Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 June 2001

49 contributions from 23 members. The official report.

Industrial Development Bill: First Stage

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 18/00] to establish Invest Northern Ireland to exercise certain existing functions in relation to industrial development; to dissolve the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Industrial Research and Technology Unit; to abolish certain functions of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board; to amend the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982; and for related purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Budget (No 2) Bill: Second Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I confirm to the House that, in accordance with Standing Order 40(2), I have been notified by the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that the Committee is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Budget (No 2) Bill. The Bill may therefore proceed under the accelerated passage procedure without a vote.

I remind the House that the Second Stage of this Bill, as with that of any other Bill, is an opportunity to debate the broad principles of the Bill and not an occasion for detailed debate on other sundry matters.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No 2) Bill (NIA 17/00) be agreed.

The debate follows on from the Bill’s First Stage last Tuesday and the Supply resolution for the 2001-02 Main Estimates that was considered on Monday 18 June. The purpose of the Budget (No 2) Bill is to give legislative effect to the resource Estimates that were approved through the Supply resolution that was passed last Monday.

Given the wide-ranging and valuable debate then, I do not intend to detain the House with unnecessary repetition of the detail implicit in the spending authorisation contained in the Bill. I gave much of that detail last week. However, I will summarise the main features of the Bill in accordance with the nature of the Second Stage debate as envisaged under Standing Order 30.

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

The principle of the Bill is to authorise the use of resources totalling £5,021,262,000 by Departments and the issue of £4,679,167,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in respect of the Main Estimates for 2001-02. Members received copies of the detailed Main Estimates booklet on Monday 11 June.

I am grateful to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the attention that it has given, and continues to give, to matters of public expenditure and related procedural issues. I am also grateful for the confirmation from Mr Molloy, Chairperson of the Committee, that there has been appropriate consultation on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill, as set out in his letter to the Speaker dated 18 June.

This is the first full year in which Budget allocations will be determined and managed on a resource basis. Aside from the technical dimension of that, the transition involves the introduction of several new terms. Most of those were covered in the Vote on Account process in the Budget Bill in February. However, the Budget (No 2) Bill introduces an additional new term — "accruing resources" — which represents the Departments’ receipts or income. It was known as "appropriations in aid" in the old cash regime. I hope that clarifies matters for Members.

As the Speaker has acknowledged, the Budget (No 2) Bill represents the endgame regarding the 2001-02 Budget — a process that started last year and ran from the Budget vote in December 2000 to the Supply resolution debate last Monday. The spending plans reflected in the Bill have been approved and endorsed by the Assembly, but I will be happy to deal with any points of principle that may arise.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister of Finance and Personnel presented the draft Budget for 2001-02 on 17 October 2000. That was followed by a substantive Budget debate on 14 November and by the final Budget debate on 18 December. A sequence of events was involved. It really comes down to the question of whether the Assembly was given sufficient opportunity to properly consider the Bill’s implications and, if not, whether there is sufficient justification for proceeding in the absence of such consideration.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel is concerned that, due to the Westminster and local government elections, there has been limited time for Assembly Committees to have had appropriate opportunity to analyse the Estimates and to discuss them with their respective Ministers. In more normal circumstances it is the duty of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to ensure that all the Committees’ views on the financial provision proposed for the various Departments are co-ordinated and brought before the Assembly.

Clearly it is not possible to have such a properly informed debate on the Estimates for the current year. However, the Minister of Finance and Personnel kept the Committee fully informed and the Assembly updated on a regular basis on the preparation of the final version of the Estimates for 2001-02. The Finance and Personnel Committee is content that the requirements of Standing Order 40 for appropriate consultation have been fully met and that it is in order for the Budget (No 2) Bill to proceed. Go raibh maith agat.

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

The Budget debate in any legislature is an important event. The Budget dictates how we will govern ourselves. It has a tremendous effect on the lives of our constituents, the economy and social well-being.

At this stage of the Bill it is possible to deal only with very general terms. Notwithstanding that, it is evident that the total amount of money we can spend is determined by our income and not by our expenditure. It is almost a self-evident truth that our income in this case is capped by the grant-in-aid received from the Exchequer.

We know from previous Assembly debates that we have cross-party agreement that the amount of grant-in-aid is inadequate. Its inadequacy has been exposed more and more in our experiences over the past two years. Each time we look at a departmental budget we see deficiencies, not in the work that is being carried out, but in the inability to have the money to do further things.

On previous occasions the Minister has indicated to the Assembly the urgent work he is doing with the other Ministers and with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister regarding the famous — or now infamous — Barnett formula, which dictates in many ways how we govern in Northern Ireland.

I would like the Minister’s assurance that those negotiations, which we all hope will go to a higher level, are now well progressed. Perhaps he could give us some indication as to whether there is a willingness on the part of central Government to redress the inadequacies of the Barnett formula and also to take on board the problems we are having by the revelations that each Department makes to the Assembly.

We have only to look at the Department of the Environment and its Committee to see huge deficits in water and sewerage provision, roads provision, hospital provision and adequate medical and surgical training.

Those deficits have come about as a result of inadequate expenditure in previous years. It is estimated that there has been underspending on our infrastructure and on our primary resources of health and education for almost the entire period of direct rule. That being the case, it is surely a sound and valid argument that that deficit should be restored from a top-up; not from current restricted financing. A top-up would enable us to recover and address that inadequacy in these major issues.

Infrastructure is not a word that excites the ordinary man and woman in the street, but if you do not have infrastructure you cannot progress as a society, you cannot sustain industrial development, and you cannot attract inward investment. All those things impinge directly on the educational prospects — and the healthcare, moreover — of every man, woman, and child in our community.

We have had a series of almost catastrophic events that were never envisaged in the Barnett formula. Some of those were in agriculture — the BSE crisis, the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak and the threat of the run-down of our fishing industry. Those three major crisis areas in agriculture were not provided for by the formula used to give us our financing.

Looking at the other Departments, £60 million is required for sewerage and £100 million for infrastructure. Those are major issues that need consideration. I doubt that the current Budget can properly address our ongoing plans. However, those will have to be addressed now or in the immediate future. I am talking about matters such as the recent Hayes Report which, if it is accepted, predicates a huge investment in hospital infrastructure and medical services. We do not have adequate resources to meet that need.

The only alternative to the capped Barnett formula spending is to use direct taxation, which is a dirty word because it always means increasing taxes. The Scottish Parliament has a direct taxation revenue-raising power of up to three pence in the pound. We do not have that power, and I am not arguing that we should have that facility. However, because of the strictness of our current grant-in-aid controls we will have to review the existing arrangements or look at alternatives. There is a great reluctance — understandably and sometimes justifiably — among all Assembly parties to increase direct or indirect taxation, even in the form of licences. In the next two days that issue may crop up. All parties bitterly oppose minuscule increases in licensing fees, and that indicates that, even if we had direct taxation, we would not be able to use it. In the meantime, we must tailor our Budget and our commitment to economic and social development to the resources available.

Another huge area coming up is the recovery of the agriculture industry and its knock-on effect in tourism, which has faced horrendous problems in many areas of Northern Ireland. South Down has suffered a triple whammy as regards tourism, agriculture and fishing, with no apparent real moneys being directed to those problems. I hope that special extra funding will be directed from the Executive to address those issues.

In the area of fishing alone, the Irish Government have made an additional £20 million available for the improvement of their fishing fleet while we are decreasing the capacity of our fishing fleet. I do not want to labour that issue.

We have the question of building new maternity hospitals, which was debated on the radio this morning. Where is the money coming from for such projects? These are real issues that any debate needs to address, because unless we can make a change in our economic and social well-being — a change in the fabric of our society — then our efforts in relation to our devolved responsibilities are brought to nought by lack of finance.

The Minister, in his opening remarks, said that I would fully understand the meaning of the term "accruing resources", because it is a substitution for "appropriation in aid". I do not know what "appropriation in aid" is, so perhaps he would explain that phrase also.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

We are very grateful for the opportunity to consult at this important stage of the Budget. As well as talking about the overall principles, I would like to look in some detail at certain areas we would like to see underlined in the Budget.

I begin with one of the Assembly’s most important considerations — the future of our children. We hope to see plans for a children’s commissioner coming on-stream in the next year. Can the Minister tell us what plans have been made for additional expenditure for that purpose? Which Department — or Departments, as we are talking about joined-up government — will have responsibility for the office, and how will that be reflected in future Budgets?

There is recognition of the importance of research and statistics as a firm foundation on which to base future policy analyses. Through the many parliamentary questions that we have asked this year, we have ascertained that there are no available statistics on some topics, such as, for example, the number of children living in poverty. It is unfortunate that such statistics do not exist. In order to fine-tune policies, as the Executive suggested in their position report to the Assembly for the Programme for Government, we need high-quality, relevant and accurate information.

We are disappointed that, apart from specific funding for the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, only the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has allowed for departmental research and development. Although the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, other Departments, such as those responsible for the social development and health budgets, should be explicitly prioritising research moneys. Will the Minister look into the level of each Department’s research budget and tell us what the budget accommodation is?

The Bill does not show the amount of money to be spent on private finance initiatives (PFIs) and how they deliver public services. As we have asked before, does the Executive accept that if they continue to pursue expenditure by private means, they are mortgaging our children’s future? Spending money on private firms now means that we have to pay it back later and, it is accepted, with a great deal of interest. What percentage of money does the Bill allocate to private companies, and what will the repayment be? We would appreciate a response to these questions. We do not believe that private finance represents value for money for our people today or tomorrow.

I also want to talk about economic issues. What is the Minister doing to accommodate the recommendations made by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the ‘Strategy 2010’ report concerning tax? A number of our recommendations favour helping the economy to grow and become stronger through initiatives, tax breaks or other imaginative ways. Are those recommendations being accommodated? If so, what is being done through the Budget to implement proposals such as tax breaks for the creative industries, greater support for the social economy or the needs of small business?

The euro is one of my own areas of interest. As we all know, the euro will be in place and in the pockets of people south of the border. What moneys will be set aside to help Northern Ireland’s small businesses manage the position they will find themselves in? Will there be a proposal to help small businesses give their prices in euros as well as pounds? What initiatives are there?

I want to raise a point that was brought to me by trade unions about the minimum wage. The Assembly supported the £5 minimum wage, and it is hoped that legislation will be introduced in the near future to accommodate the pressure from the Assembly on that. What is the Minister doing in the Budget to prepare for that legislation?

Childcare is of great interest to the Women’s Coalition. What provision is in the Budget for subsidies for childcare places and for accommodating the parental leave measures that will come in through legislation in Brussels and London?

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

This is the Second Stage of the debate on the Budget (No 2) Bill — it is not an opportunity to rerun the supply debate of last week. In a Second Stage debate we discuss the principles and philosophy of a Bill, not its specific terms. Members had the opportunity to raise such points in the supply debate. Please bear that in mind.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I take the point. I will conclude my remarks without going into too much detail, but I thought it important to raise those points for the Minister to consider.

My final point concerns peace building, which also concerns the future of our children. How can individual Departments, and the Executive as a whole, lead on issues such as challenging sectarianism? Although we are emerging from conflict, we still live in a deeply divided society. There should be an extensive programme to combat sectarianism in schools, community centres and at all levels of society.

Political leaders can lead from the front by example. However, those leaders should look to the examples of women’s groups and trade unions that have done so much work and have such expertise in that area. Will the Executive consider, and respond to, the money that has been set aside for developing a strategy on community relations, anti-sectarianism and questions that we have on race and ethnicity?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

This is a Second Stage debate, and we on this side want to come back to some of the issues at Consideration Stage and perhaps thereafter.

The Budget (No 2) Bill carries on from the previous Budget Bill and earlier Supply resolutions. As this is the Second Stage, we do not intend to divide the House today. We will consider the detail of the various appropriations contained in the draft legislation. We have no difficulty whatsoever with many of them, many of which are, necessarily and rightly, in general form. However, there are issues that concern us and should concern us, especially Members on this side of the House.

For example, the Minister and other Members will not be surprised that we will not forget or run away from expenditure under the Department of Finance and Personnel on, for instance, the North/South Ministerial Council, the various all-Ireland bodies and other areas, such as the Civic Forum. Our party will return to those issues later.

I want to put on record that our position in the House today does not in any way diminish our opposition to those areas of expenditure where we believe that the allocation of money does not represent good value for the people of Northern Ireland. The allocated money is being spent on a political project and not on delivering real and substantive benefits to the people on the ground on both sides. For instance, after a considerable period, many people still wonder exactly what the Civic Forum is supposed to be doing for its money.

We will return to those issues later. It would not be appropriate to go into them in detail at this stage, especially in the light of your earlier ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to put the Minister on notice about them.

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

My contribution concerns a fairly small but important element of the Budget. I pay tribute to the Minister for his co-operation in ensuring that the requirements of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 have been taken fully into account. Resource accounting is a new concept that takes the presentation of accounts away from simple receipts and payments. It enables Members to have a much more comprehensive picture of the state of the various Departments, and it is to be hoped that it will allow Members to identify areas where better use of public money can be made, where savings are possible and where additional services are feasible.

I speak now as an individual — lest I get into trouble — but as Chairperson of the Audit Committee, I realise that for Departments to comply with the Act will involve additional work and additional pressure. Nevertheless, it is well worthwhile. The benefits are enormous, and they will further advance the Assembly’s impact on how public money is spent.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Public Accounts Committee and, in particular, to Mr Billy Bell, although he belongs to another party. That Committee has established itself as a very reliable watchdog to ensure that the bad practices of the past are eliminated. In the proposed Bill every penny spent must be accounted for, and civil servants at all levels now realise that.

We hope that the dark days of direct rule are behind us. Let us hope that we never return to a situation where elected representatives are not in place to ensure that Government services are provided on a basis of best value, keeping in mind the need to target social need and test for equality.

In the years ahead, the services for which we are responsible can be transformed, provided that there is proper public scrutiny. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who no longer works in isolation but, for the first time, reports to elected representatives. That exercise is working extremely well, and the public at large realise that.

In conclusion, all of this would not be possible if everyone were not pulling in the same direction. The Audit Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee are all co-operating in the common interests of everyone. At times that may seem strange, but it is a reality. The Minister of Finance willingly participates in a spirit of co-operation, and that is a good omen for the future. The Assembly needs to blow its own trumpet at times. It has every reason to be proud of the fundamental changes that have taken place and that will continue, provided that common sense prevails and the wreckers do not have their way.

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

Minister, you will have heard my earlier remarks that this is the Second Stage of the Budget (No 2) Bill and not an attempt to rerun previous debates. I know that you will be judicious in your response.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I noted your earlier remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, with some appreciation. Members need to appreciate the nature of the Budget exercise. This is obviously not an occasion when the Assembly can range freely over all the expenditure items in the budgets of the various Departments. We are trying to complete, in a competent and proper manner, the necessary procedures following the budgetary decisions made last year and approved by the Assembly.

On the basis of those budgetary decisions we were able to authorise expenditure in the first period of this financial year through the Vote on Account and the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. In this Bill we are authorising the rest of the expenditure for this financial year. Members want to have regard to, and Committees should ask, whether the Estimates and the Bill properly reflect those previous decisions. The fact is that they do. I know that some Members have opposed some of the provisions, but in the Budget (No 2) Bill we are doing what we are required to do, which is to provide for the competent authorisation and allocation of expenditure as already approved.

Some points dealt with particular areas of expenditure. I will not go into those, because those areas are not germane to today’s exercise. On the other hand, I do not want to sidestep everything, because many Members did not address the particulars of the Bill as such, but raised wider budgetary issues.

As Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr Molloy registered the Committee’s concern about procedures — particularly in the longer term — and also recorded its satisfaction that there had been sufficient consultation with it to allow accelerated passage given the time constraints. I appreciate the constructive role that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has played and continues to play. On behalf of my Executive Colleagues, I want to ensure that it can continue to play and develop that constructive role, not just in its own interest but as an aid to the good work of other Committees. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has a pivotal role in ensuring that the Assembly gets proper consideration in regard to budget planning and implementation.

The Barnett formula falls outside the remit of the Bill per se. However, I assure the House that the Executive are well seized on that issue. Next year, in the context of the 2002 spending review, we will need to refine and articulate a strong case for revisions of the Barnett formula. It will not be a case of just asking the Treasury if it knows who is asking. There will be difficult issues, and the Executive are prepared to address them. The Executive hope that Members and Committees will be realistic about the difficulties and challenges that they face. Just as there are strong points to make, there are also strong points and questions that must be answered.

The point about the Barnett formula raises the issue of the adequacy of our budget, and many Members have touched on this, both today and on other occasions. As an Assembly we have already registered those questions. The Assembly needs to look not only at the question of whether it needs more money, but at the question of whether it needs to plan more wisely for the money that it has. Do we need more targeting for that money?

Do we need more definitive strategies to underpin our spending plans? Do we need those strategies for the discrete spending decisions at departmental and ministerial level as well as for the Executive’s Determinations? I am concerned when there are many calls in the Assembly for more money rather than attempts being made to ensure that better use is made of the budget. We must remember that the information in the Budget (No 2) Bill and in the Estimates should not be referred to only as we go through the process of passing the Bill. Departmental Committees should use the information, together with the details in the public service agreements and the commitments in the Programme for Government, as they scrutinise the work of Departments during the year.

Committees can scrutinise the work of Departments in many ways. There can be more monitoring of a Department’s performance. If there are questions about the quality of Estimates the most telling way to pursue the answers is not by considering the Budget or Budget (No 2) Bill; it is by looking at the scrutiny work that departmental Committees can undertake during the year. Committees can interest themselves in certain programmes and look at the related management, administrative and policy issues. In doing so, they can also examine the adequacy or accuracy of Estimates. The Executive have no problem with Committees taking such an interest. Committees should rightly interrogate spending plans at a departmental level, as well as in the wholesale context of Budget consideration at such times.

Ms Morrice raised many points that are well beyond the ambit of the Budget (No 2) Bill by nature of their detail. A Bill is coming forward concerning the children’s commissioner, and it is not my place to imply or suggest that anything that the Assembly might legislate for is pre-empted or predetermined by the Budget (No 2) Bill — it is not.

Issues have been raised concerning the importance of statistics. I refer people with those concerns to my point that Committees should make sure that they impress their considerations on Departments to ensure better planning and targeting, which are necessary, because we need more robust statistics. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency is trying to do that on several levels, and it responds to and takes on board the working requests of other Departments. We are trying to improve that situation, and if Committees can offer any insight into statistical gaps we will try to make good those gaps. We identified that problem in relation to the North/South statistical profile, which we published earlier this year.

Ms Morrice asked what is being done to accommodate the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee’s views on ‘Strategy 2010’ and certain tax considerations. Mr McGrady asked about tax-raising powers and the sensitive issues involved in such considerations. The points made by Ms Morrice gave rise to questions about the fact that some people are seeking tax-raising and tax-reducing powers.

If we are to consider more fiscal discretion or leverage for the Assembly, we must make sure that we join up our thinking on that. It will be very difficult for us to make a coherent case for any improvement in such capacity if we are saying continually that we will not levy any increases and that what we want, by way of intervening powers for ourselves in the fiscal regime, is simply the ability to offset or duck certain taxes. We must make sure that we not only do more as a joined-up Government but that we are ready to show that we are a grown-up Government.

The points about following through on ‘Strategy 2010’, which raise questions about the impact of aspects of the fiscal regime, will be reflected by the Executive in their consideration with the Treasury and other devolved institutions of several matters in the fiscal regime — consideration that takes place at the Treasury’s request.

In the past we have reflected on fuel duties, aggregates tax and so on, and we will do so again — that will include tax breaks for creative industries. Those points will be made on behalf of the Executive, not just by me as Minister of Finance and Personnel, but by the Ministers with relevant sectoral interests, such as the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, or, in the case of creative industries, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Mr Michael McGimpsey. Those points will be pursued with the Treasury, not least by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, because it falls to them to represent and prosecute certain cases.

Mr Dallat made useful points about the implications of resource accounting and budgeting. We must understand that we are dealing with a different system. We do not fully realise the implications of that. It will create some difficulties, but I am impressed by the way in which Departments, including my own, have managed the challenge of change to date.

We must recognise that this will change the nature of the control that the Assembly will have. It gives us greater planning opportunities and greater planning challenges, because the Assembly will have more of the picture than it had before, as Mr Dallat said. Not only will the Assembly control spending, it will control the stock of assets. People have not fully realised the implications of that.

Mr Dallat’s remarks on the contribution of the Public Accounts Committee are well made, but it should not just be up to the Public Accounts Committee to examine post hoc whether expenditure was undertaken in the most proper, beneficial and effective manner. There is a considerable gap of activity, and that will enable departmental Committees to become involved. They will be able usefully to interrogate more of the operative spending practices of Departments than previously. That will not in any way detract from the work of the Public Accounts Committee. In many ways it will build upon much of the work and consolidate many of the pointers and useful principles that have been established by the Public Accounts Committee in relation to some programmes. However, we cannot cover them all, and I would like to see the various Committees taking up and amplifying some of the concerns that have been registered.

There was one question on accruing resources. It is difficult to understand what appropriations in aid are. Cash received by Departments, with the approval of the Assembly, is appropriated towards their gross expenditure plans. Appropriations in aid are receipts and income that come to Departments and are used in support of our wider Budget, and that is what we mean by accruing resources.

I will refer points on individual spending programmes to the relevant Minister or write directly to Members on them. It would not be appropriate to go through all those points exhaustively because they are not necessarily appropriate to the Budget (No 2) Bill. I appreciate that some people missed the Supply motion last week because they had expected it to run into Tuesday, and I accept that some points have been saved from then and are being carried over now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill (NIA Bill 17/00) be agreed.

Lands Tribunal (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Lands Tribunal (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Article 3 of the Order provides for increases in the annual salaries payable to the president and members of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, with retrospective effect from 1 April 2000 and 1 April 2001, following recommendations made in the reports of the Senior Salaries Review Body.

While the provisions are straightforward, the procedures involved in their making have been anomalous. Before devolution such an Order was subject to negative resolution at Westminster and laid before Parliament under paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Following devolution that Act was repealed, and such Orders became subject to affirmative resolution in the Assembly. Therefore the Department of Finance and Personnel has been required to draft the Order for the Secretary of State’s signature. The draft Order does not include a commencement date, but that should be taken as the day after signature by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has agreed that I should take the Order forward on his behalf.

I commend the Order to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Lands Tribunal (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I beg to move

That the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

The Order arises because the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission are being transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The Planning Appeals Commission deals with appeals against decisions of the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service. Under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, the Department of the Environment has responsibilities relating to, for example, the remuneration allowance of the commissioners of the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission.

The Water Appeals Commission comprises the four most senior members of the Planning Appeals Commission. It deals with appeals in regard to the work and responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department for Regional Development.

The Department of the Environment has been considering the appropriateness of its role in regard to those appellate bodies for some time. However, since the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Northern Ireland it has been examining its functions more closely to ensure its compliance with the 1998 Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Department was satisfied that the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission are entirely independent and impartial. However, it recognised — as did we — that the current statutory arrangements could create a perception that the commissioners are not fully independent. For that reason, and with Mr Foster’s agreement, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister proposes to acquire the sponsorship functions of the Department of the Environment.

The proposed transfer will provide these appellate bodies with more robust and transparent levels of independence and impartiality. The transfers would be effected under article 4(3) of the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001. The functions under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 that would be transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would include powers to appoint commissioners to the Planning Appeals Commission and to determine their remuneration and allowances. The Office of the First Minster and the Deputy First Minister would also be granted powers to appoint staff to assist the commission in performing its functions, to determine their remuneration and allowances, and to determine remuneration allowances for any assessor appointed by the chief commissioner to assist at hearings. It would also acquire powers to make rules for regulating the procedure for proceedings before the commission and to prescribe fees in respect of commission applications.

It is proposed to transfer the functions contained in the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 that provide for the appointment of the chief commissioner and other commissioners of the Water Appeals Commission, the payment of commissioners and those appointed to assist the commission. The four most senior members of the Planning Appeals Commission act jointly as commissioners of the Water Appeals Commission.

A consultation role in the appointment by the chief commissioner of an assessor to sit with the member of the commission at an appeal or hearing would also be transferred to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minster. There would also be provision to approve the payment by the commission of fees and allowances to an assessor and to make rules to regulate commission procedure.

Some of those functions currently fall to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, where these Departments have an interest in a water appeals hearing. Mrs Rodgers, Mr Campbell and Mr McGimpsey have agreed to the transfer of those functions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, as outlined in articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Order.

The transfers of several other functions are set out in the Order. In February 1999, the Assembly approved an earlier report by the First Minister Designate and the Deputy First Minister Designate setting out details about certain functions of the 11 Departments in the Northern Ireland Administration.

The principal Departments (Transfer and Assignment of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1999, which implemented the agreed structures, was enacted in December 1999. Since its enactment, Departments have identified several statutory functions that must be transferred to other Departments to create consistency with the agreed allocation of functions at that time. The opportunity is now being taken to enact those transfers.

First, article 3 of the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 will transfer functions relating to the payment of expenses of the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the Civic Forum from the Department of Finance and Personnel to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. While the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister supports the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the Civic Forum, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that expenses in respect of these functions are defrayed as Department of Finance and Personnel expenses. That will be addressed and corrected by article 3. When the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was drafted, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister did not exist. The Order before the Assembly would regularise that position.

Secondly, the functions being transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Finance and Personnel come under article 4(1) of the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001. These transfers are necessary because of the distribution of functions under the principal 1999 Order. They relate to functions conferred on the Department of the Environment under social security legislation that deals with rate fraud in housing benefit claims.

Thirdly, the opportunity has been taken in article 4(2) to transfer several provisions from the Department of the Environment to the Department for Regional Development. Those provisions properly fall in the remit of the Department for Regional Development; they relate mainly to its responsibility for public transport and its obligations as a public roads authority for Northern Ireland.

Fourthly, article 5 of the Order transfers functions from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to the Department of Finance and Personnel. This relates to the appointment of a committee to advise Departments on the exercise of functions under the Statistics of Trade and Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. That committee is currently appointed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and the focus of its work is predominantly economic and business statistics. This degree of specialism is reflected in the membership of the committee. While current legislation makes provision for Departments other than the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to consult the committee on matters related to the collection and quality of general statistical information, this facility has not been widely used.

A committee appointed by the Department of Finance and Personnel will retain the statutory functions as currently detailed in the legislation relating to business statistics, and it will act in an independent advisory capacity to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency — an agency of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Given the agency’s position as the host body for all Northern Ireland Civil Service statisticians and its role in quality-assuring their work, it is appropriate for the new committee to develop its role beyond pure statistics or business statistics. Therefore, its remit will span the statistical material of all Departments, as well as covering more fundamental issues such as quality assurance, a statistics code of practice and national statistics.

Fifthly, article 6 of the Order transfers certain functions under the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 from the Department for Social Development to the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. This relates to the payment of contributions when an employer becomes insolvent. As those payments are infrequent, it has only recently come to light that in consequence of earlier legislation on the consolidation of pensions, the function is more appropriate to — and should have been transferred to — the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.

My sixth point deals with article 7 of the Order, which carries some minor transfer from the Department of Education to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. This relates to library and recreational matters consistent with the transfer of library services, recreation and cultural activity functions from the Department of Education to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in the principal 1999 Order.

Finally, article 11 of the Order makes legislative changes consequential upon the transfers. The Order has been scrutinised by the Committee of the Centre and the Examiner of Statutory Rules. All Ministers concerned in these transfers have been consulted and are content. I hope that Members will support these measures.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The Committee of the Centre considered this Statutory Rule at Consultation Stage and Statutory Rule Stage. The junior Minister has outlined in detail the various transfers of functions from one Department to another. The Order was presented to us as a tidying-up exercise following the creation of the 11 new Departments and the establishment of devolution.

As outlined earlier by the junior Minister, the area of greatest concern to the Committee was the transfer of the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We were told that this was to allow for greater independence. Currently the Department of the Environment has statutory responsibility for the Planning Appeals Commission, and the four most senior planning appeals commissioners comprise the Water Appeals Commission. Therefore, the appellate bodies were examining the decisions of the Department that had the statutory responsibility for them. While we were assured that they acted independently in that arrangement, this transfer creates a more open and accountable form of impartiality.

The Committee questioned whether these important appeal bodies would have been better set up outside the central Government structure to provide them with even more independence and impartiality. However, the Government had already announced a review of public administration, and the Committee decided that this matter should be taken on board in that review. All forms of appeals in our administrative system should be seen not only as apparently independent, but as very obviously independent.

The junior Minister dealt with the 11 transfer functions which relate to Departments other than the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee of the Centre consulted with the other relevant Assembly Committees and got assurances on the points of concern that were raised. The junior Ministers attended the Committee of the Centre and positively answered the questions that had caused concern. Therefore, the Committee of the Centre is fairly and reasonably satisfied that it can recommend that this Statutory Rule be accepted and affirmed.

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

I have received no further indication of Members who would like to speak.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I welcome Mr Gibson’s comment that he is fairly and reasonably satisfied. If anyone says to anyone else here that he is fairly and reasonably satisfied, that can be taken as a commendation. Mr Gibson rightly said, as did I at the outset, that the main thrust of this transfer of functions is to deal with the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission. There are others coming through as well.

While satisfied that both commissions are entirely independent and impartial, this provides a greater outward display of that impartiality. It remains for me to thank Mr Gibson on behalf of the Committee that he represents for his words of support. I ask that the motion to approve these provisions be supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) (SR 229/2001) 2001 be approved.

The sitting was suspended at 1.11pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

During Question Time last week a Minister was asked questions about matters that were not his responsibility. They were occasioned less by their appropriateness as questions to that Minister than by the events of the recent elections. As the Deputy Speaker ruled at that time, such questions are out of order. They should not be put, and, if put, the Minister should not be required to respond.

The Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the hon Peter Milliken, and several of his parliamentary Colleagues have visited us today, and some Members have had an opportunity to meet them. It is an honour for the Assembly not only to receive distinguished parliamentarians, but, for the first time since it decided to join the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), to be visited by parliamentarians from a CPA legislature. On the Assembly’s behalf, I extend a hearty welcome to Speaker Milliken and his Colleagues.

The Minister is in his place, unlike some Members who have tabled questions. I will call Members, but if they are not in the Chamber they may not put their questions and, unfortunately, Members will not be able to ask supplementary questions. Mr John Kelly, Mr McHugh, Mrs Iris Robinson and Mr Conor Murphy are not in their places. However, Mr Gibson is present.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Ever ready, ever sure, Mr Speaker.

Personal Statements: Mr Gregory Campbell and Mr Maurice Morrow

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received requests from Mr Campbell and Mr Morrow for leave to make personal statements.

Mr Campbell will make his statement, and Mr Morrow will formally identify himself with the content of that statement.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make a statement.

On Tuesday 6 May, four weeks before the general election and six weeks before the meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council, the First Minister announced his intention to resign from office on 1 July if decommissioning did not take place. Owing to the results of the general election and the local council elections and the success of anti- agreement candidates, it is clear that the First Minister has no option but to resign.

To make that gesture meaningful, all Unionist Ministers ought to resign with him. To do otherwise would be to reduce the actions of the First Minister to a stunt — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members on all sides — at least those with any experience — ought to be aware that personal statements are heard in silence. I ask that this convention be observed. It has not always been observed in the Chamber, but Members should adhere to it.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

To do otherwise would be to reduce the actions of the First Minister to a stunt, the result of which would be to see further concessions made to Republicans over the summer on policing, amnesties for on-the-run terrorists and demilitarisation. All Members must be acutely aware that that will be the inevitable consequence if the First Minister alone resigns.

My Colleague Maurice Morrow and I have therefore today tendered to the Speaker a letter of resignation effective on the resignation of all the First Minister’s party Colleagues from the Executive.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

That action, together with the election results, will send out the clearest possible signal that the current system does not command the support of a majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland. The DUP is committed to finding an accommodation that can command such support and in pursuing that aim it will talk to any democratic party. However, it will not sit down or negotiate with those who are not committed to exclusively peaceful means. The DUP will not act in a way that will simply hand over Departments to those who support the Belfast Agreement; it will act in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Today we challenge the First Minister to see if he is serious about decommissioning and give him the opportunity to take a decisive and meaningful step. The process has reached a moment of truth, and the First Minister can halt the concessions to Republicans that may be made over the summer months. I challenge him to act now. Let him heed the will of the Unionist electorate and prevent a further wave of capitulation and concessions.

It is time to unify Unionism behind a position that can command the support of the majority of Unionists. This is an opportunity that Unionism can ill afford to miss. Mr Morrow and I remain ready to divulge the precise terms of our letter as and when the First Minister does likewise. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I wish to associate myself with the comments of my ministerial Colleague Mr Campbell. His remarks to the House today are my remarks also. Thank you.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As I advised the House on 8 May, the occasion of a previous personal statement, this statement will be made under the precedent of a statement made on 15 July 1999. When Ministers make statements about their personal position that affect public office, an opportunity may be given to other party leaders or their nominees to make comment or response to them.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am astonished by some of the comments that have been made by Mr Campbell. He appears to be in some doubt as to what the letter I lodged with the Speaker says. If there is any problem I will publish the letter. It contains one sentence. It is absolutely clear in what it contains and what its effects will be.

Behind the fog of language that we heard from Mr Campbell two things stand out. First, he is incompetent; he has not read the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The letter he has lodged will have no effect. A letter of resignation — if he can read the Northern Ireland Act — should be sent to the Deputy First Minister and myself. Sending a resignation letter to the Speaker has no effect at all.

Secondly, he is a coward, he is a political coward. If he had any courage he would go now. What is he going to do? He says —[Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

He says that after I resign he might think about it. In other words he is content to follow me, and by saying that, he is showing that he and his party regard me as the leader of Unionism.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Normally it is the case that when there is disturbance it is in the Galleries, and they may be cleared. If the House will not settle there will be little point in continuing with this.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Campbell described the First Minister’s resignation letter and any implementation of it as a "stunt". Mr Campbell and Mr Morrow seem to be offering what might at best be described as a "shadow stunt". They "may" resign if other Ministers resign following Mr Trimble’s resignation. It seems to me that they are suggesting that all the Unionist Ministers should take the same step and the same moves in a manner that I think is dangerously close to a political form of line dancing. I would have thought that on that basis the DUP Ministers might reconsider what they are offering.

For some time it has been clear to many of us outside Unionism that there are two groups of people on David Trimble’s back: those within his party are there because they are trying to bring him down; and those from the DUP are there because they are quite happy to piggyback on David Trimble and on the success and the workings of the agreement.

Yet again, we have an indication from the DUP of their attempt to talk up their stance, and how they are out to break or undermine the agreement, while at the same time taking care to shelter themselves within the office of the agreement.

The non-statement from Mr Campbell and the very obvious non-statement by Mr Morrow, or "Mr Ditto", show that the DUP, in spite of its hype about its mandate, has no agenda now that the election is over.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I was always convinced that what my two Colleagues were going to do was right, but having seen the tantrum thrown by the First Minister, to hear his ranting and raving, and to see his attitude — [Interruption].

That gentleman was not even elected. He is best described as what the scriptures call "a creeper".

Let me make it clear that Mr Durkan, who seems also to be enraged, remembers a day in the House when they were kissing him, congratulating him and patting him on the shoulder because he had been elected to office in the Assembly. Who was it who brought him down? It was not the gentlemen sitting on those Benches, who were hiding away in Glengall Street. It was I and this party behind me who brought the mighty man down. If anyone suggests that my party is interested in office rather than principle, that proves that it is not. If we had been interested in office we could have taken the best offices in the House. That is a fact of history that cannot be gainsaid.

What has happened today is this: the bluff of the First Minister and his fellow travellers who are trying to fool the public that they can stay in power when he goes has been called. We know that when he goes, they have to go. Why do they not do it decently and let every Unionist worth his name and who has any interest in defeating Republicanism and the IRA resign? [Interruption].

We are not prepared to put Republicans into office, as the party that is mumbling would be very glad to do. The moment of decision and of truth has come, and if these men were Unionists they would get out and stay out.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We do have to reflect on the message now coming from broad Unionism that after years of preaching about politics and democracy, it has surrendered. We used to hear the "No surrender" catchphrase of Unionism; now we hear surrender. The message from broad Nationalism and Republicanism is that yes, there are problems, but we can resolve them through dialogue, negotiation and commitment to politics. I direct that to all those on the opposite Benches. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. There is a Member on the Back Benches who does not seem to have acquainted himself with the proceedings of the House. It would be better if he sat and observed. If he cannot abide by the rulings of the Speaker it would be better that he did not stay here for the rest of the day.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

My point — and it is an important one — is that if we measure the progress of the last few years against our collective experience of political failure, there is only one option. That option is to continue on this path, take our courage in our hands and exercise the mandate we received to deliver peace and democracy through negotiation, agreement and mutual respect. We will then solve the outstanding problems of militarisation and policing in our society, the criminal justice review and, yes, the question of arms. We will resolve those problems by agreement and by applying ourselves in a diligent, sensible fashion. Those who set ultimatums and unrealistically expect that we can solve the problems of generations in a matter of months betray the expectations of those who voted for the Good Friday Agreement and those who voted for the setting up of these political institutions.

Let us abandon this silliness, this theatre of tit-for-tat: "If you resign, I’ll resign; if you surrender, I’ll surrender; if you jump, I’ll jump."

Let us commit ourselves to exercising the mandate given to us by an overwhelming majority of those who live in the Six Counties and endorsed by an overwhelming majority of those who live on this island and in the international community. Let us make politics work and stay at it until we do.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I do not know what all the fuss is about. Gregory Campbell will continue to be Minister for Regional Development, Maurice Morrow will continue to be Minister for Social Development, and Dr Paisley will continue to be the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. Once again the DUP is trying to bluff the people into believing that they are not going to make the Assembly work, when even the dogs in the street know that they are working the system.

People on the street know that devolution works, and they know that the Assembly works. The Assembly will continue to work despite today’s protest by the DUP.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Is it not sad that those who signed up to the agreement have brought the whole democratic process in Northern Ireland into disrepute with what is taking place in the Chamber today? We are being treated to nothing more sophisticated than a political game of chicken played by the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP. They have no mandate to remain in the House for one more minute, because they presented themselves to the electorate on the basis of "no guns, no Government" and total opposition to the Belfast Agreement and its institutions. They stated clearly that they would not have terrorists in Government. The only fact is Mr McGuinness’s statement — at the beginning of the negotiations in Castle Buildings that brought this whole sordid process into being — that there would be no guns before, during or after the negotiations.

Mr Trimble may issue post-dated resignations, and the DUP may mimic that move, but the only people who have stuck to their guns are those represented by Sinn Féin on the other side of the Chamber. Fifty-nine percent of the electorate cast their votes on the basis of Mr Trimble’s promise that he would resign, and on the DUP’s promise to smash the agreement. The electorate voted against terrorists in Government. However, they are sitting in the Chamber and will continue to sit in the Executive for as long as they wish to do so.

Alcohol By-Laws

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly believes that current levels of enforcement of alcohol by-laws are inadequate to address the problem of outdoor drinking; and that increased resources should be made available for the enforcement of the by-laws and for a Province-wide education programme to alert younger people to the dangers of under-age drinking.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members who wish to leave should do so quietly.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am grateful that I am able to bring this important motion to the Assembly for debate in order to highlight the problem of alcohol consumption in public places, alcohol abuse by young people under the age of 18, and the problems of overindulgence. Many of my constituents in the small towns and villages of Fermanagh and South Tyrone — especially in Moy, County Tyrone — have seen these problems at first hand. They have endured weekend after weekend of alcohol- related disturbances with severe loss to their quality of life.

I do not condemn people for enjoying alcohol when they are responsible and aware of other people’s rights. Each weekend, many people enjoy a drink responsibly and without impinging on the rights of others, either on their person or their property. Most are sensible enough to go home by taxi or with someone who has not imbibed alcohol. I commend groups that socialise together and organise rotas with a designated non-drinking driver.

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

In a tolerant society people should be aware that there are consequences for breaking the law. Laws are not made to restrict but to protect. I am concerned about young people who drink to excess, drink in public places, create a nuisance, drop litter or damage and destroy property.

I am also concerned about the high incidence of under-age drinking, which ensures a continuing culture of irresponsible use of alcohol. In 1999, the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs (ESPAD) involving 15- to 18-year-old students showed that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland shared the dubious distinction of being in the top four European nations of students who had been drunk 10 times or more during the 12 months preceding the survey, and of students who reported binge drinking three times or more during the 30 days previous to the survey. Binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks at a time.

Surprisingly, the wine-drinking countries such as France, Italy and others in the Mediterranean area report the lowest incidences of such behaviour. It is important that parents encourage their children to have a responsible attitude towards the use of alcohol. Lessons in high schools and grammar schools on the effects of alcohol could help to combat the growing under-age drinking culture.

A recent UK-wide study by Dr Martin Plant of the Edinburgh-based Alcohol and Health Research Centre found that 75% of children aged between 15 and 16 admitted that they had been drunk. The study also shows that one in four deaths of young men are alcohol-related. The charity Alcohol Concern, in response to the study, called for tighter enforcement of under-age drinking laws, by saying:

"We just want to see the existing laws enforced properly when they have been broken by people selling alcohol to under-age drinkers."

At the World Health Organisation conference in Stockholm in February this year, EU Commissioner David Byrne said:

"My key message on delivering change on alcohol and youth is the three Es: enforcement, enforcement and more enforcement."

Law enforcement could be combined with a considered approach by the Government to address how the drinks industry aggressively markets alcoholic products.

The drinks industry is very experienced at focusing on particular target groups, and the introduction of alcopops shows that there can be only one conclusion as to what group the industry was targeting and appealing to. One drinks company even undertook market research on women’s attitudes to discover how to make bottled beer more attractive to females. The end result was an easier-to-hold bottle and a thicker label for women to peel off. Needless to say, sales improved.

What can be done? Is more legislation necessary? Yes. An immediate start can be made with the enforcement of existing laws and by-laws. Even if the Assembly produced new legislation, any law is useless unless it is enforced. The abysmal failure of existing by-laws to control public and under-age drinking stems from the inability of either district councils or the RUC to enforce them.

District councils have powers to create by-laws under the Local Government Act 1972. Each of the 26 councils in Northern Ireland is responsible for its alcohol by-laws.

There are 26 council areas and 26 different ways to apply alcohol by-laws. This inconsistency was highlighted by a review of the operation of alcohol by-laws in Northern Ireland that was presented to my local council — Dungannon and South Tyrone — by its director last year. As part of that study, responses were received from 21 councils. The findings showed that the enforcement of alcohol by-laws in Northern Ireland is at best patchy and at worst non-existent. It is a lengthy and costly process for a local council, under an existing by-law, to designate a street, a village or a town as an alcohol-free zone. Legislation is required to make it simpler for new areas to be added to a schedule attached to the existing by-laws. However, serious consideration should be given to the introduction of Northern Ireland-wide legislation to create a consistent approach to tackling alcohol abuse in public areas.

There is an urgent need to clarify the relationship between the local authorities and the police. Responsibility for the by-laws and prosecution lies with the councils. Detection of the offence is the responsibility of the police. That division creates a weakness in tackling a serious issue. Local authorities are concerned that the police do not pursue rigorous detection of offences. Conversely, there are reduced detection rates by the police due to the lack of commitment by some councils to proceed with prosecutions.

The problem of the enforcement of alcohol by-laws is exacerbated when many inebriated persons are gathered together. There is also a high cost, with local policing resources tied up to control public disorder. For example, on a typical Friday or Saturday night the police in a small town with licensed premises would be on alert for three to five hours, with possibly half of a divisional mobile support unit having to be drafted in to cope with the numbers. The approximate cost, totalling man-hours, local resources and extra units, is £250,000 a year.

It must also be noted that 60% of alcohol-related disturbances happen in the vicinity of licensed premises and that 16- to 24-year-old males are the highest risk group for alcohol-related violent crime. There is currently no legislation to enable the police to seize alcohol which is being consumed in public, except from young persons under the age of 18.

There is ambiguity about the use of the word "consumption". Persons in possession of an open container of alcohol in a public place are not committing an offence. Prosecution can only take place if persons are observed consuming the liquid. The current legislation should be changed to allow a charge of possession with intent to consume alcohol. The police must be given the power to detect and prosecute those guilty of such an offence. That could take the form of fixed penalties and the power to confiscate alcohol. The police would then have the information on alcohol-related offences to maintain an up-to-date record and to provide continuing monitoring data. These records would merit inclusion in the police performance indicators for annual appraisal in each council area.

There is a real need to review the operation and application of alcohol by-laws in Northern Ireland. A single accountable body should be made responsible for enforcement and the prosecution of offenders. Logically, that body should be the police.

It is very difficult for the police to identify young persons who are under age and drinking alcohol. We all know that young persons now dress in as mature a manner as possible and look far older than they really are. An approved identity card scheme would go a long way to preventing young people under the age of 18 from obtaining alcohol.

It could take the form of a card that could be produced before purchasing alcohol from licensed premises or before entering a licensed establishment. After the production of approved documentation giving proof of age, local authorities could provide young people with free identification cards. To reduce fraud, the cards could be bar-coded or marked with a hologram.

An accredited scheme for training bar staff, door staff and staff in licensed premises, as set out in the document on the strategy for reducing alcohol-related harm, would be welcomed and should be implemented as soon as possible. The scheme could be co-ordinated by councils, but with centralised direction to ensure consistent standards.

We must pursue a Northern Ireland-wide education programme to alert younger people to the dangers of under-age drinking. I welcome the inclusion of that proposal in the strategy document. To ensure a consistent delivery of the education programme, it should be provided under the direction of the joint action group on drugs and alcohol.

I refer again to the statistics for the United Kingdom in the ESPAD document. They show that young people — 15- to 16-year-olds — who use alcohol admitted to poor educational performance, to having accidents, to being injury prone, to having poor relationships with their parents, to becoming involved in scuffles and fights and to having unprotected sex after drinking. That last point is especially worrying: in Northern Ireland, there are many teenage pregnancies.

Alcohol-related disturbances, typically involving young men, are costing Northern Ireland dearly. The estimated total cost of alcohol-related harm for 1997-98 is £777 million. That is horrendous. Think of what could be done with that money; it could be much better used.

The strategy for reducing alcohol-related harm that was launched by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is a positive attempt to tackle alcohol abuse. It will have an impact on the two areas that I have spoken about today. I welcome the announcement that there will be joint implementation of the alcohol and drugs strategies, although such joint implementation requires adequate resources. The work of the RUC is an integral part of the strategy, and that fact should be openly accepted. The police have to control public disturbances and deal with other offences resulting from alcohol misuse. There is an urgent need for a review of the alcohol by-laws in Northern Ireland. The required resources should be forthcoming.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I congratulate the Member on bringing this matter to the attention of the Assembly. We are only too aware of the increase in alcohol-related crime, including not only attacks on individuals but attacks on property, cars and businesses. Doctors in accident and emergency departments are constantly dealing with injuries resulting from domestic violence that is fuelled by drink or drugs.

Alcohol is the most abused drug but because it is socially acceptable it is seldom seem as such. Often, a blind eye is turned to alcohol abuse. Most major cities have by-laws that address the problem of outdoor drinking. The enforcement of those laws by local authorities is the difficult part. Council officers must go to court to prosecute. The police arrest individuals and gather evidence, but local councils must decide whether to prosecute.

One of the main problems in the area covered by my local authority — Derry City Council — is that it is often the habitual drinker — or wino — who is brought to court. The fine is derisory, but bringing the case to court is expensive, and it is time-consuming for council officers. Frequently, the offenders who should have been brought before the court are missed. If they are charged, the courts often show leniency, and the offences continue.

By-laws must apply to designated areas, and a blanket ban is unenforceable without adequate resources. Glasgow has such a policy, but in my area it was felt that this policy would not work. Support for such a policy must come not only from the community but from the police. If more resources were available to councils they could employ officers to enforce the policy and bring perpetrators of drink-related crime to court.

By-laws can be easily overcome by moving on-street drinkers to another area where they can laugh at those trying to enforce the policy — which often happens. The support of statutory agencies such as the education and library boards, health and social services boards and those involved in the treatment of young alcoholics is necessary if we are to raise the awareness of the public and get its support. That is why I support the motion and ask for the legislation to be amended and more resources to be made available. A Province-wide education programme is needed to address the problem once and for all, and we must make the by-laws and legislation adequate.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Mrs Carson, who moved the motion, and Mrs Courtney mentioned some of the deficiencies in the legislation and by-laws. I know from experience in North Belfast and as a city councillor that there are problems with enforcing the law. The issue comes up time and again for councils. People say that the by-laws are not effective, but the fact is that the legislation is inadequate.

Mrs Carson mentioned a couple of areas of concern. For example, if the police find someone with an open container of alcohol and know that that person has been drinking outside a designated drinking area, there is nothing they can do unless they catch the person in the act or he or she is an under-age drinker. That brings the law into total disrepute. Much money is spent by local authorities on putting up signs that say "No Drinking", and to a great extent that is a token effort at tackling the problem. I once asked my local authority in Belfast about the number of people who had been convicted of offences in relation to the by-laws, and the number was paltry.

Another area of concern is that although many streets and parks in any borough or council are designated as areas where people cannot drink, the by-laws cannot cover entire areas. That can lead to the problem simply being pushed from one area to another and people calling for their areas to be added to the list of designated areas. One school of thought says that a council should have the power to ensure that an entire area is covered by the by-laws.

The problem causes great concern, and it seems to be on the increase. People are entitled to consume alcohol if they wish, but we must draw the line at heavy drinking in public areas, because it can lead to antisocial behaviour and other problems. Current legislation is inadequate.

I support what the motion says about an education programme. Sometimes we talk about enforcement and neglect education — these two elements must go hand in hand. Neither enforcement nor education on its own will solve the problem. As with litter, there is no point in simply fining people for dropping it; people must be educated so that they do not drop it in the first place.

I fully support the call for an education programme — or the enhancement of existing education programmes — and increased resources to deal with the problem.

Members have spoken about the need to have legislation amended. The problem is that the motion as currently worded does not call for legislation to be changed, although I think that that is the thrust behind it. The motion states that current levels of enforcement of the by-laws are inadequate, calls for increased resources and mentions a Province-wide education programme. However, I think that many Members — and the proposer of the motion, in her winding-up speech — will accept that the deficiency of legislation is a major issue. Perhaps some sort of amendment should be considered in relation to that. That may be what lies behind the thrust of the motion, although its wording is not explicit. I am happy to support the motion in so far as it goes, and I believe that the underlying message is that there is a need to examine the terms of the legislation itself.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Members have mentioned the lack of resources available for education programmes. I agree. The issue is not just about people drinking in our streets; it is also about educating our young people — and those not so young — on the dangers of the misuse of alcohol.

Alcohol misuse creates massive social and family problems. Joan Carson rightly said that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has relaunched a strategy which, as the Minister said in answer to a question in April, is aimed at reducing adult alcohol problems. The strategy commits the Department to three objectives: encouraging a sensible approach to drinking, promoting effective treatment services and protecting individuals and communities from the damage caused by alcohol misuse.

The majority of on-street drinking is done by young people. They are likely to be under age and therefore cannot purchase alcohol legally. We need to ask where they get this drink. We are aware that some adults make money by purchasing alcohol from off-licences for these young people. That happens in towns and cities across the North. Some young people produce fake identification, and others get dolled up to the nines to appear older than they are.

I am not sure whether people are aware that in my own area, west Belfast, my party and several community groups and local drinking establishments were involved in setting up a community off-sales initiative. It was a pilot scheme to encourage the community and the off-licences to tackle the issue of under-age drinking and the associated problem of on-street drinking. We were encouraged by the response of the off-licences, the community groups involved and the wider community. The off-licences agreed to require identification and not to sell drink to people unless they were over 21 years of age. Those involved in off-sales say that they are losing some of their profit, but they do not mind because they are playing a part in helping the community to tackle the wider problem.

We must develop an approach to tackle alcohol abuse through peer education and through educational programmes in our schools. The role of the education system has been mentioned. We need to target and attack the culture of drinking. Drink is promoted in big neon lights. Adults set the tone. The behaviour of adults can encourage or discourage our young people. Young people need to learn about the dangers of alcohol misuse.

I know it has been touched on earlier, but, as an overall co-ordinated approach, we need to deal with people who sell alcohol and adults who make money by encouraging young people to drink. We need a co-ordinated approach to the advertising of alcohol. Alcohol creates damage in the family, and in the social and community sector. We need to say that it is not a glamour issue.

I support the comments of Joan Carson. I was alarmed by the statistics she and Annie Courtney referred to with regard to the money spent on hospital-related incidents around alcohol misuse. We also need to look at fixed- penalty fines. Annie Courtney did mention that the winos seem to be more likely to end up in court. We need to take on board whether these fixed-penalty fines work. Usually these people have little or no money anyway, so where do they go? Are we creating a vicious circle? We need a long-term, strategic, co-ordinated approach to tackle the whole issue, not only of under-age drinking but also of alcohol misuse. Go raibh maith agat.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I support the motion and the comments made by Mrs Carson in her comprehensive speech. It is an unfortunate fact of life that, unlike most other countries where pavement cafes are encouraged, the situation in Northern Ireland militates against this. It does not lend itself to the often delightful practice of open-air drinking, even in such organised legal establishments as cafe bars, and so on — certainly in my area. Our primary objective must be to strenuously oppose the many, often illegal, forms of largely under-age open-air drinking.

In my constituency of North Down, outdoor drinking occurs on a regular basis throughout the area — unchecked on most occasions. The RUC maintains that its problem is undermanning, resulting in an inability to enforce the law. Therefore, the reputation of the RUC is the first to suffer, and the problem gets worse. The situation on the streets of central Bangor at the weekends is such that many of the youth of the town head into Belfast and other places for their entertainment. Very few residents of any age would dare to venture onto the seafront or High Street areas after dark. This cannot be allowed to continue. Also, when some of the drinkers are moved away from the seafront into the suburbs, the elderly there live in fear of their houses being wrecked, or worse. It makes life very difficult, both for residents and tourists.

A more active enforcement role is required, and this may take many forms, including education, which has been mentioned by other Members. Also, much more concerted action by the RUC, with the support of other agencies and stronger legislation, is first and foremost on my and my constituents’ list. It is really a case of having a good working partnership between councils, the RUC and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety with its different strategies, as Sue Ramsey mentioned. When this partnership works, it ensures that the dangers of drinking in public places, drink-driving, burglary, vandalism, and so on are recognised by all sections of the community as serious breaches of the law.

The continuing sale of alcohol to people under the legal age limit is also something that needs to be more rigorously investigated — again, a measure requiring the attention of the RUC — although, as Sue Ramsey pointed out, there are more community initiatives. That is very welcome. Those found selling alcohol to under-age persons should be put out of business immediately, if possible. We must strengthen and implement the legislation effectively so that the RUC and other agencies have the appropriate support. We have to cut down the supply of alcohol as much as possible. We need to arrest those who still insist on flouting the law and prosecute them with the full might of the law. We must ensure that the courts not only are able to sentence them effectively and severely but also are charged to do so to a much greater degree than they tend to do at present with the few who are brought before them.

I agree with Nigel Dodds. The position is comparable to that of people who fail to buy dog licences, or to prevent their dogs from soiling the streets. When they are brought to court, the magistrates consider the matter to be too small and simply fine them. We must get out of that mindset. We can make major headway towards greatly reducing the blight on our society if the motion is passed and the attention of the relevant authorities is drawn to it. I support the motion.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I support the motion and congratulate Mrs Carson on the excellent manner in which she proposed it. Not one constituency represented in the Assembly has been free from the blight brought about by the increasing problem of outdoor drinking. It is reaching epidemic proportions throughout Northern Ireland, and even in those areas where the local authorities have attempted to take some action, law enforcement is difficult. The problems are compounded by the fact that the already hard-pressed members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary do not have enough resources. They are struggling with major problems such as domestic crime and the increased terrorist threat, and unfortunately alcohol abuse is fairly low on their list of priorities. It is only when this kind of activity takes on the magnitude of some of the incidents that have occurred in the Queen’s University area, where many people drink excessively, continue to do so on the streets and then start to fight, that it becomes a major problem for the security forces and the RUC.

Mrs Carson’s motion proposes attempts to educate young people in order that we may in the future help to alleviate the problem or remove it from society. Probably most people, and particularly those with young families, are conscious of the fact that there is increased pressure on our young people through television, magazine and newspaper advertising. Alcohol has been glamorised and made fashionable, and it represents something desirable for young people.

There was good reason for the banning of tobacco advertising, and urgent attention and serious consideration should be given to the promotion of alcohol. As the father of a young girl, I am aware that children are taken up with advertising such as that for Budweiser and the vodka ads that are made to look glamorous or have catchphrases that even the youngest child starts to parrot and mimic. It shows the impact of unscrupulous people who have only financial gain in mind. These large companies that promote alcohol are not targeting older age groups, who have already determined the type or brand of alcohol they are going to use. They are carefully and clearly targeting the younger market that will be coming on stream in a few years’ time. I particularly welcome the opportunity that may be created when someone is appointed as an ombudsman for children’s affairs — a matter referred to in a previous debate. This matter should be given top priority in our attempts to prevent our children being subjected to this type of abuse — it can be described as nothing else.

In closing, I congratulate Mrs Carson on tabling the motion, and I am delighted that we have an opportunity to support it.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am sorry that more Members cannot be available for this important debate. I warmly commend and congratulate my Colleague Joan Carson on bringing the matter to the attention of the Assembly. It gives this issue necessary attention, which is very timely. As Members have already said, we have all been faced with problems in relation to illegal outdoor drinking in our districts. The problem of enforcement is a major task confronting everyone. Current legislation is clearly unsatisfactory. It necessitates someone being caught in the act of consuming alcohol. Apparently, it is not enough to catch someone with a glass or bottle in their hand; they must be partaking. That has been a major flaw in the current legislation.

I am interested to know — and Mrs Carson may be able to shed some light on this — who has overall responsibility for the matter. Is it the Minister of the Environment because of his responsibilities for local government, or is it the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? In any education programme, it is important that there is joined-up government and that all bodies with input into helping resolve these matters give consideration to them.

Enforcement is a serious problem. It has already been said that it is not possible or practicable to expect the RUC to be at every street corner or town centre. However, the problems created by illegal drinking in open places now dog many town centres, which are not now being inhabited by the "right" kind of people, so to speak. Largely speaking, many of our larger towns have become ghost towns, particularly at night. The only people found in them are winos and people with serious alcohol- and other substance- related problems. We should remember that we have a responsibility for those people too — to give them proper care and attention, and to try to ensure that we lead them away from those activities and give them better opportunities in life.

In my constituency of Newry and Armagh, and indeed in the district council area of Newry and Mourne, there are local initiatives such as pubs with no beer. That might sound unusual to some Members, but experiments are being tried to alert young people to the dangers of alcohol. It is one thing to be in a party mood or quite sociable, but it can lead to serious addiction and to the most serious social problems.

I am bound to say that there is parental responsibility in this area. It is crucial that parents are aware of where their children are and who they are with, and that they put parental influence at a premium.

I welcome the fact that the Government did not propose to introduce legislation in the Queen’s Speech to extend the opening hours of public houses and make drink more readily available, as was advocated by some very misinformed people, on a 24-hour basis. More than enough alcohol can already be bought and consumed. Extending the licensing hours would only exacerbate many of our social problems. We should consider restricting the opening hours of places where alcohol is sold, particularly if it is being sold to people who are under age. There should be severe sanctions against the owners and proprietors of such establishments.

I welcome the motion. It is timely and should be brought to the attention of the relevant Ministers and their Committees, so that appropriate legislation can be framed and the Assembly can make a contribution to society. That will be a positive result that will help us to deal with this intractable problem.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank all those who remained for the debate after a hectic period earlier. It shows that they feel that the matter is important. If other Members take time to read Hansard, they will see that we have a big problem in all constituencies whose Members have spoken. We have a problem common to all: not a town, village, area or townland is free from under-age drinking and the accessibility of drink. Mrs Courtney said that the blanket ban was unenforceable, but it is something we must think about — either a ban or some other way of dealing with the problem throughout Northern Ireland. Mrs Courtney also brought up something that I had forgotten about — the pressure that is put on our hospital services at the weekend — and I welcome that.

Nigel Dodds said that the by-laws are not adequate, and I agree with him about signage. We have the country covered with no-drinking zones, yet nobody takes any heed. The legislation requires amendment.

I was interested in what Sue Ramsey said about her area of west Belfast and the pilot scheme. Some people are doing that in local areas, and it is very commendable. Danny Kennedy said much the same, and that is fine in particular areas, but we need an overall response on this.

Eileen Bell talked about the fear generated at weekends. In a local village in my country area there is an atmosphere of fear caused by drinking. Cedric Wilson talked about television advertisements and the pressures on young people. The banning of tobacco advertising was a good suggestion and something to be considered — perhaps not by the Assembly, but other places could ban television advertisements. Those advertisements target young people, and once they have them hooked on alcopops and such things, they have customers for the rest of their days.

To tackle the problem sensibly, the present by-laws need to be amended to include powers to confiscate alcohol being consumed in public. A clearer definition is needed of what is meant by the possession of, or consumption of, alcohol in public. The power to prosecute offenders should be withdrawn from councils, but there should be a liaison role for them with the RUC.

Stricter control of the licensing of establishments that sell alcohol would be useful, as would an accredited Province-wide training scheme for staff of bars and off-licences. It might be considered mandatory for businesses to be included in this scheme as a condition to obtaining a licence or a licence renewal.

A Province-wide scheme to provide identity cards for those over 18 years of age might reduce the incidence of alcohol purchase by under-age customers. A valid identity card could be used as a proof of identity in situations other than the under-age purchase of alcohol. The co-ordinated approach suggested in the document on the strategy for reducing alcohol-related harm should include direct co-ordination and co-operation with the RUC. If the statistics on alcohol-related harm were combined, councils, the Assembly and the public could be made aware of the human and monetary costs involved.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. This is a complex subject, and the debate highlighted the problems we have to address. I ask that the points made today be noted and acted on by the Departments concerned.

Mr Kennedy has asked which Department has overall jurisdiction on this matter. I cannot answer that. The Department of Education, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of the Environment could all work together to develop appropriate legislation to address effectively the problems of drinking in public, under-age drinking, the resultant disturbances and social problems. I ask that the motion be supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly believes that current levels of enforcement of alcohol by-laws are inadequate to address the problem of outdoor drinking; and that increased resources should be made available for the enforcement of the by-laws and for a Province-wide education programme to alert younger people to the dangers of under-age drinking.

Adjourned at 4.57 pm.