Northern Ireland Assembly, 18 February 2002

84 contributions from 33 members. The official report.

Assembly business

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I first wish to make a statement on a previous point of order.

At the sitting on Tuesday 12 February, Mr Billy Hutchinson asked on a point of order why the time allocated by the Business Committee to the debate on the motion ‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’ (2000) was extended.

The Deputy Speaker put the question that the debate be extended on the basis that it appeared to be the clear wish of all Members present; there was no dissenting voice. In the event, almost no extra time was required for the debate.

I must make it clear that Standing Orders make no provision for such an extension. Indeed, it is clearly the role of the Business Committee alone to allocate times for categories of business; Standing Order 10(2) refers. Therefore, the question of extending the time was not in order. Where Members have tabled a motion that they would perceive as requiring a substantive debate, they should make that known to their representative on the Business Committee.

I wish to make it clear that the events that took place during the motion ‘Protecting Children, Supporting Parents’ (2000) are in no way to be construed as setting a precedent. Such a question should not be put again under current Standing Orders.

Royal Assent

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform the House that the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Game Preservation (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 became law on 13 February 2002.

Assembly business

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 24 September 2001, the Assembly unanimously agreed a motion standing in my name

That this Assembly calls on the Executive to establish an interdepartmental working group to make recommendations on the removal —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order, order. I must caution the Member. I am prepared to take a point of order if that is genuinely what it is, but not if it is a question of making a speech or a political point.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The point is that the Assembly unanimously agreed to set up an interdepartmental working group, yet I received a reply from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to say that that was not allowed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is not a point of order. If the Member wishes to draw my attention to a problem that he perceives to be of a constitutional nature between the Assembly and the Executive, he should do so with me privately in the first instance, and then we can see what appropriate action can be taken.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the ruling that you have just made reflects how matters stand, Standing Orders must be changed. No House that I know of is not master of itself. The House should be sovereign, especially when it is unanimous, so we must look at the Standing Orders.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is perfectly in order for the Procedures Committee to look at the Standing Orders. Several arguments can be adduced in either direction. Sometimes it is not hard to reach unanimity in the House because so few Members are present. If my attention is drawn to the absence of a quorum, the House must suspend. In such contexts, to get the leave of the House may not be too difficult.

The Member has raised a very clear argument. It is quite appropriate for that matter to be brought to the Procedures Committee, which, if it wishes, can bring the matter to the House. That is the proper order of things.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that, although the procedure was invalid, the original decision was not invalid even though it may have been taken after the allotted time?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is correct. It is inappropriate for the Speaker to make a ruling in such post hoc circumstances that has a retrospective outcome.

Public Petition: Closure of Mosside Primary School

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg leave to present a petition from residents in the village of Mosside in north Antrim. The petition refers to the proposed closure of Mosside Primary School later this year and is signed by 200 people from the village who are opposed to the closure of that small, rural primary school. The petition says that closure will damage the future of the village and remove from children a local school that has an impressive record of good results, in spite of shortfalls in departmental resources and competition from other local schools.

To remove a school from any village decimates the heart of a village and takes children from the area. The closure of the school will inconvenience the local rural community and cause great upset. The petitioners also make clear that, alongside educational and community arrangements for maintaining the school, there is a substantial question of the safety of children on the roads.

Mr Paisley Jnr moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall convey the petition to the Minister responsible and to the Chairperson of the associated Committee.

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

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council, which met in the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission sector on 1 February 2002 in County Armagh. The Minister also wishes to address a more immediate matter that happened over the weekend.

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

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, before I make my statement on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, I wish to make a few remarks on the recent fishing tragedy in Kilkeel.

The entire House will join with me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the Greene family and to the entire fishing community on this unspeakable tragedy, which has taken the lives of three generations of one family, including that of an eight-year-old boy. I have visited members of the family, whose main concern is to find the boat and recover their loved ones’ bodies.

As soon as I became aware of the need for naval support to assist the search, I spoke to British Minister John Spellar and to the Irish Government. My concern was to secure the necessary back-up as quickly as possible. It became clear that the Royal Navy did not have an adequately equipped naval vessel available in local waters. I am, however, pleased to report that the Irish naval vessel LE Eithne is being mobilised and will leave its base in County Cork this afternoon. It is expected to arrive on the County Down coast in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

I pay tribute to the local fishing fleet and to the other boats, including our fisheries protection vessel, the Ken Vickers. They have worked tirelessly in the past couple of days on this very sad search. We can only hope that the arrival of the LE Eithne will help to bring some solace to the Greene family.

I also express my appreciation to the British Government for their co-operation, and to the Irish Government for their speedy response to this awful human tragedy.

The seventh meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector took place on Friday 1 February 2002 at the Slieve Gullion Courtyard, Killeavey, south Armagh.

Following nomination by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, Mr Dermot Nesbitt and I represented Northern Ireland. Mr Frank Fahey, Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, represented the Irish Government. The papers for the meeting were issued to Executive Committee members on 28 January.

The meeting opened with a report from the chairman of the board of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, Mr Peter Savage. The report detailed the board’s progress in work on shellfisheries, the interpretive centre and marine tourism. He also referred to the review of the Loughs Agency’s staffing structure, which Ministers had requested be carried out following their approval of an interim staffing structure. A draft report on the review, carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, was presented to the agency on 9 January. The draft report was forwarded to the sponsoring Departments for comment and considered by the board at a meeting during the last week of January. My Department is considering the report as a matter of priority and will respond to it as soon as possible.

Dr Pat Griffin, a member of the board of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, then gave an account of a recent visit to Holland by board members and Loughs Agency staff. Holland has one of the most efficient and sustainable mussel industries in Europe, and the agency chose that destination as it represented a useful learning opportunity.

The visit incorporated trips to licensed sites, the Fisheries Research Institute and the auction facilities. The agency was impressed by the emphasis placed on such environmental factors as the sustainability of bird populations and the treatment of predators. The agency was also impressed by the industry’s capacity to identify and move mussel seed between different plots deemed suitable for different stages of mussel growth, and with the efficiency of the electronic auction system, which can accept bids for mussel stock from around the world. It was apparent to our visiting colleagues that good management of the shellfisheries in Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough has the potential to create a valuable export market to Holland.

The chief executive of the agency, Mr Derick Anderson, provided the meeting with an explanation for the delay in presenting accounts for the agency’s predecessor, the Foyle Fisheries Commission, and the knock-on delay that that has caused in presenting agency accounts. He explained that a computerised accountancy system had been introduced, on which all accounts operated accurately with the exception of the nominal ledger. The difficulties with the nominal ledger were not fully exposed for some time, as the Foyle Fisheries Commission and, latterly, the Loughs Agency were under resource pressure due to additional work as a result of an expanding remit.

To rectify the problems with the nominal ledger, the Loughs Agency employed consultants PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and recruited and trained additional administrative staff. With that extra support, the agency was able to provide all required information to facilitate completion of the audit of outstanding accounts.

Fully audited accounts for the Foyle Fisheries Commission for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 were due to be forwarded to the agency during the week ending 15 February. Responsibility for the audit of accounts for the Loughs Agency for the years 2000 and 2001 rests with the Northern Ireland Audit Office. It has already undertaken the bulk of the groundwork, but it requires closed 1999 accounts before it can finalise the audit of the later accounts.

It is anticipated that the accounts for 2000-01 will be completed in March. The chief executive apologised for the delay in finalising the outstanding accounts and assured Ministers that appropriate mechanisms, staff and controls are now in place to ensure that the Loughs Agency does not cause such delays again.

The chief executive advised the meeting of the progress that has been made towards completing the agency’s interpretive centre. The agency is undertaking a baseline survey to establish the level of children’s knowledge of the fishery resource, and some video footage has been shot of salmon spawning in the River Finn. Plans for the interior design and decoration of the centre are under way, and the agency is on target and within budget to open it by September 2002.

Ministers were updated on the agency’s plans to host a workshop on research into seal predation of salmon and on the continuing positive impact of the salmon carcass tagging scheme, particularly the significant downturn in illegal netting and the increase in logbook returns, especially from anglers. That enhancement of the agency’s management data will make a positive contribution to its ability to manage and conserve the valuable salmon fisheries in the Foyle area.

The chief executive referred to the agency’s work with angling clubs and fishery owners on applications for EU funding for several enhancement projects. He looks forward to the positive contribution such projects have the potential to make to increasing the number of salmon in the system.

Ministers took the opportunity to thank the agency for its continuing good work, and, in particular, they urged it to do everything in its power to advance its outstanding accounts.

Ministers considered and approved the agency’s corporate plan for 2002-04 and its business plan for 2002. The corporate plan sets out its objectives for the management, protection, conservation and improvement of salmon, inland and shellfish fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas, and the development of marine tourism. It also outlines its objectives for the statutory equality obligations, the development of its staff, and health and safety at work and includes budgetary details.

The business plan sets more specific targets for 2002. It addresses issues such as aquaculture licensing, the reduction of illegal fishing, the provision of advice on a range of issues, including pollution prevention, awareness raising, and the provision and use of a variety of management information to inform and support the management of the fisheries. Printed copies will be available from the agency’s headquarters in March.

Ministers considered a paper on the progress made in establishing an advisory forum that was approved at an earlier meeting. Its purpose is to ensure that those with an interest in the use and management of the resources in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have a mechanism through which their views may be put to the agency. The selection process was undertaken on the agency’s behalf by management consultants. There were some initial difficulties in recruiting a sufficient number of people to represent all the interests, but we were pleased to note that, following a further targeted recruitment exercise, the full range of representation has been achieved. Members of the advisory forum include representatives of shellfishing, draft net fishing, drift net fishing, anglers, fishery owners, tourism, environmental groups, local businesses, councils, ports and harbours, forestry and agriculture.

The advisory forum held its first meeting at the end of January, when members were given detailed presentations on the work of the agency and its future plans. It is proposed that, when it meets again in March, individual focus groups will be set up to concentrate on advising the agency on specific areas of interest.

Ministers noted the final version of the agency’s equality scheme, which received approval from the Equality Commission on 7 November 2001, and approved its New TSN action plan. Both the equality scheme and the action plan underpin the agency’s work, and their implementation will strengthen its commitment to equality, fairness, and tackling social need and social exclusion. Copies of both documents are available from the agency on request.

Ministers considered a paper on the difficulties presented by an aquaculture site in Carlingford Lough, licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the boundaries of which have caused problems for Northern fishermen trying to access the public mussel fishery. Minister Fahey accepted that a speedy resolution was required, and officials from both Departments, along with staff from the Loughs Agency, have been asked to resolve the issue by the next meeting.

Progress on the drafting of the Foyle and Carlingford fisheries Bill was discussed next. The Bill proposes to extend the functions of the agency in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 and to update the Foyle fisheries Acts. To date, good progress has been made in resolving some intricate policy matters. As the legislation affects both parts of the island of Ireland, it was agreed that drafting of the provisions would be split between the relevant offices, North and South. Although the Office of the Legislative Counsel has produced its part of the Bill, progress has been hampered in the South by the involvement of their draftsman in drafting other Bills. However, Minister Fahey agreed to encourage the Attorney-General’s Office to give the Bill priority, with a view to producing the South’s contribution to the draft as soon as possible to facilitate introduction in the Assembly and the Dáil at the earliest opportunity.

The meeting considered a paper on the transfer of the functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. It is clear that the functions of the commissioners will remain a reserved matter, with the UK Government continuing to exercise policy and funding control as a consequence of their responsibility as trustees of the general lighthouse fund. Therefore, it appears that the Lights Agency element of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission will not comply with the definition of an implementation body, as set out in strand two of the Good Friday Agreement. Members will be aware that the matter has been referred to the North/South Ministerial Council in its institutional format. At its meeting on 17 December, it was agreed that officials from both Administrations and from the joint secretariat of the North/South Ministerial Council would consider the matter further, and offer advice and recommendations to the council. Preliminary discussions have begun with a view to submitting a report and recommendations to the next meeting of the Council in its institutional format.

The North/South Ministerial Council agreed to meet again in April 2002, and it approved a joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Assembly Library.

This statement was made on my behalf and on behalf of Mr Nesbitt.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am sure that the House will endorse the Minister’s remarks at the beginning of her statement and will wish to express its sympathy also. It has been said that great grief is not good at talking, and how true that is. Who can express the depth of sorrow caused by the wound that has been inflicted by the loss of three generations of one family? I am sure that everyone in the Assembly understands that.

I welcome the fact that vessels will be sent to that area. I received a representation from Kilkeel yesterday. I spoke to Mr Spellar’s personal secretary and pointed out that the fishermen were worried that bad weather would mean that the vessels would not be of much use. However, the weather conditions were favourable.

Given the size of the British naval service, I am amazed that it does not have a boat with the equipment to do this job. We are grateful to the Dublin authorities for sending a vessel. However, I ask the Minister to press the British authorities further to send a fully-equipped naval vessel that has the ability to carry out the soundings necessary to search for the lost vessel. Two boats could cover a greater area than one.

Everyone knows that it is imperative to find the vessel, so that the bodies of those who have been lost can be brought back and receive a burial, and so that the family can have one sore anointed with healing balm. The other sore and its scar will remain on their lives for ever. I wish the boats well in their efforts to find the bodies.

I salute all the fishermen in that area and all those who went out in boats to help the search. I also salute the strength of the family at this time and trust that the bodies will soon be brought back to the home port.

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

I thank the Member for his remarks and expression of sympathy to the family. I am deeply grateful that a vessel is being prepared to leave Haulbowline in County Cork at 2.00 pm to travel up the Irish coast. It is hoped that it will reach the Down coast by 2.00 am tomorrow morning, and I understand that it will begin the search immediately.

I recognise that the family’s grief is being added to by the fact that the bodies have not been recovered and that, as Dr Paisley has said, it would be a great ease to them if they could be recovered. I have been informed that the police diving team has offered its services to the coastguard, while the fishing fleet and the Ken Vickers are fully involved in the search. Should it become apparent that a wreckage has been found, the police divers will offer help to the coast guard or the lifeboat service, whichever may be appropriate. That is an example of the great co-operation that there has been throughout the community, North/South, east/west and within all the Government agencies to try to resolve one of the greatest tragedies that I have known in fishing history in my lifetime in this part of the world. We must also remember that a brother of Michael Greene was drowned in Kilkeel harbour 13 years ago. This has been a real tragedy for this family.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

On behalf of my party, I would like to express our sympathy to the family. Our thoughts are with all those involved.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and am glad that great interest was taken in the salmon fishing industry and also in the tagging scheme. What impact have the salmon that escaped from the farm fishery had on wild salmon, and have any steps been taken to ensure that such an incident does not happen again?

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

My understanding is that the salmon that escaped from the Glenarm fishery have had no significant impact.

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

As an Assembly Member for South Down, I wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy from the Minister and the Committee Chairperson. The tragic events of last Thursday night will be remembered in the Mournes for generations to come. I also wish to put on record my appreciation of the services that worked around the clock on the rescue mission and then the search, including the local lifeboat service, which did a tremendous job co-ordinating all those involved. I would not like this occasion to pass without paying tribute to the Minister for her efforts yesterday to expedite the search.

What plans does the Loughs Agency have to develop marine tourism in Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle, and when does the agency intend to publish those plans?

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

The Loughs Agency is currently preparing a tourism strategy that will set out the agency’s plans for the development of marine tourism in the Foyle and Carlingford areas.

The agency plans to concentrate on improving marine tourism by developing the recreation and leisure aspects of fisheries and catchments. However, it does not propose to provide direct funding. The agency also intends to commission a marine tourism audit in the Foyle and Carlingford areas to ascertain the level of facilities currently available. The agency hopes to publish its marine tourism strategy later this year.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I extend my sympathy, and that of my Colleagues, to the Greene family and the local community. Such communities have always been prepared to face the worst that the sea has often dealt to them: Nevertheless, such incidents are still an enormous tragedy for them.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly her comments on the work that continues on the overall meeting. The Fisheries Bill was discussed, as was the progress made, North and South. We need the draft legislation as soon as possible to facilitate the early introduction of the Bill in the Assembly and in the Dáil. What progress has been made on that legislation, given the fact that it has been delayed?

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

Legislation is necessary to provide the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission with the power to license and develop aquaculture. The drafting of the legislation is progressing, and I intend to introduce the Bill later this year. My officials are fully committed to taking the Bill forward, but progress is subject to parallel development in both jurisdictions.

The Bill was initially delayed due to several difficulties in establishing a mechanism to enable those people aggrieved at decisions of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission on aquaculture applications to appeal. It also proved more difficult than anticipated to obtain the agreement of legal advisors in both jurisdictions on several policy matters. Most of those issues have now been resolved, but further delay has occurred because, due to competing priorities, the draftsman in the South has been unable to produce a draft of the Bill. However, we hope that that matter will now be addressed. I have spoken about the matter to Minister Fahey, who is arranging to have the issue prioritised. I hope to be able to progress the legislation soon.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Minister will accept that one of the most painful duties that we have had in the last few days has been to visit the homes of those who were so tragically struck by this dreadful incident. Can she assure me that her Department will put the maximum pressure on the Marine Accident Investigation Board to ensure that a Royal Navy vessel, in addition to the Irish Navy vessel, is sent immediately to this area to assist? It is unfortunate that no Royal Navy vessel was available for dispatch to the area. Although we appreciate the help offered by the Irish Government, the situation flags up a concern for the future.

Does the Minister also agree that it is vital that lines of communication be clarified, so that if such a dreadful incident should happen again there would be one point of contact with the marine authorities to ensure that a vessel would be dispatched immediately? One of the great difficulties yesterday was that no one was certain of who had the final authority on the matter. That was one of the reasons for the delay.

Finally, can she assure the House that if the trawler is found, and if it is deemed necessary to raise it to the surface, there will be no delay in doing so and a Government Department will fund that work? The bodies need to be found, so as to give closure to the family affected by this terrible event.

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

I agree. I have done everything in my power to ensure that the necessary back-up support of naval vessels from either or both jurisdictions is made available, and I will continue to use my influence to ensure progress on that.

I have already reported about the progress so far. I understand from Mr Wells that there was some confusion yesterday morning in the lines of communication. I heard about the incident from the fishermen’s representative at 2.00 pm on the radio and was able to establish immediately the responsibility of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions across the water and the Ministry of Defence, which has the remit of the naval fleet. It is a reserved matter, of course, so responsibility lies with those Departments. However, as the Minister responsible for fisheries here, I felt that it was incumbent on me to do everything possible to ensure that the necessary back-up was provided. I was pleased to be able to do that and to have the L E Eithne prepared and soon to be on her way up here. Any other matters relating to the operation of the naval fleet are not my responsibility, but I take the point. It is important that back-up should be available when and if necessary.

If the trawler is located, I will do everything possible to ensure that it is raised, because that is extremely important for the families.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the explanation in the report, and I note the apology about the delay in finalising the Foyle Fisheries Commission’s accounts and the Loughs Agency’s accounts. I also welcome the establishment of the advisory forum and the focus groups, which will represent interest groups in the Loughs Agency’s catchment area. However, was the opportunity taken to impress on Minister Fahey that, although he is reducing the number of net licences and quotas, the Republic of Ireland still lags behind Northern Ireland and other European countries on measures to bring to an end the slaughter — and that is the only word that I can use to describe it — of the salmon off our coasts?

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

I stated in my report that the agency’s presentation of the 2000-01 accounts was delayed because the accounts of the Foyle Fisheries Commission had not been finalised. We now hope to have full accounting in March. The corporate business plans are currently with the designers, and they should be available in March. Copies will be made available from the Loughs Agency’s headquarters in Prehen and its regional office in Carlingford. The agency’s equality scheme will be published in full in this April or May, and its New TSN action plan can be viewed on its web site.

The Loughs Agency has no plans at the moment to buy out salmon nets, but the stocks of salmon returning to the Foyle catchment area are managed effectively to ensure that spawning escapement targets are achieved each year. The effectiveness of the conservation and protection regulations introduced by the agency to help manage the fish stocks are continually kept under review using data collected from fish counters, population surveys and catch returns. As escapement targets are currently being achieved, and a stable commercial and recreational fishery exists, the agency has no plans to introduce further conservation measures at this time.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly her reference to the current state of salmon stocks in the Foyle system. I commend the good work of many angling clubs, through several projects. What measures has the Loughs Agency taken to conserve and protect salmon stocks in the Foyle?

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

In association with my Department, Queen’s University Belfast and the Irish Marine Institute in Dublin, the Loughs Agency has engaged in a two-year genetic study of salmon populations for the purpose of obtaining further management information to ensure the future sustainability of salmon stocks in the Foyle system. The agency has also introduced a salmon carcass tagging scheme, which prohibits the sale of untagged salmon. That has resulted in a substantial reduction in the levels of poaching in the Foyle and Carlingford areas, thus enabling the agency to direct more resources toward enhancement, development and reinstatement of the catchments. Therefore, ultimately, it will further improve the productivity of the catchments. The tagging scheme also requires anglers to complete logbooks detailing the number of catches made. Those logbooks will provide the agency with valuable information that will help to ensure that the fisheries of the Foyle and Carlingford areas continue to be managed effectively.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too want to extend my sympathy to the Greene family on the awful tragedy, especially since I come from near that area. Can the Minister throw any further light on the apparent red tape that delayed the operational search and rescue mission travelling to the scene of the Kilkeel tragedy? Will she look at ways of liaising with her Dublin counterparts to ensure a quicker response from their naval resources in the future on operations affecting our fishing fleet?

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

I am not sure that I understood the second question. I will deal with the first, and perhaps the second can be repeated.

As I said, I responded as soon as I was made aware of the issue at 2.00 pm, when I was on my way to visit the families. I did not come across any red tape difficulties. I was able to establish immediately that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Ministry of Defence across the water shared the responsibility — the former is responsible for the coastguard and the latter for the naval vessel. I assure the Member that between 2.00 pm and 5.00 pm, I was able to reach a resolution.

The Member may be referring to the long delay in getting the vessel up here. It takes a while, particularly on a Sunday evening, to assemble the crew — at least five or six hours, perhaps longer during a weekend. It then takes several hours to prepare the vessel for steaming and considerable time for the vessel to come from Cork to the Down coast. There was another delay while they ensured that they were able to get the divers, an important element for the recovery.

I am not sure whether I fully understood or heard the second part of the question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Perhaps the Member might help us by repeating the second part of his question.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Dublin authorities were not contacted until yesterday. The tragedy occurred on Friday, but the Minister said that it was when she was on her way to visit the family yesterday that she became aware of the red tape that affected the operation. Will the Minister contact her Dublin counterparts to ensure that there will be an immediate response if a tragedy happens again in the lough or in that area?

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

I explained to the Member that I did not encounter any such red tape difficulties. When the tragedy happened, the Ken Vickers, which is the departmental fisheries boat, the local fishing fleet and the coastguard were all involved in the search.

The official search was called off when it became clear that it was a search for bodies. At that point the naval vessel became an issue, and I immediately contacted the Dublin authorities once I was made aware of that. As I said, I am grateful for the very quick response that I received. The delay from yesterday until today was due to the logistics of getting the vessel on the sea.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Through the Chair, I express my sympathy to the bereaved family. I ask the Minister to ensure that in such an emergency, the first contact will always be made with our own United Kingdom Government and its Royal Navy.

With reference to the Minister’s North/South Ministerial Council meeting, have there been any investigations into freshwater mussels and their use as a potential for export markets? Has any investigation been carried out into the zebra mussel, a freshwater mussel that has become a plague in most of the Southern rivers and lakes, and is now a threat to our rivers and estuaries? What progress has the Minister made in ensuring that our waters are not polluted by this plague of freshwater mussels?

Secondly, the Minister referred to the completion of the agency’s interpretive centre. Where will this centre be, and how many staff will be employed?

Thirdly, the fishermen of Lough Foyle tell me that poaching still causes their greatest loss of revenue. Very few salmon make it into the River Mourne, through Sion Mills and up to the headwaters of the Foyle, the Strule, the Drumragh, and the Camowen. What effective action has been taken? Despite the attempt at tagging, there has not as yet been a successful effort to control illegal poaching of salmon in the Foyle estuary or the Foyle waters. I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of the people of those areas who depend on the industry for tourism, to make every effort to ensure that adequate salmon stock emerge in those headwaters.

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

I thank the Member for his numerous questions, of which I lost count.

I am disappointed at the suggestion that my first contact was not with the UK Government. I made it clear that I contacted the UK Government and then the Irish Government. It does not matter to the families in distress who comes to the rescue. I, and the whole community in Kilkeel, am aware of that.

I will write to Mr Gibson to inform him of the situation in regard to freshwater mussels, as I do not have all the details.

I did not hear the question about the interpretive centre.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member asked where it is.

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

The centre is in Derry/Londonderry, Doire Chomcille. [Laughter].

I think the Member understands the answer.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is, after all, an interpretive centre. [Laughter].

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

It would be wiser to say that it is in Prehen, and that would avoid any problems.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for both parts of her statement. At the end of her statement, she said that the Lights Agency element of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission would not comply with the definition of an implementation body, as set out in strand two of the Good Friday Agreement.

Have the Minister and her Executive Colleagues considered the possibility that the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission could become an implementation body under the auspices of the British-Irish Council?

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

That has not been considered at this time, but I take the point.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

What happened last week in Kilkeel was a tragedy. As a Member for the Strangford constituency, I remember a similar search off the Isle of Man for the body of the crewman and boat owner Tom Hughes. At that time, the help of the Royal Navy was requested. The good work of the locals, who dived and searched, led to the retrieval of the body for the funeral.

A rapid reaction is needed. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that legislation can be changed? She said that it was a reserved matter. However, what representations can the Minister or her Department make on that?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is wise to point out to the House that questions to a Minister must refer only to the Minister’s responsibility. It is clear that the burden of the question that the Member is asking is on a reserved matter; which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. For the Member to tread on that is to tread on the parliamentary responsibilities of his colleagues who are Members at Westminster. It may well be that he wishes to press the Minister on making representations. That would not be inappropriate. However, to ask the Minister questions about matters outwith her responsibilities would be out of order.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

What representations are the Minister and her Department making to Westminster to see what can be done to make the Royal Navy more accountable and reactive when help is needed? We require an effective and co-ordinated response. Our fishermen deserve the full support of the authorities. A clear message must be sent from the Assembly and the Minister that we are doing everything that we can to help them.

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

Since yesterday, my only priority has been to do everything in my power as a Minister, and to use all my influence, to assist the recovery of the bodies and the boat. I have bent all my energies towards that. I have not looked at any further steps that might be taken: That is for another day. My priority is to try to relieve, in some manner, the awful distress that the Greene family is going through.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I also associate myself with the expressions of grief to the Greene family of Aughnaloopy and Ballymartin. At this tragic time, it is hard to conceive of any rainbow that could brighten such a shadow of tears for that family.

In her statement, the Minister said that an advisory forum had been established. Which management consultants were engaged by the Department to carry out that work? How were they selected, and how much did it cost the Government? Did the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have to foot the entire bill?

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

The management consultants were PriceWaterhouseCoopers, as I believe I said in my statement. I did not hear the second part of the question.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

How were they selected, and how much did it cost the Government? Did the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have to foot the entire bill?

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

The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission selected the management consultants by a process of tendering.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

What was the cost?

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

I will check with the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. I do not have those details, but I will provide the Member with that information.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That brings to an end questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Railway Safety Bill: First Stage

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA Bill 3/01] to make provision with respect to the safety of railways.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Budget Bill: Second Stage

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill (NIA Bill 2/01) be agreed.

In moving the motion, I will draw attention briefly to a few points. The debate follows the Bill’s First Stage on Tuesday 12 February, and the Supply resolutions for the 2001-02 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2002-03 Vote on Account, which were also considered and approved last week. The Bill can be given accelerated passage because the Committee for Finance and Personnel has confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 40, the Committee is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill. This condition has been met, and the confirmation was given in a letter dated 5 February from the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to the Speaker. I welcome the Committee’s assistance in the matter, especially in view of the concerns that the Committee has expressed about the process and its role within it. For the record, I understand those concerns and recognise the need to address them over the coming months.

The purpose of the Budget Bill is to give legislative effect to the resource Estimates approved through the Supply resolutions passed last Monday. Given the wide-ranging and valuable debate that we had then, I do not intend to delay the start of today’s debate with unnecessary repetition of the detail that I covered last week when I introduced the Supply resolutions. Members have received copies of the detailed spring Supplementary Estimates booklet and the Vote on Account statement. Copies of the Budget Bill and associated explanatory and financial memorandum should also be available. However, for the benefit of the Assembly, I wish to summarise briefly the main features of the Bill in accordance with the nature of the Second Stage debate envisaged under Standing Order 30.

The Bill authorises the issue of £198 million from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in respect of the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and appropriates this sum to specific services as set out in schedule 1. Schedule 2 authorises the use of additional resources for 2001-02 amounting to £574 million and details the revised limits for accruing resources.

The Vote on Account provided for in the Bill for 2002-03 is to allow funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of the incoming financial year until the Main Estimates can be presented to, and considered by, the Assembly. For the Vote on Account, the Budget Bill seeks the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sum of £3,936 million and its appropriation to services as set out in schedule 3. In addition, it seeks the Assembly’s authorisation for the use of resources amounting to £4,486 million as set out in schedule 4.

I was most interested to hear the many views expressed by Members during last week’s useful debate. I endeavoured to answer most of the questions at the time or to provide responses later, either personally or from my ministerial Colleagues as appropriate.

There is little more that I can usefully add on the substance of the Budget Bill, but I shall respond to any points raised by Members on the principle of the Bill.

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

The Assembly offers Members a great opportunity to influence public expenditure allocations, to hold Departments accountable for those allocations and to ensure that the outcomes promised as part of the spending programmes are delivered. As I said earlier, our budgetary processes are still evolving, and each budgetary exercise is important in helping us to understand problems or difficulties that we can improve on or address. I accept that we may need to refine our processes, where that is possible, within the limitations of the existing system. However, it is fair to say that the Assembly has undertaken its responsibilities for public expenditure, authorisation and control with considerable care and diligence.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that, in the coming months, the Executive will be engaged in intensive preparations for, and negotiations on, the spending review 2002. That review will set parameters for expenditure for the following three years.

The challenges posed by the need to meet the significant investment requirements of many of our services are probably already apparent to all Members. In the past two years, we have seen the expenditure limits imposed by the available resources, and the difficult choices that are necessary in order to ensure that fair and equitable allocations were made. The Executive are examining, in a fundamental way, the basis of current resource allocations by the Treasury. In that respect, the Barnett formula is being subjected to detailed and rigorous analysis to determine the extent to which it should, or should not, continue to be the basis for determining those resources. Alongside that examination, the Executive, as Members may be aware, are also conducting detailed needs assessments across all the Departments. Those assessments are intended to provide information on the precise scale of need in each Department with respect to the services for which it has responsibility.

It is widely recognised that there is a major backlog in investment and that that backlog exists across almost all our services and infrastructure. We have to ensure, therefore, that our case is as strong, robust and well founded as we can make it.

Our needs are considerable. Given the signals from London, there is little doubt that we have a major task ahead in ensuring that the outcome of the forthcoming spending review is as favourable to us as it is possible to make it.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and for his recognition of the Committee’s concerns. The Committee for Finance and Personnel confirmed to the Assembly that it was satisfied that the requirements of Standing Order 40(2) regarding consultation had been met, so that the Bill could proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

The Committee did not do that lightly, and there was quite a debate on the issue, because it places a premium on the involvement of the Assembly and its Committees in the Budget process. The Committee for Finance and Personnel will wish to ensure that the arrangements for consulting Committees during the impending review year are comprehensive, timely and effective, and meet with the approval of all Committees. The Minister should be alert to the concerns regularly expressed by the Assembly Committees that they are not consulted effectively by Departments and that the timely provision of budgetary information by Departments is not always as good as it should be to allow Committees to perform their statutory role.

It is essential, therefore, that when the Minister announces the timetable for the spending review in March, Committees be built into the consultation process from the beginning. Before signing off on accelerated passage for the next Budget Bill in June, the Committee for Finance and Personnel will need to be assured by other Committees that appropriate consultation has taken place and is planned before the draft Budget is introduced in September. That process of consultation is important in the spending review year. Committees will wish to see a positive benefit from the resources obtained from the Treasury, based on the needs and evaluation work of the Committees concerned.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel recognises and supports the Executive’s priority focus on the need for substantial additional resources for the Health Service, education and the infrastructure. There are depressing daily accounts of how hospitals are failing to meet the needs of the sick. Pictures of frail and elderly people on hospital trolleys do not do any of us any credit. It is important that we recognise that those who elect us expect and demand more. We must make a difference where it matters most. Innovative ways to raise revenue without targeting the most needy must be used. The effectiveness and efficiency of public services must be examined rigorously to ensure best value.

Assembly Committees play a key role in scrutinising the work of Departments and in holding Ministers to account to the Assembly for the services for which they are responsible. Committees should be encouraged to target areas of poor performance and encourage value for money so that resources are freed up to meet those high priority needs. Departments still have a silo mentality.

Spending patterns must be challenged, evaluated and reset strategically. Appropriation of resources must be targeted to encourage greater co-operation between Departments. Short-term resources must be targeted on the immediate needs of the sick and must be matched by long-term strategic investments in health and education services. Better access to health services, and improvements in the social and physical environment of the population are needed. Long-term investments will lead to long-term savings through a more integrated approach in the public services.

The Minister’s recent decision to review the effectiveness of the in-year monitoring procedure is welcomed, and indicates his concern that Departments are not entirely effective in quantifying their budget needs.

The Assembly is being asked to consider a Bill that appropriates a considerable amount of resources. Members will wish to be assured that those precious resources are deployed with maximum impact. The Committee for Finance and Personnel accepts that the Budget Bill is the end of a process of consultation with Departments. It also acknowledges that the process must focus on effective engagement with the Assembly and its Committees at an early stage if the Executive are to be truly accountable to the Assembly.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel looks forward to playing its part in the spending review process and encourages other Committees to play their part. They must be consulted and form part of the bidding process to ensure the effective use of resources. Go raibh maith agat.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

When we debated the Second Stage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, I was the only person who expressed the view that, rather than making the accounts clearer, resource accounting would make them more complicated. Now that we have had a first look at the new-style Estimates and the Budget Bill, I feel vindicated in having expressed that view.

The suggestion put forward by the Committee for Finance and Personnel to have some form of training and elucidation on the new accounting style provided for Members is valid. I hope that that training will proceed shortly. I have no reason to believe that the Department is resistant to that suggestion and look forward to implementing it.

After the recent Enron affair, many comments were made concerning creative accounting in the private sector. I expressed the view that a snag in moving to resource-based accounting is that the scope for creative accounting is considerably greater in the Government sector. The problem is not as severe when the Government are not responsible for the Supply side, as is the case here.

Nonetheless, Members must work diligently to understand how resource-based accounting works. I do not fully understand it myself. However, examining the use of assets, and how they are treated in the Government’s books, will be helpful in informing our long-term investment decisions, especially those decisions on infrastructure.

The Minister emphasised that the three-year spending review will happen this year. I trust that the needs and effectiveness evaluation will be completed in time for the spending review, but it may be a close call. I am not sure how much input the Assembly and its Committees will have into that review. As I have said in other debates, it is no use trying to influence a Budget once it has been read. We must start to influence next year’s Budget now. We have about six months in which to influence the Budget. Once figures are written down and the draft Budget is read in the autumn, the scope for influencing the final Budget becomes extremely limited.

This is the second full cycle in which the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Molloy, and I have made that point. It must be reiterated that Committees must start addressing budgetary issues immediately and in the coming months. There is a slight window in the Assembly’s agenda before a heavy legislative programme begins in April. That may be the best chance that we shall have to get to grips with the budgetary issues for next year.

I acknowledge the Minister’s comments on the Barnett formula and on proving the need for the resources that we currently receive. On the whole, we receive favourable treatment under the Barnett formula. I urge caution about following a divergent route, which carries the risk of a less favourable outcome. I note that comments were made recently in Westminster to the effect that it was unlikely that Barnett would be reviewed for the time being. I suspect that that will be to our advantage. I welcome the Budget Bill.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The final spring Supplementary Estimates contain an amazing error. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to the statement that £93 million was allocated in the Department of Employment and Learning for fees and expenses for chairpersons and members of the industrial and fair employment tribunals. I doubt that the fees and expenses of those tribunals amounted to £93 million. The Minister should respond to that before the Bill goes through; he should give us the accurate figure.

I am also concerned about an issue that relates to the announcement that was made last year about free nursing care. That became a huge issue for the Budget. I wrote to the Minister asking him to outline the easements — the surrendered moneys for which Departments can bid — and I discovered that £3·3 million had been surrendered, despite the fact that most of the population in Northern Ireland would have been told that no money had been available for free nursing care. I am concerned that £3·3 million was left sitting in the Department’s budget and was then surrendered. No doubt the Department made bids for other moneys.

Later in the year an announcement was made that resources would be found for free nursing care. I am concerned about that. Can the Minister reassure the House that the public are not being led to believe that that was new money, given that it had been there in the first instance?

It may have been the case that we were not in a position to provide free nursing care because the legislation had not gone through. Perhaps that is the message that should have gone out at the time, rather than a message of insufficient funds being available. I know that £3·3 million might not have met all of the costs of introducing free nursing care at that time. However, before the Budget Bill goes through, we have an opportunity to clear the matter up. There was a surrender of £3·3 million. I have written to the Department and have received some explanation of it, but it is important that the matter be brought before the House.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I thank the Members who have spoken during the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. The House has discussed many of the issues previously. It is not surprising, therefore, that a full-scale debate, as has occurred on previous occasions, has not developed this afternoon. I assure the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that full consultation has, to the best of the Department’s ability and within the time constraints applying, been taking place in the past two years. That consultation has been with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and all the other Committees, through contacts with officials and Ministers in the various Departments.

The point that I made, which was made on several occasions by my predecessor, is that Committees are able to take the initiative by probing likely developments with respect to the relevant departmental budgets. Committees could perhaps do that more vigorously in anticipation, rather than simply awaiting the outcome of proposals relating to departmental bids. As was reflected in Mr Leslie’s comments, Members do not have to await the end of the preparatory stages of the Budget for that kind of probing to take place. Committees can begin to make their investigations now. Indeed, I believe that there was an example of that last week from the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, which I commended. Prioritisation was taking place in a way that I felt was helpful to the deliberations of that Committee and to its engagement with the Department. Let us see Committees being more willing to take the initiative in relation to the budgetary planning process.

On the comments made by the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and by Prof McWilliams, I wish to emphasise that in-year monitoring takes place to determine what might be available to be allocated to help meet pressing needs identified by Departments. When Departments make bids with respect to what might be available from in-year monitoring, the Department of Finance and Personnel responds to how Departments have prioritised their particular needs.

The Executive agreed in principle to the introduction of free universal nursing care for the elderly in nursing homes from April 2002. The Budget for 2001 contained £4·5 million to enable the introduction of free nursing care from October 2002. I emphasise that those who are unable to meet the costs of their care already have access to free nursing care, and that will continue.

Legislation must be introduced, and procedures for the assessment of free nursing care developed and implemented. The figure of £4·5 million represents a part-year cost — it is not a reduction in the number of eligible people. The full-year cost is likely to be some £9 million. Additional funds will have to be found to support that in future years.

The process to ensure the delivery of what the Assembly sought is under way. The timetable for that is constrained by the need to have the necessary legislation in place, and not only by finance issues.

Ms McWilliams mentioned the allocation of £93 million to the Department of Employment and Learning. That appears to be a typing error, and should read as £93,000. That figure will be checked precisely, and the information will be provided to the Member in writing.

Mr Leslie mentioned the needs assessment exercise. It is hoped that some initial findings will be available at the end of March or early April to inform our approach to the spending review and the budgetary planning in which we shall be engaged in the next few months.

I acknowledge Mr Leslie’s point about the Barnett formula. However, the Member should acknowledge that there is a need and an obligation on the Executive, and especially on the Department of Finance and Personnel, to examine in considerable detail the extent to which the Barnett formula is robust enough to deliver our needs. We should be able to clearly identify any shortcomings in the formula and act upon them. We are currently examining the formula and its application to ensure that the bids are fairly and equitably met. That will also ensure that resources are available to meet the considerable challenges that I referred to in the concluding part of my opening address.

I have covered all the main points that were raised by the three Members who have spoken. I will correspond with Members on any point that I have overlooked.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

As this is a finance Bill, Members will be aware that the vote requires cross- community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill (NIA Bill 2/01) be agreed.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: First Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA Bill 4/01] to make provision in relation to persons in residential accommodation with preserved rights under the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987; and for connected purposes.

Molaim go dtugtar a Chéad Chéim don Bhille Seirbhísí Sóisialta Pearsanta (Cearta Forchoimeádta).

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

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

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: Accelerated Passage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 40(3), the Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill.

Molaim go dtugann an Tionól seo rith luathaithe don Bhille Seirbhísí Sóisialta Pearsanta (Cearta Forchoimeádta), de réir Bhuanordú 40 fo-mhír 3.

Nuair a tugadh isteach na socruithe cúraim phobail atá ann faoi láthair i 1993, bhí díolúine ag thart ar 9,000 duine i gcúram cónaitheach san earnáil neamhspleách ó na socruithe úra maoinithe agus bainistíochta sna seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta. Ina áit sin, fuair siad ceart forchoimeádta ar ráta ardaithe tacaíochta ioncaim as a ndíolfadh siad as a gcóiríocht chónaitheach.

Le gairid, rinne úinéirí tí agus a n-eagraíochtaí ionadaíocha uiríll faoina easpaí atá ráta na gceart forchoimeádta maidir lena gcostas feidhmithe. Lena chois sin, luadh go bhféadfadh an córas maoinithe a bheith ag clis ar dhaoine a b’fhearr a bhfóireadh cóiríocht thacaithe nó socruithe eile dóibh de bharr a easpa solúbthachta.

Mhol an Coimisiún Ríoga ar Chúram Fadtéarmach do Dhaoine Scothaosta i Sasana go mbreithneodh an Rialtas ar chóir íocaíochtaí cearta forchoimeádta i leas sóisialta a thabhairt faoin chóras cúraim phobail atá ann ó 1993; nó an bhféadfaí teacht ar réiteach éigin eile le haghaidh a thabhairt ar easnamh maoinithe an ghrúpa sin. Chomh maith le comhchomhairle an Choimisiúin Ríoga i mí Bealtaine agus i mí an Mheithimh 2000, rinne mo Roinn tuilleadh comhchomhairle áitiúla ar na roghanna. Bhíothas den tuairim gur chóir go n-aistreofaí freagracht as cásanna ceart forchoimeádta go gnáthshocruithe bainistíochta cúraim na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta, mar gur measadh go raibh sé míchothrom go gcaithfí go difriúil leo thar na daoine sin a tháinig isteach sa chóras i ndiaidh Aibreán 1993.

Tá an Bille Seirbhísí Sóisialta (Cearta Forchoimeádta) á thabhairt isteach le freagracht as cásanna ceart forchoimeádta a aistriú go gnáthshocruithe bainistíochta cúraim na n-iontaobhas sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta ó Aibreán 2002, áit a gcuirfeadh an loighic í. Tabharfaidh an Roinn Forbartha Sóisialta Rialacháin isteach le deireadh a chur lena dteideal ar thacaíocht ioncaim ag ráta ardaithe.

Is eol do Chomhaltaí go bhfuil sé i gceist go reáchtálfaí an córas leasa shóisialta anseo comhionann leis an chóras sa Bhreatain. Cuirfear deireadh ansin le teideal ar leas sóisialta ceart forchoimeádta le héifeacht ó 8 Aibreán. Muna dtagaimid lena ndáta aistrithe, beidh cónaitheoirí agus a dteaghlaigh anseo faoi an-éiginnteacht, agus b’fhéidir go ndéanfadh sé an earnáil cúraim chónaithigh agus an earnáil tí altranais a éagobhsú. Muna bhfuil an reachtaíocht riachtanach in áit againn, beidh dhá rogha theagmhasacha ann; tá an bheirt acu casta, agus ní beag na deacrachtaí a thógfaidh siad.

When the current community care arrangements were introduced in 1993, approximately 9,000 people in residential care in the independent sector were exempt from the new health and social services funding and care management arrangements. Instead, they acquired a preserved right to an enhanced rate of income support with which to pay for their residential accommodation.

In recent times, there have been many submissions from homeowners and their representative organisations about the inadequacy of the preserved rights rate in relation to their operating costs. Furthermore, it has been suggested that, due to its inflexibility, the funding system may be failing some people, who may be better suited to either supported accommodation or alternative arrangements.

In England, the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly recommended that the Government consider whether preserved rights payments and social security should be brought into the post-1993 system of community care funding or whether another solution could be found to address the shortfall in funding experienced by that group.

Further to the Royal Commission’s consultation, in May and June 2000, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety carried out further local consultation on the available options. The overall opinion supported a transfer of responsibility for the preserved rights cases to the normal health and social services care management arrangements, as it was considered inequitable that those people be treated differently to those who entered the care system after April 1993.

The Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill is being introduced to transfer responsibility for the preserved rights cases to the normal care management arrangements of the health and social services trusts, where it more logically belongs, from April 2002. Regulations will also be implemented by the Department for Social Development to remove its entitlement for the enhanced rate of income support.

The intention is that the social security system here should run in parity with that in Great Britain. The entitlement to preserved rights social security in Great Britain will cease, with effect from 8 April. Failure to match that transfer date will result in considerable uncertainty for residents and their families here, and it could have a destabilising effect on the residential care and nursing home sector. If the legislation is not in place, we will be faced with trying to make appropriate contingency arrangements, which would not be a straightforward exercise.

In the absence of the necessary legislation, two contingency options are most apparent. However, both are complex and will create many difficulties. The Social Security Agency might be able to continue to pay the enhanced benefit rates. However, because the legislation for the transfer is already in place in Great Britain, no preserved rights rates of benefit have been set for the period from 8 April onwards.

If the Department for Social Development were to set a preserved rights rate, even for a short period, it would break parity with Great Britain. Furthermore, the functionality of the computer system that enables the social security offices to pay the rates to customers is provided from England and will be removed on 7 April. The Social Security Agency would then have to seek other methods of making payments to approximately 1,700 people.

The other contingency option would be for approval to be given for the trusts to make payments on an extra-statutory basis. That poses considerable difficulties also. Under article 36(a) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, the trusts are barred from taking responsibility for those cases. Therefore, the Department would be seeking the agreement of the Department of Finance and Personnel to not only act in anticipation of impending law, but to act in contravention of the existing law. Even if that agreement were forthcoming, in addition to the administrative auditing and operational difficulties of acting in such a way, cases might slip through the net. That is because the Bill carries a provision for the sharing of information. Without that provision, it is impossible for the Social Security Agency and the boards and trusts to exchange personal details about the preserved rights customers to ensure that everyone is accounted for.

The Bill to enable the transfer is largely technical. It removes the current statutory bar to trusts taking responsibility for preserved rights cases and allows for the disclosure of information between the Social Security Agency and the boards and trusts to the extent that is necessary to ensure that all such cases are correctly identified.

The policy document for the Bill was first submitted to Sir Reg Empey and Mr Seamus Mallon last August. However, various delays and a request for further financial information meant that the Bill did not progress at the normal pace. That resulted in the Bill’s reaching the First Stage only today, which is a delay of more than four months from the date originally planned.

The remit of the Bill has been reduced to contain only those provisions that relate to the preserved rights transfer. Other provisions relating to nursing care costs and the professional body for nursing and midwifery will be contained in a separate Bill that will allow the normal Assembly procedures.

My officials met with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety to explain the background to the changes, the need for legislation and the circumstances that have given rise to the situation with which we are now faced, where accelerated passage procedure is being requested. While Committee members have natural reservations about the use of accelerated passage procedure, in this instance they have accepted that the need is genuine and that the circumstances are exceptional. I am grateful to the Committee members for that. Although I cannot guarantee that the need for accelerated passage will never arise again, I assure Members that the circumstances of this Bill are exceptional, and I do not anticipate encountering them again.

Standing Order 40 permits a Bill to proceed, using accelerated passage, with the leave of the Assembly. Accordingly, I seek the leave of the House to proceed with accelerated passage on the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill.

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

The Committee has considered the Minister of Health’s request for accelerated passage for the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill. The Committee takes its responsibilities seriously and was concerned by the need to grant a public Bill accelerated passage, as that denies members the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail during the Committee Stage. There is always a danger that bad legislation might be enacted if a Committee does not have the chance to consider the detail of a Bill. However, the Committee has questioned the Minister’s officials about the reasons for the Bill and about the need for accelerated passage. Today the Minister told Members why new arrangements need to be put in place to manage the care of people with preserved rights and why the Bill needs to be in place by the end of April.

The Bill deals with equity of treatment for residents of independent residential and nursing homes with preserved rights who, since 1993, have continued to receive social security funding towards their accommodation costs. Some 1,740 vulnerable people will be affected by the changes. Because of the need to protect those people, the Committee accepts that the Bill be considered under accelerated passage.

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety supports the motion.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

The reasons for the need for accelerated passage have been laid out clearly by the Minister. Although it is regretted that we will not have the opportunity to discuss a public Bill, in view of the reasons given — and in particular those relating to equity of treatment for patients — I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My party and I support the concept of accelerated passage. In her statement the Minister said that it was imperative to keep abreast with legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. We agree with that.

However, there has been a major departure in her party’s stance on accelerated passage. About six months ago, accelerated passage was sought in the House for the Social Security Fraud Bill. Of course, her party put up a different argument then. I draw the House’s attention to what was said then, and I ask the Minister to comment, now that her party’s stance on this procedure has changed.

Speaking in this House on 18 June 2001, Mr Gerry Kelly said:

"The Minister has not given a good argument for accelerated passage, which is a bad method of putting any Bill through the Assembly. There are particular problems in the Bill, and every Member should have the opportunity to scrutinise it." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 11, Page 170].

Is it only when another Minister introduces a Bill, or when the issue of fraud is being discussed, that the Minister’s party has problems with accelerated passage?

Mr Kelly went on to say:

"It could affect people’s human rights and invade their privacy."

I suspect that they have no such concerns about the invasion of human rights or privacy in the Chamber. He continued:

"I oppose the use of the accelerated passage procedure, and I hope that others will do likewise."

I welcome the change of heart now. I do not know when the road to Damascus experience took place. No doubt we will be told today. However, the Minister has made it clear that she wants accelerated passage so that we can maintain parity with the rest of the UK. She has also made it clear that, while it is not her preference to ask the House for accelerated passage, she may have to do so. Methinks that there is a degree of hypocrisy. I will leave the matter there.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. I will not get involved in Maurice Morrow’s rant on accelerated passage. Should he request a transcript of the Committee meeting in which the matter was discussed, he would see that our party has not changed its opinion on the need for accelerated passage.

I reluctantly support the motion. I am glad that officials are here today, because we had frank, and sometimes heated, discussions on the matter. As the Chairperson pointed out, we came to our decision reluctantly because, if it is approved accelerated passage, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety would not be able to scrutinise the Bill, clause by clause, during its Committee Stage. However, contrary to the beliefs of some Members — and I am glad that they find it so funny — 1,800 people would be disenfranchised if this Bill did not pass.

The Minister outlined the reasons why she is asking for the Bill to be given accelerated passage. It was submitted six months ago, in August 2001. Through discussions with departmental officials, the Committee found out that there were problems in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee told the officials that while Members were not happy, they did realise why the Department wanted their approval for accelerated passage.

We must be realistic, and we must establish what problems the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had in this matter. Why have we waited six months for this Bill? With that in mind, my Committee Colleagues and I reluctantly support the motion to grant accelerated passage, but you can rest assured that we will examine the Bill — we will not forget about it simply because it will not go through Committee Stage. However, we will not be party to 1,800 people being disadvantaged due to mismanagement by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Go raibh maith agat.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

As Sue Ramsey rightly stated, every member of the Committee registered enormous concern when told that the legislation would require accelerated passage. This is the first time that our Committee has been asked to accelerate legislation. We were presented with several options, and it is correct that the 1,740 residents could be disenfranchised. The difficulty is that the Social Security Agency would have to calculate each payment manually, because, as the Minister stated, on 7 April 2002 the computer system will be closed down. When the Executive decide on legislation in the future, I suggest that if they do not meet their deadlines, a Minister be tasked to do 1,740 calculations manually. That would be the impact of failing to process legislation on time. We could have chosen to do that, but parity would have been broken — not in the rates but by requesting extra staff. It would be an extra cost to the Department for Social Development to continue that work after the computer system stops in Northern Ireland, as it will do elsewhere.

If the legislation had gone through the Committee, Members would have asked questions on it, so it is important that the Minister be given the opportunity to respond to those questions on the Floor. If £19 million was requested from the budget for the transfer from the Department for Social Development’s budget to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s budget — plus a little over £2 million, making it £21 million in total — the concern is that that money would not necessarily be drawn down from the existing health and social services budget in future. That budget is under extreme pressure; all the budgets in the past year had easements or surrenders, but the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety surrendered only £4·3 million, which is a comparatively minimal amount. The Department is in no position to find this money internally. I hope that because this is a preserved rights issue, that money will be ringfenced and will not come out of current Departmental resources. I want the Minister to assure us of that, since we are giving accelerated passage to the Bill.

In response to Mr Morrow’s points, every time that we are asked to give accelerated passage, all Members, particularly those who sit on the relevant Committee, should explain their reasons for supporting acceleration. I would be concerned if the Assembly were to simply give a nod to accelerated passage.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I have listened with interest to the debate thus far. When anyone calls a Sinn Féin Minister to account, it is noticeable that his speech is called a "rant". It has probably been noticed that the Member for West Belfast doth protest too much — she should stop crying. In fact, her bleating is false. Where is the Member who was so concerned about accelerated passage for the Social Security Fraud Bill — where is Gerry Kelly? He has disappeared. Sinn Féin has turned its policy on its head. I am sure that he was speaking with a good deal of authority, as he does when speaking for a breadth of organisations connected with IRA/Sinn Féin, when he said:

"I oppose the use of accelerated passage procedure,"

That is very clear: "I oppose it."

He added:

"… and I hope that others will do likewise."

That was a clear statement of opposition.

However, when accelerated passage is requested for a Bill that is supported by Sinn Féin and the Health Minister, that opposition goes away. My hon Friend Mr Morrow pointed out that there may be opposition only to the accelerated passage of the Social Security Fraud Bill — or does it go wider than that? We will find that out if Gerry Kelly appears before the end of the debate, or if he wants to oppose accelerated passage vigorously, or if Sinn Féin intends to vote against it. Once again there has been hypocrisy. Principle means absolutely nothing and is stood on its head when it suits the occasion.

It was pointed out before that it was not my hon Friend’s wish to use accelerated passage as normal procedure for a Bill but that the Social Security Fraud Bill had to be tackled in that way because it dealt with the serious matter of fraudulent activity throughout the Province.

Parity with the rest of the United Kingdom was established then, and I am glad that Sinn Féin is today stating that it wants parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Sinn Féin can try to express that idea in another form of words, because it does not like to admit that it represents parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. It will be interesting to see whether Sinn Féin will admit that, even though those words seem to scorch the mouths of its members who utter them.

There is another serious matter. We have been told that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is sitting on Bills. That is a serious matter that must be tackled head-on. We have been told that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Blair, has many problems at home that must be addressed, and yet he tours the world. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have toured Brussels, toured America, toured everywhere, but they have not dealt with matters that are relevant at home. Therefore, it is not acceptable that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is impeding the progress of numerous Bills. I have heard that several other Bills have been stopped, because they are sitting on the desks of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The reason for their impediment cannot be money, because many millions of pounds have been allocated. Its budget is almost as high as that for the entire Assembly, so the delay is not due to a lack of money. However, there seems to be a lack of will, and it is unacceptable that accelerated passage is being requested because of inaction by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That issue must be scrutinised and the reasons must be smoked out. It must be brought out into the open.

I support the purpose of accelerated passage. It is important that there be parity with the rest of the United Kingdom and that our people should not be disadvantaged. However, Bills should not sit on the desks of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They should be processed in a proper and urgent manner.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank Members for their interest. I will try to deal with all the issues raised.

First, the resource transfer has been confirmed for 2002-03 and 2003-04, and will be subject to the spending review process. I assure Members that I have no wish to ask the House to give a Bill accelerated passage. The circumstances of this Bill are exceptional, and I do not anticipate encountering them again.

During the debate, several Members referred to the circumstances of the delay. I want to give a fuller picture. On 9 August 2001, in the absence of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I submitted the policy document for this Bill to Sir Reg Empey and Mr Séamus Mallon for approval to submit it to the Executive. A reply giving me approval to proceed was issued on 17 September, conditional to further work being completed on the financial implications. It is important to note that that work had to be done and was one element of the cause of the delay. The additional work was not straightforward and involved liaison and agreement with the Department for Social Development on the transfer.

In view of the delays that had occurred since the policy document was first submitted, an additional paper was included with the revised policy document. That was resubmitted on 7 November, requesting approval to seek accelerated passage on the transfer of preserved rights cases to health and personal social services. Approval to prepare two Bills and to seek accelerated passage was received on 8 January. Approval to introduce the Bills to the House was sought from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Executive on 10 January. Approval from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy Minister was received on 30 January, and Executive approval was received on 7 February.

Due to the various delays and the need for further financial information, that is being brought to the Assembly much later than we anticipated. Therefore, to avoid the difficulties that I outlined, we are asking for accelerated passage today.

I hope that I have covered all the points that Members raised. I apologise if I have missed any question. My officials will scrutinise the record of the debate, and I will write to any Member whose question has not been answered or fully covered. I thank Members again for their interest in the issue and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety for its help and support in the matter.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Members will be aware that accelerated passage can be granted only by leave of the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 40(3), the Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Bill will receive its Second Stage tomorrow, Tuesday 19 February.

Assembly: Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

By leave, the Assembly shall suspend until 2.30 pm, when we shall resume with questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The sitting was suspended at 1.58 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Attacks on Families in Coleraine

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to recount the experiences of my constituents, who have lived through three years of hell, suffering attack after attack by so-called Loyalist paramilitaries. Those attacks have at times been sustained and at other times spasmodic, depending on the mood of the thugs who carry them out.

I am pleased that David McClarty is on the Bench opposite and will also contribute to the debate. I thank him for his unequivocal support and leadership during that period — no ifs, no buts and no excuses, and that is the way it should be. Any politician who finds excuses for terror groups who commit crimes against innocent people have nothing to contribute to the development of democracy. In simple terms, they are a sad bunch.

More than 200 attacks have taken place over the past three years. Some of the attacks were minor, but nevertheless they have been a living nightmare for the victims. Other attacks have been very serious: unexploded pipe bombs by the dozen, pipe bombs exploding in living rooms, and gunfire accompanying pipe bomb attacks. Public houses have been shot up and have been burnt out. Over the past two years, there have been 55 pipe bomb attacks alone, with a catalogue of incidents involving murder, attempted murder, pipe bombs, intimidation and so forth. The majority of those attacks were against Catholics, and were carried out in the name of Protestants, without their approval. Those carrying out the outrages have no mandate from anyone and not only have they hurt the Catholic community grievously, they have offended the Protestant community, which wants no part of their evil doing and has said so time and time again. Attacks have not been exclusively against Catholics. Anyone who gets in the way of these people is fair game, with at least one Protestant family in exile because it dared to stand up to them.

The police have had recent success against these evil elements, and I hope that there will be many more. In 2000, eight searches were carried out; 20 people were arrested and six charged. In 2001, the number of searches doubled to 16; 18 people were arrested and nine charged. I am sorry that such success did not come sooner because many children have been traumatised by the violence used against their families. The impact of this sustained campaign has been psychologically devastating, and the mental agony cannot be quantified. The fallout will go on for years and may well have ruined the educational potential of the victims. It has damaged their personalities and everything that makes them individuals in their own right. "Suffer little children…".

In the meantime, those behind these attacks lead comfortable lifestyles, developing legitimate businesses, feathering their nests, laundering their ill-gotten gains and setting themselves up as mandarins with power over whole communities. Surely it is time to bury the Mexican spaghetti western images of the past, when hard men entered towns and told people to leave or they would be shot before dawn.

The Housing Executive has the responsibility to make safe the homes of those who are attacked. It has fitted deadlocks to doors and, on occasions, replaced glass with safety material capable of stopping pipe bombs. The Housing Executive could have done so much more if it had been permitted. Too often, families have been offered alternative accommodation in areas known to be more dangerous than those out of which they were intimidated. Why should families that have committed no crime, been found guilty of no offence and that have hurt no one, have to leave their homes and flee to England for safety? That is a denial of a basic human right — the right to live in one’s own community, free from intimidation and violence.

On occasion it has been suggested that this is the work of a criminal element with no affinity to any known organisation. Such an explanation may well satisfy the consciences of some, but the pattern of events shows that the attacks have been highly organised and switched on and off at will as the situation demands.

When the number of attacks reached epidemic proportions more than a year ago, church representatives in the Coleraine area spoke out in the strongest of terms against them. The community as a whole expressed its opinion loudly and clearly. The police issued an eight-point plan to deal with the situation. Attacks ceased for a considerable period, but they started up again, focused largely on Gaelic sports clubs and culminating in the death of a young man who, it is believed, died when handling a deadly device. He was less than twenty years of age, little more than a child. The young person had been lured into an organisation with nothing to offer anyone, irrespective of which community he or she comes from. Since then there have been no attacks, but there have been death threats and one attempted murder. People are on edge, not knowing when these evil people might be successful in claiming yet another life.

No one believed that it would be easy to come out of 30 years of violence. There might even be complacency; because people are no longer dying in their dozens on the streets of our cities and towns — Omagh excepted. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent, and we cannot afford to allow terror groups to dictate law and order, to decide where people can and cannot live or to adjudicate on whether people should live or die. We cannot have a situation in which brave witnesses, who are prepared to give information to the police, are intimidated and forced to withdraw their statements and tell the warlords that they will not do it again. Too much has been gained, and too much has gone into the peace process to allow that to become the norm. If we do, there is a real risk that the opponents of the peace process will use such activity as an excuse to consolidate their negative thinking and bankrupt policies. The terrorists want that. Then they are free to go on lining their pockets with the proceeds of peddled drugs, laundered fuel, cheap cigarettes, protection money and all the other schemes that they have devised to get rich on the back of a beleaguered community.

In Coleraine, and well beyond, there is a determination not to let the law of the jungle prevail. There is genuine desire to ensure that good triumphs over evil; trust overcomes fear; and happiness replaces the pain that has been felt by so many over the last 30 years. We must build on that, encourage it and reward the good people, many of whom work in voluntary community groups with meagre resources. Given encouragement and leadership we can chart a new beginning. We are doing just that, but the message must be sent out time and again that the days of the bully boys are over.

Irrespective of what community they claim to represent, there must be no future for the men of violence or the opportunities that they crave to divide people on a sectarian basis. Those opportunities must be removed forever. It is surely time to step out into the no-man’s-land in the divided community, to take risks for peace and to be brave and not afraid of setbacks or of displeasing some people in the process. It is time to put away the graffiti brushes, replace the murals of anger with messages of love and to build bridges of trust, rather than so-called peace walls.

In Coleraine, good people are determined to put the past behind them. However, that will not happen without leadership from the politicians, action from the police, initiatives from community leaders and direction from the Assembly. From now on there must be more to unite us than to divide us. As the peace process gains momentum, no one must be left behind.

The innocent families who have yet to experience the benefits of the peace process that has so much to offer everybody, must not be left on the platform of despair, abandoned and alone. That would undermine the very essence of the Assembly, which is encouraging equality for all in every respect. There is renewed hope and determination to shake off the images of the past. Above all, there is a realisation that success can only be achieved by partnerships built on a solid foundation of trust, based on respect for differences and acceptance of diversity.

The hard men who have done so much to hurt people and damage the image of Coleraine have nothing to contribute. In most cases the godfathers do not live in the local community but direct their campaign of terror from outside it. It is time for the authorities to reel them in and to allow the ordinary, decent people to continue the long haul to permanent peace and political and economic stability.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I was born and raised in Coleraine, and I have lived in the town all my life, except for a brief sojourn in another area of the Province. Coleraine borough has always prided itself on its many wonderfully positive attributes: its geographical position on the north coast, its many natural attractions and tourist amenities, and its excellent record of good community relations. Coleraine was fortunate to have been spared the worst of the troubles that have afflicted the Province for the last 30 years.

Today, the community in Coleraine, for the most part, remains united against violence, bigotry and intolerance. That is why it is regrettable that this debate exposes the negative elements that exist in the town, which seek to drag the people of Coleraine in a direction in which they have no wish to be taken.

Unfortunately, the image of intolerant, violent and thuggish behaviour raises too often its ugly head from the gutter of society. Despite all the positive aspects of Coleraine, there is no point in disguising the fact that sinister sectarian and non-sectarian behaviour permeates the majority of law-abiding residents.

All such behaviour is sickening, senseless and reeks of bigoted intolerance. That intolerance is directed against religion, race and even age. It is worrying that the non-sectarian attacks that we increasingly hear about on our streets, including Coleraine’s, appear to be more senseless than ever before. Often they are unprovoked and without the slightest shred of justification.

Last week I searched the BBC News website for all the news stories associated with Coleraine. I was shocked by the litany of reports of pipe bomb attacks, shootings, assaults, robberies, stabbings and deaths all of which bore headlines such as "Arrests after girl, 11, shot", "Loyalists blamed for pipe bomb attacks", "Shots linked to feud", "Armed robbery at restaurant", "Man injured after attack by gang", and "Man wounded in shooting". The list continues. There is little doubt that over the past few years Coleraine has had more than its fair share of paramilitary and non-sectarian incidents. People have the right to live peacefully, walk safely and sleep securely in their homes. Those rights are basic in other democracies. Here, however, they elude too many people too much of the time.

What should be the response to those incidents and threats? I have a couple of suggestions to make. First, murderous sectarian attacks, for example, pipe bombings, shootings and beatings, are often carried out because the narrow-minded perpetrators justify their actions as being carried out on behalf of their community. Those actions resonate with their superficial sense of justice. Much good work is going on in Coleraine, as in other towns in the Province, to try to break down the community fences that have been reinforced over many years. Young people from both traditions must learn that their violent actions are self-defeating and purposeless, serving only to destroy their own community. They must get to know the "other side", and make it a friend rather than an enemy.

Secondly, in both sectarian and non-sectarian attacks the culprits feel little fear. Their attitude appears to be "chances are we will get away with it, so what have we got to lose?" The Assembly must restore to the minds of criminals the realisation that justice will eventually catch up with them. The wider community has always had a large part to play in that. Support for the police is vital, and everyone must be encouraged to tell them what they know about a crime. Furthermore, the police must be active on the ground and be seen to be so. That restores a community’s confidence in law and order and gives a sense of security, both of which are now at a low ebb. Attacks on homes and on people are to be condemned outright. Criminals, thugs and the paramilitaries must learn the difference between right and wrong and should be punished accordingly.

I am pleased to say that Coleraine remains a pleasant place in which to live and work. Many problems are not unique to the town, or, indeed, to the Province. That is no excuse for ignoring the trauma that families experience after an attack. Nor is it an excuse for not finding adequate solutions to the problems that we face. Members must endeavour to play a part, to find ways to resolve the intractable problems that are associated with narrow-minded bigotry — the attacks on homes, the pipe bombings and shootings and the senseless, thuggish behaviour that is endemic in a mindless few. Unfortunately, it is a continuing task. However, for evil to succeed it requires men and women of good will to do nothing. I and other elected representatives in the area pledge ourselves to continue the work of reconciliation.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I join the two Members in universal and unequivocal condemnation of the acts of violence in the Coleraine area.

Two basic underlying themes should be the cornerstone of our approach to acts of violence, from any source. They should be the cornerstone from the beginning of what is euphemistically called "our troubles" to date, and in the future.

One cornerstone, which is apparent today, is that there should be absolute condemnation of, and unequivocal opposition to, violence. For my party and myself, that has always been the case. I am thankful that it has been the case for most in our society for 30 years. However, it has not always been the case with some in our society, as some have declined to condemn acts of violence.

To merely condemn the violence is, however, insufficient. Some have refused to condemn it, and continue to do so. Some condemn violence, but go no further. The two principles are unequivocal condemnation and support for all the institutions that try to bring to justice those responsible for the violence. That has not always been the case either.

Across Northern Ireland — and in some parts of Coleraine, but, I am thankful to say, not too many — there has almost been a pick-and-choose mentality towards those two fundamental themes. I hope that those two principles will soon be cornerstones for everyone. I hope that one day soon we will not only unequivocally condemn violence, but unequivocally support the police and other institutions that are responsible for bringing the perpetrators of violence to justice.

I have outlined my approach to the violence in Coleraine. Two of my East Londonderry Colleagues, Mr McClarty and Mr Dallat, mentioned that many of the incidents have left families bewildered, angry, concerned and fearful. As the Member of Parliament for the area, I have had cause to visit many of the families to try to be of assistance, as have other Assembly Members and local councillors. It is difficult to help at those times, because people want an assurance that such incidents will not happen again. It is difficult for public representatives to give that assurance.

It is only when the two cornerstones are in place, and everyone, from all sections of the community, is united in condemning violence, and equally united in supporting the forces of law and order to bring people to justice, that some confidence can be given to the victims that their nightmare might be nearing an end.

Further to my general point and my expression of support for the families who had to suffer the attacks, I will make an analysis of the current problem. It would be much easier to simply condemn the attacks, to ask everyone to support the police in pursuing the people responsible and to leave it at that. If I did that, there would undoubtedly be knowing nods not only from all around the Chamber but from those who subsequently read the comments in Hansard. However, I would be doing myself an injustice if I left it at that.

In 2002 in Coleraine, as in other areas, there is frustration in parts of the community that police numbers have been so affected by the implementation of the Patten Report that violence is much more difficult to detect. It is felt that it is much more difficult to apprehend the criminals because of the Patten Report, because police stations are under threat and because police numbers are being reduced.

Many people in the Coleraine area and across Northern Ireland are at a loss to understand how on the one hand there is public hand-wringing and condemnation of violence, while on the other there is support for the reduction in the numbers of police who are trying to deal with that violence. We must therefore examine ways to beef up the numbers of available personnel and to provide more resources for the police to ensure that criminal activities cease.

Other Members referred in various ways to some of those activities. Many attacks have been nakedly sectarian. Some have been against innocent Catholics, some against innocent Protestants. Others have been nothing to do with religion at all. The last couple of weeks saw the first anniversary of the death of an elderly man whose murder in Coleraine town centre appeared to be the result of mindless violence with no religious or political overtones whatsoever. There have been attacks on a variety of people in the Coleraine area for a multiplicity of reasons.

However, the environment and atmosphere created not only in Coleraine but across Northern Ireland by political institutions that command neither the consent nor the support of the Unionist community leave a breeding ground for violence in parts of that community that I and others have to combat. We have to pressurise, lobby, argue and persuade people that the way to address those issues is by the democratic route and not through violence, its promotion or its support. That becomes increasingly difficult when every opportunity has been taken to make the point to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Secretary of State, or to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, that we need a system of government in Northern Ireland that we can all support, and they have simply dismissed that and have said that they will proceed with the Belfast Agreement.

It is more and more difficult to reason and argue with elements of the Unionist community and to tell them that the democratic route is the only way to make changes to the system. Unfortunately, that means that the difficult task must continue. I will not be dissuaded. I will argue, lobby, campaign, persuade and pressurise every element in my community that is open to persuasion to ensure that in this Assembly, in local councils and districts, in Westminster and anywhere else a forum is available to establish a properly accountable system of government with proper consent and support in our community. It will not be achieved by throwing pipe bombs or by carrying out acts of violence. That is reprehensible; it should be condemned and it must cease. I hope that it will.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Campbell’s analysis of what has happened in Coleraine and other parts of the community is hard to reconcile. He said that the violence occurred because there was no democracy. I find his attitude, particularly towards recent events in Coleraine, ambivalent, ambiguous and, in that context, inappropriate for an elected representative. He chooses to call it the Loyalist community or the Unionist community, but it is not the Loyalist community or the Unionist community in its entirety. Those in that community who are responsible for the attacks are those who continue to oppose the concept, ideas and democracy of the Good Friday Agreement. The last Member who spoke suggested that those who attacked innocent Catholics and Nationalists were motivated by their opposition to the Good Friday Agreement. That is unacceptable.

Built into that is a sectarianism that has nothing to do with the Good Friday Agreement. It has nothing to do with the issues that the last Member raised. He said that over the past 30 years his party attempted to reduce sectarian tensions; we know the contrary to be the case. It has used the long spoon to sup with Loyalist paramilitaries from his community.

As Mr Dallat knows, sectarianism does not affect Coleraine alone. It exists in south Derry also.

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

Mr Kelly, I must remind you that the wording of the Adjournment debate is specific. It refers to attacks on families in Coleraine. Irrespective of which side of the House, I advise you not to deviate from that.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The previous Member to speak strayed a remarkable distance from the issue of attacks in Coleraine. However, these attacks are endemic in Coleraine and in other parts of our society. Surely, the cornerstone of any society is a policing service that enjoys the confidence of all people. It is interesting that the previous Member to speak attributes many of the problems to the implementation of the Patten Report. Does he agree with the Patten Report, or does he think that it has not fulfilled the expectations intended of it?

Attacks that are motivated by sectarianism, wherever they occur, are to be condemned. Attacks on people in their homes because of their religion, whether Catholic or Protestant, are to be condemned. The ethos of political ambiguity and political ambivalence that create the climate in which such attacks are given credence must also be condemned.

I assumed that the previous Member would have been the last person to speak about political violence, given his party’s position.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

I had not intended to speak on this subject today — I had not thought much about it. However, it seems in order that I do.

I categorically condemn all attacks on anyone in Coleraine, from wherever they come. I have always condemned such attacks and I always will. No one has the right to attack anyone else or their property. Mr Dallat said that the pipe-bomb attacks in Coleraine were carried out by Loyalists. I do not know whether the perpetrators were Loyalists. It is interesting that Mr Dallat, who supported the referendum and the Belfast Agreement at the last election, supported the so-called peace process with three Loyalists who also backed the agreement and the referendum. If he now says that those so-called Loyalists are attacking Roman Catholic people in Coleraine, something must have happened to have caused them to move so far apart.

I was amused to hear David McClarty’s diatribe on how this process has damaged Coleraine. He also supported the Belfast Agreement. Like Mr Dallat, he stood up in Coleraine town hall and did his utmost to put down the RUC. I was there. Mr Dallat spoke briefly to attack the RUC, saying that they should be disbanded. He then left the meeting. David McClarty stayed on at the meeting and was very supportive of the agreement. He also said that there should be a change in the police force. I would have no difficulty with a change in the police force, provided that it were an improvement.

Those people worked together in the so-called peace process. Today, they criticise the many people in the Coleraine area who have tried their best to achieve the peace that everyone is talking about. Not much has been said about the Protestant people in the Coleraine area who have suffered attacks over the past 30 years.

I know that we are not supposed to move away from the subject of attacks in Coleraine, but the person who was injured in Magilligan last week has many relatives in Coleraine. No mention has been made of him and of how his life has been destroyed. Nor has any mention been made of the way in which one of the Members for East Londonderry, John Dallat, used the RUC for his protection over the past 30 years. Many Roman Catholics were protected by the RUC and other security forces, and they should be very careful — [Interruption].

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

Mr Douglas, I caution you about deviating from the subject of the debate. The debate concerns attacks in Coleraine, and is not an opportunity for an attack on Mr Dallat.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

I am not attacking Mr Dallat in particular. We must remember that these people benefited from the protection of the security forces, who did their best to ensure the well-being of everyone in East Londonderry, which includes Coleraine.

If we, as public representatives, are to work together for the peace that everyone talks about, we must be careful what we say in the future. We must continue to work together if we are to achieve peace in Coleraine and elsewhere. As public representatives, we need to ensure the continuity of the process. We cannot simply use opportunities such as this one to attack individuals because the proper system has not been put in place. I agree that we should always support fully the security forces. We should all have done that for the past 30 years.

Adjourned at 4.40 pm.