Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 April 2002

105 contributions from 32 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for me to thank Members for their kind wishes and the expressions of goodwill that were extended to me after my recent accident, and also to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your letter? Those good wishes helped me a lot on my way to recovery. I am still recovering but am glad to be back.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is, indeed, in order. On behalf of the whole House, I shall say what a great pleasure it is to see you back in your place, and able to serve the House and your constituents. We were all upset to hear about your accident and are greatly pleased that you are back with us.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are concerned about the welfare of our elected representatives. Will you provide an opportunity for comment to be made on intimidating and horrendous attacks on Members’ homes, such as the despicable attack on the home of Mr Eugene McMenamin, a Member for West Tyrone?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is aware that I must operate within Standing Orders. There is no Standing Order that permits me to open the matter for debate. Members may wish to use the normal routes, such as questions, motions or other ways to raise the matter.

I have no doubt that the whole House, like me, was extremely upset, concerned and angry to hear about the episode over the weekend. My office is already taking the usual actions, as, unfortunately, that is not the first episode of threatening or intimidation of Members. If there is anything else that the Member, Mr McMenamin or any of his Colleagues feel that my Office or I can do, I trust that they will be in touch with me.

I have no doubt that the House is extremely concerned about the matter. It is an attack on Mr McMenamin and his family, but it is not solely an attack on them — it is an attack on the entire process of representative democracy, because he is one of us as a representative. Undoubtedly, the whole House will share that concern. However, I have no leeway to introduce the matter other than through the normal process, which the Member may wish to take up.

Royal Assent

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform the House that the Budget Bill has received Royal Assent. The Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 became law on 20 March 2002. The Local Government (Best Value) Bill and the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill have also received Royal Assent. The Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 became law on 26 March 2002.

Public Petition: Badger Baiting

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I beg leave to present a petition from residents of Newtownards, the surrounding district and further afield. It carries the signatures of more than 1,000 or 1,100 people who are very concerned about the many incidents of badger baiting that persist. Children from Movilla High School in Newtownards — Stacy Paul, Ryan McCullough and Sarah Hill — were instrumental in collecting the signatures, and they are in the Gallery today. Residents from Newtownards are particularly perturbed that, despite legislation, badgers are still being persecuted, and the law is insufficient to ensure their protection. Given that and the need for better protection under the law, we present the petition to the Assembly for consideration.

Mr Shannon moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall forward the petition to the Minister of the Environment and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.

Assembly Business: Suspension of Standing Orders

British-Irish Council: Misuse of Drugs

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that she wishes to make a statement on the British-Irish Council meeting on drugs.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is mian liom tuairisc a chur faoi bhráid an Tionóil ar an chruinniú de Chomhairle na Breataine-na hÉireann a tionóladh i bhformáid earnáileach i mBaile Átha Cliath Dé hAoine 22 Márta 2002. Ag an chruinniú seo pléadh ceisteanna a bhain le mí-úsáid drugaí agus le comhoibriú san achar seo.

I ndiaidh don Chéad-Aire agus don LeasChéad-Aire muid a ainmniú, d’fhreastail an tAire Comhshaoil, an tUasal Dermot Nesbitt, TTR, agus mé féin ar an chéad chruinniú den ghrúpa earnáileach um mhí-úsáid drugaí. Ba é an tUasal Eoin Ryan, TD, an tAire Stáit do Fhorbairt Áitiúil, a bhfuil straitéis náisiúnta na hÉireann um dhrugaí mar shainchúram air, a rinne ionadaíocht thar ceann Rialtas na hÉireann agus a bhí mar chathaoirleach ar an chruinniú.

An tUasal Bob Ainsworth, FP, fo-rúnaí parlaiminte ag an Oifig Ghnóthaí Baile a rinne ionadaíocht thar ceann Rialtas na Breataine. Ba é an Dr Richard Simpson, FPA, Leas-Aire Ceartais, a rinne ionadaíocht thar ceann Choiste Feidhmiúcháin na hAlban agus ba í Jane Hutt, Uas, ME, an tAire Sláinte agus Seirbhísí Sóisialta, a rinne ionadaíocht thar ceann Thionól na Breataine Bige.

Ba é an tOnórach Richard Corkill, Príomh-Aire Rialtas Oileán Mhanainn agus cathaoirleach ar Choiste Straitéise Drugaí, a bhí mar ionadaí thar ceann Oileán Mhanainn. Ba é an Teachta Roger Berry OBE, atá mar uachtarán ar an Bhord Riaracháin, Stáit Geansaí, a rinne ionadaíocht thar ceann Geansaí; agus ba é an Teachta Roy le Herisser, atá mar leas-uachtarán an Choiste Sláinte agus Seirbhísí Sóisialta, Stáit Geirsí, a rinne ionadaíocht thar ceann Geirsí.

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

D’fhaomh an tUasal Dermot Nesbitt an ráiteas seo agus tá sé á dhéanamh ar a shon chomh maith.

Ag an chruinniú rinne na hAirí uilig a bhí i láthair cur síos ar na príomhdhúshláin sna straitéisí drugaí acu féin. Ina dhiaidh sin, cuireadh baill an chruinnithe ar an eolas faoin obair atá ar siúl maidir le drugaí. Ar an obair seo tá na fáltais ó mhangaireacht drugaí a aimsiú, an pobal a dhéanamh páirteach i bhforbairt agus i gcur i bhfeidhm straitéisí drugaí, caitheamh aimsire folláin a chur roimh dhaoine óga atá i gcontúirt drugaí a mhí-úsáid agus oiliúint agus fostaíocht a chur roimh mhí-úsáideoirí drugaí.

Rinne an Teachta Roger Berry OBE, atá mar uachtarán ar an Bhord Riaracháin i nGeansaí, cur síos don chruinniú ar fháltais na trádála drugaí/coigistiú sócmhainní a aimsiú, agus glacadh leis an mholadh go ndéanfaí comhdháil a thionól i nGeansaí ar an 16 agus 17 Bealtaine leis an cheist seo a phlé.

Chuir an tUasal Bob Ainsworth FP, atá mar fho-rúnaí parlaiminte ag an Oifig Ghóthaí Baile a bhfuil drugaí agus coiriúlacht eagraithe mar shainchúram air, chuir sé páipéar faoi bhráid an chruinnithe ar thionscnamh dar teideal todhchaithe dearfacha. Is í aidhm an tionscnaimh seo cláir spóirt a chur ar fáil do dhaoine óga atá i gcontúirt, lena n-áirítear scéimeanna monatóireachta agus cláir oideachasúla. Aontaíodh go dtiocfadh saineolaithe de chuid Chomhairle na Breataine-na hÉireann i gceann a chéile i Londain i Meitheamh lena n-eolas agus a n-oiliúint a roinnt.

Chuir mé féin páipéar i láthair ar a thábhachtaí atá sé an pobal a bheith páirteach i bhforbairt agus i gcur i bhfeidhm straitéisí drugaí. Glacadh le mo mholadh go ndéanfaí comhdháil a reachtáil ar an 6 agus 7 Samhain le deis a thabhairt do bhaill eiseamláirí an dea-chleachtais a fhiosrú maidir le pobail a bheith páirteach i straitéisí áitiúla.

Rinne na baill plé chomh maith ar pháipéar a d’ullmhaigh Rialtas na hÉireann agus Coiste Feidhmiúcháin na hAlban ar dheiseanna oideachasúla, oiliúna agus fostaíochta le haghaidh úsáideoirí drugaí atá ar téarnamh. Ba é an Dr Richard Simpson, FPA, atá mar Leas-Aire Ceartais i gCoiste Feidhmiúcháin na hAlban, a chuir an páipeár i láthair. D’aontaigh na baill go ndéanfaí comhdháil a reachtáil do chleachtóirí níos moille sa bhliain, in Albain nó in Éirinn, le cur leis an mhalartú eolais san achar seo.

Thug an Dr Jane Hutt, ME, Aire Sláinte agus Seirbhísí Sóisialta na Breataine Bige, tuairisc ar chomhdháil ar laghdú ar éileamh a tionóladh sa Bhreatain Bheag ar na mallaibh, agus rinne an tUasal Richard Corkill, Príomh-Aire Oileán Mhanainn, cur síos ar chomhdháil atá beartaithe ar straitéis um dhrugaí agus alcól — dul chun cinn i ngníomhaíocht. Thoiligh baill leis an chomhdháil seo, áta le reachtáil ar an 5 agus 6 Deireadh Fómhair ar Oileán Mhanainn.

D’aontaigh na hAirí go ndéanfaí an chéad chruinniú eile ar dhrugaí san fhormáid earnáileach a reachtáil i mí Feabhra 2003.

D’aontaigh na hAirí ar théacs an scéala oifigiúil a cuireadh amach i ndiaidh an chruinnithe. Cuireadh cóip den scéala oifigiúil mar aon le liosta iomlán de bhaill na toscaireachta sa Leabharlann.

I wish to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the British-Irish Council that was held in sectoral format in Dublin on Friday 22 March 2002. The meeting considered matters that relate to drug misuse and to co-operation in that area.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Dermot Nesbitt, Minister of the Environment, and I attended the first meeting of the misuse of drugs sectoral group. Mr Eoin Ryan TD, Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, with special responsibility for local development, who has responsibility for the Irish national drugs strategy, represented the Irish Government and chaired the meeting. Mr Bob Ainsworth MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, represented the British Government. Dr Richard Simpson MSP, Deputy Minister for Justice, represented the Scottish Executive. Ms Jane Hutt AM, Minister for Health and Social Services, represented the National Assembly for Wales. The Isle of Man Government were represented by the Chief Minister, the Hon Richard Corkill MHK, who is Chairperson of the Drugs Strategy Committee. The States of Guernsey were represented by Deputy Roger Berry OBE, President of the Board of Administration. The States of Jersey were represented by Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier, Vice-President of the Health and Social Services Committee. This statement has been approved by Mr Dermot Nesbitt and is also made on his behalf.

The meeting received presentations from all Ministers in attendance. Challenges exist in each of their individual drugs strategies. The meeting was informed of several ongoing pieces of work with regard to drugs, including the targeting of the proceeds of drugs trafficking, community involvement in the development and implementation of drugs strategies, the diverting into healthier pursuits of young people who are at risk of drugs misuse, and the reintegration of drugs misusers into training and employment.

Deputy Roger Berry OBE, President of the Board of Administration of Guernsey, gave a presentation on targeting the proceeds of the drugs trade and asset confiscation. A proposal for a conference on the issue, to be held in Guernsey on 16 and 17 May, was agreed.

Mr Bob Ainsworth MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office with special responsibility for drugs and organised crime, presented a paper to the meeting on the Positive Futures initiative, which aims to provide sporting programmes for young people at risk. The initiative includes mentoring schemes and educational programmes. It was agreed that experts from the British-Irish Council would meet in London in June to share their knowledge and expertise in that area.

I presented a paper on the importance of involving the community in developing and implementing drugs strategies. My proposal to host a conference on 6 and 7 November to give members an opportunity to explore models of good practice in involving communities in local strategies was agreed.

Members also considered a paper prepared by the Irish Government and the Scottish Executive on education, training and employment opportunities for recovering drug users. Dr Richard Simpson MSP, Deputy Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive, presented the paper. Members agreed that a conference for practitioners would be held later in the year, either in Scotland or Ireland, to advance the exchange of information in that area.

Ms Jane Hutt AM, Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, reported on the recent conference on demand reduction held in Wales. Mr Richard Corkill MHK, Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, outlined a proposal for a conference on drug and alcohol strategies’ progress in action. Members agreed that the conference would be held on the Isle of Man on 5 and 6 October.

The Ministers agreed that the next meeting on drugs in sectoral format would take place in February 2003. The Ministers agreed the text of a communiqué that was issued after the meeting. A copy of the communiqué and a full list of delegation members have been placed in the Assembly Library.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome Minister de Brún’s statement. It is encouraging for us all to see attention being focused on the growing problem of drug abuse across all these islands. It pervades all social strata and is a particular problem in deprived areas.

Drug abuse is a serious problem that transcends political borders. There is ample evidence of that, with drug trafficking spreading across entire continents, wrecking countless lives and, indeed, blighting whole communities. It is vital, therefore, that the various Administrations on these islands continue to co-operate fully on the matter by sharing expertise and practical initiatives that help address the scourge of illicit drugs in modern society.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. Will the Member move to his question?

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Have any mechanisms been put in place to establish clear baselines to measure the effectiveness of the various initiatives that have been introduced?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Measuring the effectiveness of what is being done came up under each of the headings. At each stage, the seminars, meetings and visits that were agreed at the meeting all contain the precise aim of sharing best practice, being able to learn from each other, looking at what works and implementing those aims as best we can.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I welcome the development of the mutual co-operation that is being fostered among the United Kingdom Government, the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland in our efforts to combat a serious and growing problem that affects both jurisdictions.

In her statement, the Minister referred to mentoring schemes and educational programmes as part of a possible strategy. Will she elaborate on what they may entail, and on what organisations may be involved in mentoring and providing mentors? Do the educational programmes envisaged involve the Department of Education, and will they be brought directly into school classrooms?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for his question. The issue arose during the discussion on the Positive Futures initiative, which was launched in England in March 2000. Some 24 projects were set up around the country to provide sporting programmes for youngsters at risk. Their success in reducing criminal activity and in obtaining better attendances at school, healthier lifestyles and increased involvement with sports led to the setting up of a further 33 projects on 1 March 2002.

The projects involve people in the fields of education and sport, and some sporting figures have lent their assistance to the schemes by giving positive alternatives to young people at risk. The projects provide training, mentoring schemes and education programmes around positive attitudes, healthy lifestyles and leadership skills. A joint Positive Futures steering group oversees the initiative’s progress.

As a result, Ministers at the British-Irish Council meeting on 22 March 2002 agreed that representatives from each area would visit a Positive Futures scheme at Leyton Orient to learn more about the initiatives. After that visit, I shall be able to bring the Member up to date on further lessons to be learned.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. I too welcome the Minister’s statement, and her focus on targeting and tackling drug misuse. My interest is in community involvement in developing and implementing drug strategies. The Minister spoke about drug misuse at a recent conference in my West Belfast constituency, as did Jo Deakin, the new drugs tsar. I would be interested to hear the Minister expand on why she sees the initiave as an important step. The report of that conference deals with community involvement. It is due for publication, and I ask that she examine it closely. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for her question, and I shall be more than happy to look at the report when it is published. I welcome such initiatives, because it is important that communities are involved. My reply to Mr Gallagher gave some examples of community involvement for youngsters at risk. As a result of the working groups and the new structures set up to combat the misuse of drugs and alcohol, the communities lead a working group on communities. They have not only 22 places in the structure, they also have the lead, and each of the other groups is led by the relevant Department. For example, the Department of Education leads the education group, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety leads the treatment working group. It was felt important that communities themselves should lead the communities working group.

Such aspects will be included in the regional action plan developed by the six working groups. That contains 115 activities that must be undertaken if our strategy’s objectives are to be met. Many of the initiatives are community-based, because communities must be involved if we are to tackle the scourge of drug and alcohol misuse, both of which have a considerable negative impact throughout our community.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is positive to learn of the scope of the topics discussed at the British-Irish Council meeting on the misuse of drugs. The Alliance Party supports the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s management of the issue. However, there will always be a significant policing element involved in dealing with the issue. Does the Minister endorse the presentation that was made on targeting the proceeds of the drugs trade and asset confiscation? Given that policing is part of all communities, does the Minister agree that co-operation with the police must be included in any drugs strategy? Will the Minister now encourage her supporters to join the new Police Service of Northern Ireland, thus helping sooner rather than later — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member has asked his question.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

One of the most interesting aspects of the British-Irish Council meeting in Dublin was the fact that all the representatives managed to come together from different places to have a really constructive meeting, which focused on tackling the problem of drug misuse. It was not focused on point scoring, on which political parties were present, on trying to bounce people or on trying to play word games. It was a constructive meeting, at which no one felt the need to shout from the sidelines — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Minister is entitled to be heard.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No one felt the need to be childish or petulant, or to shout or detract in any way from the job in hand of tackling drug misuse. We all planned together on the issue.

The Member asked about the proposed Guernsey seminar. All Ministers agreed that Guernsey would host a seminar on 16 and 17 May to discuss targeting the proceeds of the drugs trade and asset confiscation. I consider the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) to be a part of that; in fact, it is entirely within its remit. As the proceeds of the drugs trade and asset confiscation are reserved matters, officials from the NIO and the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will attend the seminar.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

My question needs to be asked, and I hope that the Minister does not think that I am trying to score political points. The paper that was presented at the meeting highlights the importance of involving the community in the development and implementation of drugs strategies. Unfortunately, in north and west Belfast, two drugs organisations that do good work have been refused funding twice. They are based in the Shankill and Falls areas. Through working with professionals, the organisations provide educational programmes in schools and clubs to show young people the bad effects of drugs. Therefore, I find it ironic that, although we intend to do something about good practice, we cannot even support good practice on our own doorstep in north and west Belfast. Will the Minister confirm how many community organisations have been funded, how much funding they have received, and in which parliamentary constituencies they are located?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will know that today’s statement is about the meeting of the British-Irish Council in Dublin. Therefore, Members’ questions should reflect what was discussed at that meeting. The Member is, of course, entitled to ask a question for written or oral answer requesting the details to which he has referred, and I would welcome that.

My Department is fully aware of the excellent work that both the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse (FASA) and the Falls Community Council do to tackle drug and alcohol misuse. — [Interruption].

I wish that Unionist Members did not feel the need to barrack my every answer. If Members would allow me to hear questions, and other Members to hear my answers, it would be much better for all concerned.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is fully aware of the excellent work of the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse (FASA) and the Falls Community Council. We are also aware that approximately £25,000 each is insufficient to enable those organisations to continue to provide those valuable services at community level. My Department has awarded £65,000 of non-recurrent funding to each group. It will also work with the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust over the year to try to find a more permanent solution to the insufficient core funding for those, and other, voluntary and community groups.

The Member who asked the question has spoken to me privately about the matter and already knows that I supported the Executive programme fund bid, which did not attract sufficient weighting to enable it to obtain funding. I also supported good practice elsewhere.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s report on the first meeting of the misuse of drugs sectoral group. The meeting was obviously well attended by Ministers from throughout the island. Judging by the report, the drugs problem affects all areas. I welcome the Minister’s initiative to involve community consultation at all times. The means of diverting young people who are at risk of drug misuse into healthier pursuits and of reintegrating drug abusers into training and employment must be addressed. Will extra funding be needed for those?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes, new initiatives will require new funding. Learning from best practice elsewhere allows us to do a certain amount without new funding. We can also put some new projects in place at the expense of current projects. However, 36 projects had been set up, for which funding was provided, and when the funding ran out at the end of March and my Department was unsuccessful in obtaining any further money, I had to find the money to fund the 23 projects that came within my remit. Other projects will be referred to the Department of Employment and Learning, the Department of Education and the Northern Ireland Office to see whether they can continue the funding. The Executive and the Assembly must take on board the fact that money is required to fund projects.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Did the meeting consider the important issue of possible heroin substitutes? In Glasgow, methadone has been used in an attempt to wean addicts off heroin, although its effects have caused controversy. It is important that we learn from the experience of the Greater Glasgow and Greater Dublin areas, where there are tragically high death rates from heroin usage.

The Minister referred to drug trafficking. I want to ask particularly about the source of such trafficking. Is she willing to condemn all groups, wherever they are in the world — notably, although not only, those in Latin America, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) — that are involved in the drug production chain at any point, from production to importation into north-west Europe?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The possibility of learning from Glasgow and Dublin came up briefly at the meeting and will be continued in future work. I also took the opportunity at the meeting to thank colleagues from Glasgow and Dublin for their valuable work for the drug strategy team, which improves our ability to make progress here.

With regard to his other question, the Member knows that criminal justice issues are not within my remit.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

What is your answer?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I hope that Mr Kennedy is not going to start his silly barracking again. Given that a Member of his party, Esmond Birnie, asked the question, his party Colleagues must consider the issue to be important enough to merit an answer.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

What is your answer?

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Let her answer.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As the Member has no intention of listening to the answer, I will simply say that his party knows that neither I, nor anyone belonging to my party, are involved in any way in drug trafficking, and nor are we associated with organisations that are.

This is an extremely important matter, which I have done much more to tackle than those who spend the entire time barracking, making silly comments and shouting from the sidelines.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister on this positive report. It is unfortunate that some Members, particularly those from the Alliance Party, choose to politicise this serious issue. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is a pity that some Members choose to politicise the issue. Given the concerns expressed by Billy Hutchinson and Annie Courtney, will the Irish and British Governments provide the extra money needed to implement this drug and alcohol strategy, obviating the need for this cost to come out of the Minister’s departmental budget?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

From time to time money is made available — £6·23 million was made available to the Executive. This money will be spent on the work to be undertaken by the working groups and will be used to implement the plans I mentioned earlier. However, we must also recognise that part and parcel of this work — whether in my Department, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department of Education, the Department of the Environment, or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, all of which are represented on the ministerial strategic steering group — is the need for all Departments to address this from their budgets. The Executive will have to consider that, and it is not enough to look elsewhere for one-off moneys either. We need to look at this in our budget processing. Again, this matter did not come up at the British-Irish Council meeting on 22 March.

John (UUP, Strangford)

I have listened intently to the Minister’s every word, including those that I did not understand. I commend her statement; drug abuse is a serious matter for all communities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure us that sufficient resources in Northern Ireland are being directed to combat drug abuse, and is she satisfied with the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Is she right in stating that this problem exists mainly in poorer areas? Next door to my constituency of Strangford is your constituency of North Down, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is one of the more affluent constituencies in Northern Ireland, yet it has a considerable drug problem.

Finally, I am delighted to learn of the conference in the Isle of Man, at which all the Governments and Administrations from these islands will be represented. Experts will be present at this meeting. Of course, the Minister will be in a position to offer considerable expertise — FARC is one of the main producers of drugs.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am delighted to hear that the Member listened to my statement. I could hardly hear myself for most of this session, which demonstrates to me how important the Ulster Unionist Party finds this issue and what its approach to it will be. Drugs cross all boundaries. No community can be complacent, nor can any political party. This is not a matter for political sniping, catcalling or other ways of minimising the important work that went on in Dublin on 22 March, as I am sure the Ulster Unionist Party member, who was there in his capacity as Minister of the Environment, could share with his Colleagues.

We are making considerable resources available. I have considered often how that can be done, as have other Ministers as regards their contribution to the overall alcohol and drugs strategy. We are approximately £4 million short in implementing proposed action plans, and that must be considered. It is one reason why we have talked about — as we have done in most other areas — the difference between our plans and the resources that we can devote to them. The issue will straddle several Departments.

The Member is well aware of my position, and that of my party, on policing. He knows my views on the need for a new beginning to policing and for a police service that is capable of attracting sustained support from the whole community. However, I reiterate that criminal justice issues are not within my remit, though I expect that all agencies with responsibility to address the scourge of drugs will co-operate to eradicate the problem.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement on this important subject. The Minister referred mainly to alcohol and drugs misuse, and we must do all that we can to resolve that. However, does that exclude discussion about solvent misuse, which is on the increase among young people?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I welcome the Member’s assertion that the issue is important. It is important to me; however, given the manner of the debate, I do not feel that that it is important to everybody in the House, which is a matter of deep regret.

The specific matter of solvent misuse did not arise at the British-Irish Council meeting on 22 March, but it is dealt with by the working groups here. In fact, some of the targets in the action plans of the working groups relate to the misuse of prescription drugs.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to ask the Minister a question and to respond to her charges that the Ulster Unionist Party is not interested in the drugs question or in some way overlooks its importance. I assure the Minister that that is not the case. It is also the Minister’s responsibility to answer questions in the House, however difficult they may be.

Given the acknowledged links between the Minister’s political party and drug-trafficking agents in Latin America, does she not feel even a twinge of shame or embarrassment? Given that people who are directly involved in terrorist organisations such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are actively engaged — [Interruption].

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order. Are Mr Kennedy’s comments relevant to the subject under debate?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Under Standing Orders, I cannot take a point of order until the end of the debate. I ask the Member to leave his point of order until then.

I ask the Minister to respond, because I assume that the question has been put.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

No.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I call on the Member to put his question.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Does the Minister feel any twinge of shame or embarrassment, given the links between her own political party and — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. This is a statement on the British-Irish Council and its debate on drugs and drug abuse. The Member is stretching the limit of relevance when he puts this question, and I ask him to finish his question. I assume that the question has been put.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I posed the question in this manner because of the undoubted link with drug trafficking, which was referred to in the Minister’s statement. That was a topic for discussion —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. I would like the Minister to respond.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I have not yet reached the end of my question. I would be pleased if I were given the opportunity to put that.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. If the Member has a further extension to this question, I ask that he make it relevant to the British-Irish Council statement.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

In pursuance of my earlier remarks, does the Minister find her public position on policing inconsistent with the drugs issue? It is clear from her statement that other agencies are working together, including police services throughout the United Kingdom and the British Isles. The lack of ministerial support and endorsement for policing arrangements in respect of drugs undermines —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. Order.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

That undermines her position on this issue.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Minister, you may choose whether to respond.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is a matter of extreme regret that at least half of the UUP Members in the House were laughing while Danny Kennedy was asking his question. This is obviously a game to them. Mr Kennedy did not listen to a single answer prior to that. He heckled throughout and then asked a question that is not even about the meeting — an important meeting where people worked together, without any of this silliness, on the important issue of tackling drugs.

The Member knows well that Sinn Féin is not involved in any way with drug trafficking; nor is it associated with organisations that are. My party’s position on drug trafficking and policing is entirely consistent with my efforts, as Minister, to implement the drugs strategy and to combat drug abuse.

We now have new structures. There are six working groups on the joint implementation of drug and alcohol strategies, as agreed and supported by the Executive. Two of the working groups, the social legislation working group and the criminal justice working group, are concerned with legal issues. The PSNI is represented on four of the six working groups and on the drug and alcohol implementation steering group. The Executive and I feel that the structures agreed will best advance the matter.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That concludes the questions to the Minister.

Carers and Direct Payments Bill: Final Stage

Assembly: Committee for the Environment

Assembly Standing Orders

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

As there are four proposed amendments to Standing Orders relating to the same issue, I propose to conduct only one debate. I shall call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move the first amendment. Debate will then take place on all four amendments. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Chairperson to wind up before I put the Question on the first amendment. I shall then ask the Chairperson to move each further amendment in turn, and separately put the Question on each amendment without further debate. I hope that that is clear for all Members, and, if so, I shall proceed.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I beg to move the following amendment: In Standing Order 52(4)(c) delete all at sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert

"(i) any Code of Conduct to which the Assembly has agreed; or

(ii) any Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members approved by the Assembly."

The amendments to Standing Orders are primarily technical and were submitted to the Committee on Procedures by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The amendments have been checked by the Assembly legal adviser and are considered to be legally competent.

The amendments focus on two issues. First, they centre on references in Standing Orders to the Code of Conduct and the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’, which have both been approved by the Assembly. Secondly, they focus on the power of the Committee on Standards and Privileges to recommend a lesser penalty than that which Standing Orders currently provides for a breach of the Code of Conduct or the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’.

The first two amendments on the Order Paper are interrelated. They focus on the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’, which was amended by the Assembly on 15 October 2001. Standing Orders refer to one specific code of conduct and one specific guide. However, the Committee on Standards and Privileges believes that more than one guide may exist; therefore, it felt that specific reference to the current guide was unnecessary. The proposed amendment to Standing Order 52(4)(c) would serve to remove the reference to the specific guide and replace it with reference to "any Guide" or any "Code of Conduct".

However, on the advice of the Assembly legal adviser it was considered necessary to maintain reference to the current guide in Standing Order 64. That is because paragraph 5 of Standing Order 64 refers to a specific paragraph in the current ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’. That is why the second amendment proposes to include the last date at which the guide was amended — 15 October 2001. It follows that if the guide is amended again, the Standing Order must be amended accordingly.

The amendment to Standing Order 64(6) makes it clear that the Committee on Standards and Privileges can report to the Assembly when it is of the view that a Member has failed to comply with, or has contravened, a provision of any code of conduct that has been agreed by the Assembly. As with the previous amendments, the key point is the inclusion of the reference to "any Code of Conduct". The current wording of Standing Order 64(6) refers to a contravention of the provisions of that particular Standing Order and, by inference, of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’. However, the Committee on Standards and Privileges considered it important that Standing Orders should make it clear that it also refers to contravention of any code of conduct which the Assembly has agreed.

The final amendment also pertains to Standing Order 64. It proposes a minor amendment to the recommendations that the Committee on Standards and Privileges can make when it chooses to report a Member to the Assembly. Under the present arrangements the Assembly Ombudsman, on completion of his investigation, will report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee may, in turn, choose to make a report to the Assembly. That report can contain a recommendation for exclusion from proceedings for a specified period and withdrawal of rights and privileges as a Member for that period.

However, the current wording of Standing Order 64(7), and in particular the use of the word "contained", gives no scope for the Committee to recommend a lesser penalty — for example, an apology. The Committee considers that it would be more reasonable for it to have such flexibility. As such, the amendment proposes that in Standing Order 64(7) the word "contain" be replaced by "include", and the Committee on Procedures agrees.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

There are no indications that Members wish to speak. I remind the House that because the amendments relate to Standing Orders, the votes require cross-community support.

Amendment agreed to (cross-community vote).

Resolved:

In Standing Order 64(5), line 5, delete "14 December 1999" and insert "15 October 2001."

Amendment made (cross-community vote): In Standing Order 64(6), lines 2 and 3, delete

"has failed to comply with, or has contravened any provision of this Order,"

and insert

"has failed to comply with any provision of this Order or any Code of Conduct agreed by the Assembly."- [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures — (Mr C Murphy).]

Amendment made (cross-community vote): In Standing Order 64(7), line 5, delete "contain" and insert "include". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

Report of the Committee of the Centre: European Union Issues

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the recommendations outlined in the report of the Committee of the Centre on its Inquiry into the ‘Approach of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Devolved Government on European Union Issues’ (02/01/R) and calls on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to implement the relevant recommendations.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List of amendments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1 delete "notes" and insert "accepts".

After consideration at its meeting of 20 March 2002, the Committee of the Centre agreed to an amendment to its original motion to ask the Assembly to accept rather than note its report and recommendations. We believe that the change gives more weight to our recommendations and is a truer reflection of the work and commitment shown by members of the Committee over the past six months. I shall speak on the amendment.

I shall start by giving some background on how EU issues impact on Northern Ireland and why the Committee of the Centre and I believe that it is an important area worthy of in-depth consideration. European issues are not devolved matters. The European Union is a union of member states, and a council of the relevant Ministers from the member states — the Council of Ministers — and the European Parliament make decisions.

During the Committee’s investigations, it came as a surprise to discover that up to 60% of our legislation comes from Europe, and 80% of the policies in our Programme for Government relate to, or originate from, European Union policies. Although the decisions are taken in Brussels, they are implemented in, and impact on, Northern Ireland. That gives the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Administration a clear role to play in EU affairs. The role is recognised and codified in the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive in the Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues.

United Kingdom Ministers and Departments take policy lines on various issues under discussion in Europe. The relevant Minister subsequently takes that policy line to the Council of Ministers in Europe. It is, therefore, vital that Northern Ireland ensures that its voice is heard in London before the UK agrees its policy line. That is especially important when the issue under consideration will have a distinct or unique impact on our region.

Post-devolution, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister created two new structures to reflect Northern Ireland’s changed role in EU affairs — the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the European Policy Co-ordination Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee visited the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels in January 2002 and used its premises as its headquarters while it carried out business there. The office has the remit of liaising with European Union institutions on issues that affect Northern Ireland. The occasion of the Committee’s visit to Brussels afforded Northern Ireland’s MEPs their first opportunity to visit the office.

The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have similar offices. I wish to make it clear that the Committee welcomes the opening of the Brussels office. It is an essential step if Northern Ireland is to create its own voice in Europe and have a say in the UK policy line to Brussels. The offices are well situated and well appointed, and every consideration has been given to security. Given that the staff work under the umbrella of the UK Permanent Representation to Brussels (UKRep), which gives them diplomatic status and access to confidential papers, security considerations are important. However, the Committee has major concerns about the approach that the office adopts. Those concerns centre on the fact that the office was initially set up only for the Executive. That was done despite the expectation of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe that it would share office space with the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive.

The Committee questions that narrow approach. It also has concerns that so much office space is lying empty. The Northern Ireland people are paying for the office at a premium, and that space could be used to create a sense of an office for Northern Ireland, not simply an office for the Executive. All the evidence that the Committee received indicates that to succeed in the creation of a distinct voice for a region, it is necessary to involve all individuals and organisations that have an interest in Europe. That includes MEPs, the Assembly, local government and other non-governmental partners. The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have taken a co-operative networking approach, and the Committee believes that that is the best approach for Northern Ireland.

When the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly opened their offices in Brussels, they made a deliberate decision to work co-operatively with the organisations that were already there. The Scottish Executive moved into the same building as Scotland Europa, and the Welsh Assembly shares office space with the Wales European Centre. Scotland and Wales built on the experience of the organisations that were already there, which allowed them to build on the existing contacts and make use of existing networks.

A platform for all of Scotland and Wales, it also created a sense of a region working together. A complementary system exists between non-Government and Government, which only enhances the profile of the region. As many individuals told us during our visit to Brussels, the European Commission, the European Council of Ministers and the Parliament do not want to hear five or six different voices from one region. Representations are more likely to be effective when all sectors and parties work together.

When the Committee began the inquiry, we were concerned at the lack of such a co-operative partnership-led approach. We welcome indications from the junior Minister and from the First and Deputy First Ministers that that is now being addressed. This change, however welcome, does not address the issue of why the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister did not initially develop a working relationship with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe, which had a base in Brussels. It did, and still does, have a wide range of contacts and access to important and influential networks. It has in-depth knowledge and expertise, which can be used for all of Northern Ireland. The Committee understands that OFMDFM has reopened communication with the Northern Ireland Centre. I could be cynical and say that negotiations are only happening because of the inquiry. However, the Committee is more concerned that it is happening, rather than why it did not happen in the first place.

As I have said, our focus was to ensure that the approach being taken was the best for Northern Ireland, and, to that end, we make several recommendations for the Brussels office that will improve the current approach. We welcome the statement by junior Minister Haughey that communication has been reopened with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe and recommend that the Committee receive regular briefings on the progress of such communication. We also recommend that the Brussels office take a more co-operative and networking approach, that it looks at the Scottish and Welsh models of building on existing expertise and that it provides office space for non-governmental organisations. We would also like to see a change in its name, to reflect the more co-operative approach promised by the junior Minister in his evidence to the Committee, and by the First and Deputy First Ministers in their speeches at the office’s opening.

The other new structure put in place by OFMDFM since devolution is the European Policy and Co-ordination Unit, which sits within the Economic Policy Unit of OFMDFM. Its overall task is to provide a policy and co-ordination role for the Departments in developing their relationship with the European Union. The unit has identified six main areas of work, which are listed on page 253 of the report. The Committee focused on the co-ordination aspect of the unit’s work and found it to be disappointing. Of course, some leeway must be allowed, as it is a new unit that is starting from scratch. However, it has been operating for two years, and we expected it to have made more progress than it has done. For example, in the EU strategy, we find that OFMDFM’s corporate business plan was to be delivered in July 2001, and we still await it. What we eventually received, at the conclusion of the inquiry, was an intermediate document — the EU draft framework. Junior Minister Haughey indicated in his evidence that he aimed to complete the strategy before the Assembly breaks for the elections in 2003. That is almost two years behind schedule, which is totally unacceptable.

The EU draft framework also makes reference to several other strategies and related documents, such as the strategy for interregional co-operation and a policy on secondments. However, we have no indication of when those documents will be available for our scrutiny. The document is only a framework, but even within a framework we expect to see a certain level of detail on delivery, methodology, resources, expected outcomes, timescales and evaluation. Those are all missing from the document. For example, in the framework paper, aims and objectives, as set out in annex A of the document, objective 1 has four parts to it, but it gives no indication of how those will be achieved, the resources needed, how success or failure will be measured, et cetera. The document, which is contained in a written submission in the report, is called ‘A Framework for Developing Northern Ireland’s Participation in the European Union’, yet, on page 263 of the report, reference is made to a

"co-ordinated strategy for the Northern Ireland Executive."

That is not a strategy for Northern Ireland as the title would suggest. The document is based solely on the needs of the Departments and the Executive.

No recognition is given to the involvement of the Assembly and other key players, and when we passed the framework document to other Assembly Committees, their response showed that they had neither been consulted nor had been able to scrutinise the departmental priorities listed as EU priorities for Northern Ireland. Many of the written submissions received by the Committee noted that they had not even heard of the existence of such a document.

The junior Minister made reference to, and the Committee agrees that there is a need for a regional strategy that takes account of all Northern Ireland’s needs and not simply those of Departments. That approach is missing. As with the Brussels office, a narrow approach, based solely on the needs of the Executive, is evident — an approach that the Committee does not believe is best for Northern Ireland.

I mentioned the priorities set out for Northern Ireland in the framework document. They are found in annex B of the framework document and on page 273 of the inquiry report. A list of 100 topics is set out, which, as the framework document says, are

"of immediate interest and will relate directly to the work of the Brussels office."

The Brussels office is, apparently, to shadow the 58 high priority areas. The Committee does not see how that will be possible with only four staff in the office and given its other work.

Northern Ireland is a small region in Europe with limited resources. We cannot expect to influence or make a difference in every area of EU policy that affects Northern Ireland. Planning and co-ordination are needed if our resources are to be focused on the areas in which we can be sure of getting some return. The Committee does not feel that trying to cover 100 topics will develop the focus needed to ensure successful returns from our limited resources, so we have made several recommendations that deal with the European Policy Co-ordination Unit and EU strategy. The number of topics should be reduced to achieve a more strategic focus that will reflect the distinctiveness of our situation, and that should be done by timely consultation with Assembly Committees and others, such as Members of the European Parliament.

We also recommend that the EU strategy be completed before the Assembly is dissolved for elections, and the need for greater detail on methodology, et cetera, should be addressed immediately. The strategy should be a regional one, not one narrowly focused on the needs of the Executive and Departments, and it should be developed and informed through wide consultation.

Having dealt with OFMDFM’s approach, it may be appropriate to consider whether that approach can be successful in influencing policy and decisions that affect Northern Ireland.

As I mentioned earlier, the UK is the member state that makes the decisions that affect Northern Ireland. If we wish to influence policy, we must first do that by influencing the UK policy line. Generally, the UK takes its policy line to the Council of Ministers’ meetings in Europe where the final EU policy decisions are taken, sometimes in conjunction with the European Parliament. UK Ministers are supported by the UK Permanent Representation with its staff of 140. Northern Ireland Departments must, therefore, liaise with their UK counterparts and ensure that our concerns are taken into account when the UK policy line is being determined. That is important when the policy is going to have a specific impact on us. The Committee was concerned to note that many of the Departments do not have the appropriate contacts in place.

The concordats that I mentioned make provision for Northern Ireland Ministers to attend the relevant Council of Ministers’ meetings in Brussels, and Ministers from the other devolved regions use that privilege extensively. On occasion, the Scottish Ministers have even led the UK delegation. The Committee was concerned, therefore, to find that the only Northern Ireland Minister to attend a Council of Ministers’ meeting has been Brid Rodgers and recommends that every effort be made to ensure the attendance of our Ministers at relevant Council meetings, especially when policy or legislation is being discussed that will affect Northern Ireland.

On the subject of influencing EU policy, the Committee noted the evidence that suggests that there are ways to influence EU policy, other than by the formal London route. Informal networking, especially with other regions or consortia with similar concerns, can prove very effective, if they do not contradict or go against the UK policy line.

There are several points of entry, but such informal networks require long-term commitment, collective effort, co-ordination and a willingness to actively engage with non-Government partners. It would appear from the evidence received by the Committee of the Centre that such informal networks and methods of influencing are being ignored at the expense of the formal, structured Government channels.

The Committee makes several recommendations to deal with the issue of networking. First, it looked at the individuals and organisations with a formal role to play. That includes the MEPs, the Assembly and the Northern Ireland representatives on the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee.

The Committee recommends that formal structures be put in place to ensure regular communication and networking. The MEPs, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee members all have an important role to play in Europe, detailed knowledge of what is happening and, most importantly, strategically important contacts. For example, our three MEPs can, and have, come together, despite their diverging political backgrounds, to work to achieve the best for Northern Ireland, and they have had considerable success.

The Committee acknowledges that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has made some attempts to bring all the major players together, but those attempts do not appear to have been successful. The Committee would refer OFMDFM to the work of the Scottish Executive in creating the European Elected Members Information Liaison and Exchange (EMILE). That is a structure set up by the Scottish Executive, which regularly brings together all relevant parties and individuals who have a formal role to discuss European issues and share information. It involves the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Parliament, MEPs and Scotland’s representatives on the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. The Committee would like a similar group to be established in Northern Ireland.

The Committee would also like structures to be put in place to ensure that networking occurs among informal players such as local government, the social partners and organisations such as the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. The Committee notes that the Programme for Government 2001-02 made reference to a forum for Europe. That has been omitted from the latest Programme for Government. Although the Committee does not see the need for an elaborate structure, such as that of the Civic Forum, it recommends that some form of improving communication and networking with the informal parties be put in place.

The recommendations that deal with networking are especially important, given that the evidence gathered during the Committee’s inquiry showed that many of the non-Government bodies and local government representatives expressed concerns that relations within the European Union were conducted on an unco-ordinated and ad hoc basis, with little or no communication on what was happening.

The Committee considered ways to address what it thought of as the shortcomings of OFMDFM. In summary, the areas that the Committee was most concerned about include: the lack of awareness by non-Government bodies on the approach; the lack of communications and consultation by OFMDFM; the narrow focus of the European Policy and Co-ordination Unit on the needs of the Executive, rather than on the region of Northern Ireland; the need for greater clarity in those important areas; and the delay in developing the EU strategy.

The Committee’s report makes several recommendations to deal with shortcomings, which I have mentioned. However, it makes two further recommendations of a structural nature, which it believes will improve the situation.

First, the European Policy and Co-ordination Unit should be a free-standing unit within OFMDFM, not a part of the Economic Policy Unit. European affairs are sufficiently important to justify a free-standing unit. It should also be properly resourced to enable it to carry out its wide-ranging and varied responsibilities. A budget of £163,000 and four staff working under a director who has other responsibilities is insufficient to enable the unit to carry out its duties. The Committee suspects that that under-resourcing leads to missed deadlines, lack of consultation and a focus on the official channels of communication.

The second major change that the Committee recommends on the structure of OFMDFM concerns the remit of the junior Ministers. Several witnesses suggested that Northern Ireland should have a Minister, or junior Minister, for Europe. The Committee considers that there is some merit in that. Although there is nothing in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to prevent the nomination of one of the junior Ministers to take a lead role in one policy area, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have taken the position that the junior Ministers must act jointly. The Committee, however, recommends that one junior Minister should take a lead role for European affairs.

That would be pivotal if the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were to address issues such as the widespread perception of an unco-ordinated and ad hoc approach.

Post-devolution, Northern Ireland has the ability to develop its own strategies and policies, which differs from the pre-devolution period when policy was established in London. The direct engagement of officials with Europe — with the exception of the Department of Finance and Personnel on funding and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — was limited. The Committee thinks that a more proactive approach should now be taken to build capacity in Departments and in the Assembly in order to become engaged in European issues. When junior Minister Denis Haughey gave evidence to the Committee, he agreed with that point. He said that

"It takes considerable time to build capacity in that machine [the Civil Service] and to reorient it so that it begins to think in ways which have not been natural for about a quarter of a century."

The evidence received by the Committee points to secondments as being one of the most effective ways to build capacity. The Committee was, therefore, alarmed at some of the information available on secondment. Despite its importance, very few people are currently on secondment. More importantly, it appears that, on return from secondment, little use is made of newly acquired skills. During its inquiry, the Committee examined the secondment policies of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly. The Scottish Executive have put aside a substantial budget in order to allow up to 12 secondments each year. The Welsh Assembly has gone a step further by ensuring that secondments can be made from the non-Government sector. That is another example of partnership and a co-operative approach that seems to be missing from the Northern Ireland approach.

However, the Committee notes that a secondment policy is being developed, and it looks forward to receiving it. The Committee expects that the recommendations on secondments in its report will be taken on board. The recommendations include: long-term secondments of two to three years, and short-term secondments; full use being made of the experience and skills gained on return; enhanced promotional opportunities for long-term secondees in order to attract high-quality candidates, and to provide a reward for the disruption to the secondee and to his or her family; central funding to be put in place to cover departmental costs, because Departments must pick up the secondment costs at present, which is not encouraging and is often seen as a disincentive to allowing staff to go on EU secondments; and funding for non-Government secondments.

Northern Ireland has several outstanding EU Directives that have not been transposed, and we could soon face fines for non-compliance. Recently, Italy had fines of up to £50,000 each day for non-compliance. Any such fines will be taken out of the Northern Ireland Budget. The Committee for the Environment specifically highlighted that issue. Northern Ireland seems to experience most problems with environmental EU Directives. However, Mr Haughey indicated to the Committee that many problems had arisen during direct rule.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has a core responsibility to ensure that Departments implement EU Directives, and it has created a database in order to keep track of that implementation. The Committee recommends that the database be brought up to date and be shared with the Assembly and the relevant Committees. The Committee welcomes a recent meeting between the Committee for the Environment and the Minister of the Environment, which brought that Committee up to speed on the current status of EU Directives. Furthermore, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be working upstream and should be aware of EU Directives as they are being developed. It should be able to provide the Assembly with a 12-to-18-month forward programme of any EU legislation that it is expected to implement. Each Department should brief its Committee fully on current and future EU Directives, develop an implementation timetable and provide information on any likely infraction procedures.

The Committee considered its own role, as well as asking for the opinions of the Statutory Committees. The main issue that was highlighted by Committees was lack of information and communication from the relevant Departments on EU issues, particularly on Directives. It is important to provide high-quality, relevant and timely information. When making decisions on EU issues or attempting to influence a particular point, it is essential that the correct information be available. Given that matters are moving so fast in Europe, it is important to ensure that information is up to date.

Despite matters moving so fast in Europe, it can take two to three years for a policy or law to move from the discussion stage in the European Commission to a decision that either the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament, or both, are ready to endorse and agree. Therefore, it is important to work upstream and to be prepared for new issues that may not come into effect for another two or three years.

Despite having a co-ordination role in a cross-departmental area, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has made it clear that it is not its role to ensure that Departments provide timely, clear and accurate information to Committees. Although it is not the role of the Committee of the Centre to say how other Departments should operate, the Committee nevertheless urges those Departments to put in place structures to ensure that Committees are kept informed both on current developments and on issues that may be two to three years upstream. The Committee also urges Statutory Committees to ensure that such structures are put in place.

The Committee recommends that, in its co-ordinating role, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister establishes a central resource that brings together all relevant information on EU issues and explains their context and implications. Indeed, many of the non-governmental organisations also asked for such a resource to be made available to them. As the Federation of Small Businesses said:

"However late in the day policies come to the political table, they are coming to the business table even later."

The Committee also recommends that the Assembly take a more proactive role and that the Assembly Commission consider the costs and the benefits of staffing an Assembly information desk in Brussels, which several Statutory Committees suggested. There may be merit in exploring whether a joint office could be set up with Scotland, which is also considering a similar project.

Alternatively, such an office could be based in the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. It is unlikely that the Brussels office could provide the necessary level of service to the Assembly and its Committees. By that I mean information to aid them in the scrutiny of the work of the Executive and Departments in European affairs. It is, after all, an office for the Executive, not the Assembly.

The Committee also recommends that the Assembly’s research and library service develops its specialist service to assist the Committees in taking a more proactive role in dealing with EU legislation and policy. Another proactive measure, again suggested by the Statutory Committees, is that Members should receive EU familiarisation training specifically based around their Statutory Committee responsibilities.

The final recommendation dealing with the Assembly concerns the role of the Committee of the Centre. The Committee considered in detail and spent considerable time debating its own structures and role. The Committee has a wide remit, and the area of EU affairs is only one item within that. The Committee has found it impossible to devote sufficient time to EU affairs.

In addition, the evidence from many diverse organisations, ranging from the academic sector to the business sector, suggests that the lack of a dedicated European affairs committee within the Assembly is seen as a weakness in allowing full scrutiny of cross-cutting EU policies and legislation. For example, the Committee has not had time to devote to the ongoing Future of Europe debate — a debate that may change the role of regional authorities in Europe. Furthermore, much of the evidence suggests that an EU affairs committee could provide the focal point for the concerns of local groups and organisations involved in Europe. It could provide an important two-way link between the MEPs, as representatives of the European Parliament, and Members of the Assembly.

After much consideration and some frank discussions, the Committee agreed that there should be a dedicated Standing Committee on EU affairs. However, the Committee recognises that the practicalities of establishing such a committee means that it is unlikely to occur within the lifetime of this Assembly. In the interim, the Committee will establish a subcommittee to consider in detail the remit, workload and membership of such a Committee.

I conclude — Members will be glad to hear — by making a final reference to what the Committee hopes will be achieved if the recommendations in this report are implemented by all concerned, and not only by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Throughout the inquiry, the Committee focused on the approach being taken and debated whether that approach was the best for Northern Ireland. As I have already made clear, the Committee is not convinced that it is. At present, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s approach is narrow. It deals with the needs of the Executive and the Departments and is centred on using formal channels at the expense of informal networks.

The Committee believes that its recommendations, if implemented, will result in a professional, effective and co-operative approach to Europe. Such an approach will involve not only the formal players — the Executive, the Assembly and the MEPs — but also local government and non-governmental bodies.

It will make use of the vast experience of Europe that exists outside Government. It will build institutional capacity and will focus on gaining maximum returns for what is essentially — in an EU context — a small region with limited resources. I therefore recommend the report to the Assembly.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I do not intend to introduce a time limit at this stage, but I would be grateful if Members would limit their speeches to 10 minutes.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I support the report and commend it to the Assembly. Its 43 recommendations and over 300 pages reflect our enthusiasm for the task. I hope that it also reflects the detail of our investigation.

I congratulate the Chairperson on the businesslike manner in which he chaired the meetings, irrespective of which city we found ourselves in. I also express my appreciation to the Principal Clerk, the Committee Clerks and their colleagues for the professional and patient manner in which they approached the task; not forgetting the invaluable advice given by our researcher and our adviser.

This report, if endorsed by the Assembly, will represent a significant step forward by Northern Ireland plc in its relationship with the EU and its institutions. Sometimes, when dealing with Europe, it is possible to feel like the English tourist who arrived in Ballymena, asked the way to Antrim, and was told "If I were you I would not start from here". There may be other reasons for not wanting to go to Antrim, but we will not go into those. I am sure that Antrim is a delightful place, and I am sure that you will speak up for it, Mr Deputy Speaker.

To date, as highlighted in the document, most contacts have centred on the financial largesse of the EU in its funding of agricultural, structural or peace and reconciliation schemes. Until now, Northern Ireland has been a beneficiary of funding that has been, in general, designed to overcome our distinctive, historical and economic problems. Those days will cease in 2006, which will coincide with the enlargement of the community. Those two events should encourage the Assembly and this region to plan ahead in an inclusive and coherent manner. We must learn to become selective if we are to become effective.

The recommendations in the report are a signpost, which, if followed, will enable the whole community to benefit from the opportunities that an enlarged Europe will bring. They will also allow us to deal more effectively with the threats that such a change could bring.

In our approach to this investigation we chose to map out how EU policy might be influenced. To help us to put this vital aspect of the report into context, we visited our sister institutions, which had already evolved their own distinctive approach mechanisms to the EU.

The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, the House of Lords European Scrutiny Committee and the Scottish Parliament identified key points and critical stages at which EU policy might be positively influenced. The common factor indicated by all was the primacy of the member state. Therefore, it is vital that, as highlighted in Recommendation 2, linkages between the Whitehall Departments, Northern Ireland Departments and the corresponding Assembly Committees be in place. Dare I suggest that they be in place by September 2002?

Equally important is recommendation 8, which states that

"structures are put in place which ensure that the Departments engage at an early stage with the relevant Assembly Committees in areas where a distinct policy need and position for Northern Ireland is being considered."

The Chairperson drew attention to that vital and fundamental point.

The need is reinforced by recommendation 12, which states that advice and guidance could be provided via a contact point in each Department to its corresponding Assembly Committee and other interested parties.

Recommendation 14 builds upon that more productive approach and suggests that an Assembly information desk be set up in Brussels. Many who submitted evidence favoured the idea, including those from three Committees of the Assembly.

The advent of the devolved institution has presented us with an opportunity — after 30 years of relative inertia — to influence EU policy. Given that 80% of the Programme for Government is affected by EU policy and 60% of Northern Ireland legislation emanates from Brussels, that is vital.

The experiences of the Scottish, Catalonian and Flemish regional representatives point firmly to the necessity of using formal and informal networks in a planned and coherent manner. They also highlighted the need to focus selectively on areas in which results can be obtained — an approach that I have characterised as being "selective to be effective", which encapsulates the essence of what must be done.

That approach relies on the willingness of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and all other Departments to accept the principle of inclusiveness by incorporating the existing skills and knowledge that non-governmental organisations have developed in European matters. That wealth of experience and reservoir of information must be tapped into. That approach found widespread support from consultees, which the Committee highlights in recommendations 7, 9, 11, 23 and 24.

Recommendation 29 refers to co-ordinated networking and access to the Brussels office by organisations such as the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE), local government and non-governmental organisations. All our contacts, whether regional observers or not, pointed to the need to involve a range of key players in the task of influencing the EU policy makers as far upstream as possible. Mr Nicholson, in his discussions with the Committee, also pointed out the need to monitor the progress of the policies as they come downstream, as they constantly change due to pressure from other interest groups and lobbyists before emerging as fully-fledged Directives.

The Committee also favoured the involvement of Assembly Members and civil servants in a programme to raise awareness of EU matters. It was encouraged to develop strong policies to organise secondments by those to whom it spoke in Brussels and Edinburgh. Given the backlog that Northern Ireland has inherited, the Committee felt that the fast-tracking of staff for short-term secondments and careful placement to maximise, on their return to Northern Ireland, the benefits of their experience should be investigated thoroughly in order to make the process as worthwhile as possible, both to the participants and the Administration. Those thoughts are contained in recommendations 37, 38 and 39.

During the Committee’s consultations, concern was expressed that the situation was one of reactive drift, in which responses were tempered to head off infraction proceedings, to dispense EU funding and to introduce the necessary legislation to comply with EU Directives. The Committee is convinced that a proactive framework must be established at all levels. It is no longer a "can do" situation; it is a "must do" scenario in which direction must be given. The Committee’s conclusion, which is shared by many contributors, is that a junior Minister must be given responsibility for EU matters. That vital step must be implemented sooner rather than later. It may be reinforced in the interim by the formation of a subcommittee of the Committee of the Centre to focus on EU issues. My preference is that the opportunity to form a European affairs committee should be a central consideration of any review of current practice in the Administration, and that is envisaged in recommendations 10 and 26.

I welcome the establishment of the European Policy Co-Ordination Unit but agree with recommendation 24 that it must be properly resourced if it is to become effective.

During the Committee’s consultation with other regional representatives, it was apparent that they all compile formal and informal lists of contacts that may be useful to them for selective and continuous lobbying. It is vital that Northern Ireland develop such a comprehensive list of sympathetic and influential movers and shakers. A co-operative and proactive approach, inclusive of governmental contacts, is suggested in recommendations 29 and 31.

The role, influence and expertise of MEPs must also be connected to everything that I have said. I was not convinced that any or all of them were being actively sought out regularly. The impression that I was given was that, in a crisis, MEPs become central figures, but that once the crisis is over they become marginalized and bureaucracy takes over once more. Recommendations 17, 23 and 34 draw attention to that important point. With the enlargement of the EU, this will become a critical consideration. A community of such a size requires less bureaucracy and more democracy if the machine is not to grind to a halt.

The flow of vital information, both upwards and downwards in the system, is crucial to influencing issues at an early stage. Recommendations 41 and 42 refer to explanatory memoranda from the Cabinet Office being shared with the Assembly, its relevant Committees and, in part, with other non-Government interests. Those memoranda are worthy of scrutiny.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

The centralisation of resource capabilities referred to in recommendations 4, 5 and 13 is a useful method of ensuring that existing and expected information and impacts are set in a meaningful context. That will better inform people about the implications, whether they be opportunities or threats.

Throughout the deliberations of the Committee, there was a great deal of cross-party agreement and co-operation. We can all see how fundamental and central this aspect of the life of the Assembly is in dealing with European matters. We cannot afford not to implement the key recommendations in the report, and I appeal to Members to proactively support the drive that the Committee has set before the House — [Interruption] — in its report.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I apologise sincerely for that interruption. It was a wake-up call, and I got more than I bargained for.

I support the report and its recommendations. I will start where my Colleague Ken Robinson left off, by reusing the words "fundamental" and "central". We have all accepted that Europe has had a massive influence on our lives, and everyone would agree that that influence has mostly been for the better. Many people in our community are very grateful to Europe for the support of the peace and reconciliation fund. That is only one example.

At the core of the report — and this is an issue for the Assembly today, tomorrow, next week and next year — is the seriousness with which we want to approach the European Union and with which we want it to take us. How seriously do we want to regard the major influence on our lives that the European Union has become?

Until now, Europe has been seen as a honeypot; a place where funding — sometimes soft funding — could be found. Europe has been a source of cash and, unfortunately, it has been viewed as a bit like Santa Claus at Christmas. Our participation was passive and receptive in many ways as we held out the bowl for the funds, whether regional funding, social development funding or other types. We were very receptive to that bounty. However, that was a short-term approach. It enabled us to get back on our feet after some very difficult years, but we must now move on and develop a more mature relationship with Europe. We must be able to influence the evolution of European Union policies and strategies at a much earlier stage. As some of my Colleagues suggested earlier, we should be influencing policies not only at the early stages, but throughout their evolution and implementation. We must do that in a proactive way, compared to our previous passive approach.

In the European context, some of us have been taught a salutary lesson in how the drift and estrangement of the population in Southern Ireland created circumstances in which the public felt uninvolved — to the point that they voted against the Nice Treaty, which was unfortunate. We do not want to get to that stage, and I do not think that we will if we take this report, and some of the recommendations emerging from it, with the seriousness that it merits.

When we discuss Europe, parties could disagree on many points — Ken Robinson touched wisely and informatively on that matter. As the report was evolving, there was broad consensus, and the Committee sought, for the large part, a common ground. Despite Northern Ireland’s limited population of 1·6 million or 1·7 million, there was a realisation that the Assembly could influence Europe and have access to the key players there. That was brought home to the Committee during its visit to Brussels. We realised that we could copy some of the best practice that we saw, and in that context I was particularly impressed with the Scottish system’s organisation and experience. I have no doubt that the Scottish representation dressed up their experiences and did not tell us about all their difficulties, but they produced a positive and efficient image. We will need to influence Europe as enlargement unfolds — if we do not, enlargement will swallow us up. It is one thing to be a region with a population of 1·6 million or 1·7 million in a community of approximately 300 million, but if the community’s population almost doubles, to over 500 million, Northern Ireland will be a very small fish indeed.

The big issue is the need for greater contact with, and engagement in, Europe. We need to get Northern Ireland Ministers to Europe, attending meetings where possible. In that context, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development had useful contact with Europe during the recent agriculture crises. During the inquiry, the Committee felt that all our Ministers should find ways to attend European Council meetings. We saw the need to connect the Assembly with Europe. We do not wish the report to be the beginning and end of that — we want a regular drip feed to the Assembly from Europe, and from the Assembly, so that it can influence Europe.

Colleagues mentioned the need for a European affairs committee. Although the Committee is aware of some of the difficulties that may be created, and the fact that Members are already stretched in their attempts to cover all the current Committees, members agreed that the vacuum must be filled. We need to take Europe seriously. I will not dwell on that at length, but I have already mentioned the possible designation of a Minister or junior Minister with a European affairs brief. Local government organisations, industry and business must be better connected. Overall, we need to establish a multi-level, multifaceted approach to Europe. Although the Committee welcomed the opening of an office in Brussels, it saw it as much too narrow, and more bureaucratic than political. We need a wider approach, which is well co-ordinated and involves all our players. The Committee accepts readily that the Executive are the big player and that individual Ministers and Departments follow very closely.

However, we emphasise — and I am perhaps repeating what has been mentioned already — that the Assembly does have a role to play in European affairs and should be involved in the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. We realise that Members of the European Parliament have considerable influence and that there should be some method to facilitate regular contact with them. Members of the Committee of the Regions should be linked into some type of formal or informal network. In addition, we could make contact with the European Economic and Social Committee. There is also, of course, the wider community.

As the Committee carried out its inquiry, it discovered an obvious need to get out of the silos — I am thinking especially about the various Government Departments — and make partnership and co-operation work on European issues, in the interest of our whole community. A comprehensive approach would ensure that we achieve the maximum influence in Europe and receive the maximum benefits from it.

There appeared to be a laissez-faire attitude in many Departments and sections of Government. Often, matters were allowed to drift, and because European issues sometimes had to be dealt with by several Departments, the process was like musical chairs — everyone deferred to someone else.

We must move from that passive attitude into a proactive, dare I say, aggressive approach to Europe. We have seen what other nations have done — and we only have to look South of the border to see what the Irish Republic has done as regards its influence in Europe. Equally, the inquiry noticed that some regions had dramatically influenced Europe and had served their own interests extremely well.

As I mentioned earlier, we need a network to gather information that goes beyond the formal arrangements. I was particularly impressed that, even though there are few secondments from Northern Ireland to Europe, several natives who have been placed in Brussels, or who have worked there, have a considerable resource of information and influence. Therefore they must be included in any informal network that we create.

If I could dwell for a moment on the secondment of staff — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must draw to the Member’s attention that he has had in excess of 10 minutes.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am nearly finished. I suggest that we take seriously the opportunity to second staff to Europe. I will leave it at that.

The Committee was concerned about the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe, which has done a wonderful job over the years. However, once again I will not dwell on that.

Overall, the report is an excellent initial work of the Committee, and we will have to revisit this subject from time to time and deal with many of the recommendations in greater detail. We will also have to examine the cost implications of the recommendations. It would be foolish to publish the report today; blandly accept all the recommendations; put a pink ribbon round it, and go away. We must review the issue.

Some Colleagues are concerned that the word "accepts" in the amendment is a bit stronger than the word "notes", but I would be comfortable with the amendment if it were set in the context of revisiting the subject and examining each recommendation in greater depth.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too support the report. I commend the Committee for the work that has been done. I thank the Clerks, the Committee staff and research staff who ably assisted us. It was a very interesting and worthwhile exercise, and the vast scope of the report and the number of recommendations made showed how seriously the Committee took its work and how much interest there was in the subject.

The report, and the evidence contained in it, clearly demonstrate the absence of a coherent strategy in our dealings with Europe. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has yet to put in place a co-ordinated approach to the EU, both within the Assembly’s jurisdiction and across the islands, through the all-Ireland implementation bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council. That was probably best displayed by the lack of co-ordination with other stakeholders in going forward with the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. Ken Robinson and Alisdair McDonnell referred to the Committee’s broad consensus in agreeing the recommendations and the approach needed by the Assembly to Europe. That is correct. Regardless of whether one is a Euro-sceptic, a Europhile, or shares one of the many opinions between those positions, the majority of our legislation emanates from Europe. That has a massive impact on how we do our business here.

It is clear from the report and our investigation that we need early warning on EU legislative proposals and infraction proceedings that will affect us. We must know which EU Directives we need to act on and their timetables for implementation. We can see the risk with respect to the environmental Directives, in particular, and the serious potential to impose financial penalties on us.

The Assembly must guard against the risk that its approach to the EU might become merely an adjunct to that of the British Labour Party, which is working its way through Westminster, Scotland and Wales. Regardless of which side of the House they come from, many Members agree that an individual, distinct approach would benefit us.

Another weakness that I identified in the approach from OFMDFM — and it emerges in some of the evidence of the report — is the failure to develop an all-Ireland approach to EU matters. Unlike many member states, we have a unique Executive and institutional link to another member state. Not only should we benefit and learn from the success of the South in its dealings with the European Union, but in our approach to the European Union we should reflect our formal institutional and Executive link to the South. I hope that the idea and development of a common strategy could be advanced at North/South Ministerial Council level.

I support the idea of setting up a Standing Committee on EU affairs. As a result of our inquiry and our examination of how other institutions’ EU Committees have operated, there is a strong argument for a Committee with responsibility for both the scrutiny of important legislation and conducting broad inquiries into EU matters and their impact on Northern Ireland affairs. However, given the pressure that there is on the Assembly’s Committee system, the membership and attendance of our Committees and the number of Committees and Ad Hoc Committees, we must ensure that we do not increase that stress. We must ensure that we do not create a Committee that cannot function due to the workload of other Committees. It must be an effective Committee; it must be able to deal effectively with, and scrutinise, our relationship with the EU and that between the Executive and the EU.

I regret to say that the lack of strategic planning by OFMDFM appears to have been a feature of its approach. That is reflected in many of the recommendations and in much of the commentary of previous Members who spoke. A lack of communication has been another regrettable feature. Those features must be reversed. I accept the amendment to change the report and its recommendations from being "noted" to being "accepted" by the Executive.

The report must be taken seriously, because reports can be absorbed without an effective adoption of the recommendations therein. The report was a serious attempt to look, comment and reflect on our relationship with the EU. It was an attempt to recommend to the Executive what the Committee feels should be done about that relationship. That must be done if we are to have an effective relationship with the EU that would benefit not only those whom we represent in the North, but everyone on the island, through all-Ireland institutional links. Go raibh maith agat.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the report. I also accept the amendment.

Such a report has been long overdue, and the enlargement of the European Union will be a significant development that will affect our everyday lives.

When the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment was carrying out its investigation into energy it realised the impact that the EU was having on energy policy throughout Europe, including the regions. The Committee receives all European Directives that affect it.

I was a member of the Committee of the Regions for several years, albeit as an alternate. However, it was a significant role. I congratulate those who have been newly appointed to the Committee from Northern Ireland and wish them well during their period in office.

The Committee of the Centre’s recommendations are very welcome. Only two political parties from here are involved in the membership of the Committee of the Regions. Four members, two full members and two alternates, would make it broader. In present Assembly circumstances it would include a Member from the DUP and a Member from Sinn Féin. The Assembly needs to take that on board.

I am a voluntary member of the board of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE), and I share the Committee’s concerns about the treatment of NICE. When we had an office in Brussels, the cost of running it was about one third of the cost of running the new office, and that needs to be considered. I do not resent the fact that money is being invested in such an important office, but it is essential that its work be monitored closely. The fact that the office costs three times more would be acceptable if there was clear evidence of greater achievements or a higher quality of work, but, going by the report, the Committee did not find such a quantum leap.

The Committee expresses concerns that the experience of NICE has not been used or built on. As a voluntary member of that board I share those concerns, and it is time that they came out into the open, because the board has faced considerable problems recently.

Over the years NICE has built a substantial foundation of contacts, information, skills and knowledge that has been put at the disposal of the public and private sectors in Northern Ireland. The benefits from the organisation continue, yet there has not been a single contact from the head of the Executive’s Office in Brussels to discuss that experience or to seek benefit from it, despite the clear assurances given by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister at the official opening. They stated clearly that the office would work in an open manner, co-operating and communicating with all sectors, and yet for an organisation that was established through a cross-party initiative, there has been absolute silence. That silence sends a clear and resounding message. How loudly it speaks of the attitude of some in the Civil Service. They have more than tripled the cost to taxpayers and have not even had the common courtesy to contact the organisation that has invested so much time and expertise.

It would be bad enough if it were simply a lack of courtesy. It is worse than that. Not only has the head of the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels never contacted the board or the staff of NICE, but there is a clear pattern of behaviour that the Minister should take steps to change substantially. I also note that the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Poots, recently asked in the House when NICE would begin to be treated in a more honourable way. I echo that question. A considerable amount of successful work was undertaken with genuine, constructive and positive motivation for the benefit of all in Northern Ireland. The attempt that was made to bury that work and cast NICE aside was despicable.

It is time for the officials in that area to cease their petty-minded approach and meet with the staff of NICE, who have acted with integrity and character throughout this shameful period.

There is no doubt that Europe is having a greater impact on our everyday lives. I welcome the fact that Marks and Spencer in Belfast now has a counter that accepts the euro, and several other retail establishments in Northern Ireland are doing the same. The question is not whether the euro will be introduced in the UK but when. I hope that the Assembly can focus on the issues that are at hand concerning the development and enlargement of the European Union.

I would like to thank the Clerk, the Committee and the specialist adviser for the work that they have put into the report, which I consider to be significant. I also want to put on record my thanks and support for the efforts of the junior Minister, Mr Haughey. If the Assembly is to nominate a Minister for Europe, I cannot think of a better person.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I shall declare an interest. I am a former head of the European Commission office in Northern Ireland, and I remain actively involved in a variety of bodies concerned with Europe and Northern Ireland.

I welcome the report. It is obvious that a great deal of work has gone into it. It is excellent that the report opens up the European debate, which has, sadly, been in its infancy in Northern Ireland for far too long. It is timely, and its recommendations are very welcome. The Committee’s "knuckle-rapping" on the work of the Executive and OFMDFM and its approach to Northern Ireland is valuable, and its recommendations for changing that are very appropriate. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I wish to consider the conclusions of the report. Dr McDonnell asked if we were taking the European Union seriously. I go further than that and openly criticise the Executive for not taking the European Union seriously. The report suggests that the Executive should get its European house in order and realise that it is not a chateau for the elite in the Executive and Government Departments.

It should be an open house for all members of the public and the various sectors in Northern Ireland. That has been totally disregarded. There has been a lack of communication and consultation with the experts in that area. The three MEPs are pretty long in the tooth and long in understanding European Union affairs, yet they have not been properly consulted. Members of the Committee of the Regions, members of the Economic and Social Committee, non-governmental organisations, farming unions, trade unions and business sectors are not being properly consulted on what we should be doing on European Union affairs. Why is that being ignored? What sort of attitude is there in Government Departments and in the Executive that those issues are being ignored, and people’s expertise is being ignored?

I want to quote some comments, which I found incredible, made by officials from OFMDFM justifying the problems that they have in trying to convince Departments to get involved in European affairs. One of them said that

"A major problem is that many Departments have not yet realised that they need our services, and that they need to get into Europe."

Wait a minute. Think about that. It is said that many Departments have not realised that they need to get into Europe. First, could someone please tell those people that we are in Europe now. Secondly, we have been in Europe since 1973. Where have those civil servants been since 1973 if they did not realise that we were already in Europe?

It is stated that officials noted that resources were needed. That comment relates to the implementation of Directives. As Members know, there has been a backlog of Directives, especially in relation to the environment. As the Chairperson said, it is costing the Italians around £50,000 a day. I would love a response from the Ministers — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Excuse me. Thank you. I would love a response from Ministers stating how much the backlog of Directives is costing Northern Ireland. Ministers are looking at monitoring that, but I would like to have a figure to see how much it is costing us because we do not have our house in order on implementing the Directives. The excuse is that

"There are significant issues concerning implementation of our Directives … we did inherit a major problem there."

I assume that refers to devolution. Another excuse is that

"It is difficult to obtain the necessary resources and legal expertise. We must solve this problem as quickly as possible."

That is very good, but it is 25 years too late. We are talking about the legal expertise and resources necessary to implement Directives into the law of Northern Ireland. We were supposed to have that in place when we joined the European Union, and not so many years later. The excuses are legal expertise and resources, and I suppose that we should appreciate that those aspects are being recognised now. However, we have been in the European Union for a quarter of a century, and some people need to wake up to that fact.

I shall highlight a few valuable recommendations. There is the recommendation that a Standing Committee on European affairs should be established. Members may recall that the Committee that looked into the impact of devolution made that recommendation. But what happened about it? Zilch. When it came to the formation of the Committee of the Centre, it was assumed that we would have a committee on European affairs, a Minister on European affairs, a committee on equality and a Minister on equality. Suddenly the tables were turned, and we found ourselves with a Committee of the Centre and two junior Ministers covering the works. How can we possibly take Europe seriously if it is done in that way? We back the recommendation to have a Standing Committee.

Greater use of expertise is vital. The expertise of all the representatives in the European scene is important, as well as the expertise in non-governmental areas and that of the people who have been working with European peace money, the business sector and the trade unions. It is vital for that expertise to be channelled properly.

Another issue is ministerial attendance. The Committee is disappointed that we are losing out on key opportunities to influence European policy-making. How long have we been doing that? Ministers from Northern Ireland should be at those ministerial meetings.

I want to add two more recommendations that I did not see in the report, and the Chairperson will hardly be surprised by that. Something has been ignored.

On this occasion it is not the euro, it is young people. Members will appreciate the influence of young people. The Executive have not done enough to get the debate on European awareness into the public domain in order to get the public more actively interested in European affairs — especially young people.

Secondments should not only be for executives or senior officials of the Departments. They should be for non-governmental organisations and they should be for young people. There is in-service training — stages — which is a superb course in the European Commission for graduates — that is what started me on the European road. Why is that sort of thing not being pushed to allow more young people to get involved?

I realise that I am running out of time, but I have much more to say. I want to look at departmental priorities. I was flabbergasted by the section at the end of the report in which Departments were asked to categorise their European Union affairs as high or medium priorities. I want to go through a few of those. The EQUAL programme and lifelong learning are only medium priorities for the Department for Employment and Learning. Access to environmental information is a medium priority for the Department of the Environment. Wait until you hear this — the Department for Social Development rates non-governmental organisations and the voluntary and community sector as medium priorities. Wow.

Economic and monetary union, as well as consumer protection are medium priorities for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and investment. Organic farming and food labelling are medium priorities for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Department. Last, but not least, the Department of Education only has two areas of responsibility for European affairs, and both are medium priority. What is going on? Does the Department of Education not realise that we are in Europe to stay? All those Departments should realise that.

I have had my say, although I would have liked longer. We have to start taking Europe seriously. Politics aside, we are in the business of doing what is good for Northern Ireland. Unless the parties in the Executive that are not interested in being a part of Europe are prepared to say that they want us to withdraw from it, they should be working hard to ensure that we reap the benefits and also offer our expertise to others in the European Union.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the debate, and I want to congratulate the Chairperson and Members of the Committee for producing such an extensive report. It is substantial and impressive. In the detail in which it has examined the topic, it is one of the most far-reaching reports published by the Assembly to date. It serves as an example of how an Assembly Committee — a non-Statutory Committee, by the way — holds the Government to account. More importantly, it finds the Government wanting on the key issues that they ought to have been dealing with in the past three years.

The inquiry caught OFMDFM napping on the serious and important issue of Europe, and the approach of the devolved Government to European issues. In the annex we have the first published paper by OFMDFM on European issues, which shows that the Committee was able to force the Government belatedly to respond to some of the key issues that have been before them for the past three years.

One got the impression from the OFMDFM submission that it was a case of bolting the stable door after the horse had gone. There seemed to be several issues that it was trying to catch up on or that might have been reported to it — not necessarily by Committees members. It appears that OFMDFM was trying to put a brave face on the situation, and to plug an embarrassing leak.

As Ms Morrice said, it is to be hoped that the report serves as a serious wake-up call to the Government here on how they intend to deal with Europe. If European policy is not scrutinised closely, European Directives will be imposed on Northern Ireland that are contrary to the will of our people. It is important that Northern Ireland has its say on those Directives, that when they are just ideas in the minds of bureaucrats and Eurocrats they are shaped according to our wishes. It is important that we have early warning and early influence in Europe. I agree with the Committee’s view that our Government must be proactive on Europe. The scathing criticisms in the report show that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been at best, reactive and, at worst — which is most of the time — inactive on European issues. A plush office in Brussels must not be the be-all and end-all of Government policy, but I get the impression that that is the role that the Northern Ireland Executive seek for themselves. They have ticked the box, they have an office in Brussels, but the Executive must do considerably more than that. It is to be hoped that they will start to deliver on some of the promises made, as there is very little to show for their work over the past three years.

Criticism of the Executive has been universal. They were not given the most auspicious of starts, given that when the Assembly travelled to Brussels in 1998, some members of Sinn Féin used the opportunity to attack the paymasters and to insult the people of Northern Ireland by their approach. The Executive could nevertheless have built on that low point, but unfortunately they have not done that.

I refer to page 199 of the report and to the written submission of Mr Nigel Smyth, the director of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Northern Ireland. He states that

"a number of key issues are of concern to the business community. These include the following: the lack of information on the existing Northern Ireland strategy towards, and activities focused at, the European Union; the apparently ad hoc and unfocused approach to European issues; the difference in governance arrangements between Northern Ireland and the European Union; and the additionality issues — just how important is it and how does it impact on Northern Ireland’s ability to access EU funds."

CBI’s criticisms are echoed by the Federation of Small Businesses, which also made a written submission. Time forbids listing all its recommendations.

Both Ms Morrice and Mr Neeson noted some criticisms voiced by the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE). It is important to record the criticisms of Mr John Kennedy, the chief executive of NICE. His recommendations, on page 244 of the report, stressed that

"Existing approaches, which are based on the immediate administrative agendas of Departments, are not likely to realise the maximum potential. We believe that it is necessary to fundamentally review this approach and to build on the learning available."

There are major gaps in the Executive’s approach to European issues.

The Department of Agriculture and Regional Development must spend 46·7% of its budget according to European Directives and yet, it is clear to me as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Regional Development, that it is difficult for Committee members to grasp some of the European issues that arise. That is because the Minister does not bring those issues to the Committee; officials relate them in an ad hoc fashion and on many occasions bounce them on the Committee. The Committee is told that if it does not act immediately the money will be lost, so there is no co-ordinated, strategic approach for dealing with money, for which we are accountable as public representatives.

All Committees must have a much more detailed knowledge of European Directives, the way in which they come to us and how the Government influence those Directives at the beginning. The report shows that all the Committees are concerned at the apparent lack of knowledge of the role of the European Union, and its extent, on our affairs. It is a serious criticism of the House and the institutions that have been established that there is no driving force to change that situation.

In his submission the European Commission’s representative, Mr Jim Dougal said that he is prepared to arrange training seminars. However, it is not his job to do that — it is the job of the House and the officials here to put in place those recommendations and training mechanisms. We do not want to get our steer totally from the European Commission’s representative. Members may not necessarily share his agenda, which accords with that of the Commission, and it is important that we ensure that our approach is in the interests of the people whom we represent, rather than in the interests of the Commission with its own detailed agenda.

There are some other criticisms to which I would like to refer. I note that only one MEP made a written submission to the report, although Jim Nicholson made himself available to the Committee for an extensive verbal briefing. Both MEPs had the same stark criticisms, and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must address those instead of just taking them on the chin, because they are serious. For example, in his submission on page 284 of the report, Dr Paisley said that he would like the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister

"to identify the various EU policy papers they are currently lobbying the Commission on; and how they are representing the opinions of the Assembly Committees as they express views on matters and policies that are relevant to EU matters."

That does not seem to be being done, and it is essential that OFMDFM picks up on that.

The report gives an interesting insight into the role of OFMDFM and its links with MEPs:

Dr Paisley continues:

"Critically your committee inquiry should consider why there is no co-ordination between the Departments and the MEPs. There are no regular briefings and there is no strategic approach in general from the Executive. I continue to make approaches directly and receive the briefing papers that the Scottish, English and Welsh MEPs receive on behalf of the Government Departments there. Quite frankly the Northern Ireland Departments and the Executive are not at the same game. In fact, in my experience it is now more difficult to get information from the Northern Ireland Departments about European matters than at any previous time due to the defensive nature of the ministerial run Departments."

That is a stark criticism, and, brushing aside its political content, it is a very serious administrative criticism, which the Office of the First and the Deputy First Ministers should address seriously. Ken Robinson, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, also made that point, and I am happy to echo it.

Finally, I wish to draw Members’ attention to the comments of Mr John Simpson, Queen’s University and the Ulster Farmers’ Union, all of which make the same criticisms that there is neither the scrutiny, the strategic vision nor the proper policy approach to Europe that there should be. The Assembly is grateful to the Committee of the Centre for carrying out this brave task and for identifying the issues in the way in which it has.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. We have now arrived at the moment of interruption.

The debate stood suspended.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank those who made this inquiry and the report possible, especially the Committee staff, the witnesses and our special advisers. Speaking in broad support of the report and the motion as amended, I want to highlight some of the recommendations.

Recommendation 3 refers to the attendance of Northern Ireland Executive Ministers at relevant European council meetings. I support that as an attempt to try to get Northern Ireland and our concerns closer to the heart of European decision-making. However, I want to go further than the recommendation as it stands. Indeed, I made this suggestion in the Committee. The regions of some other European Union member states represent their entire country on a rotational basis. Germany is a notable example, with the heads of provincial Governments representing the rest of the Länder. Northern Ireland ministerial representatives could represent the whole of the United Kingdom, and on other occasions, representatives from the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and their Administrations could do likewise.

I support recommendation 4 with respect to the maintenance of an up-to-date database on forthcoming European Directives, and provision of that information with adequate notice to the relevant departmental Committees. I link that to recommendation 6, which refers to the provision of up-to-date reports on the implementation of European Union Directives and, in particular, on so-called infraction proceedings that might arise from the insufficiently speedy implementation of such Directives, which could lead to fines. Many Members mentioned those. Indeed, in that case a stitch in time could indeed, financially speaking, save nine.

I also support recommendation 7. The Executive’s framework proposals on the relationship with the European Union contained 100 high- and medium-level priorities. That is simply far too many, because if everything is made a priority, nothing will be a priority, and the list as it stands is unfortunately close to meaningless.

I had more problems with recommendation 10, which proposes the creation of a dedicated committee for European affairs. I understand its logic and, as other Members have pointed out, several external witnesses said that it was a good idea. However, I want to put it on record that there are practical problems with implementing recommendation 10, and the report notes that.

The first is that, as many of us know, we already face problems in maintaining adequately the existing number of Committees by retaining a quorum.

The second problem is the potential for turf wars between Committees. For example, the Committees for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Environment have a heavy diet of EU-related matters. How would they take to offloading those responsibilities or rights to a dedicated Committee? Perhaps they would be happy, but perhaps they would not be, and that must be considered.

The third problem is the worrying precedent that arose when the Committee of the Centre took evidence. We heard that the Scottish Parliament has created a dedicated European Affairs committee. Similarly, for some years, the House of Commons has had such a Committee. If we create a Committee for Europe we must look very carefully at the relationship — in fact, the co-ordination — between that Committee and its counterpart in the House of Commons. There is evidence from our visits to London and Edinburgh that the relationship between the London-based Committee and that in Edinburgh is severely dysfunctional, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact that in both cases the majority of members are from the Labour Party.

I strongly support recommendation 26 that one of the junior Ministers should take a lead on European-related affairs. By implication, that would lead to the other junior Minister leading on matters concerning OFMDFM. That is perhaps a necessary piece of good administrative housekeeping which should have been introduced some time ago.

In closing my remarks, I will make some general comments. We should be optimistic, but realistic, about what we could, and should, aim for the Northern Ireland Administration to achieve in the European Union. As was noted by other Members, we are a small player in that regard. Our region’s population is 1·7 million — barely 0·5 per cent of that of the entire European Union. That percentage will obviously go down further if, as I hope, enlargement into the East occurs. In the recent past we may have punched above our weight in the influence stakes for several reasons. One was sympathy for us, given the troubles since 1969. Another seems to be a feeling in the Commission that it contributed powerfully to the so-called peace process after 1995. Neither of those factors is likely to endure, although we should make the most of them while they exist.

During the 1990s the economic transfer from the European Union to Northern Ireland with respect to the common agricultural policy, the likely effects on foreign direct investment, the impact of more free trade and, very notably, the structural funds, though on the debit side higher food prices paid by consumers, may in total have amounted to 5% net of our regional gross domestic product. That is a significant economic benefit, but it is dwarfed by the net transfer from the United Kingdom Treasury system. Therefore, in that respect, it is important to put EU matters in perspective.

No matter how far upstream we manage to get in the policy-making process in the Commission in Brussels, there are doubts about how much we can change some of the so-called common policies, such as the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, in our favour. In the case of the common agricultural policy, the possibility that, in the coming years, it will gradually collapse under its own contradictions may work in our favour. The agricultural policy may return to being operated, funded and administered at separate national levels. It will be repatriated to the national Governments in the European Union.

If the Executive can get their overall social and economic policy right through measures such as the Programme for Government, to a degree the correct strategy for European matters will be implied. Subject to the implementation of all the qualifying factors, I support the motion as amended.

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

As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Committee was pleased to note that the draft EU Framework document goes some way to address several of the recommendations made in its response to the Committee of the Centre’s European inquiry. For example, the development of appropriate training and secondment opportunities which several Members mentioned, and the commitment to improving essential networking skills should assist Northern Ireland to participate more fully in the early stages of policy formulation and to pursue its own interests in Europe more effectively.

The Committee noted that in addition to the specific environmental policy, four of the seven European policy areas identified in the draft EU Framework document have important environmental content. These included the EU structural funds, agriculture, fisheries and education and training and employment, which came under the heading of education for sustainable development and training and building skills for the green economy.

The Committee is concerned that the environment should not be compartmentalised, rather it should be viewed by the Executive, the Government Departments and the wider community as a core cross-cutting issue. In that light, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may wish to emphasise the opportunity presented by the EU structural funds as an important vehicle to bring Northern Ireland in line with the levels of environmental awareness and good practice in other parts of the EU by ensuring that the funding programmes are rigorously proofed for their environmental impact.

The introduction to the draft EU Framework document refers to facilitating an improved understanding of the EU among the Northern Ireland Departments and the wider community, and paragraph 4 goes some way to recognise that concern. Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that work in Northern Ireland, including the World Wide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, have considerable understanding of the workings of the EU and are involved in Europe-wide networks that have wide experience of lobbying on environment issues. The Committee agrees with some of the recommendations that the Department may wish to utilise the experience and contacts provided by such organisations in developing strategies to engage with EU institutions.

It is important that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has the necessary co-ordinating role in EU policy. The Committee is concerned that the experience of direct rule may have had a negative impact on the skill levels in Departments, and it believes that all Departments, including the Department of the Environment, must address the growing need for radical change in organisational culture to meet the demands of the devolved Administration.

Therefore the Committee recommends that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister adopt a more proactive leadership role to take the necessary steps to facilitate the training and secondment opportunities that have been mentioned, to assist Departments’ identification of priorities and to balance the need for policy innovation against the more familiar processes of dealing with the backlog of EU Directives that have not yet been transposed.

In its response to the Committee of the Centre’s European inquiry, the Environment Committee expressed a concern that there is a considerable risk that the Department of the Environment’s outlook on the European Union may be dominated for some time to come by the risk of infraction proceedings. The Committee reiterates that the Department of the Environment should not simply view itself as a delivery mechanism for EU decisions and legislation but should develop its understanding of EU institutions and improve communication with EU officials in order to gain a sense of ownership of European environmental policy-making.

Under objective 5 of the draft EU Framework document, the Executive identified several steps to address the need to raise Northern Ireland’s positive profile in Europe, including arranging visits to EU member states and institutions by Ministers and other delegations. We have already heard from the Chairperson of the Committee about the number of Ministers who have not yet engaged in or communicated actively with Europe. That ties in with the Committee’s recommendation that the Minister of the Environment should take the lead in developing a positive relationship between the Department and the EU institutions.

I would now like to speak on the matter in more general terms, and as a member of the Committee of the Centre. Communication is vital to promote awareness of, and to encourage debate on, EU issues that directly affect Northern Ireland. The establishment of a web site as a central resource would be valuable, and an excellent way to share information with non-governmental organisations and local government. The inclusion of evidence- gathering and widespread consultation would provide a basis for benchmarking and best practice in relation to the other UK regions. We must also facilitate the development of links with other devolved institutions to promote our involvement at an early stage in matters that affect Northern Ireland.

The exchange of information among the agencies involved in European matters, and the utilisation of expertise in that area, is vital to increase our knowledge of, and familiarity with, EU policies and legislation, as well as their impact on Northern Ireland.

I too express my thanks to the staff involved in producing the report, and I commend the report to the Assembly.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I have great pleasure in supporting the recommendation from the Committee Chairperson earlier today. The 43 recommendations are a serious attempt to represent the various interests that take the view that Northern Ireland, as a region, should be well represented in Europe. As several Members have said, those people are fully aware that 80% of the policies that affect us directly in Northern Ireland emanate from Europe. Furthermore, 60% of our legislation is influenced directly by Europe. Therefore, it would be foolish for any Executive or region to ignore a power that has such a great impact on our day-to-day lives.

The distilled wisdom that is to be found in the 43 recommendations was gathered from the sincere presentations that were made to the Committee. The Committee heard from some people who had a great deal of experience in Europe. I am thinking about people such as the UK Permanent Representative to the EU, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, who gave us some very important pointers that are included in the recommendations. The Northern Ireland Centre in Europe has already made a massive contribution. It has 10 years of experience and was able to bring to us a working knowledge of how a region can be effective and efficient. Their contribution helped us to form our opinions. The forthright comments of our three MEPs cannot be ignored either. They are experienced in Europe — they have been effective there and have helped to deliver a massive amount of money, which has been useful in developing this Province. They have a vision of how the Executive, the Assembly, the non-governmental agencies and Northern Ireland plc can influence policy and decision-making. John Simpson, who has long European experience, also impressed me. He made several helpful concrete suggestions.

This is a positive report. The infant body of the new Executive, which is trying to make its way in Europe, has been given good directions and sensible guidelines by the Committee. This has been developed from the experiences of those who have seen how it works and who have made a judgement on how our region can be effective. Members have already covered several of the recommendations and have made important points. However, it would be wrong for the Executive to ignore this report in its totality. In fact, they cannot ignore it, as the report combines the collected wisdom of those who are working in the best interests of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Assembly accepts and recommends the report. I hope that the Executive and the two junior Ministers will use this as a stairway to the future of Northern Ireland as an effective and efficient region of the European Union. I commend the report.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

During the Committee’s investigation into European issues, it became clear that European engagement from a Northern Ireland perspective was not being comprehensively addressed — far from it. That should not surprise us, because during direct rule Ministers were content to let Westminster Ministers take the lead on European issues, with the largely Great Britain perspective of Labour or Conservative Governments. Our investigations have shown that other devolved regions have recognised the importance of monitoring European affairs, particularly where issues have had a regional effect on them.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)

In the recommendations there are 100 priorities, and that highlights the lack of focus. It also suggests that the unit is under-resourced, and I hope that the junior Minister is pleased that, for once, a cross-party group of Members is calling for additional resources and not criticising top-heavy bureaucracy in a Department. Additional resources are needed.

The example of Scotland Europa compares favourably with the experiences of the office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. The titles suggest the differences between the approaches of the two devolved regions of Northern Ireland and Scotland. The office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels is just that — an isolated office serving the Northern Ireland Executive. It must be widened to involve the entire European Community.

Scotland Europa and the Scottish EU Office are now housed under the same roof. Scotland Europa encompasses a wide network of Scottish regional organisations in Europe: the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; local commerce and industry; universities and the world of academia. It is vital to develop a similar network to monitor issues that are significant to Northern Ireland.

However, I add a note of caution: we will not be able to control what is going on in Europe, therefore people must be realistic about what they expect to come out of this. Northern Ireland is a small cog linked to a bigger cog — the UK’s representation in Europe — that contributes to EU policy. However, there will be several issues of particular importance to Northern Ireland that we might be able to lobby effectively with other devolved regions.

In common with other contributors to the debate, I note the similarity of regional interests that affect Northern Ireland, Scotland and, to a certain degree, Wales. These are rurality; the importance of agriculture and, to a degree, the importance of forestry and fishing, and our peripherality in Europe.

Several Members commented on recommendations concerning networking. Clearly, the experience gained in that area to date has not been properly tapped. I fully support recommendations 9, 29, 32 and 33. I also endorse the recommendations referring to the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe highlighted by my East Antrim Colleague Sean Neeson and others.

I recall the helpful, friendly and constructive engagement that the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe had with Members during the first visit to Brussels prior to devolution, and I know that that has continued to a degree. However, financial support is needed so that it can bear the fruit that could develop.

I give my broad support to the thrust of the recommendations, and it is in that spirit that I support the amendment proposed by the Chairperson of the Committee to accept the report. However, I wish to highlight that further work must be done. For example, recommendation 10 proposes the establishment of a Standing Committee on EU affairs and that we must firm up the Committee’s workload, its membership and its quorum. I must express reservations — which I did to the Committee of the Centre — about the establishment of yet another Committee.

I serve on several Committees, and I am aware of the difficulties of maintaining a quorum on occasions. Indeed, an examination of the proceedings in the Committee’s report shows that there was a poor turnout frequently in what is a 17-member Committee. My concerns about the introduction of yet another Committee must be addressed. Membership and quorums of all Committees might have to be reassessed if Members are unable to attend meetings. Perhaps some Members should also have to answer for the frequency of their non-attendance.

I support the recommendations in the spirit that more work must be done. I particularly look forward to hearing not only the comments from junior Ministers Denis Haughey and James Leslie but also to a detailed response from OFMDFM on how they intend to address each recommendation, or if there are other issues that we are not aware of: we must think about how best to address such issues.

I am content to accept the broad thrust of the report. I acknowledge that it has brought a significant improvement to what has been happening to date. It has brought a new perspective, a new level of scrutiny, and I hope that the net result will be to the betterment of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the recommendations and wish to make some points. The main problem with the EU is that many of our constituents know that we are a part of Europe and that European legislation affects many parts of our lives. However, they know very little of how, when and where such effect takes place. The public has heard of the EU only through tabloid press stories about straight bananas; one flavour of crisps; an EU law, and, indeed, metrication, which we have all heard about lately.

This is why the Committee’s first recommendation is important. It recommends that the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be open and transparent on European Union matters, including membership of the working group, its aims, agenda and its outcome. As the Ministers in question were voted into their offices somewhat democratically, we should insist that every part of the process of government is democratic and, therefore, open to scrutiny. Not only does the public want to know what is going on in this country and what affects it on a wider European scale; it is entitled to know. After all, any legislation that we in our offices believe is right and good for the country affects the people directly, but it may not be what the people want.

It is recommended that the database of EU Directives be brought up to date, as there is much legislation coming into being every day, some of which can be used to help or to hinder Northern Ireland. The database must be current and readily accessible so that the devolved Assembly can be adequately prepared for the future and the ramifications of any new legislation or Programme for Government order. Further to the updating of the database of EU Directives, a central resource should be established that not only collates all the available European Union information, but also helps explain the context, the implications, the opportunities and the threats.

That is to be concurrent with the establishment of web-based portals and should be investigated as a method of sharing information with the rest of Northern Ireland. It is only sensible that, as the point of entry for these laws, the Assembly should facilitate the availability of such information to the people of the Province. Those of us who are not fluent in the workings of the law and legal terminology can have specialist advice and translations that make the lengthy and sometimes laborious wording of these Directives less confusing and more user-friendly. It will also be of great benefit to the children of our Province who study politics. They could access this web site and use it to their advantage and to its main purpose. It would be invaluable to the smooth running of the Assembly, not to mention Northern Ireland as a whole.

The main suggestion that I support is that of European Union familiarisation for all Assembly Members, which does not just focus on their Committee responsibilities. We all move around the Assembly and take up new posts. Even today we have seen a change of Committee membership. An overview of the effects of the EU on each part of the Assembly should be available to everyone; in fact, it must be given to every entrant when taking a position in the Assembly.

If this is combined with the recommendation that the Assembly should provide secondments for Assembly staff to EU institutions that will also facilitate a better understanding of the European Union and its policies. The staff who are given the go-ahead for secondments could help in the development of the web site and in the collation of all available information.

We are all agreed that the main problem is that while the European Union’s policies impact on 80% of Northern Ireland’s policies and 60% of the Programme for Government, our contact for European legislation is Whitehall, and some links have yet to be established between Whitehall and the Assembly. As the Assembly in its present form is new and innovative, we should perhaps exercise more caution. We must ensure that the legislation that is being handed down is not detrimental to the democracy and the policies of the parties involved in Northern Ireland. The safeguard of Whitehall is not fully implemented, and thus we must insist in the strongest terms that the explanatory memorandum from the United Kingdom’s Cabinet Office is shared with the Assembly and its Committees.

We may be living on the periphery of Europe, but we must ensure that Europe is central in our thoughts so that we can stop any detrimental legislation forcing restrictions on the people of Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the fiasco in the fishing industry; it has been almost crippled by the restrictions and the quotas placed on it. If we had known as soon as possible what was happening in Europe, we could have done our best to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice was heard and taken account of. Representing the constituency of Strangford, I know, perhaps better than most, how much events in Europe have impacted on the fishing industry in a village that is almost dependent on fishing for its future.

We must also address the lack of detail in the Framework document on resources and methodology.

It is obvious that the funding for many of our programmes will be stopped in 2006, and we need to know what other options will be made available. With a lack of clarity in the Framework document, the recommendations will be important. We need to know what is stated in the light of legislation, and we need to know immediately that such information is published. Therefore, we need to have people who are in touch with the European Union, and we need to have the policies interpreted and made accessible for all Members of the Assembly. Members also need to be educated in the way the European Union works, so that they can access funding for their respective Committees.

The recommendations of the report must be accepted. They are a very focused way forward and would benefit everyone in Northern Ireland. They would take the unknown element out of the European Union for many people — and also for some politicians. The European Union and Northern Ireland have a great deal of history, but for many that history is shrouded in legal red tape and lengthy technicalities that need explanation. We need to agree to the recommendations so that we can remove the bureaucracy and put Northern Ireland firmly on the map of Europe, and not on the edge, where it seems to be now and has been for many years.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I commend the Committee of the Centre on its excellent report. Its 40-odd recommendations are all useful and will advance how Northern Ireland interacts with the EU in a more structured, organised and effective way. As a member of the EU Committee of the Regions, I understand fully the critical role that Europe plays in what we do here and how we can achieve our maximum.

Eighty per cent of the Programme for Government is derived directly from EU initiatives, and that shows where the power lies. The whole concept of networking set out in the report is critical to the success of Northern Ireland in Europe. I refer not just to government networks but also non-governmental networks and informal networks. There is a great deal of EU expertise and experience in our community, and we must tap into it, recognise it and use it to our advantage. Networking is the key to success in Europe, and it needs to be focused. We must have a Europe Minister and a European affairs Committee. As a high proportion of our laws are made in Europe and a high proportion of our funding comes via Europe, it merits such treatment.

Let me illustrate this from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development’s point of view. Each year, Northern Irish farmers are paid about £160 million in subsidies by the European Union, and UK sources pay only £16 million. That is why we need to be more EU-focused. Europe is increasingly regional. Regional parliaments like ours play a major role in all countries — in federal Germany and what is now a federal France — so we must espouse Europe. It is part of our identity, and we must directly and energetically interface with it.

We must throw off the shackles of direct rule, during which we were at the wrong end of the UK queue with a begging bowl in hand. We must become active and aggressive Europeans. This Assembly has only been in existence for a few years, and we are still in a learning process. However, as time goes on, we will learn and be able to hold our own anywhere in the world.

We have talked about what has happened in different places, and a Colleague referred to subsidies for fish. According to the Commission’s latest assessment, national subsidies fell by over 30% between 1997 and 1999. The second scoreboard reveals a steady decline in EU state aid for sectors such as industry, services, agriculture, fisheries and railways. However, the survey still finds significant disparities between member states in the distribution of state subsidies. For instance, state aid to manufacturing and to the coal and service industries, as a percentage of overall aid, ranged from 16% in Luxembourg to 69% in Portugal. Aid to fisheries accounted for only 7% of overall aid in Germany, but was as high as 73% in Finland and some other countries. In the UK, which had the lowest total amount of state aid at less than 0·05% of gross domestic product, most went to manufacturing and the railways.

We need a strong representation in Europe, because that is where the real power base resides. It is of paramount importance that we get the fair share of money to which we are entitled. As time goes on I fear that unless we pay more attention to what goes on in Europe we will be worse off. We need full-time people there. I know that the MEPs spend much of their time in Europe. That is where the power lies, and it is where we must make a big impact.

Some Members spoke earlier about their involvement in the Committee of the Regions. Unless we have people there from Northern Ireland to speak their mind when policies are being made that affect the UK, we will get nothing. I have seen that over the past three weeks. We need representation to fight for our entitlements. I support the proposals and recommendations made by the Committee of the Centre.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I have several observations to make on the report, after which my Colleague Mr Denis Haughey will sum up in detail on behalf of the Executive. I apologise for being late for the restart. I had thought that we would start again at 4.00 pm, and was caught on the hop by the small number of questions to the Minister for Social Development.

I welcome the debate and the report from the Committee. It is important that we reflect on European issues and on the relationship that Northern Ireland should be seeking to build with the EU and its constituent parts. I acknowledge the detailed work that the Committee has done to produce the report, which is full of constructive and thoughtful suggestions.

The Executive are committed to developing an effective EU approach, which is crucial. The remarks that Mr Savage has just made from a regional perspective are exceedingly pertinent. We also need to be aware that timing is very important, as the European Convention is engaging in a wide-ranging debate about the future of the EU and its structures. That work is about to commence, and it is important that Northern Ireland formulates views that will form part of that debate. Northern Ireland, with only 1·7 million people, is a very small part of the EU. We are not going to have much influence on our own, so it is important that we find common cause with other regions.

To get that process started, we intend to host a conference in the summer that will focus on the debate on the future of Europe. That conference will draw together interest groups from across sectors of society, and will provide a natural forum in which to address the major strategic EU policy issues. We envisage that the conference will be, in effect, a first annual forum.

The Committee specifically mentioned a forum, and I hope that it will react favourably to the proposal by OFMDFM.

The inquiry contains 43 conclusions, and these set a direction for policy. In view of the number of recommendations made and the detail in which the Committee has formulated them, it would be unrealistic for us to respond in detail at such short notice. However, all the matters raised are worthy of detailed consideration, and that is what we will give them. We will respond in detail, item by item, to the Committee as soon as we can. Some of the proposals that the Committee made are already part of our plans, and progress on these will soon be seen. Other proposals are new suggestions to which OFMDFM will have to give careful consideration.

There are also some proposals that cut across the work of more than one Department. Although overarching responsibility lies with OFMDFM, individual Ministers will inevitably have specific views on matters significant to their Departments. In that respect, the proposal for a Committee on EU matters, which is a matter for the Assembly to decide for itself, requires quite a lot of thought. For example, who will take the lead on issues relating to the common agricultural policy? Hitherto, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has done so because it reflects directly on that Department. Is it suggested that the EU Committee should do that? There are important issues that need to be carefully thought through. Nonetheless, the Committee makes the point that many of these issues are cross-cutting, and that is crucial.

The report makes recommendations on cross-cutting themes and using the range of available expertise and networks including those outside the Government. It urges us to involve, in a more systematic way, key players such as MEPs and representatives on EU institutions. We know that we must consult with these people and bodies. Some work has been done, and more is continuing.

We are also looking with interest at how measure 4·1 of the Peace II programme, which is worth about £6 million up to the end of 2006 and which seeks to promote Northern Ireland and the border counties as an outward and foreign looking region, can best be used. By the end of this month we should have responses to the call for projects, and through these we hope to develop our approach and see how groups can be supported in this work. It is an area on which OFMDFM has more to learn, but we want to get started with some projects and look for further tranches as our experience develops. We are giving thought to ways in which communication with MEPs and the Committee of the Regions can be developed.

We note the Scottish model. That the Committee took a close look at that and at the arrangements in Wales was valuable. However, the Scottish Parliament’s European Committee has regular meetings with MEPs and other representatives, and we will be looking carefully at that, but it is a two-way process. If such meetings were to be held in Brussels, all our MEPs would have to be in Brussels. Although Mr Nicholson is exemplary in that regard, the same cannot be said of the others.

The Executive put forward a draft strategic framework to the Committee in February. In that we reflected on the links with UK Government and, as has been highlighted today, while national policy is not devolved, there are elements in it that have a devolved effect. The links with Departments in Whitehall will inevitably be crucial. We have to be realistic about this. The Prime Minister came into office making a great fuss about how he was going to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe. It is not particularly noticeable that he has succeeded in that. Therefore, we have to be realistic in our expectations of the position that Northern Ireland might be able to achieve.

The report is sensible in recommending that a small number of strategic priorities should be identified. That relates to my previous point; it is sensible and realistic, as to try to pursue too many at once would inevitably lead to disappointment. The framework strategy identified all the areas of current work. It was not intended to be a list of priorities; it was a list of the work. The Committee is right to say that specific priorities need to be identified, and we will be working on that and liaising with the Committee.

The report also reflects on how work is organised in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and on the staffing issues. These are being addressed, and we are undertaking a considerable increase in staff numbers. We hope that the European Policy Co-ordination Unit will be doubled in size in two or three months.

We have looked at the methods being used by the Scottish Executive in their Brussels office, and there are useful lessons for us. I hope that Members will be aware that extra space was deliberately taken in our offices in Brussels with a view to expansion being available and to being able to have different entities develop there. My Colleague, Mr Haughey, will say more about that in a few moments.

I welcome the report and the interest of the Committee. We will be taking its recommendations seriously and responding to them in detail. Mr Gibson seemed to think that we were going to ignore the report. I assure him that we will not, although he said that we might not be able to accept it in its totality, and I dare say that that may prove to be the case. However, the Committee will see, in early course, a number of measures coming forward that will closely mirror the suggestions made in its report.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I will call Mr Haughey to make a response. In the earlier contribution there was an element of response as well as a personal contribution, but I was in a tolerant mood.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I wonder why. I greatly appreciate your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the members of the Committee of the Centre for their detailed and valuable work in producing the report. I know that the inquiry has been detailed and robust, and I welcome that.

I listened with interest to the remarks about the change in the wording of the motion. We were a wee bit surprised that we were not given some notice of that. However, overall we welcome the report of the Committee, and on first reading I have found, as I think we all have, much in it on which we are likely to agree. It is heartening that on an issue such as this where, in the past, there has been some difference of view and emphasis, we have found so much common ground and agreement across the divide between the parties in the Committee of the Centre, and in the Assembly, on how we should approach being part of the European Union.

A report of this kind, weight and depth will require careful reflection. We will respond in full as an Administration on each of the recommendations as quickly as we can. I cannot say today that we accept the report totally or that we will implement in detail every one of its recommendations, as there are many matters to be considered. However, we will commit ourselves to carefully considering the report and the recommendations, although we cannot be bound by it in every detail.

Today’s debate demonstrates the Assembly’s interest in, and concern with, European affairs. We are determined to broaden the debate in the community in the coming months. Our detailed response to the Committee’s report will be one input into that debate. The Administration’s work in planning, addressing and reviewing our relationships in the European Union is an important element of the Assembly’s role.

Before I respond to the details of the Committee’s report, I will make a few comments. First, the report is wide-ranging and includes 43 recommendations. Many of those have important implications and must be studied carefully by the Executive. Those recommendations also have implications — not the least of which are the cost implications — for various Departments, not only for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Administration would not want to be bound to implement all 43 recommendations — or those that apply to the Administration — and incur the substantial costs involved, only to have those who made the recommendations jump on them for spending all that money. The Executive will look carefully at all the implications of the recommendations.

The Assembly will have to consider the recommendations as they apply to it. Six of them — recommendation 10 and others — have direct implications for the Assembly. Would an Assembly Committee on European affairs lead on the matter of CAP reform, or would the Committee for Agriculture and Regional Development play the lead role? Would the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment lead on competition policy? These important issues need to be thought through carefully, as they would have an impact on the work of the Committees and of the Assembly. Given that we have had a relatively short time to read the report and look at the recommendations, we need to give the matter careful consideration over time, rather than to rush into accepting the recommendations in total today.

It is timely to remember that membership of the European Union has brought Northern Ireland and its citizens a considerable range of benefits and opportunities. I am aware that some Members are not fully persuaded of the value of the European Union. That is their absolute right. For my part, I am convinced that there are many gains for all citizens of the European Union, not least the citizens of Northern Ireland, through the widening and deepening of contacts across the continent. Some commentators seek to obscure those gains and introduce irrelevancies about European superstates, about the loss of identity, and as Mr Shannon pointed out, make ridiculous points about the straightening of bananas and about the planting and growth of square tomatoes. They also seek either to deceive the public about the implications of European union or to rubbish it by introducing all kinds of nonsense about it.

The increasing co-operation and development across Europe has produced significant and measurable advantages for the citizens of Europe, and it has seen a prolonged period of peace, which is no small or unimportant matter. It has seen the growth of greater economic prosperity and support for those citizens in society most in need. It has also seen a growth in equality Directives and the outlawing of discrimination. Much greater progress has been made in those areas in a European context than was ever made in the national context. These are all positive outcomes of our membership of the European Union. It is my conviction that these outcomes have been achieved through the establishment of an ever-closer union between the people of the member states.

Despite the range of views in the Assembly and in the community about European integration, a positive feature of our approach has been cross-community co-operation on European issues.

Northern Ireland’s three MEPs have established a strong record of collective and constructive work, which has greatly advantaged our community. Since devolution, the Executive have sought to continue a collective and positive approach. I am pleased to report that there are continuing positive outcomes in our relationships with the European institutions.

I acknowledge that some Members have not reached the same conclusions as the Administration on European integration. Therefore it is all the more significant that a Committee that contains a diversity of views on those matters has produced such a helpful and constructive report.

Some quarters have been quick to criticise the work of the devolved institutions. The detailed, constructive, positive approach of the Committee of the Centre and the work that it has produced are a clear illustration of our collective commitment to work on behalf of the electorate.

On behalf of my Colleagues in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I fully welcome the report and assure the House that the closest possible consideration will be given to the analysis and recommendations in it. The report contains a useful analysis of our situation. It carefully examines the value of our approach, and it makes considered recommendations to protect our interests, to project the distinctive voice of Northern Ireland and to avail of the opportunities that our membership of the European Union gives us.

I have considered the report carefully, and three major themes emerge from it. First, we should develop and implement a collective and workable vision of Northern Ireland as a region of the European Union. Secondly, we should draw on the learning derived from our work in the European Union, that which we can derive from our colleagues in other parts of the European Union and from our own citizens’ work in the European Union. Thirdly, we should establish effective, open and transparent working methods that make the best use of the public resources invested in that area.

I should like to speak about the development and implementation of a collective vision. I note that the Committee reviewed in considerable detail the approaches in other parts of the United Kingdom, in the Republic of Ireland and in regions of other member states. As I read the Committee’s evidence, I was struck by how the successful regions in Europe identified clearly the regional role in the European Union of member states. It reflects my experience of working in European matters for over 20 years. Successful regions have considered the reality of the regional role, examined the potential of that role and defined a clear and practical vision that meets the strengths and addresses the weaknesses of their region. The less successful regions have done that less well. The less well they have done it, the less successful they have been.

Northern Ireland has made considerable progress in developing that approach in some areas. Our political representatives in the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and in the Economic and Social Committee have a strong track record of working together cohesively, identifying available opportunities and co-operating to secure progress on them. Through that work we have received considerable financial benefit from our colleagues in the other member states through the mainstream structural funds programmes and, significantly, through the special support that has been given to Northern Ireland through the programme for peace and reconciliation, Peace II and the major contributions made by the European Union to the International Fund for Ireland.

All Members have seen the substantial benefits of that support in their constituencies, and they welcome the assistance that has been provided. However, the challenge now is to build on the progress that has been made with the assistance of the European Union. Devolution has brought new and important roles for Ministers, Committees and Members.

In the report, the Committee identifies the necessity to work towards establishing better ways of integrating the work of Ministers, Committees and Members, as well as agencies and bodies outside the Assembly, in a collective regional approach. There is considerable value in such integration. Officials in the Department will undertake further work to address the issues that the report has highlighted and to secure the kind of open working methods that are required. As the report illustrates, it is also essential to ensure that the work of all sectors has access to the development and implementation of the collective vision that the Assembly hopes to demonstrate.

As I made clear in my evidence to the Committee of the Centre and in discussions with the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and members of the Committee, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is strongly committed to a collective approach. Many issues that the Assembly faces in relation to the European Union and European matters highlight clearly the need to work collectively — to establish frameworks and approaches that enable all sectors to share their perspectives in order to reach a better understanding of how issues affect each other. A common misconception is that regional Administrations such as that of Northern Ireland must be organised in Brussels in order to do business in Europe. It is more important to be organised in Northern Ireland in order to develop the capacity here to do business in the European Union.

As the Assembly works together to develop the approaches of the new institutions, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will seek to put in place improved mechanisms for providing better information and enabling other sectors to play their part and to deliver on their responsibilities in this collective work. At the opening of the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister made it clear that the Administration see that office as a resource for all sectors and interests in Northern Ireland. The report notes that the name of the office is perhaps, therefore, somewhat misleading. That point will be considered by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

When I spoke at the function in Brussels, which was held on the day of the opening of the office, I made it clear that it was simply a building block in the construction of a much bigger edifice — the regional representation in Brussels of all sectors, and providing facilities and opportunities for involvement by a much wider range of regional interests in Northern Ireland. Much reference was made to that in the debate on the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. That was the initial aim of the centre — hence the name.

The Northern Ireland Centre in Europe is refocusing and renaming its organisation. The Administration are working out a new relationship with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. Perhaps the Assembly could address that. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will ensure that the head of the Brussels office will develop the office and its work in building regional representation, not just as an office for the Executive. An office for the Executive is needed. However, Northern Ireland needs much greater regional representation in Brussels.

We will also be examining ways and means by which all the organisations that I mentioned — the social partners, the various agriculture representative bodies, the further and higher education sector, local government and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe itself — can become involved in building the collective and co-operative approach that was endorsed and recommended by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The report provides further evidence, if further evidence were required, that that is the only sensible approach to those issues.

In the period before devolution, as I told the Committee, officials worked in a difficult environment; policy lines were set in London and, often, there was little clear distinctive development of those lines to take account of our regional interests. However, the establishment of the devolved institutions removes that difficult dimension. As the report illustrates, there is now a clear political will to undertake an open and informed approach to developing a distinctive regional posture for Northern Ireland within the European framework. That will characterise the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and we will ensure that it characterises the approach of the office in Brussels.

That takes me to the second theme, which is drawing on the learning available to us from our experience of the European Union to date and, indeed, the experience of other regions in the European Union. The theme also involves developing and drawing on the learning that different sectors of our society have derived from their work in Europe.

Over a decade ago, an initiative was undertaken to establish a centre where all sectors could consider how to address the issues arising from membership of the European Union. That initiative arose from work done by the main constitutional political parties of that time and led to the establishment of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. That organisation established a positive track record working with all parties and all sectors of our society. It greatly assisted and clarified the understanding of the challenges and the opportunities to be addressed. For many years, it was one of the few organisations in this society that had the full involvement and support of all the main constitutional political parties.

It secured support from all councils and from a wide range of interests in the private sector. For a time, the centre also secured the support of central Government. No one regrets more than I do —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Is it traditional for a Minister to give way? If so, I have no problem with it.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

It is up to the Minister.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

You may have been about to comment on this, but I just wanted clarification of the grand words about the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. If the centre was so valuable and so good, what happened to it? Why is it half of itself?

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I was just coming to that. No one regrets what happened more than I do. No one worked harder to prevent it from happening than I did.

I could say an awful lot here. I could redd my chest. To do so would give me a great deal of satisfaction, but I do not believe that recrimination, name-calling, finger-pointing and laying blame and accusations will get us anywhere. What happened, happened. I fully agree with those who say that it was tragically unfair, but that does not measure the full importance of it. It was more than tragically unfair — it was a mistake of serious dimensions that has cost us dearly.

We are where we are, and we must build from that position. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I said that, because of the opportunities that now exist, we were currently engaged in rebuilding our relationship as an Administration, and the relationship of central Government here on the regional level, with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. That work is nearing completion, and I hope to be able to report fully and positively on the outcome of that to the Assembly in the very near future.

I acknowledge that many Members of the Assembly feel as strongly as I do about this. Many of them benefited in no small way from the clear, professional, independent analysis provided by the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. Those who may wish to reflect on the issue should also reflect on the fact that I was among those members of my party who, along with leading members of the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP, the Alliance Party and others, created that institution. Therefore, I do not want the value that I attach to it to be questioned in any way.

I welcome the Committee’s recommendation, which accords completely with the view taken by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, Mr Leslie and myself, that we now have the task of building on, and strengthening, the approach pioneered by the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. I assure the Assembly that my ministerial Colleagues are at one in relation to that. We are putting in place mechanisms that will secure and widen the value of the independent analysis provided by a stronger, refocused and — as I said earlier — perhaps renamed organisation, and we shall ensure that value is applied across a range of issues.

Therefore, in considering the Committee’s report, the detail of the written submissions makes it clear that there is a wide level of support in this society for the work of the new democratic institutions established in this House. I welcome the significant degree of support expressed in those submissions, but that lays heavy responsibilities on those of us who are involved and who were elected to take those responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is one to find ways of drawing on the learning from the different sectors, especially from those who took the time and the trouble to make submissions to the Committee. Those organisations have clearly indicated that they are interested in more than simply lobbying for their own narrow concerns. They are willing participants in the collective work of developing a regional posture and strategy for Northern Ireland.

I also noted the Committee’s approach in taking evidence from a range of expert analysts and practitioners from other regions of the European Union. Those inputs have provided valuable insights as to how we can further develop our own approach. I have considered and discussed those submissions with officials, and we are keen that the Committee’s approach should be further developed. Measure 4.1 of the Peace II programme, ‘The Outward and Forward Looking Region’, which is implemented through the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, offers us an opportunity to build on that process and to learn from our relationship with other regions of Europe by examining how they have done business. Measure 4.1 has been put in place to support further strategic examinations of how we relate to the European Union and beyond, to reflect on how we undertake our work here, and to seek ways in which we can learn together, thereby establishing better and more effective means of policy development and implementation.

In addition to the work that will be undertaken through that measure, we have asked officials to prepare proposals to build on the available learning. Those proposals will address a wide range of issues identified. For example, the potential benefits of secondment were frequently mentioned during the course of the debate. Other examples range from the question of ongoing research and analysis, more open work practices and better reporting systems to widening opportunities for considered inputs into policy development. Through that collective approach, the Administration will seek to integrate in a practical manner several observations and recommendations made by the Committee in its report.

Any initiatives must, of course, be in the context of effective, open and transparent working methods that make maximum use of the public resources invested. Many challenges and many opportunities arise from EU membership, and we must invest in early-warning systems if those are to be identified at a sufficiently early stage for them to be effective. Several Members made that point.

Where resources are scarce, we must ensure that we get the best return on our investment. The time is now right to examine the value of the approach that has been taken since devolution. That examination will provide evidence that will help us to ensure that we are using the most effective and efficient methods possible, and to make any necessary adjustments in cases in which we find any shortcomings.

I welcome that the Committee intends to continue to monitor the analysis and recommendations of the report. I shall ensure that the Committee is provided with the full response to that.

The report is a valuable analysis of the current situation. It provides a context in which we can clearly see the progress that has been made and the goals that are still to be attained. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Poots, and his Colleagues for their detailed and constructive work. I also thank all who contributed to the report’s preparation. I assure the House that the Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will reflect on its analysis and recommendations, and seek to use them in the same positive and constructive spirit in which they were prepared.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Members who participated in the debate for the largely positive and constructive contributions that they made. It is indicative of a growing interest in European Union affairs, and overall there has been a general welcome for the report and its recommendations.

Jane Morrice referred to the need to involve young people. The Committee would also like to see the greater involvement of young people in EU affairs. Indeed, one of the main themes in the report is the need to involve all people, including the young, in European issues. The recommendation that deals with secondment to non-governmental organisations covers the point that she made.

Sean Neeson referred to the Committee of the Regions. The Committee of the Centre addresses that issue in paragraphs 134 and 135 on pages 30 and 31 of the report. It compared the mechanism for nomination used by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland to that used by the Scottish Executive. In Scotland, provision was made for the involvement of the Scottish Parliament to endorse the Scottish nomination. The Committee understands that no similar provision exists in the relevant Northern Ireland papers. Despite the fact that the appointments were made in November, I only received notice of the appointees to the Committee of the Regions from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister last week. I leave Members to draw their own conclusions from that.

The fact that no provision was made for it does not mean that there should not have been any consultation with the Assembly. The Committee was eventually informed of the appointments following several requests for that information. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister follows the model used by the Scottish Executive and ensures that, although the Assembly is not involved in endorsing the nominations, it at least receives proper and timely notification of them.

Mr Beggs and Dr Birnie referred to the creation of an EU affairs committee. I assure them that Committee members made that recommendation only after considerable thought, and they know that there will be difficulties, such as those that other Committees have experienced in achieving quorums. The Committee knows that the creation of such a committee must be looked at in the wider context. However, it feels that a marker must be set to show that the Committee thinks that EU affairs are important enough to warrant an independent committee.

Junior Minister Haughey also commented on the potential role of the EU affairs committee. Its role would be similar to those of the committees in the other devolved Administrations that deal with EU affairs. The Committee of the Centre did not envisage that such a committee would take up the remit of current Committees. The Committee of the Centre has had initial discussions about the EU affairs committee, but more work must be done. It is assumed that the committee would be strategic, and focus on cross-cutting issues rather than delve into departmental issues.

I largely welcome the junior Ministers’ comments.

Mr Haughey commented on the cost implications of the report. Although some recommendations will cost money, the majority have no or minimal cost implications. However, I must point out the cost of some European Directives. For example, it will cost some £400 million in capital alone to deliver the current waste management strategy that is being advertised heavily on TV. That is not to mention the recurrent year-on-year costs of delivering it. The amount of money that it would cost to implement this report’s recommendations in full would be peanuts compared to the cost of implementing some European Directives. In addition, savings could be made if we could, at an early stage, make changes to the small number of issues that affect Northern Ireland.

I regret the comments made by the junior Minister, Mr Leslie, about the activities of the MEPs. It ill behoves a Minister to use his position to attack Members of the European Parliament. Perhaps I can put that down to his inexperience.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I agree that the junior Minister Mr Leslie did not dress himself in any honour by making those comments. I hope that that is not an indication that the junior Ministers are going to continue to burn bridges with the MEPs. They should be building bridges to allow the MEPs’ expertise and experience to play a part because that will lead to a better understanding of, and a better commitment to, European affairs. We can all make cheap jibes. If the MEP that he was praising is doing such a wonderful job, why did he not use the professional staff in his Brussels office to make a written submission to the report. However, let us not make such silly points.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I shall not take that point any further. I do not believe that the junior Minister was speaking on behalf of OFMDFM on that occasion.

I welcome the increase in the capacity of the European Policy Co-ordination Unit. Nevertheless, the Committee recommends that it should remain free-standing, and I know that Ministers will consider that in more detail.

With regard to NICE, I take Mr Haughey’s comments at face value and accept what he says. I shall be watching developments on that closely to see what progress can be made.

By and large, I am very encouraged by the response of Members and Ministers. Adopting this report will ensure better days for Northern Ireland in its dealings with European Union affairs and in what it derives from Europe. At some stage, it may be useful to conduct some research into how much it is costing Northern Ireland to implement European Union Directives. We often hear of the benefits of Europe and of how much we are drawing down in structural funds, peace fund money et cetera. However, it would be interesting to do a comparative study to establish how much we are having to spend to adhere to, and implement, European Union Directives.

I thank the Assembly for the time that it gave to this report and I look forward to its being adopted by the Assembly.

Question

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to

Resolved:

That this Assembly accepts the recommendations outlined in the report of the Committee of the Centre on its Inquiry into the ‘Approach of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Devolved Government on European Union Issues’ (02/01/R) and calls on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to implement the relevant recommendations.

Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker.]

Downpatrick Maternity Hospital

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

Initially I tabled this debate for November 2001 when the crisis in maternity services had reached a new peak. There had been, and there still remains, urgent concern about the future of maternity services in Downpatrick and, indeed, the hospital itself. I was anxious that strict new guidelines that barred specific women from giving birth in their local hospital would reduce the rates of delivery in the hospital by between 10% and 20%, thus making the hospital appear less credible. I want to re-emphasise that issue. The Minister subsequently gave a commitment that the full range of services would be available until the outcome of the review was known. While we patiently wait for reviews, and sometimes reviews of reviews, there is a great danger of the existing services becoming even further eroded. If that were to continue, by the time reviews have finally been published, the case for maternity services in particular will have been reduced.

Sceptics might say that that could be seen by some people in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety as a convenient way to handle the decision without having to take responsibility for that decision. Down Lisburn Trust is running into an underfunding gap, estimated at £9·1 million, but some would say that it may well run to £12 million. That lack of investment in professional services must be responsible for the reduction in the numbers of higher-risk pregnancies being taken into the Downe Hospital. Down District Council is calling for that shortfall to be made up and for the situation to be restored. The local health trust has met the Department’s requirements for funding controls, and it has been punished because other health trusts had not met their required levels. Funding has had to be redistributed, and the impact is now being felt.

In November 2001, we were informed that anaesthetists were refusing to provide facilities for mothers who were overweight, who were expecting multiple births, who had previously undergone a Caesarean section, or who were under any threat of early labour. Notably, the decision to adopt new stringent criteria was taken without consultation with the people whom it would affect. The threat to the maternity services in the Downe Hospital is a direct threat to the rights of the community. It is not a little backwater hospital. In 2001, Downpatrick Maternity Hospital was recognised by the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine as the third safest unit in Northern Ireland. That small rural unit has a history of high standards, good service and continuity of care, which is highly valued by the local community. The professionals on the ground — the obstetricians and midwives — have attacked the criteria as being unduly restrictive, and there are statistics that prove that they effectively screened out 50 mothers-to-be, who were transferred to Belfast hospitals. The numbers being admitted to the hospital are being eroded continually, thus undermining the case that the Minister will have to report on shortly and the recommendations that she will have to make for the continuity of the service.

Some questions spring to my mind. Have those circumstances been properly taken into consideration? What are the consequences for the future of Downpatrick Maternity Hospital? Have all other hospitals in similar situations been subjected to the same criteria? Is the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety satisfied that our anaesthetists’ response to the needs of our maternity and other acute services in Downe Hospital has been the proper one?

When I look back over the years during which we have tried to fight for the retention of acute services in Downe Hospital, it occurs to me that we, especially in Down district, have been subjected to a bureaucratic form of snakes and ladders. During the past few years, we have had documents, reports, consultations and strategies commenting on various ways by which services should be offered by Downe Hospital and Downpatrick Maternity Hospital. Each subsequent throw of the dice seems to have further eroded the services and further strengthened centralist thinking.

We reached the top of a ladder in 1994 when Baroness Denton recognised the need for a new Downe Hospital, which would incorporate maternity services. We then hit a snake’s head with the changes made by Ministers Worthington and McFall and slid all the way down. Now, as far as maternity services are concerned, it looks as if we have encountered another snake. As a public representative, I am concerned that centralist professionals, few in number, are using their key professional positions to further their centralist political aims. I am concerned that their work may result in a lack of will to keep the maternity services open.

Then, of course, there is the broader issue. Will we always manage our services subject to diktats from royal colleges? Now that we have a devolved Administration, should we not make policy decisions that meet our particular needs? This is the first time that people of our generation have had the opportunity to structure our services to meet our particular needs, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we base such a structure on real, existing and future needs, and not on the need to sacrifice maternity services in order to maintain other services for the area.

By threatening the training accreditation, royal colleges further risked the future of the hospital. Down district has recognised that Downe Hospital and Downpatrick Maternity Hospital must be linked to appropriate Belfast hospitals for third-level care and specialist diagnosis. If activated at this stage, that link would ensure continued accreditation for those working in Downpatrick Maternity Hospital through the rotation of staff. Rotational training between the hospitals will ensure that all our professionals will meet royal colleges criteria and is a way around the difficulty that they identified. It will ensure that essential services are kept open in the district while plans for the new Downe Hospital are implemented. The case for the retention of maternity services remains strong in Down.

There are no immediate plans to upgrade the two main roads between south Down and Belfast that pass through Downpatrick and Ballynahinch. There are demands for bypasses around both towns because they are bottlenecked at significant times during the working day. Housing development has increased heavily in south Down, and the growing population in the area will be most evident in the forthcoming census results. Many people travel to and from Belfast to work, thus congesting the already inadequate road system. It is clear that access to Belfast hospitals, which currently stands at one hour, will not get any easier — in fact, it will get worse.

The joint review team said that there is no doubt that the standard of services in the community would deteriorate if maternity services were removed. In line with their human rights, the women of Down district, an area served by Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, should have the choice of having their babies delivered locally.

It is accepted by the joint review team that many women will have neither the desire nor the means to travel to Belfast to give birth; a rise in home births and related concerns is therefore anticipated. It also estimates that in the past five years, four or five babies in the area would not have survived the journey from their homes to Belfast. To accept the closure of Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, would be to accept that it is all right to see four or five infants die each year. How can we possibly accept that?

In the Down area, it is widely accepted that the maternity hospital provides a necessary service for our local community, and the entire community will suffer as a result of any diminution of that service. I would like to see the threat to its existence totally removed.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

As a somewhat younger Member of the House, when I was elected here in 1982, the first obvious crisis that arose in the constituency of South Down was yet another threat to the future of the Downe Hospital. I remember the then Health and Social Services Committee visiting the hospital. We were informed that the hospital’s entire future, including Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, was under imminent threat. Some 20 years later, we are debating exactly the same problem.

What is going on in Downe Hospital reminds me of plates spinning in a circus. No sooner is one plate spinning than another is about to collapse to the floor; no sooner has one important aspect of the Downe Hospital come under threat and been saved as a result of public outcry than one finds another crucial element of the hospital under threat.

If all the newspaper cuttings, reports and documents that were printed on Downe Hospital in the past 25 years were laid out, they would cover many football pitches. It is only as a result of the tenacity of the local council — I pay tribute to Councillor ONeill and many others for their stance on the issue — and the community that we are even here this evening debating anything concerning Downpatrick Maternity Hospital. If it were not for that tenacity, there would not currently be a hospital to debate.

I have grave doubts about royal college assertions that everything must be bound by numbers. Those numbers take no account whatsoever of an expectant mother who goes into labour on a wet Saturday night in an area such as Killough, Ardglass or Strangford. She is currently faced with a relatively straightforward journey into Downpatrick. Without that maternity unit, she faces the nightmare of travelling into Belfast.

Not all babies will decide to come at convenient times. There will be those who will decide to arrive during the rush hour. Councillor ONeill and I have both been involved in calls for bypasses for both Downpatrick and Ballynahinch. As Mr ONeill said, it is difficult enough to get through those towns at the best of occasions. However, the situation in which a lady who is about to give birth is trying to get through those towns in an ambulance is absolutely horrendous.

I simply do not see the issue as a numbers one. We have been set this high threshold target by the royal colleges, and I fully accept that Downpatrick Maternity Hospital does not meet the target. There are less than than 500 births there a year. However, one must look at some of the reasons behind that. So much doubt has been cast over the future of the maternity unit in Downpatrick that many women have decided to go elsewhere to have their babies. A guarantee of the future security of Downpatrick Maternity Hospital would increase confidence, and more people would choose to have their deliveries in Downpatrick Maternity Hospital.

There is no doubt that the maternity unit will die the death of a thousand cuts. At times, I do not know where to turn. We thought that the problem had been solved, but then a great difficulty arose with the cover for anaesthetists. At one stage, there was a real threat that the unit would close due to the lack of anaesthetic cover. Then, as the result of a huge outcry, we managed — mostly due to the Down community health committee — to obtain adequate anaesthetic cover. No sooner had that been solved than we found that the future of the maternity unit was again in doubt. That ignores the fact that in the Ards and Down area plan 7,000 new homes are allocated in the area covered by the maternity unit. Most will be starter homes for young couples. There could be a significant increase in the number of births in Downpatrick. However, we could reach a ridiculous situation in which the maternity unit is closed but where a large increase in births means that a unit is needed on our doorstep.

I do not understand the mentality that suggests that all services must be centralised. I can understand to some extent the logic of the royal colleges’ assertion that consultants must attend at numerous births if they are to develop the full range of specialities and have experience of complex births. Why can those specialities not be concentrated in Downpatrick? Why must they be concentrated in Greater Belfast? The consultants’ tail may be wagging the Department’s dog. Perhaps consultants enjoy living in the leafy suburbs of south Belfast or on the gold coast of north Down and think that Downpatrick is on the edge of the universe. The Government in Northern Ireland — even post-devolution — believe that the world ends at Glengormley, and the really adventurous believe that the world ends at Carryduff. There is life beyond Carryduff. Many live fulfilled and happy lives in south Down. They do not believe that the concentration of services should be entirely in Belfast.

Possibly the only point that Mr ONeill did not raise was that the maternity unit offers employment opportunities to people in south Down. So great is the lack of industrial investment in south Down that the two major employers in Downpatrick are the district council and the hospital. They are essential employers. I got an e-mail this morning from Sir Reg Empey’s office saying that he was visiting Downpatrick. I immediately rushed to find out which factories he was visiting. As it turned out, he was going to a function to celebrate the work of Mr McGrady — a very good cause, I must say; I do not condemn him at all. It shows, however, how little industrial investment there is in Downpatrick. It would not take very long to visit all its factories.

The maternity unit is a vital employer in the town, and it would be appalling to lose it. The campaign will go on, and I am convinced that the community will rally round to hammer home the point that Downpatrick is not prepared to be a second-class citizen to Greater Belfast. We must retain the unit. As Mr ONeill said, if the unit closes and a mother dies tragically in labour or a newborn child dies in an ambulance that is caught in a traffic jam on the way to Belfast, people will then realise what a dreadful mistake it would be to have closed this unit.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank Éamonn ONeill for bringing this serious problem before the Assembly. I am very disappointed that only two members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety are present. That shows how seriously they take the Downe Hospital.

To maintain the safety of the facilities, and the good health of mothers and babies in South Down, we need a fully staffed and equipped maternity service. There has always been a high standard of quality and safety in Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, where arrangements for mothers and babies have worked very well. I wish to see those standards maintained, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff, who have maintained those standards under extreme difficulties over this period of uncertainty.

Under the Hayes Report, those standards are being undermined. I want the same quality of service for the people of east Down as is enjoyed by those in Newry and Mourne and south Armagh. The people of Kilcoo, Leitrim, Legananny, Castlewellan, Newcastle, Ballynahinch, Dromore and Drumaroad need a proper service and a proper roads infrastructure for easy access. Those considerations have not been properly addressed in the Hayes Report.

I shall now address the most important issues relating to the provision of a proper maternity service for a new hospital in Downpatrick. It is the right of every woman to have the required expertise available and to have the birth experience that she wants. Pregnancy and giving birth have become medicalised. We have some of the highest rates of hospital births in Europe and high rates of medical intervention in labour — Caesarean sections and other surgical interventions. Our intervention rates are far higher than they need to be. The majority of births are normal and require no specialist or medical intervention.

I am convinced by many of the arguments put forward by the Royal College of Midwives in favour of midwife-led maternity teams. Indeed, the early evidence suggests that women making use of the midwife-led maternity teams in Craigavon are very happy. This also means that we need to re-evaluate the role and status of the midwife, with the creation of the consultant grade midwife becoming standard.

However, in the small minority of cases that do require medical intervention, it is important that the highest levels of professional care and facilities are available. Sinn Féin in south Down rejected the proposal for a £15 million cottage hospital because it would not have retained acute or maternity services in Down. We have consistently argued that a new hospital in Downpatrick needs both. Sinn Féin in south Down will not settle for far less than is needed for the local population, or less than they deserve. That is why we argued against a smaller hospital with less capacity and fewer services. The SDLP appears to be prepared to accept less than people deserve. That is not surprising, given that it has happily settled for less than people need or deserve on policing. The people of County Down must not be short-changed.

The future of maternity services is tied to the review of acute hospitals and the Hayes Report. I look forward to having the opportunity to examine the proposals put forward by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Bairbre de Brún, when they have been approved by the Executive. The Hayes Report acknowledges that radical changes in the organisation of our acute hospitals, and a dramatic increase in resources, are required.

The Hayes Report has broken with convention, and it offers proposals that will create significant change in how services are delivered. It highlights the key role of patients and service users in making decisions. The proposals will be judged on their ability to deliver equality of access to services. The Minister, Bairbre de Brún, has begun to win the argument with the Executive for increased resources to put right the struggling scheme that she inherited. Everyone will welcome the SDLP’s commitment to lobby their Finance Minister to support Ms de Brún.

One of the key issues that has affected the delivery of maternity services in the Six Counties is the power of the royal colleges to set quotas for the number of births that must take place on a site in order for consultants and junior doctors to be given accreditation. The removal of maternity services from Tyrone clearly demonstrates that the operation of quotas is detrimental to the accessible delivery of a quality service. The requirements of the medical service for groups of doctors to work together stems from the fact that doctors are no longer covering the full range of a speciality but, rather, are increasingly developing their expertise in more focused areas of work. Larger teams have to be assembled to support this approach, and that is leading to the concentration of caseloads on fewer sites.

As part of maintaining official recognition, doctors and nurses need to see a certain number of patients with a specific condition in order to maintain their expertise. The royal colleges have said that training recognition may be withdrawn from a hospital if there is an insufficient number of patients to enable trainees to get the right experience, or if there is insufficient supervision for trainees. It is quite clear from this approach that the maintenance of medical status is being prioritised above the requirements of creating a high-quality service that is accessible to the people of Down.

It is clear that meeting targets is more important than the treatment of patients. Guidelines and standards have been set in relation to minimum patient numbers that must be achieved to maintain services. Some 1,500 to 2,000 deliveries are required to sustain a maternity service. In this case, sustaining the service means that the royal colleges have decided to set quotas that need to be achieved in order for an acceptable quality of service to be developed.

Women might have to travel greater distances, perhaps without the benefit of personal transport. It has been said that it takes an hour to travel from Down to one of the hospitals in Belfast, but there is no way that it would take an hour or less to travel from Newcastle at the height of the tourist season. That does not appear to be a concern for the royal colleges.

The monetary considerations, the status of the medical profession and the setting of targets all call into question the goal of achieving a balance between high quality and access to the service, with the latter failing to be taken into proper account. These decisions highlight the power of vested interests — the very interests that have medicalised the natural process of pregnancy and giving birth.

I call on the Executive to give priority to making the resources available for this new hospital in Down. The people of east Down require acute and maternity services, not a cottage hospital.

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

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate and to endorse what my party Colleague from south Down, Mr ONeill, said when he opened the Adjournment debate.

As has already been said, Downpatrick Maternity Hospital has been under threat for 20 years — even before the original hospital was built — given a constant barrage of undermining activity by the Department. There is no question about the quality of care in Downpatrick Maternity Hospital. Antenatal care, delivery care and postnatal care are excellent, and that has been acknowledged by professionals. The surroundings of the hospital for the mothers and the babies are also excellent, and if only we could get mothers from any part of Northern Ireland through the door, they would be registering in the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital for their deliveries.

There are, however, a number of impediments to that. It is not of the Minister’s doing, but of her predecessor’s. It may not even be of her predecessor’s doing, but of the Department’s doing, and that is the policy of centralising maternity services. Unless the Minister and the Executive can redirect departmental policy, centralisation will continue to be the policy and the drive behind the closure of hospitals such as the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital. That is why it is so important that we target the source of problem — the policy decision to centralise.

Many Members have correctly quoted — and it has been quoted often — the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which has made certain insinuations regarding throughput. I want to place on record a reply to a letter that I sent it. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists replied on 26 June 1998, and I quote directly from it:

"I should explain that the college has not issued any guidelines relating to the minimum number of deliveries which a consultant in a maternity unit should have per year."

It has not issued any guidelines, yet this is what has been said time and again as part of departmental PR spin of the centralists. The Minister and the Department must tackle this. That came out officially in the Baird Report some 20 years ago, and that is where the figure of 2,000 came from.

A few years ago the Eastern Health and Social Services Board dealt with the points made by Members about geographical isolation and the needs of the communities of Down and Mourne. I quote from its strategy document:

"In recognition of the relative geographical isolation of the area served by the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, the board is prepared to continue to purchase consultant-led obstetric services in Downpatrick even though the number of births are not expected to reach DHHS guideline numbers. That is current board policy."

Again I direct the debate to where the problem lies: the centralisation policy in the Department must be changed immediately. For instance, when Maurice Hayes was asked to carry out a review of acute services, his terms of remit specifically excluded maternity services because they were already under the diktat of the policy decision of the Department. This was before the Minister’s time, so she is not responsible for that. However, that is where it still is, so the Minister is responsible for continuing that policy if that is what we get in the post-Hayes era.

The constant undermining of the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital has sadly led to the anticipation that only 54% of all births in County Down will take place at that hospital. Why is that? As I have said, the care and the surroundings are excellent, and my Colleagues have spoken about that. There is the constant black propaganda of the Department, which is undermining the confidence of young mothers-to-be or not so young mothers-to-be that the service will be available by the time their deliveries take place, so they do not register in that wonderful setting. We only have to look back to the events of 18 March, when the anaesthetists from the hospital took unilateral action that almost led to its immediate closure. That was not a decision of the board, the trust or the Department — the Department did not know what was happening.

Much has been said about the difficulty of travelling from the catchment area of the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital to Belfast. Equally important, modern medicine tells us that a substantial part of the recovery programme for patients is family support. Families can easily and frequently visit a hospital like Downpatrick to give support to mothers-to-be or the mothers and their babies. That accelerates their sense of well-being and they get well quickly.

However, there is a problem with service delivery in the Downpatrick. For example, the paediatric consultant does not have full facilities, and there is no epidural procedure available because of the infrequent attendance of anaesthetists. These are money-led restrictions, and there is no reason, with an equality agenda, for those facilities’ not being made available on a partnership basis with the Royal Maternity Hospital or the Lagan Valley Hospital to mothers-to-be who want them. That would give additional facility and confidence.

If the policy of centralisation, which is another word for closure, continues, what is to happen to the expanded population in these areas? The area served by Downpatrick Maternity Hospital is one of the few areas outside Belfast which is expanding rapidly — it is the most rapidly expanding area in Northern Ireland, according to the last census. For those reasons, this matter must be addressed once and for all. The remit of the Hayes Report did not include maternity services — I am subject to correction on this — but it said that maternity services would be centralised in Belfast. However, the Hayes Report was dealing with acute services in general medicine and surgery, not with maternity services, which was a stand-aside subject at that time. In another context the Hayes Report suggested partnership as a way forward.

It is with regret that I note that Mr Mick Murphy, the Sinn Féin Member for South Down, introduced party politics to an apolitical subject. Sinn Féin did the same locally to great detriment, and now it is doing the same in this debate.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the hon Member also agree that it does enormous damage to the united community front in the Down area, where the entire community is united on preserving the hospital, when one element uses the issue as a party political football to undermine the campaign to return acute and maternity services to Downpatrick?

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

I can only concur with the hon Member’s remarks.

The facts were also grossly wrong; therefore the record must be put straight. First, as stated, the new hospital for Downpatrick was accepted and supported as the way forward by me, the SDLP and the entire cross-party membership of Down District Council, with the proviso that it must include proper acute services. The support was for the building, rather than for the services that were suggested for it.

Secondly, that building — that new start — would have been under construction as we speak. I am confident that in that building we could have had enhanced facilities for acute medical and surgical services and for the maternity hospital. We would have had one campus for the consultants and their various disciplines, whereas we currently have two campuses. However, the money that was set aside for that building has gone and must be found again. The procurement of the highest technology, which was in train, was cancelled and must be started again.

I will take no sermons from Sinn Féin in that respect. I regret very much that party politics has crept into the debate again. That party even opposed the planning permission for a hospital, never mind the detail of the plan itself. In that context, it ill behoves the Sinn Féin Member to try to divide the community again, when it is totally unanimous in its support for the Downpatrick Maternity and Downe hospitals. We know, as local residents and as patients, that we are getting a first-class service from consultants, doctors, nurses and staff at every level. Their humanity and their expertise in their respective disciplines have helped them to achieve a record that is the envy of any part of Northern Ireland. The cost-effectiveness and the medical effectiveness of both hospitals have been commented upon time and again.

The essential decision about maternity, as distinct from acute, services is that the policy of centralisation, which has been prescribed and promoted by the Department, should be changed. Unless it is changed, the natural and inevitable consequence of centralisation will be the closure of rural hospitals in favour of central ones. That would sound the death knell of flexibility. As has been proven time and again by reports, without access to the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital 24 hours a day, mothers and their unborn babies will be put in danger.

In spite of all the requirements of the consultant-led diktats, the safety and performance records of the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital at the last audit were the best in Northern Ireland. Are we going to throw away the best?

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I am aware of the time limit that was set for this debate by the Business Committee. With that in mind, I call Mr Tom Hamilton to make a brief contribution.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I will make my speech brief, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will not even attempt to go over all the facts and figures, which Mr ONeill, Mr Wells and Mr McGrady so ably contributed. However, Mr Wells touched upon one aspect, which concerns my constituents in Strangford. A proportion of constituents in Strangford do not look to the likes of the Ulster Hospital — much less to Belfast — for services, including maternity provision.

That group of people seek to receive their services from the Downe Hospital. However, due to uncertainty about the future of general services at the hospital, those people no longer look towards Downpatrick for their services, despite it being their first preference when given the choice.

Mr Wells mentioned that babies do not choose the most convenient time to be born. Ambulances may have to travel from the southern part of my constituency via Comber to the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald. I do not know if the Minister has ever visited Comber, or if she is aware that at the best of times it is a difficult town through which to drive. Rush hour is an absolute nightmare. A bypass is in the pipeline, and that has been welcomed. However, it will be several years before it is completed.

It is no exaggeration to say that, in an emergency, an ambulance trying to get through Comber during rush hour may not be able to reach the Ulster Hospital. Recently, the local press highlighted a case in which a fire engine that was trying to get from one side of Comber to the other during rush hour was unable to do so. A tender had to be dispatched from a fire station in Carryduff. An emergency vehicle was caught up in Comber traffic and was prevented from reaching its destination because it could not get through to the other side of the town. If that can happen once, it can happen twice. It could happen when an ambulance is trying to rush an expectant mother through Comber to the Ulster Hospital.

I am indebted to the Deputy Speaker for allowing me to contribute to the debate at such short notice. The people who live in the part of Strangford that I represent, who look to the Downe Hospital for maternity care, have a right to receive it there and to be given access to the highest level of care, delivered in the quickest possible time. That can be found at Downpatrick Maternity Hospital. I congratulate Mr ONeill for tabling the Adjournment debate.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Uasal ONeill as an díospóireacht seo a tharraingt anuas inniu.

Dála gach seirbhís ospidéil, caithfidh seirbhísí máithreachais caighdeáin nua-aimseartha agus an cleachtas is fearr a léiriú. Éilíonn an dea-chleachtas nár chóir leanbh a shaolú más dóiche go mbeidh seirbhísí de dhíth ar an bhean nó ar an leanbh nuabheirthe nach bhfuil teacht orthu ar an láthair. Rangaítear an tseirbhís mháithreachais i nDún Pádraig mar aonad riosca ísil atá faoi cheannaireacht comhairleach, agus le roinnt blianta anuas féadtar mná torracha a aistriú má mheasann cliniceoirí san ospidéal iad a bheith ar riosca ard.

Ar ndóigh, is tábhachtach go ndéantar athbhreithniú leanúnach ar na critéir riosca le teacht ar mheá chothrom idir riosca agus rochtain. Deirtear liom go ndearnadh iniúchadh ar scagthástáil atreoruithe ag Ospidéal Máithreachais Dhún Pádraig mar chuid den athbhreithniú sin. Tá obair den chineál chéanna á déanamh in ospidéil eile. Mar shampla, tá critéir aistrithe ann cheana féin in Ospidéal Ghleann an Lagáin agus in Ospidéal Mater Infirmorum.

I thank Mr ONeill for tabling the debate. As with all hospital services, maternity provision must reflect modern standards and best practice. Current good practice requires that deliveries should not take place when there is a significant likelihood that the mother or the newborn baby will require services that are not available on site. The maternity service at Downpatrick is classified as a low-risk, consultant-led unit.

Arrangements have been in place for several years for the transfer of pregnancies judged as high risk by clinicians at the hospital. In his opening address, Éamonn ONeill asked about those risk criteria. It is important that risk criteria be kept under review to achieve the right balance between risk and accessibility. I am advised that the screening of referrals at the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital was examined as part of that review process.

Similar work is also being undertaken in other hospitals. For example, transfer criteria are already in place at Lagan Valley Hospital and the Mater Infirmorum Hospital Health and Social Services Trust. I am also advised that many variables must be considered as part of the risk assessment process and that those may lead to the development of different criteria for different units.

I am further advised that Down Lisburn Trust’s recent audit of the new criteria confirmed that less than one transfer per week has taken place as a consequence of the revisions to the risk management criteria. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board considers that that small increase in transfers should not cause significant difficulties for other units that have been experiencing declines in the number of overall births in recent years.

The number of babies born at the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital remains the lowest of any of maternity units here. By way of comparison, between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, Lagan Valley Hospital had 1,086 births and Downpatrick Maternity Hospital had 462. During that period, the Royal Jubilee Maternity Service delivered 4,708 babies and the Mater delivered 1,058. Mick Murphy and Eddie McGrady both referred to royal college guidelines regarding the number of births. I do not accept that 1,500 to 2,000 deliveries are necessary to sustain a consultant-led maternity service. That would not take account of the needs of people here.

Although deliveries at Downpatrick are fewer than those at other maternity units, I fully appreciate the high regard in which that unit is held, and the skill and expertise of all staff at the hospital. Indeed, I recently met a delegation of midwives from the hospital to discuss developments there, and I was extremely impressed by the excellent work that they have undertaken to enhance and develop their skills for the good of all those who use the service.

Jim Wells talked about the growing population in the Down area. However, in the past 10 years, births fell by 20% in the Eastern Board area as a whole, in the Down area by 14% and in the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital by 30%.

In his opening comments, Éamonn ONeill asked about consultation and choice. I am advised that the Eastern Health and Social Services Board extended the criteria in consultation with medical and midwifery staff at the unit earlier this year, and that some of those staff are members of the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

With regard to consultation with other units, I am advised that the trust considered that the one additional transfer a week could not cause difficulties. As I said, the trust’s recent audit of those criteria has shown that to be the correct number. I am further advised that the decision to extend the criteria was based on clinical judgement and that such decisions are considered necessary for ensuring the safety and well-being of service users.

On the question of underfunding of the Down Lisburn Trust and whether that has undermined the maternity service, the trust’s most recent annual general meeting confirmed that the maternity service at the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital is receiving £500,000 more in funding than it did three years ago.

Mick Murphy asked about support for midwife-led units. I fully support, and will actively promote, the careful development of midwife-led maternity units that are within, or adjacent to, a consultant-led maternity unit. I am also aware of pilot stand-alone midwife-led units being established in England, Wales and the South of Ireland. I am keen to explore the opportunities for such developments here.

Members raised concerns about the future of the service, with particular reference being made to the report of the acute hospitals review group. That group was not constrained in any way from looking at maternity services, and it has made recommendations on them. The report addressed maternity services in Downpatrick and noted the difficulties in sustaining an inpatient maternity unit with 24-hour anaesthetic and paediatric cover. The review group recommended the phasing out of inpatient maternity services in Downpatrick, but considered that it should be possible to provide the whole spectrum of maternity services, with the exception of inpatient care, at the time of birth.

I have on several occasions in the Assembly made it clear that no decisions have yet been taken on the future of acute hospitals here. Proposals for the future of maternity services in Downpatrick will form part of a package of proposals that will be published for consultation after discussion by the Executive. A draft memorandum has been forwarded to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel for clearance before consideration by the Executive. When proposals are put out to consultation they will provide communities and their representatives with an opportunity to comment on and contribute to the development of acute services here. In the meantime, I expect the Eastern Health and Social Services Board and the Down Lisburn Trust to do everything possible to maintain services at Downpatrick, pending strategic decisions on future arrangements for hospital services.

Several significant steps have already been taken to sustain the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, and mention was made of some of those in the debate. I pay tribute to all involved at every level in the service who have worked together to make many of those steps possible. For example, the arrangements involving Belfast anaesthetists have been introduced to maintain a robust anaesthetic service at Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, and I understand that those are working well. Five extra theatre nurses have been appointed to assist with the 24-hour anaesthetic rota. Moreover, the training programme for midwives has been reviewed, and all midwives are now offered the opportunity for advanced life-support training. Those measures demonstrate a clear commitment to sustaining high-quality maternity services at the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital, pending the outcome of the acute hospitals review.

I recognise that there are problems in sustaining our smaller hospitals, and I am aware of the discussion generated by the acute hospitals review. I appreciate that all the staff at the Downe Hospital and the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital have worked tirelessly to maintain safe and effective services, and to provide the highest standard of care to the local community. I recently visited the hospital and had the opportunity to meet staff and patients. I saw at first hand the high regard in which the hospital and staff are held. My aim is to ensure that the skills and expertise of all the staff at Downpatrick continue to be used in providing effective, high-quality maternity services in which the community — and women, in particular — can be confident.

Adjourned at 6.13 pm.