Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 September 2001

101 contributions from 39 members. The official report.

North/South Ministerial Council: Environment Sectoral Meeting

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

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on the environment, which was held on Friday 15 June 2001 in Dromad, County Louth.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Following nomination by the former First and Deputy First Ministers, Mr Durkan and I attended the fourth North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on the environment. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Dan Wallace TD, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Mr Wallace chaired the meeting. The statement has been approved by Mr Durkan and is also made on his behalf.

The meeting began with a review of the progress of the joint working group on water quality, which was established to consider water quality strategies for the Erne and Foyle catchments and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive.

A primary objective of the Directive is to harmonise approaches to water management across EU member states. The water quality working group has been examining a number of technical issues related to that objective. A technical advisory group has been established to provide advice and support to the working group.

The technical advisory group’s priority tasks will include the development of an agreed characterisation system, or typology, for surface waters, and the development of a map of North/South shared river basins to assist the process of identifying appropriate international river basin districts. To assist the group with the latter task, the Council endorsed a number of principles on the development of proposals for the delineation of international river basin districts in Ireland.

The Council received a report on the tendering for a jointly funded contract to develop an interactive web site of current environmental research. The tendering process followed Government procurement procedures and was overseen by the Northern Ireland Government Purchasing Agency. The Council noted the outcome of the tendering process and agreed that the Environment and Heritage Service and the Environmental Protection Agency should award the contract to a Belfast-based company, Infinet Design. The Council looked forward to viewing a prototype of the web site at a subsequent meeting.

The Council was updated on the substantial existing co-operation between North and South on a range of new technology for monitoring issues. Areas brought to the Council’s attention included remote sensing, fish stock assessment and on-site monitoring. Dr Eon O’Mongain of Spectral Signatures Ltd made a short presentation to the Council on airborne remote sensing for water quality monitoring. This sophisticated technology has been used in recent years for lake monitoring in the North and in the South. The Council recognised the long-term nature of the work and agreed that further progress reports should be provided as significant developments occur.

The Council noted the proposals on land cover mapping and key databases. On the first of these areas, the Council received a short presentation from Mr Robin Fuller, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, relating to the technology used in developing these complex maps and the associated benefits of capturing the information. The Council approved the planning work on a sample cross- border area for comparison of the respective land cover maps.

In relation to key databases, a small working group has been set up to test the compatibility of the environmental databases, North and South. This will be done using water quality data. The working group will carry out some benchmarking of other environmental organisations to explore how the data, once captured, can best be presented for the ease of users, particularly the public.

The Council noted that progress on taking forward the scoping study on the environmental impacts of agriculture had been slower than anticipated. This was due to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, which had necessarily been the focus of attention and effort of the agricultural authorities North and South. The Council did, however, approve the preliminary methodology for taking forward the scoping study when conditions permit. Under this methodology the study will be conducted as a six-month desk analysis to be carried out by two postgraduate students, one from each jurisdiction, under the overall direction of a steering group on which the relevant Environment and Agriculture Departments and agencies will be represented. The steering group will be co-chaired by the two Environment Departments.

The Council then turned its attention to waste management. It agreed that there is scope for a co-operative approach to the development of markets for secondary materials and recyclates on the island and that officials should work together to bring forward formal proposals for a structured approach to the establishment of a joint market development programme. It was also agreed that, should an appropriate opportunity present itself, the Environment Ministers would jointly examine and evaluate a successful recycling and market development programme abroad. The Council agreed that officials should give consideration to a cross-border proposal to encourage community-based recycling.

The Council noted the success of the recovery scheme for farm plastics operated by the Irish Farm Films Producers’ Group in the Republic of Ireland. The Council agreed that the Department of the Environment, in discussion with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, would consider the desirability of a complementary initiative in Northern Ireland.

Finally, the Council considered and agreed the text of a joint communiqué to be issued after the meeting. A copy has been placed in the Assembly Library. The Council agreed that the next sectoral meeting on the environment will take place in Northern Ireland in October2001.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister stated that the meeting related to the progress of joint North/South programmes on waste management. I find that interesting. At the last meeting of the Environment Committee, Thursday 20 September, the three regional groups in Northern Ireland — the one in the north-west is of a cross-border nature — said that there was poor co-operation between them and the Minister’s Department. We were told that £1 million of the £3·5 million allocated and made available this year was to be handed back.

Will the Minister tell us why progress on that important issue has been so slow in Northern Ireland? Why has none of the money been spent to date, when it seems that even more of that £3·5 million could be surrendered before the year is out? How much did the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting cost the Northern Ireland exchequer?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not agree entirely with the Member’s statements, because progress has been made, even though it has been slow. Reasonable progress has been made in implementing the waste strategy since its publication in March 2000. For example, district councils submitted their provisional waste management plans to my Department in June 2001. Those plans have been reviewed, and they will be developed further by district councils prior to full public consultation early next year.

Moreover, the Waste Management Advisory Board has been established to assist with the strategy’s implementation; policy guidance on planning and waste management has been issued for public consultation; further guidance on the best practicable environmental option has been published; three detailed waste status studies have been completed to assist the development of waste management plans; proposals for new regulations for duty of care will be published for consultation in the next few weeks; and a consultation paper on new waste management licensing regulations should be published by 31 March 2002.

The £3·5 million budget for this financial year was dependent on the completion and adoption of the waste management plans and was intended for their implementation. The recent transfer of £1 million to other important areas of public expenditure, to which the Member referred, does not mean that there is a lesser requirement for extensive financial support for waste management. That simply reflects the need for expenditure to be properly planned and focused. Prior to the completion of the plans, the Department listened to the views of district councils and the Waste Management Advisory Board on immediate expenditure needs.

In this financial year the Department will invest £400,000 in the UK-wide waste resource action programme; it will complete £400,000 of data studies; and it will invest £500,000 in the initial public awareness and education programme, which will occur in tandem with the public consultation of district council plans.

At present, a sum of £130,000 is reserved to provide further financial assistance to district councils to complete their waste management plans and to support pilot schemes such as additional recycling and composting mills for households.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the joint approach to a market development programme. In view of the urgency with which it must be done, will the Minister make it a priority to examine best practice in successful recycling and market development programmes in tandem with the consultation, education and culture change that is required to implement our waste management strategy?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I assure the Member that my Department will do all in its power to encourage people and to ensure that the educational message is put across. Much depends on the district councils working through the management plans and issues themselves. However, I assure the Member that the Department will be there to help.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s report of the sectoral meeting. In the past there has been a lack of co-operation in attempts to deal with the Erne system’s problems. I do not like to hark back to that issue, but what progress has the working group made on water quality in the Erne catchment in particular? The zebra mussels make life difficult for the tourist industry in the bay area at Kesh, where waterskiers and boats are already having problems. Furthermore, I have come across a peculiar word in environmental circles — CORINE. Perhaps that is the name of a strange woman. Will the Minister explain the meaning of the word?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

CORINE is not a strange woman. The acronym stands for the "co-ordination of information on the environment" and is a European land cover mapping project. A land cover map records in detail the extent and type of land, including forest, wetland, farm land and coastal areas; information that is valuable to environmental planners, regulators, agriculturalists and conservationists. Northern Ireland is included in the more detailed UK land cover 2000 map, which will integrate the collection of data on land cover across the UK.

Zebra mussels are a major problem in Northern Ireland, many parts of Europe and also North America. They first appeared in the Erne system in 1996. It is impossible to remove zebra mussels once they have become established, although they tend to reach a natural limit in waterways. That is why the emphasis must be on prevention rather than cure.

In the spring, my Department launched a publicity campaign to educate the public, particularly boat owners, anglers and those engaged in water sports, about the mussel problem. Their help is needed to prevent the spread of zebra mussels to unaffected waters. The campaign, which included the issue of information leaflets, alerted those groups to the danger of transporting zebra mussels to unaffected waters. It received good coverage in the local media and explained how boats and equipment can be cleansed by steam cleaning. Once zebra mussels are there, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove them. The mussels must be controlled, and I urge people to pay attention to any advice given because they will create many problems in our waters if they are not dealt with.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the all-Ireland dimension of the Minister’s statement. It is a common sense provision on the water quality of the island as a whole. We can, and should, establish an island-wide monitoring and recording process. We should, without delay, explore the most common best practice in Europe.

I also welcome the co-operation on recycling and waste management. Up until now, the focus has mostly been on waste disposal methods rather than on reuse and recycling. Will the Minister ensure that priority will be given in any educational programme to those matters?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As far as I am concerned, I deal with cross-border issues because there are two separate Administrations working together for mutual benefit. It is important to realise that.

The water quality working group has made good progress and is now focusing on implementing the Water Framework Directive, which requires cross-border co-operation for shared waterways. It is long-term planning work, and the aim is to achieve good water quality status for all waterways by 2015.

A North/South technical advisory group now supports the working group because the Directive sets water quality standards across a range of scientific and conservation fronts. The technical work builds on previous consultancy work carried out in the mid-1990s on water quality management strategies for the Foyle and Erne waterway systems. That was reviewed under the working group’s direction earlier this year.

We are there to help and to educate where we can. The cross-border issue accepts and acknowledges that we are two separate jurisdictions.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I am interested in the Minister’s statement, and particularly his last point. The Minister emphasises the identification of international river basin districts. I am sure the Minister will agree that for something to be international it has to involve the interests of at least two countries. Will he also agree that the willingness of the Dublin Government to acknowledge that international dimension on the island of Ireland has come about as a direct consequence of the change in their Constitution that stemmed from the Belfast Agreement?

Will the Minister further agree that that change is a welcome recognition of reality as opposed to the observance of aspirations that we had for 70 years and that, irrespective of what might happen to the Belfast Agreement or any further change to that Constitution, it is permanent?

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

Mr Leslie, you are coming very close to being ruled out of order, but I will let the Minister respond.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I refer to my response to an earlier question. I participate on the basis that the two separate and distinct Administrations reflect separate and distinct jurisdictions, but they can and should co-operate where that can deliver genuine mutual benefit. The environment sector’s agenda passes that test by concentrating on practical measures rather than on symbolic gestures. I welcome the acknowledgement by the Republic of Ireland that we are a separate jurisdiction. My opposite number, Mr Noel Dempsey, and I work very well together, and co-operation is excellent.

The Water Framework Directive requires member states to identify cross-border waterways as international river basin districts and to co-operate on their water quality management.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the further information in his answers.

On the problem of general refuse and waste management, does the Minister agree that a critical mass is required for the economic and effective recycling of waste and the possible creation of energy from it? Does he agree that an all-Ireland approach is required? The matter has been talked about for more than a decade, but there has been no real progress in quantum recycling and the production of energy. Will he put at the top of his agenda for the next North/South environmental meeting the need for a common approach to recycling and the critical mass required for it? It cannot be done piecemeal. For example, the nine councils around Belfast are at present trying to introduce a scheme for the recycling of tyres. Does the Minister agree that that needs to be done on a much larger all-island basis? It should not involve only tyres, but all domestic and other waste.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There is no doubt that we are keen to co-operate on recycling and to facilitate it where possible. The waste management strategy, in promoting recycling, sets a target for district councils to recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005. That will entail a significant increase on present recycling levels by councils in Northern Ireland, currently estimated to be around 5%.

Key to the success of any recycling programme is the co-ordination of systems to recover materials and the development of markets for their use. I am pleased that my Department will provide financial support for the development of new markets and will assist councils to implement their waste management plans, particularly in respect of recycling.

All district councils now belong to one of three sub- regional groups which are examining the establishment of a network of waste management facilities, including provision for recycling. Cross-border co-operation will come into that and will provide the economies of scale necessary to make investment in recycling and recovery facilities viable. The smaller scale is not viable. A larger market will be provided for products made from recycled materials.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

In view of the reprocessing of farm plastics, which are an obscenity in the countryside, what efforts have been made to implement the European Directive that says that the polluter should pay? What efforts are being made to persuade the takeaway industry and farm suppliers to find suitable alternatives that are not too expensive, but stop the countryside from being polluted with plastic bags and sheeting?

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

I remind Members that I gave Mr Leslie a degree of licence on this matter. Questions should relate to the ministerial statement, and I am afraid that some Members are straying from it. However, the Minister may wish to comment.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his point. The negative impact of all sorts of packaging, including plastic bags, has long been a matter of general concern. The EC Directive 94/62/EC 1994 on packaging and packaging waste was specifically designed to bring about a reduction in the use of packaging by placing recycling and recovery obligations on businesses that are involved in the making or filling of packaging or in the sale of packaged goods. Several of the larger supermarket chains including Tesco and Sainsbury’s are now using multi-trip bags such as Tesco’s "bag for life". More recently, companies have been investigating the extent to which biodegradable bags might meet the requirements.

Agricultural plastic is not a controlled waste. Therefore it is exempt from waste legislation. That is likely to change in the near future when agricultural waste becomes a controlled waste under the terms of the proposed controlled waste regulations for Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has introduced new regulations that govern the collection and recycling of waste farm plastics. Producers and suppliers of farm wrap must register, operate a deposit scheme of £200 per tonne and collect farm plastics for recycling or recovery. In conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, my Department is looking at the necessary primary powers to introduce a similar scheme in Northern Ireland and the feasibility of setting up voluntary collection schemes.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Have the waste management schemes that were put forward by the three different regions been accepted, or are the Departments sticking to their rejection of them because they do not cover a long enough period? I understand that the schemes cover a five-year period, and the Department is looking for a 20-year period that would include incineration.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are trying to co-operate where we can. Areas that we feel are not as they should be have been returned for further discussion and assessment. We need to ensure that we get it right, but the onus rests on the respective groups in the district council areas. However, we will look at the difficulties, assess them and refer them back to the district councils.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is long overdue. I am glad to see that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are coming together regarding waste management.

Can the Minister outline what costs are likely to be associated with the office of the environmental research register and its use?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The winners of the tender competition to develop a web site for the joint register were Infinet Design from Belfast at a cost of £31,350. Work on the register has begun. The cost will be shared by both jurisdictions. A prototype will be available by the end of this year. Access to the register will be through its own web site, the web sites of the two agencies and through the sites of partner organisations that have contributed research information to it.

Currently the register contains information about environmental protection research that was carried out by the Environment and Heritage Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. Work is under way to add research about nature conservation. It is planned to add information from academic institutions and the private and commercial sectors where available.

It is important that that information be shared, because that will help researchers and sponsors to avoid duplicating effort and cost, to identify new areas for research, to find partners for collaboration, and to identify potential sources of funding.

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

I will return to an issue raised by Mr McGrady. Is there potential on an all-Ireland basis for thermal recycling, which breaks down waste into gas, minerals and metals? The problem with recycling, as the Minister knows, is that there is no demand for much of the recycled materials. How do we create the demand?

I note that officials are working together to make formal proposals for these joint strategies. When will those proposals be put forward?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are working consistently on the matter that the Member raises, and we will continue to do so. The waste management strategy allows for cross- border co-operation as part of the district-council- based management plans. The market here is not large enough for such a system, so we are proceeding on an all-Ireland basis. Any cross-border co-operation will need to comply with both the waste management strategy and the UK management plan for exports and imports of waste. The UK plan is currently under review and is likely to allow cross-border imports and exports of waste where there are sound economic and environmental reasons for doing so and where the activity is included in each district council’s waste management plan. We are working on that matter and we will co-operate.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome, in particular, the reference to waste management. The Minister will be aware of all the methodologies that are being employed in this field, such as reduction at source, reuse, recycling and, as Mr O’Connor mentioned, demand creation. Whichever method is used, there will still be residual waste. Did the North/ South Ministerial Council consider creating energy from waste?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

All options will be considered. It is important that we consider anything that might be useful. I assure the Member that we will look into that issue.

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

I support North/South waste management collaboration and the Minister’s efforts to improve river water quality in the Erne and Foyle systems. Does the Minister agree that the Foyle basin and its associated tributaries — the Finn in Donegal and the Derg, the Mourne and the Strule in Tyrone — are vital to drainage and fishing? Would the Minister support a comprehensive study of fish stocks and fish stock management in the Foyle system to protect the environmental and economic potential of the counties of Donegal, Derry and Tyrone?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are co-operating with the authorities across the border, and we will take into account what the Member has said. The Water Framework Directive aims to improve water quality through the management of complete river catchments. There is an important issue there. The Directive requires member states to agree water quality management plans for cross-border waterways, which are known as international river basin districts.

The Water Framework Directive was adopted by the EU on 22 December 2000 and must be incorporated into Northern Ireland legislation by 2003. In order to achieve good water quality status, water quality management plans for all river basin districts must be prepared by 2009 and implemented by 2015. The plans will then be reviewed, as it is a continuous process. It is an important plan, which we are working on.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Mentioned in the communiqué is a co- operative approach to developing markets for secondary materials and recyclates. Were the landfill tax and the proposed aggregates tax, which is distorting the quarry industry in the border regions, mentioned in the Minister’s discussions?

Given the Chancellor’s decision to impose that tax on Northern Ireland, has there been any discussion about the need for the imposition of a similar tax in the South, which would remove that distortion and provide a fair playing field for Northern Ireland industry?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There has been no in-depth discussion about the aggregates tax, but I am aware that it creates a great problem in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Quarry Owners Association has approached me about the matter. It is a big environmental issue, and I know how difficult it will be for quarry owners in this jurisdiction. It is important that we examine this touchy and difficult issue, because there could be disastrous consequences for local quarry owners.

Assembly: Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee

Interdepartmental Working Group

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Executive to establish an interdepartmental working group to make recommendations on the removal of paramilitary flags, emblems and graffiti from public property.

The University of Ulster will this week publish a report entitled ‘Spaces of Fear’. It demonstrates the paradox that exists in our society: although much progress has been made as a result of the Belfast Agreement, bigotry, sectarianism and segregation have increased rather than decreased. We should be alarmed by those findings.

There has been a marked increase in the amount of graffiti and the number of paramilitary flags — sometimes on lamp posts along arterial routes — murals, kerbstone painting and monuments in virtually every housing estate in Northern Ireland. They are the physical manifestation of sectarianism and segregation in our society and a sign that paramilitary groups have entire areas in their sights.

I shall not argue about which flags are intimidatory and which are not; opinions on that will differ. I refer to Republican, Loyalist and other potentially racist graffiti. I do not intend to attack anyone’s national flag, nor do I want to argue about when a mural is offensive and when it is artistic. Most of us can see the artistic talent in many of the works on gable walls. However, murals depicting guns and which bear the initials of paramilitary organisations are deplorable.

Flags, murals and kerbstone painting cause considerable offence to many. Those emblems mark out territory and send out a message that certain parts of our country are the exclusive preserve of one side and that, by implication, others are unwelcome. The threats and intimidation behind the emblems are clear and are unacceptable. Furthermore, some murals celebrate the most brutal killings of the troubles, and cause immense offence to victims. That is totally unacceptable.

An important point is that such displays are not merely offensive to the perceived minority — they are offensive to those in the majority who reject the implication that these flags symbolise good community relations. Many decent people who like to put a flag on their property at certain times of the year, and for specific reasons, find these practices offensive and wish that they did not happen at all. These emblems pose a major challenge to the cause of preserving a common civic space across Northern Ireland.

Tattered flags left flying at the end of every summer and through the worst of our winters are nothing but an eyesore, regardless of their colours or origin. What must tourists and potential investors think when they see our society divided up in this way? It is certain that properties are devalued as a result of these unwanted items being foisted upon them, and that too concerns owners.

There is a great sense of powerlessness and frustration across the community that the problem has gone unchallenged. Individuals are afraid to act or speak out, because they risk being threatened or intimidated — they might get a brick, petrol or pipe bomb through their window. People are scared to complain to the police or to take legal action based on equality legislation. Under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, arguments can be made that public authorities have a duty to maintain neutral, non-discriminatory public space. However, those laws are of little use if people or public authorities are afraid to take action. In Britain, or elsewhere, if racist flags and murals causing substantial offence and damage to good racial relations are put up on public property, people can be sure that the authorities will act swiftly to remove them. Here the authorities simply do not act. Either they point to inadequacies in civil or criminal law or simply pass the buck. If you phone the police to complain about the young lads — and, in some cases, the not so young — putting up flags, they will advise you to ignore them. Taking them down may result in the erection of even more. That is simply not good enough.

The erection of a flag can be construed as an action likely to lead to a breach of the peace. However, the police will only act when flags are being erected in areas perceived to be of the other side of the community. Indeed, you are more likely to be arrested for taking down a flag. If you phone the Department of the Environment, the Roads Service or the Housing Executive to complain, they will usually say that they are powerless to act, because more will go up. Alternatively, they point to the dangers posed to their staff. Also, to date, councils have no power to intervene. Worse is the number of anecdotal stories of agencies advising concerned callers to raise the matter with the local paramilitary leader. That merely increases the control of paramilitaries in certain areas and reinforces the division of society.

There are no easy answers to the problem, but we should recognise that there is a serious problem, and face up to it rather than run away from it. Many of our Departments, particularly the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Social Development, have public property affected by this problem. However, time after time, when asked questions about this, Ministers have said that they are powerless or have passed the buck.

I suggest that the Executive create an interdepartmental working group to discuss the matter, to guide public bodies and to co-ordinate an appropriate response. The group should work in liaison with the police, consider how the existing criminal and civil law could be better enforced and highlight what legislative changes could be made by the Assembly.

Everyone in the House should support the motion. It simply calls on us to show leadership on the issue and perform our duty by examining the problem and trying to find solutions. I ask for Members’support.

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

It is said that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. The particular evil of paramilitary displays, whether they be flags, emblems or murals, will continue to triumph in our society if we, as good men in positions of responsibility in the Assembly, fail to act against it. I welcome the motion. Kieran McCarthy has done a great service by bringing the matter to the attention of the House. He has described accurately the situation that obtains in our society.

It is a continuing problem. Many people are deeply offended and outraged that paramilitary organisations continue to put flags and emblems on public property. Paramilitary displays and emblems are threatening and intimidatory no matter which side they come from. They deter inward investment in the areas of our community that need it most. They also deter the development of tourism. We are aware of the situation in many of our coastal towns that normally attract greater numbers of tourists. The presence of paramilitary flags, murals, and displays has a significant adverse effect on visitors to those areas.

Flags and emblems create a paramilitary culture in many parts of our towns, villages and housing estates. Unfortunately, they have become the norm. Young people are growing up in a culture in which paramilitary displays are seen as a part of ordinary life — that cannot be right. It cannot be right, by any democratic standard, that we, as legislators, should continue to tolerate such a situation. It corrupts the people who live in those areas and the children who grow up in such an environment.

There has been an extraordinary growth in the number of paramilitary displays on both sides of the sectarian divide in the past few years. We require effective measures to counteract that growth. Flags and emblems create the appearance a fiefdom controlled by a paramilitary organisation. They help to reaffirm sectarian divisions. Paramilitary displays are grossly offensive to ordinary people who live in areas polluted by them. Many do not want such displays and want us to condemn their use. However, people will not support us, because they feel intimidated and cowed by the might of those who have imposed offensive displays on their communities.

Paramilitary displays are offensive not only to those who live in the affected areas, but to people who work in, travel through, or visit the areas. Many people are affected. In principle, it is wrong to impose the burden of testing opinion on residents of affected housing estates, because they are not in a position to freely exercise their rights.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the Member accept that there can be a solution to the problem that he has outlined? In South Down, a local community association wrote to every resident in a certain — in this case, Loyalist — estate, asking them for their views on paramilitary flags. A confidential response was sent back to a post office box address. The responses showed that the overwhelming majority of residents in the estate — the Langley Road estate in Ballynahinch — was opposed to the flying of paramilitary flags. Is that not a way forward without opportunity for intimidation?

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

I accept Mr Wells’s point. That is a good scheme, and I am aware of it. It was carried out in an effective way that removed the chances of intimidation of the local community by paramilitaries. I accept that there are effective ways of doing that.

I want, however, to reaffirm the general principle that it is wrong to place on people an unfair burden that they, alone, have to discharge. It is wrong in principle to allow something as fundamentally offensive to democracy as paramilitary displays to remain in any public place.

I disagree with Kieran McCarthy’s comments on national flags. That issue must be handled sensitively, but national flags, although not used as paramilitary displays, are used in an overtly sectarian manner. I would have thought that Mr McCarthy’s motion could have encompassed that factor. Although the motion is limited to paramilitary displays, that aspect of the problem should also be addressed by the interdepartmental working group if the motion is accepted by the Assembly.

There is a sense of powerlessness and hopelessness among those in our community who see these offensive displays everyday. We, as legislators and people in authority, must take effective action. Prima facie, the interference by anyone other than a lawful authority in relation to public property would, in my view, be unlawful. I would have thought that, even now, the public authorities and the police have at least some residual power to deal with this problem. The paralysis of public authorities, and of the police, in regard to this problem, which has been evident over the past number of years, highlights the need for the Assembly to introduce, as expeditiously as possible and as a top priority, legislation to deal with the problem. There must be practical and effective legislation to outlaw paramilitary displays in public areas. Such legislation should be the objective of the interdepartmental working group. That will be the only effective means of dealing with this evil. As I said at the beginning, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. We, as good men representing the public good, should act and do so quickly.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I am not opposed to the principle of the motion, but problems exist in regard to the fixing of paramilitary flags, no matter where they are displayed in the Province. First, it is all very well for us to sit as public representatives in the Assembly, to agree to the motion, and to pass whatever laws we want, but, at the end of the day, we are still asking people in the community to go out and remove these flags.

That is undoubtedly the nub of the issue. When that happens we have continuous and daily threats. In many, if not all, of the district councils across the Province, this issue has been discussed over the years, and the problem has grown.

A solution must come from within the community where it occurs. If it were tackled in the wrong way, many people, particularly paramilitaries, would see that as a challenge. As a result, more flags might go up, rather than come down. In my area of Foyle, we have managed to resolve the issue in some areas where the public have come together and worked on a solution for the removal of the flags.

Flags, especially those of paramilitary organisations, threaten the entire community. They are often regarded as a sign that an area is being targeted or controlled. Paramilitaries feel that the more flags they put up, the more of an area they control. However, that is often not the case. The community would quietly disagree with the flying of flags outside their homes.

The problem has to be addressed without creating another problem. In two areas of my constituency we have been reasonably successful in removing all flags through hard work with the community to collectively resolve the issue. We could pass legislation in the Assembly, and we could discuss it at local authority level, but, at the end of the day, somebody somewhere — the RUC or, perhaps, personnel from the Department for Regional Development — would have to remove the flags. Employees in my constituency have often been threatened, some seriously. One person had to leave the area after he attempted to remove flags. The solution to all of these issues lies in the local community.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member agree that the approach by the authorities is sometimes not even- handed? When Loyalists removed tricolours in parts of Ballymena, they were arrested and taken to court. There is a perception in the Loyalist community that Republicans are not arrested when they take down Loyalist posters or signs. Is it not important that the police are even-handed in their approach to this? If people break the law, they should be seen to be prosecuted.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I will take on board the hon Member’s comments about getting that balance. There is a feeling that often the authorities have not got the balance right. There are people who put up paramilitary flags, or flags of any nature, and who try to get them as close as they can to either a Nationalist area or a Unionist area. In some areas of my constituency, tricolours fly so close to a Protestant area that it is clear that they were only put up to create problems from the neighbouring community.

The only reason for putting up those flags was to try to get a reaction from the Protestant community. It is good that that community did not react, because the Republican movement has, over the years, tried to get a reaction from that Protestant estate. During the summer, it decided that, everything else having failed, it would try to put up a few tricolours. The Protestant estate was very restrained and did not react.

Flags have been a problem for 30 years. This issue will not be resolved over the next number of months, or even years. It is a major problem for both communities, and it is on the increase. Unfortunately, there are occasions on which public representatives make a bad situation worse.

There is a way to tackle and resolve this issue. The only way in which it can be genuinely resolved is if communities say that enough is enough and are no longer prepared to allow people to come into their areas to put up paramilitary flags and then leave those areas feeling under threat. When Government agencies and others drive through those areas, it can appear that the UDA, the UVF or the IRA controls them. In many instances, that is not the case.

I am not, in principle, opposed to the setting up of a working group. However, I do not know what that working group would recommend on the removal of flags. It would be a miracle, because if we got that right, we would probably get everything else right here. In any case, I do not know how the working group could enforce its recommendations, and if the recommendations could not be enforced, the group would have failed. My party is not against the motion in principle; the difficulty is in its delivery on the ground.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Aontaím le focail an mholtóra — leis an chuid is mó acu ar a laghad. Níl mé i gcoinne an rúin é féin, ach tá ceist agam ar an mholtóir: conas is féidir leis an ghrúpa seo an fhadhb a réiteach?

I agree with much of what Mr McCarthy has said about flags, emblems and graffiti, whether they are of a paramilitary nature or not. I tend to agree with Mr Hay’s approach. Why does Mr McCarthy think that the establishment of an interdepartmental working group will solve the problem? He and others referred to the introduction of legislation. We have legislation that makes it an offence to deface public property. The Departments have the capacity to remove objects of any nature from their property, be it road signs, telephone or electricity poles, or the gables of Housing Executive properties. More legislation will not necessarily address the problem.

The issue of graffiti certainly needs to be addressed. The Department for Regional Development is responsible for removing graffiti from road signs, direction signs and hazard signs. I note that the Minister is here. Perhaps he will comment on the costs to the Department of dealing with graffiti.

There are legitimate uses of flags and emblems to celebrate cultural identity, cultural expression or an event, and there are murals that are visually attractive and not offensive to anybody. However, there is no doubt that in the work place, in schools and places of education, in places of worship and in mixed communities where people have different cultural or religious identities, flags and emblems are uncomfortably intimidating.

I have had many discussions with Roads Service and Housing Executive officials and with community groups on the ways and means of dealing with problems such as graffiti and flags. The only way that they can be effectively addressed is by involving the community groups in the areas where the problem occurs. Legislation and policing will not solve the issues of graffiti, flags or emblems.

I ask the proposer of this motion what benefit he sees in establishing this group and how he sees legislation being effective. For any group to be productive, it would need to be working on the street with the communities involved, with a community approach, and enabling them to have a more constructive and attractive expression of their culture. I am not opposed to the motion, but I question the effectiveness of simply establishing an interdepartmental group to deal with the issue. Go raibh maith agat.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Last week, during the debate on Holy Cross Primary School, I was at pains to mention that in recent years the Northern Ireland community has become more divided, bitter, angry and violent than it has ever been in the past.

In the past few days a university report has been published on the divisions in the community of Northern Ireland. It confirms in the most graphic way that over the past seven years — a period, incidentally, covered by the so-called peace process — divisions in the community and a sense of bitterness, exclusion and fear have multiplied enormously. The percentage of people from one community who will not enter, even by car, areas perceived as belonging to the other community was very revealing. The figure was enormously high. Many Protestants and Unionists will not enter communities perceived as being Nationalist- dominated, and Nationalists who for years have done their shopping in areas perceived as being predominantly Protestant and Unionist will no longer enter those areas. The community has been completely and totally divided.

Among the features of the division are the signs and symbols that the extremist paramilitary groups have decided to impose on communities as indicating that they control those areas and those communities. Because they control those communities through fear and violence, members of the opposite community who might be recognised as such will not enter them. Members of the communities that suffer under this symbolism are terrified of a brutal reaction to protests that they do not subscribe to the views that these symbols are intended to convey.

The Assembly is fond of telling the world at large and the community in Northern Ireland about the benefits that devolution has conferred upon it. However, all the signs of the much-vaunted peace process and the investigations carried out by community relations bodies and academic investigations, such as the one I referred to, confirm that that is not the case. The opposite is the truth.

In 1995, when I was elected MP for North Down, the Kilcooley estate, a large housing estate in Bangor, was virtually free, if not totally free, from all paramilitary symbolism. In the past five or six years the main thoroughfare through that estate has had every kerbstone painted red, white and blue. On the gable walls of those houses, which can been seen from Bangor’s Circular Road, there are massive Loyalist paramilitary productions proclaiming UVF or UDA brigades and lauding the importance of, and the dedication to, the Union of those groups.

I have no doubt that such symbolism is replicated throughout many Nationalist areas. One may ask why that has been permitted. I have made such enquiries to the RUC and the Department of the Environment in the Bangor area. All sorts of reasons are given, but the most important reason is that lives might be lost or personal injury might be suffered if attempts were made to remove paramilitary symbols, which would be replaced instantly.

I agree with the sentiments of the motion. If it lay in my power, or in the power of the Assembly or the Executive, to remove effectively, efficiently and permanently all paramilitary symbolism and flags, I would endorse it wholeheartedly. However, the fundamental problem is much deeper than one that may be cured by an interdepartmental committee that makes proclamations or invokes legislation about how the problem should be dealt with.

Since the process began — and this is why the problem exists — both Governments, under cover of arriving at a political settlement, have in fact arrived at a process of conflict resolution between the British state, which nominally has authority for the Assembly, and the representatives of violent Republican terrorists and their counterparts in the Protestant/Unionist community. It is necessary to include the latter because if they are excluded — and politically the UDA has been excluded by the electorate — they feel free to carry on with their paramilitary activities, thus threatening the Nationalist community, as they are attempting to do at present. The Nationalist community and its so-called representatives in the IRA would then react, and the whole structure would come tumbling down. It was for that reason that a policy of appeasing both sets of terrorists was allowed.

An academic group, which I think was from the University of Ulster, compiled a report on policy in Northern Ireland. That group also made it clear that it believed that the Government were deliberately frustrating the principles of the Belfast Agreement by adopting a softly, softly attitude towards terrorists. This softly, softly attitude towards terrorism is reflected in the attitude to alleged breaches of the ceasefire.

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

It seems that Republicans can murder, maim, mutilate and destroy within their own communities to keep them under control. Nationalists and Republicans murdering Nationalists, Republicans and Catholics does not amount to a violation of the ceasefire, and it is the same with their counterparts in the Loyalist organisations — and it seems at present that they are even more active in brutalising their community. They are creating Republican and so- called Loyalist areas where the rule of law does not run, where these groups can dominate the communities and behave in whatever way they wish.

For the sake of preserving the agreement, for the sake of alleging that ceasefires exist which do not, the Government have been prepared to tolerate this. Why have the Government tolerated criminality? Until last Tuesday week it was necessary to preserve a policy of protecting the mainland by appeasing terrorism in Northern Ireland, and so we have the manifestations of the control which the Governments, both North and South, have permitted.

We have the manifestations of the control in the flags, emblems, graffiti and gable wall proclamations that these are areas where the rule of law does not run, where Republican IRA terrorists and so-called Loyalist paramilitaries manifestly control and declare that control through flags and emblems. The Government do not wish to do anything about it.

We are told that we should propose legislation, but as Mr Hay said, who will enforce the legislation? What if the enforcement of that legislation brings about open conflict with these groups? What if they shoot members of the security forces or murder members of the Department of the Environment who are carrying out this work? Instantly that would bring to a head a confrontation with those whom these symbols represent. That could threaten the policy that, up to now, has been one of deplorable appeasement by the British Government, encouraged by the Irish Government, which permit dumps of weaponry to remain on their soil in contravention of their Constitution.

There is no point in trying to deal with the symptoms of a disease, a political disease that is endemic in this community, without considering the underlying causes. If we deal with the rash without dealing with the cause of the rash it will perhaps manifest itself in another more virulent and violent form.

We do not need another commission or body to deal with these sectarian manifestations. Jane Morrice suggested a commission on sectarianism. Everyone here knows the causes of sectarianism, and the only people who would be qualified, in the view of that august party, to be members of that commission would be members of that party. No doubt they would be offering themselves for membership of the commission as most suitable and most qualified by their simon-pure protestations — because they do little else. Just like many other commissions, it would sit, it would talk, it would piffle and prognosticate, and it would not be able to produce any answer.

I agree entirely with the sentiments of the motion. Alban Maginness introduced another element: what is a sectarian emblem or symbol? Is it the Union flag? Is it the tricolour? Those emblems would not come within the terms of Mr McCarthy’s motion.

Let us look into the matter a little deeper. Four or five years ago the great principle that everyone was looking for was equality of esteem. At that time there was a difficulty about the national anthem being played at Queen’s University. I remember that the SDLP Member Bríd Rodgers, who is now a Minister, said that Queen Elizabeth was not her queen and that the symbols of British authority in Northern Ireland were not her symbols. Her President was the President of the Republic of Ireland. People are entitled to espouse that viewpoint. However, if one of the fundamental pillars upon which the Assembly and the Executive is erected is the principle of consent — that until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland consent to be ruled otherwise than from the United Kingdom — the United Kingdom will be the sovereign power and Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom. Therefore the Union flag is the flag of Northern Ireland.

I have never been a flag flapper. I have never been in favour of using the Union Jack as a means of demonstrating any form of triumphalism or superiority over the Nationalist community. I deplore the use of the national flag for such a purpose. However, we are at the stage of becoming a stateless people. We are not allowed any emblems that indicate the political identity of the state. There are problems about flying the Union flag over this Building; and greater problems about flying it over the Departments of certain Ministers. It must be realised that the problem of symbols identified most acutely with the paramilitaries is only an extreme example of a divided community. That community is daily becoming even more divided by the policies of central Government.

I am in favour of the sentiment and objective of the motion. However, I have profound reservations. Passing laws, whether by the Assembly — or by the Medes and the Persians — is useless unless such laws are enforceable and can be delivered. We will have this problem until there is a real willingness in the community to tell the men of violence in both communities that they have no place here. No committee, body or commission will be able to offer any remedy or panacea for that difficulty.

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

I support the motion. The situation is that some Northern Ireland Housing Executive estates, whether Republican or Loyalist, are bedecked with flags and pictures of gunmen, which I find grossly offensive. It does not matter whether they are Republican or Loyalist gunmen. There are problems in my town of Larne. I agree partly with what the Member for Foyle (Mr Hay) said about community participation. Unfortunately, in some of those estates, the tail is wagging the dog. It does not apply only to estates in which there is a mixed community; in predominantly Protestant and Unionist estates, there are people who find it grossly offensive to have paramilitary flags flying, and I have no doubt that that feeling is replicated in the Nationalist community. However, people are too afraid to say or do anything. Should we subject those people to life under such conditions? Do we let the tail wag the dog by kowtowing to the people who are putting up the flags and asking them which flags we can take down?

I agree with my Colleague, Alban Maginness, who said that there was a need for legislation. The current legislation is, at best, woolly, and it is not enforced. When the law is enforced, the people involved get no more than a slap on the wrist, because putting up flags counts only as behaviour that is likely to cause a breach of the peace. It is much more than that: such people are telling their community that they are the bosses — the school yard bullies — and that local people must do as they are told, or face the consequences. We need an effective deterrent, and the punishment should fit the crime. Intimidation is not being dealt with seriously. Crimes involving intimidation on religious or racial grounds must be dealt with more severely.

Public authorities have a duty to try to promote good relations. We have talked about flags on street lights or murals on the gables of Housing Executive houses. In my town, there are two gables side by side. One has a mural showing the Battle of the Somme, and I do not find it remotely offensive. The other mural portrays two gunmen in a military stance, and underneath are written the letters "UFF": I find that offensive.

There may be such a thing as a cultural mural, but a line must be drawn. We must decide where culture ends and paramilitary culture begins. We must define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Anything that advocates the use of illegal arms or illegal force is unacceptable. Would a true Irishman who respected the tricolour or a true Unionist who respected the Union flag paint their flag on the streets for the dogs to run over? I do not believe so. People who respect their flag should use it when it is appropriate to do so.

Mr McCarthy said that some people liked to fly the Union flag from their home at certain times of the year; that is a matter for them. I am talking about the estates that are decked out in paramilitary regalia. The communities need help to get the people who are doing it off their backs. As Mr McCartney said, there has been a certain appeasement of such people. The Secretary of State has been ambivalent about admitting that both sides have broken their ceasefire.

I accept that, but how do we make progress? How do we prevent people from being intimidated? How can that cloud be removed from over their heads?

Legislation may be the answer. I take on board Mr Hay’s and Mr McCartney’s points about the need to be able to enforce any legislation. People have previously tried to paint over murals, only to be told that they must leave the area or they will get a bullet through the head; they have been genuinely frightened. The Housing Executive, as a result of one such incident, is very reluctant — and understandably so — to send anyone back to that estate to take the necessary and appropriate action. However, there are other solutions, perhaps in conjunction with the police. One option is that undercover policemen paint over graffiti and arrest those who threaten them.

There has been talk of an irresistible force and an immovable object. It has also been said that the more graffiti is removed the more will appear, but it must be removed every time it goes up, and those who keep putting it up must be prosecuted. In that way we can try to create a better environment for all citizens.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Another six Members wish to speak. Will you bring your remarks to an end? A seven-minute limit on succeeding Members will be imposed.

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

Members of an interdepartmental working group may know the problems on the ground and may be able to make solid recommendations. On that basis, I support the motion.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the proposal in principle, but I also urge caution on circumstances that could arise as a result of it. It is important to address the issues that Mr McCarthy raised. I understand that the Department is keen to support the proposal, but some matters must be taken on board. Mr O’Connor spoke of the fear in the community. While that is true, not everyone is afraid of what is put up on walls.

Some murals are very acceptable, for example, those commemorating World War I, to which many people, as members of the Royal British Legion, can relate. Much of the community thinks that those murals are acceptable. A clear distinction must be made between what is acceptable and what is not.

I also urge caution on the interdepartmental working group. Will the Government body be able to enforce its recommendations? Will it be able to suggest how they should be enforced? Perhaps Mr McCarthy will address that. It is all very well to ask for changes, but we must address where such changes will occur and who will be responsible.

In one incident on the Ards peninsula this year, obscene graffiti was put up. The RUC and Ards Borough Council were quite happy to remove it. The graffiti appeared in the countryside, where there were only three or four households that might feel directly endangered or threatened by it. The graffiti was dealt with immediately because all residents in the immediate area were opposed to it.

That was a simple situation. It happened in a country area and the small number of residents involved all agreed on the action to be taken.

Should the recommendation be, for example, that the graffiti, or emblems be removed, it should be noted that in 30 years of terrorism the enemies of our country have occasionally booby-trapped flags and emblems and that security forces personnel have lost limbs or their lives in trying to deal with them. Caution is most certainly needed in this regard.

When flags are removed, new ones are undoubtedly put up. Has anything been achieved by removing some and allowing others to replace them? We should perhaps look at the problem at every level. At last week’s meeting of Ards Borough Council, its chief technical services officer gave councillors a cautionary note on the removal of graffiti. He endorsed the council’s decision, but was concerned about the safety of his staff in implementing the proposals. Such concern also applies to the Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment. Personnel must be given protection. It must also be ensured that, should such a decision be taken, personnel can remove those articles.

Who will enforce decisions about the removal of emblems or graffiti? Who will police them? Who will ensure that staff are safe and are not threatened or endangered when carrying out the work?

We need a group which can work in its own community. It is not fair for decisions to be made for the whole Province. In conjunction with the RUC, and staff employed by the Housing Executive, local councils and the Roads Service, a community should decide what should be removed. Those issues must be addressed at community level, not by the criteria of a Government body.

We must make sure that staff are safe and that the community has an input into the process.

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

What happens where a community shows its support for paramilitary displays? Alternatively, what happens if, because of intimidation and fear, it is incapable of freely expressing its view on those matters? Is there not a danger that a community could be unable to act freely in certain circumstances? What happens then?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Every case must be dealt with on its own merit; it is always difficult to give a general answer. We who live in communities have our ears to the ground and a fair idea of community thinking. There is a way forward, but it must be community-based, and it must come from people on the ground. Let them decide.

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

Considerable ground has already been covered, and Members have dealt adequately with the fact that the motion asks for the removal of paramilitary flags. There was discussion on the use — or, perhaps more accurately, the abuse — of national flags. Flags have a very long history and are generally regarded as emblems to be treated with respect and pride.

Unfortunately, in our society, they are used to taunt the other side. Hence, people with respect or pride for their flag — national or otherwise — would not leave it up a pole to fade into tatters. To do otherwise is not a show of respect or pride; it is taunting. That is part of our problem. It is a manifestation of the divisions in our society. It was here — with all due respect to Mr McCartney — before the agreement, and it has been here since. In fact, the agreement states that symbols and emblems should be

"used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."

That should be the benchmark for any work that we do.

The motion extends from flags to emblems and graffiti on public property. There are many different types of emblems including, as experienced in Down district recently, the erection of monuments on council property without permission from a planning authority, the local community or an elected politician. That type of activity — and Down District Council is not the only council to suffer from it — has many sources. It raises a big issue about equality and what our work in the Assembly has achieved with the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission in determining how people can live and operate in a society that is free from threat or alienation.

These issues result, as has been well illustrated by Members, in the virtual ghettoisation of an area. In most areas it is a small minority in the estate, town or village that achieves it. Should we not, therefore, support the majority in those towns, villages and communities, and give them a way of emphasising and achieving what they want in their own area?

Alban Maginness referred tellingly to the economic effect, particularly in areas that depend on tourism. When people see these things in a particular area, they feel alienated. That means that any attempt to promote a tourist industry in that area is faulted from the start. Everybody is disadvantaged, both those who want it and those who do not.

Danny O’Connor said that we need to help to get those people off the backs of the rest of the community. Mr McCartney poured scorn on the idea of a commission. However, since he mentioned it, why not look at something that can intervene in the community and help people by giving them the guidance and confidence to work together to solve these problems? As a result of Mr McCarthy’s motion, an inter-party group may come up with suggestions about how these things could be done to strengthen communities. It could carry out independent surveys of views and get the community to feel confident enough to deal with the issues.

Legislation is important. However, in some cases, when implemented directly, it can be a very difficult and blunt object, as my council knows from recent experience. Legislation is not the whole answer. However, legislation combined with the creation of opportunity for people to engage fully with what happens in their communities might be better than a legislative approach alone.

The implementation of existing regulations and legislation is very important. The Department of the Environment, particularly in the past, has received a lot of criticism. The police, councils and the Housing Executive have been criticised today for not fully implementing legislation. As Members have said, the people on the ground have a difficult job in dealing with the issue. They could be putting themselves and their families at risk, and we should never forget that. There is all the more reason, therefore, for an independent commission that could intervene and deal with the issues to rid our country of this blight.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is clear that many Members are still confused about the roles of the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development. When the Department for Regional Development opens a new by-pass, the Minister is reported on the front page of all the newspapers as claiming responsibility. However, when his Department refuses to grit roads, everyone blames the Department of the Environment. Unless emblems are on a listed building, a planning service headquarters, or a divisional —[Interruption].

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

I was not referring to the present arrangement. The Department of the Environment has received much criticism in the past, as the record shows.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I was referring to another contributor, who blamed the Department of the Environment for things that it was not responsible for. I do not oppose the motion, but I wonder what it will achieve. I am glad that Mr McCarthy has drawn a distinction, as I do, between the flags of this country — the Union flag and the Ulster flag — and paramilitary flags. It is traditional for people to fly the Union and Ulster flags during the marching season. The flags are put up on private homes, and many arches across the country bear flags. That is part of our tradition, which has prevailed in this part of the United Kingdom for many years. I would not support anything that would prevent people from flying those flags or depicting their traditions in years to come. However, everyone must accept that there is a problem with paramilitary flags. That is a problem in the community and it cannot be solved easily.

In my constituency of South Down we have tackled the difficulty of establishing the community’s point of view. If a representative of the Department for Regional Development or the Housing Executive were to knock on people’s doors to ask what they thought about the display of paramilitary flags, people would be very reluctant to give their opinions. In the Langley Road estate in Ballynahinch, every resident received a questionnaire that was stamped to make sure that it could not be photocopied and misused. A pre-paid envelope was provided, addressed to a post office box number in Ballynahinch. An independent panel opened the questionnaires, and the process was overseen by church leaders in the community.

The questionnaire provided the first, very clear opinion poll on the display of paramilitary flags in Ballynahinch. The majority of people who live on the Langley Road estate are opposed to the display of UDA and UVF flags there. Perhaps for the first time, officials from the Department for Regional Development and the Housing Executive, who are asked to deal with the situation, know that they have overwhelming community support for what they are doing. Such questionnaires might be the way forward in dealing with the problem. The community is perfectly happy with the display of Union and Ulster flags and wishes that to continue.

The logical outcome of Mr McCarthy’s proposal is that a working party be set up, and proposals made to deal with the problem. However, unless Mr McCarthy takes down the flags himself, the ordinary staff of the relevant Government agency will become the "storm troopers". Roads Service or Housing Executive officials will be expected to go into areas and remove flags or cover up murals.

We know from experience what will happen. We watched with horror the news reports of the three Northern Ireland Electricity officials who were sent to Crossmaglen to disconnect the electricity supply of an individual who was abusing the metering system. Two suffered horrific injuries while carrying out what was a legitimate task. One was absent from work for a considerable time. In east Antrim, another member of staff received serious threats after he was sent to disconnect an electricity supply that was being illegally used.

These employees live and work in the same areas where they would be expected to remove flags or cover up murals. It is totally unreasonable to ask them to carry out such work without the support of the community. If they were brave enough to do so, the flags, murals and kerbstone paintings would be replaced within a day of their removal. The proposal will not work if we ask people to remove murals and graffiti without community support. There is nothing wrong with the concept of Mr McCarthy’s proposal, but it will not achieve its intended objective.

Mr ONeill rightly said that not only is it impossible to stop people in the Province from putting up paramilitary flags or painting kerbstones, but that in his town — and I applaud the stand that he has taken on the issue — a full-scale monument to Republicans has been erected without planning permission and without the landowner’s consent. There was nothing within present law to prevent the monument from being erected. An injunction was served on a Member of the Assembly restraining him from any further work on the monument. What happened next? Individuals not named on the injunction completed the work. People face enormous difficulties in trying to prevent such activity from taking place.

In Kilcoo, which is in my own constituency of South Down, Northern Ireland Electricity and British Telecom poles are being used to display pictures of dead hunger strikers. The pictures have been displayed for many months and have not been taken down. If an ordinary Roads Service employee were to take those down in somewhere like Kilcoo, he could be signing his own death warrant, because of the threats and intimidation that he would receive.

It is a difficult problem. I do not believe that any party will vote against Mr McCarthy’s proposal, but if he thinks that the proposed group will solve the problem, he is wrong. I will be interested to hear in his summation speech how he believes the working group — when it is formed — will implement, and gain community support for, its recommendations. Only when we solve the problem of lack of community support will we be able to implement any recommendations of the working party.

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

I support the motion and I congratulate Mr McCarthy. People are waiting for the Assembly to do something about the issue.

Flags, emblems and graffiti are being used as psychological weapons to impose fear on our communities. Toleration of the problem is leading to greater ghettoisation and social alienation. The erection of flags and emblems in an estate pertaining to a majority of householders causes the minority living there to feel a "chill factor". It is an uncomfortable environment for them, and very often they leave, thereby leading to greater ghettoisation. It is deplorable.

People want the Assembly and the district councils to tackle the issue. Many business owners are aggrieved and angry at how their image and their competitiveness is weakened when flags are erected or graffiti sprayed on or near their premises.

Road signs are being defaced and bus shelters destroyed. This is adding to that "chill factor" and generally makes people feel uncomfortable. Many of the graffiti and paramilitary emblems are obscene and threatening to visitors or those going to an area to work.

I have made representation to the public authorities and tried to get obscene and paramilitary-related graffiti removed. In the past my own council, Omagh District Council, along with the Housing Executive, had a contract with a private company to remove graffiti. I know that two drivers were severely intimidated — indeed, they were psychologically ostracised when they went to a pub for a drink. That sort of intimidation must be deplored. The Assembly has to send out a clear message that it does not tolerate that sort of behaviour or activity.

There are many examples of this. Reference has been made to employees of the Housing Executive, Northern Ireland Electricity and the Roads Service who have tried to remove graffiti under instruction from their management. Many felt that they were shunned or fingered. That is another gross example of intimidation.

We must start sending out a message. Are we for or against intimidation, or are we ambivalent towards the intimidation of public service workers when we ask them to go out and keep our environment clear of such obscene graffiti? I support the motion and congratulate Mr McCarthy on tabling it. The public wants to see a clear message coming from the Assembly. It is dangerous for us to create any default options on this.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to respond to the motion. I do so, not because it is the sole preserve or even a prime responsibility of my Department — far from it — but because my Department has, over several years, had to face the brunt of this manifestation of our community divisions.

The problems of paramilitary flag flying and graffiti, including the unwanted painting of kerbstones, are tangible symptoms of a more serious and chronic disease. We should be all too aware of the difficulties affecting community life and community relations in Northern Ireland. The trauma, the hurt and the resultant mistrust are deeply embedded running sores caused, in no small measure, by decades of terrorist strangulation of normal life and society. Overcoming the divisions that those sores leave cannot be quickly or easily accomplished.

While it is important that we can all speak here in relative agreement about the need to tackle these problems on a broad front, we should not delude ourselves. No one should be deceived into believing that there is a quick fix or that the establishment of an interdepartmental working group will be a panacea for these ills. Nonetheless, I welcome today’s debate as an important and very necessary step forward.

We all have a responsibility to tackle these issues. Individuals cannot be compelled to live and work together in harmony, nor can they be compelled to express themselves in ways dictated by others. Reconciliation and the construction of good community relations can only work when people make a conscious effort for themselves. Constructive approaches to tackle the root problems of this issue have to be low-key and sensitively handled if they are to be sustainable.

There have been successes. I know of groups which, with the support of local people, have tackled the issue of flags and have achieved consensus. In some areas, mixed groups of community representatives now remove offending flags as they appear. Importantly, those representatives have the support of the local community to do so. I cannot pretend, however, that that will serve as a model for all areas. Many different approaches will be required and doubtless not all will succeed at first.

The harnessing of broad community support is the key to success. The Roads Service has found that without the near unanimous support of local residents, the removal of flags and graffiti from its property is often nugatory and can lead to a proliferation of material, sometimes more offensive or permanent in nature. Sometimes the personnel who are tasked with the removal work are intimidated.

The Roads Service wants to respond positively to that problem, but there are contentious and sensitive issues to be considered. In particular, there is a duty of care to staff and contractors, and their safety must be taken into account. Several Members have referred to incidents where staff have been threatened and, on occasion, physically assaulted.

There is also the unavoidable question of resources. Undertaking the removal of offensive flags and graffiti is labour intensive, and a heavy opportunity cost must be considered against other priority road responsibilities. Taking that into account, the Roads Service’s current policy — I have stated it frequently in the House — is to remove any flags or graffiti on its property that are deemed to be a danger to road users. In other instances where specific complaints are received, but where there is no perceived danger to road users, it gauges community reaction on the likely success of attempts to remove the flags or graffiti. Advice is sought from the RUC, local elected representatives and local community representatives. I stress, however, that there is no legislative requirement for the Roads Service to remove such materials.

I want to respond to several issues raised by Members. Mr McCarthy, in moving the motion, distinguished between paramilitary flags and flags that are not deemed to be offensive. That is helpful, and the interdepartmental working group should be able to use it as a basis for progress.

Alban Maginness said — and I can see his reason for doing so — that in some instances the displays of paramilitary flags can be deemed a threat to democracy. I can understand that. I will resist the inclination to ask why the representatives of paramilitaries being in Government cannot be deemed such a threat to democracy. I will leave that for another debate.

Mr Hay mentioned the need for consensus, and that need was reiterated by many Members. Mr Hay spoke about areas in Londonderry where that has been achieved. In my opening remarks, I stressed the importance of achieving consensus, as that is likely to lead to a permanent resolution of the difficulty.

Other Members spoke about the costs of removal. Mr McCartney said that devolution was partly to blame for the worsening divisions. I will leave others to pass comment on that.

Mr O’Connor and others distinguished between cultural and paramilitary murals, which was helpful.

Several Members referred to the problems that we face in removing murals: threats and sometimes physical violence ensue. Mr Byrne made a useful comment when he stated that we must declare where we stand on that intimidation. I would hope and expect the House to be decidedly against intimidation. I referred to recent instances in which Department for Regional Development Roads Service employees had been threatened, as the issue concerns Roads Service property. On one occasion an employee was physically attacked. The problem is an ongoing one, and I hope that whatever the findings of the interdepartmental working group, serious consideration will be given to the welfare of staff. I must give that high priority.

Public representatives’ comments are almost always useful in attempts to resolve problems. However, public representatives have occasionally made matters worse by intervening in sensitive discussions on the removal of paramilitary displays. That has served to exacerbate problems in certain areas. Fortunately, that has not happened often.

I reiterate what I said earlier: we all have responsibilities to tackle this divisive issue. We must be able to ensure that pride in the community and business confidence be restored to those areas most affected by the blight. Responsibility for that lies not only with various Departments, but with local councils, the Housing Executive, the RUC and community groups. Perhaps most importantly, responsibility lies with the terrorists who seed and feed the proliferation of the flags and graffiti that plague our communities and that keep the sores of conflict and division open and unhealed. I repeat that no quick fix is available. I call on all to play their part in tackling the issue and in wresting the strangling grip from terrorists in order to restore normality to our society.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the constructive contributions to the debate from every Member, and particularly that of the Minister for Regional Development. I do not know why the problem has fallen so much on his shoulders because other Ministers have responsibilities — those who are involved in housing, the Department of the Environment and so forth. Mr Campbell has defended his Department well, for which we are grateful.

Many points have been covered. Alban Maginness mentioned national flags. I said that we were not concerned with the national flag. The national flag must be respected at all times.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Does that include the occasion on which Alban Maginness removed the flag of our nation from the Lord Mayor’s parlour when he became Lord Mayor of Belfast? That showed some respect for the national flag.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his contribution. Mr Maginness may respond to that, as I cannot answer on his behalf. We are discussing paramilitary trappings, flags, monuments and so forth today.

I congratulate Mr Hay and Mr Campbell, who represent the constituencies of Foyle and East Londonderry respectively. They seem to be more advanced than Members from this part of Northern Ireland — not only in this instance, but on other occasions. I mean that seriously. I can think of other occasions on which a lead has been taken from a Member from those areas. Those Members should keep that up, and perhaps what they say will filter through to the rest of Northern Ireland.

Mr Hay said it was about community. Of course it is about community, and we must bring the communities with us. We all acknowledge that Northern Ireland suffers, and has suffered for a long time, from the "them and us" attitude. That has been nurtured by various people for their own ends. We must try to get away from that and bring people to work with each other rather than pull against each other.

Mr McNamee referred to respect for different cultures. People are entitled to the culture of their choice, and respect must be given to that. The people who have that respect must, in turn, respect other people’s culture. That is very important.

In Mr McCartney’s lively contribution — I do not know how long he took, but it certainly was quite a while — he talked about the segregation on housing estates in his constituency. That is wrong and must be condemned. However, it is the situation that people find themselves in. The Assembly and elected representatives should be doing all in their power to encourage people to live side by side wherever they choose, regardless of where they worship on a Sunday, if they worship anywhere. We should be hammering that point. Unfortunately, Mr McCartney is not in the Chamber at present. However, we are talking primarily about paramilitary flags and emblems. A Member specifically talked about the offensive graffiti showing guys standing around wearing combat jackets, carrying guns and holding a list of the organisations that have been guilty of the most heinous crimes. How can someone who has suffered at the hands of those people pass by each day and look up at a flag that portrays the organisation that was responsible for the murder of his loved one? That is the whole ethos of this debate.

Jim Shannon and the Minister talked about the fear involved. Other Members talked about the fear of enforcement and how flags can be removed. It is a major problem. We cannot walk away from it. We must educate the people to know that these things are wrong. Any workman or woman asked to remove these flags is fearful.

Eamonn ONeill and Jim Wells from South Down quite rightly referred to the problem of monuments. Monuments have been erected in that area without planning permission. If I wanted to build a structure, I would have to seek planning permission, not only from the Planning Service but also from the person who owned the land. Congratulations to Jim Wells on the outcome of his survey. The survey was carried out in an area with which I am not familiar, but if that is what the people there want, that is a way forward.

We are all in this together, and we must help each other. We are debating very sensitive issues. So far nothing, or relatively nothing, has been done, or has been seen to be done, to overcome the problem. If the Assembly accepts the motion, Members can genuinely tackle this blot on the landscape. Let us work together to bring about a better environment for all in Northern Ireland. Bring our communities with us, and, as Joe Byrne has said, let us send out a strong message from the Assembly that we will set up this interdepartmental group. There is no guarantee that we will overcome the problem, but at least we will have tried, with the co-operation of all the Departments in the Executive, to tackle it. I hope we will see a better future for all in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Executive to establish an interdepartmental working group to make recommendations on the removal of paramilitary flags, emblems and graffiti from public property.

The sitting was suspended at 2.17 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Speaker’s Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Due to a long-standing engagement in the later part of this week, I will be unable to be in the Chamber tomorrow. I shall be in Parliament Buildings in the first part of the morning, but unable to be in the Chamber with you.

Draft Programme for Government 2002-03

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

In accordance with paragraph 20 of strand 1 of the Belfast Agreement, the Executive agreed a draft Programme for Government on 20 September, incorporating the draft Budget agreed at the same meeting. We are therefore laying the programme before the Assembly for scrutiny, and for future approval after examination by the Committees.

Today’s statement also represents the start of a consultation process on those specific proposals, and continues the wider consultation begun on 18 June 2001 when the position report on developing the Programme for Government and the Budget was presented to the Assembly.

The Programme for Government therefore sets the context for our budgetary decisions and for the development of the Budget which will be presented to the Assembly tomorrow by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

We all desire a peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, stable and fair society. The Programme for Government is the Executive’s assessment of what must be done to achieve that vision. We have to start from our current position, which involves many challenges.

In many aspects of life in Northern Ireland, however, there is also much of a positive nature to report. Our economic performance as a region, for example, has been much stronger over recent years. Several key indicators, including employment, manufacturing output and unemployment, perform consistently well. Our unemployment levels are no longer high in comparison with many other areas. Our short-term unemployment is down to the UK average, which in itself is well below the EU average. A few years ago few would have predicted that Northern Ireland would become one of Europe’s low unemployment regions, but that is now the case.

We have reason to be proud of our education system. A higher than ever proportion of our young people achieved very good GCSE and A-level results, and the proportion of young people leaving school or college with no qualification is now lower than it is in England. We can also boast a higher rate of participation in third- level education than that in most other parts of the United Kingdom.

Parts of our infrastructure, such as ports, airports and telecommunications, are also of good quality, although more can — and should — be done.

We still face, however, a wide range of social, economic and environmental challenges. Many of them are already well known. Long-term unemployment is declining more slowly than we would like. Wage levels are still lower than in most other regions of the UK, and too many outside the labour force are neither in work nor regard themselves as unemployed.

Despite good progress over recent years in developing high-tech industry, we remain overdependent and reliant on traditional sectors and on the public sector. After decades of underinvestment in our economic infrastructure we need to accelerate the pace of improvement. I will say some significant things about that later.

In addition, our rural economy faces severe problems. Those have been evident for several years but have been exaggerated in the past year by the impact of foot-and-mouth disease. While we have been fortunate in having only four isolated cases, we cannot relax our guard, particularly while outbreaks continue in Great Britain. We have to turn to the challenge of creating a new, broader base for the rural economy.

We are not bowed down by those challenges. We all know the range and nature of the problems, and we know that we have to face up to these realities. However, we know now that by working together we can — and do — make a real difference.

It was with these challenges in mind that the Executive revisited the five broad priorities endorsed by the Assembly in March: growing as a community; working for a healthier people; investing in education and skills; securing a competitive economy, and developing North/South, east/west and international relations. Our conclusion was that they remain valid and that they should continue to set the direction for its work.

We have, however, made several important changes to the document we now present to the Assembly. We have, for example, worked to redefine many of the sub-priorities that support our five priorities and have introduced some new sub-priorities — for example, on children, accident prevention and culture and the arts — to reflect work, both new and ongoing.

We have published new draft public service agreements for each Department. Those now incorporate a stronger focus on high-level targets and performance, giving an improved sense of what each Department is working to achieve in the services it provides to the public.

The draft programme contains fewer specific actions than the first Programme for Government did. These actions will build on — not replace — the commitments we have already pledged to deliver. However, all of the more than 250 actions set out in the first programme remain valid and relevant. Work is continuing to ensure that all of them are delivered; an annex in today’s report shows the current state of progress.

The Executive’s priorities are set out in the draft programme. We want to secure a dynamic and competitive economy that creates opportunities for everyone in a wide range of sectors with many more skilled jobs in the new knowledge-based economy. We are making good progress. Industrial output is 22% above the level it was three years ago when the Belfast Agreement was signed. In comparison, output in Great Britain is below its level of three years ago. More than 90% of the new jobs promoted by the IDB in the past year were in the high-tech and knowledge-intensive sectors of telecommunications, electronics and international traded services.

The draft Programme for Government recognises the ever-present challenge of global competition and the current more difficult economic climate that is beginning to impact on us here. Our economy has stood up well to the difficulties of recent years, but we all recognise that these difficulties are multiplying.

Our response will be in three areas. First, we will continue to work to increase investment in knowledge and create the environment in which firms can compete more effectively. Invest Northern Ireland will spearhead work on key aspects of that task. The chairperson and shadow board have been appointed and the appointment of its chief executive is due next month. We will also maintain our focus on innovation and research and development through the Northern Ireland R&D and innovation strategy by working to stimulate private sector investment, developing local industrial design capacity and harnessing research and support strengths in our universities and further education colleges.

Secondly, we need to reverse the deterioration in the quality and reliability of our infrastructure that is the result of years of underinvestment. The provision of infrastructure services such as public transport, roads, water and sewerage are essential for the economic and social well-being of our economy. Hence, we will ensure that our infrastructure supports economic growth, and we will tackle the deficiencies that we identified in the draft programme with purpose and vigour.

The programme includes important proposals for realising our aim. Last Friday, I announced that the Executive had decided that two major gas pipeline projects would receive Government support up to a maximum of £38 million over the next six years. The Irish Government will make a contribution of up to IR£10 million towards that total. The pipelines to the north-west and the south will bring North Sea gas to more than three quarters of our population and businesses and they will protect the security of supply by providing a second link to Great Britain via the Republic. This national resource will potentially be available to most people in Northern Ireland, just as it is to people in the rest of the UK.

In addition, the draft programme undertakes to support transport by addressing improvement to strategic routes including the important trans-European network route from Larne through Belfast to the border near Newry. I am also pleased to announce that the Executive have allocated £40 million to the project. That includes funds to complete the dualling scheme for the A8 road to Larne, the dualling of the Newry section of the proposed Newry to Dundalk road and a significant contribution to the upgrading of the Westlink that the Minister for Regional Development announced last week.

This major investment will strengthen the competitiveness of the ports of Belfast and Larne and will help to improve the integration of our economy with those of our neighbours in Great Britain and in the Republic.

Thirdly, the programme focuses on developing key skills to meet the needs of our economy and on creating higher vocational programmes that will focus on education and training programmes and on getting more people with the right skills into employment. The task force on employability will have a key role working alongside Government Departments and the skills task force. We are indebted to Dr Farren and his Colleagues in the Department for Employment and Learning for their efforts in that area.

We are also committed to regenerating the rural economy and to enabling the agrifood sector to respond to the challenges presented by changing consumer demands and increasing competition. Despite a slight recovery in agricultural income in 2000, incomes remain historically low. That is mainly as a result of the weak euro and low world prices. This year has been particularly difficult, mainly because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain, which also hit the tourism and hospitality industries. Therefore we shall develop an action plan for the strategic development of the agrifood industry over the next decade and for stimulating alternative sources of employment in the countryside, such as tourism.

Much of our vision can only be delivered by the private sector — it knows its businesses. The private sector has the task of creating competitive firms. However, Government can support that approach; we can create the economic environment, supported by a good-quality infrastructure. Therefore our vision is of a true private- public partnership for driving change. The same partnership is envisaged for the rural economy, for which we must also form a new basis. We must help the rural population to develop new skills and opportunities to sustain their way of life and to sustain the countryside that we value so much.

With regard to resources, the draft Programme for Government has informed and shaped our budgetary proposals; these will be presented separately to the Assembly. However, it is important to bear in mind the context of our current budgetary situation. Our financial allocations for 2002-03 are finite. As the Treasury is not conducting a national spending review this year, the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit remains fixed. It is against that background that we have developed the draft programme.

However, the indicative Budget for 2002-03 reflects a substantial rise in public spending — over 3% above the general rate of inflation; it is also above the rate of wage increases in the public sector. That builds on the 5·5% increase above general inflation this year. Given the problems facing many public services, the growth is welcome. However, it falls short of the amounts necessary to meet all expectations.

In many areas, notably in the Health Service, it is clear that there is real and sustained growth in the demand for services. The trend in pay and price increases also tends to exceed the general rate of inflation. These are challenges that the Executive must face when it allocates resources. The reviews of needs and effectiveness that are being undertaken across a series of major spending programmes will help to guide us towards an optimum allocation of resources in future.

We are also examining the Barnett formula. It is only fair that expenditure in the United Kingdom is distributed in relation to need. The present Barnett formula clearly acts against that principle by generating a convergence in per capita spending across the UK. However, it is essential that we ensure, and are seen to ensure, that our resources are used to the best effect in our policy priorities.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel is engaged in an exercise to ensure that the question of the Barnett formula is drawn to the attention of Treasury Colleagues. He is conscious of the need to ensure that where we have a genuine need and demand that is greater than that which exists in other areas, it is reflected in the resources that are given to Northern Ireland by the Treasury.

I have outlined the context in which we have undertaken the review and rolling forward of the Executive Programme for Government. Mr Séamus Mallon will now outline in more detail the content of the remainder of the programme.

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

Sir Reg Empey has set out the backdrop against which we have developed the Programme for Government. I wish to add to his assessment. In particular, I want to highlight the progress we have made, along with some of the key commitments we have given, especially under the priorities ‘Growing as a Community’, ‘Working for a Healthier People’ and ‘Developing North/South, East/West and International Relations’. Finally, I want to outline the arrangements for consultation.

The Programme for Government represents a contract involving the Executive, the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland, mapping out a new, agreed direction. It demonstrates how we can work together — across parties, across Departments and with other organisations and Administrations — to make a positive difference to the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland. It represents the essence of the purpose of devolution. It should be the focus of our discussions, debates and actions. The extent to which the Programme for Government is overshadowed by other disputes and problems is a measure of the failure to implement the agreement properly.

Cohesion, inclusion and justice are themes which underpin the implementation of all our programmes and policies. Our vision is of a just society, where everyone enjoys equality of opportunity, and where we, as an Administration, actively promote equality of opportunity and adhere to international standards of human rights.

The past year has, of course, been a difficult one for the Executive. We have struggled with instability and, at times, with seemingly overwhelming political problems — problems that had to be faced but which have inevitably drawn us away from much-needed work on economic and social policies.

At the same time, we have continued the work of building up the new institutions in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland. The Executive have sought to work together, but have faced the problem of the non- attendance of two Ministers. While they have sought to limit the Executive’s role in providing funds for their policies and programmes, we have been successful in ensuring that the Executive’s views and decisions are taken account of, whether in relation to free transport, the future of the ports or the roads programme.

However, despite those problems our commitment is unchanged. We must start with high ideals, with vision, and then throw ourselves into the hard work. We must be realistic and learn how to work together. I believe that as an Administration we are finding our way through.

I will set out some of our key areas of activity. The Programme for Government commits us to tackling unjust discrimination through strong leadership, coupled with effective legislation where necessary. We have already launched the process of consultation on a Single Equality Bill, which will harmonise anti-discrimination law and extend it into new categories, including age.

At the same time, we realise that we have to improve community relations. We plan to put a cross-cutting strategy in place to deal with sectarian and racial intimidation manifested in conflict in interface areas, sectarian graffiti and unauthorised flag flying. Those are the most difficult, sensitive and intractable issues, revealing and worsening the deep and painful divisions in our society. We must tackle them.

We will continue to forge ahead with the needs of victims. In 2002 we plan to appoint a commissioner for children and initiate the development of a 10-year strategy for children and young people. We will step up dialogue with organisations representing older people to better identify their changing needs and consider better ways to tailor and deliver our services to them. We particularly welcome input from the Assembly on this. Let it be creative, robust and unremitting. We also welcome input from other interested bodies on this issue. We are increasing training and employment support for people with disabilities, and have established a fund in support of ethnic minority voluntary organisations.

Poverty continues to blight the lives of individuals and whole communities. Eighteen per cent of children under 16 live in homes that are in receipt of income support. Poor people are disadvantaged in many ways. They get sick more often and die younger than those who are better off. The life expectancy of a member of the Travelling community is almost 20 years less than that of someone in the settled community. They may have difficulty accessing services that others take for granted. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to do well at school. Through our New TSN action plans and policy we have established powerful systems to change policies and programmes, and help us build a more equal society, focusing on efforts and resources to address the inequalities of our poorest people.

For many the best route out of poverty is a job with a decent wage. That is why our New TSN policy has a particular focus on tackling unemployment and increasing employability. We have now established the task force on employability and long-term unemployment under the leadership of the Minister for Employment and Learning. It is particularly concerned with the problems of people who have been out of work for a year or more and with geographic and community differentials in unemployment. The programme also includes a commitment to help ex-prisoners overcome barriers to reintegration.

In ‘Working for a Healthier People’ the draft programme recognises that a wide range of factors influences health. Since our first programme was published we have made important progress in building a cross-departmental approach to improving the health of our people through the ‘Investing for Health’ process, which will result in setting a higher number of level targets for health improvement.

We also recognise the need to promote public safety and have set out the steps we have taken to reduce accidents at home, on the roads and in the workforce. Accidents are the single greatest cause of death in children under five. The impact is felt most among those who are disadvantaged. Every year around 150 people are killed on our roads, and another 12,000 injured. Work-related deaths are two and a half times the national average. In our draft programme we commit ourselves to taking action across Departments and with other bodies to reduce these figures.

We will also maintain our efforts to contain waiting lists, address workforce shortages and increase the intake of student nurses. We have initiated consultation on the Hayes report on acute hospitals, and expect to take decisions by the end of next year on the future of our acute hospital services. In many areas, but especially in health, there is a real and sustained growth in demand for services. Given scarce resources, legitimate public expectations cannot always be met.

That will be a major concern for the Executive in the coming years. We will continue to focus on ensuring high-quality education for all, and we have made important progress in laying the necessary foundations at pre-school and primary school levels. We are on our way to delivering our promise that we will provide one year of free pre-school education for every child whose parents wish it.

By April 2002 there will be places for at least 86% of those children. The draft programme commits us to bringing forward proposals for the future structure of post-primary education, which will be informed by the responses to the consultation exercise that is currently under way. We are determined to continue our work to help those in work to update and improve their education and skills.

That challenge is great, because 19% of the existing workforce have few or no formal qualifications, and 24% of our adult population perform at the lowest levels of literacy. In the agreement unique structures were established to provide a new basis for relationships within the island of Ireland, the United Kingdom and east/west. It is essential for the sake of the agreement that all of those structures be allowed to work.

In delivering the Programme for Government we must look beyond the boundaries of Northern Ireland. The development of the global economy, the influence of the European Union and the global nature of many policy issues, such as the environment, which in essence know no boundaries, require us to work on a broader front if we are to deliver government that makes a difference.

Our fifth priority is therefore to build around the need to shape a society that will develop relationships and interact successfully and effectively with its neighbours on this island, throughout Britain, with other nations in Europe, North America and further afield. We have made good progress in many areas by building on the structures agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. For example, co-operation within the United Kingdom, within this island and between the islands following the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease proved enormously effective in helping us to control the situation.

We have made progress with the establishment of the six implementation bodies. Tourism Ireland Limited and InterTradeIreland contribute to employment here. Important strategic decisions on energy and communication have been taken outside the implementation bodies, and we will benefit from enhanced cross-border co-operation.

We have agreed a new structural funds programme with the European Commission and established a dedicated office in Brussels. We are committed to raising the positive profile of Northern Ireland in Europe, and we will initiate a programme of events designed to promote a positive international image of Northern Ireland. Our draft Programme for Government also recognises that the Executive’s priorities cannot be delivered by Departments working in isolation, so we remain committed to working together.

The programme also commits us to working more effectively to improve services and to ensure value for money. We will continue to monitor progress, with quarterly reports being made available to the Assembly. The majority of actions are on target for completion, and slippage has been reported in just 30 out of the 250.

Public service agreements and new service delivery agreements will open the work of Departments up to further scrutiny. E-government will also be used to improve services. We will continue to look for ways of working more effectively across Departments and policy areas. Joined-up government is vital, not for the sake of it but to make a difference to people’s lives.

With the children’s fund come proposals for a commissioner for children with interdepartmental groups such as those in public health. With interdepartmental work under way on sustainable development, and a task force on employability, we are already moving in that direction.

The new Executive programme funds have also consolidated our work to promote a cross-border approach to problem solving. We plan to make further allocations from these in the coming weeks. As I have recognised, if we are to achieve the challenges of the Programme for Government, we cannot do it alone. One of the key roles that the Assembly will play will be through its careful scrutiny in Committee of our plans and proposals as set out in the draft Programme for Government. This programme will also give opportunities for debate in the Chamber on both the Programme for Government and the Budget. The debates are likely to take place in October and November. On a personal level, it is the type of opportunity that the Assembly will, and should, take to ensure that the views of Assembly Members are known and that the Programme for Government is a programme not just for the Executive but also for the Assembly and the people it serves.

Today’s statement is also the start of a wider process of consultation. We will circulate the draft Programme for Government widely among our social partners in business, trade unions and the voluntary and community sectors, and we will make it available to other interested individuals and groups. We will also use several mechanisms, including seminars involving key stakeholders, to encourage discussion and debate on our proposals and on the extent to which they can help promote equality of opportunity and good relations.

Recognising the links between our policy proposals and decisions on financial allocations, this process will allow both the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget proposals to be considered together. It is important that the Executive receive responses to the consultation to help inform decisions to be taken later this year. We have no doubt that Members will play their part, as they have done in the past, by looking carefully and constructively at this draft programme and letting us have their views. We hope too that Members will encourage their constituents to become more involved and communicative in the process of discussion.

In conclusion, the process of agreeing the Programme for Government and the draft Budget that will support its implementation has not been easy. With limited resources we have had to make many difficult decisions. The crucial thing is that the decisions — difficult though they may be — are being made by elected and locally accountable politicians. It is a responsibility, a duty and a privilege that we should not easily throw away. We commend the Programme for Government to the Assembly.

Billy Bell (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the statements by the acting First and Deputy First Ministers. I am particularly pleased with the programme in the areas of health and education. I am also pleased that the roads problem has been taken into account — the flyovers and underpasses on the motorway and the road between Newry and Dundalk — because that will have a huge effect on our economic development. I welcome the statement in principle. However, there is one aspect of the Programme for Government that I thought was important when it was first developed last year — the review of public administration.

Neither Minister mentioned it in his statement today. Has it been forgotten about, or has progress been made? I am concerned about the position regarding local government. Many councils in Northern Ireland do not know what the future holds for them and therefore cannot plan ahead. I would like clarification on this point.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Executive decided some time ago that a review of all public services, including local government, would be appropriate. A major part of that review concerns the Health Service. The Hayes report put forward significant proposals and it is one of the component parts that will be fed into this process.

I am familiar with the Member’s concerns regarding local government, and I am aware of the uncertainties that any period of change brings about. In the past few months, the Minister of the Environment has raised the issue with his Executive Colleagues. He is anxious to proceed. However, we are trying to take all parts of the public service into account and we cannot do that on a piecemeal basis. Members continuously urge us to ensure joined-up government.

The advent of devolution creates a changed set of circumstances within which many of the public services are administered. The most obvious are the health and education services, which have been running without devolution since March 1972. Local government dates from a similar period. Things have moved on. With devolution now in place, it is appropriate that this review proceeds. Some work has already been done by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister regarding the themes and scope of the review. It has not been forgotten, and we will pursue it as quickly as possible.

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

I welcome the statement on the draft Programme for Government. What will the programme do to address the needs of children and older people?

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

The Executive recognise the need to provide services that address the needs of older people and there are benefits to older people across the range of policy areas contained in the programme, through improved government service, social security, health care, transport and housing. In the programme we have highlighted the Executive’s wish to receive views on the appropriate approach to services for older people. In section 2.8 we have set out the main actions for achieving sub-priority 6 — and there are other policies relevant to the needs of older people elsewhere in the document. We will discuss the best way to develop our policies with representatives of older people, and we are keen to take views on this issue.

The test of any society is how it deals with people on its fringes — the very young, the aged and those who are marginalised. I am confident that the debate, especially in relation to young people and the elderly, will show evidence of concern that will be translated into the type of action that is needed.

We have a new sub-priority focusing on the protection of children’s rights, meeting children’s needs and including children’s voices. We are also consulting on the proposals for a children’s commissioner, and we have established the children’s fund as one of the five Executive programmes. Through that, significant investment has been made to improve our services. Some of our work will include the voluntary sector, and we are involving it closely in the development of the fund. We also plan to bring forward a 10-year strategy for children and young people, taking account of the role of parents and families. It will also examine the score for achieving a more joined-up approach in the Executive to children’s issues.

I repeat that the consultation that will take place, the deliberation in Committees, the debates in the Assembly and the way in which we approach these matters will be the acid test of whether there will be something different about this Administration, something different that is good, creative and positive — or will we just be administrators?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not welcome this Programme for Government because we had a Programme for Government that made about 200 promises, not many of which have been fulfilled. That can be examined. Ten pieces of legislation have been passed since the start of devolution. Today, when the Executive are in a crisis about who should be Members of the Executive, one of the major parties of the Executive has declared through its leader that it will seek to expel some of them. That has all been forgotten. There has been no mention of the difficult position that we are in. However, an attack has been launched on the two Ministers from the Democratic Unionist Party who do not attend the Executive. Those are the problems. DUP Members have no mandate from the people who elected them to attend the Executive, and I have more respect for the mandate that I received than others in the House have for their mandate. They think that they can break it when it suits them.

It ill becomes us, in the present state of play in Northern Ireland, to have this Programme for Government and to pick out one party only, when we have a party in the Executive that is linked to IRA/Sinn Féin.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Can the Member bring his question to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? This is an opportunity for questions.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I will. I have many questions — [Interruption].

The man who said that is just an idiot or a fool. That is all he is.

When they condemn one party, they should turn their minds to another party. And that party, what is it doing? It is holding on to the arms and terrorising the community. I have a lot of questions to put to the Minster.

I want to ask him why he left out the victims. Do they not matter to him? Prisoners — oh yes, they will do much for them. However, the poor victims of the prisoners are not mentioned. What about the fact that we are meeting under an economic blight because of terrorism? Did the Government, before they wrote all these papers, not consider that the economic situation had changed? Have they not heard about what happened in America and the economic results? Have they not heard about our own Stock Exchange?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must bring the Member to a close. He has been on his feet for three minutes. He has asked some questions, and I must give the representative of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister an opportunity to respond.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I have one question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Please be brief.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Why is there no promise in all of this to implement one recommendation that came from the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee? Not one recommendation is to be fulfilled in this programme.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member’s first point about little progress being made is simply incorrect. When we brought out the first Programme for Government, it was the first time that an attempt had ever been made here to marry policy aspirations to a Budget. In this draft, we are trying to refine that process even further.

This is a draft programme. It will go to Committees, including the hon Member’s Committee, where he and his Colleagues will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. Over the years, neither he nor I nor anyone else in the House has had the chance to do that. Something was pushed in front of us, and that was it. The Member and his Colleagues will be able to scrutinise this, it will be debated when we come back, and we will ratify the final version. There is a consultation process in place. Mr Mallon said that he was looking forward to hearing comments from Members. We welcome comments from Members.

It is simply not true that victims have been ignored. When I was taking questions two weeks ago today, I specifically answered a question about victims. I indicated the substantial amounts of public money that are correctly being made available to deal with victims, including £6·7 million from Peace II that is specifically for victims and cannot be interfered with by any other interest. Denis Haughey and Dermot Nesbitt are in negotiation with the Northern Ireland Office over a block of money. We have set up liaison groups between our two Departments to ensure that the needs of victims are dealt with.

The consultation paper on the victims’ strategy was issued on 7 August. The consultation period will last until 9 November. In implementing the victims’ strategy, the Executive will take appropriate steps to ensure that service delivery is improved. Not all the changes will require financial solutions. In some cases, a change to existing work practices may be all that is required.

The Member also made a comment about the situation in America. My office is fully aware, even this morning, of what is happening as a result of that situation. I can assure the Member that we are doing all we can with those firms that we know to be affected. We are in a global economy, and what happens in another place affects us. We are very aware that there will be pain in our economy as a direct result of what has happened in America, and we are trying to assess the situation. This morning I instructed officials to arrange a meeting for this Thursday of all the key people in my Department and its agencies. We will assess the situation with regard to the impact on our economy.

In the matter of membership of the Executive, the Member will know my view. I made it clear this morning in a broadcast. I am acutely aware that parts of the Belfast Agreement have not been acted on. The Member has to realise that while criticising those people in the Republican movement who, in my view, have not implemented their part of the Agreement, he must not assume that his Colleagues, who seek to have their cake and eat it, can be free from criticism either.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the draft — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the draft Programme for Government, which is more realistic this year, now that we have had a year’s experience. However, the targets in the section on health could prove to be aspirational, unless sufficient priority is given to the Health Service and resources allocated accordingly.

I welcome the language used in the section on targeting social need and the intention to put in place measures that will focus efforts and resources on addressing the inequalities that our poorest people face. That is a fine aspiration, but what proportion of resources do the Executive intend to allocate to achieving the targeting social need objectives?

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

The New TSN policy aims to tackle social need and promote social inclusion. It applies to policies and programmes involving all Departments and to all parts of the Programme for Government. It cannot be effective if it is seen as a pot of money for doling out in that way. That would mean that it would not be sufficiently comprehensive to stretch across all Departments and across the Programme for Government.

We have published New TSN action plans showing how Departments are redirecting efforts and resources towards those in greatest need. Those are being updated. We will ensure that those plans are fully implemented, and we will publish annual progress reports. New TSN has a particular focus on increasing employability and tackling unemployment. In 2002, we will consider the recommendations of the task force on employability and long-term unemployment to see how we can strengthen our work in those areas.

The element of New TSN which deals with promoting social inclusion involves Departments working together to improve the circumstances of those who are most at risk of social exclusion. We recently consulted on the issues to be tackled, and new initiatives will begin in 2002. We will evaluate New TSN in 2002, and the results will be fed into our work on the policy. I agree with the Member that the programme cannot deliver quantifiable, measurable results within a specific period. It must be fed into the Administration at every level in every Department and into every policy or implementation document, so that we go to the root of the problem, rather than just gloss over the top.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the decision made last week about the funding of the extension of the natural gas pipeline to other parts of Northern Ireland. It is an issue of great personal interest, and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee worked with the Minister to bring it about. It shows clearly the benefits of devolution to the people of Northern Ireland.

Deep divisions persist in Northern Ireland, and that can be seen only too clearly on the streets. To what extent was the principle of sharing — rather than separation — incorporated into the Programme for Government, to help create the sort of shared and integrated society that we all want?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his comments about the gas pipeline project. I thank Mr Neeson for the work that he has done as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and as a public representative. He has promoted the natural gas pipeline for many years; he is not a recent convert. He has made a significant contribution and I appreciate his efforts.

The natural gas pipeline provides a basic piece of infrastructure that was missing. One cannot exaggerate what it will do and it would be wrong to do so, but it is important to have the necessary infrastructure in place.

Mr Neeson made a point about a shared and integrated society. One of the mechanisms at the disposal of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is the community relations unit. We have witnessed the necessity to become involved in a recent dispute. As the Member may be aware, an exchange took place at Question Time about that.

The Executive have considered the measures to tackle the deep and painful divisions in Northern Ireland’s society. Mr Mallon said that one fault line is the difference between people who have skills, education and resources and those who do not. The draft Programme for Government contains policies that are designed to address those issues.

The draft Programme for Government’s proposals reflect and build on the actions in the previous programme. By 2002, it is hoped that a cross- departmental strategy will be developed to promote community relations and that that will lead to improvements in community relations. Actions aimed at promoting integrated education, the concept of citizenship among children and young people, and respect and support for culture and linguistic diversity have also been proposed.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has proposed a review of the community relations unit, because the limited resources that the Office has at its disposal mean that its ability to intervene is less than it would like. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has proposed that that review be carried out to see whether it is possible to re-organise or to provide further resources to enable it to respond and to anticipate some of the problems that lead to and exaggerate divisions.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I welcome the draft Programme for Government and the statements from Sir Reg Empey and Mr Mallon. However, I note that 30 of the 250 actions still leave some cause for concern because of slippage and timescale problems. Given that the Assembly will have some slippage and timescale problems over the next six weeks, is the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister concerned about the failure to meet any of those actions? How does that failure impact on the draft Programme for Government?

Do Sir Reg Empey and Mr Mallon agree that the timescale for the reorganisation of the hospitals — by December 2002 — is too lengthy? Would it not have been better to have attempted to synchronise that timescale with that for primary care, which is set at April 2002? One will impact on the other.

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

The timescale for the re- organisation of the hospitals may be too long. However, the reason for that will become clear when one looks at the budgetary considerations and the factors that will be involved in the decision-making process. There will have to be extensive deliberations and consultation by the Executive — not only in their consideration, but in the Assembly and in the community. I am not sure whether there is a way to cut time out of it, but I hope that there is. I would like to think that there would be a unanimity that does not grow on trees in Northern Ireland, but I doubt it. However, I want to assure the House — in a loose way — that if it is seen that things can be done more quickly, they will be done so.

As for the 250 actions, the broader question as to whether timescales have affected those, and the wider problems; of course the uncertainty is damaging. There is no doubt that the political uncertainty in regard to the institutions has had an effect on the Administration and on the Executive, and will have a continuing effect.

When we were preparing for questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister this morning, it struck me that there might not be another such Question Time, if one is to believe the huffing and puffing that one hears. I do not know whether that will be the case, but I know that it is difficult to maintain a collective focus to ensure the delivery of the actions required. The Member is right; it is having an effect. However, while there is some slippage — I think it is in nearly 30 areas — other areas have developed quickly. We should be looking at how those have been delivered, while at the same time retaining the resolve to catch up with the 30 that have not been properly delivered.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Whatever the situation may be as far as the institutions are concerned, Standing Orders are clear about the time limits for today. There is one hour for questions, and a substantial number of Members still wish to put questions. I therefore ask everyone to be as efficient as possible in putting their questions and answering them, and we will deal with as many as possible within the limits that Standing Orders give us.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I served as a teacher for 25 years, so I particularly welcome the continuing commitment to the improvement of levels of education. However, the statement highlighted the ongoing problem of literacy in our society as a whole. What measures are proposed in the draft Programme for Government to deal with that?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The hon Member draws attention to a serious problem. As Mr Mallon pointed out in his opening remarks, 24% of adults in Northern Ireland have some degree of difficulty with reading, writing or numeracy. That is a staggering statistic.

Through the Department for Employment and Learning, the Executive have received detailed advice from the basic skills unit. Using this advice and taking account of developments elsewhere in the UK and Europe, including the Republic, we will develop a detailed strategy and action plan that will be subject to extensive consultation by the end of this year.

The key elements include new basic standards in the curriculum; raising the esteem and improving the standards of basic skill tutors through a new professional qualification; challenging targets for improving basic skill levels; a strategy for co-ordinating activity across Government; and the engagement of the education training community, trade unions and employers in tackling this key issue.

We are aware of the extent of the problem, and we are taking action to improve the low levels of adult literacy and numeracy. That lies at the heart of improving economic competitiveness; it is impossible for people to advance personally and improve their social development without it.

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

I thank the Ministers for the comprehensive and complex development of the Programme for Government, although it will require further study with the programme in one hand and the proposed draft Budget in the other.

Under the chapter heading ‘Working for a Healthier People’ the draft Programme for Government states

"We will work to contain waiting lists at current levels…"

That refers to hospital waiting lists. Last Tuesday’s debate showed that there is great concern in the community about waiting lists — they are not being contained. Since the basic structure review will not take place until the end of 2002, or perhaps not until the end of 2003, there is an immediate concern about how efficiency will be implemented and about how the minor restructuring can take place. The only other option is unlimited finance, and that is not open to us. What new measures do the Ministers intend to take to reduce the appalling escalation in the waiting lists, as it is affecting every family in the community?

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

When we think of waiting lists we tend to think of people waiting to get into hospital or waiting for treatment. However, people, especially the elderly, must also wait to get out of hospital and back into their homes. It is easy to upbraid a Minister for not making provision for waiting lists or provision for the elderly or for young people when one knows that the money is not available. We must recognise that.

I am sure that many new medical techniques and ideas are being developed. However, one element will not change: without the money we shall not be able to pay for them. If we prioritise these things — and they should be priorities — we shall to have to de-prioritise other things. That is not of much help to the Member; he knows that I am not an expert in these matters. Only by making enough money available can we begin to deal with the health of our community.

Thus ends my popularity in the Executive.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not sure whether this question goes to the huffer or the puffer. I welcome the commitment to adopting a strategy for children and the consultation that is to take place next spring. When is the strategy likely to be in place?

Section 7.3 sub-priority 1 of the draft Programme for Government states

"We will modernise government and make it more open and accessible for the public."

Under that sub-priority you say that

"We have set a target for all departments to make 25% of their key services available electronically by 2002 and 100% by 2005".

The Prime Minister said that 25% of all services would be available electronically by 2002 and 100% of all services by 2005. Why is there a difference?

When will the review of public administration get off the ground? It has been talked about for some time. I understand that there is not even agreement on the terms of reference.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

On 28 August 2001 Mr Mallon and I launched a publicity campaign for the consultation document ‘Protecting Children’s Rights — A Consultation paper on a Children’s Commissioner for Northern Ireland’, and we look forward to hearing responses to that document. It is an innovative step that could have national implications, because there could be changes to criminal law as a result of it. That would be a matter for the Secretary of State. MrMallon and I have discussed the matter with the Secretary of State and with officials, and we hope that after the consultation, proposals will be brought forward that will advance the issue.

A Children’s Commissioner for Wales has been appointed. However, in the light of the feedback that we will receive, we hope that we will be in advance of many areas. We know that Sweden and other countries have had children’s representatives for some time, but we will be well ahead of most of our colleagues.

With regard to e-government, we have developed a corporate strategic framework that provides the foundation for the co-ordination of the delivery of Government services electronically, taking into account such issues as social inclusion and freedom of information. We will implement corporate IT standards, facilitate work between Departments and better enable the delivery of electronic services. I hope that that is also happening at local authority level. No doubt the Member will be leading the way in the borough of Lisburn as we progress. We have set a target for all Departments to make 25% of their key services available electronically by 2002 and 100% by 2005. We will monitor progress towards achieving that target.

The Executive are already committed to the review of public administration. As I said previously, my Colleague, Mr Foster, has specific responsibility for local government, and he is already working on it. The review will take place, although we are aware that there are uncertainties within the local government system, and we would like to move rapidly towards its resolution.

I am hopeful that we will have the terms of reference finalised as the year progresses. However, I point out to the Member that, as the recent review of the hospitals by Dr Hayes shows, the administration of health services are a part of all of this, as is the huge area of education and its administration. We are anxious to ensure that this is an integrated review, not a piecemeal one. It is better to get the concept right than to get it quickly.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the two Ministers for delivering the draft report on behalf of the Executive. It is a good document containing much information. Many questions will come out of it, and I am sure that the Committees will be dealing with it in their various ways.

Have the Executive adopted the recommendations of the Finance and Personnel Committee in relation to public-private partnerships (PPPs)? I refer not just to the equality impact that the document mentions on page 131, but to the other recommendations in regard to contracts and the best use of public money in building new schools or hospitals under PPPs. The Committee carried out an extensive consultation on PPPs, and I hope that the Executive will include it in their consultation.

What additional money is being put specifically into targeting the cross-departmental themes in the Programme for Government? To return to the issue of the Health Service, and taking a rural area west of the Bann, it is clear that if it takes until December 2002 to implement a new acute services plan, there will be longer waiting lists and a larger problem, but fewer hospitals to deal with it. We need to rebalance services now to ensure that some of those hospitals are still viable by December 2002. The local government review is awaited with anticipation, but we should move away from expensive reviews on everything and spend the money on practical action on the ground.

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

I thank the Member for his questions, of which I have identified at least four. I will start with the last one on the local government review. It is not a local government review, but a review of administration in general. It is a mistake to look at it as simply a review of local government. We have committed ourselves to that review, and we hope that it will be done thoroughly — not at great expense, but so that we get it right. I agree with the essence of what the Member says. Very often, reviews go on forever, resulting in glossy documents that often have no substance, and which are often wrong. I prefer to get it right rather than to get it glossy.

The Member also mentioned acute hospital provision west of the Bann. I am not competent, nor do I have any authority, to make any judgement, but it is clear that the sooner consultations are over and informed decisions can be made, the better. We will all try to ensure that that will be done as speedily as possible. Cross-cutting themes are a budgetary matter. I will ensure that that is dealt with tomorrow and that the information is made available.

To answer the Member’s first question, in line with the commitment made in last year’s programme, a review of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and private finance initiatives (PFIs) has been established. The group, jointly chaired by the Economic Policy Unit (EPU) and the Department of Finance and Personnel, will meet for the first time on Wednesday. It plans to conclude its work by February 2002. The group, which will be widely drawn from the private sector and will have a representative from the social partnership, will explore the policy, the economic and social issues behind the policy and the opportunities to use private finance in all major services.

The group will develop the equality impact assessment in line with the explicit commitment in the Programme for Government to carry it out. In carrying forward that work, the group will also take account of the detailed report on the issue, which was rightly produced by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. That report usefully set out many of the key issues that must be considered and collected a wide range of views on the complex matter. I thank the Committee for initiating that investigation and report and for making the report available to us.

Places on the working group have also been offered to the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Their answer is awaited. It is sincerely hoped that they will join the group, because we will then get the most comprehensive view of what may be possible as a result of the consultation.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I also welcome the respective statements of the acting First Minister and the acting Deputy First Minister, particularly the parts that relate to the economy. With the deterioration in the world economy, are the Ministers confident that the new Programme for Government does enough to ensure that the economic progress that we have experienced in recent years will continue?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Programme for Government contains a section on securing a competitive economy. As I said in my opening remarks, there has been remarkable progress in recent years. Northern Ireland is no longer regarded as the sick economy that it once was, with high levels of unemployment, many leaving these shores because of the lack of jobs, and being well behind in a range of areas.

However, we cannot be complacent, because there is still an overemphasis on traditional businesses, which leaves us vulnerable to world and market trends. It would be unrealistic to believe that any programme could entirely shelter businesses from the effects of the global downturn. The hon Member, who is on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, knows the difficulties that are being experienced in the telecommunications sector and others as a result of that downturn, and that was the situation before the events of the week before last. As I said earlier, it is too soon to assess the full impact of those events, but we will be meeting the Department and the agencies later this week to make what assessment we can and to see what steps, if any, can be taken.

The Member will be fully aware of the measures we are taking, including the creation of Invest Northern Ireland, to ensure that we have the most effective mechanism possible at our disposal to secure maximum economic growth.

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

There is much to be welcomed in the statement from both Ministers. For many years I have had an interest in the construction of a dual carriageway on the Newry section of the Newry to Dundalk road, and I am glad to see that that is getting up the scale.

The document refers to the crisis we recently experienced. Will the Minister tell us, in the simplest terms possible, how the Programme for Government addresses the crisis in agriculture?

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

Simply, or simplistically, we have to recognise that the world of farming has changed. It has been changed by forces unconnected with the recent problems with foot-and-mouth disease, but rather on account of how agriculture is changing throughout the world. It is crucial that we recognise that and devise a means whereby rural communities retain the role that they have always played.

During the foot-and-mouth disease crisis all sectors and all sections of Government worked together carefully and successfully to deal with the real problems for farmers and businesses in the affected rural areas. We appreciate that the regeneration of the rural economy is a much longer-term issue and concerns deep-rooted problems. In the Programme for Government, we set out our intention to develop an action plan for the strategic development of the agrifood industry for the next decade.

You might well ask — and so might I — what that means. Surely, if we are honest, we must look beyond the words, and towards what it will take to sustain farming as an industry, to sustain the type of farming that exists in the North of Ireland. We must look not to the type of farming we would wish it to be, or that exists in Norfolk or in other parts of the world, but the type of farming that exists here. We must look at how we can tie that in to the agrifood industry.

The plan for that will arise out of the results of the exercise on the vision for the future of the agrifood industry that has been carried out over the last year by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. We await that with interest.

How do we help farmers and the wider industry to produce food that people around the world will trust and buy? How do we achieve the relaxation of beef export restrictions? We must do that as soon as possible in 2002-03.

How do we sell it abroad in not very propitious circumstances? The Member asked for simplicity. It would be a start if we were all to ensure that we bought Irish beef. Are we perhaps more partial to Danish or Argentinian produce, or are we serious about sustaining our own rural community?

We cannot regard rural Northern Ireland as a community based on farming and settlement. It is not that type of society. Farming is part of the settlement of the towns and villages. The agro-industries are part of the development of commerce in Northern Ireland. The vision for the future of the agrifood industry will therefore be crucial, because it cannot be considered in isolation from rural life and the farming industry as a whole.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Other Members have welcomed the draft Programme for Government and commented on how much is in it for them. As the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, I listened carefully to the statements of both the acting First Minister and the acting Deputy First Minister and they made virtually no reference to the environment or any related issue. There were 19 pages and 35 minutes of speech. Where exactly did the environment come into it? I looked carefully at the 144-page document and found that scant reference is made to the environment. The environment is supposed to be a key theme running through the current Programme for Government. How can the acting First and Deputy First Ministers expect my Committee to believe that they are treating environmental issues as important?

In the previous speech, sustainable development was mentioned repeatedly. It is not even mentioned in the 19 pages and 35 minutes of speech. I know that the Ministers are running quickly through this 144-page document. However, I remember their summary. I believe that the Department of the Environment was the only Department that did not get a mention in the 35-minute speech. Waste management — one of the biggest problems that we face — got two lines in the 144-page document. The protection of our built heritage is a major problem; it was not mentioned in either of the speeches or in the document. We are facing a planning crisis. Many areas do not have an area plan. Again, that was not mentioned.

Mr Mallon said that we must start with high ideals and vision. As far as the environment is concerned, they mean nothing at all.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Mr Mallon mentioned this. Today we are presenting the draft Programme for Government. If the Member turns to page 92 of the document, he will see that there are some 15 targets set for his Department — [Interruption].

The Member and his Committee will have the opportunity to comment on the proposal. That is the purpose of it. It comes back to the Assembly. The Programme for Government contained a commitment to publish proposals for a sustainable development strategy by June 2001. It was not possible to publish the proposals by that date. However, the sustainable development strategy will be published in November 2001. It will involve widespread consultation to encourage a debate on sustainable development, including indicators by which progress in sustainable development can be measured.

The Minister will consider the comments made during that consultation and intends to publish the sustainable development strategy by October next year. As the Member is aware, that will include reducing, recycling and disposing of the waste that the community generates. Those will remain priorities for the Executive. The Member will also know that councils must be assisted in implementing the sustainable arrangements for the provision of an integrated network of waste facilities through their group waste management plans. When we attempted to put our proposals forward we ran into difficulties with another division of the Department of the Environment with regard to planning. Perhaps the Member will find something in the draft programme that he can get his teeth into when it reaches Committee Stage.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement. However, considering that local government is at the forefront when it comes to putting a waste management strategy in place, can the Minister tell us what cross-cutting actions are taking place at local government level to deliver a substantial waste management strategy? Where is the response in the draft programme to the EU integrated product policy or the EU draft sixth environmental action programme?

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

I will be honest with the Member — I am not an expert on waste management.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

We could do with an expert on waste management in the Assembly.

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

I resisted the temptation even to consider such a matter.

The Member asked a very important question, but I will refer it to those who can answer it properly. I will make sure that the Member gets a full and proper answer rather than a glossed-over one from me now. His question, which means something, will get an answer, which means something, because we know how dear waste management is to his heart and to his mind. I would not like the Member to go without the expert advice that I will ensure he gets from those who are in an expert position to give it.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the acting First Minister and the acting Deputy First Minister for the statement. Like others, I welcome the plans for action in the draft programme which I hope will be carried out. The Ministers said that three quarters of the population will have access to natural gas — obviously, a quarter of the population will not. I am concerned about the lack of action planned to tackle the deteriorating rural infrastructure. As the acting First and Deputy First Ministers said, they must deal with those at the fringes. I realise that such action requires funds, so what steps are being taken to deal with the deficiencies of the Barnett formula to ensure that the resources available reflect Northern Ireland’s genuine needs and will enable this draft Programme for Government to be delivered?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

It is fortunate that our Colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, is here, since he is responsible for this important issue. The Executive have major concerns, which are acknowledged in the draft programme. We are looking carefully at the operation of the Barnett formula to see if it can provide a fair allocation of resources. We have not concluded work on that, but we know that, because of the way in which the formula operates, we are unable to keep pace with the rates of increase in spending in England on programmes such as health and education, which are crucial. We hope to have formed a view on the appropriateness of the formula later this year. We have nothing to fear from any examination of the Barnett formula. However, we must continue to argue the case for a better and fairer formula — and a coherent Programme for Government is an important building block in the process of putting our case to the Treasury.

I am conscious that the Member’s constituency may not have the gas infrastructure, but the Department aims to ensure that other infrastructural elements, such as telephones, will be available to his constituents.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Several Members who wished to ask questions did not have the chance to do so. It is regrettable, but it is not the first time that that has happened, particularly when dealing with statements of such substance. The House must be grateful for Ministers’ preparedness to make statements on matters of importance in the Chamber. However, there may be other ways of dealing with substantial statements such as the Programme for Government. My office would be happy to assist the Executive and the Assembly to explore whether, in some cases, there might be a way of ensuring that more Members who wished to put down questions, or explore matters, had an opportunity to do so.

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

On a point of order. During the debate on setting up an interdepartmental working group the DUP Member for South Down, Mr Jim Wells, made a comment about the people in the parish of Kilcoo. I ask you to examine his remarks when you have the benefit of Hansard and any other advice you may receive. In my opinion, it appears that he impugned the reputation of those people. Indeed, he even suggested that it was risky to one’s life to pass through the area. Subject to correction — as I did not quite pick up what his exact words were — I think this could be unparliamentary language. Would you examine this issue for me?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I was not in the Chair at the time, so I did not hear the remarks. However, I will peruse Hansard and will respond, in the Chamber if it is appropriate, but if not, directly to the Member himself.

Adjourned at 5.47pm