Northern Ireland Assembly, 2 July 2001

189 contributions from 51 members. The official report.

Resignation of the First Minister

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

On 8 May 2001, as the House will be aware, I received a sealed letter from the then First Minister and a covering note in which he asked me to open and implement the sealed letter by the end of 30 June, unless I received a letter of revocation. I received no revoking letter. I opened the sealed letter as requested, and I wish to report to the House that Mr Trimble resigned as First Minister in a letter dated 1 July 2001.

I would like to try to clarify the situation for Members. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies. Under section 16(7)(a) the Deputy First Minister, Mr Séamus Mallon, also ceased to hold office but may continue to exercise the functions of his office until the election of a new First Minister and a new Deputy First Minister.

On 29 June I received a letter from the then First Minister, Mr Trimble, notifying me that under section 16(5)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 he had designated Sir Reg Empey to exercise the functions of the office of First Minister during the period of the vacancy. Section 16(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that an election shall be held to fill the vacancies of First Minister and Deputy First Minister within a period of six weeks, that is, by 11 August. While no date has as yet been set, I will, of course, keep Members informed.

Mr Séamus Mallon has requested leave, which I have granted, to make a personal statement on the matter of his ceasing to hold office as the Deputy First Minister.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to have a matter placed on record. On a previous occasion — though under different Standing Orders — what everyone believed to have been a resignation from the Deputy First Minister later transpired not to be a resignation. Would you clarify that you consider this resignation to be a resignation within the terms of the legislation, and, therefore, before anybody else can carry out the First Minister’s and Deputy First Minister’s functions as First Minister and Deputy First Minister, an election by the Assembly under the terms of the legislation will be required?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is correct that a circumstance arose, under different Standing Orders, where there was some confusion. On this occasion I see no possibility of any confusion. The resignation has been committed to me in writing; it is dated; I have announced it to the House; it is clear and in order; and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies. I trust that that confirms the matter to the satisfaction of the Member and the House.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now that you have confirmed that the First Minister has resigned due to the failure of Sinn Féin/IRA to honour its word and commence decommissioning, can you confirm that under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 both Governments may exclude a political party if that party is in default? Furthermore, now that Gen de Chastelain has confirmed that the IRA has broken its word, is it not the case, under the legislation and Standing Orders, that the Assembly has only six weeks left to run and, therefore, the blame for any breakdown in the process lies squarely at the door of Sinn Féin/IRA, which has consistently broken its word?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can only refer to the procedural elements of the Member’s comments. In relation to what the two Governments may choose to do, there is relatively little limit on what they may do legally. They can take actions within the limits of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, they may also take legislation through their respective Parliaments. It is not for me to rule on any legal limits. As far as the political limits are concerned, that is not a matter for me at all.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish clarification of your ruling. I understand that you received a letter on 29 June in which the former First Minister designated another Minister to exercise his functions as First Minister. Am I right in saying that at the date of that letter, when those functions were designated, no vacancy existed in the office of First Minister — that vacancy not arising until 30 June? In those circumstances was that designation properly made?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The terms of the letter were such that the nomination was to take place

"during any vacancy in that office" —

that is the office of First Minister —

"arising from my resignation of that office".

I have looked at the matter, and it is hard to visualise any reason — other than the current circumstances — for Parliament having voted that the clause stand part of the Bill. It does not seem to me that there are any other circumstances where that subsection could apply. Therefore the matter is in order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it your ruling that a First Minister or Deputy First Minister can make a conditional appointment of a Minister to discharge his functions — conditional in the sense that that appointment is not to take place until the happening of an event which may or may not take place? In this case, Minister Empey was appointed to discharge the functions of the First Minister, but only in the event of the First Minister not having revoked his resignation — a resignation which had not at that time taken effect. Mr Speaker, the effect of that is to introduce an element of Lewis Carroll or ‘Alice in Wonderland’ to the procedures of the House.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As the Member will know, this power comes under section 16(5)(b). However, let us look at section 16(5)(a) which says that it may also be done

"during any absence or incapacity of the holder".

Therefore, if it were to arise that the First Minister or Deputy First Minister was to go into hospital for an operation perhaps —

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Or become temporarily insane.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Or perhaps not temporarily.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is a circumstance where it might be wise for a number of people to consult with the Speaker.

Let us assume a circumstance where the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister had sufficient insight into an upcoming possible incapacity — for instance, going into hospital for an operation. He might therefore designate another Minister to fulfil the functions of the office. It is clear that that is the purpose of section 16(5)(a). However, it is not unknown these days — and I say this with due respect to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety — for operations to be unaccountably postponed. In advance of becoming indisposed — and this is where the question of mental incapacity does not bear — the First Minister or Deputy First Minister would have to make arrangements for his period of incapacity. Those arrangements would be conditional on the incapacity taking place, that is to say the operation proceeding.

With regard to both section 16(5)(a) and section 16(5)(b), which is the one to which the Member refers, it is only where the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister knew the probability of a matter of this kind arising — but never the certainty about what the future might hold, for that is something none of us can know, least of all Members — that he could make a nomination of this kind. It seems to me that it is in order. I cannot see that there would be any purpose in Parliament voting for this subsection unless this particular context was envisioned.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the past three years other Unionists on this side of the House have appealed to Ulster Unionists such as Mr McClarty to join us in excluding those people fronting terrorist and paramilitary organisations from this body. It is rather rare and rich to hear his comments today.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Mr McClarty’s point of order was about what the two Governments might or might not do. That is a separate matter.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, I did have a point of order. It was to ask you —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am encouraged that there was a point of order. Perhaps in completing it the Member might refer to the Standing Order that he is making the point on.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I will. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will you be following the procedure of allowing Members to address the comments made by Mr Mallon in his statement?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Under the precedent established in the circumstance to which Mr Robinson referred, I did permit leaders of parties, or nominees, to make brief comments. When Mr Mallon eventually gets the opportunity to make his personal statement, I will follow that precedent.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Further to the point of order made by Mr McCartney — who is not someone I like to agree with very often, or would even like to own up to agreeing with — there is an important point here. Not only is the absent person absent, insofar as Mr Trimble is not here, but his nominated caretaker is not here either.

It is important to establish precisely on what legislative basis Mr Empey is being nominated as a caretaker. As you well know, Mr Speaker, Mr Trimble was recently declared to be acting unlawfully in respect of his actions in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council attendance of Bairbre de Brún and Martin McGuinness.

If Mr Empey does attend here and is nominated and accepted as a caretaker, what will be his position in respect of the unlawful action carried out by Mr Trimble? As the caretaker designated by Mr Trimble, will he be carrying on the same unlawful actions? It is important that the House be informed of the precise terms under which Mr Empey is being nominated as a caretaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

From the Speaker’s point of view, the terms under which the nomination has been made are the legal terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I cannot enlighten the Member or the House on whether there are any political terms that exist between Mr Trimble and Sir Reg Empey.

Part of the purpose for the inclusion in the 1998 Act of the possibility of nominating a person either in respect of section 16(5)(a) or (b) is so that nominations to North/South Ministerial Council meetings and the chairing of Executive meetings and so on can continue. Those are some of the functions of the offices that could not be continued by only one person, or certainly not if neither of the offices had anyone to fulfil or exercise its functions. The Member will have to seek clarification from others on the specific question to which he addresses himself. I can only clarify the legal and technical aspects of it.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason that I was addressing the question to you was that Mr Trimble and the person that he has nominated are not here. The House is entitled to an explanation. It is not simply a question of a political arrangement between Mr Trimble and Mr Empey; it is about the Pledge of Office. The First Minister was found to be unlawful in his actions. It is important that we get clarification on this matter from you, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is important to understand that the limits on what the Speaker can rule on are those aspects of the law and Standing Orders that apply to the running of the House. They do not apply to the operation of the Executive as an Executive, which is outside my remit. Therefore I cannot respond in that regard.

Given that the Member and some of his Colleagues have taken the matter to court for resolution, they have made it clear that their understanding is that such matters must be addressed by due process through the court rather than through a ruling by the Speaker. His Colleagues, having taken the matter to court, have recognised that it is outwith my authority to rule on that matter.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify that it would not be possible to designate someone to act as First Minister after another person has stood down as First Minister, and that the letter of 29 June had to be submitted prior to 1 July?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can confirm that the Member is correct in that.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having confirmed to the House that the First Minister has resigned due to the failure of Sinn Féin/IRA to begin the process of decommissioning, can you also confirm to the House that both DUP Ministers are still in office, are still taking their salaries and are still in government with Sinn Féin/IRA?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I cannot confirm, nor is it my position to confirm, the reasons for the former First Minister’s resignation. I can simply confirm the fact that he has done so. The only other matter that I can confirm at this point — and I have already done so — is that, as required by law, the Deputy First Minister is no longer in office but continues to exercise the functions of that office, as the nominee, Sir Reg Empey, fulfils the functions of the office of First Minister.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, can you confirm that there now is no First Minister, no Deputy First Minister, no acting First Minister and no acting Deputy First Minister, but that there is a former Deputy First Minister, who may fulfil functions of the office of Deputy First Minister for a period of up to six weeks, and that there is a Minister from the Ulster Unionist Party who is carrying out the functions of the First Minister for that same period?

Secondly, Mr Speaker, perhaps you did not get the particular point that Mr McClarty made in raising his point of order. He was asking you to look at section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and, in particular, at that subsection which allows the Secretary of State to put forward to you a notice requiring you to move a motion for the exclusion of a Minister, Ministers or a party. Can you confirm that Mr McClarty is wrong if he assumes that the Secretary of State himself can do the excluding?

Can you confirm that the Secretary of State can ask you only to put the motion before the Assembly and that it would be the Assembly Members who would have to exclude and, therefore, that when the then Deputy First Minister indicated on radio yesterday that this was a path that the Secretary of State should follow, he must logically have been indicating a willingness, if the Secretary of State were to do it, for himself, along with his party, to support such a proposition during any discussion and debate that would take place?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has raised two or three questions, some of which I can respond to from the Chair. However, some of them require the views of Mr Mallon, and it would therefore be appropriate, as soon as possible, to give him an opportunity to say what his stance will be on this matter. I can simply say that it would be in order for him to continue to fulfil or exercise the functions of the office. On whether that is what he will choose to do, the Assembly must wait to hear what Mr Mallon says.

In relation to the comments on Mr McClarty’s point of order, I do try to respond directly to the questions that Assembly Members raise — which, I will admit, is a somewhat unusual discipline for a politician. The question raised by Mr McClarty was whether the two Governments could exclude, not whether a resolution of this House might exclude. I made the response, as the House will recall, that the two Governments have the ball at their toes, in that they can put through whatever legislation they choose.

In relation to the current legislation, on which the Assembly is founded, it is clear that exclusions take place by a vote of the House. That is the current situation. I cannot speak about whether the Governments will choose to do something different. If the Member refers to section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I can see nothing there that permits the Secretary of State to make an exclusion — it merely provides that he, as one of a number, may propose an exclusion. Members are familiar with that resolution procedure. Those matters should by now be relatively clear, and perhaps we can now move on to Mr Mallon’s personal statement.

Leaders of parties, or their nominees, will have a chance to make a brief statement in response if they choose.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Speaker —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Mr Pat Doherty was on his feet before Mr Mallon rose.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle. On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is further to Mr Maskey’s point of order. Given that the proposed Deputy First Minister is not here, how is the Assembly to know whether he is prepared to take up his duties?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The terminology is important. There is neither a proposed Deputy First Minister, nor a proposed First Minister, but simply a current Minister who is able to exercise the functions of those posts. It is not for me to determine. However, it should be clear — and this relates to an earlier point of order — that if the Member were not prepared to exercise the functions, it is now no longer possible for anyone else to be nominated. Does the Member wish to follow that point of order?

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

How do we know whether he is prepared to accept the duties, given that he is not here to say so?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am sure that the Member is not questioning the authority with which I made my remarks and gave my opinion. The Minister has been appointed in writing, and if he chooses not to take up that appointment, I must be notified in writing, otherwise the appointment stands.

I trust that the House will give Mr Mallon the opportunity to make his personal statement.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your permission to make a personal statement. I confirm that I did consult you — that is not, I hope, any reflection on my mental state of health — so that I could act in accordance with your guidance on personal statements. I make this statement out of respect for, and courtesy to, the Assembly. It is important that I clarify the situation as I see it.

Following the resignation of Mr Trimble, I no longer hold the office of Deputy First Minister. However, as the legislation provides, I will continue to exercise the functions of Deputy First Minister in the coming weeks to try to sustain the workings of the institutions.

I recognise the real contribution that Mr Trimble has made since devolution. However, I regret that he has chosen this time to precipitate this latest in a long series of crises. For the past three years I have witnessed with sadness a variety of efforts to hold the political process to ransom. Failure to commence devolution was matched, and has now been long and shamefully outlived, by failure to commence putting arms beyond use.

The blatant unwillingness of DUP Ministers to undertake the basic responsibility of ministerial office has been paralleled by deliberate efforts to wreck a carefully constructed institutional balance, particularly through a refusal to nominate Sinn Féin Ministers to the North/ South Ministerial Council. That the process remains — in difficulty but intact — reflects the fact that the agreement is owned not by politicians but by the people of Ireland, North and South, who overwhelmingly endorsed it.

Our duty is to the people we serve and, through them, to the agreement that they democratically endorsed. Every crisis and every interruption to the work of the institutions weakens our capacity to fulfil that duty. With duties come rights. As Deputy First Minister, I have worked to protect the rights of all. However, some want rights without responsibility. Some have not met their responsibilities under the agreement. In particular, three years and one day after this Assembly first met, weapons have still not been put beyond use by Republican or Loyalist paramilitaries.

Sinn Féin demands respect for its democratic mandate. I respect that democratic mandate. However, if Sinn Féin’s best endeavours to put weapons beyond use have borne so little fruit, it is clear that the IRA does not respect that mandate and the obligations that go with it.

The process that we are involved in should be about the legislative implementation of the agreement, but we have seen a succession of demands by Republicans and counter-demands by Unionists that go beyond it. Side letters have been written, and a series of secret deals have been entered into, to the detriment of the political process as a whole. Even so, they are never enough for either side.

No doubt, as we speak, further wish lists are in place or are under preparation for the next round of negotiations. The politics of demand for concessions needs to be overtaken by the politics of delivery on commitments made: delivery on putting arms beyond use, delivery on policing and delivery on the full and inclusive operation of the institutions.

We should all remember that the agreement is the only way that we can deliver a better future. It has already started to do so as regards enhanced provision for equality and human rights. We have developed a political consensus in the Executive and in the Assembly that has produced the first home-grown Programme for Government for over 30 years.

On this island we have better co-operation and shared actions under the North/South institutions that work for the benefit of the people of Ireland, both North and South. We have made progress in promoting investment and employment for people in the North of Ireland. Cynical party advantage must not be allowed to threaten the agreement, which was based on a collective understanding that mutual and diverse interests had to be recognised.

This is a personal statement, but the events that led to today have meant that I have ranged more widely than I perhaps should have. By continuing to exercise the functions of the Deputy First Minister, I will show my commitment to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I will work with Reg Empey and other Colleagues in the coming weeks. My challenge to those who claim to want the full implementation of the agreement is to act in a manner designed to secure that objective.

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

On behalf of Ulster Unionist Members, I thank the acting Deputy First Minister for his personal statement. It was measured and reasonable in the circumstances. He mentioned the timing of the resignation of the First Minister. The timing was not of Mr Trimble’s choice. The date was settled by the decision of the IRA that it would put arms beyond use by 30 June this year. That was the deadline, which the former First Minister accepted. If that event, which was well articulated by the acting Deputy First Minister — the putting of illegal arms beyond use in a way that gained the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland — did not occur, then the First Minister would resign. That was the timing of it.

I thank Mr Mallon for his tribute to the former First Minister’s contribution to making the Assembly a success and to the time and effort put in by Mr Trimble into the working of the Assembly and its Executive. On occasions like this we appreciate recognition being placed on the record, and I thank Mr Mallon for that.

Northern Ireland is now in a serious situation. We have ahead of us six weeks of difficult political timing. We need to have more negotiations, and the Ulster Unionist Party is committed to trying to ensure that the Belfast Agreement is implemented in full. That means putting all illegal firearms and arsenals beyond use by all illegal groupings. That has always been our objective, and we will work towards that. We hope that it may begin in the next six weeks. If so, progress will be made in Northern Ireland. If not, however, the next stage in political developments will be to consider the exclusion from the Executive of those parties who are linked with paramilitary groups that still retain their firearms and bombs, irrespective of the desire of the people of Northern Ireland as stated in the Belfast Agreement.

Today we have to confirm that the people of Northern Ireland welcome the Belfast Agreement and what has so far come from it. We have greater peace in Northern Ireland than we have had for many years. There are improved relations between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Those are all steps forward, but the job is not finished. The people want us to finish it. I hope that developments in the next six weeks will make it possible for the Assembly to continue. If not, however, the Ulster Unionist Party’s position will be that one party will have to be excluded from the Executive of the Assembly. That reality must be faced.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There are no Standing Orders in this regard, but it would not be unreasonable if any Members who speak as leaders, or as nominees of leaders, were to restrict their comments to certainly no longer than the time used by Mr Mallon to make his statement. Since he did that within six minutes, I trust that that would be the advised time for Members.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Do I have to take the whole six minutes?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Please do not feel under any compulsion of that kind. I was not making that suggestion in advance of your speech or because I was thinking particularly of you, but simply giving general advice.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful that you have protected my sensitivities.

I want to bring the House back down to earth. The present circumstances have been brought about because the agreement contained the seeds of its own destruction. Even though the House and its Members have refused to face up to that reality, it has now been unavoidably brought before them by the overwhelming vote of the Unionist electorate in recent elections.

As far as Mr Mallon’s comments about my party are concerned, let me make it clear that my party acted wholly in accordance with its Assembly mandate. Its Ministers acted in accordance with the mandate they received from the people and which has recently been endorsed by the people. Furthermore, I agree with Mr Taylor that the only way to advance our present circumstances is for a motion to be put forward to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA from the Executive. I had hoped — although he appeared to neglect to comment on it — that the outgoing Deputy First Minister was going to advance the comments he made on radio that he was looking to the Government to put forward in this Assembly a resolution to consider that matter.

Does the Member mean that if a resolution which was not promoted initially by Unionists were brought before the Assembly, he would be prepared to consider it if Her Majesty’s Government believed there to be no alternative?

If that is the case, I suspect that the earlier Her Majesty’s Government advises you of their intention to act under article 30 the better. Until Sinn Féin/IRA is removed from Government, the Executive will not follow the principle that only those who believe in democratic and peaceful ways forward can be members of it. While the Provisional IRA holds on to its weapons and keeps its terror machine intact, its partner, Sinn Féin, is not entitled to be part of the democratic process — never mind being part of Government. Until that moment arrives, Sinn Féin does not have a democratic mandate; it has a mandate to do wrong that should not be recognised democratically.

I urge those who have left office to recognise that the only way forward is the way stated clearly by the Unionist electorate in the recent election, and to act in accordance with that principle: only those who are exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means can be part of an Executive in Northern Ireland.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As the Member’s comments may have led to some uncertainty, allow me to clarify that a personal statement does not carry with it the opportunity to respond at the end to any comments that Members made.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A Cheann Comhairle. Tá Séamus Mallon anseo linn agus rinne sé ráiteas pearsanta. Níl an fear eile, David Trimble, anseo agus níl Reg Empey anseo. Níl ráiteas de shaghas ar bith againn ón bheirt sin. Rinne an tUasal Mallon a dhícheall ina phost mar Leas-Chéad- Aire. Ní aontaím leis faoi gach aon rud a ndearna sé ach sílim féin go ndearna sé a dhícheall sa phost sin.

I thank Mr Mallon for being here today and for making a personal statement. The outgoing First Minister and Reg Empey are not here; therefore, we cannot debate any of these issues with them. The Sinn Féin Chief Whip has been in contact with the other Whips to try to arrange a proper emergency debate on these matters as soon as possible. It is hoped that that will happen quickly.

I pay tribute to the former Deputy First Minister for the way that he did his job. I do not agree with much of what he said earlier, but I think that he did his best, in a difficult position, to discharge his functions with fairness and balance. He took issue with the IRA on the question of weapons: that is fair enough. That matter is between him and the IRA. However, the Member also accused Republicans of making demands that are beyond the Good Friday Agreement.

I can tell the House that as a party to the agreement I kept Mr Mallon’s party fully aware of any negotiations that I was involved in that perhaps Mr Mallon inadvertently was not involved in. There are many vexed issues. It is important to point out that each party has equal responsibility for these matters. No party can stand aside or above it, or try to dole out specific responsibilities to different parties. We all have an equal responsibility.

Mr Taylor, or indeed his Colleagues in the DUP, will threaten to exclude parties from the Executive over the weapons issue. I am sure that the former Deputy First Minister will agree that there is no basis for doing that. One of the problems that has put us in this position is the policy of exclusion which still underpins the current Unionist leadership’s position. What is all this about? This is about a crisis that the First Minister planned and announced last October in order to bring about the suspension of the institutions and to put the blame on Republicans.

The most important point to be made is that the current leaders of the UUP and the DUP are not prepared to live on the basis of equality with their Nationalist neighbours. They are not prepared to participate in creating dispensations that are based on equity, justice and equality. I know that that view does not represent the feelings of many Unionists with whom I work.

Where does the threat to the peace process and to the political institutions come from? The threat comes from First Ministers who behave unlawfully and then walk away from their responsibilities. The threat comes from Loyalists who on a daily basis use guns to shoot Catholics and use pipe bombs and blast bombs to attack their Catholic neighbours. Those people who are heckling me now are pitifully silent on those issues. The threat also comes from within the British system itself, from those who want to return to the old days.

We are in a crisis. The British and Irish Governments must accept the fact that those of us who live in this part of Ireland are no longer prepared to have our rights and entitlements filtered through a prism of Unionism. The British Prime Minister currently has jurisdiction over this part of Ireland. Therefore, he and the Taoiseach have a responsibility to move ahead with all aspects of the agreement that they are obliged and able to deal with.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There can be no more ad hoc or crisis management. The two principal players must work together.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is right that every party in the Chamber should begin by paying tribute to the work that Mr Trimble has done over the past five to six years. We can all recognise the way in which he took his party forward and participated in the talks process. The way in which Mr Trimble led his party into this institution has taken the party further forward than any of his predecessors have.

We can understand the frustrations that Mr Trimble experienced in recent years. There is no doubt that the failure of Loyalists and Republicans to live up to their obligations to remove arms and put them beyond use has created enormous difficulties. Of course, that has not been the only difficulty. Unionists perceived that the SDLP refused to move on the issue of policing, and that has been equally difficult to deal with. Others can point the finger back at Unionists for their actions. Although I still believe that the agreement has brought this society closer to peace, one has only to listen to the comments in the Chamber this morning to know that we are every bit as far away from reconciliation as we ever were.

Mr Trimble’s resignation may be understandable because of his frustration. However, there is no doubt that that has been deeply destabilising to the entire process. There is no way that we can make progress as a political society in Northern Ireland unless we operate on the basis that parties must meet as equals around a negotiating table. The unilateral ultimatum, whatever its concerns may have been, merely appears to others to be a way for the UUP to work out its fears about the electoral process. It did not appear to be a real attempt to get the process working.

We can take some heart from Mr Mallon’s earlier comments in which he seemed to suggest that the way is now open for a proper and truly collective approach to getting the process working again. It is up to the two Governments to convene that process, but it is also up to each party to play its part in bringing that process forward openly and honestly. We should all look to ourselves, as well as to others, to firmly live up to the obligations that we undertook in the agreement.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

As I listened to the recriminations and counter-recriminations being fired across the Chamber, I was reminded of Shakespeare’s words, " O what a tangled web we weave" — [Interruption]

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

It was Sir Walter Scott.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Thank you. I bow to the greater knowledge of Mr McCartney. It is always good to have a QC working beside you.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Chair is here to correct matters of order, not literature.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

A "tangled web" was woven by Mr Trimble and the Prime Minister when they presented the Belfast Agreement to the electorate on the basis that it would offer decommissioning, peace, stability and reconciliation in the community. When we look at what is happening in the Chamber today we can see exactly where it has brought Northern Ireland in political terms.

Mr Trimble and the Prime Minister presented the Belfast Agreement for endorsement by the electorate on the basis that those who were fronting organisations inextricably linked to terrorism of any nature could not be in Government in Northern Ireland governing people they have terrorised for the last 30 years.

We watched the May 2000 deadline come and go. That was no surprise to those of us who had pointed out to the electorate at the time of the referendum that there was no requirement or commitment in the Belfast Agreement for Sinn Féin to do anything about decommissioning.

It is a sad pitch that we come to today. I listened to Mr Mallon’s comments and to Peter Robinson’s question of just how much store we can set by Mr Trimble’s resignation. There is a riddle in Northern Ireland: when is a resignation not a resignation? When it is delivered by Mr Trimble or Mr Mallon.

Over the coming weeks, no doubt, there will be some attempt by Her Majesty’s Government and the parties to the agreement to cook up another load of fudge to get around this difficult and thorny issue of decommissioning. People in Northern Ireland know that Mr Adams and his cohorts in Sinn Féin/IRA will never hand over one gun or one ounce of Semtex, because they have made it clear throughout the process that it is not their intention to do so. They have made clear their belief that they are legitimately entitled to hold those weapons.

It is rather peculiar to witness the Dublin Government’s antics, its road-to-Damascus experience, and Mr Mallon’s crocodile tears as they watch Mr Adams and his cohorts inflict severe damage on their political set-up. Mr Mallon and the SDLP have the most to be ashamed of. When Mr Adams and his cohorts were holed up in west Belfast, in an organisation that was staring defeat in the teeth as a result of the gallant efforts of the RUC and the Army, Mr Mallon, Mr Hume and their colleagues breathed life into them through the Hume/Adams talks that brought about this sordid mess which we now call the "peace process".

It will be no loss should the Executive collapse. In Northern Ireland we need — and Unionists need it very quickly — the ability to present people here with the chance to see proper democratic institutions replace this sorry farce. I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland has proper institutions which are not corrupted and polluted by people sitting in Government who are inextricably linked to terror.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

I appreciate the efforts made by Mr Trimble. He acted against a very difficult backdrop, and we have all been aware of those circumstances for a very long time.

He did something that was unbelievable in the context of the Northern Ireland in which I grew up. He did it against a backdrop of bitterness and anger, not from those he had to negotiate against, but from those on whose behalf he was negotiating.

We watch Macedonia, Sri Lanka and other areas of conflict on our televisions and wish — indeed pray — that they will find peace. However, we seem to luxuriate in the brutal bitterness into which generations of our children are born, and we use morality as a comfort blanket. People may well continue to espouse the theories and opinions espoused by those who ran away from the negotiation process, when Mr Trimble had — to use an Americanism — the cojones to stay.

We are now faced with choices. Whether Mr Trimble made the right or wrong decision is, from this point on, neither here nor there. We are undoubtedly in a crisis: anything dated 1 July in Northern Ireland is bound to herald a crisis. However, out of the crisis may come opportunity. Those of us who were prepared — and proud — to take a step forward and negotiate the Good Friday Agreement walked away from each other when we came out of Castle Buildings. We said goodbye to each other, but we did not have in place a process to implement the Good Friday Agreement. If any leader is in trouble, the process of peace and politics is in trouble. Rather than lean on each other like the tent poles of a wigwam, all of which will fall if one is taken away, we ran off to our respective constituencies trying to sell parameters for functioning that were mutually exclusive.

The issue of decommissioning was created by Unionism and the British Government to try to understand the intent. Having stepped forward and shown readiness to negotiate, they legitimately asked "Are these people genuine, are they real? Can it be that our society might find a way to live with itself? If it is true, I must know in my heart that it is true." They picked the wrong subject. They were saying "Give me 100% of your guns. No? Well, give me 90% or 50% or 20% or 5%." I am convinced that if the IRA were to place 5% of its weapons here before you, Mr Speaker, those people would accept that, even though 95% of the guns could still be used. Indeed, with the help of a productivity manager, the IRA could even get more than 100% effect from them. I would have preferred it if the question had been one of appreciating whether the IRA’s ideology fitted the new dispensation. There has been no public, unequivocal statement of that. That is why we are in the trouble that we are in now. Unionists worry that the Rolls Royce of terrorist machines has laid down its weapons to follow its political path but is still wedded to those weapons.

What would have been a better subject? Mr Trimble could have argued — and Mr Mallon could have assisted him — that the IRA needed to tell the world that the war was over. I have argued for that. That would have made a difference to Unionists. A curtain should have been brought down on the past, without the need for inquiries that by their very nature are one-sided. The Unionist people, among whom I live, are in serious dismay. I have watched Republicanism — even Nationalism — luxuriate in that dismay.

I will return to the theory that if one leader in the peace process is in trouble, we are all in trouble. It should not be forgotten that the one group which increased the expectation that IRA weapons would be put beyond use was the IRA itself. The IRA made a statement, and it was assisted by Sinn Féin in giving an explanation of it. However, no one explained the caveat included in that statement that decommissioning would be carried out in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict. The only cause of conflict that I have ever heard expressed by the IRA has been "Brits out". Explanation and understanding is needed; either the guns are over or the war is over.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I also regret that on such a warm and beautiful day we have to come in here to such a cold and dismal atmosphere. I regret that the Deputy First Minister had to make today’s personal statement and that our First Minister has tendered his resignation. Those two posts are interdependent, and we will not resolve this problem until we acknowledge our interdependency. It is time to stop bringing problems to the table and to start bringing solutions. It is probable that we would never have reached an agreement in the first place had we continued to bring problems to the table.

On occasions such as this, a partnership might have been more effective than a plan. We have a good plan but, as Mr Ervine said, we lost the partnerships that helped to create that plan. Over the next few weeks we need to recommit ourselves to full-time negotiations. This is not a part-time peace process; it requires full-time dedication to what should be inclusive round-table negotiations. There should be no discovery afterwards of side deals that were agreed when the rest of us were not present.

That is partly the reason for our present situation. Had the process been slightly more transparent and accountable, we might not be in this crisis. However, we have been here before, so perhaps we can again get through this process of crisis management to achieve conflict transformation and one day soon — but it does take time — conflict resolution.

Over the next few weeks it would be useful to agree a definition of normalisation, because although we all speak English, each of us needs a translation of the term. If normalisation consists of demilitarisation, it also consists of taking arms out of use and putting them beyond use. If we are to speak about a normalised society, we must all agree a definition of law and order. Not only have we not yet dealt with that problem, we have neither defined nor named it.

We have perhaps a final opportunity over the next few weeks not only to confront and challenge each other about how to resolve that problem but to support each other in finally putting back in place the plan and the partnerships.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Some of the contributions made in response to Mr Mallon’s personal statement have oscillated between utter hypocrisy and total farce. Political representatives of some of the most murderous terrorist organisations made contributions as if they were an amalgam of the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa. Séamus Mallon tells us that we are enjoying a period of peace and tranquillity as never existed before, yet everyone wakes up each morning to a litany of murderous brutality — shooting, maiming and robbery.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Carried out by Loyalists.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Yes, carried out by Loyalists — and carried out in £4 million heists that have the approval of the IRA high command. I hold no brief for any of those people.

Let us talk about the fundamental principles and why these institutions are inherently unstable. They are unstable because they are undemocratic. I hear Seamus Mallon talk about respecting Sinn Féin’s mandate. Does Mr Mallon understand anything about democracy? You cannot participate in the democratic process while committed to, and inextricably linked with, those wedded to violence of any kind — Orange, Green, Loyalist or Republican. That is the fundamental principle of democracy.

Sinn Féin should not be in the Assembly or the Executive. They claim to have a mandate, but one thing is clear — you cannot have a mandate to do wrong. Hitler had a National Socialist Government on the basis of a popular mandate — a Government, not just a party. Mr Milosevic, who is now lodged in a prison at the Hague for wrongdoing, had a mandate from the Serbian people for his actions. Sinn Féin aka IRA cannot have a mandate to participate in democracy while they are wedded to violence. The party should not be in the Assembly because democracy cannot coexist with terror.

It is utterly wrong to suggest that they should not be here because of the terms of the Belfast Agreement. I share, and have always expressed, the view that the Belfast Agreement, which was signed up to by the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party, never contained any sanction imposed on Sinn Féin to deliver decommissioning by 22 May 2000. The fudge, which was agreed to by all of the so-called democratic parties, was that Sinn Féin was there on exactly the same basis as all of the other parties. They were committed under the Belfast Agreement only to use such influence as they might have to bring about decommissioning by that date.

There was a far bigger, a far stronger, and a far more fundamental reason for excluding members of Sinn Féin: they are not democrats. They are the frontmen for terrorists, and each day that they adhere to their determination not to decommission their weapons, they confirm that they are not democrats. They emphasise that they are terrorists essentially, as do the Loyalist parties that are represented here: they are absolutely no different and are equally as murderous and detestable.

The good democrats here in the form of the pro- agreement parties — the posturing whited sepulchres of the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition — hobnob with them. They work with them. They consider that they are the midwives of the agreement. They breastfeed terrorism. We must address the real question of democracy.

I have heard many plaudits for Mr Trimble and his good relationship with the Deputy First Minister. Everyone knows that the relationship has been poisonous for the last two years. That is the element of hypocrisy: Mr Ervine provides the element of farce.

Unless we begin to recognise the basic principles of democracy and until Mr Mallon is prepared to do what he said in November 1998 and put those terrorists out of business, insofar as this is a democratic process, there will be no future prospects of any value for the Assembly. Get down to basics; be honest; tell the people the truth, and stop posturing.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking clarification of the role of the Committee of the Centre, now that we do not have a First Minister or a Deputy First Minister to monitor. We are due to hold a meeting on Wednesday to arrive at our conclusions about the Single Equality Bill. Will it be in order to hold that meeting? What is the situation in relation to the junior Ministers? Are they carrying out their functions without the trappings, or are they now defunct?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Committee monitors the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That office, and its officials, are still in place. It would be wrong for the Committee to default on monitoring the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I am not aware — and, in reading section 19 of the 1998 Act, can see no reason to believe — that the junior Ministers cease to hold office in these circumstances. There are other circumstances in which the junior Ministers cease to hold office, but unless someone can point out otherwise, it does not seem to me that they cease to hold office in these circumstances. There are still Ministers or Members of the Assembly continuing to carry out the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — not holding office, but exercising the functions. It would be remiss of the Committee of the Centre, or of the Assembly as a whole, not to continue to monitor that and to hold it to account.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Poots has raised a question that demonstrates the problem for Unionists who declare that this body is dead, but still want to play with the corpse. Mr Poots and his Colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party would be better to withdraw from all of the Committees and bring this charade —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is clear that that is not a point of order but a political point. Let us now move on.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to a previous ruling, and draw your attention to the comments of Mr McCartney. Will you study his remarks as reported in Hansard and make a statement to this House at an early opportunity?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Which particular point in Mr McCartney’s speech —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

He pointed in the direction of my party and said "these terrorists" when he was talking about exclusion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In respect of rulings on parliamentary language, I have said before — and it is clear in ‘Erskine May’ — that where mention is made of individuals, matters become unparliamentary. When mention is made of groups of people, that is not necessarily unparliamentary. However, I shall study what was said and will make a ruling in the House if necessary. In any case, I will respond directly to the Member, even if it is not necessary to make a ruling.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In making your judgement on this issue, could you bear in mind those who listen in on these proceedings? In some cases, very dangerous people may take a particular lead from ill-advised comments. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I cannot hear what the Member is saying.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I am thinking particularly of the ongoing Loyalist campaign.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take cognisance of the matters raised by the Member. Since he has pressed me on the issue, I must draw his attention to the fact that where comments are made which have a legal basis in terms of convictions under due process, and refer to a number of members of a group of which no particular Member is pointed out, it is extremely difficult to rule them unparliamentary. I cannot see any way that one could rule that unparliamentary. It may be that such matters do not refer to all the Members of the group — and that may be the case for the Member who raises the question, for example — but that does not necessarily render the matter inadmissible or unparliamentary. I will study the matter and respond to the Member, even if it is not appropriate for a ruling in the Chamber. [Interruption]

The Minster has been extremely patient. I will take a couple more points of order, and then we must leave it.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Further to what my Colleague has said — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Further to what my Colleague has said, it is a matter of public concern that statements — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— that statements made, and language used, in this House, at a time when Nationalists are under attack by Loyalists — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member will resume his seat.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— can lead to the deaths of innocent Nationalists and Catholics in this community.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is the case that Members from either side of the House may make mention of things that increase the temperature. I can rule only on questions of whether they are parliamentary, unparliamentary or in order. It is not a question of the content of speeches.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

And the effect?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is not possible for me to rule on what may or may not be the effect of speeches outside. However —

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Inside the House?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The effect outside the House was the one to which I think the Member was referring. Of course, he is right to draw attention to the House that what is said and done here does have an effect outside, and may have an untoward effect. It is appropriate for all Members, in their words and actions inside and outside the Chamber, to keep that very much to the fore in their minds. The Member in drawing attention to that fact is of course entirely in order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am acutely aware of the sensitivities that I have possibly offended — though since I spoke extemporarily, I have no recollection. If it assists, I am willing to amend what was alleged when I referred to terrorists, to the political representatives of terrorists. I would not wish any of those wicked, ill-advised people who might hear things outside to do any injury to terrorists, former terrorists, political representatives of terrorists or any other person of any description.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. We cannot take any more time over this matter in the Chamber. That is a clear offer from Mr McCartney that he, and some of the other Members, may clarify between each other as to exactly what is being said. That will have to take place outside the Chamber.

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

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If Members wish to leave and not to hear this important statement, will they please do so quietly. I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector held on 22 June 2001.

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

The fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector took place on Friday, 22 June 2001, at the Loughs Agency’s headquarters in Prehen. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Sam Foster and I represented Northern Ireland. Mr Frank Fahey, Minister for Marine and Natural Resources represented the Irish Government. The Executive Committee noted the papers for the meeting during the week commencing 18 June.

The meeting opened with updates from the chairman of the board of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, Mr Peter Savage, and the chief executive of the Loughs Agency, Mr Derick Anderson.

The chairman referred to the significant contribution that the introduction of the salmon carcass tagging scheme is making to curb illegal fishing, particularly in the Foyle area. The scheme was introduced on 14 May as a conservation and protection measure requiring the tagging and recording of all wild salmon and sea trout caught by licensed commercial fishermen and anglers.

The chief executive elaborated that the response from the fishing community to the introduction of the scheme has, by and large, been excellent. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that buyers will not accept untagged salmon. The chief executive also advised Ministers of details in relation to this season’s fish runs, as evidenced by data coming from the fish counters at Sion Mills and on the River Finn. On the basis of this season’s data to date, stocks are looking healthy, and therefore regulations may permit an extension of the fishing season by a week.

We also heard about coarse and shellfish fishing activity. The agency has initiated surveys of the coarse fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas, including the Newry canal, with a view to their future development as angling venues. While the mussel fishery in Foyle continues to develop well, and Carlingford had an excellent season, indications suggest that limited seed mussels are present in Carlingford, and landings are liable to drop over the next two to three years.

Wild oyster landings in the Foyle were average last season, and surveys undertaken by the cross-border aquaculture initiative team indicate similar landings for the forthcoming season though there are concerns about stocks for 2002. Japanese oyster production in Carlingford is stable at about 600 tonnes per annum, though developments on the County Down shore should increase this significantly.

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

Work is ongoing to bring forward a marine tourism strategy for the areas. While the strategy is not fully developed, the agency is working to consolidate angling guides for the areas, to develop training courses for hospitality providers and to clarify the existing complicated licensing system.

The agency has also resumed enforcement and protection duties that had been curtailed during the foot-and- mouth disease crisis, and work on pollution detection and prevention is ongoing.

I am satisfied that the Loughs Agency continues to deliver on its objectives in a committed and enthusiastic manner. It was gratifying to note the enthusiasm with which the agency’s good work was received by Minister Fahey, who recognised that the agency’s first-class management information is worthy of emulation by others.

The Council considered the agency’s proposals for targeting social need (TSN) through the provision of educational opportunities for schools, the promotion of the agency’s interpretive centre, the improvement of angling facilities and the development of marine tourism. The Council approved the agency’s draft TSN action plan for public consultation.

The Council noted the agency’s annual report for 2000, which will be published in due course. It also noted the agency’s proposals to draw up a co-ordinated local aquaculture management system (CLAMS) for regulating and managing the shell fisheries of the loughs and welcomed the agency’s proposal to commission a survey of local views, concerns and proposals in that vital area.

The Council approved the agency’s proposals for arrangements to consult with fisheries and other interests in the areas. These involve setting up an advisory forum and focus groups to represent interests such as aquaculture, conservation and tourism. Recruitment for membership of these groups will be undertaken independently and will start soon.

The Council then considered and approved additional expenditure of £81,000 to allow the agency to complete work on its new headquarters.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

No points of order are taken during or after a Minister’s statement. They will be taken after questions.

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

Sufficient provision already exists in the Agriculture and Rural Development Department’s budget to meet that extra need. The Department was also advised of plans to complete the interpretative centre, the shell of which has been completed within the new headquarters. The agency will bring forward detailed proposals at a later date. Ministers were also updated on progress in transferring the functions of the commissioners of Irish Lights to the body.

The Council agreed to meet again in the autumn. It approved a joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Assembly Library. I am making this statement on behalf of Mr Foster and myself.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I refer her to the third sentence from the end of the statement which says

"Ministers were also updated on progress in transferring the functions of the commissioners of Irish Lights to the body."

Will the Minister update the House on such progress?

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

The legislation to transfer the functions to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the United Kingdom, and the Irish Government. It is not a straightforward matter and will take some time to work through. However, progress is being made. There are unique funding arrangements for the commissioners of Irish Lights through the general lighthouse fund, and it is necessary to ensure proper accountability for that funding.

The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions is concerned about the level of funding from the Irish Government, but that, as the Member will be aware, is a matter for the UK and Irish Governments.

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

I welcome the Minister’s detailed statement on the advances made in the Loughs Agency. I refer to the comments she made about the Council’s approval of agency proposals to have consultative or advisory focus groups. The Minister will be aware that there are conflicting interests around the shores of Carlingford Lough. On the County Down side of the lough, the Carlingford Loughshore Owners’ Association have rights, as do the Mourne shellfish group, Aquamarine Cultivation.

Will the Minister indicate what further action she will take to reconcile these difficulties? Can she expand on the consultation which is going to take place and tell us when the forum or focus groups will be set up?

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

I am aware of the conflict and the difficulties that arise. The Loughs Agency has proposed the establishment of an advisory forum and focus groups in which local fishery interests will be represented. The focus groups will be established for specific areas including conservation and protection, development of aquaculture, development of inland fisheries, development of marine tourism and customer service. They will input to the work of the advisory forum.

The agency has retained consultants to recruit members to the forum and the focus groups independently so as to ensure that all interests are represented. The aim is to have the groups active by the end of the summer.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The point I was trying to make, Mr Deputy Speaker, was that there was a page missing from the copy of the Minister’s statement we were given this morning. Unfortunately, as the Minister was speaking, many of us were not aware of that. The statement went from page one to page three. We cannot do anything about it now. I did take note of the Minister’s —

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

Page two is on the back of page one.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

With great respect, Minister, it is not on the back of page one of my copy, which was one of those that were handed out earlier. We followed the Minister’s comments, and we made note of them.

The statement says that it is becoming increasingly obvious that buyers will not accept untagged salmon. Can the Minister indicate what evidence there is to support that? Can she further confirm that the run of salmon has improved, and, if so, by how much? What consultation has taken place with fishing organisations to permit an extension of the fishing season for one week? Would it be appropriate to extend the season by more than one week? Page two of the statement referred to —

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

By my count that was five questions, Mr Shannon.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I think it was two, although I am a very bad mathematician.

I have a quick question if you will let me ask it, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about the co-ordinated local agricultural management system (CLAMS). Does that include Strangford Lough, and if so, what consultation has taken place with local fishing organisations and individuals who depend on that for their livelihood?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Minister, I will leave it to you to decide whether you wish to answer all of those questions.

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

To be honest, I had some difficulty hearing all of them. The answer to the last question is no.

As regards tagged salmon not being saleable, I cannot go into detail about that; I have to take the Lough’s Agency’s word for it. They informed us at the meeting that the information they were gleaning was that only tagged salmon were being accepted and that there was difficulty in selling poached salmon. So far this season the agency has seized more than 80 illegal nets, two boats and a number of salmon in the Foyle area. Recently, the agency enforcement activities have had to be curtailed, as the Member will appreciate, because of the foot-and- mouth disease situation.

The agency has recruited 11 temporary staff over the summer period to increase its protection effort. The salmon carcass tagging scheme will help reduce the level of poaching in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Evidence of a decrease in poaching is already being shown. Last year, the Loughs Agency seized 126 nets and 222 salmon in the period from 14 May to 21 June. In the previous year 103 nets and 64 salmon were seized during the same period. This indicates the success that the Loughs Agency has had in counteracting poaching.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, and in particular its reference to the focus groups and their work. The work of the cross-border bodies is important, as it involves people from both sides of the border in the future of all-Ireland fishing. The Minister mentioned Lough Foyle, Lough Erne and other inland fishing areas subject to concern about the relationship between stock levels and tourism. Will the remit of these focus groups include the ability to deliver future benefit to tourism from increased stock levels of salmon? That is a real problem in Fermanagh and for other inland lakes.

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

I thank Mr McHugh for his question, but I must advise him that we are dealing with the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, whose remit does not extend to matters regarding Lough Erne. That is a matter for Mr McGimpsey, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It is not within my remit to deal with Lough Erne.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I am curious about the fish counts in Sion Mills. Is it correct that the Glenelly, Owenkillew, Strule and Mourne are still closed to fishing? If so, when might these rivers open again? I understand that they were closed due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

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

Due to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak these rivers are still closed. However, these restrictions are under review. We have published guidelines explaining to anglers that where there is no contact with livestock it is all right to resume fishing, and that fishermen should do so in consultation with local farmers to reassure themselves.

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

Over the past year there have been several savage attacks on bailiffs in my constituency of West Tyrone. Everyone must condemn these attacks. The Minister has already referred to my question. What action has been taken by the Loughs Agency to counteract poaching activity in its area?

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

I agree with the Member’s remarks, and I repeat that it is regrettable that people carrying out their duties have been attacked. I enquired at the last meeting of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC) whether there had been any further attacks and was advised that none have occurred in recent times. That is good news.

Poaching activity has decreased in the area of the Loughs Agency. I have already given the figures which indicate clearly that the salmon carcass tagging scheme is up and running and is making the market unprofitable for salmon poachers.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that while Japanese oyster production in Carlingford Lough is stable, there is a need to improve our marketing of that product for export? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the local fishermen who have invested a great deal in Carlingford Lough will not be undermined in the future negotiations involving the focus groups that she is setting up?

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

Part of the agency’s strategy will be to improve the management of the stocks, and marketing the stocks will be part of that. The agency is in the business of developing the commercial asset of the loughs. I can assure the Member that the interests of locals will not be undermined. There will be full consultation through the focus groups, and local interest groups will form part of that consultation.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Can the Minister expand on her comments about angling at Newry Canal? Can she tell us whether Newry and Mourne District Council — which is the owner, if not charged with responsibility for the canal — is being consulted on this matter?

The Minister stated that her Department will meet the cost of the additional funding required to complete the agency’s headquarters. Can she tell us whether this cost is being met from the appropriate budget heading — "intergovernmental and cross-border" — or is it being taken from another aspect of her Department’s funding? Were the proper procedures used? Was the contract tendered, and what was the full extent of the work involved?

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

There is ongoing consultation with Newry and Mourne District Council in relation to Newry Canal. The £81,000 funding for the headquarters is being met from within the budget.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

My question was specific. I asked whether the money is being taken from the budget already allocated for cross-border matters or from the Department’s main budget.

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

The money is coming from the cross- border budget.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The other element of the question was whether a proper procedure of tendering and consultation had been adopted. Can the Minister confirm that proper procedures were undertaken?

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

I assure the Member that the proper tendering procedure is undertaken at all times by the agency. That was done.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I share some of the fears expressed by other Members about how successful a tagging scheme can be in a river system, particularly in the Foyle. As Mr McMenamin said, the problem is not with the licensed fishermen but with those who take and kill salmon illegally in the Foyle.

My question relates to the marine tourism strategy, particularly in the Foyle basin. Has the Council considered the current proposals to establish a new ferry service connecting Donegal with the Limavady Borough Council area? Is it aware of that, and is it taking it on board? Will it be assisting with funding for the scheme, and will it be part of the overall marine tourism strategy?

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

I thank Mr Hussey for his question. Yes, that project is being considered. The Member may be aware that a marine tourism officer has been appointed to bring forward a marine tourism strategy. The FCILC has also set up a marine tourism subgroup, which has responsibility for bringing forward proposals to form the basis for that strategy. The question of a ferry service is being considered.

Public Expenditure: June Monitoring

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This statement is made on behalf of the Executive about public spending allocations in 2001-02 in the light of the June monitoring round. That monitoring round is our main opportunity to consider how to deal with the resources made available in this financial year through the carry-over of underspending from 2000-01. The Executive also have to distribute additional resources that were added to the departmental expenditure limit following the Chancellor’s Budget in March. There are also some savings that have already emerged on the basis of up-to-date information on the amounts required for some services.

As I have emphasised in previous statements on monitoring rounds, the main theme and purpose of such exercises is to adjust the allocation of resources in line with a better analysis of the cost pressures. We must ensure that the money is adjusted to take account of changes in the delivery of public services. The Executive also want to take account of the priorities and objectives in the Programme for Government and take any new opportunities to promote equality of opportunity. We must combine the pragmatic and the strategic.

The timetable for monitoring rounds is usually such that decisions must be taken and implemented quickly. Therefore, the Executive’s practice has been to reach decisions through discussions between Ministers, following which I will announce the outcome, on behalf of the Executive. The Executive are always open to proposals from the Assembly and the Committees, and those views can be taken into account in future monitoring rounds. However, it has not normally been possible to consult Committees directly about the process. Many issues require urgent consideration, so that the appropriate adjustments can be made to the planning of public services by schools, hospitals, Government agencies and grant- aided bodies. On this occasion, the Executive have decided to take that approach for a substantial proportion of the proposed allocations.

I shall announce some decisions on reallocations. However, for a variety of reasons, we wish to indicate that some of the resources require further consideration before the Executive reach a decision. Some decisions can be deferred for several weeks and others until the autumn. That makes it possible to link this exercise with our consideration of the next Budget cycle. It will also present an opportunity for the Assembly and the Committees, particularly the Committee for Finance and Personnel, to give views on the remaining proposals.

We must address the question of end-of-year carry- over. The Executive have decided that underspend on capital expenditure should be carried forward automatically by the Department concerned. That reflects the reality that the management of capital spending programmes frequently involves changes of timing that are outside the control of the spending authority concerned, when good management suggests that re-phasing or adjustment is the appropriate course of action.

The end-year flexibility arrangements allow spending authorities to deal with capital allocations in a more flexible and pragmatic way than would be possible if we rigidly applied the end-of-year constraint. The Executive support that, and end-year flexibility is automatic, subject to careful monitoring and assurance that the capital expenditure is in line with the proposals in the Programme for Government. The amounts involved this year on this heading are £30 million. Those resources will be retained by the relevant Departments and spending authorities. For technical reasons, the same applies to the small amount of underspending on the GP fundholders scheme, which is coming to an end.

The amount of end-year flexibility available for consideration this year amounts to some £52 million. That excludes the already mentioned capital carry-over and represents 1·2% of the departmental allocations. It reflects generally prudent estimating by Departments as they manage their spending towards the end of each financial year. Parliament and, doubtless, this Assembly, place considerable importance on ensuring that there is no overspend, which would involve expenditure exceeding the amounts authorised under legislation and through the Supplementary Estimates. It is therefore inevitable that public sector managers ensure that excess votes are avoided, with the corollary that there is always some underspending at this sort of level. Details are set out in table 1 attached to my statement. That £52 million is now available for reallocation.

Some additional resources from the Treasury are available and have not yet been allocated. Those comprise the £18 million which was added to the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit in the March Budget and £4·4 million from the latest round of allocations to the Chancellor’s capital modernisation fund. While those resources came from particular sources in England, they are available to spend as the Executive chooses, and we are not in any way constrained as to how we make use of them.

In this monitoring round, Departments have declared savings of £29 million compared to the allocations approved in the December Budget. The largest component of that is further receipts from house sales, amounting on this occasion to £15 million. Those are outside the estimates currently being approved through the Budget (No 2) Bill. We have a total of £104 million to allocate in this monitoring round.

I have frequently drawn attention to the constraints that we face in planning our spending. The availability of resources through savings of this nature should not in any way delude us — or anyone else, for that matter — that our spending programmes are not under considerable pressure. There are significant demands for spending on services which are badly needed and which would be of clear benefit to the public. In this monitoring round the bids for additional resources which have been lodged exceed the amount available by a factor of two. This pales into insignificance compared to the position report presented to the Assembly a fortnight ago, which showed that the amounts sought by Departments amounted to something like 20 times the amount available. That was in a context where we, as an Executive, encouraged Departments to be judicious in the levels of additional resources they sought for next year.

Given the pressure on resources and the wide range of aspirations which Executive Ministers and Assembly Members have in mind, we need to consider very carefully how best to use those resources. The Executive is conscious that there are resource pressures, both this year and next. We want to shift the emphasis of our financial planning to a better, forward-looking basis. There are significant disadvantages in making short-term reallocations, triggered by resources becoming available as the year progresses.

It is better to be able to plan resources on a longer-term basis and give spending authorities greater stability for planning purposes. Plans can change, and we need to be ready to respond to fluctuations in cost pressures.

One option that we have is to make use of some end-year flexibility, not in 2001-02 but in 2002-03. We cannot decide this now, as we need to keep an eye on a wide range of spending pressures in the current year. However, if it is possible, we would like to consider some carry-forward so that some of the spending pressures that were identified in the position report might be addressed next year. This in turn means limiting the extent to which we commit resources this year.

Of the total of £104 million that we have available, the Executive have decided to allocate some £63 million now. Details of the additional allocations are set out in table 2 in my statement. I do not propose to explain in detail each item of additional expenditure that we are allocating at this time. I will, however, indicate some of the more substantial or significant items.

The main additional cost to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is of course the cost associated with foot-and-mouth disease. We are having to fund £6·8 million from the departmental expenditure limit for the preventative measures and other associated costs. The costs of compensation for slaughtered animals, and so on, falls to the Treasury through annually managed expenditure and do not represent a cost in our spending plans. There are also additional costs associated with BSE testing that must be addressed urgently.

Additional allocations to contribute to Belfast’s bid to be the European City of Culture in 2008 have been agreed for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. There are also some additional staffing costs required for the Department.

Additional allocations totalling £14 million are provided for the Department of Education. That amount includes £7·8 million for teachers’ performance pay and £2 million for work to extend access for the disabled.

Additional requirements in my own Department amount to £2·4 million. That mainly reflects revised estimates of costs for the delivery of services including the cost of Government office accommodation and the delivery of some core functions. In addition, £0·7 million has been set aside to cover additional costs for the Special EU Programmes Body, which will need to be put for approval to the North/South Ministerial Council.

The new allocations include £6·3 million for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, or the Department of Employment and Learning as we will soon be calling it. This includes an important allocation of £3 million for the adaptation of facilities for disabled people in both further and higher education, which is vital if we are to fulfil our statutory responsibilities to those who need access to facilities which at present is difficult or impossible.

Health Service costs are again a major feature of this monitoring round. It is proposed to allocate £18 million to health services now to address some new cost factors including pay settlements at higher levels than expected and further transitional costs due to the situation at South Tyrone Hospital.

Members will recall that action was taken in the last financial year to address the issue of the trust deficits. The Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit (EPU) and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety also jointly commissioned a report from consultants on the background of the trust deficit issue and the possible implications for the current and future financial years.

We recognised that the deficits could be the result of a higher activity level in trusts than was provided for in the approved budgets, in response to urgent patient demand. In that context, action to adjust the trusts’ finances might not have been confined to the last financial year. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has lodged a bid for a further £10 million to address the trusts’ recovery plans. The Executive have decided to look at this again over the next few weeks, in the light of the conclusions of the Deloitte & Touche report on the deficit issue, which has just been received.

Additional allocations have been made to the Department for Regional Development for a number of essential and high-priority services. The purposes of these allocations include addressing increased costs from the climate change levy and oil prices, monitoring cryptosporidium, and dealing with costs that affect the water and sewerage service. A total of £4·2 million is being provided for the Department for Regional Development.

A major source of savings for redistribution in this monitoring round has been the additional capital receipts generated by the Housing Executive due to favourable conditions for house sales. That has led to a reduced rental income level for the Housing Executive, and we are providing £1·5 million pounds to the Department for Social Development to make up for that. That and other activities, including re-phased provision for welfare reform and modernisation, account for the Department for Social Development’s £3·6 million allocation.

We are allocating an additional £1·4 million to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is to ensure that the Executive’s agenda on human rights and equality can be pursued and that appropriate provision can be made for the Washington bureau, the Civic Forum and the Equality Commission.

There are further bids from Departments that we need to seriously consider over the coming months. Such is the pressure on our spending provision for next year that the Executive have decided that it might be necessary to forgo some of the bids this year so that additional uncommitted spending power can be carried forward into next year. The bids that we would defer for further consideration are listed in table 3 attached to the copies of my statement, which were given to Members. In particular, we will want to revisit the position on the health trusts when the consultants’ report on the deficit issue has been received and considered by the Executive.

Other significant bids might need to be addressed later this month, but many of the bids that are listed could still be reconsidered in the next main monitoring round. At that point we would need to make a final decision on whether to hold some money back from 2001-02 to be deliberately carried forward into 2002-03. We will have drawn out the Budget proposals for Departments and put them in draft form for the Assembly by that stage. The proposals will be based on the level of resources that are available for 2002-03. We need to proceed on that basis, because at this stage we cannot be sure that it will be possible to carry any provision into 2002-03. If it is possible, we might be able to adjust the draft Budget.

If it is possible to adjust the draft Budget, the Executive will wish to take full account of the views of the Assembly Committees and of the outcome of wider consultation. The decisions that we need to take on those issues will be strongly influenced by what we hear from the Assembly Committees during the next few months. I will look, in particular, to the Finance and Personnel Committee to advise and assist on these difficult and interesting issues.

It would be helpful to hear views on the nature and merit of the deferred bids, which we must return to in the autumn, and, in some cases, earlier. It will be interesting to hear views on whether we should carry forward any spending provision into next year. Members’ reactions to the range of issues set out in the position report published last month will be highly influential. It is easier to see the necessity of addressing some of those bids than to find resources available to meet them.

There are real issues here, which the Assembly and the Committees should be in a position to carefully consider and influence. The Executive will consider some of those issues during July and will need to act clearly and directly in the autumn. I am not setting a deadline for comments from the Assembly Committees because the timing of the process is not ideal from the Members’ perspective.

The Executive is bringing this matter to the Assembly as early as possible, having dealt with the initial round of decisions urgently, in order to make it possible for the statement to be made today. We are giving the Assembly information on what has been decided and are seeking views and input into what has not yet been decided. I look forward to hearing the views of Members on these important issues now and over the coming months.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The debate must be completed by 2.30 pm; the sacred time for Oral Answers to Questions. I call Mr Francie Molloy. I suggest that the other eight speakers limit their remarks so that as many people as possible can speak.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. I will touch on some issues, as the Committee will have more questions for the Minister later today.

We note that £104 million has been made available to Departments through the Chancellor’s Budget, end-of-year flexibility and the savings from Departments. We also note that Departments have underspent by almost £30 million. That is quite a lot of money for reallocation, and it raises a number of questions that Committees will want to take up in a number of ways.

What areas and circumstances have delivered these savings? Are there fundamental flaws in the process that need to be addressed? What steps will the Minister of Finance and Personnel take to ensure that money has been allocated to priority areas?

In my constituency people comment that if the same amount of money had been put into the South Tyrone hospital as had been put into the transitional costs, the hospital might still be up and running. If we continue to pay off trust deficits, is there a danger that trusts will simply keep building up deficits and that we will have no control of the management of those trusts? It also raises the issue of the 8% rise in rates. In the light of the amount of money that is available for reallocation, we must look at the bids that were originally made.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for his questions, and I am sure that we will be able to pursue a number of them this afternoon.

The purpose of monitoring rounds is to identify resources available. It is good that we can identify resources that are available — it would be much more difficult if we found that resources were not available. As I spelt out in my statement, Departments want to avoid overspending — as a result they sometimes overestimate the amount they need. That is why we have some resources available at the end of the year.

We should not look at the moneys that are already available this year as some problem for which we pursue the Departments that have come forward with those moneys at this stage. We should recognise that the process of setting Estimates is not as straightforward as we would like it to be. Remember, the earlier we set the Estimates cycle in train — particularly at the request of this Assembly — the more speculative the Estimates are going to be. People will go more for fairly "broad brush" Estimates, and subsequently these will be subject to more revision and review, which is what we are seeing.

In relation to the South Tyrone Hospital, we have taken a decision based on a bid received in this monitoring round. Obviously, bids were received in previous monitoring rounds, and we are working on the basis of bids received. We recognise the significant pressure, and the Executive and I recognise the serious difficulties that would result from not meeting this bid as it has been put to us by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Regarding possible alternatives to this bid, I refer the Member to the Minister and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

I have already said that the Executive will be looking at trust deficits again. I note the concern that the Chairman has expressed, which is not removed from the concern expressed by some Members when last we looked at this issue. I would be happy if the Committee for Finance and Personnel, or indeed the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, wanted to address us with its thinking on those issues.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. A couple of points occur to me. In the bids for resources, three different Departments have put in for sums amounting to about £2·4 million to pay their fuel bills. I presume that this reflects an assumption about oil prices that proved optimistic, with oil prices being higher than anticipated. Nothing has happened to oil prices, so I further presume that they were expected to fall but did not. Can the Minister comment on that, and perhaps tell us what oil price was used in the Budget? Clearly, this could have an effect for some time. I would be interested to know what he thinks the further consequences of oil staying at about $29 to the barrel would be.

I also want to raise a point that comes up again and again here. We have another £15 million of receipts from house sales. We convert this capital into income — putting it into the spending pool. As a consequence, rental income to the Housing Executive falls, and we are forced to make an allowance of £1·5 million for that, implying a 10% yield on those houses. What are we going to do about the housing debt that still has to be serviced? Is it prudent for us to continue to convert capital into income in this way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This is not the first time that we have received bids in monitoring rounds to cover difficulties regarding oil prices, and it may well not be the last. If any Department, or non-departmental public body whose costs Departments are reflecting, were making assumptions in relation to fuel costs that did not stand up, then obviously we would need to look at that. However, people make assumptions on the basis of the price indications at the time the Budget is set — and that was last autumn.

It is part of that issue. The Estimates will not be perfect because not everything stands still. Not everything remains equal, and the earlier we make the Estimates cycle, as the Assembly wants us to do, the more variance there may be when it comes to out-turns.

As regards house sales, the right to buy exists. It was a particular problem in the past when the Housing Executive, as well as handing over the money from sales, had to withstand the loss of rental income. It is not unreasonable to make good that loss, and that point has been emphasised by many Members in the House, including some in the Member’s own party.

We want to try to reinvest in capital where we can do so. I have indicated that we need to look at the question that the Member has raised to see what is the best way of managing a facility that may lend itself to a better and more sensible approach.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the allocation made for the childcare subsidy for lone parents under New Deal. Can the Minister confirm that the allocation will further encourage single parents to enter the labour market and avail of economic opportunities arising, and that this is further evidence of our commitment to exclude no one from the benefits as we build a society based on equality, fairness and opportunity?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am happy to confirm that this is what the Executive are trying to do in meeting this particular bid. It should provide the Department with the necessary financial resources to meet claims for childcare subsidies during 2001. The Department for Social Development will be responsible for meeting those claims in the future. However, as regards our commitment to social inclusion, targeting social need and to making the most of New Deal with respect to our particular regional needs and opportunities, the Executive’s decision to meet that bid is a useful example of the value of devolution.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the facts and figures that he has given. The Minister posed several questions about carrying forward money. First, I would like him to consider the idea of being able to carry money forward, or give a guarantee that a project entered into can be sustained over a period of time. I am thinking of the Hayes Report, which recommends a hospital for the south-west of the Province. When it eventually arrives in Omagh, we are thinking in terms of £60 million. That money needs to be spread over time in order to purchase the land, the infrastructure and the bricks and mortar. However, the final and largest gulp of money is for the technology that will go into the building. How would that be seen in regard to financial and resource funding?

Secondly, another concern to every councillor in the west of the Province is the £15 million raised from house sales, which most of us agree should go back into housing provision to provide a modern stock of housing in the public sector at all times. Perhaps there is a budgeting arrangement whereby money is returned to the Exchequer. However, there should be some reward so that we can maintain a good level of public sector housing.

Thirdly, I noticed from the forecast figures that the Department for Regional Development is asking for £15 million to deal with the backlog of roads projects.

Four years ago, one council alone had a backlog of £32 million. If we add that to the other one in west Tyrone, that is a backlog of £64 million. That does not deal with road safety or necessary modern structural improvements. How is the Minister intending to finance —

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr Gibson, you are beginning to make a speech.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

How is the Minister intending to finance those works?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The Minister should reply to as much of that as he can in the time.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The first question was not particularly concerned with in-year monitoring. It would not be appropriate for me to answer, in the context of monitoring round decisions, questions about outcomes that might emerge from the Hayes Report, decisions that might or might not be made and how those decisions would be brought forward in relation to a possible new hospital in the south-west. I do not think that the questions I have raised about carrying forward some money that has fallen to us this year into next year to assist with the pressures in the position report are a relevant premise for the question that the Member asked.

In relation to house sales, the Member seems to suggest that whatever income comes in from house sales should all automatically go into the housing budget. All Departments and agencies are asked to bring forward budgets for the incoming financial year and to make their plans accordingly. The Budget that we set includes assumptions about income from house sales, just as it includes assumptions about rental income. If the money available from house sales increases significantly, then rather than automatically falling to the Housing Executive, it is right that it should fall to the block as a whole for us to decide its best use. Where income falls — as rental income falls because of house sales — the question can arise again, in relation to the block, as to whether we make good that fall in income. To suggest that added revenue should lie where it falls is unfair to those programmes that cannot generate revenue.

It is significant that the Member went on to talk about the £15 million bid for roads. It is an unusual coincidence that the extra revenue from house sales, which the Member is saying should automatically go to the Housing Executive and not be taken to the centre, is equal to the figure requested by the Department for Regional Development for roads. We would not have money available for other Departments to bid on if we chose the course that the Member recommended in the earlier part of his question.

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

I congratulate the Minister on his approach, especially as it creates an opportunity for the Assembly and its Committees, particularly the Finance and Personnel Committee, to have an input into the decision-making process for the remaining resources in October. Can the Minister confirm that this is a further step in the process of opening up the budgetary process, something that would have been unheard of in the days of direct rule?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is a reflection of the more open, and, I hope, more informed, approach that we have taken to financial planning considerations than would have been possible under direct rule. I recognise that the amount of money that we are talking about holding over for consideration in the autumn as to whether to allocate it this year or next is not huge compared to the overall Budget. Given that we will have little room to manoeuvre next year, as reflected in the position report, it is right to try to let the Assembly have a bit more of a hard shoulder to drive on than we would otherwise have. There are very challenging questions in the position report for the Executive and departmental Committees, but if we have some more scope in financial terms, it will give the Committees more scope for consideration and influence.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the movement toward greater flexibility and the opening of the doors that appear to have been hitherto locked in front of us. We are getting there, and some necessary steps have been taken.

There is £51 million in the provisional out-turn figure that has not been spent in the current year. Does the Minister agree that we have a golden opportunity to demonstrate that this is a caring Assembly? We should get away from having little boxes in which each Department locks its money. We should take decisions that show that the weak and vulnerable in our society — the sick and the elderly — are the number one priority. Much could be done by spending the £51 million now to ensure that the sick are not left on hospital trolleys in hospital corridors, that community care budgets are sufficient to allow elderly people — [Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Members should confine themselves to asking questions. The Member is making a statement. Please ask a question.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister agree that the needs of the elderly should have priority, that we should not have people on trolleys in hospital corridors and that there should be an increase in the community care budget now? We are faced with deficits in all the trust areas. Only recently, as the Minister is aware, we debated the underfunding in the Down Lisburn Trust. We know about the deficits. Rather than wait for a Deloitte Touche report, we should spend money to remove those deficits now, so that we can start afresh in the next financial year.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Close for his unusual welcome for my statement. I hope that his sense that our presentation is improving will be borne out by future developments.

The Member spoke about the amount of money that was left over from last year. I agree that we should be a caring Administration. However, we must also be a careful Administration. That means that we must ensure that we spend money wisely. If money does not need to be spent in the way that we had expected, it can be put to other uses.

Today, we are announcing the allocation of over £63 million, including £18 million to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, as well as funding for other key services. There are outstanding bids for other services, including further services in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We must address the issue of the trust recovery plans, but I remind the Member that we allocated money in a monitoring round in the last financial year to make good the problem of trust deficits. Indeed, the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel conveyed some concerns that that might become too much of a habit. An additional bid has now been received for trust recovery plans, and those plans are based on the avoidance of future deficits. We will take action in that area, and views of the kind that the Member has expressed can be channelled through the Committee for Finance and Personnel when it considers that question.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I note what the Minister said about the extra funding. Did the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety request additional funding for specialist drugs? A figure of £2·8 million has been set aside for that. How much money did the Department ask for? Did it ask for extra money to deal with waiting lists, for which £2 million has been set aside? I am presuming that that £2·2 million funding to address the waiting lists —

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr Shannon, this is the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Is it not obvious that your question should be directed to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I am asking the Minister how much money the Department of Health asked for in relation to waiting lists and specialist drugs. He should be able to answer that question.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

He is showing some willingness to help you.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Shannon is asking questions relating to table 3. Table 3 does not list the bids that are being met. Those are not the allocations that are being announced today. Table 2 gives the allocations that are being announced today as part of the £63 million. I have said that there are other bids that are not being met and that they will be deferred for wider consideration in the autumn, or in some cases, such as for the trust deficits and some other issues, later this month.

The amount that the Department bid for with regard to waiting lists and specialist drugs is exactly the figure that the Member read out. Those are the bids.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the resources that have flowed from it. Does he agree that the process of resource allocation in this devolved Administration should follow our needs and not just automatically follow on from what happens in Britain, thereby demonstrating the devolution difference?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree that we should make our own decisions according to our own needs. We want to make many of the changes and take many of the positive steps that are taking place across the water, but we have to recognise the needs of our own particular services. In some cases, particular costs and pressures arise, not just because of our demographic make-up, but also because we have economy of scale issues and a different administrative structure.

We should also remember that taking decisions according to our own needs is not just a matter of saying that we are jealous of our own discretion. It also means that we have to be hard-headed about the choices that we make for ourselves.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

There is an allocation of £63 million in this monitoring round. Does the Minister believe that the allocation made to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to meet the requirements of the elderly, many of whom feel neglected, with no money in community services, is sufficient? Could a further allocation not be made urgently to meet the need for residential and nursing home accommodation?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I refer the Member to tables 2 and 3, which detail the bids that we have received. In a monitoring round, the Department of Finance and Personnel, working with the Economic Policy Unit, can only deal with the bids that it receives. The same applies to the Executive. We have taken decisions on that basis.

I recognise that there are services in all Departments, not least in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which are under pressure. I hope that Members will work on the basis of the decisions that we have had to take, and the choices that we have made, in the context of the bids that we received.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Standing Orders provide for one hour for this debate. We have only two minutes left, so I am going to move on to the next item of business.

Local Government (Best Value) Bill: First Stage

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 19/00] to make provision imposing on district councils requirements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

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

Budget (No 2) Bill: Consideration Stage

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

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the six clauses of the Bill, followed by the three schedules, and the long title.

Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

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

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget (No 2) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Assembly: Suspension of Standing Orders

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That Standing Order 10(6) be suspended for Monday 2 July 2001.

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

Mr Campbell, there is some confusion at the Table as to whether you said "moved" or "not moved".

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the understanding that some 13 Members wish to speak, I begged to move the motion.

Question put and agreed to. (Cross-community support).

Resolved:

That Standing Order 10(6) be suspended for Monday 2 July 2001.

Regional Development Strategy

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That this Assembly takes note of progress on the formulation of the regional development strategy.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to report progress on the formulation of the regional development strategy (RDS). I thank the 10 Statutory Committees for their valuable contributions. I have sought to reflect their views, as far as possible, in the latest text of the strategy that I have made available to Members.

Before I detail some of the key themes in the strategy, it would be worthwhile by way of background to set out briefly the approach that has been taken. Essentially the strategy has been prepared with a commitment to achieving a strong, spatially balanced economy; a healthy environment; and an inclusive society that tackles inequalities across the socio-economic spectrum.

The promotion of sustainable development is a key theme running through the document. However, sustainability is much more than a commitment to putting the environment at the heart of policies. It is also much more than achieving an optimal approach to sustaining physical development that makes use of our existing infrastructure. Hand in hand with that must go a commitment to sustaining communities. That is why social and economic cohesion is at the heart of the strategy.

Long-term planning is a complex process. Reaching agreement on the shape and content of the strategy has taken time — some people would say an inordinate length of time. I would argue that it is better for that unprecedented consultation to have taken place. That investment has helped set the right long-term directions for the future development of Northern Ireland.

In the course of the consultation exercise, meetings were held with all district councils; workshops were held with approximately 100 groups; and a university- led community consortium held conferences involving 400 community groups. Separate conferences and seminars were held on themes relating to the economy, rural issues and youth. Many meetings were held with individual Departments, agencies and a wide variety of groups as well as individuals. The team was also advised by a panel of international experts.

The draft strategy came under the scrutiny of public examination — the first of this type to be held in Northern Ireland. That provided a further opportunity to help build consensus on the way forward for the future development of Northern Ireland. The public examination and the assistance of the independent panel enabled the regional strategic framework to be improved and strengthened in the best interests of future development.

The draft strategy was also considered in great detail by the Committee for Regional Development and the other Statutory Committees. Once again, I thank the members of those Committees for the way in which they went about their task and for the valuable and helpful contributions that they made to help me finalise the document.

At this stage it is normal practice for the Chairperson of the relevant Committee to lead off. However, the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, Alban Maginness, is absent today due to the death of his mother. I tender my consolation and condolences to Mr Maginness, and I am sure all Members join with me in that regard.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The strategy is firmly based on the principle of securing balanced regional development to assist all communities to realise their potential. The consultation has been inclusive and participative. Today represents a key stage in that process in allowing the House to offer its views on the formulation of the strategy.

The strategy provides the spatial context for strengthening the competitiveness of the regional economy, tackling social and economic disadvantage and protecting and enhancing Northern Ireland’s physical, natural and man-made assets. It provides a context for housing, transport, air and water quality, energy and waste strategies. It will provide for an optimal framework for infrastructure providers in the public and private sectors. It also provides the important context against which development plans will be produced and against which public and private investment decisions relating to land use will be made.

I will highlight some of the key themes of the strategy and comment on my responses to areas of particular concern to Members.

An issue that has exercised almost every Member is the need to set a challenging target for the development of housing in urban areas; in short, a target for brownfield development. There is a strong consensus that the Department for Regional Development should be more ambitious than the public examination suggested when it endorsed the principle of a drive for more brownfield housing.

I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by Members. The way forward outlined in the strategy responds in a positive, balanced and practical way to those concerns. We should seek to double the recent levels of development in urban areas between now and 2010. The level of housing development in urban areas over the past 10 years has been around 25% to 30%. The strategy signals that that level is inconsistent with the policy objectives that we set ourselves; we should aim to double that over the next 10 years. That will set an ambitious regional target of 60% up to the first review in 2010 without the risk of town cramming.

This target will be subject to monitoring, evaluation, and a five-year review in the light of the latest housing data. Ultimately the figures that will be achieved for individual settlements will be determined by urban capacity studies that will take place through the development plan process. This approach will be copper- fastened by the sequential approach in the development plan process. The search sequence will focus firstly on the reuse of previously developed land and buildings and consideration of undeveloped land within the existing urban area before consideration outside the urban footprint. This is the strongest policy mechanism for preventing the previous trend toward greenfield development.

The test means that, in selecting sites to meet an established housing need, the brownfield sites will be allocated before the greenfield sites are considered. I hope that the House will agree that this is a clear signal that we are serious about this issue.

I now wish to turn to two other issues on the theme of housing; overzoning and affordable housing. Both issues were raised by a number of Committees.

I listened carefully to both sides of the argument about overzoning. I have come down in favour of a modest allowance for overzoning, but this will be the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, I propose to make provision in the strategy for a limited level of overzoning up to a maximum of 10% as a contingency in those situations where a potential land difficulty is likely to arise.

I stress that the preferred approach is to identify possible constraints in advance and proceed on alternative lands without overzoning. I believe that this approach is broadly consistent with the line taken by the public examination and sensibly avoids the risk of unnecessary litigation.

I turn now to affordable housing. I want to refer to this issue as it was highlighted by the Committee for Social Development. I have made it clear in the strategy that there is a commitment to make provision for affordable housing particularly, but not exclusively, for first-time buyers and those on lower incomes.

The strategy encourages the development of balanced local communities. It is crucial that we ensure that new housing developments help secure a better social mix by maintaining a balanced planning linkage where needed between market and social housing. The creation of large areas of housing of similar characteristics will not be acceptable. Therefore, the strategy will promote social housing targeted to meet identified needs and require an appropriate provision in larger developments.

In the time remaining I wish to address four other areas in the strategy. I want to say a few words about the legal context of the regional development strategy. Under current law the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development are required to ensure that any area plan or development scheme is consistent with the strategy when it is formulated. Concerns have been raised that "consistent with" might introduce an unnecessary and undesirable inflexibility into the planning system.

Following receipt of an opinion from senior legal counsel, I have decided to promote amending legislation that would substitute a requirement that development plans and schemes must be in general conformity with the regional development strategy. I am satisfied that the proposed amendment, which I intend to sponsor in the next sitting, preserves the authority of the regional development strategy.

I want to turn to rural matters. The strategy is as much about rural areas as it is about urban areas. Rural communities must have the opportunity to realise their full potential, to develop in their own right, and to contribute more broadly to a prosperous Northern Ireland.

The strategy signals the importance of the work on the regional transportation strategy. The strategy’s vision is to have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy and the environment, and which actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life. The regional transportation strategy will be a daughter document to the regional development strategy, serving to implement a key strand of the strategy.

In the chapter on implementation I have tried to avoid being overly prescriptive or setting up new structural or legal arrangements that would cut across other departmental responsibilities. My approach is founded on four key principles. First, Departments must work together if the strategy is to be delivered coherently. Secondly, it will not be delivered without the buy-in of local key stakeholders, by which I mean district councils and the new emerging local strategic partnership arrangements. Thirdly, I recognise that the Government alone will not deliver this strategy; there is a major role for the private sector in our future development. Fourthly, our approach, by necessity, has to be sufficiently flexible to adapt and respond to change.

The underpinning principle of the strategy is that it must be seen to relate to people’s needs, now and in the future. Every part of the country, urban and rural, must be able to relate to the strategy. I believe that the strategy does precisely that.

I express my gratitude to the team of officials that prepared the strategy. The team leader was deservedly awarded the CBE for his tremendous service to planning. That award reflects the high esteem in which he is held.

I hope that Members agree that significant progress has been made towards the formulation of the regional development strategy. I welcome this opportunity to appraise Members of the stage reached and to seek assurance from the Assembly that the strategy is soundly based and provides the basis for its formulation.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Unfortunately, the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee is unable to be here because of a family bereavement. I tender both my sympathy and that of the Committee to him at this time.

Before responding to some of the issues addressed by the Minister, I extend my thanks and the thanks of the Committee to the Minister and his officials. In particular I would like to add to the Minister’s comments and extend my thanks to departmental officials for the manner in which they have so ably taken forward this major project. They have made themselves available to the Committee on numerous occasions, sometimes at very short notice. They have responded positively to the views and comments of all the Committees, and this is clearly reflected in the latest draft of the strategy.

The Department for Regional Development is to be commended for the unprecedented level of consultation that took place. The support of a panel of international experts, the public examination and the appointment of an independent panel has ensured a rigorous examination that has taken into account a wide spectrum of views, right across Northern Ireland. The extent of the consultation process reflects the importance of the regional development strategy to Northern Ireland. I hope that this extensive consultation process, which has taken account of many different interests, will help to ensure that the strategy is successfully implemented.

The document produced by the Department sets out the proposed strategy for the future development of Northern Ireland to 2025. The proposals aim to provide and sustain a high quality of life for all citizens in the twenty-first century.

As stated in the Programme for Government, this will be the framework for tackling the deficiencies of our infrastructure and for helping the overall development of our society.

It cannot be overstressed that the framework is not simply for the Department for Regional Development but for all Departments, as it will impact on a wide range of areas, such as environment, housing, rural development, tourism, business and employment opportunities. It is a framework that must overarch the work of all Departments. This strategy represents a golden opportunity to create a vibrant and cohesive society with a strong local economy, supported by excellent public services throughout Northern Ireland.

As the Minister rightly points out, a key concern of many of the Committees was the issue of the development of housing in existing urban areas known as brownfield sites. My Committee and others were greatly concerned that there was no clear target for brownfield development. Discussions on this topic went on until the eleventh hour. I met with the Minister and officials on 25 June, and officials attended the Committee meeting last Wednesday to discuss the matter further.

The Committee members pushed the Department very hard on this issue. It is vital to send a clear message to developers and to make the rules clear to planners, that brownfield options must be explored and exhausted before consideration is given to building on greenfield sites. In Belfast this means utilising brownfield sites and then, according to the strategy, developing out through the Lagan valley and the M2/Glengormley corridor. This is crucial to ensure that our cities and towns are regenerated and made much more attractive. The regional development strategy sets the rules for future planning, and it must be right.

I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the efforts that they have made, within tight deadlines, to revise the text of the document on the issue of brownfield sites. A target of 60% is now specified. That will be revisited in light of the urban capacity studies being carried out by the Department of the Environment.

I urge developers and planners to abide by the rules laid down in the document. Future local area plans will be based on this document. I also strongly urge my Colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to quickly process the urban capacity studies which will provide a database of all brownfield sites.

I trust that the Planning Division will take account of all brownfield sites, regardless of size, so that an accurate figure is reached. It is to be hoped that this will lead to figures in excess of 60% being achieved for urban development to accommodate the 160,000 new dwellings required over the next 15 years. I caution against limiting the scope of the database. I understand that there are some proposals to include only those sites with more than a 10-house capacity. This will suit the larger developer, because he will sooner get out onto the greenfield sites. The parameters of the database must be brought down, or it will not identify all sites available for brownfield development, particularly in the large cities.

I would like to touch upon the issue of overzoning. This was another area that exercised the Regional Development Committee. In the past, developers have been allowed to overzone a housing development by as much as 25% in some cases. The Committee was concerned that developers were treating overzoning as a standard planning practice. The major consequence of this practice has been sizeable encroachments onto the green belt. It was also noted that in England there was no allowance for overzoning. Following discussions with the Minister and his officials, the ability of developers to overzone has been greatly reduced. Although the Minister has limited overzoning to a maximum level of 10%, I am reassured that he regards this as the exception, rather than the rule. In the light of this, however, I ask the Minister to liase with his ministerial Colleague, Mr Foster, to ensure that stringent rules are put in place to assess developers’ requests for overzoning.

The Minister also referred to the need to provide affordable housing for first-time buyers and those on low incomes. This is to be welcomed. There has been a growing trend among developers to target the more affluent areas, as a means of maximising returns. We need to be conscious of developing a cohesive and inclusive society. This can be partly addressed by seeking to provide those at the lower end of the social scale with affordable and accessible housing.

I am pleased that the Minister acknowledged that a balance must be struck between rural and urban development. Indeed, the regional development strategy will undoubtedly play a critical role in rural development. Provincial towns and their rural hinterland are heavily dependent on good physical infrastructure and an efficient and effective public transport system in order to support local commerce and allow businesses to remain competitive and continue to grow.

Many Members felt that too strong an emphasis was placed on the Belfast metropolitan area, and references to other areas were simply a bolt-on to the plans for the Greater Belfast area. The Committee for Regional Development was of the view that the strategy must provide opportunities for all parts of our community and that there must be balanced development across all of Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to report to the Assembly that the Department responded positively to the Committees’ comments and subsequently made amendments to the document, including significant improvements to the section on Londonderry as the regional city for the north-west. There was also a notably stronger emphasis on developing the major provincial towns as main hubs, providing key public services and employment opportunities for both townspeople and the rural communities.

I caution, however, that the success of rural development, as with all other areas of the strategy, is dependent on how the strategy is implemented. That was a major concern for the Committee. There is little point in developing a plan if it cannot be successfully implemented. Other Departments must be fully committed to the strategy and play their role in its implementation. To this end, the Committee recommended that ministerial weight should be given to those tasked with implementation. I am pleased to note that an interdepartmental group, to be chaired by the Minister for Regional Development, will be set up.

I note the Minister’s intention to bring forward amending legislation, whereby development plans and schemes must be in general conformity with the regional development strategy, and his reassurance that that amendment will not dilute the authority of the regional development strategy. Given that all Departments, particularly the Department of the Environment, must fully embrace the regional development strategy, I seek assurance from the Minister that that will be carefully monitored and areas of non-compliance speedily addressed.

As a general plea, I urge the Minister and the Department to implement the strategy promptly, and for all other Departments, district councils and all others involved to fully and honestly play their roles in its implementation. I also urge the Department to press on with development and implementation of the regional transportation strategy, which will complement the regional development strategy and, indeed, is vital to it.

We must all look very critically at how the necessary funding for the regional development strategy is to be found. The Committee for Regional Development has examined the position report issued by the Executive Committee and will write to the Committee for Finance and Personnel on implications. It is clear that alternative means of funding must be found to ensure that the improvements to our roads and water infrastructure, and the transport system, can go ahead. The Committee for Regional Development will be carefully monitoring and examining progress on that issue.

Finally, I thank all Committees that provided constructive comments on the draft regional strategy. On behalf of the Chairperson, I want to pay particular tribute to the members of the Committee for Regional Development who have painstakingly examined and studied the various drafts of the regional development strategies. They have made very useful and constructive comments and suggestions to guide and advise the Department so that we now have a strategy that provides a vital framework for the planned future development of our country over the next 25 years and beyond. I support the motion.

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

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Department for Regional Development’s draft regional development strategy and commend the Minister for bringing forward the motion. The devising of a regional development strategy has been a complex process and will be of fundamental importance in addressing the needs of Northern Ireland, which has experienced uneven and unequal development over the last 30 years or more. That uneven development has led to social exclusion, which has underscored the political upheaval experienced within the restrictive political and geographic boundaries of this region. With devolution, the Assembly now has the opportunity to deliver real change to Northern Ireland and to implement a sustainable and comprehensive regional development strategy that can, as the Programme for Government states, make a difference to the everyday lives of our people.

I welcome the draft regional development strategy’s recognition that the promotion of social cohesion, together with economic development, is of critical importance along with the promotion of equality of opportunity and spatial equity throughout the region as a whole.

The key objectives of any comprehensive regional development strategy should include the following: balanced and sustainable growth; social and economic inclusion; protection of the physical, natural and man- made assets of the region; and the provision of a spatial framework for the development of key public services. All those factors are addressed, and, importantly, the regional development strategy recognises the needs of both urban and rural communities. The spatial development strategy promotes a balance between urban and rural development and takes into consideration the environment and the quality of life. It is of fundamental importance that urban and rural development must co-exist and complement each other. Increased urbanisation should not be regarded as the primary economic driver.

The concept of decentralisation of services is addressed in the RDS, and that is welcome. However, the Executive should lead by example. Entire sections of Government Departments should be relocated from Belfast to what the RDS designates as the main urban hubs. Such a policy would help us to achieve more balanced growth beyond the Greater Belfast area. Overall, the regional development strategy is innovative and dynamic. It addresses many of our concerns about issues covered in earlier drafts, and contains many positive proposals relating to urban and rural development, transportation strategy, housing needs, environmental concerns and the tourism infrastructure.

Transport policy should include the core principles of equality, choice, efficiency and accessibility, as well as taking into consideration environmental concerns and public safety. The regional development strategy takes an innovative look at how to obtain the right mix of private and public transport. The strategy recognises that, if economic development and social inclusion are to be encouraged, Northern Ireland needs an integrated transportation system. I am pleased to find that the strategy contains some new proposals for improving public transport. However, it is a long-term policy, with targets set over a period of 10 years. More needs to be done in the medium term to enhance public transport and make it a viable option for commuters. We all await the regional transportation strategy because of its vital role in enabling the regional development strategy to be realised.

The commitments to improve cross-border road and rail links are also welcome. It is important that the transport infrastructure be upgraded in an all-Ireland and European context. The measures to upgrade the roads in rural Northern Ireland are long overdue, and I am pleased to read that the strategy proposes a more integrated approach to transportation in rural areas. That will improve accessibility, with the objective of sustaining rural communities.

There was a welcome acknowledgement in the strategy that different parts of the region require different planning processes. Developments in the Belfast travel-to-work area must be more constrained. I am from a rural area and, therefore, have not been heavily involved in the discussions on brownfield development. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister has set more challenging targets for brownfield development in Belfast.

The expansion of the North’s links with the rest of the world is of key importance for the economic development of the region. Our airports and seaports must be developed. The ports at Warrenpoint and Lisahally provide an important service to their respective hinterlands.

The regional development strategy is an imaginative document, which has the capacity to address the problems associated with uneven development in the region. Its proposals are not rigid and can be adapted and tailored as circumstances require to ensure that the principles of equality and social justice remain at its core. During the consultation period, my party suggested that the regional development strategy should be reviewed every five years to assess its success in meeting its objectives and assess the need for any adjustments. We welcome the Minister’s commitment in that regard.

We welcome the fact that district councils will be consulted in the coming months on how they can play an active role in the implementation of the strategy.

As ‘Shaping Our Future’ states, it is vital that we obtain a more joined-up and co-ordinated approach that meets the needs of local communities, and we welcome the commitment given to participate in the decision- making process. In the past, the North did not have any proper development proposals that sought to achieve social equity as well as economic regeneration.

It is important that the Department implements a sustainable regional development strategy with the capacity and flexibility to meet the developing needs of the region and to improve the quality of life for everyone in Northern Ireland irrespective of location or class.

I welcome what the Minister said about implementation and trying to promote stronger co-operation between the Department for Regional Development and the Department of the Environment. That is vital as we try to realise implementation over the next 20 years. Decentralisation was flagged up and it is contained in the document in a positive way that will be good for the entire region.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I congratulate the Minister for Regional Development in bringing the draft to the Assembly. In particular, I endorse the remarks made concerning the Warrenpoint and Londonderry ports. I had the pleasure of touring both ports, and I saw the valuable work that they do and the great potential for development there. I hope that none of us will forget the Belfast port — how could we? The House will return to that subject before too long when it looks at the future of the port and the surrounding land that could be developed.

I join the Minister in his words of praise and commendation for those who were closely associated with the preparation of the draft strategy; the team leader, in particular. From my sojourn in that Department I know about the valuable work that he and his team have done and how reliable they are. I congratulate him on being awarded the CBE. Many people will see that as a well-deserved honour, and I am sure that the Assembly congratulates him.

We must not forget the director of the regional plan team who was also closely associated with the preparation of the report, and the deputy secretary who had an overseeing role. From my days in the Department I know that the permanent secretary was very supportive of the project; he put a lot of enthusiasm into it and gave a great deal of encouragement to those who were involved. They will all be delighted — even to simply get it out of their office — to see it come to this stage of preparation and fruition.

It is important that the Assembly recognise the considerable work that went into producing the pictures and text in front of us and the work carried out by the independent panel that consulted perhaps more widely than for any previous consultation on Government policy. It provided a report that I was happy to receive when I was Minister for that Department and am happy to welcome now.

It might be worthwhile, while I am in the praising mood, to mention the Committee for Regional Development. I am sure that the Minister benefited from its work to the same extent as I did. The Committee provided me with valuable advice about the plan, as I am sure it did for the Minister, and it has made its mark on the draft that was produced.

I want to deal with two issues that seem to have changed from when I was more intimately involved with the preparation of the plan. I would like to know the Department’s thinking on these matters. First, there is the status of the report. There had been a legal basis for the report, which is set out on page three of the draft. The Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 requires Northern Ireland Departments to

"have regard to the regional development strategy"

in exercising any functions in relation to development. In particular, planning policy, development plans and development schemes prepared by the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development are required in future to be

"consistent with the regional development strategy."

The report says that this means that in practice they should be in broad harmony with the strategic objectives and policies of the regional development strategy.

I note that an attempt has been made in that "addendum" to give some type of definition to the legislation, which says

"consistent with the regional development strategy".

However, page 200 of the report, which covers the legal framework, states — as the Minister did — that we can expect proposals to be brought before the Assembly in the near future, if the Assembly survives. The proposals will promote amending legislation, which would substitute the original wording with a requirement that development plans

"must be in general conformity with the regional development strategy".

I am sure that lawyers could make a meal out of the difference between the words "consistent with" and "in broad conformity with". As a layman, I would be happy if the Minister told me why it is necessary to bring in amending legislation to change the wording. Are people unhappy with their Departments acting consistently with the regional development strategy? Why have we produced what seems to be a more flexible or loose approach to the strategy? I would like to know the reasoning behind the slight of hand in the draft. It may be that there is no major reason behind it — alarm bells may be ringing unnecessarily.

The second issue, raised by the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, concerns brownfield sites. The most significant policy statement in the regional development strategy deals with the issue of brownfield and greenfield development. Anyone who has taken a careful interest throughout the process will be aware of the evolution of the strategy in that regard. The Regional Development Committee is correct in drawing attention to such a key issue.

As a Member for a Belfast constituency, I see the absolute necessity of revitalising the inner-city parts of Belfast. Even the middle of the city needs to be revitalised. I am sure that Members can advance similar cases for more rural areas. The public examination recommended 40% brownfield development. The latest graphs show a target of 60%, but the target is dependent on the urban capacity studies.

I welcome the direction of the policy aspiration. However, I am not convinced about how it advances the brownfield site case to have a target of 40% or 60%. I suspect it is more likely to be used in areas as a maximum rather than a target. For example, what argument would be advanced if, in a town somewhere in Northern Ireland, they can produce brownfield sites representing 80% of the requirement? Would people simply stay at the figure of 60%, rather than go beyond it? Under the draft, they might have to stop at 60%, but I am sure that that was not the intention of the report. The House can agree that we should strive to encourage as much brownfield development as possible. That would be consistent with concerns that many of us have about town cramming.

As a representative of a local government borough, I am appalled by the number of applications for high- density apartment developments, almost invariably to be built in existing residential areas where one or two houses will be knocked down with perhaps 10 or 20 being built in their place.

There is a danger that putting a quota on brownfield development will force the planning department towards town cramming. However, brownfield development is good not only because it helps to regenerate inner- and middle-city areas, but it breathes new life into areas that have become run-down and dilapidated over the years. It offers those areas a fresh start and revitalisation for communities.

Brownfield development also brings an economic boost to shopkeepers in inner- and middle-city areas who must vie with the out-of-town shopping centres and major supermarket developments that have eaten into the retail market. It is a more sustainable form of development and enables the provision of a more effective public transport system.

A key difficulty we face in encouraging people to get out of their cars and onto public transport is land-use pattern. That has made the provision of an effective public transport system almost impossible. Northern Ireland is a society that has two and a half times as many road miles as the rest of the UK, and disparate settlement patterns are not easily accommodated by any public transport system.

The strategy will not solve all our problems, but it is a start. Over the next 30 years it will give us an opportunity to make a difference to some of the problems that have been created over the past 30 years. That is why land- use planning is so important.

I am delighted that we now have a strategic framework for Northern Ireland which will soon be backed by the Belfast metropolitan area plan and the other area plans so that we can move forward strategically on planning matters. For too long planning applications for major developments have come forward on a piecemeal basis, often decided by article 31 inquiries that form no part of the overall planning strategy but rather are developer led.

However, I am concerned that the percentage figure is being submitted. Regardless of what the urban capacity study brings forward as available brownfield sites, should we not use the maximum number of sites, no matter what that number might be? We should tie ourselves to the outcome of the urban capacity study rather than to an artificial or aspirational figure. The Committee — and I suspect the Minister — has made it very clear that the aspiration is to use the maximum number of sites under the urban capacity study. Can the Minister tell me the advantage of putting a percentage figure into the draft, as opposed to a requirement, that the planners operate on the maximum number of sites in the urban capacity study?

Finally, I would like to alert the Minister to something. Every Member of the House has probably received a letter from the Construction Employers Federation (it arrived with general Assembly correspondence). For those of us who have the instinctive ability to read between the lines, it is fairly clear that in that communication the potential for legal challenge is being pointed up, should the Minister depart from the procedures that have been laid down.

Is the Minister satisfied that if he departs from the panel’s report in this way, that he will not find that the courts, as opposed to the Assembly, will decide the report? The construction industry may well say that it was not consulted about the change. What steps can he take to ensure that the primacy for the future of development is with the Assembly rather than with the courts?

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cupla pointe gearr a dhéanamh i dtaobh an rúin. I want to make a few brief points on the draft regional development strategy. At the outset I have to say that I am somewhat concerned about the unfortunate timing of the debate. This document sets out the strategic framework for the development of this part of Ireland for the next 25 years. It comes to the Assembly when some people are in recess mode or in resignation mode, and the importance of this document has been overshadowed by other events today. There might have been a more appropriate time for this matter to be debated.

This is an important document, and it will have interdepartmental consequences. It will be an overarching strategy, which will guide the strategies of individual Departments in relation to housing and other development, transportation, the environment and economic development. Given this, I recommend that all Members consider this the final form of the document and take on board its content. As a strategic document it is significant, for it will influence the shaping of this region for the next 25 years.

It is clear from the Minister’s contribution and from discussions we have had with departmental officials over the last few months that they have taken on board the views of the Regional Development Committee and of other Committees that contributed to the consultation on the document. Each of the issues raised by the Committee during the consultation has been listened to and dealt with in the redrafting of the document. As a member of the Regional Development Committee, I welcome the praise and thanks that the Minister and other Members have expressed to the Committee.

One of the issues raised at the outset was the sense of imbalance in the initial draft of the document with its focus on the Belfast metropolitan area and the city of Derry, as opposed to the rural regions of the North. The document now indicates that there will be a balanced approach to the entire region. In identifying the key transport corridors and the regional centres and rural hubs, it has addressed concerns about the overemphasis on the Belfast metropolitan area as opposed to the rural areas. In stating that, while the document sets out to promote equality of life and availability of services to everyone, we have to bear in mind that two thirds of the population of this region live in smaller towns and the countryside.

The section on transportation addresses the existing rail network provision, while the overall aim of the document is to provide a vision of development in the next 25 years. The rail network in the Belfast metropolitan area and the key links between Belfast and Derry, and Belfast and Dublin, are examined. However, I am disappointed that, although this is a vision document, it does not deal with the further development and expansion of the rail network between, for instance, Portadown, Armagh, Dungannon, Omagh, Strabane and Derry.

In recent months a significant part of the Committee’s time has been spent in establishing appropriate levels of brownfield site development and discussing the overzoning which has taken place in area plans. There was an initial concern that the Belfast metropolitan area was being overemphasised. However, that area has — and will continue to have — the largest population and the highest level of economic activity in the region, and its development is important to the whole region. At present Belfast metropolitan area is expanding, but the city centre is declining, and much of that centre is relatively underpopulated. A target for the development of brownfield sites is needed to deal with this. I welcome the Minister’s statement that there needs to be a clear signal in regard to the development of brownfield sites.

When the land database has been completed and assessed, there will need to be a much more ambitious target for the Belfast metropolitan area than would be feasible or achievable in any other urban centre in the region. We will need to revisit this matter when the land database is completed and when we are assessing the potential in that field.

The document is strategy-based, and it will only be successful if it is effectively implemented. The Minister proposed the introduction of amending legislation to create a requirement that other Departments’ policies be "in general conformity" rather than consistent with the regional development strategy. This amendment is designed to create more flexibility in the planning system. I accept that point, but I hope that the term "must be in general conformity" will not weaken the basic strategy inherent in the document.

An interdepartmental steering group of officials, chaired by the Minister, to monitor the progress of the strategy’s implementation, is proposed. The group will report annually to the Assembly, and I am sure that the Minister for Regional Development and the officials on this steering group at any given time will be very capable. However, I hope that during the monitoring process, there will be ongoing consultation with other Committees and Ministers on the implementation of the strategy

I thank the departmental officials who had to endure the many questions raised by Committee members, who were not prepared to accept woolly answers. The officials considered our concerns and returned to the Committee several times before producing their final draft.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

There is much to commend the strategy document, and for that I praise the Minister and his officials. However, I have some concerns. There is little point in repeating what other Members have said, but I concur with the points that Mr Peter Robinson and Mr McNamee made about how determined we must be to see the strategy implemented.

I have a couple of difficulties with the strategy. I do not believe that it adequately defines the requirements — I emphasise the word "requirements" — of our society with regard to greenfield and brownfield development. The Minister has the capacity to create a new ethos. I have said that before. Rather than go round counting brownfield sites and the number of buildings that might be erected on such sites, we should be proactive in the development and creation of brownfield sites.

We should encourage developers to believe that there is a genuine opportunity and that they should use brownfield sites because they will have to wait a long time for a greenfield site. We have not addressed the matter fully. The strategy document says that the proportion of housing development in urban areas should be double the current level of 25-30%. That means 50% to, at most, 60%. In that respect, the document does not set out a clear indicator or indicate a decisive, determined attitude on the part of the Minister and the Assembly. It is not enough.

Vehicular travel is up by 3%, although we have a policy of asking people to use public transport, to use bicycles or to walk. Brownfield sites are already on transport corridors, which would ensure that people have ample opportunity to avail themselves of the daily services that pass by their door, street or avenue. There is much to commend the strategy, and I do not want to be too churlish, but I must flag up the fact that that issue will be raised repeatedly.

Overzoning will disrupt the percentage balance between brownfield and greenfield development. I want someone to do the mathematics and tell me that we will maintain the balance between brownfield and greenfield sites at the rate that the Minister and the Assembly would like. We are not likely to overzone too many brownfield sites, but we will overzone greenfield sites. The Minister must consider that carefully. There should not have been any overzoning. It has been of benefit only to the developer, against the best interests of our society. Perhaps that is not what the Department has in mind, but that is what has happened.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

This is a valuable and important document, which sets out a plan for the strategic development of Northern Ireland over the next 25 years. It is a tremendously important tome. While other Members have focused mainly on the brownfield/greenfield variation, I want to come to that at a later stage, along with other issues.

I want to point out what I think is one of the most serious flaws in this regional development strategy. I have done a little research of my own, and I have discovered that Northern Ireland has the highest birth rate and one of the youngest populations in the European Union. Yet this regional development strategy concentrates more on our cars than on our kids. If you typed the word "children" in to your computer you could count on your fingers the number of times it would come up. If you typed in the word "car" it would be there — you would need more than 100 fingers to count the number of times it came up.

We have a car culture, instead of a kid culture. It is disgraceful that 26% of this population is under the age of 17 and, according to our regulations, cannot drive a car, and yet there is virtually nothing to accommodate kids and young people in this regional development strategy. That is about 400,000 children — if my calculations are correct. Where are children and young people to be found here?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The transport strategy I am told. I am sorry; kids do not drive. Let me explain where I am coming from on this.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

If I am allowed to continue, I will get to public transport. I am going to recommend that public transport prices should be brought down and reduced greatly to accommodate children.

There are sprawling housing estates all over this country, accommodating thousands of families, and yet there are no communal swings or slides among them. New housing developments are being built, but there is no public transport, no community facilities and not one children’s play area. However, there is plenty of room for cars to be parked.

Planning Policy Statement 7 states that

"All proposals for residential development will be expected to conform to all of the following criteria"

Here we have wonderful guidelines, which I do not condemn — in fact I applaud — respecting the context; the character; the built heritage; open space — certainly; grass lands — great; woodlands; discreet groups of trees — great; local neighbourhood facilities — we are getting closer; walking and cycling; people whose mobility is impaired; traffic-calming measures — excellent; one whole piece for adequate and appropriate provision for parking — I am assuming that it is referring to our cars, not our kids. There is not one mention here of children.

What about a play area for children? Even seating for the elderly could have been brought in there. There is a huge lack. I am appealing to civil servants for just one more addition saying "communal play areas for kids". In creating areas of new high-density housing development, we are establishing a kid in a cul-de-sac culture. How many people move in to new housing developments and find that their kids have nowhere to play but on the streets between the cars? We often wonder why some kids turn to joyriding. Something must be done for our children.

The Republic of Ireland have brought in new legislation saying that every 100 houses should have communal — [Interruption]

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Would the Member look at the strategic framework document that we are meant to be debating today?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

May I ask which page the Member would like me to refer to, and I will?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

So far the Member has looked at the Republic of Ireland and a policy guidance note, but I have heard nothing about this document.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to go to our regional framework document. On each page, I have underlined areas that focus on car parking and transport — but no kids, no kids, no kids. Here is one example from page 123. ‘Criteria for an expanded or new settlement proposal’. Very good. It says:

"In this event, the preferred location would be on the commuter rail network".

Walking, cycling and the use of public transport are mentioned, but there is no mention of children. 26% of our population is under the age of 17, and they are not mentioned.

I have mentioned the Republic of Ireland. I will also mention Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and France. Walk around and you will see children’s play areas on every street corner. In Belfast, town centre managers wonder why they have to compete with out-of-town shopping developments. Yet I ask you — if a mother with three children under the age of six comes into Belfast, where does she put her children? There is not one swing, not one slide — nowhere for children to play in the centre of town.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Yes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member might like to look at page 74. She might be happy to read the section on Community Greenways, which provides for cycle routes, wildlife habitat, parks, playing fields, school grounds, open spaces, private lands and golf courses.

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

In some cases, Members have spoken for over 15 minutes. The Business Committee has agreed a very limited time for this debate. I must advise Members that if they decide to give way, or if they speak for a very long time, the amount of time allocated to other Members of his or her party will subsequently be reduced. Please bear that in mind.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I am grateful for that elucidation from Mr Peter Robinson. I believe that golf was mentioned but not play facilities. Greenfield sites, yes. I am talking about play facilities — a swing and a slide. We are talking here about the future of our children. It is about time that we put our words into action. We need to change our priorities and to focus our energy away from cars and onto our kids.

We must use legislation to oblige developers to provide communal children’s play areas as well as other community needs. We also need to develop a children’s play strategy at local council level.

It is also essential that we have a youth leisure strategy that includes free outdoor facilities for our youth. For example, what about a skateboard park? A BMX track? Go-kart racing? Cheaper rates for children in leisure centres and on public transport are vital.

I will turn to road safety, which is an essential part of this strategy. I was flabbergasted to see that road safety merits five lines on page 172 of the strategy. We need greater emphasis on road safety for the sake of our kids, including obligatory traffic-calming measures around schools and in residential areas. We need greatly reduced speed limits; stricter enforcement of speed regulations; the use of walking buses to schools; and cycle tracks on main roads and on routes to and from schools.

I will admit that the regional development strategy is a good start. We must get it right, and getting our priorities right is the way to do that.

My last recommendations are as follows. We need a community impact assessment to impose an obligation on developers to consult communities when new developments are going up.

On the subject of brownfield versus greenfield sites, it has all been said. We agree absolutely with Mr Robinson that it should go beyond 60% for brownfield development, and I thank him for putting that point to us so that we can make it loud and clear. Brownfield must be the priority, and it must go beyond 60%.

Finally, I ask for much stricter laying down of legislation and targets — and not only targets for brownfield and greenfield sites, but for issues such as waste recycling, CO2 emissions, cutting greenhouse gases, play areas and youth leisure. We need targets, targets, targets. Administrators, civil servants and Ministers should not be scared to be tough on this one. We need change, and we need it now for the good of our kids.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Having had very little time to digest the report, my comments will be brief. First, I welcome the new acceptance by the Minister and his Department of listening to the community and the Committee. I hope that that continues throughout the years ahead.

Northern Ireland’s population is increasing, and more and more people want their own homes — and rightly so. This report tries to set out a strategy to encourage and manage this growth. Laudable as that aim is, the report fails in several crucial ways both the current and the future population. I hope that improvements will be made.

The report predicts the need for an additional 160,000 houses in the next 15 years, with a need for a total of 250,000 by the year 2025. This demand may lead to the urbanisation of a further 30 sq miles, which is the equivalent of the creation of a new city. I do not know what other Members think, but I cannot fathom where this new building is going to take place. Will our villages start to sprawl? Will our towns suffer from overdevelopment? These are very serious questions.

Much has already been said with regards to brownfield/ greenfield areas for development — and rightly so. Alliance is committed to ensuring that at least 50%, and up to 60%, or whatever is available of new developments, are built on brownfield land. This is the only way we can protect the rural countryside and the greenfields in and adjacent to the cities.

The report recognises the importance of this strategy, but, rather than embracing it now to apply to future developments, it suggests that a target of 50% to 60% be achieved in 10 years. This is a target set for the whole of the region rather than a particular part of Northern Ireland. Little or not enough mention is made of development in the Belfast metropolitan area and its hinterlands — an area from which, according to this report, half of the demand for the new houses will come.

In addition, this report allows for overzoning of 10% in existing plans. I am not happy with this proposal, and it ought to be dropped altogether. How can we talk about planned growth when we are already admitting that our plans may need to allow for more houses, more demands on infrastructure and more development? We must make our priorities clear.

Growth must be managed and sustainable. We simply cannot permit overzoning. We must encourage renovation. We need a commitment to conversion of existing buildings wherever possible, rather than demolition. When new building is unavoidable, it should be allowed only when the replacement buildings constitute architectural gain. This report does little to protect architectural heritage. Whenever possible, we must encourage brownfield development. This report does not go far enough in those areas, and we would like — demand even — to see greater protection of all our green areas whilst encouraging growth.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister and his Department to keep on listening to what the community is saying and to act accordingly.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I congratulate the Minister for Regional Development and his Department on bringing forward the regional development strategy. It reflects a great deal of thought and hard work. My officials also put a great deal of time and effort into framing the Department’s input to the process. The strategy will be an important element in the overall framework of planning policy. It will provide a guide for the preparation of development plans by the Department of the Environment, and it will assist citizens and developers in understanding the policy context within which specific proposals for physical development will be considered by the Planning Service.

Against that background, I am grateful to the Minister for Regional Development for agreeing to bring forward an amendment to the Strategic Planning Order to make the relationship between the strategy and the development plans more flexible. The Minister is aware of my concern that the strategy should be sufficiently flexible to be able to accommodate unforeseen demographic social, economic and technological changes. That is essential, because no one can predict how all those variables will move over 25 years.

It is not only circumstances that can change over time. The strategy before the House contains many expressions of policy, including over 40 strategic planning guidelines. All Ministers and Departments will be obliged to have regard to those in the discharge of their development functions. It is possible, even likely, that the current policy preferences of Ministers and the Assembly, as embedded in the strategy, will change as time passes. It is important that the processes for reviewing and revising the strategy are responsive and expeditious. I have recommended that to Mr Campbell, and I am grateful that he has made adjustments accordingly.

Two statements of policy in the strategy deserve particular attention in that regard. First is the target for increasing the proportion of housing development on brownfield sites. I sympathise with that aspiration because of its relevance to the Department of the Environment’s commitment to sustainable development. It is hoped that the target can be achieved, but I am obliged to the Minister for Regional Development for accepting my suggestion that the impacts of that policy be carefully monitored. That intention is now reflected in the text.

My concern is primarily with the interests of those people on lower incomes and first-time house buyers. Members are conscious of the rise in house prices and of the financial strain that that places on many of our constituents — notwithstanding the benefit of historically low mortgage lending rates. It is possible, though not inevitable, that the policy of brownfield development could put further pressure on land and house prices. The strategy predicts the need for up to 250,000 extra dwellings over the next 25 years, so there will be a lot of demand on the system.

The Department of the Environment will do its best to ensure an adequate supply of brownfield land through the development plan process. I am glad to say that as a result of the Executive’s Budget for 2001-02, the Department of the Environment is achieving a greater degree of forward momentum on development planning. However, Members must not lose sight of the fact that sustainable development has social and economic as well as environmental objectives, and that affordable housing is an important dimension of social inclusion. Therefore the Assembly has a duty to monitor the impacts of this policy.

The strategy also touches on many other aspects of the public interest. Existing retail planning policy seeks to balance the interests of consumers with the objective of maintaining the vitality and viability of town centres. The strategy makes specific reference to Belfast city centre. I am sure that Members share the desire that the strategy will be successful in providing an alternative retail offer to the citizens of Belfast and beyond. I am taking assurance from the fact that a number of consortia have proposals for major retail developments in the city centre. The Department of the Environment has already received planning applications for two of those.

It is hoped that the strategy has maintained an appropriate balance between the objectives of maintaining the vitality of Belfast city centre and of promoting the interests of our citizens and constituents as consumers. Planning policy exists to promote the public interest, not to maintain the existing patterns of economic and commercial activity through protectionism.

The strategy is an important document which has widespread implications for all public services and for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I have drawn attention to what I believe to be some of the strategy’s most important features. It is hoped that the strategy will prove to be an effective and flexible addition to the framework of planning policy. The Department of the Environment will seek to play its full part in translating its provisions into better planning development throughout the region.

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

A substantial number of people have asked to speak. Since there has been no time limit on the first round of Members speaking, it is now necessary to impose a time limit of six minutes on each Member still to speak.

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

The regional development strategy is undoubtedly one of the most significant publications that will pass through the Assembly in the foreseeable future — however long or short the political future of the House might be. I was pleased to hear the Minister referring to his plans for the next session of the Assembly.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in paying attention to individual Members during his attendance at Committee meetings — everyone got a fair hearing. His willingness to listen is appreciated.

The views of a wide and varied section of the people of Northern Ireland have been condensed and presented in this 200-plus page draft report as the way to shape our future for the next quarter of a century at least — as our population moves toward the two million mark.

I have selected a few sections of the draft to which I attach special significance. I welcome the rural development objectives identified to promote an attractive and prosperous rural area, and the importance attached to a co-ordinated and integrated approach. The essential need for rural-proofing of policies and rural participation as identified are both welcome inclusions.

I note that the agricultural and farming community come in for little or no mention in the draft. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the rural-proofing aspect of the programme will adequately deal with farming matters when the opportunities arise.

In the same section, I welcome the paragraphs relating to matters such as local housing needs and the continuing development of long-established rural communities. The desire to reinforce those communities is to be welcomed. However, from the unfortunate experience of so many communities throughout Northern Ireland recently, this may be difficult to achieve as those with hidden agendas continue to move in on unsuspecting rural neighbourhoods, which results in an eventual loss of identity.

As regards greenbelts, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other designated rural areas, I accept that such levels of protection in the Mournes and elsewhere are inevitable. Having said that, some effort would have to be made to address the financial burden imposed upon those who, because of the environmental regulations, are prohibited from building a dwelling even for a family member on land that they own within the confines of restricted zones. Members from the Glens of Antrim and other policy areas will understand the sense of unfairness that planning refusals bring to the young people of such areas.

I believe that the acceptance of brownfield sites in rural areas, just as in the proposal for urban areas, would present an opportunity to build, once proof that a dwelling once stood there is established. A brownfield rural policy could be developed, and I am certain that a degree of acceptance would be forthcoming from applicants on matters relating to the requirements on size, design and setting of such rural dwellings. Such approval would also help to provide the affordable housing referred to by the Minister, as the purchase price of a site would, in most cases, be nil.

The draft goes into reasonable detail on economic issues, and the need to develop modern infrastructures is clearly identified. The need to increase links with neighbouring regions and to capitalise on trans-regional development opportunities is also highlighted. This is long overdue recognition of the economic potential that exists along the eastern seaboard of the island.

Any proposal that can bring forward the upgrading to European route status of the link road between Larne and Rosslare is to be welcomed. Needless to say the complete upgrading of the stretch of the A1 from Loughbrickland to the border still remains one of the economic priorities of business people, road users and people from the Newry and south Down areas.

On the issue of infrastructure, I call on the relevant Departments to look seriously at the need to provide well-planned ring roads around developing towns. Every road into and out of Newry is jammed with traffic on an almost all-day basis due to the ongoing developments on the periphery and the lack of vision of those responsible for planning ahead. I am sure that many Members in this Assembly can identify with the situations I am describing.

Chapter 10 contains a section dealing with the promotion of regional gateways as economic development opportunities. There is a reference in that section to my home port of Warrenpoint. The importance of the port, and the challenges faced in the years ahead, have been referred to by previous Secretaries of State, Ministers and those in responsible positions with economic interest. I would be grateful if the Minister for Regional Development would give an assurance that he and his Department will provide maximum support to help meet the needs identified by Warrenpoint Harbour Authority as it goes about shaping the port’s future.

I welcome the fact that many of the mistakes made in the designing and planning of our residential developments are to be corrected. For example, I am pleased that open space retention and speed restrictions within estates are to be the subject of major planning legislation.

The Minister should, in conjunction with the district councils, conduct a study that would identify public rights of way that could be reopened. The proposed legislation on access to the countryside will probably throw up many problems. Reopening our rights of way might solve those problems.

I join the Minister in paying tribute to his officials and the staff who worked with the Committee on the effort that has gone into the latest draft. I am also pleased that the proposal that it might be financially prudent to abandon the maintenance of many rural roads, which we discussed at a meeting in the city centre, has not been included in the draft. I thank the Minister of the Environment for his attendance earlier in the debate. It was clear from his speech that the Department of the Environment has a major role to play alongside the Department for Regional Development in shaping our future.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

I join Members in paying tribute to the Minister and his officials. As a member of the Regional Development Committee, I know exactly what their input has been and how often they came to speak to us at short notice. They were always willing to listen and take our comments on board. I thank them publicly for that. Many Members have spoken at length about the major aspects of the strategy. I shall not repeat their comments. There are, however, several things relating to my constituency that must be highlighted.

The Member for North Down (Ms Morrice) mentioned the lack of provision in the document for the needs of children. On page 195, the document refers to the intention to

"provide opportunities for more active lifestyles by maintaining and enhancing sporting facilities in the region, creating networks of Community Greenways in cities and towns".

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I was noting a lack of actual play facilities.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

We will not win that argument.

I cannot say whether 60% is the best figure for brownfield development. The Committee felt that there was a need to draw the attention of planners and developers to the fact that people are sick, sore and tired of the way that development is carried out willy-nilly throughout the country. I am delighted that that has been taken on board, and I trust that planners will listen to what has been said.

The Minister said that 10% would be a maximum for zoning, and I am delighted that that is the case. The strategy refers to housing requirements and the need to widen opportunity and choice, to improve the supply and quality of housing and to promote sustainable development. It is important that we make provision for the first-time buyer. Many of us have been in that position and know exactly what it is like. There must be housing for people in the lower income bracket.

We all realise that the transport system in Northern Ireland has been allowed to decline over the last few years. There have been many difficulties, especially with the railway network. Many of us were horrified when the Department’s representatives came to the Committee and were totally frank and honest about showing how horrendous the Northern Ireland railway network is and how it needs to be improved. I am delighted that this has been taken on board. We are already beginning to see changes in the railway network; new stock is being acquired, and there is a realisation of the need to improve the system. In my home town of Larne there is a need for a transport system connection with the boats and links to the European network.

The infrastructure of our road system is such that many of us have been left worrying that it has been allowed to get into such a state that it will take a long time to bring it up to a reasonable standard. I congratulate the Minister and the Department for beginning work on the A8 from Belfast to Larne. We look forward to that being finished, for we realise how important that road is.

Finally, I have one important question for the Minister. Can he tell the House how he will implement the strategy? We can talk about it; we can have the document in front of us, but how will it be implemented?

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome this wide-ranging document detailing the strategy for the development of Northern Ireland for the next 25 years, and I congratulate all the people involved. It is a massive document, and we can barely scratch the surface of it today.

I wish to make only a few points, one of which I have been making since I first saw the draft proposals which were presented to MLAs at an induction session in the Europa Hotel about three years ago. It was pointed out that the A29 from Newry to Coleraine, via Armagh, Dungannon and Cookstown, is still designated as only a link corridor. This road carries exceptionally heavy traffic, and, at times, has more heavy vehicles than the A4 coming west off the M1. I cannot understand how the towns of Newry, Armagh, Dungannon and Cookstown can be designated as main hubs without this road’s being upgraded. Much of the cross-border northbound traffic from Newry uses this route. These hub towns cannot play their proposed roles if the whole road system is inadequate. The internal road networks of Northern Ireland must be of equal importance, at least, to other proposed cross-frontier routes towards Sligo and Monaghan.

The historic underfunding of the road network in the western rural region needs to be redressed, with priority being given to the upgrading of the routes associated with the key transport corridors, link corridors and the trunk roads. I look forward to seeing an upgraded and integrated transport network for the entire western region.

I welcome the points made in the strategy document about strengthening the present rail system. Again, I must plug the west. We lost our entire rail system in the 1950s, and no further consideration has been given to any western link. A link, perhaps along the M1 going west to Fermanagh, and a similar system to the TGV or Deutsche Bahn networks in France and Germany, would have been welcome. Road congestion can be averted only when a more radical approach is taken to remove heavy lorries and the single occupancy of other vehicles. These must be replaced by a reliable transport system.

Walking and cycling are to be greatly encouraged. However, they will only develop with safer roads and with a healthy education policy in schools. Public transport in rural areas must be of a quality and availability that will ensure accessibility for everyone wishing to use it. People cannot access education, training provisions and even employment without a decent road system. It is an issue which must be addressed if the strategy is to be achieved fully.

I welcome the intention on pages 96 and 97 to sustain and extend forestry resources in Northern Ireland, which is the least wooded region in Europe, with only 6% coverage compared with the European Union average of 32%. Our woodlands need to be expanded and protected, but we must not forget our hedgerows. Hedges are vitally important for wildlife. Stewardship is required to protect the hedgerows and the large trees that are an important part of our hedgerows.

I particularly welcome the chapter on caring for the environment. It is up to us to ensure that the next generation, and subsequent generations, are educated and imbued with the urge to care for the environment in Northern Ireland, and that they do not make any more of it, as the cliché says. The environment needs to be protected from progress.

There has been a proliferation of telecommunication masts. Wind turbines are now the popular environmentally- friendly source of power being promoted. Will our mountains and hills be further defaced by wind turbines? Why must these turbines be at the skyline if the prevailing wind speed is greater below a ridge or high ground? That is true, if gardening magazines are to be believed.

I am disappointed with the brief reference to climatic change and global warming. Any person interested in the environment, or even in farming, knows that the change has already taken place, and it is taking place rapidly. I want more detailed study and research on climatic change.

Our built heritage, archaeological and architectural, also needs protecting. So many important buildings have been destroyed or demolished with derisory fines given to the culprits. Legislation for the protection of built heritage must be amended and strengthened. The Department needs to be totally committed to prosecuting those who ignore conservation orders. Consistent criteria for planners are also needed to ensure adequate protection of our built heritage and to control unsympathetic development in rural areas.

In conclusion, I ask that the proposals contained in the strategy be translated effectively into action. I support the motion.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the draft regional development strategy. It is a very comprehensive report covering housing, transport, economic development and the environment, as well as rural development, which is often neglected. I will concentrate on chapter 7, the north -west region, which recognises Derry as the regional city and hub of the north-west.

The draft follows on from the original ‘Shaping Our Future’ document, which was warmly welcomed by Derry City Council. That report recognised Derry for the first time as not only the regional capital of the north-west but also as the second city of Northern Ireland. The draft regional development strategy further strengthens Derry’s position in Northern Ireland. For example, strategic objectives state that Derry will have a pivotal role in cross-border and international trading relationships.

Derry is already the main urban centre for the north- west of the island and is also a proven bridge for investment, particularly between America and Europe. It is recognised as one of the fastest growing urban centres in the region over the last 25 years. It has a young, expanding population, with a number of new hi-tech jobs, but it is also recognised that there is a decline in traditional employment in the textile industry, for example. There is also a high level of unemployment in the region.

The importance of the cross-border element is recognised as critical to our development, and I welcome the commitment to encourage further cross-border working for mutual benefit.

I welcome the draft report’s recognition that the economy of the north-west is central to the region. A key focus of that is the development into Donegal.

I welcome the commitment on page 85 to examine the potential for the improvement of transport links to and from the Port of Lisahally, the industrial areas at Maydown and Campsie and the City of Derry Airport. I warmly endorse those proposals.

The section on rural Northern Ireland recognises the importance of the rural economy to the rest of Northern Ireland. Page 86 states that continuing management of the rural environment is essential to maintain the distinctive rural landscapes, which are important environmental economic resources. It is essential that these environmental assets be conserved.

A summary of the key driving forces for rural change is on page 91, and it covers economic, social and environmental points. I endorse those points.

In the annex, the guiding principles in the regional development strategy include a people-and community- focused approach; a sustainable approach to development; achieving a more cohesive society; achieving competitiveness; and adopting an integrated approach to the future development of the region. The rural development strategy will be monitored continually and reviewed formally every five years.

I also endorse the need for a proper transportation strategy for all of Northern Ireland and for the planning process to be part of the regional development strategy. That is critical for our future development.

This important document provides a strategy for the next 25 years. I welcome it, and I congratulate the Minister for bringing it forward.

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

I also welcome this very useful document. It is probably not exhaustive, but it is comprehensive. It is not infallible. Some issues have not been addressed, but I do not have time to deal with those issues. There are other issues, which are in the document and which I want to prioritise in my remarks.

I recognise that this is an overarching strategic framework. It is not a blueprint or a master plan, as is acknowledged in the document.

With regard to my constituency, Upper Bann, I welcome the reference in chapter 9 to Craigavon and Banbridge as counter-magnets to the Belfast metropolitan area as regards housing needs. However, I cannot help but draw the conclusion that there appears to be a greater emphasis on the needs of the Belfast metropolitan area than on those of other areas of Northern Ireland.

Craigavon is recognised as the third major growth area in Northern Ireland, and in that context I turn to the market towns of Portadown, Lurgan and Brownlow, and the reference on page 101 to town centres. There is a great opportunity to be creative and imaginative in the development and redevelopment of our town centres, in particular the existing brownfield sites. However, there is one important caveat. In order to be properly developed and exploited, some of the brownfield sites require additional infrastructure so as to create and develop opportunity sites. In the implementation of the strategy I hope that due cognizance will be taken of the need to create additional infrastructure in the inner-town areas to develop brownfield sites that were hitherto landlocked.

With regard to the rural environment, I recognise the need for the proper conservation of natural habitats and wetlands. However, I want to draw the attention of the Minister, his co-Ministers and the Department to a phenomenon that has happened in the past few years — the undue flooding of certain pasture lands and arable lands that were hitherto used in commercial production. The agriculture industry cannot afford the permanent loss of traditional pasture land and arable land, and I would like to think that recognition will be given to what I call the traditional commercial lands, which in the interim have become wetlands, to ensure that that is not permanent. I hope that some action will be taken to bring those lands that were lost in the recent flooding phenomenon, particularly in the Upper Bann area and in the Birches area where I come from, back into commercial production.

In connection with transportation, Craigavon is on the main rail route from Belfast to Dublin and, as the third- largest growth area in Northern Ireland, is strategically placed for further development. I am thankful that recognition was given to that fact and that the strategic plan provides for 8,500 houses. That represents about two thirds of what some professionals in the planning market want for Craigavon. The figure of 12,000 houses was mooted during the consultation process.

Craigavon and Banbridge have a strong and successful business culture, and they are strategically placed on the Belfast to Dublin rail corridor. Reference was also made to the road from Portadown to Armagh — the A3 — which links the Northway with the M12 and the M1 and places Craigavon in an advantageous position.

Craigavon has the best-value housing in Northern Ireland with average prices at approximately £20,000 below those in Lisburn or Belfast. It also boasts Galen Pharmaceuticals, the only £1 million business in Northern Ireland and the recent winner of the Northern Ireland Innovation in Business award. I therefore commend Craigavon and Banbridge to the Minister, particularly with regard to their strategic position and the infrastructure that is already there, although improvements are required.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the increased focus given to the brownfield sites and support their increased use in future developments from both an environmental and a social point of view.

The proposals for the regional transportation system are particularly relevant to my constituency of East Antrim and to Northern Ireland in general. I am concerned at the amount of emphasis given to the Belfast to Dublin intercity links compared to other infrastructural linkages on an east/west basis. The document specifies the need for a high-quality intercity linkage between Belfast and Dublin, but it describes the need only for good linkages for other onward connections such as the ro-ro connection from Larne to Scotland; in other words those linkages are to be of a lesser quality. It is important that those high-quality linkages should be extended from Belfast to Larne. Larne should be included in the main emphasis on the eastern seaboard corridor.

The document places emphasis on investment in the Dublin/Belfast area. It mentions the potential for a new motorway linking Lisburn to Newry and the possibility of a new rail commuter line for that area. No improvements are specified for the northern section that links Belfast and the majority of the population of Northern Ireland, through Larne, to Scotland. That is a vital route for our economy and for tourism, because the rural facility at Larne is an important way to encourage tourists to come to Northern Ireland.

The document describes the Belfast/Dublin corridor as a focus for economic development and tourism. I argue that there is a need to promote tourism and economic development in other areas through the east/west link.

With regard to rail services, I welcome the Belfast metropolitan area plan’s stress on the importance of park- and-ride facilities and investment. However, the importance of the trans-European rail network to Larne has not been stated. The quality of the onward service to Larne is not emphasised to the same extent as other routes. This is an important route, not just in terms of the Belfast metropolitan area plan, but also in a European context. The bulk of the rail commuter traffic comes from the Carrickfergus area. However, unless there is investment in the rail service to Larne, the congestion that occurs at Mallusk will continue. By upgrading the rail service from Larne to Belfast, people can be encouraged to move from road to rail. The congestion that clogs up the Greater Belfast transport system affects onward transport to Ballymena, Londonderry, Coleraine, Magherafelt and the Newtownabbey area and is a major cause of delay in the transport system of Northern Ireland.

I am concerned about the road network shown in diagram 11 — the regional strategic transport network. I noticed that the borough of Carrickfergus, which boasts a population of around 30,000, does not get a trunk road, a link road or a link corridor. No preference is expressed as to the quality of the road service that should connect Carrickfergus onward to Larne or back towards Belfast. Given that smaller towns such as Newcastle and Ballycastle are deemed to be worthy of connections using trunk networks, it is very strange that the document places no importance on the road system of a sizeable town like Carrickfergus. The transport systems for the coastal area of east Antrim must be reassessed. That area is of importance to the economy and to the future potential of tourism in Northern Ireland. I welcome much of the report, but some areas need to be addressed further.

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

I welcome the latest draft of the regional strategic framework document and the Minister’s comments on brownfield sites. I am concerned that so little time has been allowed to consider this important and far-reaching document. We have only had the document for two days; that is an inadequate amount of time to do it justice. The report will have a tremendous impact on many aspects of life in Northern Ireland, and we must get it right.

The Environment Committee, the Regional Development Committee and the Social Development Committee had concerns about previous drafts of this document, and I am pleased that some of our suggestions have been taken up.

I welcome the inclusion of the 60% target for regional brownfield development, and I hope that that is a minimum target. I am, however, concerned that no specific target has been set for Belfast, the largest urban area in Northern Ireland. If the Department can undertake the complicated task of setting a target for the whole of Northern Ireland, I cannot understand why one cannot be set for the Belfast metropolitan area. Unless a specific target for brownfield development is set at this point, Belfast may face years of drift and insecurity until a goal is finally reached. That may not happen until the Belfast metropolitan plan is in place in 2005 or 2006.

We need to implement policies that will swell the capacity of the brownfield building industry. By setting specific brownfield targets for an urban area such as Belfast, site flow will be stimulated and the brownfield site base increased. The Department must take the lead in supporting that transition.

I welcome the University of Ulster’s work in conducting the urban capacity project. It is essential that we know the location and extent of the brownfield sites before we can set realistic targets. A specific target for brownfield development is needed to support planning policies and enforcement in Belfast. It would ensure that planners direct developers to brownfield sites and encourage them to create attractive areas, rather than simply taking the easiest pickings. If we are to protect what is left of our greenfield sites, it is vital that we do not disrupt our settled community any further and cause even more social problems, as is happening in Belfast at the moment.

The option of providing additional housing by converting existing buildings was mentioned. Incentives equal to the tax incentives for new build, to encourage the reuse and conversion of buildings rather than their demolition, would be welcome. I encourage the relevant Ministers to make strong representations to change the current situation. That would encourage the regeneration of our towns and cities, and at the same time maintain the character of the built environment. In general I welcome the strategy and hope that it becomes a reality.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I also welcome the proposals. I know that they are only in draft form at the moment, but they are nonetheless very important.

The Minister has raised several key issues that concern people in my constituency of Strangford and those further afield. These proposals form the basis for a regional development strategy.

I will mention a few issues that are important to the people whom I represent. We welcome the conclusion that the strategy should not designate major or key service centres or regional towns, a decision that is important for several reasons. The way in which the major service centres were designated in the former draft strategy was disastrous to the future of the borough of Ards, because it was based on the perceived ability of the district town to accommodate housing growth.

The problem was exacerbated when ‘Strategy 2010’, the Department’s economic development strategy, followed the ‘Shaping Our Future’ draft proposals and suggested that the emphasis on jobs growth should centre on the major service areas. That made it difficult for Ards Borough Council to attract much-needed industrial development.

The borough of Ards, as many Members know, has suffered greatly, especially in recent times. Some 1,000 jobs, mainly in the textile industries, have been lost. Any new strategy must pave the way for the attraction of new industries and ensure not only that sufficient land is available for industrial development but that the quest for new jobs is facilitated. We want to make sure that boroughs such as Ards have that opportunity, and I believe that that can happen as a result of this proposal.

I urge the Department to carry out further consideration of how the strategy should be revised in order to strike a balance between the efficiency of investment and inclusiveness. They would thereby find a solution to keep areas experiencing problems, such as the borough of Ards, at the forefront in the quest for jobs. We want to ensure that there is fair play in attracting jobs; that is why this regional development strategy is so important.

I also welcome the fact that the report refers to link corridors, especially the A20. We strongly believe that it is important for us to develop the route between Ards and Belfast from an industrial point of view. It is the key to taking our products further afield, whether to the harbours at Belfast or Larne, or other areas.

We also feel that there should be a strategy that advocates the extension of the E-way, which is mentioned in the strategy, to Comber and Newtownards. This is a light rapid transit route, and it is important that something along those lines be at least considered and financial assistance set aside for it. There is a vast build-up of traffic in all the areas coming from Ards and Comber, with people from Ards and Killinchy coming through Comber, and those from the Ards peninsula coming across from Bangor and using Ards town. This E-way may be a way of addressing some of our concerns in relation to transport.

I will quickly hit on some other issues that we are concerned about. We believe there is a developer’s charter, which the Planning Service seems to be presently operating. We are concerned that the developer seems to be able to almost call the tune or fire the shots in relation to any development. Many Members have touched on brownfield development. Obviously, we believe that brownfield land should be used first. However, it is important that councils have the vesting powers to acquire that land, and we ask the Minister to look at this. The Minister mentioned diversification in the rural economy. That is certainly an issue of great importance for the area I represent. I ask the Minister to ensure that the rural economy is given that opportunity.

Regarding coastal zone management, one issue that some Members have touched on today has been global climate change. I make this point because when it comes to development, whether for the fishing industry in our area, or housing or business, the global climate change can be a significant factor in forcing or driving change in the area that we represent.

One last point is in relation to the need for councils to be the catalyst in their areas. I am sure the Minister will touch on the role of councils and the role he perceives for them. The council role is vital for the regional development strategy framework, and together the councils and the Assembly can reach the objective to enliven and revitalise the communities we represent. I support what the Minister has said.

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

Mr Hussey, I ask you to be brief to allow the Minister time to respond.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to get in very briefly. I will go straight to the couple of concerns I have. We are looking at a draft document, and I certainly hope that the final document will reflect what those responsible will feel necessary.

I will begin by making a complaint that Strabane is not identified as a gateway on the map on page 45. On listening to radio reports, I note that there is a huge volume of traffic using the Strabane/Lifford crossing. This is a major North/South gateway and should be recognised as such.

On page 81 there is reference to the north-west development corridor running from Londonderry to Letterkenny. I would have thought that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be considering the development corridor running through the Foyle valley. The reference on page 83 to the extension of the natural gas pipeline to Londonderry should refer to Londonderry and beyond.

I agree with P J Bradley’s comments on the vibrancy of the rural communities. This strategy reflects the ability of people to build, live and work in the rural community, should it be via greater recognition of existing sites in the countryside; and I would further extend that because there are always small pieces of land on a farm that cannot be used. The rural community should have greater leeway to utilise such land through the provision of additional housing.

The spatial framework for tourism is covered on page 146. Is anybody in the Assembly going to tell me that Sion Mills does not have any industrial heritage? Are we being told that there are no castles in Tyrone and County Londonderry? That appears to be the case when you look at the map on that page. Apparently there are no forest parks west of Omagh, nor is there horse riding beyond the Mournes.

I agree with Mr McNamee’s remarks, which were supported by Mrs Carson, about the re-establishment, or at least the thought of re-establishing, the circular rail route that once existed in Northern Ireland.

On page 150 of the report, which covers activity- based holidays, there is no mention of hunting, shooting and fishing. We all know that these are major sources of foreign income from tourists participating in those particular activities. Finally, on page 178, are we being told that there are no areas of natural beauty and no scenic quality west of the A4? I close with those remarks.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I sympathise with Mr Beggs, who struggled a little with his paperwork towards the end of his speech. Given that I have had to listen to 17 contributions on a variety of topics, I am sure that he and others will sympathise with me as I try to respond to as many of them as possible. If there are issues that I inadvertently do not refer to specifically or in sufficient detail, my staff and the officials who are diligently taking notes will respond in writing.

I thank Members for their response to the document. It took a considerably long time to prepare, and it has been through the mill on several occasions with the Committee for Regional Development and other Committees. I respond positively to the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, who asked for assurances that the monitoring of the strategy would be tackled diligently, and that an annual progress report be presented to the Committee. I assure him that that will be the case.

The Deputy Chairperson and several others referred to public transport and railways. Given the knowledge that Members have about what formerly was called the "consolidation option", I do not need to mention the difficulties we had in recent months regarding the railway system in Northern Ireland. I do not like the term "consolidation option". However, it was used in the task force report, and the adoption by the Assembly of that option meant £105 million being spent merely to get the consolidation option. It is hoped that the money will be spent over the next three years on preserving the existing railway infrastructure.

Members will understand that the expansion of the railway system to Armagh, north and south, Fermanagh, Tyrone, west of Omagh, and to all points north, south, east and west would require hundreds of millions of pounds.

Nonetheless, I remain in favour of railways and public transportation in general. I will require resources to put that into practice. I want to emphasise the commitment that exists in the regional development strategy to the transport proposals that will flow from it and be a part of it. I also want to assure the Deputy Chairperson that any non-compliance in the implementation of relevant measures will be closely monitored and acted on.

Several Members referred to harbours in their own areas. Warrenpoint and Londonderry harbours, and the others, have caused me much consideration. Members will also be aware that I am currently exploring what legislative changes could be brought about to allow those harbours to develop and to diversify. Naturally, I want to see a regional development strategy that would allow that to occur. I will be monitoring that closely, and I hope that the strategy will not only permit that, but will prompt harbour authority officers to take advantage of that change.

Several Members referred to the issue of brownfield development. As I suspected, that issue was to dominate Members’ contributions. Before focusing on it, I want to refer to an issue of general conformity that has taken up many hours in the Department for Regional Development and in the Department of the Environment: what steps can I take to ensure flexibility between the strategy and the development plans?

Following receipt of legal opinion, I am going to promote amending legislation in the next session to substitute the regional development strategy for the requirement that development plans and development schemes must be in general conformity. These statutory provisions, including the proposed amendment, provide the legal framework in which implementation of the strategy will proceed. However, these provisions will be kept under review to ensure that they provide a sufficiently flexible, yet effective, legal framework. I am satisfied that the proposed change will still preserve the authority of the regional development strategy. I hope that that is helpful.

Many tributes were paid to the senior civil servants working on the strategy, and I concur with those. Mr Peter Robinson referred to a number of senior civil servants, notably the permanent secretary who will shortly be retiring after many years in the Department. I want to take this opportunity to commend him and to wish him well in his imminent retirement.

I did not schedule today’s debate to coincide with any possible resignation or recess. In fact, as I said earlier, the regional development strategy has been through the mill several times with the Regional Development Committee and other Committees.

Any consideration of timing is in regard to the commitment I gave to the Minister of the Environment to try to present the current draft to the Assembly before the summer recess.

I will discuss the important issue of brownfield percentages, which many Members mentioned. For many months a wide range of views has been expressed on this highly topical issue. Some were concerned that the Department would set too low a target for brownfield housing development. They felt that the target should be more in line with the English target of 60%. That concern was expressed by the Belfast Metropolitan Residents Group.

Others, however, were equally concerned that the target might be too high and would unnecessarily stifle the supply of land for greenfield suburban residential development, which consumers want. That point was made by greenfield housebuilders and the Construction Employers Federation. I have weighed up those arguments, and I have listened carefully to Members’ views.

My view, which is shared by the Assembly Committees, is that, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, policy can influence the actions and performance of the housing market. I am therefore signalling a clear direction of policy change towards seeking to achieve substantially more housing in our urban areas. That will greatly assist the continuing revitalisation of our cities and towns. I stress that, in practice, this will be worked out primarily through the development plan process, taking into account urban capacity studies. I expect the level of brownfield performance to vary from town to town, in the light of local characteristics and capacity.

The strategy sets an ambitious regional target to double, over 10 years, the recent level of achievement — which was 25% to 30% — for the location of housing growth within existing urban areas of cities and towns with a population of more than 5,000. Effectively, this sets an ambitious regional target of up to 60% to be met before the first full review in 2010. That target has been increased from the 40% figure recommended by the public examination panel, and it reflects a genuine move towards more sustainable patterns of development for the region. In setting the target, practice and achievement throughout the United Kingdom has been taken into consideration.

In regard to the restriction of greenfield sites, I am committed to a change in direction that emphasises the development of brownfield sites. That does not rule out greenfield development but places an emphasis on more housing in existing urban areas. Progress towards the regional target will be monitored, and after five years an assessment of whether any adjustment is necessary will be made.

The issue of town cramming was also raised. The strategy aims to encourage an increase in the density of urban housing, particularly in existing urban areas, which is appropriate in scale and design to the cities and towns of Northern Ireland. The aim is to encourage higher-density housing schemes, through imaginative and innovative design, without town cramming. However, the strategy makes it clear that the aim of achieving an overall increase in town densities must not be interpreted as a broad mandate to impose overdeveloped and unsympathetic housing schemes on existing residential areas. Redevelopment of existing houses and the development of infill sites in such areas need to be handled with sensitivity. The overriding objective in such areas must be to avoid any significant erosion of the environmental quality, amenities and privacy enjoyed by existing residents.

Ms Morrice raised the issue of provision for children. Her view was that it should be kids, not cars. She said that the children of Northern Ireland were not catered for in the document. I urge Members to read the document carefully. They will see that in every respect we have endeavoured to ensure that people from throughout Northern Ireland, regardless of age or geographical location, are catered for.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am not sure what the procedure is, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

It is not normal for a Minister to give way when he is making a winding-up speech.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I would have given way, had I been allowed to.

I encourage Members to read the entire document. Other Members spoke about the growth of villages and towns. The spatial development policy will address that.

I take on board the issues raised by Members from west of the Bann, such as Mrs Carson, who mentioned the A29. I am sure that my officials will respond to her query. Mrs Courtney spoke about the regional capital of the north-west. Londonderry is recognised as such in the document, and she will agree that that ought to be the case. Mr Carrick raised some issues affecting Craigavon and Banbridge. Members must understand that the Belfast metropolitan area is the largest conurbation, but that other expanding areas such as Craigavon and Banbridge, and areas west of the Bann such as Omagh, and areas in Fermanagh, are also recognised.

I apologise for not being able to talk about the E-way or about Ards Borough, Strabane, Larne and the many other areas that were mentioned. I will ensure that my officials respond to those individual queries, however long that may take. I commend the regional development strategy to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of progress on the formulation of the regional development strategy.

Adjourned at 6.08 pm.