Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 April 2002

153 contributions from 43 members. The official report.

North/South Ministerial Council: Environment

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement about the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on the environment that was held on 17 April 2002 in Dublin. Given the pressure of other business, the Business Committee has limited the time allocated to the statement and Members’ questions to 45 minutes.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

With permission, I will make a statement about the sixth environment sector meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was held in Dublin on 17 April 2002.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Denis Haughey and I attended the meeting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Noel Dempsey TD, Minister for the Environment and Local Government, who chaired the meeting. This statement has been agreed by Mr Haughey and is also made on his behalf.

The Council considered a report on the work programme of officials who were to identify ways of encouraging the expansion of waste recycling and produce a strategy for developing markets for recyclates. The group had gathered baseline information on waste streams and rates of recycling, North and South. It had also identified shared barriers to the development of a sustainable and widespread recycling industry, which might be better overcome by using a joint approach. These include small geographic size, low environmental awareness among manufacturers and consumers, lack of standards for recycled materials, and infrastructural deficiencies. It was agreed that, at the Council’s next meeting, the group should submit proposals for the development of an all-island strategic approach to developing markets for recyclable material, taking account of developments in Great Britain.

Ministers noted that it might be necessary to look beyond local markets to the wider group of islands, continental Europe or further afield for available viable markets for recyclates. The group will also recommend appropriate linkages between market development programmes that are being introduced in either jurisdiction.

The introduction of European legislation on the disposal of chlorofluorocarbon compounds (CFCs) contained in fridges and freezers, leading to their storage or costly export for destruction, has had a major impact in both jurisdictions. Given the economies of scale required for establishing a viable treatment facility to recover CFCs, the Council noted that officials are developing a joint approach in conjunction with local authorities, including the possibility of letting a single contract for an all-island service.

The Council also noted progress on the establishment of an all-island community recycling network, designed to encourage community involvement in waste recycling projects in partnership with local authorities and businesses. The Council awaits the outcome of an economic appraisal of the proposal.

Northern Irish officials have also given initial consideration to options for the introduction of arrangements similar to those in the Republic of Ireland for the collection and recycling of plastic waste from farms. The Council was informed that Northern Ireland does not yet have the necessary primary legislative powers to introduce a statutory regime. With the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and farmers’ representatives, officials will explore possible options for a voluntary scheme, taking account of any proposals that may emerge from consideration of the issue by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Whitehall.

The second item on the agenda was a report from the joint working group on water quality, which is tasked with co-operating on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in respect of cross-border waterways. A technical advisory group supports the group’s work, which the Council endorsed. The Council also agreed that the findings of the group’s review of water quality management strategies for the Erne and Foyle catchments should inform agreements for the implementation of the Directive.

Where river catchments span international borders, the Water Framework Directive requires that they be included in what are called "international river basin districts" to ensure their integrated management from source to sea. The technical advisory group has identified three core agglomerations of river basins that could form the basis for delineating international river basin districts for water quality management: the River Shannon catchment, the Lough Neagh/Carlingford Lough/Dundalk catchment and the Erne/Foyle/Swilly/Melvin catchment.

The Council requested that the working group make recommendations for delineations based on those catchment groupings, along with their associated coastal waters, and prepare proposals for public consultation. The group was also asked to produce proposals for joint funding of the cross-border activities required to implement the Water Framework Directive and for the financing of projects from INTERREG III funds.

The Council noted progress in the scoping study into the key environmental impacts of agriculture. The study had been commissioned with a view to developing co-operation on nutrient management planning and controls on the cross-border movement of slurries and spent mushroom compost. The final report of the scoping study will be presented to the next environment sector meeting in the autumn.

The Council was pleased to note that work on the North/South web site of environmental research had been completed. The web site uses the acronym "aNSwer" — the N and S are upper case to emphasise the North/ South element — and it contains a register of comprehensive information on environmental research carried out by the two environment agencies and by academic institutions. It will be an invaluable tool for those interested in, or involved in, environmental research. The web site was formally launched by Ministers after the Council meeting on 17 April.

The Council was also informed of the completion of the project to develop a joint register of sources of environmental information. The environmental data sources site is accessed through the same aNSwer web site. It too was launched by Ministers after the meeting. The site will provide users with information about the availability and location of a wide range of environmental data and statistics. The Council will continue to receive periodic reports about the development of the site.

The Council approved a work programme for the development of co-operation on information exchange and environmental awareness. Ministers recognised the value of sharing expertise and resources to raise public awareness of environmental issues. The programme includes the production or revision of a range of environmental literature, shared use of exhibitions, staff exchange and local authority network meetings, including a waste management colloquium for local authority environmental education officers and recycling officers.

Finally, Ministers agreed the text of a joint communiqué that was issued after the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library. The Council agreed that the next sectoral meeting on the environment would take place in November 2002 in Northern Ireland.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will know that the public consultation exercise for the three local waste management partnerships is soon to end. The groups have consulted with the Northern Ireland public on the future long-term management of the enormous amounts of waste produced here every year. While minimising the volumes of waste produced must be a major part of the strategy, it is clear that recycling is important. The Minister referred to a report that identified options on waste recycling and the development of suitable markets for recyclates. I am sure that he will agree that the proper consideration of all available information is the key to making the right decisions. Will the Minister, therefore, make that report — or an interim report on the ongoing work — available to the Environment Committee and each of the three partnerships in Northern Ireland for consideration?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment pointed up, correctly, the waste management partnerships and the necessary consultation for this aspect of waste management.

The Committee has initiated a strategy from which the three groupings in the 26 district councils are implementing three plans, which is a sign of the necessary partnership. Partnership is needed between the district councils, the Assembly and, as the Chairperson rightly said, the Environment Committee.

The Chairperson referred to the importance of recycling. Recycling is important: reuse, recovery and recycling are the three Rs. Recovery means using waste without its having been recycled. All those aspects are important, and the Department will identify the options.

The Chairperson also referred to suitable markets, and I support his views on that. There are four key elements, of which suitable markets is just one. A key issue, which I have identified through dealings with the North/South Ministerial Council and the Environment Committee, is that we must make people aware of what is happening. For that reason the Department has implemented a campaign to make people aware of the different aspects of recycling such as the necessary machinery and, as the Chairperson said, sustainable markets.

I wish to share information with the Committee, and I am on record as having sought more regular meetings with its Chairperson. I want to keep the Committee fully informed, in writing and orally, as and when I can. However, when we implement the strategy, we must be conscious that we are not simply dealing with the island of Ireland. The key limiting factor is finding a market for recycled goods, and in order for the Committee to give me its thoughts, I hope to keep it well informed. Given that we are all part of the problem, we must all be part of the solution.

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

I welcome the fact that the Minister has made recycling number one on his agenda. The Council noted the progress of an all-Ireland community recycling network, which includes businesses and local authorities. Can the Minister give us the timescale for the economic appraisal?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee is delighted that I put recycling at number one on the agenda. We are trying to reduce waste, and that may be more important than recycling. Waste that cannot be reduced will be recycled or recovered. The most limiting factor is whether markets for recycled produce can be identified. There is little point in educating those who create the waste — which all of us do — if we cannot identify markets. If markets are identified, that will motivate entrepreneurs to become involved in the industry. Only then, as the Deputy Chairperson would like me to do, can I make recycling my number one priority.

Ms Lewsley mentioned all-Ireland recycling. We are all part of a local community, and we are all responsible for the problem, so we are all responsible for finding a solution. The Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee said that we have been considering the all-Ireland dimensional map and asked when it will be available. I hope that the final appraisal will be completed by the end of May 2002. The economic appraisal will assess the costs and benefits, financial and otherwise. It is difficult to put a price on the benefit of having fewer landfill sites, although we can assess how much pollution filters into the water system. When I went to Queen’s University two weeks ago, I was fascinated to see the flow of water being assessed. Believe it or not, water that fell as rain 4,000 years ago is being drawn from the rock— such is the timescale involved in the process.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

What are the key factors to consider when drawing up waste management plans?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I mentioned the key factors in my answer to the Chairperson of the Environment Committee. Waste management plans are the second stage of the strategy. Northern Ireland recycles only 6% of its waste. That compares poorly with countries such as the Netherlands, which recycles up to 42% of its waste. However, to be fair, other countries such as France and Spain recycle only 3% of their waste. We should never be complacent, but nor should we undersell ourselves and our efforts.

First, we must recognise the magnitude of the problem, which is simple: 6% of Northern Ireland’s waste is recycled, but EU Directives require that that figure be 25% by 2005 and 40% by 2010. Deadlines and budgets crystallise a situation and focus the mind. Proper budgeting is critical to ensure that the waste management plans are implemented. Last year, we provided approximately £2 million to assist district councils to implement the waste management plan. I hope that next year that will rise to between £5 million and £7 million. The money must be spent where it is considered appropriate.

The Waste Management Advisory Board for Northern Ireland has an important role to play in the development of waste management plans. The board is independent of the Administration and was set up to advise it. Its membership comprises public and private sector staff, and it is chaired by a lady who works in the waste management sector. When I first met the board members, I was asked whether I would take account of their views. I said that I would take any advice that they cared to give, but that I would also expect them to address my questions. Partnership is needed in the development of these plans. There must be co-operation between the Environment Committee, the Executive and the Administration as well as between the Assembly and local authorities.

I dealt with education, compartmentalising waste, attracting entrepreneurs to develop the industry and, above all, the limiting factor of markets for recycled goods in my answer to Mr McCrea. Waste management plans are important, and I have tried to highlight some of the key elements.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement on one of the most important issues we face. He mentioned European legislation and the possibility of heavy fines being imposed if the Directives are not implemented. Why does this report not concentrate on the reduction of waste production in manufacturing, reprocessing and retail businesses? Given that the South of Ireland Government have introduced a plastic bag tax, has this Administration any plans to do something similar?

The management of waste from farms, and particularly slurries and spent mushroom compost, is a major pollution problem. There does not appear to be a joined-up approach by either Administration, or even by one Administration, for dealing with this issue. Surely digesters should be used to create energy rather than going down the road of incineration, which seems to be what the Governments on both sides of the border are planning. Are there any plans to use digesters to deal with slurries and mushroom compost?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Mr Molloy made many points, which I will try to address. He referred to incineration, as did Dr McDonnell when he spoke about an incineration plant in Copenhagen that he found to be environmentally friendly. There is no plan, as yet, for any particular aspect. We are waiting for plans to be introduced. However, we should not duck the problem that too much waste is going to landfill. We must find ways of getting rid of it by recycling, reuse or by using it to create energy. Incineration is one way forward; it is not on the agenda, but it is certainly not off the agenda for consideration.

Mr Molloy seems to be saying that there is little joined-up approach North/South, never mind within this Administration. Believe it or not, there is much co-operation between the North and the South. He mentioned farm slurry. The North and the South have similar problems, and we compared notes on what needs to be done on farms in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. I am fully aware of the concerns of farmers on the storage regulations for silage and slurry.

I am also concerned about the Water Framework Directive and the possible extension of nitrate vulnerable zones and the impact that both could have on farmers. The Erne and Lough Neagh basins are being examined scientifically, and that could result in the expansion of nitrate vulnerable zones in Northern Ireland. Bríd Rodgers and I are working together on this issue. She knows that I have been in discussion with the Ulster Farmers’ Union, and I have also contacted the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA) to find out if it wants to speak to me or to my officials on this matter. Bríd Rodgers and I will not be trying to gold-plate this — we are not going for the super-solution. We will stick strictly to the scientific evidence, and my officials will collaborate with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the farmers’ unions.

Most of us come from a farming community; at least, we all recognise the importance of the farming community to Northern Ireland and share that community’s concerns at the current weakness of the industry. I refute the allegation that there is no joined-up approach. Collaborative work continues between the North and the South, within the Departments in Northern Ireland and with those involved directly such as the farmers’ union.

Mick Murphy raised the issue of plastic bags recently. I repeat that it is not for Northern Ireland to legislate about plastic bags, as has been done in the South. I replied to Mr Murphy that we would wait to see whether it would be successful, which I have tried to ascertain since then. The removal of plastic bags from our overall environment, where they are seen to be detrimental, seems to be a success. Therefore, I will have to examine closely what can be done about plastic bags in Northern Ireland. That issue will now exercise my mind greatly.

Mr Molloy’s second point concerned the reduction of the production of waste. I agree with him. However, as I said to Patricia Lewlsey, that is only one element. We must reduce waste and recover waste that can be used again easily and recycle it. None of those actions will be viable unless or until we have markets for the recycled goods.

Infraction proceedings, European Union Directives and potential fines are important. That is why we want to ensure that all EU Directives are brought in as quickly as possible. We must meet those EU obligations. I am not doing this simply for the sake of it. I am doing it because the environment needs it; the European Union has directed that it be done; and we will suffer severe fines if we neglect to do it.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I do not want to eat into the time available, but I remind all Members and the Minister of the advice about time constraints that I gave at the beginning of the debate.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, which appears to show some progress on some important matters. I also welcome his response to William McCrea about his willingness to meet the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment. However, I remind him that this is not a substitute for the Minister and his officials meeting the entire Committee and taking our concerns with a spirit of openness.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Hear, hear.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I note that the Chairperson agrees with me, and I have no doubt that the Deputy Chairperson would also agree if she were present. In that spirit, I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken on board my comments about the recycling of farm plastic waste when he last reported from the North/South Ministerial Council. The Minister said that there are no relevant legislative powers, but a farm plastic waste scheme in Northern Ireland would require subsidy from his Department towards the basic costs. Will that be in place before silage is unwrapped next winter, so that it will cease to be a problem after this season?

What is the timescale for the introduction of the necessary legislation domestically to deal with the EU Directives on the disposal of fridges and freezers, an issue that is starting to cause a considerable problem across all parts of these islands? It is an area that we need to be rather more proactive about than we have been so far.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

First, I stress that I do recognise the Committee’s position. When I made reference to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson, I was reminded correctly that there is an overall Committee. I often liaise with the Committee through the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. I see that Mr McCrea acknowledges that that is the case. I do not want to put the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson above the full Committee, and nor would the Chairperson himself.

Mr Ford referred to plastic farm waste, or "farm film" as it is called, and asked if we would have something in place before silage is unwrapped next winter. The position is clear in the Republic of Ireland. Farmers are offered a deposit or refund scheme, or they can participate in an approved recovery scheme.

The story I will tell is similar to the story of the plastic bags: it is working in the Republic of Ireland. The recovery scheme is financed by a 100-tonne levy on sales, established in 1997, and 6,000 tonnes of farm plastic a year is being recycled — that is 40%. We are examining the feasibility of that. However, we would need primary legislative powers in order to do that, and that would take time.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering whether a voluntary scheme would be helpful. We will monitor that scheme, and, as with the other matters, we are in preliminary discussion with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. That is another example of working together in joined-up government in this Administration. The key consultees — if or when it can be done — will be the farming unions.

We are exploring the possibility of an all-island approach to fridges and freezers, and officials North and South are working closely on that issue. It has nothing to do with politics, but rather with the reality of dealing with fridges and freezers, so that they are not being stored at council expense. Mr Meacher from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has provided £40 million to deal with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and we will have to deal with it in the coming months.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I was interested in the Minister’s reply to the Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee. Will the Minister explore the issue further? The dominant principle in Europe is that the producer of pollution pays. What efforts has the Minister made, in conjunction with the United Kingdom Government and European manufacturers, to ensure that pollution is reduced at source? Massive efforts made to handle the huge tonnage of waste are futile if a serious effort is not made to reduce it at source. In Germany, Coca-Cola and other manufacturers of mineral waters and drinks are not allowed to use plastic containers and must use recyclable bottles. What efforts has the Minister made to reduce waste at source?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Given what I have already said, I will not elongate this reply: I will be brief. We want to see pollution reduced at source, wherever that may be. I use the word "pollution" as distinct from "refuse" and "recycling", so I assume that Mr Gibson is referring to pollution of water. That takes longer to deal with. I accept that there are times when industry can create something immediately. However, there have not been many water pollution incidents in Northern Ireland, and no serious cross-border incidents either. However, safeguards are in place. Key officials are on 24-hour call to take action. The impact of the pollution to which the Member refers depends on its nature, its location and how soon it is reported. In that sense, water pollution is difficult to treat.

Oil pollution is noticed more easily, because it lies on the water’s surface, creating surface booms. However, it is not easy to treat. We are working with the key officials and we shall also endeavour to take legal action where necessary.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I refer the Minister to the group’s agreement to submit proposals to the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council for the development of an all-Ireland strategic approach to the creation of markets for recyclable material. Will those proposals include a firm timetable that outlines the practical steps that will make them a reality?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

According to the current timetable, we shall have the waste management plans by May, so that a decision can be made on them before the autumn. However, I have made it clear to officials that when those waste management plans are presented, I wish to see action contained in them, not merely words. There is no timetable as such to implement the plans. As I have mentioned, there are timetables for targets, which are based on EU Directives.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

It is appropriate that I should follow Arthur Doherty, a past chairperson of the north-west regional group. The Minister will know that that group has, for some time, co-operated with Donegal County Council. I agree with Mr Molloy and Mr Gibson on the issue of food production in the wholesale and retail sectors. One often wonders how many times they have to wrap a banana, when nature has wrapped it well enough.

The Minister said that he would deal with the issue of white goods. We need speedy action, not just words or endless consultation. Does the Minister agree that Government bodies, North and South, could do much more to encourage the development of a market for recyclates by instructing Departments and their agencies to use recycled materials? I think of the amount of paper that we use in this Building and wonder what the effect would be if Departments were instructed to use only recycled paper.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Both Governments could do much more by instructing Departments, although I am not sure that the use of the word "instruct" would sit well with the autonomous nature of those Departments. I am conscious, however, that we should lead by example. There is little point in this Administration asking the public to be mindful of waste if we do not give a lead.

The Member asked for speedy action on the issue of white goods such as fridges and freezers. In the autumn, we may be in a position to issue a contract for an all-Ireland mechanism to deal with white goods. Councils are storing them up and have asked me to take urgent action. I agree with the Member that speedy action is required.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, is there any way of harmonising the waste strategy so that householders will not be penalised? Secondly, with regard to the water quality working group’s recommendations for delineation, has a date been set for public consultation?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will have to ask Mr Murphy to repeat that question, because I did not get its drift.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Has a date been set for public consultation on the water quality working group’s recommendation for delineating river catchment basins?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

More clues are required.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Poots. If I have heard that right, Mr Murphy is talking about catchment basins for the Water Framework Directive. First, I shall define "international river basin" in the North/South context. It has to be transposed by 2003. The plans must be operable by 2009, and the water aspect must be operable by 2015. That is a long time. We are trying, through the North/South Ministerial Council, to establish where international river basins exist. When the basins are established, we will develop the plan. I apologise for not understanding Mr Murphy’s question the first time. I hope I have understood properly, but if I have not, he will receive a written answer.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Mr Poots. I would be grateful for a brief question and an equally brief answer, because there is very little time left.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Given that the Minister seems so keen on all-Ireland strategies and agendas, will he take a look at the all-Ireland clinical waste management strategy? Will he look at the tendering process, and can he say that everything was done correctly and was above board? Will that be the case for any future strategies?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

First, I would like to correct Mr Poots. He referred to "all-Ireland", but all my references have been to "all-island." There is an important difference. It is a geographical unit comprising two political jurisdictions. I am not a lawyer, but I can understand what is meant by "jurisdiction", by "geography" and by "politics". It should be understood that we cannot have a market in recyclates in Northern Ireland. Therefore, there should be a wider all-island market. I also said that Great Britain and further afield must also be considered. We will not do anything underhand in that way.

North/South Ministerial Council: Transport

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on transport that took place on 17 April 2002 in Dublin. I remind Members again of the time that has been set for the statement. I would like brief questions and answers, please.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What time have you allocated for the statement?

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I cannot take that point of order. I gave the advice that the Member is seeking at the beginning of the sitting.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Monday morning blues.

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the second transport sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was held in Dublin on Wednesday 17 April 2002. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Denis Haughey and I attended the meeting, which was chaired by the representative of the Irish Government, Mr Noel Dempsey, Minister for the Environment and Local Government. This statement has been agreed by Mr Haughey and is also made on his behalf.

The agenda for the meeting focused exclusively on the programme for the enhancement of North/South co-operation on road safety, which was agreed at the Council’s first meeting in transport sector format in December 2000. The programme includes several commitments, on which progress was reported at the meeting. The meeting began with the Council’s endorsement of the existing level of road safety education activity on both sides of the border. In confirming its continued commitment to co-operation on that important activity, the Council approved a proposal to hold a North/South joint road safety conference and to consider holding an annual conference of that nature to allow for the development of a network of road safety professionals.

The Council considered progress on, and approved, the further development of a proposed new joint road safety campaign on pedestrian safety. The campaign, whose launch is proposed to take place in Belfast in early September 2002, will aim to raise people’s awareness of the number of pedestrians being killed and seriously injured on the roads in the island of Ireland. It will also seek to make pedestrians and drivers more aware of their personal responsibility for avoiding road traffic collisions involving pedestrians.

Statistical data for 1996 to 2000 indicates clearly that pedestrian safety warrants attention. Pedestrians account for around one quarter of road fatalities, North and South. Since 1996, both Administrations have co-operated on the development of joint road safety awareness campaigns. Those campaigns can be especially effective on a North/ South basis due to the similarities of the jurisdictions’ road safety records and their common causes of fatalities and serious injuries. Sharing the cost of the development of campaigns between my Department and the National Safety Council in Dublin provides better value for money for each body. In addition, joint campaigns have been effective in attracting greater private sector sponsorship.

The Council considered the scope for the development of a common basis for the reporting of data on road traffic collisions. Ministers acknowledged the merit in having a definitive database to enable comparisons between countries. The Council welcomed the proposal to progress the sharing of information between the two jurisdictions on the databases and to explore the potential for reporting commonly held data. Relevant agencies were encouraged to investigate the similarities and differences in the characteristics of collisions that occur in border areas. The provision of such information may help to identify what measures could be taken in both jurisdictions to address the causes of collisions in border counties.

The Council reviewed the extent of the exchange of information on road safety awareness between the two Administrations. Arrangements are in place, through the exchange of key strategic documents and regular meetings between officials, for the Administrations to keep each other informed of significant road safety developments, North and South.

The Council took note of the position on the introduction of a penalty points system in the South, on the existing penalty points system in Northern Ireland and on developments in Europe as regards disqualification from driving and traffic fines. Ministers were pleased to note that the United Kingdom and Irish Governments are proceeding towards the ratification of the European Convention on Driving Disqualifications. They are also participating in a European Union initiative to facilitate the pursuit of the payment of traffic fines on a cross-border basis. Ministers also agreed that the mutual recognition of penalty points between the two jurisdictions remains a desirable objective. It may be possible to introduce such a measure when the system in the South becomes fully operational.

Finally, Ministers agreed the text of the joint communiqué that was issued after the meeting, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library. The Council agreed that the next sectoral meeting on transport will take place in the autumn in Northern Ireland.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

In July 2001, the Department of the Environment completed an extensive public consultation exercise on the Northern Ireland road safety strategy for 2002-12. The Environment Committee has yet to see the finished document. When will that important document be available? Unlike the situation with his Department’s recent publication of the key planning policy statement, PPS 10, will the Minister confirm that he will afford the Committee sufficient time for proper and effective final consultation before publication of the road safety strategy?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

That is an interesting question because there was an additional point, which I noted and will refer to. Undoubtedly, the Chairperson awaits my comments with interest.

He is correct in saying that the consultation document on the road safety strategy was published in May 2001. It is anticipated that the strategy will be published in June 2002.

I have already referred to consultation with the Environment Committee. I have already referred to the general point, which since I became Minister I wish to subscribe to, and it is that the Committee should be consulted, fully and frankly, on all issues when it is possible to do so. I recognise — [Interruption].

I am not sure what that was, but it was probably of no consequence.

I recognise that the Committee performs a function, which is to challenge the Administration. I also recognise that the Committee, in performing its role, makes a vital contribution to the final piece of legislation or policy planning statement being produced.

I noted with interest that the Chairperson asked:

"Unlike the situation with his Department’s recent publication of the key planning policy statement, PPS 10, will the Minister confirm that he will afford the Committee sufficient time for proper and effective final consultation before publication of the road safety strategy?"

I presume that he was referring to the recent policy planning statement on telecommunications masts — and I see him nodding in agreement. The Department had full and lengthy consultation with the Committee on the statement. The Department also gave the Committee a full and detailed response. Following that full discourse between officials and the Committee, and before I had made any decision on the policy planning statement, I was made aware of further nuances and comments that had arisen between officials and the Committee. Before I decided to publish the statement, notice was given to the Committee on 9 April that I intended to publish the statement on 11 April. I was satisfied that all consultation had been exhausted during both the oral and written communications with the Committee.

I accept that there can be further discussion when Departments and Committees are not in agreement. However, at some point the time for decision and publication is reached.

My Department consults widely with the Environment Committee, and I wish to have positive engagement with the Committee. However, after full deliberation, there comes a time when publication has to take place. That point was reached on 9 April.

That does not preclude me from issuing a further policy planning statement on the matter. If there are further elements that must be dealt with, a new policy planning statement can be issued. It is not like creating primary or secondary legislation, which, once passed, must be followed for two or three years. The Department issues policy planning statements after consultation, and it can issue further ones.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that there is better co-operation on road safety education across the whole island. Has the Minister set a date for the road safety conference? He mentioned that it might occur annually. Can he outline in more detail the plans for cross-border co-operation on the payment of traffic fines? Will that money be earmarked for particular road safety projects?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Does Ms Lewsley want clarification on the road safety conference?

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

On the date for the conference.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The conference will take place, although a date has not yet been set. The Council recognises the benefits of having a conference to bring road safety practitioners together to exchange views. Therefore, that will become a focus. If a date has been set, I have been remiss, and I will ensure that the Member and the Committee are informed of the date forthwith.

The Council is considering holding an annual conference, but it will wait to see how the first one goes. There is merit in bringing practitioners together to discuss ideas and exchange views in any discipline.

The Member also mentioned traffic fines. As I said, the North/South Ministerial Council is trying to ensure that the policy is operable in all jurisdictions in the European Union. If the system were fully operable, the authorities in the state where the offence occurs would be entitled to seek information from the vehicle registration authority in the offender’s home state. Having obtained that information, they could write to the offender to demand payment of the fine. That would be the first stage. If the offender did not pay the fine within a stated period, the responsibility for enforcing the fine would be transferred to the authorities in his or her home state. It is hoped that such measures will ensure the payment of fines.

The United Kingdom and Ireland support, in principle, the implementation of that initiative. The Member asked what the revenue from such fines would be used for. Fines are not there solely to raise revenue. It is to be hoped that few fines and penalties will be required. On Sunday I met a man who spoke to me about the launch of the fixed speed cameras. He said that he would ensure that none of his money would go on a resulting fine. I said, "Well done, let’s hope there are no fines, because that will mean people are abiding by the law."

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Can the Minister provide the House with the relevant road safety statistics relating to the Committee for the Environment’s recent report on school transport?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I think that that is a double question — the road safety statistics and the Committee for the Environment’s report on school transport.

The statistics for road deaths are emotional. So far this year over 40 people have been killed on the roads. The exact figure was 43 on 23 April, and I heard yesterday that another person has died. That compares with 36 deaths in the same period last year and 49 in 2000. We must not be complacent. However, road safety statistics show that there has been a significant reduction in the number of deaths on the roads, compared with the 1970s.

Statistics can be beguiling and simple and yet convey no message; their use can be dubious. However, if the death and injury rates of 1989 had prevailed until 2000, 4,000 more people would have been killed or injured — that is the magnitude of the reduction over that period. The number of children killed or injured has fallen by 31%, and that is to be welcomed.

The situation, however, is still bad. On average 150 people die, 1,500 are seriously injured and 11,000 are slightly injured each year. The main causes are speed, drink and a failure to wear seat belts, and those factors have been the focus of our advertising campaign. Two statistics about seat belts are particularly important. A person not wearing a seat belt is reckoned to be twice as likely to be killed as a person who is wearing one. That is a stark statistic — you are twice as likely to be killed if you are not wearing a seat belt. Indeed, if you are in an accident and you are seriously injured, you are six times more likely to survive if you are wearing a seat belt. Seat belts are important. It is estimated that, each year, 20 deaths and 250 injuries would not occur if people wore their seat belts. Too few wear their seat belts.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The safety of pedestrians is referred to in the statement . It might have been useful if the Minister of the Environment had invited the Minister with responsibility for roads to travel to Dublin to hear the discussions. I do not know when Mr Peter Robinson was last in Dublin, but it would have been useful had he been there, because we are talking about pedestrians. As the Minister said, they account for a quarter of road fatalities, North and South.

Every effort must be made to eradicate this unnecessary waste of human life. Was there any discussion about a possible legal requirement to wear bright clothing being placed on pedestrians using roads at night, thereby making them easily identified by drivers and preventing fatalities? Was there any discussion about a possible reduction in the criteria that exist in Northern Ireland before the roads authorities will provide crossings on busy main streets or roads? Anything that would reduce the number of pedestrians killed on our roads would be welcome.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am not sure that my ministerial Colleague would permit me to call him "Colleague". However, I will do so for the record. I am sure that he can, in his own inimitable way, tell us why he is not involved in North/South co-operation, which is to the benefit of all on the island of Ireland. I must stress that. Pedestrian crossings are not within my remit; therefore I leave them to the appropriate Minister.

The wearing of bright clothing was not raised at the meeting. However, I am sure that some Members are old enough — or young enough — to remember the UTV advertisement that urged us to wear something light and bright at night. That has featured in advertisements for many years. Mr McCarthy is correct to say that pedestrians should wear something light at night. The Department will address the safety of pedestrians in its campaign to be launched in September.

All the campaigns have aimed at social and personal responsibility. If the people are not involved and do not understand what must be done, even the best measures will not work. The Department is trying to ensure that people are socially and personally responsible. Previous campaigns raised awareness. Likewise, the Department is certain that the latest campaign will raise awareness of the vulnerability of pedestrians. Everyone has seen the advert on national television about a person being hit by a car. However, awareness must be increased — not only that of pedestrians, but also that of drivers.

The campaign will challenge youth, those who drink and those who do not wear seat belts. The Department can change people’s attitudes to pedestrians by challenging them and by raising awareness. By changing attitudes we change behaviour. Pedestrians are important, and a campaign will be directed at them. I will ensure that the matter of wearing something light and bright at night will be considered.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I am delighted that the Council meeting focused on road safety — not before time. Although I welcome decisions to hold conferences, form networks and exchange valuable information, I must ask the Minister whether he agrees that actions speak much louder than words. He quoted statistics today which referred to the possibility that 4,000 lives were saved in Northern Ireland over the past 10 to 15 years. I remind the Minister that twice as many people died on Northern Ireland’s roads over the past 30 years than died in the troubles. There is still not enough being done about that. In addition to those awareness programmes, concrete measures must be taken, such as traffic calming, reduced speed limits, greater enforcement by the police and the authorities and much more severe penalties so that we can save more lives, instead of waiting for the date of a conference to discuss it.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Traffic-calming measures are not within the remit of the Department of the Environment. However, the Member also mentioned penalties —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

What about joined-up government?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Yes. Peter Robinson and I are working on that through joined-up government between our respective Departments. That will be wonderful when it arrives. I am glad that Mr Robinson was present to hear that.

From 2000 to 2001 there has been a 30% increase in the number of fixed penalty notices that have been meted out. I agree entirely with what Jane Morrice said. It is to receive publicity, but enforcement is also needed, as it helps to make the publicity more effective.

I said earlier that the three campaigns aimed to raise awareness and change people’s attitudes. Ms Morrice said that such action is needed, but enforcement is also important. It is difficult to assess the impact of what we have done to reduce casualties. Levels have been reduced, but far too many people are still being killed or seriously injured.

What has been the outcome of the three campaigns? I shall provide some statistics. More than 90% of those surveyed — both North and South — are now aware of the message, contained in the advertisement, to encourage the wearing of seat belts. The message that we have a social responsibility to wear a seat belt has hit home, as has the message of how a back-seat passenger who does not wear a seat belt can injure or kill a front-seat passenger.

The number of people surveyed who, as a result of the advertisement, view it as irresponsible not to wear a seat belt has increased by 8%, from 63% to 71%. I hope that people see that as action. The survey found that 33% of drivers — 44% of 16- to 34-year olds — are more conscious of wearing seat belts than they were before the advertisement was first shown.

My next point is both positive and negative. As a result of the seat belt campaign, the number of six- to nine-year olds who wear seat belts has increased from 65% to 75%. It is good that the numbers have increased; it is action. However, the downside is that 25% of children are still not wearing seat belts. There is a lesson to be learned.

The Department endeavours to take appropriate action, but our responsibility is road safety and the mechanisms for it — not the legal implementation of the mechanisms, which is the police’s responsibility. We are working on it as best as we can.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

One is tempted to say: "Come back, Sam. All is forgiven."

Mr Nesbitt stuck solely to road safety issues at the meeting; no other transport issues were discussed. Is that an indication that the DUP Ministers’ boycott of the North/South Ministerial Council, a body that he seems so keen to pursue, is stifling its work?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I looked to see whether my Colleague and Friend Mr Foster was present for Mr Poots’s comment. I am trying to interpret it. Perhaps in the margins I shall be enlightened as to what he meant.

Road safety is the Department of the Environment’s responsibility. It was the only issue that I could deal with at the meeting. One aspect of road safety is to deal with deaths and injuries. Is Mr Poots trying to say that that is unimportant? It is not unimportant. To ensure that lives are saved is singularly one of the most important issues.

I am concerned because I have a youngish family. When my daughter qualified as a driver and went out on the road for the first time, I said: "Oh, help." My gravest concern is that something might happen to her or to my son. Every week we hear of young people being killed on the roads, and every week there are parents who suffer the traumatic experience of losing their children in such a way.

In focusing on road safety, I say to Mr Poots that — by gum! — it is important, and I hope that he does not take away from that.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Pedestrians account for approximately one quarter of road fatalities. Has that figure been broken down to identify locations of particular danger and of a higher-than-average incidence of fatality? In that context, particular danger points are approach roads to built-up rural areas, such as housing estates, where there are no footpaths and which are perhaps poorly lit. I refer to those to make the further point that, as Jane Morrice said, it is fine to raise awareness of the dangers and the need for safety. However, there is also an urgent need to take practical steps to eradicate accident black spots, especially in places which seem to be unfairly neglected in contrast to other areas which are more than adequately supplied with footpaths and good lighting.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Mr Doherty made an important point. It is not enough to say that we want to reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries. We must identify the particular circumstances which cause them. In a previous debate we tried to make that clear from a pedestrian’s point of view. The Committee for the Environment investigated school transport and found that the danger was not in a pedestrian’s travelling on a bus but in his alighting from or boarding a bus. We therefore focused on educating young people by providing material amounting to £650,000 and increasing the numbers of road safety education officers by almost 50% so that twice-yearly visits can be made to each school. That means more than 4,000 visits to educate the young about when and where they are most at risk.

Mr Doherty is right to say that the statistics should be used to show the danger points. North/South co-operation provides a road safety reporting mechanism. The Garda Siochána and the National Roads Authority are jointly responsible for the statistics in the South, and in the North the Police Service has sole responsibility. We are beginning to share data not simply for the sake of sharing but to examine similarities and differences and to identify the key problems which cause accidents and where they occur. That will show the necessary measures that must be taken by the Department of the Environment alone, or with other Departments, to improve the situation.

To return to road safety and school buses, £161 million capital and £63 million annually will be needed to implement key aspects, and it will mostly be for other Departments such as Education and Regional Development to decide whether to allocate the necessary funds — this is not just a matter for the Department of the Environment.

I thank Mr Doherty for asking that important question.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Would road safety be improved by seeking enforcement across borders, whether North/South, UK-wide or even across the European Union?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Enforcement would be improved if it were on a cross-border basis, because people travel across the border on the island of Ireland. If people felt that their penalty would stand, regardless of where they committed an offence, enforcement would improve. That is why I referred to the implementation of the new European Convention on Driving Disqualifications. If a driver has been fined in another country, the state in which the offence occurred can ask for the fine to be enforced in the person’s home state, and it is important that that should happen.

There has been an interesting development in the penalty point system concerning discrimination. The EU has deemed it discriminatory that non-UK residents committing an offence in the UK are not subject to penalty points but to prosecution through the courts. The EU has requested that the penalty point system in the UK apply to everyone in the UK — UK citizen or not — so that all are treated equally in the EU.

Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible to bring non-UK driving licence holders in the EU within the scope of the penalty point system. This is an example of why we must have fair and equitable enforcement to ensure that all are equal before the law, regardless of where misdemeanours occur.

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

Road safety is important, and I particularly welcome the analysis of road traffic accidents in the border area. Could the topic of different North/South trunk-road widths be included in the agenda for the next transport sectoral meeting in the autumn? The maximum trunk-road width in Northern Ireland is 7·7 metres, whereas in the Republic it can be up to 11·5 metres. I contend that narrowing roads at the border, from a broad trunk-road width in the South to a narrow trunk-road width in the North, adds to the number of accidents. I witnessed one this morning on the A5 in west Tyrone, which is part of the main arterial Dublin to Derry road. A Donegal-registered car was at the side of the road having been involved in yet another smash on the stretch between Omagh and Ballygawley.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The North/South difference in trunk-road width may be between seven metres and 11 metres, but the matter is not within my remit. Therefore it would not be for me to raise it at a North/South Ministerial Council meeting. However, the Department for Regional Development may have some input from a road safety point of view. If the Member were to write to the Minister for Regional Development, he might provide an appropriate answer.

It could be argued that wider roads are safer roads. When I was a district councillor I tried to prevent cars from parking on a village street by having double yellow lines painted. However, the council was advised that it was better to allow the cars to park there; they made the street narrower, which in turn forced other cars to travel more slowly. If the road were widened, cars would speed and perhaps cause more accidents.

I am not sure what the position on that is today. Widening a road can cause people to speed, and speeding is one of the primary causes of death and injury on the roads. After failure to wear to a seat belt and drink-driving, speed is the third most important element in road accidents. A balance must be struck between the width of roads and the speed at which people drive. It is an interesting question.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Mr Dallat. It would be helpful if the Member could be concise when asking his question and if the Minister could be concise when answering.

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

Are there any plans to publish details of the economic and social cost of road traffic accidents on an all-Ireland basis, including not only deaths and injuries but also the cost to the emergency services and to health and social services and the cost of days lost at work, insurance claims, and so on?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad that you asked the Member to be brief when asking his question, and I am even more glad that you asked that I be brief in my answer.

I cannot give a detailed answer on the economic and social costs of traffic-safety management. It is not easy to identify the terms of economic appraisals. The upfront financial costs can be identified, but what price do we put on a life or on the effect on the families of those who are seriously injured? What price can be put on the effect on the life of someone I know who was seriously injured years ago and has been in a wheelchair ever since? That is difficult to do.

One approach involves identifying two options. For example, one option might cost £20 million and another might cost £30 million, so we know the difference to be £10 million. We may not be able to quantify the benefit of the £30 million spent, but at least we know that the benefit is worth more than £10 million, so we would choose the option that cost £30 million instead of the option that cost £20 million. This is like shadow pricing — we do not know the actual price so we identify some other price. That is a complicated way of analysing the economic and social cost of traffic accidents. It is a fascinating, but complicated and intricate problem.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

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

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 7 June 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill (NIA Bill 6/01).

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is examining the Health and Personal Social Services Bill, which has two main provisions. The first covers free nursing care for residents of nursing homes, and the second covers the establishment of a new practice and education council for nursing and midwifery. The Committee asks that the Committee Stage of the Bill be extended to Friday 7 June to give it more time to consider the implications of introducing free nursing care and its separation from free personal care. This is a complex matter that will affect how residential care is funded for many years to come.

England, Scotland and Wales have already taken different routes with the provision of financial support for residents of nursing homes. The Bill will introduce a new entitlement that will cost £9 million a year and affect some 2,000 elderly residents, so it must be considered carefully. I ask Members to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 7 June 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill (NIA 6/01).

Water Service Meter Scheme

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Regional Development to review urgently the Water Service meter scheme, which results in farmers in particular and consumers in general being charged for wastage arising from previously unidentified leaks from water pipes.

I propose the motion in the sincere hope that, as a result of its content, it will receive action rather than sympathy and understanding. I thank the Minister for his attendance to hear my views and the views of others who may wish to speak on the subject.

In an effort to highlight the problems I will relate two conflicting situations. The first is the ongoing leakage of water as a result of the inferior and long-term neglected infrastructure. In the Northern Ireland Audit Office report of April 2001, ‘Water Service: Leakage Management and Water Efficiency’, the main conclusions, on page 12, state that the Water Service estimated that in 1998-99, 253 million litres of water put into the distribution system each day were lost as a result of leakage. Last year the Assembly was given similar figures from the then Minister for Regional Development, Mr Campbell, who stated that the Water Service was losing in excess of 50 million gallons of water a day because of water leakage. On Monday 4 February 2002 the present Minister told me in a written reply that 54 megalitres a day — approximately 12 million gallons — goes unaccounted for from the Silent Valley reservoir alone. I realise that those figures give the total leakage from the distribution system and include water lost because of leakage from consumers’ supply pipes.

I place no blame whatsoever for this ongoing loss at the door of the present Minister or that of his immediate predecessor. We all know the record of the Ministers before them regarding spending on necessities, and the least said about them the better. I also recognise and accept that Mr Peter Robinson and his Department are investigating the entire matter of leakage with a view to addressing the loss. Members of the Committee for Regional Development learned from departmental officials last Wednesday that over £25 million would be spent over the next four years in an effort to lessen the water leakage problem.

The second scenario is not specific, but it is a common enough problem throughout the region. I refer to a leakage problem that is discovered by the Department only when a consumer’s water meter is being read. Unfortunately the consumer discovers it only when his account arrives. The undetected leakage can occur, on farm holdings in particular, for a variety of reasons, including underground pipes being damaged by heavy vehicles passing over them, leakages at water traps, particularly at outfarms, and, I am sorry to say, leakages caused by vandals who get their kicks from damaging equipment associated with the water supply.

The difference between the two situations is somewhat unacceptable and would not stand up to any equality scrutiny. The Water Service, as custodian of that part of the public purse relating to the water supply, is not held financially accountable for the loss of public money that flows away as a result of leakage. However, the same is not true of the unfortunate farmer or consumer who, through no fault of his own, is penalised in a sum that matches the cost of water lost within the confines of his holding. The consumers have the right to appeal, but that, in the majority of cases, is a pointless exercise, with no concessions offered or given by the Water Service.

I can only imagine what the reaction of the Minister or his departmental officials would be if the Executive or the Public Accounts Committee, acting in the public interest, demanded payment for water lost through leakage, even though such loss was, as in the farmer’s case that I mentioned, through no fault of their own. I find it unacceptable that the same Department for Regional Development shows no mercy to consumers in a similar situation when it goes about recovering the moneys owing to it — even if that means taking the draconian measure of disconnecting the supply. I believe that it is correct to assume that the total extra money collected is a mere pittance compared to the Department’s overall budget.

It is not, however, a mere pittance as far as the penalised farmers and consumers are concerned. The £300 to £400, which is the average sum incorporated when leakage has been identified, imposes additional hardship on rural consumers and others. Given the present state of agriculture, the sum could well equate to between six and eight months’ profit for an ordinary farmer.

I am not seeking something unreasonable. I am asking the Department that, when a meter reading indicates water leakage in a farm or holding, the excess cost be waived on the first occasion and a bill based on average usage be issued. The problem should be brought to the consumer’s attention immediately with a statutory warning that if the matter is not attended to within a specific period, or before the next reading, the entire sum will be deemed due. If such a system were implemented, nobody could accuse the Department of preventing fair play. The current system gives an innocent offender no chance: guilty is the only accusation made, and guilty is the only verdict reached.

I call on the Minister to take action if only to assure the public that his Department is interested in fair play. Members will agree that my comments are unique in that I have not asked the Minister for money — I simply seek the removal of an unfair penalty system.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

The motion is useful and timely, and I congratulate Mr Bradley for moving it. Water is an important and finite resource — that is difficult to believe given the current weather conditions — and we need to preserve and conserve it.

It is important to eliminate all leaks in the water system thereby reducing the consequential loss incurred. Ultimately, leaks lead to increased water charges. All water systems age and need to be replaced by new, improved technology. Some water pipes in urban and rural areas are very old. Piped water supplies began in the early- to mid-nineteenth century in response to the public health reforms introduced by Edwin Chadwick following the outbreaks of cholera that caused havoc in south Belfast.

We are now entering a phase when the replacement of many outdated pipes is a matter of urgency. Water must be conserved, and systems must be maintained. Water charges will be an inevitable part of how we will fund the work. However, I wish to sound a word of warning. There are many difficulties, especially in rural areas. The Assembly is becoming too dependent on one source of income, and rates and water charges are key elements of that. Funding sources should be more diverse, and that should be considered urgently.

Lumping all Government finance under a consolidated tax such as rates is unwise and unfair. It makes more sense for taxation to be effected through citizens’ choosing to pay tax according to purchases made — as happens in most places. I hope that water charges will not be part of a tax regime that needs to be reviewed. It should properly be part of the review of local government and public administration. Members may agree or disagree, but the argument is supported by overwhelming logic and justice.

It can take up to six months to identify water leaks in rural areas. As long as the meter is running, the cost is rising for the consumer. The farmer, or whoever is paying for the water, may not even know that there is a leak. A bigger emphasis should be put on the authorities so that they can identify leaks.

Water is currently almost as dear as electricity. More encouragement must be given to the idea of farmers getting a rebate on the amount that goes through their meters. It is totally unfair that farmers must pay for their water while other people who live on the same road may use more water but get it free. It is not as if rates or other payments are any less for farmers than for other householders. Farmers should be treated fairly. If there is a law for one, that law should be the same for all. We have now reached the stage where some decisions will have to be taken. Those decisions may be unpopular, but they will have to be made. We cannot fudge this issue any longer.

If big leaks and burst pipes have been noticed that farmers are not aware of, they should at least be given a choice. Often, water is running down the sides of roads, and the authorities are dependent on a two-way flow of information to determine where those leaks are. However, if that running water is going through a meter, someone must pay for it. I know where PJ Bradley is coming from. I do not know how it will be done, but concessions must be made. I support the motion.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I have some sympathy with the motion. We all, especially Members representing rural areas, would agree that this has been an emotive issue in the farming community for many years. Many farmers would say that their water bill is sometimes their biggest outlay, which is undoubtedly true at times.

However, we must return to the serious issue and the background to this debate — the serious underfunding of the Water Service over many years. The water industry recognises that the most effective method of managing demand is to reduce leakage. Having compiled a report on the economic level of leakage, consultants have identified a substantial programme of short-term measures, including active leakage control.

We could say much about the serious underfunding of the Water Service. During the last Regional Development Committee meeting, we saw the figures for the type of money that we will need to bring the Water Service and our water supply up to a proper state. PJ Bradley and the other Committee members know the huge amount of money that it will cost. The problem is that it may be unfair to put the total bill onto the farming community on occasions.

That will be a live issue in the Committee in the next few weeks. Through the review of the water system in Northern Ireland, we shall all have an opportunity to voice our opinions on the best way to fund the water system. That debate will last for several weeks, both in the House and in meetings of the Committee for Regional Development.

Another interesting side debate is taking place on water charges. It would be interesting to hear Mr Bradley’s thoughts on the issue raised by the Minister of Finance of Personnel. Dr Farren made it absolutely clear that he would support domestic metering in future. That caused a stir, not only among domestic owners in Northern Ireland, but among political parties, including Dr Farren’s own party.

The Minister, who is a member of the SDLP, advocates meter charges for domestic householders.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

Hansard will record exactly what he has said.

During a recent debate at which the Estimates and the running of Departments were being discussed, Dr Farren gave the impression to the House, through correspondence from the Minister for Regional Development, that he was suggesting that private consumers would be charged for metered water. The Minister for Regional Development will need to clarify whether he intends to look at charging domestic consumers for water.

Water metering is an emotive issue in rural areas, especially among the farming community. A one-off payment is to be made to farmers if they can prove that they have not been responsible for leakage on their farms.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This subject matter of the motion is not covered by any of the Committees that I represent. However, I welcome the opportunity to speak, and I support the motion, as I am interested in the agriculture sector. The matter is high on many farmers’ agenda. It has received more attention in the past few months because of foot-and-mouth disease. During that crisis farmers were unable to have their meters read.

On some farms, including my own, there are at least three meters. Some of them record very little output to particular farms. However, where outlying farms comprise several divided pieces of land, farmers are liable for considerable multiple charges.

Some meters are never read, which would lead me to question the amounts charged. There is a standing charge of £27 a meter, which, I am told, is payable even if the meter is not read. Farmers are not sure if that is value for money. Meters were not read for several months due to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, and farmers received considerably higher bills last year than if the meters had been read normally. Some of the leakages that farmers experienced were not discovered until recently. People have shown me bills of £800 and more. It is placing farmers in a difficult position. Those who have recently acquired land or property and have suffered leakages have also been charged.

The one-off reduction available to people who were not responsible for situations in which they found themselves is to be welcomed. As regards rebates, farmers will say that they pay a high price for water in any case. Perhaps a way could be found to help farmers to check drinkers over the winter. It is something that farmers do not do, particularly on large farms, where it is difficult to check everything. Water wastage leads to an enormous cost to the general taxpayer as well as to the farmer each year. The Department for Regional Development is responsible for the provision and treatment of water. However, it must also deal with the large volume of water that is running down the drain. That water would have had to be processed and carried to the farmers.

I have mentioned multiple charges and the high cost to farmers. Most dairy farmers spend £1,000 or more on water each year while trying to maintain high standards. Most farmers are paying considerable sums, and it has been suggested that domestic consumers be charged. Farmers may not be worried about that. However, I would oppose domestic users being subjected to a water tax, primarily on hygiene grounds. People are taxed enough, and the amount raised locally could be lost by a reduction in the block budget.

Farmers are also being hit by the aggregates tax, as some work part-time in quarries. Revenues raised on virgin aggregates go straight back to the Treasury. That is another tax on local people by the back door. The Government have taken money off us, but it has not come back in any other way. Ordinary taxpayers feel that they are already highly taxed without having to face water taxes. Some domestic users might use less water to make savings. People might run up bills only to have the supply cut off when they could not pay. That in itself is an important debate. The public would be against water charges.

This has been a good debate, and I support the motion. However, the Minister must do something to make farmers aware of what they need to do. They are paying massive bills that they have no control over.

Finally, there are problems with the Water Service’s helpline. It sometimes feels that you have to go round the world when telephoning the Water Service, and it can take a long time simply to get through. That is unsatisfactory, and it needs to be examined. Go raibh maith agat.

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

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

I support the motion. I am concerned about the undue charges that some farmers have to face in their annual water bill. It is particularly galling if a farmer receives a bill that is completely out of sync with the past pattern of water bills.

The debate is timely, because the water supply in Northern Ireland has become a major issue, particularly given the demand/supply situation and the enormous amount of water leakage that escapes from the distribution system. The current volume of water leakage in Northern Ireland is unacceptable. Some 37% of captured water is escaping from the system without account. That has two major outcomes: first, an economic opportunity cost waste of captured water and, secondly, some areas of Northern Ireland are in greater danger of suffering from water shortages, especially in the west. The Water Service is working on a water resource strategy to set out a 30-year water supply and distribution system for Northern Ireland. The historic lack of capital investment in the Water Service is causing major problems, and other Members have mentioned that. It is causing major problems for both the short-term peak demand times and the longer-term strategic supply needs.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the real concern in the western zone. The water resource strategy draft document that was presented recently to the Regional Development Committee shows that there is a real crisis in the west. In 2000, the daily demand was about 130 million litres, but the supply was 124 million litres.

The other three zones in Northern Ireland had an excess of supply over demand in 2000. That highlights the need for an urgent short-term remedial policy to get to grips with water leakage, particularly in my constituency of West Tyrone. I agree with my Colleague Mr Bradley that we are appealing for a short-term measure to alleviate the current difficulties being experienced by some farmers. However, in the long term, we have to face up to the fact that water leakage from our system is causing undue difficulty in the whole water supply.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare a partial interest in that I assist on my father’s farm, and that has some bearing on the motion.

The Water Service should review its meter scheme involving business users and farmers so that improvements can be made for those main users who may be suffering adversely from the scheme. However, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently held a hearing on the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on Water Service leakage management, I would like to highlight a range of issues.

As has been said, one third of the water collected in Northern Ireland escapes through leakage in our pipes. That is at least 253 million litres a day. A target has been set to try to reduce that, but unfortunately the figure has been on the increase. Therefore, it is important that everyone, including domestic users, business users, the Department and the Water Service, contributes to the reduction of those leaks. Earlier this year we found that, even in winter, the Minister was issuing warning notices of potential shortages in the water supply in the Silent Valley. If we contribute collectively to reducing leaks, this could be a thing of the past, and restrictions on water use will not affect us at home or in business.

Such leakage has major implications, and I understand that the Water Service had planned a grand £72 million expansion scheme to capture additional water from Lough Neagh. That is how it intended to address the shortage, but it has only started to address the leakage problem with sufficient vigour. Northern Ireland’s water has been leaking over and above what is known as the "economic leakage level", so we can spend money usefully on repairing pipes and so forth in the system. The money saved will justify the spending on the work.

Following the Public Accounts Committee’s report, the Minister announced an additional £25 million towards dealing with leaks. Already there has been underinvestment in this area, and we must acknowledge and welcome the additional funds because they show that the Water Service is starting to try to manage the leaks.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report indicated that it was not only the Department that was not investing sufficiently in the management of leaks. The report stated that an estimated 48 megalitres leaked each day from customer supply pipes in 1997-98, and it has been estimated that the economic level should be about 37 megalitres a day, so private users and businesses can also invest more money in the prevention of leakage because it is collective leakage that puts pressure on the water supply system, and it is important that they do that.

Substantial costs can fall on farmers, particularly in outlying farms, when frost causes leaks in pipes, and we have to ensure that farmers are not overburdened with costs. However, there also has to be an incentive for farmers and businesses to examine their properties carefully and to monitor their meters themselves or in co-operation with the Department. The Department could install electronic meters so that water could be monitored monthly instead of annually, particularly during the winter when driving up a road could capture the information and identify leaks earlier. This would benefit the Department and the farmers or businesses using the water supply. There is a problem with one-off annual bills as leaks are highlighted up to a year after they occur. Efficient information is needed, and business meters should be monitored more frequently.

The overall leakage programme is important, given how we use water collectively, and it even has a bearing on capital expenditure. The Lough Neagh scheme to capture additional water was going to cost £72 million, and it is important that, when considering overall capital expenditure, we do not invest too early when other improvements could be made. I ask the Minister to take these thoughts on board when responding to the Committee.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the opportunity to address this issue and to highlight some of the concerns which the people in my constituency of Strangford have brought to my attention. There is an unfair burden on the shoulders of some farmers and consumers due to unidentified leaks in the system. Over the past few years, those farmers and consumers have received large bills from the Water Service, which were above and beyond previous bills. Demands for payment have ranged from £1,500 to £3,500. To be suddenly confronted with a bill that is two or three times more than normal, and in some cases up to six times more than normal, is a shock to the individual and to his pocket.

The cases I speak of relate to breaks in the water system that occur during the winter months and are not noticed due to inclement weather and bad ground conditions. Many farmers and consumers can be completely unaware that there is leakage, that the meter is working overtime and that a hefty bill is in the offing. For first timers, the Water Service has been willing to reduce partially the resultant bills from unidentified breakage underground. However, the provision does not go far enough when bills could be two or three times more than the previous year’s bill.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Many Members have spoken about the specific problem for the farming community. Will Mr Shannon agree that Seán Farren’s "tap" tax, which he has made much about, has not promoted a sensible discussion on water rates and their effect on the public? Ripples of concern have radiated across the entire community.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I agree wholeheartedly with the Member’s comments. The ripples and waves will turn into a tidal wave of opposition to Mr Farren’s proposals.

It is unfair to give farmers and consumers a bill that is above normal and that is at odds with the normal charge. To expect consumers to shoulder the burden in times of hardship and decreasing margins further compounds what, for many, is already a dire financial situation. People who contacted me were unable to pay the increase and, on top of their farming problems, were now being faced with a possible court case and litigation. For many farmers, these financial problems followed a difficult trading year, with BSE and the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak pressing on their financial resources and squeezing them ever further.

The motion proposes a review of the Water Service’s meter scheme. Due to the clear anomalies in the present system, the review cannot come quickly enough. It is a shock to any individual to receive a demand for payment he was not aware of. If that person had been aware of the speed at which the meter was running, he would have tried to stop it or make the Water Service aware of the situation. Farmers were not aware of the leakages on their land and so did not take any action. For that reason, and to prevent the unfair financial burden becoming an albatross hanging from the necks of the farmer and the consumer, we need to call a halt to such water meter charge incidents. I urge the Minister to ensure that a review will take place to address the issue.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Water metering, as we have heard from contributions, is an extremely vexed issue. The infrastructure has suffered from years of underfunding, and people always get into a tizzy about metering. In 1993, when I was working at Westminister for an MP, the great meter debate took place, and I received a call from one of the MP’s constituents. The gist of the call was that, as it rained all the time in Northern Ireland, he was darned if he was going to pay for rainwater. We have heard the reaction to Seán Farren’s announcement that there is a sentiment in favour of metering.

However, the water leakage problem must be considered seriously. We have heard that leakages account for a massive one third of water in the system. If the Minister carries out a review, he should consider the placement of water meters at key points. Although installation of meters in each house is not a possibility, meters installed at key points could identify the general area of a leak. The difficulty is that water leaks from the system from the moment it leaves the dam until it reaches the user, and the problem lies with identifying the specific point of leakage. Perhaps the judicious use of water meters at key points in the system would help to identify the source of leakages. I support the motion, and I call on the Minister to implement a review.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I congratulate Mr Bradley on initiating the debate, and I thank everyone who contributed to it. I recognise the importance of the issue to many of the Water Service’s metered customers, including farmers. I will deal with as many points as possible in the limited time available; however, I will first explain the rationale of the current policy.

The debate concerns water supplies to non-domestic customers, such as shops, factories, offices, businesses and farms. Water supplies to domestic customers are not metered, and I assure the House that I have no intention of introducing metering for domestic customers. A water supply may contain both a domestic and a non-domestic element; for example, a single pipe might supply a farmhouse, other farm buildings and water troughs. Such a supply is metered, but an allowance is given for domestic use. That allowance is 100 cubic metres every six months, which is 22,000 gallons in "old money".

Customers with metered water supplies are responsible for — and must pay for — all water that passes through their meters, including any that is lost through bursts and leaks. That obligation should not come as a surprise to customers; they are made aware of those responsibilities when they agree to accept a metered water supply. Each spring they also receive a leaflet that sets out the water charges for the year and their responsibilities for the metered supply. Customers know that they will be charged for all water that passes through the meter. They are advised to inspect regularly all pipe work and supply routes for signs of leaks. If customers follow that advice, they should be aware of leaks or bursts early, so that they can have their pipes repaired quickly and avoid receiving unexpectedly large bills.

It was suggested that such responsibilities are too onerous and that farmers and others should be charged only for the water that they use. I understand why farmers might feel that way, but other factors must be considered. Despite recent comments, water is not free. My Department will spend about £250 million on water and sewerage services this year. Water may fall freely from the sky, but it is costly to collect it in reservoirs, to treat it to the standards necessary to protect public health and to deliver it to almost 700,000 households in Northern Ireland.

Someone must pay for the water that is lost through leakage at a farm or a business. Either the customer whose pipe work is faulty or the taxpayers and ratepayers must pay. On the basis of equity, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the customer to pay. That would be the case for any other product that a customer purchased. For example, if any of us lost our heating oil through a leak in the pipes, we would not expect the oil company to replace it free of charge — that would be unreasonable.

The Water Service recognises the difficulties faced by customers who are unaware that there is wastage. If a customer has not been negligent and has repaired the leak as soon as possible, a one-off reduction, equivalent to one month’s consumption, will be made to the bill. In addition, repayment agreements are available to enable a customer to pay the bill over an extended period, usually 12 months. Given that the customer is legally responsible for all the water that passes through the meter, those measures represent a reasonable response to the difficulties.

Mr Bradley asked that a review of charging policy be carried out. I am pleased to inform the House that such a review is well under way. It is examining all aspects of the current policy, including charging customers for water lost through leakages or bursts to their pipe work. The review is well advanced, and I expect to receive a report on it in the next few weeks. I will, of course, consult the Regional Development Committee and other interested parties before reaching any conclusions on the review’s recommendations.

I want to address briefly some of the issues raised in the debate. Mr Bradley referred to leakage in the public water distribution system. The Water Service accepts that the current level of leakage — which is probably nearer to 40% than one third — is far too high and must be reduced. However, water and sewerage services have been underfunded significantly for years. I am glad that Mr Bradley recognised that in his remarks. Current leakage levels are the result of lack of investment and certainly not of lack of effort. Key expenditure priorities — the improvement and protection of drinking water quality and the reduction of effluent discharges — continue to focus on protecting public health.

As Mr McFarland said, £22 million has been invested in leakage reduction measures over the past four years, and a further £25 million will be invested over the next four years. Ultimately, the extent to which the Department for Regional Development can deal with leakage in the water supply depends entirely on the amount of money that is given to the Department and its Water Service.

The House will be aware of the concept of an "economic level of leakage". There is a level at which it would be cheaper to allow leakage than to spend money repairing the leaks. I suspect, however, that we are nowhere near that level at present.

Mr Bradley also suggested that there is no equity between leakage in the public water network and the situation faced by those who have private supplies. That is not the case. The public water network is owned, as one would expect, by the public. If leakage occurs in the public network, it is the public who pay. If leakage occurs in a private network, it is the private individual who pays. Mr Bradley also said that he was not asking for money. However, he was asking for money. Water has to be paid for by somebody, if not by the customer, then by the ratepayer or taxpayer.

Several Members mentioned water charging. It is clear from the debate today, and in the weeks since Dr Farren made his remarks to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), that it is an emotive issue. I think that Dr Farren has been misunderstood. I am not aware of any occasion when he has advocated metering the water supply or charging on the basis of metering. However, he has indicated that charging will be considered in the rating policy review. The review is a public consultation process. The Assembly and its Committees will also have their say on the matter. The notion that people are currently not being charged for water should be done away with. Of course they are being charged. The issue is the method employed to charge them.

I regret that we moved away from the system that existed when the Assembly was brought into being. Water was charged for within the regional rate. Increases in the regional rate benefited the water service industry. That was clear and transparent. People knew what was happening. However, that link was broken when the regional rate was changed into a simple top-up tax to benefit general public expenditure.

All of those issues can be considered. I suspect that they will encourage a lively debate during the course of the rating policy review.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister assure me that he will consult the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee when farmers’ water rates are discussed?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I assure my Colleague that that matter is being considered. I am happy to hear and take into account his Committee’s views and also those of the Committee for Regional Development. I look forward to receiving the results of my officials’ report and to hearing the views of the Assembly and its Committees. Moreover, I shall take into account all comments made today.

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

I realise that time is not on our side. That may be just as well, because I may have said some things that would have caused some anger in the House.

I single out the comments of George Savage, Gerry McHugh and Jim Shannon, who related most to the spirit of the motion and demonstrated hands-on knowledge of the problem. I am grateful for their support. Support also came from Roy Beggs and Joe Byrne, and Alan McFarland also supported me in his own way. Again, I am grateful for their support.

I have no intention of replying to those who introduced icebergs in the desert to the debate. Those Members have lost the spirit of the motion. I am simply looking for support for farmers and consumers who have to pay for leakages detected for the first time and who had no previous knowledge of wastage. I note that the Minister said that reviews are forthcoming. He should read in Hansard what I have said. I have said nothing contentious. Were he to agree with what I have said, that would be especially welcomed in the rural community.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Regional Development to review urgently the Water Service meter scheme, which results in farmers in particular and consumers in general being charged for wastage arising from previously unidentified leaks from water pipes.

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

As there are only a few minutes until Question Time, Members should take their ease for that time.

Status of the IRA Ceasefire

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

I wish to advise Members how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated one and a half hours by the Business Committee. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. Speaking times will be as follows: the proposer of the substantive motion will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up. The proposers of each of the amendments will have seven minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up. All other Members will have five minutes each.

The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List, and the round of Members to speak will follow that order. When the debate has been concluded, I shall put the question that each amendment be made in turn. If amendment No 1 is made, I shall not put the question on amendment No 2. If this is clear, I shall proceed.

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

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

Recalling the acceptance by all parties of the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and the requirement in the Belfast Agreement for a commitment to exclusively peaceful means and being deeply concerned by recent violence, including murders and paramilitary actions, in Northern Ireland, England, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere, this Assembly calls on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, following his recent determination on the status of the UDA/UFF ceasefire, to make a determination on the status of the IRA ceasefire and to make a statement indicating the consequent measures he considers appropriate.

At the outset it is worth recalling our present situation. We should never forget that Northern Ireland is clearly a better place to live in today, and we do not debate the motion at a time of heightened fear. Members of our new Police Service do not have to check their cars every morning. Shoppers are not stopped every time they pop into a high street store, whether in Belfast, Ballymena or Banbridge. Some may try to exploit the fears of ordinary people, but Northern Ireland is unquestionably a better place in which to live. It is the Ulster Unionist Party that has delivered this situation, despite the risks and the legacy of lawlessness and carnage inflicted upon us by the IRA and other paramilitaries.

However, we recognise that the Republican movement has taken some major steps. It has started decommissioning; its elected representatives sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly — a partitionist body; and it claims to have put its violent past behind it. Unfortunately, that claim is belied by events, and those events have given rise to the motion. The motion refers to recent events in Northern Ireland, England, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere. A crucial point is that the motion calls on the Secretary of State to make a determination and to deal with it.

Two amendments have been tabled, and I should say something about them. I understand why the Alliance Party has tabled its amendment. It is right that we should be balanced, and the motion refers to Loyalist paramilitaries as well as to Republican ones. If the issue arises, I should be happy to tell my party to support the Alliance amendment.

As regards the DUP’s amendment, I must point out to its members that there is a serious issue here. I got the impression last week that they understood the issue, which is that rushing in with an exclusion motion is fruitless. An exclusion motion requires a cross-community vote, and we know from experience — because it has happened — that the circumstances in the Assembly mean that such a motion would not be carried.

On the other hand, our motion puts the responsibility where it ought to rest — on the Secretary of State. I thought that the DUP had realised that when it withdrew its exclusion motion. Unfortunately, the DUP amendment, instead of putting the issue at the Secretary of State’s door, puts it back at our own.

Peter Robinson was in error in his interview this morning when he said that if the Secretary of State made a determination on the IRA ceasefire, so what? It means so very much. If there were such a determination, the position of persons released under the early release scheme would be different. If the Secretary of State made such a determination and if the stories about Mr Padraic Wilson at the weekend, for example, were proved to be true, the Secretary of State would have the power to return him to prison. That is a point that the DUP missed.

However, I want to turn to the recent events and violence. We must acknowledge that there have been serious breaches of the IRA ceasefire, and the motion does that. Some people talk about evidence; others suggest that there is no evidence. There clearly is evidence on the Colombian front. I must pay tribute to the US Senate Committee on International Relations for the work that it has done on this issue. Some of the Northern Ireland media reporting of that work misreported the position seriously.

Clear evidence emerged in the course of the hearing that linked the IRA to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) the training given by the IRA to FARC and to the change that took place in the nature of FARC’s activities after that. It would be nice if I were in the position to go through the detail of Gen Fernando Tapias’s evidence. For Members’ sake, it might be good to bear in mind that the IRA’s friends on the US Congressional Committee — it has some friends on that Committee, such as Congressman King and others — accepted the standing of Gen Tapias at the hearing. They acknowledged that Gen Tapias is the man who professionalised the Colombian army — a man with a good human rights record. That man said clearly that the IRA has been involved in the training of the FARC organisation, and he produced evidence. He produced statements made by former members of FARC, which clearly involved the IRA.

For example, Geovanny Escobar Polanía gave a statement to the effect that in August 2002 a group of approximately 15 Irish citizens arrived in Bogota and mobilised via buses and private aircraft to various points throughout the FARC demilitarised zone. The purpose of their visit was to train FARC members in terrorism, explosives and military tactics.

In his statement, John Alexander Rodriguez referred to having participated in training directed by them. He also referred to flights of light aircraft with a shipment of 30 boxes of material, the instruction, production and handling of mortars, bombs, gas cylinders and intelligence and the handling of missile launchers. Mr Rodriguez even referred to himself as launching some of them.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Another person referred particularly — [Interruption.]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Another person referred particularly to the training given by what he called "the three blondes", whoever they might be. I thought that might interest Members. He referred to their giving comprehensive training on the subject of Semtex. He said:

"Semtex is very interesting. It is something very important and they have it and know how to use it."

There is clear evidence on the operations in Colombia. That evidence was given, and was thus only available from, last week. We also have other material that one could go through in detail.

Members will be anxious about the concerns over Castlereagh, and the suspicion about the killing in the Dungannon area. If anyone tries to suggest otherwise, I recommend that he reads the letter in ‘The Irish News’ today from a County Tyrone Republican who made it clear that he has no time for the attempt by some Republicans to suggest that they were not responsible for that murder. People should look at that carefully. Furthermore — [Interruption].

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

— we have the question — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not recognise Mr Hussey. [Interruption]. I will give way. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I do not want to take up too much of Mr Trimble’s and the Assembly’s time. However, there is something else that we should be aware of regarding an incident in west Tyrone recently. I have a copy of the follow-up security report on the device used in the incident, and I quote:

"With the exception of the TPU and the Yugoslavian detonator, which are common types used by the Real IRA, all other component parts were assessed to be types used mainly by the Provisional IRA."

If dissidents were responsible for that attack, where did they get the materials used mainly by the IRA? Why are the dumps not sealed? Whether by intent or otherwise, are the Provisionals co-operating with the dissidents, or are they really one and the same? To put it in country terms, "the same sow’s pigs".

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member’s point is very well made.

The important point to bear in mind about Castlereagh and the Dungannon killing is that there is suspicion, and it is based on intelligence — we do not yet have hard evidence. However, the Secretary of State can act on intelligence. His determination about the UDA ceasefire was made on the basis of intelligence. That is another good reason for putting the issue before the Secretary of State. It is his responsibility, and that of the Government, to maintain the integrity of this process.

It is now eight years since the first ceasefire and four years since the agreement. That is enough time for everything to be settled and enough time for Sinn Féin to demonstrate that it is genuinely committed to peaceful means and not to be continuing with this sort of activity. I hope that the Assembly will support the motion, and I challenge the DUP to support it.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1: Delete all after "this Assembly" and insert:

"noting the Secretary of State’s determination on the status of the UDA/UFF ceasefire, resolves that the IRA ceasefire is no less flawed and determines to consider appropriate consequent measures."

Every time the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party indicts the IRA, he is indicting himself. He has accused it of crimes that we know it is guilty of. In his manifesto he asked the following question:

"Will paramilitaries be allowed to sit in the Northern Ireland Government?"

His answer was:

"No. The Ulster Unionist Party will not serve with any Party which refuses to commit itself by word and deed to exclusively peaceful and non-violent means."

He has indicted the IRA as still being engaged in terrorism today. He should be telling the Secretary of State to get on with the job by letting the Assembly do what it is entitled to do.

I do not need to repeat the indictment already made against the IRA. I advise Members to get a copy of ‘Terror International’ and read page after page of substantiated evidence — some in the courts — of the fact that the IRA is still engaged in violent acts and terrorism.

I welcome the fact that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has awoken to the fact that IRA/Sinn Féin is engaged in intelligence gathering and murder. According to Mr Nesbitt, the Official Unionists now accept that the IRA is replacing old weapons with new ones from Russia. That is sad to state, when we have made attempts to remove the IRA. Mr Trimble tells us that he takes credit for the good things. Nothing can be good for Northern Ireland when the Minister of Education is an IRA/Sinn Féin man who was once the leader of the murder gangs across the Province. The Minister of Education comes from the same litter.

We must face the fact that the Secretary of State has no power. It is no use appealing to him, for he has no power to do anything. This is the House in which the power lies. I refer Mr Trimble to his own party president, Rev Martin Smyth, who spoke in the House of Commons on Thursday 25 April. He said that

"it is significant that, since 1998, senior members of the IRA, after signing the Belfast agreement, have been involved in international terrorism and continue to murder Roman Catholics in Tyrone and to target and threaten people in this House".

What did the Government spokesman say? What did the leader of the Secretary of State’s party, the party to which Mr Trimble is appealing, say? [Interruption].

With the Prime Minister beside him, and with his full authority, Robin Cook said that Mr Smyth’s comments did not "have a direct bearing" on this matter.

The Government have already decided on the matter referred to in the motion. They have decided that the IRA will stay in this Government.

In the Ulster Unionist Party manifesto for the 1998 Assembly elections, Mr Trimble said that there must be

"a clear and unequivocal commitment that ceasefires are complete and permanent; that the ‘war’ is over, and violence ended.

That targeting, training, weapons procurement and so-called punishment beatings cease forthwith.

That there is a progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures.

That use of ‘proxy’ organisations for paramilitary purposes cannot be tolerated.

That disarmament must be completed in two years."

Those two years have now passed. Mr Trimble also asked

"That the fate of the ‘disappeared’ will be made known immediately."

On any one of those points, the IRA has not measured up to what Mr Trimble said they should do. The time has come, therefore, when the people of the Province must remove them from this Government and from this House, as far as executive power is concerned.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Trimble, I will be very happy to resign when you resign, Sir. However, you will not resign, because you have bigger fish to fry.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I will not give way. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. Members must resume their seats when the Deputy Speaker is on her feet. Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The leader of the Unionist Party decided that the debate would last for only an hour and a half. There is no time for me to — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Paisley has alleged that I decided that the debate would last for an hour and a half. I appeal to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make it clear that Mr Paisley’s statement is totally untrue. It was agreed — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. I thank the Member for raising the point of order. The Business Committee decided the timing of the debate. Please be silent for the Member to resume his speech.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Members of the august body that did that were Mr Trimble’s parrots, and if he does not like his parrots, he should shoot them — but evidently he loves them. A few days ago, Mr Trimble was wagging his finger saying "Who are the fools? We have got decommissioning." I say today "You are the fools?" Mr Trimble told us that no Unionist in Northern Ireland could believe a Republican. He believed them, and he tried to fool the people.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I call Mr David Ford to propose the No 2 amendment on the Marshalled List of amendments.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 2: Delete all after "IRA" and insert:

"and UVF ceasefires." [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member has the right to be heard.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the support given to the Alliance Party’s amendment by Mr Trimble. We accept that there was some justification behind the original motion, but it clearly went over the top. It implied that guilt had already been decided while clarification was still being sought and that the UUP had the answer to the question it was asking. That did not seem entirely correct, and it was also partial. It ignored the threat to society from Unionist terror groups, and it concentrated solely on demands for action against Nationalist terror groups. I have sympathy with some of Mr Trimble’s views — clearly all the parties that assented to the agreement should live up to their obligations.

There are many concerns centring on Colombia, the Castlereagh break-in and other matters. There are many questions that the Republican movement has yet to answer. There are many conspiracy theories about Castlereagh, nearly as many as there are journalists working in Belfast, but no one can say whether they involve Republicans or rogue groups in the system.

Similarly, with regard to Colombia, some Alliance representatives went to Washington in March and met people from the House Committee on International Relations. It is absolutely clear that concerns were developing there and that evidence was being compiled for last week’s hearing. There were serious concerns about international involvement in Colombia in which it appeared that the IRA was implicated along with the FARC. Republicans must live up to their side of the Good Friday Agreement. They are contributing massively to the declining support for the agreement, because they are simply not being seen to deliver on their obligations.

There are far too many questions still around — questions over acts of violence, murders and international connections. I am concerned at recent suggestions that Palestinians may be using IRA-style pipe bombs, but, as a Member of the Assembly, I am much more concerned about Loyalists and Republicans using pipe bombs on the streets of Belfast. When the IRA has made moves on decommissioning, I have welcomed them. They have been a serious step towards promoting a culture of movement in favour of the agreement. They have been significant — at least in Republican terms, if not in the terms in which others have viewed them — and the IRA has expected people to have confidence in the process because of that. However, it needs to do more, and it needs to be seen to be doing more. It needs to be more open and transparent about the process because it is not just the Unionists who are concerned. There is widespread concern across the community, and that concern must be answered. Unionists cannot have it both ways.

I was interested in the line of questioning that was put to Dermot Nesbitt on ‘Good Morning Ulster’ this morning. He was asked "Isn’t the Alliance Party right to say that your motion is over the top?" He replied "No, we have the information." He was then asked "Well then, isn’t the DUP right?" He replied "Well no, actually, we do not have the information."

I paraphrase, but that was the way in which the motion was produced for the House. That is why it needs to be worded more satisfactorily.

Fundamentally, Unionists — specifically Ulster Unionists — have to decide where they stand on the agreement. What is their attitude to the Belfast Agreement? If the Assembly wishes to make an honest attempt to find out information from the Secretary of State, that is fine. However, if it is a halfway house to appeasing not just the DUP but also the anti-agreement elements within the Ulster Unionist Party, it is achieving nothing and is contributing to destabilising the situation. It is somewhat reminiscent of the attitude, as first adopted, on the day that Sinn Féin entered the talks in 1997. My party had discussions with Sinn Féin before it came into the talks, and we sought to involve it in the process and to assist it to move towards democracy. At that time, the Ulster Unionists complained about parties with paramilitary links, and then we saw them arrive in the talks accompanied by the PUP and the UDP.

If the amendment is accepted by Mr Trimble and backed by his Colleagues in the Division Lobby, it will at least be a sign that they are starting to move away from the notion that there are "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists" or "our terrorists" and "their terrorists". I do not believe that that was their position when they tabled the motion, and the whole group needs to make that clear by its actions in the Division Lobby. There have been many incidents recently. They have gone from the Lammas Fair, through south Antrim to the streets of north Belfast nightly, raising questions about the actions of Loyalists, their attitude to the agreement and their attitude to their ceasefires. There is widespread acceptance that that needs to be looked at. I welcome the fact that Mr Trimble has joined in that today.

The motion, as it was tabled, bore the signatures of Mr Trimble, Mr Leslie, Mr Davis and Mr McGimpsey. However, I believe that it bore the fingerprints of Messrs Burnside and Donaldson. It is time that the Unionist grouping in the Assembly began to get away from those influences. The amendment gives the opportunity to do that. It gives the opportunity for Ulster Unionists to stop looking over their shoulders at the anti-agreement elements within their party. The amendment changes the motion. It seeks genuine clarification of the situation from the Secretary of State. I welcome the acceptance by the First Minister, and I look forward to seeing him, his Colleagues and other Members of the Assembly uniting around a reasonable policy. I commend the amendment.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

The SDLP will be opposing the DUP amendment because, in reality, it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is an exclusion motion in the guise of softer words. It is a wrecking attempt that is based on party needs and not on compelling grounds. We could see that from the exchange between the DUP leader and the UUP leader.

In addition, we will not be supporting the UUP motion for various reasons. We have already seen on the Floor of the House this afternoon why we will not be supporting it. Is this a place where, amid all the sound and fury, there can be a proper debate and a proper conclusion to this serious issue? Will we have any more clarity at 6 pm than we had at 4 pm? Is this the best time and place to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion — [Interruption].

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I will come to that. Is this the best place, enabling some in here to grandstand and others to point fingers? The SDLP does not think so.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I have only five minutes. Our approach is to try to protect what has been achieved in the Chamber and through the Good Friday Agreement, to advance legitimate concerns about the integrity or otherwise of ceasefires and to develop outcomes that develop confidence in ceasefires and the political process. That is why it is appropriate to make an assessment about IRA and UVF ceasefires and to seek assessments of the integrity or otherwise of those ceasefires from Governments. It is appropriate to determine, from police services on this island and elsewhere, whether ceasefires are being maintained.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Where did the security report that I have come from?

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I will come to that. It is appropriate to raise any issue, including this one, with the recently established implementation group through which the Governments and the pro-agreement parties have outlined mechanisms whereby issues can be properly discussed, considered and resolved.

The issue must be addressed with rigour, whether by Governments, parties, people, or by police services. If paramilitary organisations are active, we need to know their full nature, details and intentions. What we need is not speculation, but substance; not story telling, but evidence gathering. Only with rigour can we prove that ceasefires, wherever they may be, are being demonstrably dishonoured.

We must not fall foul of those who brief, leak and, perhaps, lie for self-protection. Elements in paramilitary organisations, British security agencies, the darkest places of Government offices and special branch have all done that in the past and are all capable of doing so now. In making a judgement in these matters we should not fall foul of these agendas. We must bring rigour to the process to ensure that our achievement — a new political and policing order — is not unduly damaged. Organisations that renege on ceasefire commitments must be called rigorously to account. What is known must be seen to be known, and what action is taken, seen to be taken.

I will consider current events using Colombia in its IRA context and the break-in at Castlereagh in a wider context. Gerry Adams claims that his non-attendance at the US Congressional hearing was vindicated. Is that really the case? The Congressional report concluded that the IRA had well-established links with the FARC. It stressed that it was implausible that the IRA would not have known about the links with FARC, adding that the IRA contribution has markedly enhanced FARC techniques. It is quite proper to challenge the reasons behind the Congressional report and its evidence, but it is not vindication. People here deserve more respect from political leadership. They want accountability, whether it is for the actions of the police in the North; of politicians in the South; or what illegal organisations do internationally or at home. Warm words cannot evade that requirement — be they from Gerry Adams, the IRA, the UDA, the UVF, the state, or anyone else. We need assessment and accountability for past and present activities. However, this is not the place or the time.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is obvious from the debate so far that it has more to do with an argument in Unionism than with anything else. To people who are not sitting in the Assembly, the background is one of constant Loyalist attacks — in my constituency of North Belfast, for example — over the past 18 months. In the past couple of days death threats have been issued to Sinn Féin councillors and elected representatives and an attack on an ex-Sinn Féin councillor’s home has occurred, and four people have been killed by Loyalists in the past 18 months. Yet on the Benches opposite no motions have been proposed — there has been absolute silence.

I will go further. When there was some debate that there should be a determination on the UDA’s ceasefire, if my memory serves me right, members of the UUP argued against it. They said it would be a bad idea for the Secretary of State to take such a course of action. Add to that ongoing collusion, undercover surveillance and the bugging of houses. It is ironic that at the weekend there were leaked reports that Republican houses were being bugged as well. The recruitment of informers is ongoing — I know of a case where a vulnerable young boy of 14 was recruited and has been used for the past five years. There are beatings in North Queen Street and other places that we have seen in the media. When houses in South Armagh are raided, people like Peter Carraher are beaten up on the basis that there was a protest at one of the barracks. Plastic bullets are still being used. The last three kids who have been struck by plastic bullets were a 10-year old, a 12-year old and a 14-year old.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The UDA are at that too.

All the evidence and the circumstances of what happened in Castlereagh, which was mentioned in the debate, point towards the involvement of other intelligence agencies. We are in the ironic position whereby those who carried out the raid are briefing Members on the other side of the House, who are using that information as a reason for the debate. That is ridiculous, especially when one considers the death of William Stobie, an agent who was killed in mysterious circumstances, and that of Stephen McCullough, who was found dead at the bottom of Cave Hill after trying to give information. One could be forgiven for asking where is the Crown forces’ ceasefire.

Where are the stories coming from? I used the word "stories", and people are calling them leaks, but it is disinformation — and it comes from the securocrats in the system. That is not a new development, because those are the people who were against the peace process from the start and who have tried to undermine it ever since. Yet the people across the Chamber — and some on this side — take as gospel these intelligence reports, which have been used against the peace process from the start. Those who went into Castlereagh and took the alleged documents are the same people who are giving briefings and winding up the Unionists and other political parties so that they will hold this debate to try to undermine the peace process.

Against that, the IRA is now in the fifth year of its ceasefire; it is fully engaged with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD); it has allowed the involvement of international inspectors; it has agreed schemes; it has twice put arms beyond use, most recently on 8 April; it has said several times that it is no threat to the peace process; and it has proved its commitment in actual deeds as opposed to the nonsense of the other side of the House. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Nationalist community is asking what is the intent of the Unionist leadership, which has stalled the institutions and subverted the all-Ireland bodies. David Trimble has undermined Ministers in the Executive and insulted people in the Twenty-six Counties and elsewhere. He has not used his influence with regard to arms. The UUP cannot "out-Paisley" Paisley; it cannot "out-DUP" the DUP, and it should forget any idea of doing so. We heard about decommissioning and are now hearing about the issue of IRA disbandment.

This process is about people on the ground; it is about making politics work, and the pro-Good Friday Agreement parties should work towards that. There should not be trial by media — that is the evidence that was produced — nor should there be trial by Unionism. If books, papers and programmes are to be relied on, a book entitled ‘The Committee’ was published, which attacked David Trimble and others, so we should not take such matters too seriously.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Many in the Unionist community are asking what is the real purpose of the motion that Mr Trimble and his Colleagues tabled and what would it achieve if it were accepted?

Mr Trimble wants the Secretary of State to determine the status of the so-called IRA ceasefire and to take "appropriate action", whatever that means. Mr Trimble has already heard the Secretary of State and is well aware of Mr Reid’s view that the ceasefire is intact. However, Mr Trimble has a different view. He made it clear when he emerged from a meeting with his friends in SinnFein/IRA last Friday that he had, in no uncertain terms, told Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness that nobody in the Unionist community believed a word that Republicans said when they denied the involvement of Sinn Féin/ IRA in recent terrorist events. That is Mr Trimble’s assessment of the situation.

Mr Trimble is right, but he should be aware that no one in the Unionist community understands why the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP have Ministers in a power-sharing Administration, who govern the very people that Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and their colleagues terrorised for the past 30 years. Why are the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP having this exchange concerning who is to blame for this sorry plight, with one saying to the other "after you"?

Mr Trimble knows that the Unionist community has had a bellyful of that nonsense. The message from that community is that he must lead the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives out of the Assembly. Whether the Ulster Unionist motion succeeds or the DUP proposes a motion next week to exclude Sinn Féin, the support of the SDLP is required to remove Sinn Féin from the Government. However, Mr Durkan calls the activity of Sinn Féin/IRA and the acts of terrorism "turbulence". It might seem like turbulence to Mr Durkan, who views it from a distance, but to those who have been murdered or terrorised or had their loved ones buried in unmarked graves it is more than turbulence.

It is a disgrace that those who say that they believe in democracy dismiss the activities of gangsters in such a fashion. Mr Durkan will meet his day of reckoning when they gobble up his party. He gave them oxygen when they were on their knees. When the RUC and the army had the IRA hounded into their corners in west Belfast like the rats that they are, the SDLP and Mr Hume brought them back, gave them credibility and brought them into the democratic process. The SDLP will regret that when the electorate deals with it.

Let us remember that Mr Trimble was the guarantor of the Prime Minister’s promises. Mr Blair promised that there would be no question of those who were not completely committed to the democratic process remaining in government in Northern Ireland. Mr Trimble knows that the Prime Minister has lied to the people of Northern Ireland. What is he going to do about it? He can try to pass the buck to the Secretary of State. Mr Trimble has assessed that IRA/Sinn Féin’s so-called ceasefire is not worth a tuppenny candle, yet he is prepared to continue to sit in government with its Members.

The people of Northern Ireland will tell Mr Trimble that that is not sufficient, because they know the true purpose of Mr Trimble’s new approach to those he has cosied up to in recent years. He realises now. He said that not a single Unionist out there supported what was happening in this process. Sooner or later he will be faced with an election. If the DUP’s challenge in the House of Lords succeeds, an election might be called before the end of this year. I say to Mr Trimble and his Colleagues, and even to those in the so-called anti-agreement wing of his party, that it will do no good to say that the party is under new management, change its leadership and attempt once again to sell policies that repeat the lies of its last manifesto. They told the public that they would not sit in government with those who were armed and were carrying on the violence.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Time is up.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

You have broken that pledge, Mr Trimble; now let us see you squirm.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Time is up. Order.

Denis Watson (UUAP, Upper Bann)

I support the amendment tabled by Dr Paisley and Mr Peter Robinson. I am encouraged that the Ulster Unionist Members have deigned to attend such a debate at last. One could ask whether they have had a road to Damascus conversion at this late stage, but I doubt it.

Let there be no doubt that the pro-agreement element in the Ulster Unionist Party has closed its eyes and ears to what the anti-agreement Unionists have been saying for months. They will get little salvation when they go to the electorate having hardened their stance at such a late stage.

Had that party been present in the Chamber in March, when the anti-agreement Unionists called for the removal of IRA/Sinn Féin from government, they would have heard plenty of evidence to question the validity of the ceasefires. The month before that, the media was filled with accounts of the IRA’s involvement in the murder of Matthew Burns in Castlewellan in February. Since then there have been many more chilling reports of the latest discoveries of the IRA’s murky, underworld deeds. A trigger-happy gunman in Tyrone murdered a man on his taxi run. As the story unfolded, it became apparent that the Provisional IRA was the prime suspect for the planning and execution of that operation. Furthermore, it followed confirmation that the IRA was involved in co-operation with Colombian terrorists — despite earlier denials by Gerry Adams — and that its organisation has been importing weapons from Russia.

None of those events takes note of the daily gangsterism in which the paramilitaries are involved. We see the writing on the wall at Bawnmore, "White City will burn"; a man with strong IRA connections being questioned about the break-in at Castlereagh, and — surprise, surprise — found to be in possession of intelligence on the details of politicians and a list of security bases to be targeted for attack. That man was released from prison under the terms of the Belfast Agreement.

Four years on, the Assembly must question whether anything has changed. Time prevents my outlining further examples. However, how much more evidence is needed to prove that IRA/Sinn Féin has peace on its lips but war in its heart? These people are in Government by day and involved in terrorism by night. Can the Assembly be expected to believe that the ceasefire is intact, despite cynical, token acts of decommissioning for the sake of political gain in the South? The evidence of the past month suggests not. What now of Mr Trimble’s assessment? He has, once again, been foolish in his analysis, while anti-agreement Unionists have been steadfast and true.

In what has been proven to be an inaccurate analysis of the Belfast Agreement, Mr Trimble and his pro-agreement Colleagues have been guilty of abandoning every election pledge. Clearly, the serious questions that he was going to ask Gerry Adams last week came — once again — to nothing. That is no surprise. However, the Ulster Unionist Party does not appear to learn from its mistakes. The motion is weak — typically weak. It merely calls upon the Secretary of State to make a determination on the status of the IRA ceasefire and to indicate the consequent measures that he considers appropriate. The Secretary of State has already declared the ceasefire intact. Therefore he will, no doubt, declare that nothing need be done.

Where does that leave the so-called peace process? The answer is where it has always been: at the whim, mercy and service of those for whom violence has always paid. I remind the members of the Ulster Unionist Party that they have already heard what their Colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour Party have said and how they propose to vote. I urge Ulster Unionist Members to support the amendment in the name of Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson and to present a united Unionist front. The United Unionist Assembly Party supports the amendment.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

It strikes me — watching the demeanour of the Democratic Unionists — that they would have had quare fun in the air-raid shelters. They are the type of people who get happy at the thought of a crisis. The fun and laughter in the Chamber today does not portray the true picture. The Assembly is on the cusp of a crisis — one that is probably deeper than any we have had.

However, I have difficulty with the amendment. The Progressive Unionist Party is not a party of exclusion; it does not believe that excluding people is the answer. It certainly does not believe that it is wise to table an exclusion motion in the knowledge that it cannot work. It is ridiculous to ask the Secretary of State to give a repeat determination. The Assembly must instead identify the problem.

The Progressive Unionist Party entered into a partnership in the full knowledge that the partner had told lies previously and did not have substantially bona fide intentions to accompany — in the view of my community — the process. However, the Progressive Unionists were prepared to take a risk and accept the challenge. The partner, on the other hand, is behaving with great infidelity. It is not a jibing or laughing matter. It is more than just the stunt of 30 names that cannot achieve anything. Parties must look into their hearts.

If you genuinely, truly, really, believed that someone was besmirching the process so much, you —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

You would go to court.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

You would probably walk out and not afford the process any oxygen. In doing so, you would precipitate a crisis that would force the circumstances to be looked at again. It is simply the case — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

The Member who heckles is very legalistic and can clearly interpret what would happen in the event of a complete walkout by the Unionist family. He fully understands — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order, order.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Nevertheless, we could bandy about all the issues that have already been raised. However, the simple reality is that, for me, there was the IRA. Sinn Féin likes to call it "the army". For 30 years, the army was undoubtedly in the ascendant in its relationship with Sinn Féin. Many of us in the negotiating process struggled with and wondered about whether Sinn Féin would achieve the ascendant in its relationship with the IRA. Many of us believed, in the historic days of the Good Friday Agreement, that that had, indeed, happened.

The events that others have related show that that is not the case; that Sinn Féin is hidebound to the army, not the other way round. Therefore, those who propagate Republican opinion via the mouth are telling us how reasonable and decent the future can be and what fine democrats they will be. However, the IRA, or elements thereof, is undoubtedly doing something completely different. That is intolerable. It is not acceptable. My party will review its position in relation to this Assembly and the peace process.

The exclusion of Sinn Féin is not the issue, because any agreement that we create in the future — and some day there will be an agreement that works — will be of a similar style and nature to the one that we have. The question is, if there is a next time round, will those who operate it do so with greater honour and integrity? I know, perhaps better than most, that it is not easy to be in Sinn Féin’s position, but I will require some convincing that Sinn Féin did not, and do not, know what details the leadership of the IRA is placing on the activities of the IRA.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member’s time is up.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

From what I have heard so far, it seems that the debate is one where rumour is fast becoming fact, and spin is being traded off as substance. We are in grave danger of spinning ourselves round and round in yet another crisis. Unlike others, the Women’s Coalition tried to avoid the knee-jerk reactions of the past two weeks and the jumping to conclusions time and time again. We do not know the facts.

It is rather worrying to see Mr Hussey reading from a "security report" on the Floor of the House. Often that is what raises the concerns. If we are to implement this agreement, we should share such information and not just pull it out because of a particular liaison with one part of the police in Northern Ireland. I am certain that the police have tried to avoid that in the past. That is why they have kept many documents to themselves, lest any political party make them its and its alone. It was a rather worrying introduction to the debate.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

It is an official document.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Indeed, that is why I said what I said, and why an implementation committee is urgently needed. We put forward the idea of an implementation committee right after we had signed the Good Friday Agreement, because we knew that, while doing a deal and making an agreement was easy, implementing it was going to be the difficult part.

If a party has access to information in official documents, let it share that information with us. Let us all engage in factual discussion.

Some irresponsible journalism has presented rumour as fact. A headline in the ‘News Letter’ last week read "Last days of peace?" David Ervine is probably correct: if a question mark is placed after "Last days of peace", what are we to think? Will we go round and round in this circle? Let those who remember the 1970s reflect, please, on what we now have and on what is precious. Part of the agreement concerned inclusion, and we must work hard at that to reassure those on either side that we are serious about our reasons for being here and for sharing power. If that has not been the case to date, we must rectify it urgently.

The Secretary of State should get his finger out. It is not enough for him to report to the media and expect everyone to be satisfied. He should call on every one of us, including the British and Irish Governments, even if the Irish Government are engaged in an election. This is more important. There should be truth and hard talking. Can any of the pro-agreement parties say that that did not happen at the last meeting? That meeting was scheduled to last one hour; instead, it continued for the best part of two and a half hours, because people began to challenge one another to see others’ viewpoints. Perhaps that is why so much confidence has drained away.

Some Unionists have said that they are 100% certain that the IRA was behind the break-in at Castlereagh. Others, however — including the police — have said that it was an inside job. If a criminal investigation is ongoing, surely we must wait for the report of its findings. Have we not done that in other criminal investigations? We damage the process by not waiting.

The Women’s Coalition will not vote on the motion, because it does nothing to advance serious discussion on how to resolve the issues or to get to the bottom of what has happened. Dissident paramilitaries and those who have been against the agreement from the beginning —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Time is up.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

— are probably clapping their hands in delight at the debate.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Let me put Gerry Kelly and Monica McWilliams right on fact and fiction. It is a fact that three eco-tourists with established IRA connections, and in some cases records, travelled on false passports. The IRA’s engaging with Gen de Chastelain is a fact. It is a fact that Paddy Wilson, who is their engager, is also engaging in Colombia. The photograph of Paddy Wilson travelling under a false passport as a Mr Walker is a fact.

The terms of the motion highlight the hypocrisy of the Ulster Unionist Party. On 7 June 1996 Mr Trimble declared in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ that he would stop the talks if decommissioning of all arms did not start right away. Exactly one year later he was suggesting in the ‘News Letter’ that decommissioning should be pigeonholed.

He takes the biscuit for political hypocrisy, because he became First Minister only with the help of whom? — the PUP, also known as the UVF.

Why has this motion been tabled now, when the IRA has been in almost continuous violation of its ceasefire over the past few years? Murders of alleged drug dealers by Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD) — an IRA alias — have simply been ignored.

Murders of claimed informers, such as Charles Bennett, have been dismissed as internal housekeeping. Executions of so-called dissidents, such as Joe O’Connor in west Belfast, or former activists, now disapproved of, such as Eamon Collins in Newry, have been swept under the carpet. Those who had the personal courage and physique to challenge the intimidation of the local IRA commander, such as Andrew Kearney, have been shot and murdered in their homes.

Beatings, shootings, forced exile, murder, organised crime, racketeering, targeting, training, recruitment and rearming have been going on for the past four years. Yet, until now, none of those caused the Ulster Unionist Party, which has suddenly become politically fastidious, to cease political habitation in Government with Sinn Féin, with whom the IRA is inextricably linked. The real reason for this unprincipled political opportunism is the possibility of an early election if the House of Lords confirms that Mr Trimble’s re-election as First Minister last November was indeed a pantomime, with Mr Ford performing nobly as the rear end of the horse.

Mr Trimble’s current political lunacy, in claiming that the IRA’s second historical stunt amounts to a process of decommissioning, coupled with his having given credence to Gerry Adams’s assertion that Sinn Féin and the IRA are separate by asking Gerry and Martin, as democrats, to restrain those with whom they are inextricably linked as terrorists from behaving badly, raises questions as to the balance of Mr Trimble’s political mind. Grass-roots Unionists will recognise this charade as another performance by the purple turtle — a burst of assumed red-faced political rage before he rolls on his back to surrender. Sinn Féin should have been removed from the Executive long ago.

However, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP have a vested interest in keeping Sinn Féin here. The SDLP, which suggested via Mr Attwood that this is a battle between Unionists, ignores the fact that it has a battle with Sinn Féin. The SDLP has become even greener than the green, and it will never ever treat with democrats while it is in an unholy union with Nationalists who are committed to terror.

The motion is a fraudulent farce.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

My remarks are addressed to the Sinn Féin Members; I do not intend to attack fellow Unionists as others have done today. Today’s question is simple: do Members ignore all that has happened in the past few months and pretend that nothing is wrong? Or do we, as elected representatives, reflect the deep concerns of the people of Northern Ireland and demand from the Secretary of State a clear determination on the status of the IRA’s ceasefire?

We must question the ceasefire status of a group that has gathered and stored information on political figures and has targeted people for the past few months. Those are hardly the actions of an organisation committed to purely peaceful and democratic means. Are we supposed to accept at face value the explanations and excuses that have been given for the presence of three senior Republicans, including Sinn Féin’s Cuban representative, in the jungles of Colombia? As Congressman Henry Hyde said, the reasons given are little short of an insult to our intelligence. We are told that they travelled to Colombia on false passports to study the flora and fauna of the region and to discuss the peace process with FARC, the world’s leading eco-terrorists. Is it purely coincidental that FARC has killed numerous people recently using IRA-style urban terrorist methods? FARC has developed those tactics and methods only since the Republican visit. I do not believe for a minute that that is a coincidence.

We will be failing in our duty as elected representatives if we do not call on the Secretary of State to make a determination on the break-in at Castlereagh. As he did with other ceasefires, he should make an honest assessment and then say what consequent measures he considers appropriate.

What credibility will the Assembly have if it does not endorse this motion? We can support the UUP motion and show that Unionists are united. Do we want to be seen to turn a blind eye to everything that has happened? What message would that give to paramilitary groups? It would suggest that they can do what they want and that the Assembly will take no punitive measures.

In addition to all the democratic rights about which we hear so much, we have responsibilities. Republicans have been ignoring their responsibilities for too long, and it is time that they faced up to them. Shipping in guns from Florida or elsewhere is incompatible with maintaining a ceasefire, as is killing or maiming people who happen to disagree with them. A commitment to purely peaceful and democratic means is more than a collection of words. It is a solemn promise which everyone in the Chamber, including the Republican movement, gave regarding the way in which they would conduct themselves in the conflict resolution process. Others have been held to account for failing to live up to the promises that they made; Republicans cannot be exempted from their responsibilities.

If this process is to flourish we cannot have one group of people playing by different rules. It is not possible to be partly democratic. A person is either committed to democracy, with all the responsibility that it entails, or he or she is not. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

There are no halfway houses.

Bertie Ahern says that he does not believe that Republicans were involved in the break-in at Castlereagh because he has found them to be honest in the past. He must have a short memory. How honest were Republicans when they initially denied murdering Det Garda Jerry McCabe or when they denied responsibility for the Enniskillen atrocity, the disappearance of Jean McConville or the Birmingham bombings? How many drug dealers have been murdered by Direct Action Against Drugs?

Despite the honesty of Republicans, Bertie has made it abundantly clear that he will not form a coalition with them after the election in the Republic. However, people on this side of the border are expected to swallow everything —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member’s time is up.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

We are told to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and ears. The trouble is that there are too many doctors on this side of the House who can diagnose the illness but cannot provide the cure. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Deputy Speaker is on her feet. Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

This is the first time that the hon Member Mr Davis has spoken on Sinn Féin/IRA’s breach of its ceasefire. I have not heard the Member talk in that way in the past four years, and some of his Colleagues will be amazed to hear the views that he expressed. He cited the IRA’s breaches of its ceasefire and said that we cannot turn a blind eye to it or trust it. The Member will have no difficulty resolving that the IRA ceasefire is flawed and considering the appropriate measures to take. The hon Member is nodding. If he truly believes in what he said, I expect to see him in the Lobby with the DUP to vote for its amendment. If he is not in that Lobby, we will know that his words were hot air designed to distract attention away from the fact that everything that he said is true this week, was true last week, last month, last year and has been true for the past four years while he and his Colleagues kept Sinn Féin/IRA in the Government of Northern Ireland —[Interruption].

5.15 pm

I hear the Member for East Belfast, Sir Reg Empey, chirping from the Back Benches. If he has something to say, perhaps he will get to his feet and say it as a man in a debate instead of leaving it to his Colleagues. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order, order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The hon Member is keen to speak now, but he did not take his chance to make a contribution to the debate. At the time of our exclusion motion, he, along with other Members, came to the Chamber briefly and then scurried off. They criticised the DUP for being engaged in stunts when we were in the business of moving the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA for many of the same reasons that they are now putting forward to support their motion in the Assembly today.

In relation to the so-called decommissioning event or stunt that the IRA carried out, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party — who, by the way, spent most of his time attacking fellow Unionists — asked only two weeks ago where the anti-agreement Unionists were, and who was looking foolish now. Now who is looking foolish? He was praising the IRA and criticising Unionists two weeks ago, and now here they are coming to the Assembly reading out a litany of crimes that were all in existence two weeks ago. Colombia is no recent invention of the media. This party and others, and the press, have been exposing what has been happening in Colombia for a considerable time.

Mr Trimble said two weeks ago in a speech in London that the IRA was still killing people in Northern Ireland. If he really believes that, why is he asking the Secretary of State to make a determination? He knows that the IRA is killing people. The SDLP knows that the Provisional IRA is killing people, because the hon Member for South Down, Mr McGrady, stood up in the House of Commons and named the Provisional IRA as the murderers of Matthew Burns in south Down.

We have heard from several Members that the IRA and the Republican movement, on numerous occasions, have denied involvement in events, only to admit them later, as identified by the widow of Garda Jerry McCabe amongst others. There is a whole list of these types of events. Therefore, given the involvement of IRA/Sinn Féin, why should we wait until the Secretary of State makes a determination? Why does the Assembly not take responsibility? Why do the Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench want to shuffle this responsibility off on to the Secretary of State when we have the power to table an exclusion motion and say to the Secretary of State that the majority of Unionists — the majority of Members in the House — do not believe that an organisation engaged in murder, violence, intimidation, gunrunning and promoting international terrorism should be in the Government of Northern Ireland?

As far as the PUP is concerned, I listened to Mr Ervine talking about not being a party of exclusion, yet his party put its name to an exclusion motion just a few months ago in the Assembly. He talked about walking out. He walked out of Weston Park, but he soon walked back into the process. He is in no position to lecture anyone about the process.

If people on the Unionist side of the House really believe that the IRA is involved in Colombia, really believe that gunrunning from Florida has taken place, really believe that the IRA is engaged in murder, really believe — unlike Mr Cobain, the Member for North Belfast, and the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Mr Rodgers, who both denied that the IRA was involved and put the blame entirely on the security forces — they will join us in the Lobby and vote for the amendment and against the motion.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Alex Attwood has already said that the SDLP will not be supporting the main motion, even as amended. Our reason for not doing so is that the Secretary of State does not need a resolution of the House before making a determination. A party does not need to bring a motion to the House to call on the Secretary of State to make a determination on the status of any ceasefire. The SDLP previously called on the Secretary of State to make a determination in relation to the UDA ceasefire, and we did not trouble the Assembly with it. We were quite open and public in our calls for it, and pursued it on those terms. Some people who are calling on the Assembly to back this motion opposed our call then.

I will make it clear that we do not oppose any call by any party for a determination to be made by the Secretary of State, and any party is free to make that call. As some Members suggested, the Secretary of State, in his comments and observations last week, hinted at how he would respond to a call for a formal determination. If people believe that it would be helpful to have a determination by the Secretary of State on the ceasefire of the IRA or the UVF, and if Mr Reid were so persuaded, the SDLP would not oppose his decision to do so.

People, rightly, have many concerns about the nature and the level of ongoing paramilitary activity, including that of groups such as the IRA and Loyalist paramilitary organisations. They are also concerned about what certain members of the intelligence community are up to. We read in the newspapers about leaks and spins, with documents apparently being handed to MLAs, and so forth. That does nothing to reassure people that there are not wheels within wheels as regards the activities of the paramilitaries and the intelligence services. Let us be clear: there are also spins within spins in this exercise.

Many of us have legitimate questions about what is happening and about the implications of such activities. That is one reason that I agree with the comments of Mr Attwood and Ms McWilliams that the implementation group that the Governments established would be a suitable forum in which to air and share those fundamental concerns. The implementation group should not be convened as a crisis measure to deal only with the issues that we discuss today; it should deal with other matters. The recent report of the Oversight Commission for Policing Reform and that of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD), on the second act of decommissioning, are among the plentiful material that could form that group’s agenda. There is plenty of material to provide the basis upon which parties could share their fundamental concerns about what is happening.

I do not give great credence to IRA denials. I am as aware as other Members are of previous instances of IRA denials that were subsequently contradicted by admissions or evidence. Equally, I do not place much credence on the spin of selective briefings by some members of the intelligence services. Therefore, we are all caught: we hear different claims from the "unbelievables" in different quarters of the conflict. Those of us who are unsure of whether to believe the claims of paramilitaries and intelligence services should concentrate on what we believe ourselves. Although others are back doing what they know best, we should do what we know best — protect the political process. We listen to the IRA’s reassurance that it poses no threat to the peace process. However, I am as frustrated as anybody else is by the IRA’s apparent belief that it alone is the arbiter of what defines the peace process and of what is good or bad for the process. We are the arbiters of the political process; we are here to guarantee it, and I will not allow paramilitary activity from any quarter to veto it. I will not allow the shenanigans of the intelligence services to handicap the operation of the political process.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Over the past hour and a half, we have had examples of too many armchair generals giving their opinions and exerting their spin, whether inside the Chamber or being quoted from outside it. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Assembly, in the present circumstances, should request, as a corporate body, that the Secretary of State make a determination on the state of the IRA and UVF ceasefires. We may be the arbiters of the political process, but we can advance that process only in an atmosphere of honesty. If we attempt to cover matters up, we will not make that advance.

The debate was not difficult to summarise: I discovered that Nigel Dodds, Cedric Wilson, Denis Watson and Robert McCartney do not like the Good Friday Agreement — well, that is really amazing. I was interested in Gerry Kelly’s comments when he criticised the original motion, though he made little reference to the amendment. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Some of the criticisms that Gerry Kelly made of Loyalist and Unionist paramilitaries were similar to those that I made earlier in the debate. However, ideas should not be denigrated on the basis of those who hold them, so in that respect I welcome Mr Kelly’s contribution.

We had a contribution from Monica McWilliams, which was thoughtful in highlighting the danger of building up a crisis. There is no doubt that we are in great danger of talking up the crisis and making too much of it. We must also recognise that we had a meeting of the implementation group, which failed to achieve anything significant in paving the way forward. If we do not find a better way of making those systems work, we will continue to be in the same kind of crisis as we have been.

I noticed that Alex Attwood felt that this was not something for the Assembly today, that it was all to do with the battle within Unionism. I said what I thought about the battle in the Ulster Unionist Party and the difficulties that appear to afflict Mr Trimble — the fingerprints of the MPs that are on the motion as well as the signatures. However, there is no doubt that when we look at the overall package, it is simply not acceptable for the SDLP to say that it would sit on its hands and ignore the issue.

Mark Durkan said that we do not need the Assembly to deal with this matter, that individuals could take their own counsel on it. That is true, but would it not send a powerful message if there were a vote across the breadth of the Assembly to put forward a simple and balanced request — not a loaded and biased one — for clarification from the Secretary of State, because the Assembly, as a body, was prepared to unite around such a call? If we were to do that, it would show that the Assembly was uniting to defend the integrity of the agreement and to ensure that we make progress together. Otherwise, we will simply dissipate our energies in a serious of nugatory votes over the next few minutes, which will achieve nothing.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Throughout the debate, and before it, I have attempted to discern the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party’s thinking when he tabled the motion. He knows only too well that the impact of the motion is to avoid doing something rather than to do something. It is an attempt by him to kick up the dust and pretend to be the tough man taking action. In fact, it is buck-passing at its cynical worst.

The people who have the power to take action are the people on the Benches in the Assembly. We have the power to take action, if we had the courage to do so. I call on all who want to take action against those who are involved in violence to ensure that they are no longer part of the Executive. I call on them to go to the Business Office and sign the exclusion motion, and then we can deal with the issue.

There is no need to take it up the hill to the Secretary of State and ask him to examine the issue and make a determination. Why on earth should they ask the Secretary of State to make a determination when they have already reached their conclusions? Why have they reached those conclusions? It has not been evidenced over the past number of weeks, months or years that they had done so.

When the leader of the UUP went on ‘Good Morning Ulster’ to indicate why he was proceeding with this type of motion and not the exclusion motion of the DUP, he gave only one reason, and I quote:

"I think the motion that we tabled is much more likely to produce progress and to provide an opportunity to pull people together within the Assembly, rather than drive them apart."

I have not seen much evidence of people being pulled together, because the SDLP, who no doubt he wanted to pull towards him in the debate, has not been prepared to take the action that it should.

When SDLP Members wanted a determination from the Secretary of State on the UDA/UFF, they were on their feet, here and outside, calling on him to make that determination. However, when the finger is pointing towards their own Colleagues in Sinn Féin/IRA, they are strangely silent. It is the most sectarian decision that SDLP Members have taken, and they should be ashamed of themselves in taking that position.

The Provisional IRA has been involved in violence. That is not a matter of conjecture. It is not guesswork, spin or rumour; it is fact, and every Member in the House knows that. It is a fact that can be seen through convictions in the courts. Dead bodies are not rumours. The people on those Benches are in an organisation that is responsible for the death of all of those people, for the 250 shootings and punishment beatings — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Colombian incident is not a matter of rumour, it is a matter of fact. The gunrunning from Florida is a matter of fact, and everybody knows that. Members in the House need to face up to that reality. That organisation is not on ceasefire — it is getting itself ready for war. It is about time that the House realised that the Members sitting on those Benches are not peacemakers; they are people using a so-called peace process to get concessions from weak Unionists who are prepared to give them those concessions to keep the peace.

I read carefully in ‘The Sunday Times’ what the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party had to say after his meeting with Mr Adams. Mr Trimble said:

"I told them we were being seriously damaged by all of this and the way things are at the moment we would not be able to sustain the administration for very much longer. All you need is one more thing like Colombia or Castlereagh coming out and we will be sunk."

There you are. That is why the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is concerned. He is not concerned about the duplicity of the Provisional IRA or the impact of the actions taken by the IRA; he is concerned only with his own position and how it affects his Administration. He is practically saying to the IRA "Cool it boys, or we are all sunk". That is the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party’s message to the Provisional IRA.

We all recognise that there is one reason why the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is strutting around the Province beating his chest, and that is the proximity of an election. He fears that the case going before the House of Lords will expose him as an impostor and a cheat.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member’s time is up. [Interruption].

Order. I will have dignity in the House.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

There has been a huge amount of emotion expressed in the debate, not least from Unionist ranks. There has also been a huge amount of criticism coming from those Unionist ranks, and most of it is not against Republicanism but against David Trimble and the UUP.

It is important, in between the chanting from that corner, that we try to deal with the issues. We should not deal with them in an emotional manner — and we heard Mr Peter Robinson speak in that emotional, plaintive voice of his — but rather in a fashion that promotes some form of political analysis and some form of logical way forward.

As far as the IRA and Sinn Féin are concerned, the Colombian evidence is clear. Ms McWilliams said that there was no evidence. The evidence comes from the Committee on International Relations in the United States House of Representatives, chaired by Henry Hyde. [Interruption].

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Mr Bob-a-job.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr McCartney’s remarks are beneath him, as they always are.

The Committee’s evidence states that

"two members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), along with a representative of Sinn Féin, the IRA’s political wing, who was known to be stationed in Cuba and reportedly on the payroll of the Cuban Communist Party, were arrested … carrying false identification documents (passports) and were found to have traces of explosives on their clothing and on items in their luggage. Two of the Irish nationals were the IRA’s leading explosives engineer and a mortar expert."

It goes on to talk about the IRA involvement in training FARC, which it describes as

"the most dangerous international terrorist group based in this hemisphere".

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

It is clear that there is a case to answer. There may or may not be a case to answer about Castlereagh; I strongly believe that there is. There are claims that it is the work of securocrats. However, we are well versed in the way in which Republicans have conducted their debates and their arguments, where everything is deniable.

It seems to me that as far as Colombia, Washington and Castlereagh are concerned, a determination by the Secretary of State is the proper way forward. I have listened to the arguments about signing up to exclusion motions — we shall all have a vote next week, and we shall have another emotional rant, which is what we have been hearing. That vote will serve no purpose under the rules of the process.

I value that process. However, Republicans, the IRA and Sinn Féin have placed it in peril. Look at where we came from and the chaos that we left behind in trying to move to a future for the next generation and for ourselves. That future is now imperilled. We must use the process to move forward. A determination by the Secretary of State is the way forward.

If people are convinced that the IRA has broken its ceasefire, they should not have a problem with a determination being made by the Secretary of State. On the other hand, if Sinn Féin has no worries, why does it oppose the motion? It seems to me that both arguments are illogical. If that determination shows that the IRA has broken its ceasefire, there are consequences for all of us. The evidence and the facts are there.

In order to protect what we have achieved, as someone said, this is the way forward. The SDLP cannot walk away from this. It cannot all be blamed on securocrats. It is not deniable. It will not go away because Gerry Adams could not be bothered going to Washington, or because he was afraid to go. It will not be solved by Gerry Kelly’s simple attack on Unionism and Loyalism, and a failure to offer any explanation. The motion is about confidence in the process. The way forward is for all of us to take the decision that the motion requires as a first step. Nobody should have a problem with that.

Both the DUP and Sinn Féin’s views, it seems to me, offer a logical argument for that next step. We shall then hear from the Secretary of State, take the next step and deal with this matter. We shall deal with it logically and unemotionally, because that is what society has charged us to do.

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

I remind Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 59

Ayes

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Reg Empey, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Derek Hussey, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Tierney, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put,

The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 10

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ford, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, James Leslie, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Sean Neeson, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Noes

Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you inform the House that, since the motion has now been amended, the Secretary of State will not be called on to make any statement — appropriate or otherwise — or to indicate any action that he intends to take?

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

That is correct.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 38

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ford, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, James Leslie, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Sean Neeson, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Noes

Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Bairbre de Brún, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Francie Molloy, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly negatived.

Adjourned at 6.10 pm.