Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 April 2002

178 contributions from 49 members. The official report.

Speaker’s Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to advise the House that I will not be present during the Assembly’s sittings next week as I will be undertaking a number of long-standing private speaking engagements in the United States of America.

Public Petition

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 959 residents of the Ards Peninsula in the Strangford constituency. It calls for the introduction by the Health Service of measures to enhance the out-of-hours GP services in all parts of the peninsula. The area has several competent and efficient general practitioners, but the out-of-hours on-call service is administered from Bangor, about 25 miles from the Portaferry end of the peninsula. Residents would like a doctor from the area to be available rather than one some distance away in Bangor, particularly in cases of emergency.

The residents ask the Assembly to expedite an improvement to the out-of-hours service.

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

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall forward the petition to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Suspension of Standing Orders

North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting that took place on 15 April 2002 in Dublin.

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

The sixth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format was held at Agriculture House in Dublin on 15 April 2002. The meeting was hosted by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and was chaired by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Mr James Leslie, junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, accompanied me to the meeting. Mr Leslie has agreed the content of my statement.

The Council considered and endorsed a report from the steering group on animal health on co-operation on animal health issues between the Administrations. The report told of the progress that has been made in developing closer co-operation and joint strategies for the improvement of animal health on both sides of the border, notably with regard to internal animal movement controls, portal controls and bio-security measures on farms and agriculture-related premises.

The Council noted that the Administrations have a shared commitment to a common approach to internal movement controls for animals and that substantial progress is being made in aligning the controls that are applied to the import of animals and animal products by each Administration at all points of entry to the island.

The Council also noted the joint initiatives aimed at raising the level of scrapie awareness among flock-owners, promoting common codes of good practice for those involved in agriculture and related industries and developing co-operation in other specific areas, including the eradication of tuberculosis, brucellosis and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE).

The Council endorsed the progress so far recorded and agreed that the foundations have been laid for an all-island animal health strategy. The Council agreed that a co-ordinated and complementary approach to portal controls should be further developed and maintained. It requested the working groups continue their assignments to develop closer co-operation and/or joint strategies for improving animal health on both sides of the border by 31 December 2002.

The Council considered a progress report on the work of the steering committee on cross-border rural development since the last North/South Ministerial Council agriculture sectoral meeting. The consultant’s reports on co-operation between cross-border rural communities and cross-border rural development education, training and research have been completed.

The study of the co-operation between cross-border rural communities recommends an area-based model for enhancing cross-border co-operation that would operate under the umbrella of the local partnership groups, augmented as appropriate by other representatives, in Northern Ireland and the county development boards in the South of Ireland. It is intended that funding for the area-based model would come from the INTERREG III programme’s rural initiative.

The study on cross-border rural development education, training and research identified a need for greater co-ordination of, and access to, practical information on current education, training and research provision. The Council noted that the steering committee is examining both reports and that it will advise Ministers in due course on how best to implement their recommendations.

The Council also noted developments in the World Trade Organisation, EU enlargement and common agricultural policy reform and agreed that Northern and Southern officials should explore matters of concern with a view to further focused discussions at ministerial level.

The Council considered a paper on plant health research and development and noted the progress made by both Administrations. Four areas were identified for ongoing co-operation on the regulation of plant protection products. Those were: pesticide usage surveys; the exchange of information on registered plant protection products and their uses; distributor and operator training and certification, equipment registration and calibration; and further co-operation between the Administrations on the regulation of plant protection products, which includes policy issues and the problem of illegal cross-border trade.

The Council considered a progress report on a study of the pig industry. The report’s main recommendations include the rationalisation of existing slaughter capacity and the scaling up of plant size in line with international best practices. The development of supply chain agreements between producers and primary processors, based on quality customer-oriented specifications, was also identified as essential to the industry.

The Council noted progress in reviewing the report’s main findings, and agreed that officials should continue the process of engaging with the pig industry and development agencies to promote the joint study’s recommendations, with a view to improving the competitive position of the pig sector on the whole island. The Council also noted updates from both Ministers on the ‘Agrifood 2010 Plan of Action’ and the vision group report plans.

The Council approved a paper on behalf of the Special EU Programmes Body that identified the terms of reference for the common chapter joint steering group. It also approved papers on staffing and remuneration for Foras na Gaeilge, one of the North/South language bodies, and the appointment of a new board member.

The next meeting in this sectoral format will take place in Northern Ireland in October 2002. The text of a communiqué to be issued after the meeting was agreed, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister will receive communication from the Committee on a parallel inquiry into tuberculosis (TB), brucellosis and botulism. The Committee would like to follow up on the meeting that the Minister reported on today.

Has the working group set up under the North/South Ministerial Council to co-ordinate responses on brucellosis made any conclusions or recommendations?

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

Working groups have been established and are co-ordinating, collating and exchanging information on the way in which we are tackling TB and brucellosis on both sides of the border. At present, I do not have details of specific proposals. However, I hope, as a result of those groups’ work, to have such details by October.

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

My question follows on from the previous one, and the Minister has partially answered it. Last November, the Minister met me along with a delegation from some of the TB hot spots in south Down. We drew her attention to experimental research that was being done in the Republic of Ireland on the control of TB and the methods used to do that. In that context, will the Minister assure the House that all-Ireland inoculation will be considered as a general approach to eradicating TB? Will she comment on the review of the way in which TB may be carried by badgers, and on both the proliferation and protection of badgers, especially in Northern Ireland?

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

I recall the meeting with the Member. As a result of that meeting, I asked my officials, during their policy evaluation, to take account of the possible role of badgers in carrying TB. I also recall that Mr McGrady referred to the experiment that was being carried out in the South. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s policy evaluation is nearing completion. I await the report with interest, but I am confident that it will make specific proposals on badgers.

The Member will appreciate that I am unable to give details of those proposals until I have seen the report, which I anticipate will be presented before the summer. As part of the ongoing work of the working groups, North and South, we will also be discussing the implications of that report and the result of our policy evaluation.

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

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this comprehensive and wide-ranging statement from the Minister, particularly the reference to animal disease. Is there an agreed strategy, on an all-Ireland basis, that will work, North and South? Will it have targets — for example, to work towards the removal of animals from diseased herds within agreed timescales? Will there be an agreed scale, especially in border areas such as south Armagh, and will the targets be reached? Will those matters be discussed at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council?

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

At the North/South agriculture sectoral meeting, we set a firm basis for the production of joint strategies by the end of this year, and I am confident that we will have those in place by then, including a strategy to deal with the eradication of TB, brucellosis and scrapie on the island of Ireland.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Minister referred to rural development in a number of areas. Can she indicate whether she managed to learn anything from Minister Walsh about the issue of rural proofing, given that she seems to be having a certain amount of difficulty with her Executive Colleagues in dealing with the matter?

With regard to the references the Minister made to animal movement controls, can she say what additional resources are being provided for the control of animal movement in the island as a whole in the light of the current upsurge in TB and brucellosis? Also, how is testing being co-ordinated between North and South to ensure there is no further cross-border infection?

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

Rural proofing was not discussed as it was not on the agenda, but I can assure the Member that we do not have problems with rural proofing. In fact, a cross-departmental steering group on rural proofing has been set up and will meet tomorrow under my chairmanship.

With regard to animal movement controls, we are continuing to deal with brucellosis through the biennial blood-testing programme. However, in areas with increased incidence, such as Armagh, Newry, and Enniskillen, we have increased the frequency of testing from biennial to annual. Where infection has been found, we have intensified the testing regime around the infected premises on herds contiguous to the infected herd — that is, the inner ring herds being restricted. We immediately test herds in the outer ring contiguous to the inner ring, and subsequently at four-monthly intervals. We have increased our testing in the areas that are being hardest hit, and this policy has been agreed with the Republic.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

Have the Minister and her Department any plans to trap badgers for TB testing in black spots of bovine TB infection? Will she concede that this would either establish or disprove the link between the badger population and the incidence of bovine tuberculosis infection? Furthermore, since the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Veterinary Service can test badgers found by farmers, have figures been made available on the number of badgers found to have TB?

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

As I said in response to Mr McGrady, a policy evaluation is being carried out, and I will make my decision when the results are available. I am not in a position to make any decision at this point.

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

I note the comments about the joint initiatives aimed at raising the level of awareness among flock-owners concerning scrapie. In reply to Mr McHugh, the Minister referred briefly to the inclusion of scrapie in the joint health programme. What progress has been made on the establishment of an all-Ireland scrapie eradication plan?

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

Minister Walsh and I share a commitment to eradicating scrapie from the island of Ireland. The nature of the disease and of the sheep population of this island mean that it makes sense to have a joint approach. We agree that greater flock-owner awareness, enhanced testing, depopulation and the continued assessment of genotyping can contribute significantly to eradicating the disease. Although the approach in each jurisdiction may differ in some detail, they each involve the four elements that I mentioned. The Departments, North and South, will share and evaluate practical experience and findings. Where appropriate, they will also undertake shared initiatives in the context of jointly advancing the achievement of common goals.

The first joint initiative is already under way. It aims to raise the level of awareness of scrapie among flock-owners throughout the island of Ireland and involves the preparation and issue of a common advice leaflet on scrapie for farmers. As far as we are aware, there is a low incidence of scrapie in Ireland — an average of three cases a year in the North and seven in the South. Nevertheless, we wish to ensure that farmers are totally aware of it, and we wish to establish the exact levels of incidence. That approach will ensure that scrapie is ultimately eradicated from the island, and, in the meantime, normal trade may continue in accordance with EU rules.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I note from the Minister’s statement that the North/South Ministerial Council considered a progress report and study on the pig industry, and that the main recommendations of the report include the rationalisation of existing slaughter capacity. Will the Minister assure the House that such rationalisation would not disadvantage slaughter capacity in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland pig farmers feel disadvantaged because the controls on the export of pigs from Northern Ireland to the Republic are much more stringent than those for the reciprocal import of pigs from the Republic to Northern Ireland? Will that issue be addressed?

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

The study on the pig industry was initiated in December 1999 because of the grim situation in that industry, which the Member is well aware of. There were several recommendations. One was for the rationalisation of existing slaughtering capacity and the scaling up of plant size. That was to ensure that the industry survived and went forward. The industry is now taking up those issues.

Other recommendations involved the supply chain, the need for secondary processors and the need to improve production efficiency, particularly in Northern Ireland. These matters were discussed at a recent seminar at Loughry College. Slaughter capacity is a commercial matter and is not my responsibility. The research and the report pointed to what needed to be done to ensure the survival and viability of the industry. The industry has examined that and is taking it seriously.

Intracommunity regulations and laws apply to the movement of pigs between the North and the South in the same way as movement between any two member states. We do not have any control over that: we must apply the intracommunity regulations and rules.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister be specific as to what measures she has introduced to deal with the backlog of animals with tuberculosis? What measures has she introduced, since the current regulations on cross-border importation of animals, to protect the health of animal stocks in Northern Ireland?

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

I have asked my Chief Veterinary Officer to treat the eradication of brucellosis as a priority, and much work has gone into that. Recruitment is under way for veterinary and ancillary staff, in addition to the recent appointments of new valuation officers to speed up the removal of reactors. Additional staff have been moved into the three high-incidence areas of Armagh, Newry and Enniskillen.

The Department is reorganising staff at markets and abattoirs to provide extra resources for brucellosis duties. The bulk milk-sampling programme in dairy herds has allowed additional staff to be allocated to the high-incidence areas. There is annual instead of biennial testing in those areas, and I have outlined what has been done about infected premises and the surrounding areas. Several initiatives have been undertaken to eradicate the problem.

We have caught up with the backlog on the movement of animals, and currently there is no backlog. Additional assessors were put in place to deal with that, and there is also additional capacity for getting rid of the animals.

The rules for the importation of animals still apply and have already been outlined.

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

I am sure the Minister has no plans to issue passports for the movement of sheep across the border. However, is the sheep identification system compatible with that in the Republic of Ireland?

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

Our system for the identification of sheep delivers the same objective, which is the control and traceability of sheep movements. The existing system delivers registration of flocks, unique identification and online ordering of ear tags by manufacturers. The system is also accessible to approved manufacturers, including those in the Republic of Ireland, by means of an assigned password.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give a breakdown of the figures in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland for scrapie, TB and brucellosis? How many successful prosecutions has her Department taken against people allegedly involved in the illegal spreading of TB and brucellosis in this jurisdiction?

Can she inform the House of the cost to her Department of pursuing that case?

The Minister told us that the January sectoral meeting cost approximately £4,000. Are we right to assume that the most recent meeting also cost £4,000 and that a meeting planned for October will cost taxpayers yet another £4,000? If that is so, does the Minister agree that this is not value for money — much of the business could be done by telephone, and there is little need for the whole apparatus of Government to move into Council format for information to be relayed between the two Departments?

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

I do not have the figures that the Member has requested. However, I will provide them for him as soon as possible. I do not know the cost of the last meeting of the Council, but I am surprised that he seems to think it a waste of time and money to develop a common strategy on animal health on the island of Ireland. The Member may not be aware that this is a complex matter that cannot be dealt with through a few telephone calls. Several working parties are engaged in the strategy.

An all-island animal health strategy has been called for most vehemently by the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA) and, indeed, the whole industry. I take this very seriously. We saw what happened last year with foot-andmouth disease, and if it had not been for the co-operation between the Minister in the Republic and myself, the meetings that we and officials had at that time and our telephone conversations, we would have been in a much sorrier state than we were by the end of last year.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. What is the Northern line on common agricultural policy (CAP) reform, and what progress has the North/South Ministerial Council made in developing a common approach?

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

We accept that change is coming and that there will be implications from enlargement, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the review of Agenda 2000. The Commission has said that there will be changes in subsidies and that there will be a move from the first pillar of the common agricultural policy (CAP) to the second pillar, which is rural development. Nevertheless, we have to be concerned about the nature, the pace and the scale of that reform. It must not put unacceptable pressure on farmers and their families or put at risk the viability of the rural economy. There are social and economic issues, and we must avoid creating further marginalisation of rural communities.

On the common approach of the North/South Ministerial Council, I discussed and agreed a set of common concerns and priorities about the future of the CAP at a previous meeting with Joe Walsh, the Republic’s Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. I identified the common concerns when responding to the Northern Ireland priorities. We have agreed to continue to review developments on those matters, especially in the run-up to the mid-term review. When we get the outcome of that in June 2002, we will be able to take further note and decide our priorities. I will also be in discussion with the UK Ministers and Mrs Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on this.

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

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

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission held on 15 April 2002 in Dublin.

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

The eighth meeting of the North/ South Ministerial Council for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission took place on 15 April 2002 in Dublin. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, James Leslie and I represented Northern Ireland.

Mr Frank Fahey, the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, represented the Irish Government. The papers for the meeting were issued to Executive Committee members during the week commencing 8 April.

The meeting opened with reports from the chairperson of the commission’s board, Mr Peter Savage, and the chief executive of the Loughs Agency, Mr Derek Anderson. The chief executive advised that the outstanding accounts for 1997, 1998 and 1999 have now been completed, and those for the years ended 2000 and 2001 are being audited. Outstanding annual reports will be finalised and published soon.

Mr Anderson also said that 11 tenders to carry out an audit of recreational and tourism fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have been received, and five applicants have been invited to make presentations to the commission’s board later this month to facilitate a final selection and the commencement of the work in August. He added that work on the stakeholder survey of the shellfisheries of the loughs is progressing well. It is expected that all interviews will be completed by the end of this month, and a report will be available by May.

Ministers were also updated on shellfish production in the 2001 season, and the mussel and oyster fisheries are performing well. Mr Anderson then advised that there continues to be a significant reduction in illegal fishing activity, and that that is attributable to the successful introduction of the salmon carcass tagging scheme. Combined with that, the agency continues to prosecute when it detects illegal activity, and it directs effort towards the detection and prevention of pollution incidents.

Ministers then noted the resignation of a board member of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, Sheila Tyrell, and thanked her for her service. There are no plans to replace her at present.

In addition, Ministers noted the Loughs Agency’s proposals for an Atlantic salmon and seal interactive workshop, which is planned for May 2002. Representatives of the recreational and commercial salmon fisheries, agencies, Departments and other bodies with responsibilities for fisheries and environment matters throughout the island of Ireland will meet at that workshop to discuss past and current research on the interaction of seals and salmon, the abundance of seals in Ireland, the UK and the Atlantic seaboards of Europe and Canada. They will recommend further research and data collection to evaluate the impact of seals on salmon stocks.

Ministers then noted the progress in the agency’s review of its staffing and structure, with the imminent submission of a report to the two sponsoring Departments and the two finance Departments. That was followed by a discussion on the continuing problems associated with the aquaculture site in Carlingford Lough that was licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, whose boundaries have caused problems for Northern fishermen in accessing the public mussel fishery. I impressed upon Minister Fahey the continued need for a speedy resolution to those difficulties. He agreed that the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should meet with a view to resolving those issues as soon as possible.

Ministers were then updated on the agency’s plans to equip and open the interpretive centre at its headquarters at Prehen. The centre will provide an excellent educational resource for schoolchildren, the many users of the fisheries resources and the public in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Plans, and work to implement those plans, are well advanced, and the centre remains on target to open in September 2002.

Finally, the Council agreed to meet again in September or October 2002, and it approved the issue of a joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Assembly Library.

I am making the statement on behalf of Mr Leslie and myself.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give an up-to-date report on the problems of Northern Ireland fishermen in accessing the public mussel fishery because of the site that has been licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in Carlingford Lough? She stated that the matter would be dealt with "as soon as possible". That expression can sometimes mean a very long time.

I am sure that she has been well briefed by her representatives about the problem, and I trust that there will be a speedy resolution.

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

I am aware of the problem, and the problems it is causing fishermen on this side of the lough. However, as the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources licensed the site, it is for that Department to progress an amicable solution, and I understand that it has sought legal advice on the matter. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s aim is to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and ensure that Northern Ireland fishermen have fair access to the public mussel fishery. To that end, it was agreed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that my Department should meet with Department of the Marine and Natural Resources officials to make further progress towards a solution. I emphasised at that meeting the need to make progress on the issue as soon as possible.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Having raised with the Minister in the Chamber the issue of outstanding accounts over five years, I am happy to note that there has been progress. However, as regards outstanding annual reports I seek the Minister’s assurance that where the report says that they will be published in the near future she means "the near future". Does that mean weeks or months?

As regards the proposed Atlantic salmon and seal interactive workshop, I seek the Minister’s assurance that Members will be invited to the workshop — particularly Committee members, who have responsibility for these matters.

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

The agency’s accounts are being finalised. I thank the Member for his remarks; I know there was much concern about the delay, which I explained at fair length in my last report. Annual reports for 2000-01 will be published following completion of the audit of the accounts. It is intended that that will take place in May — in this case, "as soon as possible" means May.

There are conflicting views and interests concerning Atlantic salmon. It is important that everyone with an interest in the matter is consulted. I would be surprised if Members did not have the opportunity to take part in the consultation. Stakeholders, and anyone with an interest — which I assume would include the Assembly — will be part of the consultation and will be able to comment.

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

I thank the Minister for another comprehensive report on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. In view of the need to address the economic and social disadvantages caused by partition of the island of Ireland and the need to encourage trade, investment and tourism, what is the North/South Ministerial Council doing to promote the Narrow Water bridge project, which will connect the Cooley peninsula in County Louth with South Down? Will she explain the logistics of how schoolchildren and the fishery interests in the Carlingford area could benefit from the interpretive centre at Prehen?

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

I am aware of the proposed Narrow Water bridge project referred to by Mr McGrady. However, as the project does not lie within the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission’s responsibility, it has had no involvement. I understand the issue being raised by Mr McGrady, and I suggest that it is a matter for the transport sector of the North/South Ministerial Council. The sector met recently and will be making a report.

The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is not involved, although it will be interested to hear what, if anything, is being proposed.

The logistics and organisation of school trips to various parts of Northern Ireland and particularly to the interpretive centre at Prehen are not in my remit. The Prehen centre is an exciting project and would be worth an organised school visit. If the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission had endless resources, it would have such a centre in every corner of Northern Ireland. However, the agency has no plans to open a separate interpretive centre in the Carlingford area. It is to be hoped that schools throughout Northern Ireland will find the resources in their budget to arrange a visit to the Maiden City and Prehen interpretive centre.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement and replies.

What impact have pollution incidents and illegal fishing of salmon had on sport angling in relation to cross-border tourism?

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

I presume that the Member is referring to the effect of pollution on fish stocks in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. As regards pollution incidents from agricultural or other sources, the agency operates a programme of proactive farm visits that it believes has contributed significantly to a reduction in the number and severity of agricultural pollution incidents. The agency collects information on the productivity of the rivers and streams in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. That information provides indications of previously undetected pollution, thus allowing the agency to focus its proactive anti-pollution work. The agency also endeavours to cover the cost of re-stocking after water pollution incidents, and it believes that that acts as a deterrent to potential polluters. The agency expects to strengthen the legislation in order to require polluters to re-stock and to reinstate.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In her statement, the Minister refers to the

"significant reduction in illegal fishing activity".

Will the Minister define as a percentage what she means by "significant"? Her statement also notes that

"the agency continues to prosecute when it detects illegal activity".

How many successful prosecutions have been brought to date? How many are pending — whether for pollution-related activities or illegal fishing?

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

The Loughs Agency’s predecessor, the Foyle Fisheries Commission, had an effective track record in dealing with poaching in the Foyle area. The Loughs Agency is committed to tackling all illegal fishing activity in its areas of responsibility. Last season, despite the curtailment of the agency’s enforcement activities due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, it seized over 241 illegal nets, 22 boats, and 279 salmon. The introduction of a carcass-tagging scheme in the Foyle and Carlingford areas has also had a positive impact in reducing the levels of poaching. The agency is engaged in 31 prosecutions relating to illegal fishing that took place in 2001.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

The Minister mentioned the aquaculture site that was licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the boundaries of which have caused problems for Northern Ireland’s fishermen in accessing the public mussel fisheries. What steps is she taking to protect the fishermen’s rights of access to the public fishery in Carlingford Lough? Have the Irish Government assured her that they will ensure that the rights of our fishermen will be upheld and protected? Has she considered seeking assistance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at Westminster to resolve the matter?

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

I answered that question when I stated that I had raised the issue at the North/South Ministerial Council. I have raised the matter twice, and I am pressing Minister Fahey to deal with the matter urgently. As Dr Paisley said, it is an urgent matter for the fishermen in the area. I understand their grievance, and I want to deal with the matter as soon as possible.

The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in the South licensed the site, so it must deal with the problem. I am pressing hard for a solution, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is aware of the issue.

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

How does the agency plan to ensure the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry in Lough Foyle?

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

Although powers to license and develop the aquaculture industry in Lough Foyle have not yet been transferred to the Foyle and Carlingford Irish Lights Commission, the Loughs Agency is carrying out extensive consultation to obtain the views of those who work on the lough. When that has been completed, the agency proposes to draw up an implementation plan for introducing an aquaculture regulatory system for Lough Foyle. The agency also plans to provide grant aid to assist the development of the aquaculture sector in the Foyle and Carlingford areas when the necessary legislation has been enacted. The agency has also put in place several monitoring programmes in Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough, including the installation of automatic temperature loggers in both loughs, and bi-monthly sampling to monitor salinity, conductivity, PH and oxygen levels. The agency recently included the collection of nutrient samples in the programme, which will provide information that will be fundamental to the development and management of the shellfish industry.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

After the last sectoral meeting, the Minister said that she had established an advisory forum and focus groups. Did the groups report at the latest meeting or are they expected to report at the next meeting in October? In a letter to me on 29 March, the Minister stated that the establishment of the focus groups had cost £22,000 to date. Is it not about time that a progress report on the lavish expenditure on focus groups was published?

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

The advisory forum has been established, and it will provide a formal mechanism for interested parties in both areas to express their views on the work of the agency. The membership of the forum includes representatives from a wide range of interests such as shellfishermen, commercial salmon netsmen and anglers. The agency also intends to establish several focus groups to represent specific interests when it meets again in May.

I have not received a report from the agency yet. However, the process is ongoing. The agency is consulting stakeholders, and I look forward to its report. It is important that the advisory forum has been set up and that the stakeholders — and there are many around both loughs — can give their views and be part of the process in which the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission improves aquaculture. I am pleased that the forum has been set up and is in operation. However, it must continue with the consultative process.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister note my concern about the restrictive remit in the audit of recreational and tourism facilities in the Foyle and Carlingford areas? Will she explain why the wider issue of water-based recreation and tourism activities is not being addressed in the audit; even if it is only about how such activities impact positively or negatively on fisheries?

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

The issues raised by Mr Hussey are not within the remit of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

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

The Minister said that the interpretive centre would be open to the wider public in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. I agree with the comments of my Colleague, Mr McGrady, about the distance of the Foyle from Warrenpoint and Carlingford. However, there is potential for an exciting and long day out for the children of the area. Does the Minister intend the centre to be open to all members of the public?

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

Yes. From the point of view of education, the centre will be of particular benefit to schoolchildren; however, it will also benefit the wider public — helping them to understand the nature of the water base, and the industry, ecology, and the environmental aspects of the area.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The Minister mentioned the significant reduction in illegal fishing. Foot-and-mouth disease prevented possible public prosecutions. Have fish counts on the machines at Sion Mills and Newtownstewart shown a significant increase in the various types of fish making their way into the Mourne, the Strule, and the Foyle? Locally, the perception is that illegal fishing is still rampant and that the number of fish making their way to the headwaters of the Foyle has significantly decreased in the past two years.

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

I am unable to provide the Member with figures today. However, I will provide him with a written answer about the number of fish going through counters at Sion Mills.

North/South Ministerial Council: Education

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

I have received notice from the Minster of Education that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on education, which was held on 11 April 2002 in Armagh.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I wish to make a statement on the fourth sectoral meeting on education of the North/South Ministerial Council, held in the Armagh City Hotel, Armagh on 11 April 2002. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Minister of the Environment, Mr Dermot Nesbitt, and I, attended the sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. Dr Michael Woods TD, Minister for Education and Science, represented the Irish Government. Mr Nesbitt has approved the statement, and it is also made on his behalf.

The objectives of the meeting were to review the progress of the joint working groups on educational underachievement, special education needs and teacher qualifications that were established at the first sectoral meeting on 3 February 2000, to consider several progress reports from the working groups, to agree issues where further work was required, to endorse proposed future actions and to take decisions on several specific actions, on which I shall elaborate.

First, the Council considered a report from the teachers’ superannuation working group. The working group’s purpose was to examine the feasibility and implications of establishing an agreement for the transfer, on a North/South basis, of the superannuation benefits of teachers who move between the jurisdictions to live and work. The working group has identified, and is now considering, several possible options. It is a complex issue, and cognisance must be taken of existing arrangements in other public-sector schemes. However, we remain confident of the potential for agreement on this after further necessary work is carried out by the working group.

In the wider context of the report by the Centre for Cross Border Studies entitled ‘Study of Obstacles to Mobility of Persons between the two parts of the island of Ireland’, which was considered at the plenary North/ South Ministerial Council meeting last November, we agreed that the centre should be notified of the working group’s work.

The Council also considered a report from the teacher qualifications working group, whose role is to examine teacher mobility on the island. At its previous meeting, the Council agreed that the working group should look at the need for prospective teachers in the South to take an examination in the history and structure of the Irish education system. The working group is still working on that and on the arrangements for the mutual recognition of teachers’ qualifications.

There have been significant changes to the requirements for Irish-language proficiency for teachers in the South. They now relate only to teachers in primary schools or secondary schools in the Gaeltacht, or where teaching is in Irish. Additionally, teachers can now take up to five years to achieve the necessary proficiency. The Department of Education and Science has made special arrangements for language training courses, and the pay differential that existed between teachers who had the language proficiency and those who did not has been removed. Further work remains to be done, and I look forward to receiving the next report from that working group.

The Council considered a report from the literacy and numeracy working group. The House will agree that good literacy and numeracy skills are key to all other parts of the curriculum. That is true here and in the South, and the Council regards that area of work as extremely important. We have agreed that there should be an exchange of materials and good practice among teaching professionals and that the attendance of practitioners at seminars and conferences in both jurisdictions is also important, as is sharing teaching resources and training approaches.

After the previous Council meeting, I reported that we shared with colleagues in the South our experiences of the Reading Recovery programme and new materials that we have produced to help children improve their mathematical skills. The working group has also considered an evaluation of the Reading Recovery programme published by the University of Strathclyde. Proposals have been made by the two universities in the North for a dedicated centre for reading recovery training. However, that is on hold until the working group has had time to look at the idea further and evaluate the potential for such a centre to serve the island of Ireland.

I am pleased that the Department of Education and Science is considering how it might encourage the participation of more schools in the South in the Pushkin Prizes programme, with the aim of bringing participation up to a level equivalent to that of schools here. We are also pleased that a research report carried out by Children’s Books Ireland on behalf of the two Departments on the reading habits of children throughout the island is to be published shortly. It is the first large-scale survey on the leisure-time reading of young people and will provide valuable information for teachers, librarians and others interested in what children like to read.

On numeracy, materials and guidance developed in the North are to be disseminated to teachers and schools in the South. The Council also endorsed the working group’s proposals to examine the joint development of materials and good practice guidance in numeracy, as well as the joint development and evaluation of innovative projects to improve numeracy standards.

We are also keen to tackle in a collaborative manner the issue of how young people and children can be encouraged to attend school and achieve their potential. I reported to the Council that my Department is making arrangements with two education and library boards for four pilot programmes. Those are to be modelled on the South’s home/school/community projects and are aimed at improving the involvement of parents in their children’s education. The pilot programmes with a small number of schools here draw on the considerable experience of those in operation in the South, such as in north Dublin and Dundalk.

Work is also under way on the development of an information pack for schools to promote a positive attitude to school attendance. It is hoped that the initial phase will be completed early in the new academic year.

I am pleased to note that the Department of Education and Science has established a national educational welfare board, and it was agreed that there was ample scope for co-operation with the education welfare service here on a range of issues, such as professional staff development and, perhaps, jointly-developed educational welfare qualifications. The national board is a new body and, therefore, such developments will take a little time to organise.

I have said before that children have a fundamental right to be safe and protected while in school and in other situations, and to be free from the risks of child abuse while in the care of teachers, youth leaders and others. The North/South child-protection working group has examined the complex issues in that area, and I am delighted that the Department of Education and Science is preparing a discussion paper on proposals for a register of unfit people in the South. The consultation process with education partners and others is expected to run until the end of the summer, and I look forward to hearing the outcome at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council.

The Council is convinced that we must co-operate to address the issue of child protection throughout these islands, and the greatest possible level of consistency of approach will be essential. In the North, we are liaising closely with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the provisions to be contained in a proposed protection of children and vulnerable adults Bill, which will come before the Assembly in due course. Such legislation would provide vitally important controls in that area, but we must await the decision of the House.

The development of confidential mechanisms, both North and South, for the registration of teachers and other workers in education who are regarded as unsuitable to work with children and young people must be a high-priority objective. However, the issue is complex, and separate, yet complementary, legislation will be necessary in the North and the South.

In my statement after the previous North/South Ministerial Council meeting, I noted that the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh had, as commissioned by the Council, produced a scoping study on the extent and effectiveness of existing school, youth and teacher exchange programmes. A key recommendation of the study was the need for suitable processes and structures to improve the management and facilitation of school, youth and teacher exchanges, and to improve the quality of such exchanges for participants.

Since the previous Council meeting, officials from both Departments have engaged with a consortium comprising the Youth Council for Northern Ireland, Léargas, and the Belfast office of the education and training group of the British Council. The consortium indicated an interest in developing the necessary structural and procedural approaches suggested in the study, and, at the North/ South Ministerial Council’s request, introduced proposals as to how that might be achieved. Although some refinement of the proposals is needed, the Council endorsed the proposed structure, which comprises a programme management committee, a standing advisory committee and a joint-delivery agency. The Council agreed that officials from both Departments should continue discussions with the consortium, with a view to presenting a further report to the Council when it next meets in early autumn. The outworking of those proposals should result in a more robust and cohesive approach to school, youth and teacher exchanges, improved quality of experience for all those concerned and better value for money.

In the field of special education, the Council’s initial focus has been on autism and dyslexia. The Council noted the latest progress report from the joint working group, and was particularly pleased that action is well under way on the development and production of videos for the parents of children with autism or dyslexia and CD-ROMs for their teachers. If all goes to plan, these resources, which will provide advice and guidance, will be available towards the end of the year.

The Council also noted that plans are under way at the Centre for Cross Border Studies to engage a special education teacher on secondment to organise and facilitate a jointly funded programme designed to promote dialogue and co-operation among professionals in the field of special education and to develop co-operation at a strategic level throughout the island. The programme will include exchange visits for teachers, principals, educational psychologists, inspectors and other relevant staff, with a focus on the border counties. The teacher will be in place at the start of the next academic year, and it is intended that the programmes will commence early in 2003.

The Council welcomed the publication of four comprehensive reports from the task groups on autism and dyslexia that were set up separately by the two Departments, North and South, in the autumn of 2000. The task group reports are the result of extensive research and discussions among groups of experts and practitioners in those fields. The reports produced in the South have been published, and the reports from the task groups in the North are with the printers. I intend to launch them formally early next month.

It is remarkable, though not surprising, that the reports produced by the task groups in the North and in the South identify and share many common themes. For example, the four reports highlight needs in the following areas: training for classroom teachers to identify children who may have autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) or dyslexia, to address those children’s difficulties and to determine how best to meet their needs; the need for the earliest possible diagnosis and intervention; the involvement of parents in the assessment of their children’s difficulties, and training for parents in suitable approaches to meeting their children’s needs so that continuity of care and learning approaches can be provided during the child’s day; multi-agency and multidisciplinary assessment and educational/therapy provision; and consistency in assessment criteria and levels of provision among agencies. Importantly, all four reports note a significant underidentification of children with these difficulties.

There are wide-ranging implications in these reports for service providers at all levels in the North, including in schools, at education and library board and health board level and in further and higher education. Indeed, as both autism and dyslexia are lifelong conditions, they have implications for society as a whole. I intend to convene a conference in the autumn term of this year at which service providers, policy-makers and practitioners can come together to discuss the reports and their responses to the vital, yet pragmatic, issues raised in them.

Michael Woods and I were delighted to announce a major, exciting development that will see the first centre of excellence on the island for work in the field of autistic spectrum disorders. The interim reports from the task groups showed that such a facility is badly needed.

As a result of discussions undertaken jointly by officials from the two Departments, North and South, agreement was reached in recent weeks for the acquisition of the former St Joseph’s adolescent training centre in Middletown in order to establish a centre of excellence for autistic spectrum disorders. The facilities are in excellent condition, as proven by formal surveys undertaken on behalf of the two Departments, and we hope that the legal formalities can be completed in the near future.

The Departments will jointly fund the purchase of St Joseph’s, and we expect that its doors will open in autumn 2003. The centre will be run by a board of management and trustees to be established on a joint basis. However, many details — such as referral and admissions arrangements, budgetary arrangements, management, staffing and teaching resources and servicing — are yet to be finalised. Those details are under examination.

Autism is a growing concern throughout the island of Ireland. The development of the centre represents a great opportunity to develop guidance on best practice. Autism is a very particular type of disorder. It causes a range of difficulties that require specialist skill and diagnosis, assessment and provision. Professionals who work routinely with autistic children are still developing their knowledge of the disorder.

The centre will allow all the professionals from the health and education sectors to develop expertise that can be shared more widely. I am particularly excited that this will include expertise in working with families with children who have autistic spectrum disorders. The work in the centre will focus in particular on research, the training of teachers and other professionals, and the development of guidance and advice on good practice in diagnosis, assessment and approaches to working with children with autistic spectrum disorders.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

The Council was pleased to note that, under measure 5.5 of the EU Peace II programme, the two Departments had received some 33 bids for funding between the launch of the measure on 16 January and the closing date for applications on 15 March. The funds available for the promotion of school and youth co-operation amount to approximately 5·3 million euros. The total value of the bids received is 9·9 million euros, which is almost double the available funding.

Officials in both Departments have been working together closely for many months to set up the necessary administrative procedures to handle bids. I hope that the selection panel will be able to complete the selection process by early May, with notification to successful and unsuccessful bidders being made as soon as possible thereafter. I am unable to give the House any details of the bids, but there is an excellent range of types of project proposals, covering a wide variety of issues and approaches.

The Council agreed the text of a communiqué that was issued following the meeting, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library. A date has not been set for the next meeting, but the Council hopes to meet again in September or October.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I notice that a jointly funded centre to study autism will be based on the border. There will be a delay in the establishment of the reading recovery training centre, which was to have been based at the universities in Northern Ireland, to allow time to examine the possibility of an all-Ireland centre. There will be a jointly developed educational welfare qualification, and there is a proposal to develop jointly the evaluation of projects to improve numeracy standards.

The DUP maintains that cross-border bodies were designed to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. The report seems to confirm that the Minister is determined, by stealth and bit by bit, to marry the two Education Departments on this island. Can the Minister confirm that the Ulster Unionist Minister who accompanied him on the trip agreed to this process, or was that Minister asleep while the proposals were being put in place?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not really know what to say about that — it is all so predictable. As Minister of Education, I am charged with the responsibility of ensuring the best possible education for all our children. I have no doubt that the work that has been accomplished in the education sectoral format is for the benefit of all the children of this state and, in my view, of this island. People throughout the island of Ireland who are interested in education are keen to see co-operation between educationalists and the Education Ministers.

When I hear the type of comments that I have just heard, I wonder how the parents of an autistic child or the parents of a child who has problems with dyslexia feel when they hear this rubbish. This has been the most exciting announcement made thus far on education. I wonder how parents all over this island feel when they see the result of the work done on the establishment of an all-island centre of excellence for the treatment of autism. I think that those parents are elated. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that they are more than pleased that, at long last, the Departments of Education on this island are prepared to pool their resources in order to put in place centres of excellence that will be of huge benefit to all of the children of this island.

It is also important to point out that this centre of excellence has not been set up for the Nationalist or Republican children of this island. It has been set up for all the children, including Unionist and Loyalist children, who suffer great disadvantage in their lives as a result of these syndromes. Let us therefore get rid of the nonsense, and let us recognise that there is no threat to anyone in moving forward to bring about a greatly enhanced education system. People should see the developments for what they are — interesting, exciting and innovative developments, which are solely about ensuring that we have the best possible standard of education for our children on this island.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I refer to the point about teacher qualifications raised by the Minister in his statement. I note that at a previous meeting the Council agreed that the working group should look at the requirement for prospective teachers in the South to take an examination on the history and structure of the Irish education system — a requirement, as the Minister will agree, which is a significant bar for teachers from Northern Ireland who may wish to apply for positions in the Republic. While I note that the Minister says that the working group is continuing to look at the matter, it is a statement that is distinctly lacking in detail. Can the Minister tell the House exactly what progress has been made on the removal of this particular barrier?

In addition, I note that although the requirement for the Irish language now exists only in secondary schools in the Gaeltacht, or where teaching is through the medium of the Irish language, it is still a requirement in all primary schools. Again, that is a significant barrier to a substantial number of teachers in primary schools in Northern Ireland who may wish to apply for positions in the Republic. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what precise —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I ask the Member to come to his question. This is an opportunity to ask a question of the Minister.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

What precise progress has been made in removing this barrier as well?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First, as the Member correctly said, the Irish-language proficiency requirement is now limited to teachers in the primary schools, second-level teachers in Gaeltacht schools and teachers required to teach through the medium of Irish. In addition, individuals are now afforded a five-year period in which to satisfy the proficiency levels of the Irish language requirement, and the differential rates of pay pending the acquisition of the certificate have been abolished. Obviously, great progress has been made, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this will be of considerable relief to many teachers who have expressed an interest in having greater mobility on the island of Ireland. On the whole issue of primary schools, we have to recognise that, thus far, the Department of Education and Science in Dublin has shown considerable flexibility and a willingness to explore all of these issues. I have no doubt that we will return to this matter again.

Pending the establishment of the general teaching council, the working group will be giving further consideration to the requirement for an examination on the history and structure of the Irish education system and to the present arrangements for the recognition of qualifications. All this work is fledgling, and we are exploring the willingness on all sides to recognise the huge benefits of making life easier for teachers. Huge benefits can be accrued by the education systems, North and South, and that is what this is designed to do.

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

I welcome, and am looking forward to, the launch of the task group’s report early next month. The Minister has mentioned some of the matters that the report will deal with, but will it make any recommendations? If so, will there be a timetable for implementing them? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be adequate funding for full implementation? How will this report fit in with the special education needs and disability Bill? Will it in turn be put on the back burner as, unfortunately, has happened with the Bill? The Department has not seen fit to present it during the lifetime of this Assembly. Where will the report fit in the bigger picture?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Everyone interested in special education will be keenly interested in the publication of these vital reports on autism and dyslexia. These reports will clearly show all involved in education how to deal with these problems. There is not much point in bringing out reports on important issues if we are not prepared to make proposals. It is vital that we do that.

I have seen some of the work that has been done in the reports that have been published by the Department of Education and Science in Dublin. As I said in my statement, the similarities between our systems of education, considering the work that we have done through our working groups on autism and dyslexia, are startling. Clearly, there is much to be gained, and we intend to make progress here. I will be holding conferences in the autumn to discuss the response of the education sector to the autism and dyslexia reports, and we obviously want to hear people’s views on them. They will make powerful contributions to the debates on these subjects. Special education has been a top priority since I became Minister of Education. I understand and recognise the great difficulties that many parents, children and educationalists have with this.

Ms Lewsley also mentioned the special education needs and disability Bill. The difficulty with that was that, at the beginning, the Bill was being taken forward by two Departments — the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education. It has now been decided that the Department of Education will take it forward. It is a complex Bill with many issues connected to it. Just look at the reaction to the attempt to put such legislation in place in Dublin. There was huge controversy recently with people alleging that it did not adequately meet the needs of those who were affected. We do not want to make the same mistake, so we are being careful to ensure that our approach is comprehensive.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement, but not for any party political reason. Much in it and many recent announcements, particularly about special education, are welcome. I have a particular interest in autism, and many parents have contacted me recently who are hopeful and excited about the prospect of a centre of excellence in Middletown.

It has given them renewed hope. Many parents get frustrated when dealing with the issue of autism with educationalists and boards. The centre is good news for Middletown and for the parents of children with autism throughout the island of Ireland.

The statement rightly says that the reports from the task groups will have wide-ranging implications for service providers at all levels in education. In the experience of those of us who have attempted to deal with boards and educationalists on the problems of autism, that is much needed. Can the Minister tell us when the centre will be up and running, and whether he expects it to play a central role in the outworking of the implications of the reports from the task groups?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The centre will be up and running in the autumn of next year. We, and the Department of Education and Science, will be under great pressure to achieve that, but we are determined that the centre of excellence will open next autumn. The centre will provide a huge relief for parents all over the island of Ireland who, for far too long, have been struggling with that condition. I am very much looking forward to the establishment of the centre of excellence. The results of the working parties and groups will be factored into the work to be done at this important research and assessment centre.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement covering a wide range of issues. It is obvious that the work being done on the different educational issues will help all the children of the island, including the children of Northern Ireland.

I will confine my questions to several specific issues. Will the evaluation of the recovery programme from the University of Strathclyde, dealing with literacy and numeracy, be passed to the Education Committee so that it can have a look at the findings? Is there any indication of a timetable for the complementary legislation on child protection? Ms Lewsley has already referred to the delays.

Finally, although I warmly welcome the establishment of the centre, and the work that will be done with autism and dyslexia, will the necessary funds for the work be made available without being taken from the capital or general education budget? The Minister knows that special education is a pet project of mine and that I believe that it should be considered specifically and differently.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Strathclyde report will be made available to the Education Committee. My officials have worked closely with Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety officials on the proposals for the protection of children and vulnerable adults Bill. We have already been out to consultation on those. The consultation period ended on 31 December 2001. The comprehensive proposals are intended to cover all those working with children, including teachers and other education sector employees, and the main proposal is to establish a statutory list of persons who are unsuitable to work with children.

It will not dispense with the need to carry out a criminal records check on educational sector employees. As stated in the consultation paper, the Bill would create a broad equivalent to the Protection of Children Act 1999 and Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 in England and Wales.

Through the Bill, and by mirroring the approach adopted in the Protection of Children Act 1999, the Department of Education proposes to make an amendment to the regulatory powers contained in the Department’s primary legislation to allow the Department to draw up Regulations to strengthen, where appropriate, the safeguards in the education sector. Drawing up any such Regulations would involve separate consultation in due course.

The last matter is where the money will come from. I am very conscious of the points that have been made by the Member in the past about the need to ring-fence special education resources. We believe that we have adequately proven in recent times that funding must be in addition to the special educational needs budget. For example, the funding for Middletown will be in addition to the special needs budget. We have already had £1·7 million from the Executive programme children’s fund.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Three years ago I asked the Minister to investigate the possibility that those who had earned their livelihood in the South of Ireland teaching and lecturing could have their superannuation made available if they came to reside in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure us today that that anomaly has been eradicated and that those who worked and earned their superannuation in the South of Ireland could enjoy the less inflationary situation in the North and receive their salary here?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

At the moment, as everyone knows, teachers who move to take up a job either in the North or the South cannot add their previous service to their new employment for the purposes of calculating pension benefits. That is an obstacle to mobility, and its removal would benefit all teachers, North and South.

This is a complex area, and several technical issues must be thoroughly investigated and resolved before firm proposals can be brought before the Council. The working group will notify the Centre for Cross Border Studies of the work carried out to date. Careful consideration needs to be given to the implications for other public sector schemes, particularly those with a high degree of cross-border movement of members. Even though the discussions have some way to go, I am pleased that the working group has shown that there is potential for agreement between the jurisdictions in relation to the establishment of a transfer system for teachers’ pensions. The Member can be assured that all issues, including those that he has raised, will be considered.

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

I also welcome the increasing co-operation, which is so necessary and so much overdue. This is all about children. In an effort to rebuild the natural infrastructures that were destroyed by partition, are there any plans to formalise arrangements so that pupils that live along the border can attend the school nearest their home, when that school is on the other side of the border, be it North to South or South to North?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is a difficult issue, and one that has been raised in several ways recently, particularly in relation to school transport along the border. I have previously signalled my willingness to explore, with the Department of Education and Science, how we can deal with that matter under the education sectoral format, and I hope to do that in the future.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and detailed statement on the North/South Ministerial Council education sectoral meeting. Several points have been covered that are of interest to the Committee for Education, including child protection, special education and exchange of pupils and teachers. What structure is proposed for the development and delivery of that exchange programme, which would be of particular benefit to schoolchildren on both sides of the border?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The proposed structure has three elements: a programme management committee, which will be responsible for the development of policy and strategy; a standing advisory committee, which will involve a range of stakeholders and which will contribute to policy development and advise on priorities; and a joint development agency, which will promote the programme, target schools and youth groups, assist partner finding, develop new initiatives and put in place monitoring and evaluation procedures.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the very significant change in Sinn Féin policy on literacy and numeracy. People associated with the distribution of the Pushkin Prize will no longer be subjected to Sinn Féin attacks, and that is to be welcomed. I hope that the Minister will now give a categorical assurance to the House that neither he nor his Colleagues, nor his party operating in Ulster or in the Republic of Ireland, will engage in such attacks or threats of attacks on schools associated with the distribution of the Pushkin Prize programme.

The Minister mentioned child protection in his statement. Will the people who are registered as unfit, North and South, include those with a criminal record? Will it include people who have been involved in punishment beatings? Will it include people who have confessed to being commanders in terrorist organisations? If those people are registered as unfit to have any involvement with children, will that also apply to departmental staff?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have attended events sponsored by the Pushkin Prize in the company of the Duchess of Abercorn. She is doing a magnificent job showing children all over the island of Ireland their real potential for poetry, story telling and story writing. The Duchess of Abercorn and the Pushkin Prizes make a tremendous contribution to the education of our children. I have no difficulty whatsoever in associating myself with a very progressive area of work.

The second part of the question is more political than educational, but it is in all of our interests — and I am very keen to see this happen — that no one who is unfit will work with children.

Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

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

I beg to move

That the Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 133/2002) be approved.

The Regulations were laid before the Assembly on 12 April 2002, and they will not come into operation until the day after they are approved by resolution, which is tomorrow. The Department for Employment and Learning operates the pneumoconiosis scheme under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. The scheme acts as a safety net for employees who have contracted one of the lung diseases covered by the Order, but who are unable to take court action to recover damages from the liable employer or employers. That is generally because the employer has ceased trading.

The scheme offers a one-off lump sum payment as compensation to eligible individuals or their dependants. The Regulations will increase the amount of compensation payable under the Order by 3·8%, which is in line with the retail price index. Such regular increases ensure that the compensation payments made to sufferers of these terrible diseases keep pace with inflation. I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I support the motion to affirm Statutory Rule 133/2002, albeit subject to a qualification to which I will come.

As the Minister says, the Statutory Rule relates to sufferers or their dependants, where the employer no longer carries on business. The Committee considered the policy behind the Statutory Rule on 29 November 2001, when it agreed to seek clarification from the Department. The Committee subsequently received details of the financial consequences of this legislation. The Department’s response was placed before the Committee on 24 January 2002, and at that stage, the Committee agreed to support the policy.

The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its meeting on 18 April. However, due to the late laying of the Statutory Rule there was little time for the Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules to consider the detail. The timing was tardy. However, it was more worrying that the Statutory Rule contained a technical drafting error. This was set out in the Examiner of Statutory Rules draft report of 18 April — the same day as the Committee meeting. Due to the serious nature of the Statutory Rule for those it affects, to which the Minister has rightly drawn attention, the Committee does not wish to delay compensation. Thus, we have agreed to affirm the motion now, but on the condition that a further Statutory Rule subject to negative resolution is laid in the near future. The Committee seeks that assurance from the Minister.

I would like the Minister to reassure the Assembly that the issue of the treatment of associates of those affected, who also develop the disease as a result of contamination from the primary source through contact with clothing, for example, will be addressed. However, I accept that that the issue has wider implications than this Statutory Rule, since this rule is about supporting ex-employees of businesses that have gone bankrupt. The Committee for Employment and Learning supports the motion.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

Dr Birnie has already asked my question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That rarely stops other Members from asking the same question again. The Member is to be commended for his consideration.

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

These Regulations provide much needed support to sufferers of industrial lung diseases who are unable to claim damages from the owners of the businesses responsible for their condition. It is important that compensation levels are not allowed to erode through inflation. For this reason the rates of payment should be increased in line with the retail price index.

First, I apologise to the Committee for the short time it had to consider the Statutory Rule. Secondly, in answer to the Chairperson’s question, the issue of associates can be looked at. Thirdly, in his scrutiny, the Examiner of Statutory Rules identified an ambiguity in regulation 2(1). The Department will make an amendment removing the ambiguity through negative resolution as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 133/2002) be approved.

Maternity and Parental Leave Etc (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

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

I beg to move

That the Maternity and Parental Leave etc (Amendment No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 135/2002) be approved.

These Regulations were laid before the Assembly on 5 April 2002 and came into operation on 21 April 2002. They are subject to confirmation by the Assembly within six months of that date. They amend the Maternity and Paternal Leave etc Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, which I shall refer to as the principal Regulations. The principal Regulations implemented in Northern Ireland the European Framework Agreement on Parental Leave. They introduced a new right for employees who had a baby or adopted a child on or after 15 December 1999, and who had completed one year’s qualifying service with their employer, to take 13 weeks’ unpaid parental leave within five years of their child’s birth or adoption.

The amended Regulations extend the right to unpaid parental leave to the parents of children who were born or adopted in the five years before that date. They increase from 13 weeks to 18 weeks the amount of leave that is available to the parents of disabled children. In addition, they allow more parents to balance more effectively their work and home lives, and they give the parents of disabled children much-needed flexibility. Those arrangements will benefit not only employees, but also employers and society in general.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I confirm that, although a paternal leave Regulation may be very desirable, these are maternity and parental leave Regulations, which are slightly different.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

That is an important point, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your clarification.

The Committee supports the motion to confirm Statutory Rule 135/2002. The original pre-draft Statutory Rule was placed before the Committee at its meeting on 24 January 2002. The Committee sought clarification as to whether the Statutory Rule was intended to create parity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That information was presented to the Committee on 21 February 2002. At that stage the Committee agreed to support the broad policy aspects of the Statutory Rule, which the Minister outlined. At its most recent meeting on Thursday, 18 April 2002, the Committee agreed to support the Statutory Rule.

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

I extend my apologies for reading the title as it was spelt on my paper. I should have known better.

The Statutory Rule helps working parents to balance their professional and family lives. In so doing, it encourages skilled employees who might otherwise have difficulties in striking a work/life balance to remain in the workforce. In addition, it is fundamentally good for parents and children to spend more time together.

Public consultation carried out by my Department identified widespread support for the right to parental leave. Now that businesses have become familiar with their responsibilities under the 1999 Regulations, they will have no difficulty in adjusting to the increased amount of leave that will be available to the parents of disabled children, and the extension of parental leave to all parents with children under five, when the amended Regulations come into operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Maternity and Parental Leave etc (Amendment No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 135/2002) be approved.

Mobile Phones

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure the complete implementation of the recommendations made by the independent expert group on mobile phones, as laid out in the Stewart Report, and further, to implement a change in legislation to ensure that no telecommunications masts are constructed within 300 yards of any dwelling without full public consultation.

The motion arises from the concerns and representations that have been made to me and to other Members. Mobile phones are a dangerous necessity in our daily lives, and our work is almost impossible without them. Talking on a mobile phone has become as natural as eating or sleeping. They are used universally, and, were it not for our mobile phones, Members and other politicians would be excluded from the cut and thrust of political life. However, danger arises from the masts that are placed around the country to pick up signals and ensure that our conversations proceed uninterrupted no matter where we are.

The problem is that telecommunications masts are increasingly being placed in urban areas or in proximity to housing and schools. Last week, a plan was passed to allow the erection of a mast in one of the main shopping streets in Newtownards. The mast is so centrally located that children going to school and adults going to work will pass it every day. Some people will work in the buildings adjacent to it, and that might make many businesses consider their future and relocate elsewhere. Businesses that were thinking of opening in Newtownards might think again if they face the prospect of having a telecommunications mast outside their front door.

Masts are creeping across the countryside. I do not wish to see any more of them in towns or near people’s homes. Telecommunications masts have the potential to dent seriously the productivity of a town and its ability to attract new investors. They will be as devastating to many towns as the repercussions of the disaster of September 11, which are still being visited on many towns in the Province.

Telecommunications masts have caused controversy across the Province among all political parties and individuals on many grounds, including visual obstruction, neighbour notification, the proximity of houses, and strongly and sincerely held health concerns.

We have been told that telecommunications companies will face tighter restrictions on planning and masts. However, that does not account for the number of masts that were erected with prior approval in areas where there was opposition from 99% of the local residents. One of the largest petitions voicing opposition to the erection of a mast occurred in my constituency, where more than 1,200 people wrote in opposition to one such application.

Masts are regularly erected with no regard for the people who live next to them. They are everywhere, and they are often conspicuously placed without any scrutiny of the architectural style of the town or the area. Usually those monstrosities are hoisted up with no consideration of the area’s character.

We need only look at the countryside to see how much of the landscape has changed for the worse. Masts have marred areas of incredible beauty along the County Down coast, and that is a problem. The masts detract from the natural beauty of Northern Ireland, where the potential for tourism has only recently been revealed after 30 years of terrorism, which, if recent news reports are to be believed, may not be over yet.

To place masts in rural locations may lead some to believe that there is less of a problem. However, I am convinced — as are many elected representatives — that there is more than one problem with placing masts in the countryside. What is the effect of siting a mast in the middle of a field of staple foods, such as wheat, potatoes or barley? What effect will that have on our health and the health of our children? People ask those questions every day. Sir William Stewart’s report stated that people’s susceptibility to environmental hazards can vary. However, the Assembly works for all people in Northern Ireland, whether or not they are susceptible to such hazards. We have a duty to protect everyone.

Sir William Stewart’s report is lengthy. However, it contains much good information of which Members should take note. It is not fully known whether masts built in arable fields can leak emissions into the food chain, as mobile phones are a burgeoning technology and not enough research has been completed to be sure of the answer to such queries. People have health concerns, and they are worried. The Assembly must, therefore, respond to those concerns.

The Government would have us believe that there is minimal risk. However, they told us that it was safe to eat beef and that CJD would never enter the food chain. Sadly, Northern Ireland suffered the latest death from that disease only last week. It left a young woman without her husband and partner in life, two young children without a father, and, indeed, Newtownabbey Borough Council without a rising talent.

The Government also told us that overhead power lines were as safe as houses. However, power lines have been shown to contribute to the development of cancers. Four thousand people are killed each year in their homes, and three million turn up at accident and emergency wards with serious injuries that were sustained at home. That demonstrates the sort of rot that the Government sometimes tell us to keep us quiet.

Such new technologies need to be thoroughly investigated before they are made available or intrude into the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. The problem with mobile phone masts, and the phones themselves, is that they were let loose on people without such investigations being made, and they have now become far too integral to modern life to be removed. However, we can limit the possible damage by being prudent with laws and regulations and by investing in research.

The first area that should be stringently regulated is the planning minefield. I am glad that the Minister is present for the debate, because I spoke to him about the issue in Newtownards two weeks ago. Planning has let many people down. It seems that if and when a telecommunications company wishes to install a mast it can do so without a licence if the area is not one of special control.

In Ganaway in my constituency, an application was made for a 15-foot mast in February 2001. Planning permission was deferred because the mast would have been too close to a planned caravan park and dwelling. A second planning application was made, putting the mast even closer to the caravan park. The objectors to the first application were notified. Notification also went to the press on 9 August 2001. Objectors submitted a petition on 15 August 2001. Five days later the planners notified the objectors that, after due consideration, permission had been granted for the erection of the mast.

As it would have taken at least one day for the letters to arrive at the addresses, it means that the planners, with their busy schedules and numerous other pending plans, took only three days to consider the petitions and plans for the mast. It took them three days to decide that a mast on which a decision had previously been deferred because of visual intrusion was no longer so when it was moved closer to the caravan park.

Sir William Stewart noted such problems in his report. He recommended that a robust template be set in place within 12 months of the publication of his report, which was published at the end of April 2001. It takes longer for the Assembly to debate the implementation of a report than it does for the planning applications and the Department to replace those masts. At the speed at which the Ganaway mast was installed, around 122 masts could have been decided on by the time the Assembly got around to debating the issue.

Some of those masts, including the one built in Ganaway, are within 10 metres of dwellings. I agree that there should be exclusion zones set up across Northern Ireland. They should be seen as physical barriers and should be part of the template of planning protocol. However, we should go further. Northern Ireland should not only have no-go areas for humans where the recommended exposure guidelines have been surpassed; it should have no-go areas for telecommunications masts. Those should include populated areas, or should at least put exclusion barriers around housing and shops, extending for a minimum of 300 yds from any dwelling. I use that figure because those who have concerns about telecommunications masts suggested that 300 metres was a comparatively safe distance from dwellings.

Sir William Stewart’s recommendation of an independent ombudsman to provide a focus for decisions on the siting of base stations — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I cannot comment on the safety of mobile phone masts, but I can say that it is out of order for mobile phones to ring in the Chamber. All Members should attend to that.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Sir William Stewart’s recommendation that an independent ombudsman should be appointed to provide a focus for decisions on the siting of base stations when agreement cannot be reached locally is the only way forward.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

On a point of information, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can take a point of order, but the Member will need permission for a point of information.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the House know if the mobile phone that was ringing belongs to a Member? If so, do we know which Member?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There is not perfect stereophonic hearing in this part of the Chamber, but I got the impression that it may have been the speaker’s — not this Speaker’s, but that speaker’s.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Is the Member happy to confirm that?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member may certainly be able to confirm it.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

As I said earlier, we all have mobile phones, myself included.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Member confirmed that it was his mobile phone?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It sounded very much like a confirmation to me.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

It was a confirmation that I have a mobile phone.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Thank you for that confirmation, Mr Speaker.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I suspect that everyone in the Chamber has a mobile phone. They are a part of life, but we are trying to address the issue of telecommunications masts.

Sir William Stewart’s recommendation that an independent ombudsman be appointed to provide a focus for decisions on siting base stations when agreement cannot be reached locally is the only way forward. Certainly, we all want mobile phones. After all, we have come to depend on them. Members use them to contact constituents, the Business Office and researchers, to touch base with party advice centres, and sometimes to tell our wives that we will not be home that night, or perhaps the next night, because we have constituents to see.

However, we are unsure of the exact consequences of habitually using mobile phones, or of what they do to our bodies. People do not know whether they are predisposed to developing cancer or whether they have accelerated the disease because they use mobile phones or are forced to live near a mast because mobile phone companies have had carte blanche to site masts as close as 10 metres to homes across Northern Ireland.

If an ombudsman were employed to investigate planning issues solely concerned with telecommunications masts and base stations, those who worked for him could access specialist information — and not just information from telecommunications companies that are working for their own benefit. The ombudsman should be informed of all the latest research and should listen to the thousands of people who feel that their health has been affected by telecommunications masts that have left them with memory loss, headaches, skin problems, ear problems, leukaemia, childhood cancers, sleep problems, mental and heart conditions, blood problems, calcium interference and difficulty concentrating. Can we ignore those? I think not.

I call for an independent ombudsman because of controversy over whether researchers in the industry are truly independent. ‘The Observer’ reported that a doctor who acts as a consultant for Microwave Consultants Ltd, which researched links between microwave radiation, health worries and tissue conductivity in particular, also just happens to be a senior consultant for Orange plc. It is also true that people researching links between microwaves and the ill health of those living or working with radios, mobile phones, et cetera, get half their money from companies that make mobile phones and erect masts across the country. That practice cannot be allowed to continue unchecked — after all, it is only good business sense to pay for the results that one wants.

In addition to the independent ombudsman, Departments must be involved in mobile phone research. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should be involved in funding research into health problems that sufferers blame on mobile phones and the proximity of their houses to telecommunications masts and base stations. There is no smoke without fire. Research into that might, in the long term, cut down on the number of people who are being diagnosed with incurable cancers, because the information gleaned would enable some to remove themselves from situations or places that encouraged the onset of such diseases.

If the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were to spend some money on researching the issue, other Departments could contribute and take up some of the research provision. For example, the Department of the Environment could research exactly what masts and stations do to the environment. Does the environment pass on its exposure to microwaves to humans through the food chain? The Department of the Environment could answer that question.

In the Stewart Report, Sir William stated that, in the matter of mobile phones and telecommunications masts, areas to be investigated were the effects on brain function, the consequences of exposure to pulse signals and the possible impact on health of subcellular and cellular changes induced by radiation.

Our investigations must be further-reaching. The lives of everyone in this country depend on that. It has been said that one in three of us will develop cancer. How many cancers could be prevented by a thorough investigation into the effect of radio waves? It is for us, as elected representatives, to ensure that everyone is safeguarded and fully informed of the possible dangers.

The most dangerous thing about this is the amount of hearsay and misinformation gleaned by people from newspapers and television documentaries. We have all seen the scaremongering. Not only does that hamper the truth and the real results of investigations into the effects of mobile phones and telecommunications masts, it makes it harder to find out the truth because the companies are defensive, and their researchers are the only ones with sufficient expertise and specialist information to research the full extent of long-term exposure to those emissions.

Sir William Stewart also recommended that the masts and their base stations should not be placed in any schools without the consent of the school and the pupils’ parents. There have been two such examples in the past few months: one in Killinchy and the other in Comber. The mast at Comber Primary School was moved, and I understand that the board of governors has asked the South Eastern Education and Library Board to remove the mast at Killinchy Primary School. To my knowledge, that recommendation has largely been ignored. Everyone —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member has now been on his feet for nearly 17 minutes in a two-hour time-limited debate. I appreciate that the term "It’s good to talk" in the context of phones is a popular one, but many Members wish to talk in this debate, and very few will get a chance unless the proposer brings his introductory speech to an end, knowing that he will be winding up as well.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was unsure how much time I had.

I want to address two more issues: mast-sharing and roaming. I suggest that telecommunications firms should consider sharing masts. Until now they have appeared to be reluctant to do so. I do not know whether the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment would be responsible for it, but the viability of such a suggestion should be investigated.

The other issue relates to emissions from mobile phones and masts. It is recommended that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. That also forms part of the report. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety could support that recommendation by ensuring that information on the health risks from the use of mobile phones is available to everyone, and especially to children and their parents.

I urge Members to support the proposal.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must urge Members to restrain themselves to about five minutes each, and even with that all Members who wish to speak may not be able to.

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

Does that include phone calls? I welcome the opportunity to speak on the topic, as it has directly affected my constituency for years, particularly in the past 12 months. We should take the opportunity to ensure that the impending legislation is appropriate. We already know that the Department is allowing for public consultation. That is not enough. The amount of mobile phones and masts has increased dramatically in recent years, and their safety has always been in question. It is not appropriate that this should be solely a planning matter.

Planning leaves no room to discuss health issues. The arguments about mobile phones and their masts usually boil down to the sufficient evidence debate. Mobile phone companies defend themselves with the argument that radio frequencies have not been adequately proven to cause health defects. However, the World Health Organisation (WHO) confirms that current studies to ascertain the real effects of radio frequencies are inadequate, and it proposes that more testing be carried out to establish the lasting effects. WHO states that

"there are gaps in knowledge that have been identified for further research to better assess health risks."

WHO estimates that it will take up to four years for all required research to be completed and evaluated. I am not happy to continue as we are for a further four years, especially as we do not have access to available evidence, such as the studies carried out by Dr Neil Cherry and Dr Gerard J Hyland, to link telecommunications masts to disturbed sleep patterns, brain activity and various cancers.

WHO refers to a 1997 study that identified the increase of lymphoma in genetically engineered mice that were exposed to radio frequency fields. The independent expert group on mobile phones (IEGMP), which produced the Stewart Report, concurs with WHO by saying that the present evidence for the safety of phones and their mast units is insufficient. The group says:

"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."

In the light of that expert advice, I urge the Assembly to be especially stringent when dealing with mobile phone coverage. A spate of applications in my area has held no truck with local people. One company had the audacity to propose a site in the middle of my home town of Castlewellan. Not only would it have been sited in the middle of shops, businesses and local crèches, and en route to the schools in the town, but it would have been in a conservation area. That proposal was incredible.

Another attempt to erect a mast in Newcastle was carried out in the middle of the night, as the company knew only too well that the local people were against it. The company did that after promising residents on the Castlewellan Road in Newcastle, after much intervention, that it would withdraw the application. The base of the mast is still sited on the road; it is possible that BT Cellnet is waiting for the opposition to abate. I assure it that it will have a long wait. However, in the meantime, the base remains an invitation to any child who wants to use it as a leg-up on to the high wall against which it is built. If a child were injured, I wonder who would pay the compensation.

Telecommunications companies can freely erect masts under prior approval notice without getting full planning permission. The spate of applications is the result of mobile phone companies trying their best to erect masts before new legislation is introduced. According to the Minister of the Environment, the aim of the legislation is to strengthen public opinion in the decision-making process. However, will the forthcoming legislation only give the public more of an opportunity to object? Is the Department putting the onus on the public to object and to take responsibility? That will mean that it is up to local groups to oppose such masts. Therefore, what happens in smaller villages that have fewer people to organise a successful opposition campaign?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to such an important debate. I welcome the motion. All Members receive regular representations about masts being located in inappropriate places.

In their capacities either as MLAs or as members of local authorities, Members are receiving strong representations from concerned constituents. I welcome the Minister of the Environment’s earlier indication that planning procedures will be regulated and shaped into a proper and satisfactory form.

Many of those who have made representations to me are especially concerned about health issues. It is a matter of regret that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not present. Her attendance would have been appropriate, given her and her Department’s responsibility to ensure that the public have confidence in the Executive, and that constituents feel that their concerns are being adequately dealt with. I invite the Minister of Health to make an early statement on the issue. She could undertake a major new survey to establish once and for all the health risks that are of great concern to people throughout my constituency of Newry and Armagh, and throughout Northern Ireland in general.

I welcome the presence of the Minister of the Environment. I pay tribute to his commitment to reaching a fair and equitable settlement on the issue. Is he considering, or will he consider, my concern that the masts are being provided for commercial reasons by commercial companies? In the cases of all the applications of which I am aware, it is clear that the masts are required to provide not only coverage for mobile phone users, but coverage that many of the leading telecommunications companies will sell as a commercial interest. That leads to a concentration in certain areas of not only applications, but sites and equipment, and that is a matter for concern.

It is one matter for the Government, as part of their overall policy, to wish to extend national coverage for mobile phones, but it is another matter when such action has a negative effect on the health of people who live in the affected areas.

I am grateful to the Minister of the Environment for listening to ongoing representations on the masts on a couple of sites outside Newry. I hope that he and the Department of the Environment can make progress on the matter of moving the Jerrettspass mast to an appropriate location. Moreover, I hope that the Department will take on board the concerns that many people in the Newry area have about the concentration of masts there.

We must consider the practical outworking of the motion. It concerns sentiments with which we all sympathise. I shall be interested to hear the Minister of the Environment’s reply. However, I shall be especially interested to hear the response of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, whose duty it was to be in the House to respond to the health concerns that Members are expressing on behalf of their constituents.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to draw a matter to the Member’s attention. He must not be familiar with our procedure. It is not possible for two Ministers to make winding-up speeches in a debate. It is possible for two Ministers to speak, but one of them would simply be speaking as another Member and would not have the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on behalf of the Executive. The reason for that ruling is that it is important for the House to receive the considered response of the Executive. Without the ruling, two Ministers could potentially give different responses, which is not helpful to the House.

Although more than one Minister may be present, it is appropriate for only one Minister to respond. On this occasion I understand that the Minister of the Environment will be making the response. I say that for the clarity of the House. In order that Members are clear: even if the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were here, she would not be able to respond as a Minister, and she would not be able to give a winding-up speech in the debate, save if the Minister of the Environment were not participating. I am just making that point for the record.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am aware of the procedure of the House in this respect. The point that I was trying to make is that it would be helpful for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to be in a position to listen to the representations, particularly on the health concerns that Members will undoubtedly raise as part of this important debate.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I understand that, but I was listening quite carefully to the Member and I think he said: "to reply to the concerns" — hence my intervention.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to you for listening carefully, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I always listen carefully to all Members, however much a strain that may be.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Not wishing to add to your burden, I will quickly get to the point.

I welcome and support the motion. Most Members will recognise very readily that telecommunications technology is essential to ensure that our economy is capable of competing in the global market. This technology will be a key element in ensuring that we establish a level playing field throughout the North, both in economic opportunity and development. Therefore, if we accept that the economy will either succeed and prosper or contract and fail depending on our ability to deploy this technological infrastructure, it is incumbent on us to address the clear problems that exist.

The public have considerable doubts and concerns, and those are based on significant, empirical evidence. However, in some instances, the concerns are based on lack of clarity, information, and reassurance, and we cannot, and must not, ignore them. Therefore, although I support the motion to implement the Stewart recommendations, including the exclusion zone around buildings — particularly housing, schools, and hospitals, which is an important part of the motion — in the context of the Minister’s recent announcement on subjecting the deployment of this infrastructure to the full planning process, we also need to be reassured that the Minister will take powers not just to monitor the extent of mast-sharing, but to introduce an element of compulsion to ensure that we minimise the proliferation of masts.

I hope that the Minister will consider and respond to a second point; it relates to serious concerns about the implications for health. I ask the Minister to consider establishing — as a condition of planning permission — a device that has been used traditionally in planning to ensure compliance with environmental concerns and other issues that pertain directly to planning. I do not wish to place any further disadvantage on the economic activity or development of this technology, but it is important that, as a planning condition, monitoring procedures financed by the industry, which will provide full information on emissions on an ongoing basis, are made available. That is the only way that we can overcome the public’s reservations about the new technology. If it is necessary, the industry should be prepared to consider how to allay concerns and demonstrate that consideration in an open and participative way. I am certain that local communities would be prepared to be part of the monitoring process where such technology is deployed within their regions. Go raibh míle maith agat.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have arrived at the moment of interruption. The debate is suspended and will be resumed after the statement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel, which will follow Oral Answers to Questions.

The debate stood suspended.

Impact of the Budget on Northern Ireland

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the impact of the Budget on Northern Ireland.

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

With permission, I will make a statement on behalf of the Executive on the implications that the Chancellor’s recent Budget statement will have for people in Northern Ireland.

First, I will focus on public expenditure and the implications for our Health Service. The Chancellor announced several new measures that will have implications for public expenditure in Northern Ireland. The most significant implication is that during the next five years, health spending in England will rise by 43% in real terms. It is worth remembering that the cost of providing health services is rising more rapidly than the measure of general inflation that the Treasury has used. Under the Barnett formula, the Executive will be provided with approximately an additional £2·7 billion over the next five years. In the next financial year, the amount will be £73 million, and the larger amounts relate to the more distant future, rising to £1,037 million in 2007-08. The figures are set out in the table attached to the copies of my statement that have been circulated to Members.

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

The Chancellor has confirmed two other small increases in our departmental expenditure limit. Barnett consequentials arise from the latest round of allocations from the Treasury’s capital modernisation fund round, which provides an increase of £8·7 million in 2002-03. The final item is the sum of £500,000 in 2002-03 and 2003-04, which arises from an increase in funding by the Department for Education and Skills. It is for the Learning and Skills Council to provide support for small organisations to achieve the Investors in People standard.

I stress that these sums represent increases in our assigned departmental expenditure limit and, as such, they are not earmarked for any particular service. The Executive will have full discretion in allocating them to the priorities set by the Assembly. The additional sums available to us in 2002-03 will be added to those that remained unallocated after the February monitoring exercise, and we will be considering which services they should be allocated to shortly. The additions to our provision for 2003-04 will be considered in the context of the Budget 2002 exercise, which has recently started with the production of the departmental position reports.

The increases for the Health Service announced by the Chancellor have attracted considerable attention and interest. They are undoubtedly large increases and they are welcome — although in reality the growth in health spending that the Chancellor is providing is very similar to the pattern set in the Budget of March 2000. The increases are also necessary, given the particular problems we face here. Such difficulties have been aired in the Assembly on many occasions.

The allocation of funds, including these additional funds, falls entirely within the discretion of the Executive, and we have many public expenditure and revenue issues to address in the wider context of the spending review. We must ensure that we have a clear view of our priorities — as distinct from those of the Treasury — and what we are trying to achieve. Health has been well established as a priority by the Executive and the Assembly, and the health sector faces many acute difficulties. For that reason — notwithstanding concerns about the adequacy of the additional funding — it is entirely appropriate that we should allocate the additional funds that flow from the Chancellor’s Budget to health, and I will be recommending that to my Executive Colleagues.

In making these allocations I want to be sure that the increased funding has a demonstrable impact on the delivery of health services. To that end, the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are jointly carrying out a needs and effectiveness evaluation on health and social care. I will work with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that the public benefits from this new allocation as much as possible. It is vital that we address these issues if we are to make real progress in building a Health Service fit for the twenty-first century.

The most important issue is that the Health Service must meet the needs of patients. Together with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I want to ensure that the additional funds result in a real difference in the care provided to the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive are committed to a major programme of reform of the public sector, and have begun to apply that in health and in other sectors. We must consider how best to apply in Northern Ireland the principles of reform that have been announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health.

The new figures are significant. However, when we look below the headlines, what stands out is that Northern Ireland’s share of the new expenditure will again fall short of what the Executive needs in order to match the growth in English spending on health. The first table and chart that I have attached to copies of my statement show that while English spending will rise by up to 10% per annum, Northern Ireland’s allocation will allow growth of only 7·5% on average in the Health Service here. In real terms, growth — compared to the Chancellor’s figure of 43% in England — is only 29% in Northern Ireland. Most of the supposed "real growth" is likely to be needed just to maintain services as they are now.

We are not party to the hype of last week, which overstated the benefit that the Budget will provide for the Health Service in Northern Ireland. The issue emphasises starkly our difficulties with the Barnett formula, which gives Northern Ireland less growth in spending than that of England. The Budget announcement has accelerated that trend. It means that if we were to add only the Barnett share to the health budget in Northern Ireland, the amount would be insufficient to meet the needs of the local Health Service. Indeed, objectively, if we allocate only the additional amounts that we receive under the Barnett formula, we will struggle to maintain the Health Service in its present highly unsatisfactory state. That is in contrast to the position in England, where the Chancellor has allocated enough to provide for real service improvements.

As things stand, if the Executive are simply to keep pace with the cash growth planned in England, without taking account of relative needs, over the next five years we will need more than £1 billion more than we have received in the Budget. The House will appreciate that the problem is not new. Since devolution the Assembly has given significant priority to health. Before this Budget, for the three financial years of 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, we received Barnett additions of £8·7 million from the Chancellor. However, we allocated just under £1 billion to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in that period — £192 million more than we had received.

It is worth pointing out a further important aspect of the Barnett formula that works against us. The arithmetic of the formula, on which I have focused so far, might perhaps be reasonable if we had higher standards of public services than in England. The important point is that the Barnett formula takes no account of our comparative levels of need. We have increasing evidence of greater need in relation to health than in England. An analysis of relative needs is part of the needs and effectiveness evaluation of health and social care that is currently being carried out by the Economic Policy Unit, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Before getting too far into the subject, it is important to stress that the comparisons with England are only one relevant factor in considering spending allocations. The Assembly has the right to set its own priorities, which may mean a different pattern of allocations than elsewhere.

The key issues for the spending review are whether we have a fair share of the Chancellor’s total cake and whether we are drawing in an appropriate share of revenue for which we are also responsible. In a debate with the Treasury, it is impossible to address spending without looking at revenue.

Although work on comparative needs has not yet concluded, the results suggest that to provide services at a similar standard to that in England, we need about 17% more for each individual. Thus, for every £1 spent on health for each person in England, Northern Ireland needs £1·17 for each person. That is a conservative analysis, which excludes some factors that give rise to genuine additional costs here. Indeed, the research evidence could be interpreted as supporting a higher figure.

Despite the fact that more money has been allocated to health, the gap is increasing because of the Barnett squeeze. We have good evidence that, when need is taken into account, the Health Service needs an additional £300 million a year to match English standards of service. That will be significantly compounded if we, and the Treasury, do not address the divergence in amounts provided over the next five years. We cannot accept that situation. To provide effective public services across Departments, we must increase the amounts that we have to spend. Ways to achieve that include mounting an effective challenge to Barnett and closely examining our revenue sources.

Members will also be aware that we are moving ahead with an examination of how best to make private finance work to meet Northern Ireland’s needs. I am already pressing the Treasury for more in the forthcoming spending review. Challenging Barnett is not something that can be undertaken lightly. As I have said before, it is not a no-risk option. It is not a matter of simply asking London for a peace dividend. We need a sound realistic strategy that recognises the realities of our position and argues our case strongly and responsibly.

My predecessor and I have made it clear that any challenge would open up the debate on sources of local revenue and lead to strong pressure from the Treasury that we should contribute more resources than at present. That would mean looking hard at the amounts that we raise locally.

At this stage, the key question is whether we are getting a fair share of the resources available to the Chancellor. Addressing that is a very complex and difficult task. One reason that Barnett has been accepted for so long is that it avoids that issue. The Executive have shown at Question Time and on other recent occasions that we are taking up that challenge.

While health spending is less well funded here than in England, particularly when need is taken into account, I must also sound a clear note of caution. For some programmes here, there is a much higher level of spending and less convincing evidence of need than in England. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that we have a strong case for something better than the Barnett formula can provide in this spending round.

However, that case is clearly and significantly undermined because we raise much less from local sources of revenue than England. The Treasury can be expected to look to us to address that issue as part of the examination of our case for a better share of public spending — hence the importance of the fundamental review of rating policy on which the Executive have embarked. We are preparing to launch a detailed consultation process, during which everyone will be invited to make comment.

I hope that all parties will fully engage in the consultation process, which will be comprehensive and will cover both the existing system and possible alternatives. I emphasise that no decisions have been taken and no directions have been recommended. Let me make it clear that I am neither imposing nor proposing any particular type of charges.

Public services in Northern Ireland suffer from a legacy of underinvestment. It is well known to Members on all sides of the House that many of our services, especially health, education, water and transport, currently require levels of capital investment far in excess of the resources available to us. At present, the sums required to solve the significant problems that we face are well in excess of the amounts that the Executive have to spend. That is the underlying fact which guides all thinking and action on the issues of resource allocation. As we begin the process of setting our spending plans for 2003-04 and beyond, we have to think very carefully and be prepared to face, and take, tough decisions on the core issue of how best to improve public services.

The latest estimates put the deficit between what our current budget can sustain and what we actually need to do in terms of capital investment at a minimum of £6 billion over the next 10 years. I stress that much of that investment is likely to be needed in the next five years. I have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that we need a strategic focus for our infrastructure programme and effective organisational arrangements to deliver the strategy.

I now turn to some other measures in the Chancellor’s Budget. Apart from the headline news on new expenditure, the Chancellor has continued his long-term theme of reforming the tax regime for workers and companies. Some of those changes are particularly welcome here; others are not. The small firm sector is very important in Northern Ireland. The proposals to zero-rate the smallest firms for corporation tax and to reduce the basic rate for the rest will provide benefits for up to 12,000 businesses. Those firms will also welcome the significant reductions in the administrative burden of value added tax.

A few of our larger companies will also be able to benefit from the new research and development tax credit, but only a few. We have been pressing the Treasury for a regionally targeted research and development tax regime to target regions such as ours. That could improve our present performance. The research and development tax incentive should, nonetheless, encourage local businesses to invest for growth, and I trust that they will take advantage of it in that regard.

Unfortunately, the Budget was less helpful on other tax issues. The decision not to make any special arrangement on the duty on fuel does nothing to close the differential with the South, which has been an open incentive to smuggling and evasion. The failure to amend the air passenger duty regime in recognition of our heavy dependence on air links with GB was also very disappointing.

I welcome the simplification of the range of support for low-paid workers and those with children, the arrangements for which were announced in the Budget. Together with the new working tax credit and child tax credit, those arrangements will benefit an estimated 250,000 families in Northern Ireland.

I hope that my review of how the Chancellor’s Budget will affect us here has been helpful to Members in outlining some of the issues that we face and what we seek to achieve. I am for public services and better investment in our infrastructure. I am determined to find effective and fair ways to deliver the services and facilities that our community needs.

I look forward to the continuing co-operation and support of my ministerial Colleagues. I trust that we can depend on the support of the Assembly and all those who are making the case for additional spending to pursue these goals. I will keep the Assembly and the Committee for Finance and Personnel up to date on how the issues develop.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and the accompanying figures giving more detail and explanation of how the Budget will affect us. I hope that this year’s spending review and Budget process will bring about some change. Can the Minister give us details of the negotiations that have taken place with the Treasury on the spending review? What opportunities are there for additional funds to come from the review? Once again, I refer to the peace dividend. I accept the Minister’s point that it is not simply a matter of asking for additional funding. However, to make a strong case for additional funding, it is important to be convinced that we need it.

The amount of taxation that is collected here must be shown on the balance sheet. I refer to the earlier question about the aggregates tax and the additional £1·60 per tonne that has been levied on gravel and aggregates. That will not affect the Assembly, but it means that its different schemes will cost more money. More money is going out, and the Assembly will not get any return. The Treasury does not have any qualms about imposing more taxes here. However, we need to get more resources.

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

Implicit in my comments on the Barnett formula and the spending review negotiations are the lines that the Executive are pursuing in their discussions with the Treasury. In answer to an earlier question, I explained that our case is strongly based on our analysis of our needs. As I said in my remarks on the Chancellor’s Budget, we have to spend £1·17 here to match the level of investment and standards in England, particularly in health, for every pound spent there. Those fairly straightforward figures give a simple and direct indication of our assessment of the needs.

Given my attempts to reassure the House earlier, the Member should be confident that the Executive are pursuing a vigorous line. In our approach we have included the case for what my party has described as a normalisation dividend.

We must explore more than one possible source of finance; for example, additional funding under the Barnett formula, public-private partnerships and revenue sources over which we have direct control. In particular, we must consider their fairness and adequacy. All those sources pose challenges and provide partial answers.

The block grant allocation under the Barnett formula will always form the most significant slice of our public expenditure cake. However, all the additional sources of funding are being vigorously pursued. I assure my Assembly Colleagues that the Executive are not remiss in considering those sources. I hope that the process will have a fruitful outcome that will be apparent when the spending review allocations are announced in July.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the additional funds that will be made available for public services in Northern Ireland as a result of allocations under the Barnett formula. Given the community’s health needs, I recognise that the funds should be directed to the Health Service, and I would support the Minister’s decision to do so. However, we must also ensure that we maximise the uses and the outcomes of the net result of the increased spending on health. Is the Minister aware that there is concern that the significant increases in funding to date have not resulted in health improvements in our hospitals or communities? Does he think that there is merit in mirroring the Chancellor’s Budget proposals for the independent auditing of health structures? Does he acknowledge that the current auditing of health trusts by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is neither transparent nor accountable? Would he support such a change so that the community can have confidence in how our money is spent?

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

It is important to acknowledge that a significant additional allocation to our Health Service is pending as a result of the consequential money that the Chancellor announced last week. An additional sum of £2·7 billion is significant and welcome.

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety would be better able to provide a detailed response on the need to ensure that additional and existing finance for the Health Service is spent effectively. Although the language may be slightly different, we should acknowledge that the needs and effectiveness evaluations that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and several other bodies are conducting will provide evidence to account for about 75% of our public expenditure.

As the title suggests, these exercises are intended to address how effectively we spend what we allocate. What return do the people of Northern Ireland get from the vast amount of public money invested in these services, which includes the Health Service? The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is aware of the need to assure the public about the effectiveness with which her budget is spent.

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

I welcome the Minister’s announcement and also his determination to battle for resources to make up the difference in spending levels between here and England. Can the Minister outline the implications of not securing extra funds through the Barnett formula to make up the differential in the future?

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

In one sense the answer to that question can be put fairly simply — we would have much less to spend on all services. However, when we take into account the Minister for Regional Development’s regional transport strategy, the need for significant improvements to our water services, the requirements that will undoubtedly follow from whatever recommendations and proposals come from the acute hospitals review, the proposals for investment that will come from any reorganisation of our educational services, and so on, we must acknowledge the deficit that would exist. I said in my statement that there would be a deficit of some £6 billion, and the investment that would be possible, were that to be available to us, would simply not take place.

That imposes a strong obligation on all Members — and they have the opportunity to do this in the various Committees on which they serve — to address the needs, to assess where the investment is likely to come from and to help to make the choices that will have to be made when we know what will be available to meet all those needs. Indeed, if we do not succeed in achieving all that we want to achieve from the investment available to us, Members should help to explain what choices have to be made — why certain choices will be made and others will not be made — with regard to all that we demand for the maintenance and development of our public services.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

The Minister indicated in his statement that for every £1 spent on health in England, £1·17 would need to be spent to deliver a service of the same standard in Northern Ireland. Can he indicate what the comparative figure for transport is?

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

I do not have the precise detail that the Member requests. I would have thought that the most immediate source for the answer to that question should be the Minister for Regional Development. Nonetheless, I will commit myself to providing the evidence of the needs in transport services — in roads and all the services associated with transport.

I am aware of the considerable deficit in infrastructural needs and the considerable investment that is required in the whole of our transport sector and its infrastructure. I am also aware of the general plans that the Minister has put out for public consultation in his regional transport strategy. I will be meeting with the Minister in the near future. Undoubtedly, we will be addressing not only transport needs but also the needs that he has identified for the development of the Water Service. He has impressed on me the considerable investment needs that exist there. He said that we need to put all the options relating to sources of revenue that might help us to meet those investment needs fairly and squarely before the public.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for the clarity with which he has put many of these important matters to the Assembly. I welcome the fact that the Minister has dissociated the Executive from the hype around the Budget announcement last week and, secondly, that he will recommend that all consequential moneys should go directly to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I thank him for that announcement.

Given the focus on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the lack of spending on health over many years, health will feature largely in this debate. In the light of that, will the Minister reassert the comments that he made in his statement that, notwithstanding the amount contained there, if we allocate only the additional amounts we will struggle to maintain the Health Service in its present highly unsatisfactory state? Does the Minister agree that that is a startling statement in its own right?

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

I am not sure what particular weight would be carried by the reiteration of what I have already stressed, directly or indirectly, several times. Given that I have been before the Assembly for almost an hour, I am sure that Members are tired of my voice, so I will spare them the reiteration. However, I reassure the Member that I believe what I said.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister not share my alarm at the constant reference to pressure from the Treasury? Does he not agree that that pressure is tantamount to blackmail? Should the Treasury not be looking at the needs of the people of Northern Ireland, rather than bullying the Executive? Should the Executive not be fighting for the needs of the people of Northern Ireland, rather than allowing themselves to succumb to that pressure and blackmail?

Does the Minister not further agree that the reference to this Budget as a "Budget for enterprise" is rather contradicted by the 1% increase through the tax for jobs, as represented by the National Insurance contribution imposed on employers? Does the Minister agree, given that the backbone of Northern Ireland’s economy is small and medium-sized enterprises, that this further tax on jobs will make it more difficult, if not impossible, to follow through with increases in rates, water rates and such other measures as the Minister has referred to?

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

I could join with the Member in saying that the increase in National Insurance contributions is unwelcome for the business community here. However, I have pointed out that there are other aspects of the Budget that will benefit businesses. To assess fully the Budget’s impact on business, it must be looked at in its overall terms rather than focusing on specific items.

Mr Close made a point about pressure. He must appreciate that the pressure from the Treasury is matched by the pressure from here. Pressure is a way of describing how forcefully we put forward an argument — and we are putting forward a very strong argument on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland by demonstrating the scale of need. That is what it is all about. It is not a question of simply accepting the Barnett allocation without making our case in the strongest possible terms.

I doubt whether my predecessor and I could have been more forceful in presenting the approach that we are adopting to the House. If all the comments on this subject are checked in Hansard, it will be seen that we have been expressing the case based on need very forcibly; and we are bringing that case to the Treasury. The case is being vigorously pursued at political level and more regularly at official level.

The Member may doubt my words; he has the luxury of doubting them because he is not present when the negotiations are under way. However, I ask him to accept that I mean what I say when I say that we are pursuing the case very vigorously indeed.

The word "pressured" may be a way of describing the Treasury’s response; for example, when we are asked to examine the sources of revenue that we control. The Member will know that we have undertaken preparation for public consultation of the rating system in a very concerted and detailed way. As a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, he knows that the issue has been going through a considerable gestation period, and that we are close, in terms of internal debate. The internal debate has involved all members of the Executive, including the Ministers who do not attend Executive meetings. They are fully aware of the issues that have to be addressed, and they believe that the issues need to be addressed vigorously.

The Minister for Regional Development has made it clear to me, in correspondence and in face-to-face discussion, that he agrees that we should address all those potential sources of revenue, and put the options fairly and squarely before the people so that they know what they are, the choices that have to be made, and the consequences of not making certain choices. [Interruption].

Yes, indeed, and before the Member pursues the issue too far, he might take it up with the Minister for Regional Development. Ask him precisely what he said to me in his written communications and what he has said to me in face-to-face discussions. I am not saying this in order to cast aspersions but to make clear the issues and the deep appreciation that exists.

Mr Paisley may think that it is a matter for some mirth, but delivering good, effective and efficient public services for the people of Northern Ireland is a very serious matter. That is what the Executive is about, and I am attempting, as Minister, to make clear to the public what is needed to achieve those objectives. I trust that he will have that detailed conversation with his Colleague, the Minister for Regional Development.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his efforts to acquire more finance for Northern Ireland.

In view of the deficit of confidence in the community, will the Minister ensure that the extra money will be directed through the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to specific patient needs? Will spending be independently audited and improvements monitored?

The Minister mentioned the exploration of many possibilities in his statement. However, no mention was made of the possibility of savings on administration. Given that an extra layer of administration involving over 300 people has just been added, will there be any monitoring of the money spent in that area?

Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister for Regional Development on the scale of investment required in the Water Service and on any plans he has to meet that need?

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

I addressed part of the Member’s question in my previous response. I have had correspondence and a detailed discussion with the Minister for Regional Development. That discussion was helpful. The issues to which the Member referred were addressed in a serious and detailed way. There was a realisation that the challenge for the Water Service, for example, will require significant investment. If I have correctly recalled the Minister for Regional Development’s advice, about £3 billion will be needed in the next 10 to 15 years, much of which must be spent in the next five years. Therefore all the options must be addressed fully and frankly with the public so that we appreciate the kind of choices that are before us and the consequences of taking certain choices and not taking others.

We have an obligation to present all the possibilities to the public. It would be dishonest to do otherwise. Let the public debate, let MLAs debate, let the Committees debate, and let them all advise on the way forward. That applies not only to the Department that the Member highlighted, but to all Departments, some of which have significantly greater spending requirements. It is important that, as we move away from a society that was characterised politically by what I would describe as "demand" politics, we move to "responsibility" politics. We shall demand high-quality services and the best infrastructure, because that is what our people deserve. However, we must do so responsibly; we must be aware of the choices that have to be made and the resources that are required to meet those choices. We must not run away from the hard issues. That is not what the Executive are in business for. They are in business to point out our aims and objectives, and what is required to meet them.

My answer to the Member’s comments on the Health Service is covered in my reference to the needs and evaluation exercises that are being undertaken so that we have the assurance that what is provided by way of investment, capital or otherwise, is done effectively and efficiently and to the highest possible standards.

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

The Minister said that since devolution more money has gone to health than the Barnett formula allowed. Will he elaborate on that? Does the Minister believe that the Minister of Health can now get on with managing the Health Service?

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

Approximately £190 million extra — over and above the Barnett allocation — has been made available to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety over the past three Budgets. I am subject to correction on that.

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

Thank you. That is a significant additional amount. We have done that because we recognise that there has been serious underinvestment. We recognise the extent of existing needs. Those who visit our hospitals and those who work in the Health Service are also aware of the scale and location of pressing need. That is what we have done to demonstrate that health must remain a priority. Although the additional allocations lend scope for significant improvement over the next five years, they cannot meet our needs. We will continue to make that case because that is what the evidence tells us. At least there is now the prospect of a significant advance in delivering high-quality service that speedily meets the requirements of everyone in need, particularly in the Health Service.

I recognise and pay tribute to all those who are providing services in our hospitals and to the Health Service generally. More can be done with additional resources, and I want to believe that more will be done.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that this is probably the most serious statement that he will ever make from the Dispatch Box? He is saying that spending the money that is being allocated through the Budget now can only keep the Health Service at its current deplorable standard.

The abject reality is that if we allocate only the additional amounts that we receive under the Barnett formula, we will struggle to maintain the Health Service in its present highly unsatisfactory state. Every Member is aware of the unsatisfactory state of the Health Service. The amount of money that has been cheered on by Back-Benchers in the House of Commons may be seen when it is applied — if it is applied properly — to relieve the deplorable inconsistencies of the Health Service in England, but that will not meet the need in Northern Ireland. The Minister reckoned in his statement that if we took all this money and the extra that we would get in the Barnett domain and put it all together, we would not have sufficient funds to deal with the Health Service. We would have enough money only to maintain it in its current deplorable state.

Therefore, it is a serious statement.

Surely the Minister’s representation must state that other public services in our country are not in a good state. The rest of the United Kingdom, and especially England, has trouble with transport, and we have trouble with transport. All the other Departments are also in serious trouble, not only in maintaining what they are doing but also in trying to remedy the tremendous and awful hole that they have dug. The Minister tells us that for every £1 spent on health in England, £1·17 is required here. He tells us that an additional £300 million a year is needed to match England’s spending on health.

I am glad that the Minister has been honest with the House. I am glad that the bald facts are being set out plainly. I am glad that the Minister is telling the British Government that they are selling us cheap and trying to get away with fraud. We shall be unable to maintain an advantage for our Health Service; we shall be able to maintain it only in its current condition — and we all know the deplorable state of the Health Service. Other public services are also crying out for help. However, as the Minister has said, if one service cannot be cured properly, what is the point of putting money into it if it can be maintained only in its current state?

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Dr Paisley, I am not sure that I have heard a question. Do you have a question for the Minister?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The whole thing is a question, and I think that the Minister knows that. Does the Minister think that throwing large sums of public money at dissatisfactory aspects of the Health Service, or any public service, will remedy the situation? Public services require radical surgery so that they have the staff and the ability to cope.

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

I thank Dr Paisley for his contribution, although I was beginning to wonder if I had lost my job. Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that he acknowledges my honesty, and I trust that that honesty will be acknowledged in the House and beyond, because, as a Member of the Executive, I believe that we must put the facts and the situation, which the Member described graphically, before our people. I agree with much that he says, but I am not someone who curses the darkness. Rather, I acknowledge the opportunity to achieve the progress that is necessary for investment in all public services.

The Member referred to the need to address public services generally. The review of public administration that is under way will address many of the issues that are implicit in the Member’s reference to public services. We have some additional resources for health, although, as I have underlined often, they are insufficient. We will ensure that those resources are allocated and invested effectively, and I am sure that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety would wish to express her intention to ensure that that happens so that improvements will be made.

However, we continue the battle and the debate with the Treasury. In addition, we commit ourselves to considering to what extent our own sources of revenue are administered fairly and whether they adequately meet some of our needs. They will never meet all of our needs, but they can contribute to doing so. We will continue to explore other possibilities. We can complain that the money is insufficient, but I am not one to be churlish or to curse the darkness. I accept and welcome the implications of the allocations and the opportunities that they provide, but I will fulfil my responsibility to point out that we need much, much more.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. I hope that he has lit a candle, rather than cursed the darkness. Does the Minister agree that it is a well-established phenomenon that when any organisation, company, or even country, receives a large sum of additional money to spend in a short period, often that money is, perforce, used inefficiently in the circumstances? The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel asked whether there was a strong case for independently auditing the extra spending, particularly on health.

Secondly, is there not also a strong case for educating the expectations of the public? In many cases it will take several years, perhaps four or five, to appoint new personnel in order to achieve outcomes from the additional health spending.

The Minister said that there was a Barnett consequential of approximately £0·5 million relating to the Investors in People spending in Great Britain. Given the Minister’s implication that all the consequential funding relating to additional health spending in Great Britain will be spent on health in Northern Ireland, should not the £0·5 million relating to the consequential from the Department of Education and Skills be earmarked for the Department for Employment and Learning?

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

Dr Birnie is the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, so I appreciate why he makes that point. We will be considering which services will receive additional allocations as the result of the consequential funding that he highlighted. There is a significant challenge to inform the public about matters that affect our public expenditure, such as the funds that are available and how they can be acquired.

I trust that Members will contribute significantly to promoting greater understanding of the constraints under which we operate, through their approaches to issues such as those in my statement, when making departmental allocations and in their work outside the Chamber.

I accept the point that we may need more external arrangements for auditing. There are mechanisms in place, but I assume that Rev Robert Coulter was referring to a mechanism that would be closer to the Departments. The Committees have an important scrutiny role, although they may need expertise to help them to carry it out. They have that responsibility; they have been contributing to scrutiny; and they will continue to do so. The Executive will give serious consideration to this.

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

I congratulate the Minister on his cogent, comprehensive and honest statement. I note Rev Dr Ian Paisley’s comments that it was also a serious statement. It is a timely reminder about the grave situation that we face with regard to public expenditure. The Minister said that we will require approximately £6 billion in extra funding over the next 10 years.

The Minister and his Department are trying to negotiate a reformulation of Barnett with the Treasury, and Members should support that. However, that is not solely the Minister’s responsibility. It is the collective responsibility of the House and the Executive. If a reformulation of Barnett that is beneficial to Northern Ireland is achieved, it will improve public services significantly.

Finally, if the Minister fails to get a beneficial reformulation of Barnett, does he have a plan b?

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

The Member’s comments are helpful.

The role of a Minister of Finance and Personnel is, in many respects, invidious. The Minister has an overview of all Departments in the Administration and overall responsibility for examining their spending requirements. He must highlight some of the difficulties associated with acquiring and allocating the resources that are available to the Executive. The Member rightly stressed collective responsibility, but the whole Executive cannot speak in chorus.

It falls, therefore, to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to be the Executive’s voice on these matters. Negotiating the Barnett formula is not a process that I am involved in on my own. At present the Executive are fully apprised from meeting to meeting — because the process is under way, because of what is transpiring and because of the emerging possibilities and difficulties. Advice is sought, and the negotiations are essentially led by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

All of my ministerial Colleagues, including those who are not in regular attendance — or any attendance at all — at the Executive meetings, are aware of the issues as they emerge. Their advice, and the advice of the latter, if not available directly to the Executive, is available through correspondence and meetings with me, so that I can ensure that the Executive are fully aware of their needs and circumstances. I am not making any special pleading for the position in which I find myself. I am emphasising my role and responsibility and showing the collective approach that I am taking. The Executive and I are taking forward Members’ concerns and those of the people we represent in the Treasury negotiations in as collective and concerted a way as possible.

With respect to the point that Mr Maginness makes on the Barnett formula, let us not contemplate failure now. Let us not try to predict the end of the race — if that is how Members want to describe the process. It is always tantalising to speculate. The block grant is by far the major source of Northern Ireland’s public expenditure, and we must maximise the allocation of it. As I said at the conclusion of my statement, the understanding and support of Members for the enterprise that we are engaged in on their behalf are deeply appreciated and necessary to reflect — without silencing our different views — and demonstrate support for the objective of achieving the best possible allocation and, therefore, offering the best level of investment in Northern Ireland’s services and infrastructure, which is what the people deserve and expect.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and especially his comments on the small business sector, which is important to Northern Ireland. There are several other sectors in Northern Ireland that were missing from the statement — particularly agriculture — and I hope that that is not deliberate. Perhaps it will be raised on another occasion. It is important that it not be omitted. What incentives are being offered to encourage small businesses to start up self-help schemes? Apart from VAT schemes, what else is being offered? Small businesses are the big businesses of tomorrow.

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

The Member has invited me to stray into an area that might be addressed more fully and effectively by his Colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Although the statement focused essentially on the Chancellor’s Budget and its immediate implications for us, especially on health consequentials and other, more minor, consequentials, it is inevitable that the debate is taking on a flavour that allows us to range over other issues. In my statement I welcomed several of those measures.

We are keen to support entrepreneurship and the development of local small and medium-sized enterprises. I am almost echoing what my Colleague Sir Reg Empey would say. Those businesses are at the heart of our economy, and they require considerable support. For the precise answers that are needed to answer the Member’s question on other measures, I must defer to the superior knowledge of Sir Reg Empey.

Mobile Phones

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I remind Members of the Speaker’s ruling that a maximum of five minutes has been set aside for each contribution.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I remind Members that confession is good for the soul. With regard to mobile phone technology, I am a Luddite. I neither own one nor rent one nor use one. In that respect, I claim to practise what I preach.

Most Members will recall that, prior to March 1996, the general public was reassured consistently that it was safe to eat beef. Precautionary advice was effectively downgraded, and the Government and so-called experts gave the distinct impression that BSE was not transmissible from an animal to a human being. A certain Government Minister appeared on television alongside a young child who was, presumably voluntarily, eating a beefburger. No doubt that piece of footage was broadcast in order to instil confidence in the message that the so-called experts were promulgating: namely, that it was safe to eat beef.

Most Members will, therefore, remember the deep sense of betrayal that was felt subsequently by the general public when, on 20 March 1996, it was announced that BSE was likely to have been transmitted to human beings. It is now a tragic fact that scores of people have died from variant CJD, and I express my sympathy to the Democratic Unionist Party on the loss of their councillor Mr Hunter as a result of that tragic disease. The link between BSE and variant CJD is now clearly established and is a tragic reality. A key finding of the Phillips Report that examined BSE and CJD was that precautionary measures should be enforced strictly, even if the risk that they addressed appeared to be remote.

Some Members will recall the feeling of wonderment when, accompanied by our parents, we went to shoe shops and were encouraged to stand on large pedestal-type machines to watch the skeleton of our feet move as parents and shop assistants decided what size of shoe we required. That large pedestal-type machine was an X-ray machine. It was considered safe by the so-called experts, and we were subjected to X-rays as a matter of form. How things have changed in 40 years. In hospitals today, X-ray machines are located behind reinforced concrete walls and radiologists don lead-lined vests because the potential dangers of X-rays are now recognised.

I looked at Dr Paisley. No doubt he can recall the days when sheets of asbestos were used in the building and shipbuilding industries, and in other trades. The experts also considered it to be perfectly safe. It was hammered, cut and sawn into all sorts of shapes and nobody gave a toss because it was "safe". The experts of 60 or 70 years ago saw no harm in it. However, we are left facing claims for compensation that run into millions of pounds, and many people’s quality of life is impaired because they suffer from asbestosis.

Are mobile phones, and the technologies associated with them, the equivalent of the asbestos of yesteryear? Are the experts as wrong about mobile phones as they were about the possible health hazards associated with BSE and with X-rays?

When will our society ever learn to put the health of our people at the top of our agenda? When shall we learn to stop taking risks with people’s health because of economic and financial pressures? It strikes me that a greater emphasis is given to what I would call aesthetically environmental concerns, such as siting a mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty, than is given to siting a mast on the top of a school in the middle of a built-up area, on the top of a leisure complex or, as was mentioned earlier, on good agricultural land where emissions enter the food chain. The Stewart Report recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies until more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects is clearly available. That must be our role as legislators. I have seen young children who suffer from leukaemia — we must put them at the top of our agenda.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

I support the motion. The issue of mobile masts is an emotional one, and a balance must be struck. On the one hand, there are businesses that wish to generate profit both for the telecommunications companies and for those who have paid huge amounts of money to acquire the licences to operate third-generation phones. Other companies also use telecommunications to improve their businesses and to benefit the wider community by creating more jobs. On the other hand, in the absence of concrete evidence to support the safety of the systems used, it is necessary for legislators to ensure that the general public is kept safe from harm.

A cautious approach should be taken on the issue until proper evidence shows that mobile phone masts are safe. Contrary to many representations made by mobile phone companies to councils and others, there seems to be no such evidence.

We should follow the precautionary approach already indicated by Mr Close and by the Stewart Report. Article 130r of the EU Treaty of Rome (as amended) states that the precautionary principle should be uppermost in the minds of all legislators in the Parliaments of European Union countries. Parliaments are urged to protect not only the environment but, more importantly, the populations therein, especially young children who, due to their low body weight, are likely to be more affected in their growth years by the emissions.

The problem is that the technology is so new that there is little complete research. A few quotations from the ‘Communications Technology in the Community’ conference in March 1998 highlight the absence of a definitive policy on the issue among professionals in radiation and engineering fields. Mr John McAuley said that

"The safest place to be is at the bottom of the mast because the beams go over the top of the head. I won’t comment on the safety of mobile phones or their base stations, just the levels."

He is responsible for most of the non-ionising radiation hazard monitoring carried out in Ireland in recent years. Russell Owen, who is head of the radiation and biology branch of the United States Food and Drug Administration, is noted as saying that the jury is still out. The fact that people in such positions are not clear and unequivocal on the safety of the masts raises questions.

The main thread that runs through all research and through the opinions of independent experts is that although there is nothing positively to identify health problems now, many cancers do not present until there have been many years of exposure. Therefore the problem may start only in the next few years. In the meantime, there should be full public consultation before the erection of masts in controversial urban areas in which there are schools — it may be fair to say that all areas are controversial. Planning departments must respond to genuine local concern and not pay lip service to that aspect of the process.

As I said earlier, the Government will acquire significant finance from the sale of licences. Mobile phone companies will also make huge profits. There is no doubt that many individuals, including landowners and farmers who may diversify in order to receive money from mobile phone companies, will benefit from the erection of the masts — an issue that can be raised with councillors who oppose such schemes. Other companies and organisations in Northern Ireland will also benefit from the income generated by the mobile phone companies. However, it is the duty of each Member to ensure that, although benefits in the form of the accumulation of huge profits are available, the health of this generation and of future generations is not put at risk. I support the motion.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for Strangford for highlighting this important issue, about which complaints will have been received in each of the 18 constituencies. Unlike the Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Close, I am not a Luddite when it comes to mobile phones. I use a mobile phone, which gives my constituents access to me after hours. Although, given that I live in north Belfast, perhaps I should not have bought a mobile phone.

We must focus on the Stewart Report in order to encourage a precautionary approach. Although the legislation is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. There are several points that we must consider. If we do not introduce legislation to implement safety zones for masts, we are not adopting the necessary precautionary approach, and Members must realise that.

Telecommunications companies approach sports organisations, such as tennis and bowling clubs, in the knowledge that they may be short of funding. They offer the clubs money in exchange for permission to erect a mast. A similar situation has occurred with Irish League football clubs. It is the responsibility of the committees that run such clubs to recognise that they may be situated in built-up areas in which children may play for long periods. When researching his report, Sir William Stewart studied schools because that was where he felt that children were for most of the day. However, Members can identify places in their constituencies where there are children about for many hours during the day.

If we do not recommend that an independent agency be set up to investigate the health complaints that result from the use of telecommunications equipment such as the masts or the telephones that are used by children, that will be a waste of legislation. Any Member who thinks that full planning legislation will resolve the issue is fooling himself or herself.

We all know that it is difficult to persuade the Planning Service to refuse permission, even when the community and the councillors are agreed that the application is wrong. Those of us who have served on councils know that particularly well, and we must be careful about that approach to solving the problem.

An independent agency must be funded by the mobile phone companies as well as by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The situation must be checked every three years. Boyd Douglas was right to say that there is very little information on mobile phones because the technology is new. We need to update our knowledge regularly to ensure that mobile phones do not pose an increasing health risk.

The Minister should have come to the Assembly to make a statement instead of giving it to the media. Having read the statement, I thought that the Minister was defending the service even in the event of there being a health risk. He said that a health warning should be given but that it is important that we have high standards in telecommunications. Of course those high standards are important. I have said already that I am a mobile phone user, and I want to ensure that we have the best technology, because that will ensure that we attract companies that will provide jobs. However, we must also look at the disadvantages. If there are health risks, we must accept that and ensure that we protect people from those risks. Belfast City Council has decided not to allow any masts to be erected on its property. Other people will have to consider that option if the legislation does not go far enough.

I remind the Minister that the proposal for full planning implementation will not resolve the problem. The only way to resolve the matter is to establish an independent agency that will check the health risks. Zones must be established to enable us to move masts away from certain areas, and several other health checks must be put in place. Without those, full planning implementation will not resolve the problem.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I support the motion. I welcome the new legislation that the Minister announced, but I agree that it should come before the Assembly, because there are many questions that we must ask on behalf of our constituents. Answers are needed, and fears must be allayed.

What happens to the masts that are already in place and the masts for which planning applications have already been submitted? There is no proper understanding of how the legislation will have an impact retrospectively. As the Minister knows, people are alarmed that mobile phone masts have been erected under prior planning approval without neighbourhood notification. That is a serious matter. The planning advertisements for the masts have been tucked away in small print on the back pages of local newspapers where people do not see them. Is that "consultation"?

In response to those concerns, the Women’s Coalition is calling for an immediate review of the masts that have already been erected under prior planning approval and for an end to that practice. Neighbourhood notification and consultation must take place.

In my constituency of North Down, a mast has recently been erected on the High Donaghadee Road. I am not a great judge of distance, but I believe that it is no more than 50 metres away from housing and a children’s playground. I understand that in Russia masts must be 2,000 metres away from housing. I agree with the call for safety zones. Some 35 masts have already been erected in the north Down area, and a further 14 sites have been proposed. What are we doing about that? In south Belfast, residents from the Belvoir estate approached Monica McWilliams because they were not consulted about the erection of a mast on the top of their building, which is owned by the Housing Executive.

Since that mast went up, residents have complained of headaches and nausea. The same problem exists with Breda flats, a location also owned by the Housing Executive. Then there is McCracken Memorial Church, for which a public petition has already been lodged with the Assembly, and Lagan Meadows. All Members have had complaints from people in constituencies throughout Northern Ireland. In Omagh, Beragh is where there is serious concern — despite objections planners have granted permission for the erection of a mast. Also the area near a primary school in Richill is causing serious concern. These are just some examples of the issues we have been approached on.

I agree with Mr Kennedy who said it is disappointing that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not here to hear the concerns of Members. We should be agreeing distances from residential housing, children’s schools and playgrounds for the erection of masts. Masts are not tested in the way that pharmaceutical drugs are tested and monitored, and Séamus Close, Billy Hutchinson and Boyd Douglas mentioned this succinctly. We need monitoring here. Our acceptable levels of low pulse microwave radiation are much higher than those in Canada, for example. Greater studies are needed of the dangers involved so that the health concerns not only of the masts but of the phones themselves are properly addressed.

Finally, I want to touch on money. We hear about clubs, et cetera, being given money for renting their property for masts. If masts are being put up on land owned by the Department for Regional Development or the Department of the Environment, can the Ministers tell us how much money is being paid for this use of footpaths and so on?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment I support the motion. As Members know, the Department has been considering what to do about the planning issues with mobile phone masts since issuing a consultation document in November 2000. My Committee studied that document closely. We gave earnest consideration to the matters contained in it and issued a comprehensive response to the Department on 5 April 2001 after taking evidence from a wide range of parties. Our response included significant recommendations, one of which was to introduce full planning permission for the installation, alteration, and replacement of all mobile phone masts and associated structures.

We also recommended introducing appropriate references to the Human Rights Act 1998 into policy planning statement 10 (PPS 10), which is guidance used by planners when considering applications for mobile phone masts. We also suggested introducing discretionary measures such as exclusion zones of up to 500 metres, which actually goes further than the motion, a hierarchy of preferred sites for masts that avoid locations near residential areas and schools and some form of incentives to encourage mast-sharing.

The Committee welcomed the Minister of the Environment’s announcement in July 2001 that he intended to introduce legislative changes, which would require full planning permission for all new mobile phone masts. After some delay and prevarication from the Department, my Committee is at last looking at the proposed changes to the legislation and the revised PPS 10 document. I must add that we took grave exception to the fact that the Department clearly had plans to go public on both the legislation and the new PPS 10 without any further consultation with the Committee. Although some might say that this was an oversight, it was due only to the intervention of staff from the Committee secretariat that the Committee and, subsequently, the House was told of the Department’s plans on this important legislation before everyone else.

What has the Department asked us now? The Committee has had officials before it for the past two weeks — and they have been invited again this week — to explain the contents of the proposed legislation and the PPS 10. Members should note that although the proposed legislation will come before the House in the form of a negative resolution, the PPS 10 has been published already without the Committee’s having been able to comment on its contents. To date, we have been able to consider only the proposed legislation, and we have had plenty to say about that.

The Committee’s proper and full consideration of the PPS 10 is about to start. Although I do not want to anticipate the views or opinions of the Committee, initial consideration has not left me with much confidence that the Department has even tried to address the serious health concerns of the Northern Ireland public on the siting of masts. Sir William Stewart concluded that there can be an indirect adverse effect on people’s well-being in some cases, and that

"the possibility of harm could not be ruled out with confidence and that the gaps in knowledge were sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."

I can find little evidence reflecting these concerns in the document before us. Instead, the Department’s approach seems to be to continue to pass the buck on health issues to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the basis of scientific readings of emissions against International Commission guidelines. This appears to ignore genuine public fears and health concerns about masts whether emissions fall below international standards or not. The Committee will consider this point and others in more detail.

I do not wish to pre-empt any consideration by the Environment Committee, but the House can be assured that we will do everything to ensure that people have the mobile phone service they need — we must accept that this is required — as well as the appropriate level of protection and proper consultation on the siting of mobile phone masts, which is equally needed. I ask Members to support the motion.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome this debate and support it to a certain extent, because this is an important issue. As I often do, I would like to introduce an agricultural note. When I read the report by Sir William Stewart on mobile phones and the siting of radio masts, I found the same precautionary approach advocated that was taken too late with the BSE crisis. We should put the brakes on these masts until we have proof that they are safe. That is the prudent thing to do. If we had been prudent at the beginning of the BSE crisis, it would never have assumed the proportions it did.

Stewart wrote of the "subtle biological changes" caused by masts and said that the effects of these changes were not clear. In the absence of clarity, we should take precautions. We have a model for action in the Scottish Parliament, our sister Assembly. Its legislation is the strictest in the United Kingdom: all phone masts, both above and below 15 metres high, require full planning permission and so are subject to the full rigours of the planning process and public consultation. A similar measure here is the least we can expect in the light of mounting public concern.

I want to see a freeze on all new masts, particularly those sited near schools. I want to see some kind of intervention to stop or suspend the operation of radio masts erected before any new and more stringent legislation comes into force, which we may introduce. I have heard all the arguments about retrospective legislation, but they hold no water when public health is, or may be, at risk. The safety of the public must be a primary guide for lawmakers. The operation of phone masts, erected under prior, less stringent planning rules must be suspended. Much thought must go into this before there is any proof of safety.

I am concerned about a mast in County Armagh that was erected without any public consultation. In this day and age that is not good enough. It has been the cause of much public concern, and the public has a right to be heard. I always support the public on health matters.

The recipe is simple — a freeze on contentious existing masts, the full planning process for all new masts and a ban on all masts near schools, houses and hospitals until the research gives us clear answers one way or the other. That is the right way for us to proceed.

Phones are very important, and I can give examples. Two weeks ago there was a car accident on a very quiet road, and no one saw it happen. A car went over the hedge and rolled four or five times down the field. If the young girl in the car had not had a mobile phone, she would have been burnt to death because the car was about to go on fire. People came from about three miles away to rescue the girl. There are pluses and minuses.

When our local vet was out on call recently, an emergency call came through, and he was able to be on the spot within two minutes. Doctors can respond likewise. Mobile phones are essential. However, the Minister has a great deal of responsibility in relation to where the masts are sited. I do not want to press him too much, but the onus is on him and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Members of the Assembly cannot take this decision lightly.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

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

Since my election, and that of other Members, to the Assembly in 1998, no other issue that I have dealt with can match the public concern expressed about the long-term unknown implications of the erection of telecommunications masts throughout Northern Ireland. No one in a position of responsibility has yet arrived at, or expressed, a positive view regarding the health fears that exist because of the nature of the masts. Jane Morrice has already mentioned the health fears in relation to the phones themselves.

I am sure that all 108 Members of the Assembly have been lobbied about mobile phones. Some will probably have been lobbied more than others — particularly those who represent rural areas where the masts are being erected. People in towns may not be as aware of the masts as those in rural areas.

There are masts in my area in Glassdrumman outside Annalong, Killowen outside Rostrevor, Ballyholland outside Newry and Barnmeen near Rathfriland. I want to speak most about the one at the Corgary/Beech Hill area of Newry. The Minister is aware of the concerns of the Corgary and Beech Hill residents, and I thank him for meeting them at short notice and giving them a fair and reasonable hearing. I share their concerns.

The Sheepbridge area of the main A1 road about four of fives miles north of Newry has a plethora of masts. One lady that I know looks out on five masts from her home. She has a small family, and it is impossible to understand her concerns unless one lives there. When she looks through every window she can see a mast.

The Minister is early into his portfolio, and I thank him for taking the concerns on board, and for the recent legislation that he has introduced. I hope that it is another step in addressing the concerns; it is not the final decision.

I support the motion. However, in doing so, I point out that in accepting the 300-yard limit referred to in Mr Shannon’s motion, I am in no way putting that before the wishes of Newry and Mourne District Council, which I serve on.

For more than two years, Newry and Mourne District Council has continued to recommend an exclusion zone of 500 metres, and that remains my preference. I accept the motion without compromising my role as a Newry and Mourne councillor or its view on the preferred exclusion zone. The debate is timely, but we have other things to do. Every day our work is being taken up by the subject of telecommunications masts.

The biggest single problem is that the owners of the masts have money, while the protestors do not. The owners have access to Queen’s Counsel, King’s Counsel and every kind of counsel under the sun. However, the people protesting do not have any money to fight them. It is as simple as that. Councils can be sympathetic, but they do not have the money to fight the telecommunications providers. I support the motion.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Although I support the motion, I have to ask the Minister why he did not include a statutory safe zone, which would have meant setting down a criterion that all masts should be built 500 metres from any dwelling, residence, hospital, school or commercial property.

We all know about the growing evidence linking cancer rates to mobile phones and masts. Although nothing is conclusive, why take the risk of bringing in weak legislation? The long-term health effects of non-ionising radiation being emitted from mobile phone masts has yet to be fully ascertained. The Minister should have adopted the requirement of the Maastricht treaty, which introduces a precautionary principle. Masts should be sited away from schools, hospitals and homes as a precaution. Children, because of their size, act as resonant aerials. Therefore siting masts close to schools increases the risk to children.

The Minister of the Environment, Dermot Nesbitt, has failed to develop an approach that will protect communities. The criteria proposed will not protect people’s health and safety. We must take on board the general public’s uncertainty and fear of potential health problems.

Masts sited on farms by contract with the telecommunications companies do not give a farmer a get-out clause when there are objections by the local community, and this is causing ill feeling and dissension in local communities.

I know that the Minister has taken on board the issue of the mast at Jerrettspass. I hope that it will be relocated. Does he understand the concerns of Jerrettspass residents, and that in order to relocate the mast, he should take into consideration the recommendation of Newry and Mourne District Council that it should be located 500m away from homes and dwellings?

There are many points to be taken on board. I recognise that the Minister is considering a change in the legislation. However, it is important that all new masts, regardless of size, should require full planning permission. It is unfortunate that the changes in the legislation are not retrospective. There will be a great rush of planning applications for phone masts. Full planning permission only requires that two criteria be taken into consideration. The first is domestic amenity — the effect of a proposed mast on property value. The second is land form — the impact on the appearance of an area. Even then, objections on either ground will not guarantee that a planning application would be rejected. There is an absolute requirement for planning to take into consideration the concerns of the community.

Several countries, such as Australia and Russia, have statutory safe zones. That means that no phone mast can be built within 500 metres to 2,000 metres of any residential dwelling or commercial property.

There is growing evidence linking cancer rates to mobile phones and phone masts. While nothing is conclusive, we should not take risks by bringing in weak planning legislation. We are moving into the third generation of transmitters where masts such as the new BT Tetra mast are four times stronger than many of the early phone masts, and we need to be very careful.

We also need to tighten up the legislation around the monitoring of microwaves from phone masts. There is no point monitoring the output of a single mast. We need to monitor the output of mast networks to look at the compounding of microwaves, and we need to measure the impact inside dwellings, not just at source. Legislation is to be brought in by Statutory Rule; therefore, it will not be scrutinised as thoroughly as a Bill.

In conclusion, if the mobile base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Time is up.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— the planning authority will not have to give any further consideration to the health aspects of the station.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

This is without doubt the most controversial planning issue in my constituency of South Down. I am aware of 15 contentious masts in the constituency, all of which are opposed by residents’ groups. I have attended meetings about most of them, and the clear message is that many constituents feel that the legislation does not go far enough. The vast majority of objections to masts are based on health concerns, and nowhere in the proposed legislation is there a definite commitment that those concerns will be taken on board. Amenity and traffic are taken into account but not health. Until that bridge is crossed, the public will be most concerned.

There is a solution to this problem, and it has not been suggested by any of the Members who spoke in the debate. There are sufficient telephone masts in Northern Ireland to cover all the needs of the telecommunications industry. The fundamental problem is not that there are not enough masts but that there are five companies that all want to have their own masts serving small areas. It is rather like Northern Ireland Electricity and four other companies being given the right to supply electricity in the Province and having five sets of poles and five sets of wires, when we know that we need only one set of poles and one set of wires.

The simple solution to the problem is to say that there is no need for any further masts in Northern Ireland and to force the present companies to share bandwidth. If I travel through Europe my mobile phone will roam from one mobile phone mast to another and one mobile phone company to another. When I come home I will get an itemised bill that will have five or six different companies on it because of the iniquitous roaming charges. They will all charge me for the use of their masts because my phone can roam on to the strongest signal available. We should force the mobile phone companies in Northern Ireland to adopt a similar policy. If I were in Annalong and could not get a signal on the Orange mast, I could roam on to the Vodafone mast, pick up a signal and use that. I have been to site meetings where companies have insisted that they need a mast, but then my mobile phone rings, and I discover that there are a full five bars on some other company such as Orange or Cellnet. There is, therefore, already full provision for that area by one mobile phone company, and another company wants to duplicate that coverage. There is no need whatsoever for it, and we simply cannot tolerate a further proliferation of masts.

Four companies have been established in Northern Ireland, with Hutchison 3G coming along. The Republic’s phone company, Eircom, also wants to establish itself in Northern Ireland. We could have six companies wanting six sets of masts. That is absolute nonsense and is not required. Some cognisance should be taken of the special situation in Northern Ireland. In England it is perfectly possible to site a phone mast 500 yards away from the nearest occupied dwelling. In fact, you could site it three miles away from the nearest occupied dwelling because of the nucleated form of settlement in England and Wales.

However, the dispersed rural community in Northern Ireland makes it difficult to find a dwelling in the lowlands that is not within 300 metres of a mast. If we forced telecommunications companies to roam within bandwidths and to share bandwidths, the problem would not exist.

I wish to raise two other issues that are especially relevant to South Down. I am concerned about a recent proposal to install a telephone mast in a grain silo. That is an unacceptable attempt to disguise the mast. Phone masts should not be permitted because they are hidden behind other buildings; they must be considered on the basis of their impact on health.

In a more insidious example in Annalong, about which I wrote to the Minister, a telephone company described its application to erect a telephone mast as an installation of telephone communications apparatus. Local residents who read the Planning Service advertisement in the newspaper were none the wiser and assumed that the application concerned a switchbox, but it was to erect a mast. All advertisements sanctioned by the Planning Service must be accurate. Local residents must know exactly what is being considered and should not be hoodwinked about plans for their area.

In summary, health issues must be considered in the legislation, and companies must be forced to share bandwidth to ensure that there is no further need for controversial mast applications, which create so many problems and so much work for Members.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

A modern communications system creates massive benefits for people, including industry and businesses. The use of mobile phones has increased dramatically in Northern Ireland in the past few years. We have enjoyed the convenience of mobile phones; however, we are also concerned about the location of telecommunication masts. It is vital that masts are designed and sited sensitively, so that their environmental impact is minimised. There are too many telecommunications companies, and we must encourage them to share masts. There is much public concern about the possible health effects associated with mobile phone technology, and the tougher planning control of mobile phone masts would be a major step towards tackling the issue that affects my constituency of Mid Ulster and the whole of Northern Ireland.

The planning recommendations in the Stewart Report, which was carried out by an independent expert group on mobile phones, have taken into account the fears of the public about the erection of masts close to built-up areas, schools and hospitals. Those fears must be addressed, and more stringent planning controls would help to do that. Although we cannot confirm the exact risk to those who live close to base stations, a full template of protocols for the erection of masts is needed. In addition, there must be an ongoing report detailing the position of all masts across the country, and an audit of each site to ensure that companies continue to comply with the agreed specifications and exposure guidelines. I welcome the recent planning policy statement on the matter, which will help to develop legislation to introduce the full planning control of mobile phone operators’ telecommunications developments.

Mobile phones have been in our pockets for nearly 15 years, although they used to weigh almost as much as a brick. If mobile phone operators had foreseen the popularity of such a necessary device, could satellite systems not have been introduced? The cost of satellite technology would have been redeemed ten times over, and I presume that it would have been a superior and healthier system.

We live in an electronic age. Although mobile phones were once a luxury, they are now a necessity, not only for ourselves, but for teenage, and younger, children; health considerations are, therefore, paramount. The Stewart Report recognises the lack of research on mobile phone radiation and its health effects. Therefore, it would be wise to take a precautionary approach until more research is carried out. It is important that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety takes this issue seriously and gives good advice on the matter. Mobile phone manufacturers must be encouraged to ensure that the health of all users and those living close to masts are guaranteed. I recommend the report to the House.

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

Unlike Mr Close, I do have a mobile phone, which was forced upon me.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust that it is switched off?

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

It is switched off, Mr Speaker. I would not dare to come in here with it on. The SDLP press officer forced me to get one. I resisted for many years, but in the end I gave in. The press officer refused to do anything for me unless I obtained a mobile phone.

We depend on mobile phones, and there is a price to pay — there must be telephone masts, otherwise we will not have a system. However, the UK Government received such a bonanza from mobile phone licences that they were prepared to concede the most lax rules and regulations governing the installation of masts. Therefore, we have the system of prior approval.

I agree with my Colleagues that the matter has caused great public concern. In my constituency, North Belfast, there seems to have been a plethora of applications, possibly because of the elevated topography of the Antrim Road. They have been met by stout resistance from the residents, and rightly so, because the jury is out on the health implications of the masts. Until we receive an independent assessment of the health risk, it is not right for parents or the public to endure the invisible risks of these masts.

There must be stricter regulations. I am glad that the Minister is introducing legislation to put stricter regulations into effect. I do not know how far it will go, but I emphasise to him the importance of looking retrospectively on masts that are already in place and that could be changed. That dimension must be considered carefully when legislation is being prepared. There may be changes to the type of equipment currently in place: it could be made stronger or deadlier; we just do not know. There must be regulations to control that aspect. Although permission has been obtained to erect masts in the past, companies cannot be allowed to retain masts or change them at will.

We must adopt a precautionary approach. We must take on board the findings of the Stewart Report, and we must safeguard the health of our children and the population. Masts should not be situated near schools, housing estates or residential areas.

It is time to introduce tough legislation, which the Minister has promised. It is to be hoped that that legislation will genuinely restrict operators who are only interested in profit and not in the health implications for the majority of our citizens.

I agree with Mr Billy Armstrong who mentioned mast-sharing. There is no reason why companies should not share masts. That is one of the criteria used to determine prior approval.

Unfortunately, it was ignored in the past; I hope that it will not be ignored in future.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I have listened to the debate with genuine interest, and I thank the Members who have remained to hear its conclusion.

The Administration represents partnership and trying to work together both politically, in the institution, and with the community. Members may ask why I am promoting partnership. People, with the possible exception of Mr Close, want mobile phones; the telecommunications industry wants to provide masts; and the Department of the Environment wants to facilitate the provision of masts in a way that is conducive to the environment and allows people to use mobile phones. To satisfy those requirements, all the players must work in partnership. I trust that the Assembly, the Department of the Environment and others will be responsive and realistic in providing the required combination.

When the Stewart Report was published in 2000, the Department initiated a full, comprehensive, public consultation, which took into account all the planning implications of the report. The consultation was wide, and those who made submissions to it expressed conflicting views — it would not have been a genuine consultation otherwise. After that consultation the then Minister, Mr Foster, proposed options to the Executive on 6 June 2001. The matter was fully discussed at an Executive meeting on 14 June 2001 and was made public the following day. The Department stated that it would opt for full planning permission and that a planning policy statement would be created in conjunction with full planning. Mr Foster reiterated that announcement on 17 July with a further statement to clarify what was being done.

I am disappointed that it has taken from July last year until now to propose actual legislation with the accompanying policy planning statement. However, it has taken time to get the policy planning statement right. One reason for that was that the health issue had to be dealt with fully. I will speak about that in more detail later, but I wanted to establish the chronology of the consultation first.

I said that partnership was important. Mr Savage mentioned getting the balance right between various demands and wishes. We must take into account the local community, the political institutions and the business community. My Department and I spoke to representatives of the business community this month, and, for the record, we had a good discussion. The Department made it clear that a balance must be struck between what the business community wants and the deliberations that the public expects before masts are erected.

The Department also asked the businesses to fully implement the 10 commitments that they promised, including considerable consultation with the people who will be affected by the masts. We expect the business community to participate fully in the partnership. The Department gave an assurance that, with full planning being implemented, it would ensure that it was carried through as effectively and efficiently as possible with one deferral to counsel, which is now its policy.

Assuming that the Assembly passes the legislation, the Department also said that after six to nine months it would review how the policy was working with the business community and others. The Department is committed to ensuring that the telecommunications sector in Northern Ireland is at the forefront of developments. However, it is also committed to consulting fully with those who are affected by the location of masts. It is not political opportunism on the part of any Member to go for full planning permission. Rather, it represents a response to the many needs of the community.

The Department consulted with the business community on 3 April 2002 and proceeded as quickly as possible to bring the statute and the policy planning statement before the Assembly. Indeed, I want to put on record that the Committee for the Environment stated openly and publicly that the Department should implement the Executive Committee’s decision without further delay.

I noted what Dr McCrea said, and I want to put on record that he apologised to me for having to leave before the end of the debate. I accept his apology. I told him that he could read what I had to say in Hansard. The enduring word is the written word. With regard to implementation, the Department brought the Statutory Rule and the policy planning statement to the Committee for the Environment on 9 April 2002 to inform members that the issues were being dealt with and that the policy planning statement would be published on 11 April. The statement was duly published.

The Statutory Rule was laid before the Committee for consultation, and it examined the issues comprehensively. Dr McCrea referred to five aspects of the planning process in his summary. He stated that the Committee wanted full planning permission; the Department has stated that that will happen. He referred to the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998; there is no need to mention human rights, because it is assumed that human rights are integral to the business of the Assembly. It is part of the convention. No section of the policy planning statement is in conflict with human rights.

Dr McCrea also referred to exclusion zones and incentives for mast-sharing, and I will discuss both issues later. He also referred to a hierarchy of preferred siting; the public can consider where a mast should be located as part of the environmental aspects of the planning process. The Department has reflected fully on the principal concerns of the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.

I wish to work fully with the Committee. Since I became Minister, I have consulted with the Committee as much as I can, whether orally, by telephone — without stating which type of telephone — or in writing. However, the Assembly has its proper place at the centre of events. The Department of the Environment and I should reflect and collaborate closely with the Committee.

Dr McCrea mentioned departmental prevarication and also referred to issues on which he thought that the Department had failed to consult with the Committee. A week ago, he had strong words for officials. I am responsible for the operation, direction and control of departmental officials. If Dr McCrea has a problem, it should be addressed to me. I will give the House an example.

The rules were laid before the Committee on 9 April. We allowed the Committee seven days to consider the rules, which was normal. A departmental official alerted me that the Committee was concerned about that time period. I immediately told the official to double the period to two weeks — twice the normal time period — so that the Committee could fully deliberate on the Statutory Rule and the Department could take on the Committee’s recommendations. The change of the two dates in the press advertisement was due to my direction in response to what I perceived as a need of the Committee. I want to make it clear that that is not something that merits criticism of my officials.

It is more important to look at the motion. There are two elements to it. It calls for the full implementation of the Stewart Report and requires that no telecommunications masts be erected within 300 yards of a dwelling without consultation. Some Members said that there should be an exclusion zone. However, one Member correctly said that that is not part of the motion. The motion, which I endorse, calls for consultation.

The first element of the motion concerns the Stewart Report. Rev Dr William McCrea said that full planning control is one of the Committee’s key elements; it is also a key element of the Stewart Report. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to have accepted that.

We recognise and respond to the need for full planning control in the decision-making process for locating masts. Compared with current prior approval, that will involve several significant changes, notably greater consultation and much more time for scrutiny by officials. Let me make it clear: the process will ensure that there is a press advertisement for the proposed location of every mast. There will be neighbourhood notification and statutory consultation with district councils. In other words, the public will be more fully engaged in the process.

Mr Shannon said in his opening remarks that absolutely no regard was shown for the people. I do not deny that, in the past, certain things were done where the public were perhaps disregarded. Our aim is to ensure that that does not happen in the future, and we look to full planning control to deliver that. Mr Shannon said that masts

"should not be placed in any schools without the consent of the school".

If a mast is to be put on a school building then, of course, the consent of the owners — in a sense, the school board of governors — is needed. That is normal civil law. However, if a mast is to be located in an area that is generally geographically close to a school, we want full consultation and notification with both the public and district councils. The process will be open and transparent, and we want the public to be fully involved.

Councils will have an important part to play in dealing with all planning. In addition, as part of the partnership I referred to, full planning control now offers greater opportunity for negotiations to take place between the telecom operators and local people. That has occurred to a certain extent in the past, although it may have been sporadic and geographically dispersed. However, the new rules will ensure a more fully rigorous consultation between the telecom operators and the local public. It is hoped that that will make the telecommunications companies more cognisant so that, before they apply for planning approval, they will have considered, with the public, where the mast should be located.

Telecommunications businesses must play their part in this partnership; so must we.

We also look to the community and district councils to play their part. Therefore, the operators must think carefully.

The policy planning statement aspect came up often, and Mr Kennedy, Mr McLaughlin and Mr Bradley mentioned the sharing of masts. Mr Kennedy talked of over-intensification; Mr McLaughlin said that we should not only monitor, but ensure. The policy planning statement will ensure that, to the extent that if any mast is to be approved, the telecommunications industry must demonstrate that it consulted, tried to locate the mast elsewhere and found that that was not possible. Otherwise, no additional mast will be allowed. I hope that that will take care of intensification and of Mr Bradley’s point about siting five masts together. The sharing of masts and the whole environmental issue will be considered, because there must be measures to mitigate visual and environmental impact. Perhaps that can be taken care of by having smaller apparatus, by better design, by using existing structures or buildings, and by sharing mast locations.

The final key area deals with health. In his introduction, Mr Shannon said that people have health concerns. I fully recognise those concerns, but in the same breath I recognise that my Department is not a Department of Health. It deals with planning and other aspects of local government. Part of the development of the policy planning statement was to discuss and negotiate with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is, therefore, for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to advise on health matters. We are fully aware of that; it is part of the policy planning statement. The health advice is very clear, in that telecommunications development must meet certain standards — the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards — in all respects. Not only must it do that, but the operator must state that it does so. We are clear about health.

Timing is wonderful in politics. It was interesting that just as Mr Shannon said that we should agree to precautionary exclusion zones — no-go areas in towns and schools — his mobile phone went off. In all probability, if there were no-go zones in urban areas his phone would not work. The timing of that phone ringing was wonderful. In the end, he commented that mobile phones are a part of life. That is true, and George Savage referred to it. Mr McLaughlin also referred to precautionary exclusion zones.

We must strike a balance. With the exception of Mr Close, who stands as a paragon of virtue — he neither has one, wants one, nor will be forced to use one — the vast majority of people use mobile phones. Precautionary exclusion zones are mentioned in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s guidance, and the Minister, Bairbre de Brún, has commented on that, as has the Stewart Report. I must make it clear that the Stewart Report, which we are to implement as part of this motion, has not recommended exclusion zones. Nor has it recommended any precautionary approach in that context, but I shall come to that in a moment.

I shall make one other point. We are taking the Minister’s advice as part of the policy planning statement. However, were we to disregard her advice, or act in its absence, I should not be surprised if we were challenged in the courts for so doing. That point is worth noting.

Let me return to Mr Close. He said that he did not like emotive words. Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the time, but this is an important issue and I am almost finished.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

You have less than one minute.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I should perhaps speed up, but I shall address this point. Mr Close referred to precautionary aspects. We are taking on board the Stewart Report’s view of the word "precautionary". Abolition of prior approval is part of what we are doing. We are adopting the public exposure standards of ICNIRP. With respect to the audit of the emissions, they are being monitored and tests have been conducted in Northern Ireland.

Mr Shannon spoke of the need for funding for health research, and Ms Morrice talked about the need for mobile phones. Seven million pounds is available for health research, of which £4 million has been allocated. A lot of that was allocated to deal with the effects of mobile phones, as distinct from the effects of the masts.

I conclude as I started — there are many sensitive issues. A partnership is needed, not just for the Assembly, but for those in the telecommunications industry and the public, because we need phones and masts. Therefore, we must find a way to provide for and satisfy both.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Members who contributed today. Fourteen Members spoke, on recurring themes. I understand the system; therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was not available to hear the debate, because her input and that of her Department could have been used to draft further legislation that may be needed.

A clear point of view has come through in the debate. Each Member spoke on the health issue. Many mentioned the need for more stringent planning applications. Many voiced their concerns for children who use mobile phones. Each Member mentioned the need for an independent body to monitor the emissions. With the exception of my Colleague from Lagan Valley, Mr Close, who is fortunate enough not to need a mobile phone, most Members acknowledged that need. I am sure that all Members in the Chamber use one. There are technological advances — [Interruption].

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Will Mr Hutchinson allow me to make a brief point of information?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not sure about Mr Hutchinson, but I am sure that Mr Shannon will.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

My apologies, Mr Shannon. It is for the United Kingdom Government, not Northern Ireland as a regional jurisdiction, to decide on an independent health agency.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Regardless of what happens with the legislation, the health issue is clear. People have legitimate concerns and fears about the perceived dangers of telecommunication masts. Those fears have not gone away. Members should never underestimate the opinions of their constituents.

I am concerned. Through the district council, I champion various groups in my constituency on behalf of those who are opposed to telecommunications masts for several reasons. Health concerns are a prime cause for anxiety, but it is also worrying that applications have gone through retrospectively without any consultation with local people. Applications have appeared in the press in small print, and within a month a telecommunications mast has been erected. People in Ballywalter found that a telecommunications mast was erected in the main street overnight. Although people protested, and I contacted the telecommunications firm, it made no difference — the firm insisted on going ahead. Things like that have happened over and over again, and I am concerned that despite all our protestations, the applications went ahead retrospectively.

The Minister indicated that planning law in Northern Ireland has been tightened. It has been tightened, but it does not address many of the issues raised today. What difference would the measures that we have discussed today make? Planning applications would appear in the paper; people would be notified if they live adjacent to the proposed site; and although those people could then respond and tell the planners that they are still unhappy with the position of the telecommunications mast, the decision would still be made to approve it. Therefore, have the regulations and planning changes introduced by the Minister really addressed the problem?

Although I do not mean to criticise the Minister — and I hope that he does not interpret my remarks in that way — the proposed legislation has no teeth and cannot give people what they need. The Minister said that there was particular concern about the possible health effects associated with mobile phone technology. I accept that his Department is not responsible for health, but that is a key issue.

All Members mentioned the need for an independent body to monitor radiation emissions —the Minister said that that would be done — and for action if the emissions should exceed the prescribed limit. The problem is that there is no one to monitor emissions. If mobile phone usage increases in a certain area, the emissions will increase, as will the threat to people’s health. Members are concerned that monitoring should be done, about how it should be done, and about how that information should be passed on to elected representatives and their constituents. Emissions should be monitored by an independent body that could collate the evidence and statistics and make them available to anyone who wishes to see them. Action should then be taken on the basis of that evidence. Telecommunications companies should pay for that body, because they are making a fortune from mobile phone users.

Members mentioned planning regulations and discussed the problems of obtrusive masts being located in conservation areas and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Many mast applications were slipped in through the back door, and companies have used the opportunities afforded by holidays, and so on, to get planning approval.

I mentioned the concerns about the erection of masts in locations such as residential areas, schools, hospitals, town centres and shopping areas. Where a mast is hidden behind a building, it does not mean that people have no concerns about its dangers. The Minister says that the legislation will be tighter in Northern Ireland than it will be in any other part of the United Kingdom; however, it is not tight enough. It is not sufficiently far-reaching, and it has no teeth. We welcome what has happened to date, but it is not enough to address people’s concerns.

Most Members mentioned Government assurances. Mr Close mentioned that, as did Mr Savage. The Government assured us that there was no problem with CJD and BSE, asbestosis or overhead lines. However, over time, it has become apparent that those are very real problems. Therefore, no one could claim that assurances by Government bodies are enough to convince us that everything is all right.

Rev McCrea quoted Sir William Stewart’s very good statement that if there were any "indirect adverse effects" on people’s health and welfare, we should take precautions. This legislation does not constitute a precautionary approach. If there are dangers — and many of us believe that there are — we should err on the side of caution.

The Minister mentioned the motion. If those who live within 300 yards of a proposed mast are fully consulted and say that they are unhappy, their concerns should be responded to. We need such input into the legislation. If the residents concerned say that they do not want a mast, the Minister should respond by ensuring that their wishes are upheld.

We cannot ignore the planning issues or local people’s concerns. A seminar at Queen’s University, which Sir William Stewart attended, was bunged with people from all over Northern Ireland who were concerned about telecommunication masts. Sir William Stewart made some excellent proposals in his report, and we should endorse those. What we have today is a response that gives some portion in relation to planning, but it does not address the overall concerns.

Sir William Stewart advised people to err on the side of caution and to take a precautionary attitude to these planning applications. I believe that we have no option but to follow that line of thought. If there is any indirect adverse effect on the health and welfare of people, then we are duty bound, as elected representatives, to respond to that and to articulate that point of view on their behalf. Looking at this legislation, many will feel that it has not gone far enough.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure the complete implementation of the recommendations made by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, as laid out in the Stewart Report, and further, to implement a change in legislation to ensure that no telecommunications masts are constructed within 300 yards of any dwelling without full public consultation.

Motion made:

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

Mainstream Funding For Ballybeen Women’s Group

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

As so often is the case within the social fabric of Northern Ireland, women are to be found at the forefront of projects, programmes and schemes aimed at enriching the social well-being of local communities and benefiting the individuals who live within those communities. Likewise, the organisations that they have formed to facilitate the provision of services have been the driving force behind the campaign to have their work recognised and formally backed and funded by central Government. Without the necessary finance, these committed individuals, through their organisations, would not be in a position to maintain and develop the services that they currently provide to the community. The work done over the past number of years has been such that if the services were to be lost, there would be very tangible, negative effects on the health and wealth of the local community.

You might ask what exactly those services are, and, if they are so important, how it is that we do not already know about them. The services provided by Ballybeen Women’s Group, and by other similar groups across Northern Ireland, are many and varied, and history has proved that their operation has been an understated success.

The education and training programme of Ballybeen Women’s Centre is a first step back into full-time education, training, and, ultimately, employment for many women. The centre endeavours to make that transition as easy as possible through a number of measures. It offers courses that are free or where costs are kept to a minimum, which is essential as Ballybeen has been recognised as an official TSN area. It provides free crèche facilities to all participants, which are crucial for mothers wishing to avail of the centre’s services. The timing of courses is set to meet the domestic responsibilities of local women. The structuring of courses at suitable times of the day, which takes into account the domestic responsibilities of women, works hand in hand with the crèche provision to make courses as accessible as possible for all who are interested.

Away from the directly educational and training purposes of the courses provided, the centre offers a warm, friendly and supportive learning environment for all who attend. It serves as an emotional outlet for mothers and others to escape from the pressures of everyday life, to relax and to recharge their batteries. The aim of this particular facility is to provide access and support for women who may need additional basic skills support while on courses — women who wish to improve their basic skills for their own self-esteem or to assist their children with homework. The objective is to equip women with the necessary basic skills to encourage and enable progression to further education, training or employment.

As for the nuts and bolts of the education and training programmes offered, the centre facilitates a range of accredited courses through the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), City and Guilds, GCSE, and Open College Network formats, as well as non-certified courses. The centre is also a member of Belfast Women’s Training Services, which provides two Open College Network-accredited pre-vocational courses, free to women through the Women Moving On and Women Progressing programmes.

Information and communication technology (ICT) is one area of business that has expanded rapidly in the past 10 years and has become ever more important in the fields of both education and learning. Therefore, it is essential that women from the Ballybeen area be provided with the opportunity to expand their knowledge in this field. The group works in conjunction with Dundonald Flexible Learning Centre to provide opportunities to gain various ICT skills and qualifications on site, including RSA, computer literacy and information technology (CLAIT), information business technology and word processing courses.

The provision of ICT training facilities is crucial to the development of local women, and that has been compounded by plans to close the Dundonald outreach centre of Castlereagh College of Further and Higher Education this September. That closure will result in the loss of 161 ICT places, stripping the TSN area of Ballybeen of its main centre for training and further education. This has been done with the knowledge of the Department for Employment and Learning. With Adult Learning Week only three weeks away, that makes complete nonsense of the Department’s policy on this crucial matter.

This development makes the continued existence, growth and success of the Ballybeen Women’s Group infinitely more important. If it should fail to attract the necessary funding, Ballybeen would become an educational and training desert. As a provider of further education, the group operates as an outreach centre of Castlereagh College of Further and Higher Education, with which it works closely and through which tutors are provided for several of its courses.

Good-quality childcare has important benefits for individuals, families, communities, society and the economy as a whole. The Ballybeen Women’s Group promotes the value of education for all ages, from early years upward. There is an emphasis on quality provision in the services for under-fives, which ensures that children are better prepared to move on to mainstream education. Children who experience good pre-school education, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with special needs, are better prepared for school, learn more quickly and have fewer emotional and behavioural difficulties in later life. The better the start children have at school, the more likely they are to use their school experience positively.

The Ballybeen Women’s Group has successfully developed and provided quality childcare services for the under-fives in the Ballybeen area since 1989. As well as providing crèche facilities, Ballybeen Women’s Group also provides facilities for the operation of pre-school and toddlers’ groups. The crèche facility is available to anyone using the education services in the centre or drop-in facility. The pre-school operates five morning sessions every week, Monday to Friday, for those aged from three and a half to four years old. The toddlers’ group caters for children aged from two years, nine months to three and a half years.

Last year, the organisation succeeded in opening new premises to meet the demand for its pre-school programme and to relocate crèche facilities to the vacated pre-school. It is a testament to the commitment of those involved that structural and renovation work was completed in four months.

The centre also operates a special needs training course, aimed at developing students’ knowledge, understanding, confidence and competence when working with children with a variety of special needs and providing fundamental knowledge to any student who wishes to be assessed at NVQ level. This course enables students to understand the need to develop relationships with both parents and professionals and to understand the need for, and to devise, a structured programme for the child with special needs in consultation with parents.

Perhaps the most progressive and ambitious project led by the Ballybeen Women’s Group is the peer education programme, which is a community-based health project for young people between the ages of 10 and 25. The programme is aimed at providing a sensitive and non-threatening environment in which young people can discuss sex education and alcohol and drug abuse and the impact that those issues have on society. Young people can identify their own needs and discuss how they can be addressed.

At present, the centre has a pool of educators who are involved in training other young people of a similar age. Those educators are volunteers who have undergone intensive training in health issues and accredited training in communication and group-working skills. That training has provided them with the ability to make what is an imaginative and innovative programme work for those who participate.

The programme gives young people the chance to discuss their attitudes towards their sexual activity and the impact of HIV and single parentage, and to reflect on their feelings. One exercise involves a young person taking responsibility for a simulated baby, and the centre has obtained two of those. The simulated babies replicate a real child’s behaviour and illustrate the complexities of being responsible for a child. The aim is to provide an experience for young adults that simulates the parenting of a baby and explores the emotional, financial and social consequences of becoming a real parent.

Those issues tend to be more common in areas —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I advise the Member that several other Members wish to contribute to the debate. If she could bring her remarks to a close reasonably soon, it would give them all an opportunity to speak.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I understand. Thank you. Those issues tend to be more common in areas of social deprivation. The programme serves to provide information on the issues to those that are most likely to come into direct contact with them.

I want support for the Ballybeen Women’s Group, so I shall leave it at that and allow other Members to speak.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If other Members could keep their speeches to just under eight minutes, that would give the Minister 10 minutes to reply, as is the normal custom.

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

I thank Mrs Robinson for introducing this Adjournment debate. I tutored the Ballybeen Women’s Group on the subject of "women into politics", so I am aware of the services and support that it provides to women in Ballybeen.

The issues and problems facing Ballybeen Women’s Centre are duplicated in women’s centres throughout Northern Ireland. To say that the role of women in the community is vital may sound clichéd, but I make no apology for stating the obvious. The majority of women work at grass-roots level in the community, and women’s centres are an essential part of that work. According to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action’s publication, ‘State of the Sector II’, 10,322 women were employed full-time in the community sector in 1996-97. That amounts to 31% of the total workforce. Some 8,270 part-time jobs amounted to 25% of the workforce. However, there is a failure to recognise the importance of grass-roots development as a basis for a growing economy.

Women’s groups across the Province are adversely affected by the lack of core funding. Those issues cannot simply be regarded as women’s issues. They need to be seen as society’s issues. Slightly more than half the population are women, and until they are enabled to take their positions and participate fully in public life at all levels, a serious democratic deficit will remain.

A society that excludes such a large section of the population from participating in the decisions that affect their lives cannot be described as a genuine and inclusive democracy. We cannot afford not to make use of the talents and skills that can bring better standards of living for all.

Many women’s initial involvement in the community is based on a single issue. They concentrate on matters such as children’s play areas, traffic-calming measures, drug problems, or the setting up of after-school clubs. Those issues are crucially important, and many women see them as a stepping stone to developing an infrastructure for the whole community. They also give them an opportunity to widen their horizons and use their experience as a launch pad to get involved in decision-making at a higher level.

There are many obvious pitfalls that await us in the real world when we try to get actively involved in the community, and underfunding is the main one.

Women’s groups provide an invaluable service for the whole community: not just for women. Often when applying for funding to continue services, groups are passed from one Department to another. At this point, I would have liked to ask the Minister for Social Development, whose Department has responsibility for funding the community and voluntary sectors, why women’s groups have constantly to battle for funding given that the Harbinson review — which was led by the Department for Social Development — looked into funding in the voluntary sector as a whole. I cannot do so, as the Minister has not seen fit to attend the debate.

This issue is not solely a matter of gender policy; it falls within the remit of the Department for Social Development’s funding for community and voluntary groups and because of that I would have expected Mr Dodds to contribute to the debate. Perhaps he is boycotting the Assembly as well as the Executive.

I understand that OFMDFM is working with Departments on a strategy for gender policy and that an interdepartmental group has been convened to look at the issues surrounding women’s groups. The petition concerning women’s groups presented by Ms Morrice on 19 March has gone to the Committee of the Centre and is being considered. I hope that something positive and proactive will come from that.

We should never underestimate the amount of hard work, dedication and achievement that women have given to their communities and the wider effects on people in other sectors who have gained from those experiences. It is essential that the numbers, and calibre, of such women grow in the future. That can only happen by way of a co-ordinated approach across all sectors and in particular the Departments of the Assembly.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I express gratitude to my Colleague, Mrs I Robinson, for bringing such an important subject to the Floor. I support the work of the Ballybeen Women’s Group and all other such organisations that find themselves in exactly the same uncertain funding position. Ms Lewsley has mentioned that uncertainty.

Mrs I Robinson has fully explained what is needed. I shall simply say a few words about what I know of the Ballybeen Women’s Group. It is an important health, education and childcare provider. I had the recent pleasure of attending a distribution of merit certificates to successful students. I pay tribute to all recipients, and, of course, the administrators in all aspects of the work going on at the Ballybeen Women’s Group.

As elected representatives, we must do what we can to ensure that this vital facility is not threatened. I am grateful that the Minister with some responsibility for these matters is in attendance. I appeal to those in authority in the Assembly to ensure that sufficient funding is in place, not only to sustain the present activities at Ballybeen but also to enhance and extend the work into new programmes. The group provides an excellent and valuable human and social service to a great many people, not only in the Ballybeen area but also to a much wider field, and that service must continue.

It would be proper to express gratitude to the organisations that have contributed to this group and to other groups. Ballybeen Women’s Group recently had an important visitor: the Paymaster-General from the Treasury Office. She must have seen for herself the extraordinary work carried out by the group. Had I been in her position, I would have simply written a large cheque to enable Ballybeen Women’s Group to get on with its work, sound in the knowledge that the service will continue without worry or concern. I ask the Minister and all Departments to do what they can to ensure that the work of the Ballybeen Women’s Group continues.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I welcome today’s debate, which gives us another opportunity to raise the issue of the disgraceful situation that women’s groups that provide such a tremendous resource for the community have to scramble around for funding.

There is no proper reward or recognition for the tremendous work being carried out in these centres. Mrs I Robinson listed the particulars of Ballybeen, and Ms Lewsley and Mr McCarthy said that such work is replicated throughout Northern Ireland. However, for some reason, Ministers’ eyes are blinkered: they will not go and look at the centres and they will not recognise the type of work being done there. I could go into detail about that work, however, Iris Robinson spoke at length about the different areas. We are talking about health, education, training and social services.

It may be better to think of this topic in budgetary terms rather than in terms of social affairs. These groups are saving money and are helping health budgets because of the advice and counselling they provide to women who are vulnerable to illnesses such as depression. The psychiatric support being given in these centres reduces pressure in some parts of the Health Service. There are good budgetary reasons for supporting these centres.

The centres provide basic skills for women — reducing pressure on the Training and Employment Agency. Women are given the confidence to try out their skills in information technology in a safe, warm, friendly atmosphere. The centres reduce the pressure on training budgets that would require people to go elsewhere for assistance. They also reduce pressure on childcare provision and on the Citizens Advice Bureaux. The value of their work must be recognised.

Iris Robinson mentioned youth services, and that is an important project for peer education and the fact that young people can learn about sex education. They can also learn about the use and abuse of drugs. How do we measure the value of that to our community, and where is that recognition being given? There are accredited courses; special needs training courses and free crèche facilities.

An important thing that has changed in society is the education of our children. They are coming to the centres and are being educated: their mothers are being educated also. Charles D McIver once said:

"If you educate a man, you educate an individual; if you educate a woman, you educate a family".

I believe, and I accept, that things are changing, but I know that Mrs Robinson totally agrees with me. The centres are vital, and that must be recognised by our society.

I was interested in Ms Lewsley’s figures that approximately 10,000 women are employed full-time in the centres, and 8,000 are employed part-time. Those people would otherwise be unemployed — so that is reducing pressure. If Ministers only understand the parlance of economic policy, then they should look at the different areas where centres are reducing pressure.

Undoubtedly the EU, in the Peace I programme, recognised the value of centres and paid money to support them: that is where the original money came from, and I am ready to stand corrected. The big problem now is that Peace II is not providing the facilities for funding the centres. Why was their value recognised under Peace I, but, suddenly, not valued under what is supposed to be the same programme?

What is going on here? It is time that the Government recognised the value. That is why we are calling for core funding for Ballybeen and all the other centres. They should not have to scramble about from one Department to another filling in application forms. Things must be made easier for these women. They provide an important and valuable service. If we cannot provide core funding — and we should not accept an "If we cannot" — at the very least we have to provide some sort of safety net. Those who apply for Peace II funding and do not get it should have their applications looked at again so that they can get that funding. If they do not meet the criteria, then the criteria are wrong. Change the criteria and get the funding through to these groups.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

I would like to thank my Colleague Mrs Iris Robinson for tabling this Adjournment debate today. It is extremely important that the subject of mainstream funding for the community and the voluntary sector is addressed.

Once it had been noted that this Adjournment debate was to be held today, I received a call from the Windsor Women’s Centre in my constituency of South Belfast. They asked me to highlight the difficulties in relation to funding which are facing women’s centres across the Province. I would like to focus on and to highlight the marvellous contribution that the voluntary and community centres make to Northern Ireland and how groups such as women’s centres are of relevance to every community within the Province. Centres such as Ballybeen Women’s Centre and the Windsor Women’s Centre help the community to grow by adopting a bottom-up approach and, in doing so, provide services that are delivered and managed by the people. These organisations have vast amounts of experience in dealing with women’s issues and deliver much-needed support to women of all ages and to the community as a whole.

Women’s centres provide a valued service, and they play a major part in the lives of our communities. The Ballybeen Women’s Centre and, indeed, the Windsor Women’s Centre are both situated in areas of high unemployment, and both areas have a high rating under the Noble index with regard to deprivation. Both groups go a long way to support vulnerable and socially isolated women. They deliver their services based on the needs of women and their families. These include affordable quality childcare provision, education classes, young mother’s groups, baby clinics, elderly women’s groups, youth clubs and advice units. These centres also operate on a cross-community basis and provide support to both sides of the religious divide, therefore opening up communication between the different communities. Many strong friendships and relationships have been formed as a result, which makes for a more stable and peaceful community.

The funding process is often a complex and fragmented one in that these groups are dependent on several different funding streams for a variety of different budgets. The funding process can also be painfully slow and complicated, and as a result these groups have to prove their eligibility for funding due to the competition for resources. Unfortunately this means that many groups are suffering as a result.

I would like at this point to examine the community fund, which shares out money raised by the National Lottery to charities and to voluntary and community groups. The community fund recently launched its new strategic plan for 2002 through to 2007, and unfortunately the expected grant income falls from £287 million for 2002-03 down to £215 million for 2004-05. This will mean that financial support will not be given to as many projects as before, and tough decisions will ultimately have to be made in order to ascertain which project should be funded. At most, women’s centres have previously been guaranteed perhaps three years funding, but the recent trend of budgets being cut has led to the closure of many centres or has led to certain projects being suspended. Many women’s centres have operated on a shoestring budget for many years, and at present there is no continuity of funding.

Unfortunately, this sector is living from one year to the next, not knowing if it will be provided with funding to allow it to continue with its valuable work.

We must not underestimate the role that the voluntary and community sector play in providing support and its contribution to the development of social inclusion and equality. We must be encouraged by the work of these organisations to address issues associated with women and the emphasis they place on the personal development, training and upskilling of individuals to encourage and better equip them to escape the benefit trap.

There is a real pressure on these groups, and funding is required to sustain their valuable support services. Finance is crucial to the success of the voluntary sector, and I therefore call on the Government to promote and support this work through the provision of mainstream funding. By achieving that, women’s centres will have more stability and recognition of their valuable work and will be free to raise funds for other projects in the various centres thus enabling them to deliver the community development aspect of their work.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion.

It’s clamant that Ballybeen’s Weimen’s Curn gets ahauld o mainstream siller, for it’s a lyfelyne ti monie o the weimen as gies it a cry-in. The curn pits siller inti upbring an skuilin for weimen fae thae airts sae as thai can get examins as wul mebbe gie thaim a heft oot o the fankil o puirtith. This lyfelyne o edication is growein in importance, sin yin o the countie’s mukklest employers is eftir layin aff mair an mair o its wirkars in the bygaen seiven month, maist lyke as an affcum o the Septemmer 11 disaster. This haes left monie faimlies on the breidlyne, aften wi nae pey cummin intil the housshauld.

It is imperative that Ballybeen Women’s Group gains mainstream funding, because it is a lifeline for many of the women who attend it. I was fortunate to be invited by the group one morning to hear a wee bit about it, and I shared their scones and coffee.

I learnt what the group does and its impact on the estate. The group invests in training and educating local women so that they can gain qualifications that may help to lift them out of the trap of poverty. The lifeline of education is increasingly important, as one of the country’s main employers has laid off more and more of its workers in the past seven months, apparently as a repercussion of the September 11 disaster. That has left many families on the breadline, with low wages going into the households. Groups such as the Ballybeen Women’s Group have offered a lifeline to such families, giving the women an opportunity to re-educate themselves and learn skills that will help them to find gainful employment. Skills such as computer literacy are learnt at such groups, which many did not have the opportunity to learn at school. Many women only need to brush up on some skills, and they find that the women’s group has a less intimidating feel than the regulated and bewildering environment that local colleges may present.

Many women progress to local further education colleges, once the informal and nurturing atmosphere such women’s groups around the countryside provide has restored confidence in their ability. Many have been out of the workplace and learning sphere for as much as 20 years, and they find that the encouragement they receive from the women’s group is what is needed to encourage them to achieve anything they set their minds to.

Not all the courses are strictly academic. Many help women relax. My wife often tells me that she needs to get out of the house and away from the children at least one night a week just to keep her sanity. There are classes on crafts, sign language, first aid and assertive parenting. These courses are designed to attract women of all interests and give them time out, indulging in something purely for themselves, which can only be good for them. If the Ballybeen Women’s Group does not receive funding, these services will be lost, and the group will have to break up after being in existence for 18 years and helping countless numbers of ladies in the estate.

The Ballybeen Women’s Group has been at the centre of promoting women’s issues, bringing to local women the facts about such things as cancer screening programmes. The help that the group has brought to the community cannot be measured. By bringing facts about such things as breast or ovarian cancer to the fore, ultimately the lives of countless women will be saved. When someone is distressed and frightened by what she thinks she may have, the women of the community find the information they require in a simple and clear way.

Those groups are incredible sources of strength and understanding to the people that attend them. Friendships are struck up that might not be formed otherwise in this busy and sometimes anti-social twenty-first century, where people are more concerned about themselves than about the community. The women form the sort of support networks that have not been readily available since the beginning of the last century. The women that attend are the grandmothers and mothers of teenagers, newborn babies and toddlers. They all converse and offer advice and a helping hand to each other.

That type of networking was once the mainstay of society. However, in our modern, technologically advanced world, the art of communication with our neighbours has been lost, and reaching out to others is sometimes fraught. The women’s group provides an environment in which people can talk to others on the same platform with acceptance guaranteed.

One of the most attractive and supportive aspects of the Ballybeen Women’s’ Group is the provision of a crèche for toddlers and pre-schoolchildren. The mothers and the women who work there form a support network, and they can train to become qualified childminders. Therefore by using common sense, this group has helped three parts of the community — those who wish to take an hour’s break from the children to participate on a course or catch up with friends can do so knowing that their children are being cared for; the children who socialise with others and gain social skills; and the childcare students who get hands-on experience, while being fully supervised by experienced childminders. The women’s centre is a model of good practice for service delivery. The Assembly, and the Government as a whole, should mirror the joined-up approach that it takes to community needs.

These centres, of which the Ballybeen group is only one, are first-class examples of how to provide vital services, which will disappear if funding is not found for them. That would be disastrous for the policy of targeting social need and for the workforce as a whole. I support the motion.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

My Colleagues in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and I appreciate the valuable work that women’s centres do. I am acutely aware that, as Ms Lewsley pointed out, at least 50% of the population may be affected by their work.

I acknowledge the valuable work that is done in education and training, and particularly the contribution that is made towards bringing women into the workforce or getting them back into the workforce, according to circumstances. They also provide family support, childcare, after-school projects and a range of other services.

It is clear that women’s centres are an important resource for the community as a whole. Ballybeen Women’s Group has made a considerable contribution to a large community where there are high areas of deprivation. Recently my Colleague, Mr Haughey, met representatives of women’s organisations to gain a better understanding of the issues. As a result of that meeting, we have taken the initiative of bringing together an interdepartmental group to explore issues relating to the funding of women’s organisations.

Members will appreciate that several Departments are involved, and officials from my Department are in discussions with them to agree a final position paper with a view to identifying how the problems can be most effectively addressed. That paper will be ready within the next few weeks.

The funding difficulties of women’s centres are not unique to the voluntary and community sector. Funding requirements are not a unique subject for debate in the House. Ministers’ jobs would be much simpler if the reservoir of funding were always full. It is important that women’s centres’ funding requirements are examined in the context of the funding for the voluntary and community sector as a whole.

That was recognised in the recent Harbinson Report, with which some Members may be familiar. That review was led by the Department for Social Development. It recommended that a task force be established to look at funding issues across the voluntary and community sector. An integral part of the work of that task force will be to examine the funding of women’s centres.

I must emphasise that although I am responding to the debate because the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister felt that it was important that I should do so, the funding of women’s centres is principally the responsibility of the Department for Social Development. We have asked our officials to work with those in the Department for Social Development in order to identify, as a matter of importance, the most pressing needs of such groups and how those needs might be addressed.

On the issue of Ballybeen Women’s Group, which Mrs Iris Robinson has brought to the attention of the House, I understand that the centre has in recent years been successful in obtaining funding from a variety of sources, including over £360,000 from the Peace I programme. Ms Morrice raised the issue of obtaining funding from the Peace II programme, in which some of the criteria may be different.

Peace II and the EU building sustainable prosperity programme can supply funding. However, applicants must meet the criteria. The criteria for Peace II are peace orientated. The activities for which funding is applied must address the legacy of the conflict and/or they must develop the opportunities that are presented by peace. I hope that within those criteria there will be scope for women’s centres to make successful applications.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I want to raise a point in relation to European funding. It is interesting that the Minister mentioned the criteria for Peace II, which were exactly the same as the criteria for Peace I. It was recognised that women’s centres did contribute to peace and reconciliation. Indeed, they made a vital contribution to peace and reconciliation in Peace I, so why not in Peace II?

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

There is no particular "why not" regarding Peace II. I believe that opportunities will be there under that programme.

Ballybeen Women’s Group also received funding under the early years development fund of £100,000 until the end of the 2003 financial year. I understand that that funding comes from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and that the Department will endeavour where possible to continue that support on a project basis.

During 2001-02 Ballybeen Women’s Group was funded by a grant of £67,000 from the Belfast Regeneration Office. Earlier in the calendar year, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety made an outline submission to Belfast Regeneration Office for further funding of £92,000 to support the Ballybeen Women’s Group during the 2002-03 financial year. The Belfast Regeneration Office has given that a high priority classification and has asked for a full application. My understanding is that when the full application is received it is likely to be looked on favourably.

I am conscious that the future funding of this sector is a crucial matter and one of grave concern to those involved in women’s groups. That is why the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has set up the task force, which is the body that will examine future funding. We must now look to the task force to carry out its work and to make its recommendations.

Adjourned at 7.29 pm