the procedures are right so that the right expenditure is in the right areas for the people we represent.

Inevitably this is a race against time, and it is important that we get off to a good start. Can the Minister assure the House that through negotiations with his Colleagues on the Executive, the necessary information will be made available to the respective departmental Committees so that initial comments channelled into the Finance and Personnel Committee by 6 July will be meaningful and constructive and will give us the tools to advise him correctly as Minister?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I concur with Mr Close’s comments about the importance of getting Budget procedures right, not only for the Assembly’s own conduct, but also, more importantly, for the good of the services to the community which this Assembly is responsible for providing.

I reiterate that the Committees already have a considerable amount of relevant information for next year. They know where the indicative allocations lie in the revised Budget announced in December 2000. They have material about the public service agreements and the Programme for Government’s targets, and also the supplementary information that has since emerged about the Executive programme funds. The Committees have also been informed by their own work in exploring different issues.

In June the Committees will have the benefit of a statement on the Programme for Government that will be followed by a pre-Budget statement, again on behalf of the Executive. The Committees will receive position reports for their respective Departments, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel will receive the entire compendium of position reports affecting all Departments and the Executive as a whole.

The Committees will have that information as soon as it is cleared by the Executive. With this information the Committees will be able to give feedback to the Committee for Finance and Personnel before the Executive even considers a draft Budget, and in many cases before I, as Minister, have had Budget bilateral meetings with my fellow Ministers.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

Part of my question has been answered, but I too welcome the statement from the Minister. Can the Minister tell us what arrangements are in place to ensure that departmental statements will be with Committees in time for a full and adequate consideration of the issues involved?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Obviously the position reports first have to clear the Executive. There will be an Executive meeting on 14 June, and that is when we expect them to be agreed. The following week those position reports will be made available. We cannot do it any sooner than that, because we must ensure that they are first cleared by the Executive. In addition, they need to be in similar format, because presenting very different types and styles to Committees would make their job harder — and certainly make the job of the Committee for Finance and Personnel harder.

I recognise that given the date set for the Assembly recess it is asking Committees to engage in some concentrated effort to get preliminary reflections back to the Committee for Finance and Personnel by 6 July, but that is something that Committees can and should do. We always recognised that once we had the target of trying to introduce the draft Budget as soon as possible after the recess, we were going to have to work at some lick to get some consideration of it before the recess.

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

I too welcome the Minister’s statement and particularly his giving increased opportunities for consideration by the Committees.

Will the Minister say when he expects the needs and effectiveness reviews to be completed, and can he assure us that the improvement that has been started today will continue?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The needs and effectiveness reviews were announced to the Assembly on previous occasions, not least at the time of the statement on the Executive programme funds, which also addressed issues outstanding from the monitoring round. We want to use these reviews to help ensure that we are putting adequate resources, appropriately targeted, into the particular services that will be the subject of those reviews and inform our wider approach to negotiations with the Treasury on Barnett. Work is already underway on those reviews. We will certainly be trying to ensure that when we are doing the Budget work in September we will be doing some of that work in the light of the information coming from those reviews.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Earlier in the year the Minister announced that his Department and the Economic Policy Unit were to help the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to try to devise a system for tracking funds. Does the Minister now have the information that will allow his Department and the Health Committee to properly scrutinise the health budget?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Obviously this is a bit beyond the timetabling for next year’s Budget, but that work is ongoing, as is work on the needs and effectiveness reviews. When the work is concluded the Executive will consider relevant papers from the Economic Policy Unit and me, and information will then be made available to the relevant Assembly Committee.

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

I welcome the statement by the Minister and particularly the timetable that has been set out for the compilation of the Budget for next year. If this process is engaged in properly by all involved, can the Minister confirm that it could result in an integrated approach to Budget planning and a real start to the process of delivering joined-up Government?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

If we undertake this timetable and Committees use the opportunities, both before the recess and afterwards, to take advantage of the longer time available for dealing with the draft Budget, we can make a significant improvement to the procedures that have gone before.

It will make a qualitative difference to the Budget that we have. I issue the health warning that because next year will see a spending review and we already have our amounts fixed for the year, there is not going to be the same latitude available to make significant changes. Nevertheless, if we use the new procedures and the more comfortable time frame now available, in future years when we have wider issues for determination we can ensure that the Assembly has as big an influence on the Budget as it wants.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I too welcome the statement from the Minister. I congratulate him on the work that he has done over the past months on planning and preparation for the future. Budgets are very important, but there are other things which are equally so. I want to draw peoples’ attention to one thing. A couple of weeks ago — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I remind the Member that this is an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister; it is not an opportunity for Members to make statements.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

A number of weeks ago, the First Minister handed you a letter, a very important letter. We may plan whatever — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The question must be relevant to the statement and not to any extraneous matter such as a letter that I may have received.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

The various Committees have been asked to bring forward proposals by a certain date — 6 July was mentioned by Mr Durkan. Where will the information go if the Assembly does not exist?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is well outside the bailiwick of the Minister. The Member has mentioned 6 July — whether a particular Minister resigns does not affect the Assembly per se at that point. To move outside the statement to ask broader political questions is not a proper use of the House’s time. We must leave it there.

Trustee Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. The Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Molloy, said that he wished to speak briefly on clause 1. I do not see him here. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to take the remaining clauses en bloc, followed by the four schedules en bloc and the long title. Hearing no objection I shall proceed in that fashion.

I see that Mr Molloy has appeared again.

Clause 1 (The duty of care)

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, I apologise as I was called out by the Clerk. Before addressing clause 1, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the organisations that took the time to write to us, setting out their views on the Bill. I also thank the Minister and ask him to pass on the Committee’s appreciation to the Office of Law Reform and its officials who assisted the Committee in its detailed consideration of the clauses. The Committee received advanced briefings on the Bill from officials at the Office of Law Reform, and that enabled us to complete the Committee Stage of the Bill in the period set down in Standing Orders.

The Committee met on eight occasions. Four of those meetings took place before the Bill was introduced to the Assembly. I thank my Committee Colleagues for their work in dealing with the Bill within the set time. The Committee agreed that clause 1 should be recommended to the Assembly for approval. Go raibh maith agat.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am pleased that the Committee is content with the Bill. I acknowledge the work that the Committee did on the Bill before it came to the Assembly. I note the thanks expressed by the Chairman on behalf of the Committee, and I will be happy to convey them.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Family Law Bill

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the five clauses followed by the long title. Hearing no objection, I will proceed in that fashion.

Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

The Child Support (Variations) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The next five motions on the Order Paper relate to child support regulations. I propose to conduct only one debate. I will ask the Minister to move the first motion, after which we will debate all five motions. The Minister can speak to all five motions at the start. Members who wish to respond to any or all of the motions may respond in that single debate. We will vote on that, and I will then ask the Minister to formally move the other four motions in turn.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

The following motions stood on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister for Social Development:

That the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

That the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

That the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

That the Child Support (Variations) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 sets out the principles on which the reformed child support scheme is based. The Regulations before the Assembly today provide some of the detailed framework for the reformed scheme. The Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 extend the methods for collecting maintenance, voluntary payments, and past interest and fees. They make provision in relation to the withdrawal of driving licences as an alternative to prison for failure to pay child support, and for the imposition of financial penalties.

The Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 extend the Child Support Agency’s access to information, provide for notification of criminal offences, and set out the extended jurisdiction to collect child support from certain groups of non-resident parents living abroad.

The Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 provide for the handling of applications for maintenance when liability begins and the rules relating to parents with care who are on benefit.

The Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 specify in detail the child support rates and the rules for calculating income.

The Child Support (Variations) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 provide for the variation of the child support rates to reflect exceptional circumstances.

The Assembly has already debated and agreed the broad policy covered by these Regulations in our debates on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill last year. The Regulations flesh out the provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, and they are inevitably detailed, so I will take a few minutes to explain what each of the packages does.

The Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 set out the detailed rules concerning applications for child support when liability begins. They cover the provision to reduce the benefit of parents with care who ask to opt out of the child support scheme and set the time limit for their explaining their reasons. Of course, some parents with care have good reasons for asking to opt out. Each case will be considered carefully before a decision to reduce benefit is made. However, if we accept that parents have the main responsibility for supporting their children when they are able to do so, we cannot permit some parents to choose to pass on that responsibility to the taxpayer without sanction.

When a non-resident parent refuses to supply sufficient information for maintenance to be calculated, and the Child Support Agency is unable to obtain the information from other sources, a default rate will be set. The rate is based on the number of qualifying children, and it assumes an average income. The default rate enables liability to be set quickly, and it is not intended to be punitive.

The Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 lay down detailed rules for the calculation of maintenance. There are four rates of maintenance to cover the particular incomes and circumstances of non-resident parents. The basic rate applies to non-resident parents whose net income is £200 a week or more. It is based on straightforward percentages of net income — 15% for one child, 20% for two children and 25% for three or more children. Those percentages were chosen because research shows that they are approximately half the proportion of income that most families spend on supporting their children.

The reduced rate applies to non-resident parents with a net weekly income of between £100 and £200. They will pay a lower percentage of income than the basic rate, but it will rise proportionately as net income increases.

A flat rate of £5 will apply to non-resident parents with incomes below £100 a week. Non-resident parents in receipt of most state benefits, pensions and allowances, including income support, jobseeker’s allowance and incapacity benefit, will also have a flat rate liability. A nil rate will apply to some non-resident parents, including those with incomes of less than £5 a week — prisoners, students, children and young people on income support and certain people in hospitals and residential homes.

The new scheme also provides for a much simpler definition of income, ignoring some types of income currently taken into account. It is very important that parents with care receive maintenance payments regularly and on time. Where non-resident parents fail to do this, the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 amend the current Regulations to allow the Child Support Agency to consider imposing a discretionary financial penalty.

My Department has no intention of penalising responsible non-resident parents who have a good reason for failing to make a particular payment promptly, but there are those who, without justification, persistently involve the agency in the considerable extra work of pursuing late or missed payments. It is right that a financial penalty should be imposed on those who deliberately avoid paying on time.

The Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 amend the current Regulations on who is required to supply information to the agency and the purposes for which that information is needed. The agency will be able to ask a wider range of people and organisations for any information they hold that will assist in making or enforcing an assessment.

12.00

The new scheme, like the old, will allow for the maintenance calculation to be varied to reflect exceptional circumstances as set out in the Child Support (Variations) Regulations. Parents with care will be able to apply for a variation where the non-resident parent has substantial resources not accounted for in the calculation. Non-resident parents can apply if they have certain extra child-related expenses to meet.

Most of the Regulations before us today will come into effect for different types of cases when the relevant sections of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act are brought into effect. The relevant sections will be commenced for new cases first and, at a later date, for existing cases, once my Department is sure that the new systems are working properly for new cases.

The principles underlying the original child support scheme were sound, and I am convinced that the reformed scheme introduced in these Regulations will enable the Child Support Agency at last to put those principles into practice.

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

I support the introduction of all of these Regulations. It is important to reflect on the amount of work that has gone into this by Department officials, the Minister and members of the Social Development Committee, who have examined these issues in considerable depth. It is also important to put on the record that there was concern, as the Minister mentioned, about the punitive nature, or the interpretation of some of these rules as punitive, particularly when looking at the maintenance calculation procedures. That issue was questioned in considerable depth and, when one assesses the amount of hardship that families suffer because of abuse and neglect by absent parents, on balance this is a welcome addition to the Department’s work.

The child support reforms will at last — and I agree totally with the Minister — put the whole area of child support and maintenance into a new and perhaps more workable system. There is no doubt that the previous one was fraught with great difficulty. This has been one of the better movements that we have seen towards improving the system, and I want to put these comments of support on the record.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement this morning, and I hope it will have an effect on parents who, for whatever reason, are not taking their responsibilities seriously. How does the Minister plan to deal with a parent who absconds to another jurisdiction, when the other parent is living in Northern Ireland and is finding it difficult raising his or her family?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

First, I welcome Mr ONeill’s comments. I know that he has taken a particular interest in this legislation from day one, and I welcome his constructive remarks here.

I reiterate that the purpose of all of these Regulations is to introduce a much more efficient and effective system and to ensure that money that should be going to children gets there. From Mr ONeill’s and Mr Hay’s contributions I see that they accept that point and see its validity.

When the legislation is passed the Department for Social Development will be in a much better position to "follow" — and I use that word advisedly — those who are in default of payment. Ultimately it is the children who suffer. Whether those who are persistently defaulting are in this jurisdiction or outside it, I assure Members that every effort will be made to pursue them. The Department for Social Development will use whatever means are at its disposal to ensure that those people who abscond to another jurisdiction are made amenable.

Members will agree that the legislation is a tightening-up exercise across the spectrum that can only bring better results than we have had before.

The purpose of the new Regulations is to introduce a new system of child support that will be simpler, fairer and above all do what child support has always aimed to do — get the money to the children who have a right to it. I am pleased that the Assembly acknowledges that, and I welcome the constructive remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved;

That the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Child Support( Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Child Support (Variations) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Proceeds of Crime Bill: Report of Ad Hoc Committee

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

I beg to move

That the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider the draft clauses of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, as set out in Command Paper 5066, be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is a gross affront to common decency and democratic values that criminals can openly and fearlessly enjoy and display the fruits of their evil and sinister activities. It is hoped that through the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill they will soon be deprived of their accumulated wealth and that their reign as local crime lords will be a thing of the past.

It is intolerable that any criminal should enjoy with impunity his ill-gotten gains. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will be a major blow against criminals and crime, and it should be welcomed by all right-thinking people. As Members will be aware there has been a significant rise in crime in recent years.

A recent newspaper report stated that the situation has deteriorated drastically since the 1980s. Figures in a recent Government report highlighted the fact that there are now 78 gangs involving 400 individuals engaged in organised crime in Northern Ireland. The Government need to bring forward new measures to tackle these criminals. Innovative measures need to be used against criminals who are increasingly using highly sophisticated methods to profit from their illegal activities.

Over the last eight weeks the Ad Hoc Committee has heard evidence from a number of interested bodies: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; the RUC; the National Criminal Intelligence Service; the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) in Dublin; Customs and Excise; and the Inland Revenue. During these meetings many issues were raised and discussed in great detail by the Committee.

The draft Bill is being taken forward centrally by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, and the Committee welcomed the opportunity to comment on the proposals in their draft form. The Proceeds of Crime Bill proposes to bring together, in one Act, the law governing investigations, money-laundering offences and confiscation. In addition it will establish the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency (CARA), which will have both an operational and a strategic role. The Bill seeks to empower the agency to recover criminal proceeds through the use of a new form of civil litigation in the High Court and to exercise taxation functions delegated from the Inland Revenue.

The main clauses of the draft Bill have been arranged as follows: the criminal assets recovery agency; criminal confiscation; civil recovery; taxation; investigations; and money laundering. Central to this Bill is the establishment of the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency. This agency will operate at a national level through a director who will be appointed by the Home Secretary. The director must appoint a senior official to have responsibility for exercising the agency’s functions in Northern Ireland.

The agency has been modelled on the Criminal Assets Bureau, which has been in existence in Dublin since 1996. Over the past number of years it has had considerable success in civil recovery. To date it has recovered IR£17 million.

The Ad Hoc Committee convened a very useful formal meeting with the Criminal Assets Bureau. Members were impressed by the professionalism and the dedication shown by the bureau staff, often in the face of personal threat from criminal elements. The Committee was also impressed by the Criminal Assets Bureau’s evident success.

The Committee welcomed the establishment of such an agency to target the growing problem of criminality in our society. The Committee has made a number of recommendations, which are contained in the report. These include: the director’s being autonomous and consulting with the key players; objectives and targets being included in the agency’s annual plan; the agency staff’s possessing a broad range of experience; and, where possible, secondment’s being arranged to ensure that adequate use is made of the knowledge base found throughout the agencies that currently carry out these investigations.

The official appointed to have responsibility for Northern Ireland should be locally based and should rank sufficiently highly within the agency to be able to take decisions on behalf of the agency in Northern Ireland. The Committee felt that a deputy director post would be appropriate.

The proportion of the agency’s budget allocated for exercising its functions in Northern Ireland must be sufficient to allow the agency to be effective and successful. There must also be a clear protocol and understanding between the Director of Public Prosecutions — and any future director of the proposed new public prosecutions body — and the director of the new agency.

The draft Bill proposes to extend the current legislation for handling confiscation orders following a criminal conviction. It seeks to amalgamate and strengthen those powers, which are currently split between drugs and non-drugs Acts. The Committee welcomed these provisions and recommended that, in criminal confiscation matters, confiscation orders should only be made only where evidence meets the civil standard of proof.

Civil recovery is a new and imaginative proposal to deal with the problem of criminal assets where criminals have not been convicted of any criminal offence. The draft Bill proposes to create a new right —

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I apologise for interrupting, but does the Member not mean "where persons have not been convicted of any criminal offence", rather than assuming that they are criminals?

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

I thank the Member for his intervention, which is entirely proper. It focuses on the fact that there are people who have not been convicted, but who are suspected of being engaged in criminality. There may not be sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, or a prosecution may fail. However, there may be sufficient evidence to bring a civil action against such people.

The Bill proposes to create a new right of civil recovery. That means that where it has not been possible to secure a criminal conviction, or it is thought that there is insufficient evidence to obtain such a conviction, the director of the agency will be able to recover or acquire the assets of a person where he can show to the civil standard of proof — that is, on the balance of probabilities — that such assets are the proceeds of crime.

Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, the question was raised as to how that impacted upon a person’s right to peacefully enjoy his property. Equally, many issues were raised relating to punishment without conviction, an area enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Following detailed consideration of these matters — and a comprehensive submission was made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission — we are content with the opinion that a person cannot consider as punishment the removal of assets to which he was not entitled in the first instance.

During the Committee’s visit to Dublin, it was apparent that a number of legal challenges had been made to the existing legislation in the Republic, which is not dissimilar to our draft legislation. However, the Supreme Court in the Republic rejected such legal challenges on the basis that human rights were not being infringed.

I add one health warning: the Republic of Ireland has not yet brought the European Convention on Human Rights into its domestic law. Nonetheless, I am confident that what is proposed in the draft Bill will withstand any legal challenge on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights. The draft Bill places some limitations on the right of recovery of the director; those should provide further safeguards. This part of the draft Bill is incomplete, and there are several issues on which we were unable to take a view. However, the evidence given by the Criminal Assets Bureau on the benefit of reaching legally binding agreements has convinced us that such provisions must be included in the draft Bill. A recommendation to that effect has been included in our report.

In addition to the right of civil recovery, the director will also be able to raise tax assessments as a means of recovering the proceeds of crime. It is envisaged that that will be the final route available to the director. Preference will be given to criminal confiscation proceedings, then to civil recovery proceedings and, finally, when all else fails, an individual’s tax assessment could be raised. The use of that method of recovery by the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin has proven very effective. Figures provided by the bureau show that raising assessments has produced IR£33 million in the first four years of operation — an impressive figure. We welcome the inclusion of the provisions.

The draft Bill makes provision for three new powers to assist investigations into the whereabouts of the proceeds of crime. In addition to the production orders and search warrants already provided for under existing legislation, the draft Bill introduces disclosure orders. The power will be available only to the director of the new agency, who will be able to require a person to answer questions at interview, to provide information or produce documentation. An order can be issued against a person whose assets are under investigation or against a third party. Secondly, customer information orders will require banks and other financial institutions to provide the details of any accounts held by a person under investigation. Thirdly, account monitoring orders will require a bank or other financial institution to provide transaction information on a suspect account.

The second and third orders will be used collectively, one to identify the suspect accounts and the other to monitor those accounts. All five powers will be exercised under judicial authority. The draft Bill also seeks to amalgamate the current legislation and to remove the absurd distinction between drugs and non-drugs offences. We welcome the introduction of the new powers and the removal of that distinction.

The draft Bill will reform the definition of the criminal offence of money laundering, and it will remove the distinction between drugs and non-drugs offences in this regard. The draft Bill will also extend the financial institutions’ duty to report suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities. We welcome those provisions.

The Bill will go a long way towards tackling the criminality that afflicts society. It will restore the confidence of the general public in the due process of law.

The Ad Hoc Committee endorses the draft Bill, which will provide the opportunity, through a multiagency approach, to recover the proceeds of crime from an ever more sophisticated group of criminals. Those criminals will no longer be able to act with impunity. Society in general will welcome any new legislation that tackles this serious problem and ends the scandal of criminals publicly flaunting their wealth and making a very frightening statement to society — that is, that crime actually does pay.

I submit the report to the Assembly and invite Members to give it their full endorsement. I support the motion.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful for the opportunity to say something on this matter — my own background includes law enforcement.

When the Committee visited Dublin, the Chairperson behaved with great perspicacity and dignity and impressed our hosts. I was struck, on that visit, by the co-operation of the various arms of Government. The gardaí, the Attorney General, Customs & Excise, the Inland Revenue and social services combined in a joint action in the interests of the public, keeping down crime and ensuring that criminals were not profiting from the community.

We might find that some arms of our Government are less communautaire in how they approach this problem. I hope that, as a consequence of Mr Straw’s intentions and of the recommendation of this Ad Hoc Committee, we might see that sort of liaison, particularly in the intelligence field, which is particularly inspiring and aiding the Criminal Assets Bureau in the other part of the island.

I hope that, whatever may happen to other relationships, the Government of the Irish Republic and the Northern Ireland Assembly will collaborate fully in ensuring that both parts of this island work together in the accordance that we saw in Dublin. I am confident that this will be a most flourishing and useful activity in minimising the drug problem, and the money that goes into that. It will also help to combat the other difficulties with criminality and dishonesty that gain so much kudos and revenue for so many people in this country — not least in the paramilitary field. I support the Bill.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the draft legislation. It will be a great asset in bringing the criminal to task. A large number of individuals have led a very affluent lifestyle and are wealthy people who have lived off the community for 30 years. The entire community has suffered because of their bad deeds and will undoubtedly welcome the draft legislation. I commend the draft Bill to the House.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cupla pointe a dhéanamh faoi thuairisc an Choiste.

I welcome and support the report.

I also welcome the fact that consultation took place when the Bill was in draft form. Some witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee stated that that procedure should be followed for other pieces of legislation, allowing the public an opportunity to contribute its views at an early stage, prior to legislation’s coming to Parliament. However, some sections of the draft Bill, relating to the North of Ireland, are incomplete. Therefore, the Committee’s report on the draft Bill can only be provisional upon the completion of the Bill.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission expressed concerns about the compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights. Legislation introduced in the United Kingdom should comply with the Convention. If the Bill is in contravention of the Convention, the human rights of the individual may not be protected for the purposes of the legislation.

We also have to consider the legal consequences of non-compliance of the Bill with the Convention. I support the concept that those who have acquired the proceeds of crime should be prevented from enjoying them. However, if the final Bill does not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, it is open to challenge. If the Bill is not compliant and is successfully challenged in the European court, the whole purpose of the Bill will be undermined. Our report should deal with the issues raised.

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

As usual, the Chairman gave a broad introduction to the work of the Committee, and he referred to the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin. However, the European Convention on Human Rights has not yet been incorporated into the domestic law of that part of Ireland. Therefore the legislation in the South may be open to challenge. However, members of the Criminal Assets Bureau were confident that they could deal with any such challenge, given their operation and how they employ the legislation.

Potential for the final Bill to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights resides in assumptions which, under the draft provisions, are to be made when civil recovery is employed. The Criminal Assets Bureau felt that the definition of a person’s having a criminal lifestyle was somewhat woolly.

Under European legislation, civil recovery could be viewed as a criminal proceeding. Therefore the Bill has the potential to contravene article 6 paragraph 2, articles 7 and 8 of the Convention, and article 1 of protocol 1 to the Convention. Due regard must be given to those comments to ensure that the final Bill is compliant with European legislation and that it can succeed in the purpose for which it was intended. Sir John Gorman referred to our enlightening and educational meeting with the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin.

The innovative interagency approach of the bureau was clearly seen. It is made up of people from the Garda Síochána, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, customs officials and others with professional expertise in law, accountancy and information technology. Those people remain in the employment of their respective bodies while working with the other elements of the Criminal Assets Bureau to pursue the recovery of the proceeds of crime and to assist in the investigation of the proceeds of crime. There are many lessons to be learned, and countries throughout the world are looking at the establishment and operation of the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The Criminal Assets Bureau has been successful in the recovery of the proceeds of crime and in relation to the taxation of those who have benefited from such proceeds. More importantly, the bureau has been successful because of the public’s perception of it and the public’s confidence in its operation. The public is satisfied that the bureau does what it is required to do. The success of the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency (CARA), which will be established under the Bill, will depend on public perception. It will depend on public confidence in the various bodies that will form part of the agency and in the future police service in this part of Ireland. Interestingly enough, "cara" is the Irish word for "friend", but CARA will not be the friend of a number of people.

It would be useful for the public to be aware of one item of evidence that was given to us. Det Supt Thompson of the RUC gave evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, and he was questioned fairly thoroughly on the need for a Bill and an agency such as CARA. He was asked about the scale of criminal assets and their nature in this part of Ireland compared to those in other places. Det Supt Thompson said that, in relation to the possible origins of assets and property, the RUC would benefit from this legislation in the pursuit of approximately 180 identifiable people.

Det Supt Thompson was also asked whether those 180 people would be believed by the RUC to be from paramilitary organisations, other organisations, or working as individuals. Interestingly, he said that the majority of people whom the RUC would be interested in pursuing for the purpose of denying them the proceeds of crime were individuals who were working on their own behalf. It is also interesting that the scale of criminality and the extent of the proceeds of crime in this part of Ireland are much less significant than those in many other parts of the United Kingdom.

We can take some comfort from that. We often hear about the enormous scale of criminality and racketeering in the North, so it was some relief to hear that it is not as bad as people make out.

I welcome the report, even though essential parts of it have yet to be drafted.

Go raibh maith agat.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

In many respects, the proposed Bill builds on and adds to the report of another Ad Hoc Committee — the one set up to look into the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. Its aims are rather similar, and its targets are the same. We are aiming to curb the lifestyle of those who are financed by illegal, illegitimate and ill-gotten gains. The aim of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, as with the 2001 Order, is to hit those individuals in their pockets, where it hurts.

Society needs the necessary legal frameworks to deny these parasites the trappings of their ill-gotten gains and sordid deals. The Assembly must be seen to be making real progress in cleaning up society.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member agree that to continue his principle and logic, extending the trappings of Government to certain criminals is also unfair and that the logic that he has rightly applied to this legislation should apply to Government and should, therefore, exclude Sinn Féin/IRA from it?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

There is one huge difference between what the Member says and reality. Not for the first time, the Member who has just spoken is somewhat removed from reality. The reality is that those who are in the Government of Northern Ireland, by way of positions in the Executive, are there by the express will and desire of the people of Northern Ireland. That is democracy. The Member, and a number of other Members, may not like it, but the will and the voice of the people must always be supreme.

Democracy does not enter the equation when we are dealing with criminals and those who have milked society through their criminal activity. Criminals want to deny democracy. I want to see society cleared of those people who benefit from ill-gotten gains. Society wants to see the drug barons who profit from the addiction of helpless individuals stripped of their illegal gains. Society wants to see a cracking-down on the money launderers, the fuel cheats and the tobacco fraudsters. They must be made amenable and accountable for their tax evasion, ill-gotten fat bank accounts, foreign holidays, flashy cars and large houses in Northern Ireland and on the Continent.

Over the years, criminals — and what I would refer to as the "smart alec" — have become more sophisticated. Their methods have become more subtle. It is to be regretted that those who are charged with the responsibility of cleaning up society and trying to make these individuals amenable to the law have been losing the battle to a large degree. That is why those who are intent on crimes such as drug smuggling see it as relatively easy pickings.

The proposed Bill goes some way towards redressing the imbalance that is currently in vogue. It is important that innovative thinking be given its head and that new measures be taken and supported by society to help to clean it up. In that respect, I particularly welcome the views of the Human Rights Commission. It is supportive of the measures and suggestions that are being put forward.

The Bill will establish a Criminal Assets Recovery Agency which will be able to pursue criminal assets in several ways: the confiscation of assets of convicted criminals; the recovery of assets through civil proceedings; and the taxation of persons suspected of having benefited from criminal activity. Such a joined-up approach, which the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee have already referred to, is vitally important. I endorse the comments of those who referred to our visit to the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) in the South of Ireland. If you ever needed proof of the success of the CAB you have only to look at the figures. The CAB in the South recognises that crime knows no barriers and cuts across all facets of society, and its impressive figures make it patently clear that there is a need for a joined-up approach.

If we are going to make a real impact in Northern Ireland on the task confronting the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency, adequate resources must be made available. We touch upon these issues in the report’s recommendations. However, it is essential that the message reaches the Secretary of State, and through him, the Home Secretary, that Northern Ireland requires the resources to ensure that criminal activity is nipped in the bud and is not given the opportunity to become a many-headed monster. The resources must be made available from day one. The person who is put in charge of the agency in Northern Ireland must be of assistant director status at least and be fully acquainted with Northern Ireland, its people and its organisations. I advocate that the person should be from, and have his roots in, Northern Ireland.

When we took evidence from the police, they pointed out that the effects of drug trafficking and acquisitive crime that is of a highly profitable nature should not be underestimated, and I endorse that view. The impact of such crimes on society, business and individual victims, particularly where organised criminality is involved, has been widely publicised. There is no good argument for allowing individuals to profit from their illegal activities, and it is right that criminals should have their ill-gotten gains taken away. I hope that the House and society will say "Hear, hear" to those comments.

The police also said that it is estimated that 180 people in Northern Ireland have substantial assets from criminal activity. The House must call for those people to be put out of business.

HM Customs and Excise calculate lost revenue in, for example, oil fraud to be around £100 million in 1998. Many people, particularly legitimate petrol retailers who have been put out of business throughout Northern Ireland, would say that that figure is only the tip of the iceberg. New powers are needed to deal with such illegality. The Northern Ireland economy is suffering from a massive haemorrhage because of criminal activity. It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that the necessary steps are taken and the necessary laws put in place to stop the haemorrhaging.

I endorse the report and congratulate the Chairperson, the Committee members and particularly the staff of the Committee for the excellent work that they did preparing the report in the relatively short time that was available.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

I concur with Mr Close’s comments about the Chairman, the Committee members and especially the Committee staff. This is a sterling piece of work, and when the legislation eventually comes into effect, it will change our lives – although you would not guess that by the numbers in the Chamber today. It will be a turning point in Northern Ireland. This legislation will allow us to be proactive in the battle against crime and believe that we can win when we continue a battle that we have been fighting with our hands tied behind our backs.

Our fear is that, when legislation is created, people will either not understand it or feel that they are not affected by it. This piece of legislation will most definitely be understood by those who are watching many of the 180 people previously mentioned as masquerading as legitimate businesspeople. Very often they live in middle-class areas and appear to be respectable. Others live in small working-class housing estates, and their wealth can be seen, although their neighbours may not realise that some of the oil paintings are so valuable that they are part of money laundering.

As well as removing assets from those people who have benefited shamefully from crime, the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency will have to deal with those who have assisted them. Legitimate businesspeople, or people who perceive themselves as such, who assist in the laundering of money, should desist, because under this legislation, they will be caught. I have absolutely no doubt of that.

I am not merely pleased with the Bill, I am frankly delighted with it. It will change the whole atmosphere. Ordinary people who live literally yards from me have been watching what goes on around them and asking "Why can somebody not do something about this?". The sterling work carried out by the police and other members of the security services has not been enough to stem the tide of crime. It will be evident quite soon that it is not simply the diligence of individual officers that is important; rather it is the tools with which they have to work. The potential tools in this legislation are quite wonderful and will benefit the security services immensely.

We have heard from those who have visited the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin that the degree of public confidence there increased massively when people saw how the bureau goes about its business. Is that not something that we need here? Do we not need to know that someone will protect us and do something to those bad people who are polluting our children?

I commend the police and the Human Rights Commission for their evidence. The police identified approximately 180 people who are, I suppose, quite different in type. There is the gangster who would be a gangster regardless of where he came from. Then there are others who have seen the capacity to make easy money without any constraint. Perhaps there are members of paramilitary organisations who follow the path of benefiting themselves rather than the society that they say they serve. I have watched these people grow and amass a wealth that brings with it power. Today I delight in the fact that that wealth and power have become their Achilles heel.

It is the very way in which we will identify them; it is the very way in which society already identifies them; and it is the very way in which CARA will put them behind bars — or at least, I hope, remove their assets.

We learned about the situation in South Africa, where the security services felt that their hands were tied. They could arrest the criminal, but the criminal accepted that consequence to be how life is. They took the attitude that because they live such a life, they might get caught, they would go to jail, and then they would get out. As the story goes, they accepted their arrest and imprisonment in a very macho way. However, when their assets were seized — their houses, cars, and their capacity to send their children to private schools — when this all came tumbling down around their ears they cried in the dock. There is significance in that story for those who perpetrate ills on this society.

I will go further and say that patriotism is very often the last refuge of a scoundrel. We have watched the old war movies in which there was always a black marketeer. We have seen circumstances in which those in positions of privilege or importance have abused their position. There are paramilitarists in Northern Ireland — I am not sure that we should ever refer to them as Loyalists or, indeed, Republicans — who are a blight on this society. Some will argue that all paramilitarists are a blight on this society — they will say that publicly, but not necessarily in private. However, at what point does society recognise someone to be a chancer, or, as my Colleague described it, a "smart alec"? By this I mean those who say that they are one thing, but who are really involved in it to seek all they can get for themselves.

Members, and many people outside this Chamber, can identify those smart alecs in seconds, in their own areas and communities. There is no longer an excuse for the authorities’ failure to identify them also and to follow this problem through to its logical conclusion by stripping from these people the single thing that allows them to ply their trade in my community — the suggestion that they function on behalf of the community. This proposed legislation would create the circumstances by which those people will cease to be a blight on us.

The American Government with its helicopter gunships cannot stop people from taking drugs. They will try, as will other Governments, to make it more difficult for the criminals involved. That is what I advocate that we do, and the United Kingdom Government, through this legislation, will undoubtedly make things logistically difficult.

However, what is really needed to deal with the issue of drugs, which is only one element dealt with in this Bill, is an education programme to involve people in what is happening in their lives. We need to inform adults, or those who are not au fait with the drug culture, of what is happening to their children, and what the effects of this will be. This will be not only about legislation. Society will have to do a great deal, and I look forward to the introduction of the legislation which will help us deal with it.

Oil and cigarette smuggling are detrimental to the Exchequer, and potentially, they give criminals money with which to do bad things. However, my fear is that the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, will be more concerned with stopping the loss of revenue on fuel and cigarettes, rather than ensuring that CARA gets the full resources to destroy those who take life through drugs. My fear is that political direction will be CARA’s one Achilles heel. Three Colleagues have already identified the importance of an independent director for CARA — one who is based in Northern Ireland and who preferably has an experience and understanding of the people here. This would create a genuine independence. The director of CARA would determine the direction in which that organisation would move, and political direction based on concerns about loss of revenue would not be the issue.

If the director of CARA had to measure the loss of revenue against children’s deaths, the pollution of our society, the massive increase in heroin use and the lives lost through heroin in north Antrim, it would become simple. And where there is one heroin addict, there is one dealer, then two, then three, and so on. There are 59,000 people in the Ballymena borough and hundreds of heroin addicts. Middle-class people, however, cover up the problem because of their sense of shame and hurt, so we do not have a clear picture of what is happening in the area. Our choice has to be the destruction of those who destroy other people’s lives.

I will, no doubt, be accused of hypocrisy, but it is important that the power and authority, skill and ability that will undoubtedly be pulled together to create CARA be directed towards the destruction of those who pollute society and cause unbearable pain. We may not be as bad as other places yet, but we should take the proposals on board. I commend the work of the Committee and the report.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I am pleased that we are debating these important measures. I had feared that the issue would not receive due attention. This is an important piece of legislation, which may be enforced in Northern Ireland before the rest of the United Kingdom, given that it can go through as an Order in Council because it is a reserved matter. However, there are certain drawbacks in being a guinea pig, and it may be in a less refined form when it becomes operable here. Nevertheless, for the reasons that Mr Ervine has outlined, Northern Ireland society will be pleased to see it in force.

I have a slight caveat, however, I acknowledge that the structure of the law needs to be adjusted in accordance with the changing nature of crime. We are forced to adopt our own systems to combat the power of those who are able to subvert the system of justice and acquire huge assets by unlawful means. However, should this legislation hit the wrong target, the affected person would be able to show that the legislation was repressive. That may be true, but it is necessary in the circumstances. The Bill should be introduced as emergency legislation, perhaps for an initial period of three to five years and then renewed by Parliament at two-yearly intervals, so that Parliament has to examine the legislation continuously and be aware of how it is working. Having taken the decision to introduce legislation of this kind, Parliament must be robust and ensure that it works in the way that Members have described this morning.

I noted with concern the comments made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about a potential clash with that legislation. I note that the Committee has said that depriving someone of assets to which he was not entitled does not constitute a punishment. I also note that the Human Rights Commission said that Parliament could expressly decide that it wanted to proceed in a way that was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Even if Parliament did so proceed, a successful challenge could be mounted through the European Court of Human Rights.

I imagine that Parliament would not wish to proceed in such a manner, as that would be conceding the point. It would probably prefer to let the point emerge — if it were going to emerge — when someone took a case. There is a potential difficulty there, but I trust that, if it should reach that stage, the European Court would prove to be robust, although that again raises the issue of why Her Majesty’s Government put Parliament in the position of being subject to a higher authority in Europe. It is quite extraordinary, and the consequences of that decision will have a greater and more frequent impact on us.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

The Member may not be aware of it, but 43 countries are attempting to create — or have created — similar legislation. That adds to our capacity to control the problem, not only in our country but beyond our borders. In this instance, belonging to Europe will not be at all detrimental.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I was not aware of that fact; it is a source of some comfort. In its submission, the RUC said that it was vital that sufficient human resources be made available to allow CARA to operate effectively. A considerable amount of cash will be needed. If one plans to mount a series of High Court actions, one must be sure that there are sufficient resources to do so to the best of one’s ability, employing the best legal counsel. A figure of £54 million for the UK for three years has been identified as the funding that would be made available to CARA. I am unable to judge whether that is a lot or a little. It sounds like a large amount, but it could diminish quickly. I endorse Mr Ervine’s view that there must be sufficient assets to do the job. A regular review by Parliament of the progress made under the Bill would help to highlight that issue, among others.

Is £54 million a net figure? If CARA is successful in recovering assets acquired through criminal activity, there will be proceeds. What will happen to those proceeds? Will they be absorbed into the funding of the agency? That might be a reasonable thing to do, and it would have the highly satisfactory effect that people found by the High Court to have acquired assets illegally would be financing their further prosecution. Were the agency to be so successful as to recover hundreds of millions of pounds, what would be done with that money? Again, I echo Mr Ervine’s concerns; I would like to see the money being used to ensure that CARA is properly funded and returned to the part of society that lost it in the first place. Again, that would greatly add to the public’s satisfaction with this legislation.

I note that there is to be a memorandum of understanding involving the director of CARA, the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I wonder whether some sort of protocol should also be in place with the other agencies that have been mentioned. It would be most unfortunate if we were to find a turf war going on. There must be some risk that that might be the case, although I have noted the comments of my Colleague, Sir John Gorman, about the high degree of co-operation that seems to have been achieved in Dublin. It would be most unfortunate if, instead of the Inland Revenue’s being an instrument of CARA, it were to appear that CARA had become an instrument of the Inland Revenue. That would work heavily against the effectiveness of the operation.

I suspect that it is better to keep the definition of criminal lifestyle rather woolly and to give the courts the discretion to interpret it, although you run the risk that the courts will start off with a narrow interpretation that will become a precedent. I hope that Parliament will address that matter in some detail and work out whether it would be better to try to define the term without running the risk of a narrow definition allowing a more imaginative criminal to work outside its scope.

It was noted in the report that the sorts of people with whom we are dealing are exceedingly entrepreneurial in their activities, and we must be aware that the nature of the crime can continue to develop. We should bear in mind an outstanding early example of proceeding tangentially — Al Capone was not put in prison for smuggling alcohol but for income tax evasion.

Finally, I note that the Bill proposes to limit the director of CARA’s activities in a number of ways, one of which is to say that he will have a claim on actual criminal proceeds but not the respondent’s other property. If the money has been efficiently laundered it would be very hard to identify what was what. The section on money laundering simply set out to make it easier to establish the offence of money laundering. Parliament needs to be careful about the restrictions on the claims that can be made by the director, so as to ensure that a highly entrepreneurial manipulator of criminally- acquired assets does not manage to evade the rules that have been put in place.

In conclusion, the director of CARA will have a key and very responsible role, and I imagine that there might be a number of people from Northern Ireland recently retired from a career in law enforcement who might be very suitable candidates for that job for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

I welcome this report. I had the privilege of deputising for Mr Attwood at a Committee meeting in Dublin. It opened my eyes and gave me hope when I saw that these people can be taken down a peg or two. The people who are purveying death to the children of Northern Ireland can be brought down because you hit them where it really hurts — in their hip pockets.

I believe that, as Mr Leslie said, we have to find a high-water mark and a low-water mark in order to know the bounds of what can and cannot be done. In the context of the European human rights legislation excerpted in Annex A of the report, this is not a punishment. It is a recovery of assets that they should not have had in the first place.

In protocol 1, article 1, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the phrase "except in the public interest" is used. No one could deny that this is in the public interest. Article 8 of the Convention protects the right to respect for private and family life. Paragraph 2 of article 8 makes an exception "for the prevention of disorder or crime". Paragraph 2 of article 1 of protocol 1 provides another exception "to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties". These things are present in human rights legislation.

Human rights legislation protects the rights of human beings as a whole. It is not there to protect a guy sitting in a £200,000 house, with a BMW at his front door, his children riding about on new mountain bicycles, while he is going to claim his dole money every other Thursday. That is a total perversion of society. It is an insult to those people who are on the dole and who need that money to live.

Here we have people lording it over council estates, sending out the wrong message to the children of this country that if they become involved in crime, they do not need an education or a job, because they can live like these people by selling drugs to young people. That is not the message that I want to send to the children of this country. The message that I want sent out is that there will be no hiding place for the drug barons; there will be no hiding place for anyone involved in illegal activities such as fake CDs, Playstation games, et cetera. Those are all things which are helping to create their financial empires.

Drugs is the lethal one. As Mr David Ervine said, people are dying in this country because of drugs. We have those people sitting in their £200,000 houses like the centre of an onion, with so many skins that you cannot get near them. We need to shift the burden of proof. Those people can intimidate witnesses. They can pervert the entire criminal justice system through their intimidation, because their tentacles are so long and so far-reaching. The burden of proof must be shifted, and that is what this Bill does. If you are legit, where did you get the money? No one should have any difficulty in explaining how they came by their house or car, if it were by honourable and decent means. This Bill is aimed at those who gain by dishonest means.

I do not accept that we would hit the wrong target. If the burden of proof were shifted, then the person would be given the opportunity to say that he has gained his possessions legitimately and to show his receipts, accounts and tax returns. This problem will not go away with emergency legislation: it will change and develop, and we have to adapt accordingly.

However, I do not think that emergency legislation is necessarily the way to go about it. We are trying to move into a normal society, and we want to move away from repressive emergency legislation.

We want a multi-elemented approach to this. Sir John Gorman mentioned that the Garda Síochána has a role to play. There are revenue inspectors who can trace money through financial transactions and tax it at 24% per annum for tax that has not been paid. There are the social welfare agencies that recover money paid out in unemployment and social welfare benefits that should not have been paid, and Customs and Excise, which can recover VAT and other such duties.

Mr Leslie talked about Al Capone’s being taken down for tax evasion. Perhaps what we need now in this country is a team of "Untouchables", and our very own Elliott Ness to lead them, but this is a welcome start. The only reservation I have is that there is no hearsay element to it. There are times when it may be necessary for the director of such an agency to apply before a High Court judge on the basis of intelligence in his possession to ensure that certain assets can be seized. It may be to protect certain people, or to protect operations that are ongoing against other criminals. I wanted to see that element included.

This cannot be measured in terms of money. We may be able to say that we can recover £10 million this year. However, the real benefit of this is that it sends out a message to the people of Northern Ireland that these persons are going to be taken down, that crime does not pay. Young people in particular should stay away from that path, because they will be taken down and taken down hard.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

The Ad Hoc Committee has done an important piece of work. Right across Northern Ireland, there will be many law-abiding citizens who will welcome what has been brought forward to the Assembly. The Committee and the Chairperson should be congratulated. I am sure that we will all get another opportunity to discuss this further as it goes forward.

Across the community in Northern Ireland, and further afield, we have watched these people operate so well that some of them try to tell us that crime pays. There is a notion in Northern Ireland that crime pays. We see gangsters with their lavish houses, big cars and with three or four holidays a year. All of that has been done at the expense of the entire community. That is the tragedy. It is the community that pays for the crimes committed in Northern Ireland.

For this to work effectively, there has to be co-operation between agencies. There has to be co-operation across the border. There can be no one in this House who believes that criminals operating in Northern Ireland stop at the border. We all know that that is not the case. Many of these people are also operating in the South of Ireland, some of them very successfully. There is no doubt about that. I certainly welcome the co-operation of the Southern authorities in this matter, because that is very important.

There are criminals in Northern Ireland who believe that they can abscond to a different jurisdiction and still pick up the pieces and carry on their crime. There is also a belief among some criminals — a belief that will soon be gone — that if they do a few years in jail, they will always come out to their assets. Jail is not a deterrent to them, because when they get out they are free to carry on doing what they were doing before. Some of their activities go beyond anybody’s idea of decency. They are into every shameful crime in Northern Ireland. They do not stop at drugs — there are even more sinister crimes across the country.

For years some people thought that they were above the law. Some of them — for instance, in my constituency of Foyle — boasted of their activities and their lifestyles and about still being able to sign on and receive benefits. They freely told people about operating in that way and wondered why everyone else seemed to work so hard for such a small living when they could live such lavish lifestyles. For many years — and some Members referred to this — it sent out all the wrong messages to young people, although not to all of them, since the vast majority of young people are decent.

A small number of young people have been lead into crime because they saw those lavish lives and how easy it was to get a few pounds. Those people never had any problem getting money. Many young people saw this and were lead into crime, and that is a tragedy.

There is no doubt that many people involved in crime were able to hide behind the 30 years of the troubles. Some of them used the troubles by, for example, saying to people that they were fighting for a cause, irrespective of which side they came from. Some of them were able to justify to their own people that what they were doing was for the cause. Now that the level of the troubles has lowered, some of these people are very exposed.

Ordinary decent people from both sides are now asking whether there ever was a cause. Where was their loyalty? Their loyalty was to themselves and to their activities. The tragedy is that they bled both communities for many years.

I hope that what the Chairperson of the Committee has said and this important piece of work will bring to an end these types of activities.

Some of those who are indirectly attached to the criminals, and who work on the sidelines, are well known. I hope, when the Assembly is debating the Proceeds of Crime Bill, that Members will ensure that the relevant agencies and authorities are given the teeth to deal with the problem — that is what it is about. Most Members feel that these criminals have operated for too long. I support the Committee’s views on the Proceeds of Crime Bill.

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

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. It has been a very good debate with some interesting contributions. The general welcome for the report that was expressed throughout the debate is reflective of the Committee and the common approach that it took in dealing with the proceeds of crime and the draft legislation.

The Committee worked harmoniously and co-operatively. All parties participated in the drawing up of the report, and it is a credit to the Assembly that that amount of work was done so quickly and so well. May I take this opportunity, as Chairperson of the Committee, to thank the Committee members, the Committee Clerk and the research staff who helped us with legal matters and research.

Some Members talked about the joined-up approach that was characteristic of the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) in Dublin. I endorse that. The key to its success is that it has successfully integrated many different elements of Government into the CAB. That should be done with CARA; that is the key to success. I agree with Sir John Gorman and the other Members who emphasised that point.

In the Republic of Ireland, the CAB has contributed to a significant, substantial and noticeable decline in crime since 1996. The Republic’s serious crime figures are at their lowest since the 1980s. That is directly referable to the CAB.

Mr McNamee and other Members raised the issue of human rights. The Committee was conscious of those rights, and its members carefully studied the submission from the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission believes that innovative measures are being brought forward by the Government, and it welcomes those. The Commission, of course, gave a health warning to the Assembly about the legislation.

There is no doubt that the legislation will be challenged in the courts on the grounds that it violates human rights. However, there is no human right to enjoy the proceeds of crime, and that is the basis on which any challenge to the legislation will ultimately be defeated.

Mr Leslie mentioned the provision of resources for CARA. Those resources will be made available, particularly for Northern Ireland. I am fairly confident of that. Mr Straw has said that 50% of the proceeds of crime will be ploughed back into CARA when it is up and running.

The proper thing is to defeat crime by using assets that have been recovered from criminals, and there is poetic justice in that.

Serious problems affect society, but they are probably not as serious as in the rest of the UK or as they were in the Republic. Nonetheless, they are serious, and, as Mr Ervine and Mr O’Connor have emphasised, the public, and young people in particular, are scandalised by seeing known criminals enjoying the fruit of their ill-gotten gains. Through this draft legislation we can begin to end that scandal.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider the draft clauses of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, as set out in Command Paper 5066, be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The sitting was suspended at 1.36 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —