Northern Ireland Assembly, 7 May 2002

139 contributions from 44 members. The official report.

Carers and Direct Payments Bill: Royal Assent

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

I wish to inform Members that the Carers and Direct Payments Bill has received Royal Assent. The Carers and Direct Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 became law on 2 May 2002.

Reinvestment and Reform Initiative

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

I have received notice from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement regarding the reinvestment and reform initiative announced on 2 May 2002.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The statement is not available outside the Chamber. Is it not normal practice for copies of a statement to be made available beforehand?

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

The Member is quite right to point that out. Standing Order 18(1) states:

"A Member of the Executive Committee shall make statements to the Assembly on matters for which the Executive Committee is responsible. He/she shall where possible make a written copy available to Members as early as possible before delivering the statement in the Assembly. Where this has not been possible he/she should state to the Assembly the reason or reasons."

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With permission, the Deputy First Minister and I will make a statement. Regarding the point of order — [Interruption].

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

Order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It is my understanding that the text is being made available as I speak. The delay arose simply because the text was not finalised until about 10 minutes ago.

Last Thursday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited Belfast. The Deputy First Minister and I will this morning provide the Assembly with details of the major new reinvestment and reform initiative that we negotiated on behalf of the Executive with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and explain its purpose.

Those negotiations have been undertaken over recent months but were only concluded last week. Members will appreciate that it was not possible to consult earlier. However, I assure the Assembly that as we take this work forward we will consult widely. That is essential, because this initiative opens a significant new stage in the development of our Administration, a new means to make a real difference to the people of Northern Ireland and, in particular, to turn around the major deficit in our infrastructure and modernise some of our key services.

Devolution hands responsibility for providing good government to Northern Ireland’s politicians and people. People want good services, fairly and efficiently administered, and they look to the Assembly to provide them. We will work together to deliver reform and reinvestment in public services. The Executive have placed that at the centre of their programme. We need a new debate about services and the necessary hard choices. We must all accept that good services must be paid for, planned and expertly managed. Resources and reform must go together.

The last time locally-elected representatives were able to debate and take decisions was some 30 years ago. Then there was a strategy for public investment. Since then, temporary arrangements and decisions by those with no organic connection with society here saw years of underinvestment, leaving huge infrastructure problems in water, health, transport and education. Now we must prioritise. We must decide how best to close the gap, what can be done now and what must wait. We must look strategically at our asset base, take stock and set a new direction. We must be open and explain those choices to the Assembly and to the people.

The five core elements of the initiative are £200 million available for investment over the next two years; a new borrowing power for the longer term; the transfer of some strategic military and security assets to the Executive; the creation of a new strategic investment body; and a major programme of public service reform to secure greater expertise and effectiveness.

It is clear that reinvestment and reform in our public services are essential. For decades investment in public service infrastructure fell well short of what was required to meet the needs of our community. Under direct rule, priority was given to allocating resources to security. That inevitably meant that, over time, capital investment for services was neglected. We see evidence of that plainly today. The scale of the problem can be seen in hospitals and schools and in the state of our roads and transport systems. Many, however, do not realise that our water and sewerage infrastructure, hidden from view, is also in a poor state and needs major work urgently.

It is calculated that £6 billion extra will be needed over the next two decades to address the deficit inherited by the Executive and the Assembly. With devolution we have the opportunity to do something about it. The Executive have explored possible ways of addressing the problem. In our first year, we established the infrastructure and capital renewal Executive programme fund to support strategic projects, such as rail, road, energy and telecommunications projects. That includes the use, where appropriate, of public-private partnerships (PPPs). We have so far allocated £79 million from that fund, topping up the resources allocated from mainstream Budgets.

Last year we also launched a major review of the opportunities for PPPs and other sources of funding. Our aim has been to identify whether, and how, we might make progress in improving our public services by drawing on other sources of capital and, equally importantly, other sources of managerial expertise. The PPP working group established by the Executive has completed its work, and the Executive will shortly seek views on its report.

Although we have made some progress, it is also clear that more radical ideas are needed to address the backlog of investment, given the pressing demands for resources. It was in that context that the Deputy First Minister and I set out to negotiate additional forms of support and finance. Many in the Assembly and outside have urged us to explore alternative sources of funding, and that we have done.

With assistance from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, we now have a package that will accelerate the work that is so badly needed. Using it in conjunction with other sources of finance, we should be able to replace old assets with new. Indeed, we can now start to consider other opportunities for investment across our public services that previously we would not have had the resources to contemplate.

The key to the initiative is that we have been able to gain the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s agreement to the Executive’s being able to avail of a new borrowing power. That will enable us, if the Executive and the Assembly so decide, to launch a multibillion pound programme to improve our assets. The Executive will be able to borrow from the Treasury at highly advantageous interest rates, going directly to the gilt market. Interestingly, access to such borrowing has been an issue that many, including the Committee for Finance and Personnel, have pressed on us. Therefore, I am pleased that we have achieved this breakthrough. It provides the opportunity to significantly increase the pace of investment in Northern Ireland.

We do not want to depend solely on the borrowing power. We must consider also how other sources of funding may be used to enhance it. The scale of the task means that we must consider too how we can lever in resources through public-private partnerships. However, we will ensure that, where that approach is taken, it represents the best way to serve the public interest. If used properly, public-private partnerships could be of real benefit. That is especially so because they can bring to bear expert management of contracts and assets to which the public sector has not previously had access, and the theme of expertise is one to which we will return.

The new borrowing power could be used to finance projects in all the public services for which we are responsible. In parallel with the proposed changes for local government finance in England and Wales, we must satisfy the requirements of the new Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy code. The borrowing will also be subject to a limit set by the Treasury.

As legislation at Westminster is required, the new borrowing regime will not be available until 2004-05 at the earliest. It will only proceed on the basis of funding priorities established by the Executive and the Assembly. However, as the Deputy First Minister will explain, we have also negotiated a short-term borrowing arrangement that can be put into effect now, without a change in legislation, to set in train a major programme of investment.

It is a fact of life for all of us who have mortgages or who take out loans that borrowing must be repaid. Since last week we have seen and heard ill-informed stories about huge hikes in rates to pay back the borrowing. There are several points that must be emphasised. The Executive have made it clear that they will not propose increases above the pattern of recent years unless the present rating system has been reviewed and we have an acceptable local revenue system. Any changes that arise from the review of rating policy must be phased in over several years so that we can avoid any sudden changes in the bills required of any sector, business or individual.

We have agreed a borrowing power with the Treasury. It will be up to the Executive and the Assembly to decide whether to borrow to pay for new assets and, if so, by how much. That provides a real opportunity to invest in our infrastructure, and the Executive have agreed that we should pursue the proposed new arrangements with the Treasury.

We must work within the Treasury’s strict rules on the control of public spending, which preclude the use of efficiency savings or asset sales to service debt. We will make fresh efforts to secure efficiency gains as part of the reform dimension of the initiative. We will also require a radical look at the assets held by Departments to free up any spare resources.

The issue of the revenues that we raise from the domestic sector was inevitably going to arise in the spending review. It has been said many times that it is impossible to expect the Treasury to accept our arguments for money to sustain the same standards of public services as in England if our revenue levels are much lower.

Without this initiative, we might have had to increase rates in the longer term to make ends meet for basic services. The reinvestment and reform initiative has given us an opportunity, and we can use additional revenue to lever in major investment in infrastructure.

As the title implies, the initiative is also about public service reform. We must increase resources, but we must not focus solely on the quantity of projects and the number of supporting staff. We must focus also on the quality of project implementation and subsequent service delivery. As an Executive, we are committed to improving delivery and value for money. We underlined the importance of modernising Government and of improving its efficiency and effectiveness in the Programme for Government. The introduction of resource budgeting, public service agreements and service delivery agreements means that much of the information necessary for that change is available. That should enable us to get better information about the true costs of services and about what is being achieved, and we have added to that by commissioning evaluations of the needs and effectiveness of major policy areas. Those cover approximately three quarters of the expenditure that we control.

With the work on a new procurement system that is taking place across Departments we should also see improvements. The major review of public administration in the coming months will examine all aspects of administration, including the quality of service, and it should provide a good opportunity for improvement. Likewise, the new investment body should be an important vehicle for helping to deliver public service reform. However, reform must go wider. We must focus more on delivering services and on placing customer service and the needs of front-line staff first. Technology can play a vital role in improving services and information, increasingly allowing the public to use services when it is convenient for them. Technology must become more significant in the Programme for Government, and integral to the work of all Departments.

We have already seen signs of significant development. The creation of Invest Northern Ireland and the joint development of our welfare and employment systems are examples of where new approaches that are aimed at better meeting the needs of the public have been developed. However, we must go further. I do not wish to see public service budgets increasing in future unless reform is a key condition. The public deserve that and need to know that the best management techniques are being used to provide a service, and that internal administration is using minimum resources. We all want improvement in the delivery of public services with the resources and the expertise that are available to help us. We must change how we do things rather than continue with previous practice. We believe that we have a better opportunity than ever to further that objective.

This reform package is the largest that we have had. With the strategic investment body and our ability to borrow, it has wide ramifications for the public services. It will change style and mindset and put new thinking and energy into the Government. We are eager and determined to have real change. We are taking seriously our responsibility to the public, and we are determined to transform the quality of services. We want our new democracy to deliver real benefits to the public.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I join with the First Minister in apologising to the House that the continuing work on the statement meant that it was unavailable for Members before its delivery.

The initiative presents a challenge to us all. We must consider our priorities and, in particular, what should be addressed in the short term. We must consider whether there are new ways of delivering services. Much that was previously impossible should now be possible. The First Minister and I will work with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and with all our ministerial Colleagues, to develop a programme that brings substantial benefits to the people.

I stress that because, although we will be setting up a new strategic investment body and must use the best quality expertise to assist with the implementation of that work, choosing the direction of the programme rests with the Executive working with the Assembly.

Through the Programme for Government, we will agree which areas of deficit will be addressed first. Those political decisions must be settled on the Floor of the Chamber.

The First Minister explained the opportunities to increase resources through longer-term borrowing and to revitalise public services. The other threads of the initiative are to take a more strategic approach to investment through a new body; to use former military and security assets; and to use the facility to borrow money in the short term.

The adoption of a more strategic approach to the infrastructure and public service investment is a key element of the initiative. In that way we will deliver the best investment programme for the region. Before the launch of the new institutions, infrastructure investment in public services and utilities, such as hospitals, schools, roads, transport, water and sewerage, was characterised by a piecemeal, departmentalised, non-strategic and largely reactive approach. Expertise and resources are currently spread across 11 Departments, each of which is responsible for delivering its own programme. The Programme for Government emphasises the importance of improving the way in which we work together across the Departments.

We have already consulted widely on how to improve public sector procurement generally. A new central body that will draw in the best private sector expertise is already planned. In responding to the need to improve the infrastructure, there is potential to improve co-ordination and to ensure that the available expertise will result in better service delivery. Therefore, we propose that a new organisation be created to work with, and on behalf of, the Executive and all Departments to deliver infrastructure programmes in a more strategic way.

The proposed new body would be able to use a mixture of sources of finance, including the new borrowing power, traditional public sector finance and public-private partnerships. The body would link the finance to the best procurement methods, whether those involve the public or private sectors, or a combination of both. Using those, it would produce much better solutions than would be possible if the resources were spread across all the services, with each Department left to develop its own expertise and deliver its own projects. Therefore, it should be possible to take a more strategic approach to public-private partnerships.

Many of our Departments are relatively small and would experience difficulties in developing and maintaining the expertise and drive required to make the projects work. Ministers will decide what projects, buildings, and so on, will be required, so there will be a clear political responsibility for prioritising and planning. However, delivery and financing will now be overseen on a strategic basis.

The strategic investment body represents a new and highly innovative approach. We wish to examine closely examples elsewhere, drawing on the best expertise. The initiative is about reinvestment and reform, but it is also a major step towards the normalisation of our society. During the troubles, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) made use of extensive assets. A process of normalisation should bring about a reduction in security requirements. Normally, the NIO and the MoD would sell their surplus assets, and the Departments would have the opportunity to purchase them. However, for several years, we have been arguing that the Government should take a more positive approach and accept that the resources should be used to strengthen the social and economic fabric.

In 2000, it was agreed that we would be consulted on the use of the sites as they became available for disposal. I am delighted that a significant part of the new initiative is the Government’s agreement to transfer to the Executive, at no charge, some of the exceptionally significant assets that are, or will shortly become, surplus to requirements. The sites, which the Chancellor mentioned at the Odyssey last Thursday, are: Ebrington Barracks; the Maze Prison, including the base adjacent to the prison; the bases at Magherafelt and Malone Road; and Crumlin Road Prison.

Those are significant assets, and should help support a major programme of economic and social renewal for the whole community — a community that has been through a long period of conflict.

We need to take the opportunities of a stable and peaceful society, and those sites present tremendous opportunities. It is particularly important that sites and assets that, up to now, have been associated with militarisation and conflict should be transformed into engines of peaceful economic and social regeneration. We are now considering how best their potential can be developed to fulfil the needs of the community.

The Government have also agreed that as further sites become available, it will be for the Executive to address how they may be used to promote economic and social regeneration on a strategic basis, although we cannot necessarily infer further transfers without charge.

The major programme of infrastructure investment will take some time to develop. The new borrowing power, on which that depends, will be subject to the passing of new legislation through Parliament. More importantly, as the First Minister has just stressed, we need to radically review the system of local revenue, and establish, as a first condition before increases can be considered, a system that is fair and acceptable.

However, we need to make an early start with the implementation of the initiative, and we have agreed with the Chancellor that the Executive will be able to borrow £125 million in the next two years. The Executive wish to maximise the impact of this new money, and they will be adding £75 million of resources that have become available from Departments, enabling a more strategic use of those resources than would otherwise have been possible.

When we were negotiating this shorter-term boost to investment, the new regional cancer centre was among the significant projects that we had in mind. We will also consider how the £200 million should be used in conjunction with the Executive programme funds to maximise the investment impact. We will be looking at renewal and purchasing of important new equipment, improving our roads, and other investments that we can pursue in the short term.

The £125 million borrowed from the Treasury will have to be repaid through existing revenue income, which will be available from the regional rate. There have been reports about major increases in the rates. The First Minister has explained the position in relation to the longer-term borrowing power. However, we should also be clear about the short-term borrowing arrangement. The £125 million loan will be repaid from revenue income currently planned, and will not require increases in the rates.

Much work now needs to be done to implement the initiative, and the First Minister, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and I will be working with our ministerial Colleagues in the coming weeks and months to realise the full potential of this important package. We will keep Members informed of developments, and I am sure that Members will wish to offer views and ideas on how the community could most benefit from the changes.

The establishment of the strategic investment body will be a major task, and we wish to start work on it right away. The parties on the Executive will be invited to nominate members to a project board, chaired by OFMDFM nominees, to develop the proposals for the new body. An Executive subcommittee is to be established to oversee the work. We wish to call on expertise from the Treasury, 10 Downing Street, the South and further afield to help develop our ideas. We also propose to fully involve the Assembly through the Committee of the Centre and the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

We have given details today of the initiative — an initiative that promises substantial additional resources for Northern Ireland through short- and longer-term borrowing, and from the transfer of exceptional security and military assets to the Executive. We believe that this initiative should help provide a welcome boost for our economy, and improved services for our community, for this and for future generations.

We also have other work to do. The Treasury spending review is under way and is due to be completed in the summer. Our agreement with the Treasury on the reinvestment and reform initiative is separate from our negotiation on the spending review. We and the Treasury are agreed; the two are not connected.

The recent Budget announcement of large increases for health funding brought home the difficulties of matching expenditure increases to comparable programmes in England while the Barnett formula continues to be applied. We will continue to press for a fairer system of allocations across the UK, which better recognises Northern Ireland’s higher needs. However, the Treasury will undoubtedly continue to focus on the level of local revenues in Northern Ireland relative to England. The Executive and the Assembly will need to consider this issue further, particularly in the context of the rating policy review. The Executive will not propose increases in rates above the patterns of recent years to the Assembly until we have had the opportunity to consider the outcome of the review.

Irrespective of the outcome of the UK spending review this year, we will not have all the resources we will need. Later this year, the Executive will need to consider priorities for spending across programmes, taking account of needs and effectiveness in the context of the Programme for Government. To initiate this process, the Executive intend to present their position report for this year’s development of the Programme for Government and Budget to the Assembly early next month.

When presenting their Programme for Government to the Assembly, the Executive said that it was about making a difference. The process is different: a local Administration is responsible for making decisions on local issues and for addressing local needs. We also want a different outcome: quality of services and quality of life for all people in Northern Ireland. That difference justifies all the work of the Executive and the Assembly. The reinvestment and reform initiative, which the First Minister and I have described, provides everyone with an additional opportunity to make a real difference.

The initiative is not a magic solution: there are no soft options. Political life is about hard choices — the ones that the public look to us to make. However, the initiative opens up new ways of dealing with those choices and new ways of drawing in expertise and better management. If we make the right choices, we will be helping to invest for the future, improve our public services and provide real benefits for local people. Everyone should work to realise the potential of the initiative. I commend it to the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I doubt that the wordsmiths of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had any opportunity to get away over the bank holiday, but given the amount of spin that has been put on the statement, they did not need to take their families to any waltzers.

I wish to comment on several matters that were raised. The First Minister said that rates will not rise more than they have over the past two years. The public must be aware that that is already four times the rate of inflation.

When will the current rating review be completed? Given that we cannot use the borrowing powers until 2004-05, the review should be completed by then, and the outcome should be put in place. Today’s promises that rates are not going to rise significantly seem to be somewhat hollow.

Can we be assured about the local government Exchequer grant? Will it be reduced over the next few years, or will it be done away with? Will the derating of industry, particularly manufacturing industry, cease? Are we going to stop derating charity shops?

With regard to the sites that are being allocated back to the devolved Administration —

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

Mr Poots, please conclude your question.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consult with local communities and public representatives in those areas and take full account of the proposals made by local people?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank Mr Poots for emphasising that over the next couple of years the existing pattern of rates increases will continue without dramatic change. The existing pattern involves increases, but we do not intend to move sharply away from that pattern over the next two years.

The review of rating will be launched very soon, and we hope that it will be completed within a year. However, it could take longer than we would like, for we intend to consult fully. A whole range of local interest groups is keen to be involved in the rating review. We realise how sensitive the issue is, so there will be full consultation. Decisions will then have to be made. The review opens up the possibility of considering other ways of financing local government. While there is a focus on the rates, the door is not closed to people coming forward with fresh ideas about structures of local government finance.

Mr Poots raised several detailed questions about derating for charities, industry, and so on. All aspects of the rating system will be re-examined. When the review of rating is published, Members will see that those issues have been raised. We will see what views are put to us before coming back to the Executive and to the Assembly to find out how we should proceed.

Ideally, the review will be complete and implemented in time for the new arrangements that will kick in in 2004. Whether that ideal is realised is a matter for ourselves and for society as we proceed over the next two years.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on securing this package for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. Can the Ministers confirm that the short-term package of £200 million will be available to the Executive without any additional burden being placed on the ratepayer?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am happy to give the Member that assurance. The £200 million package comprises a loan of £125 million from the Treasury, and that borrowing can be covered from existing rate revenues. We do not have to add to the patterns of increase that we have projected to fund that short-term borrowing power. The other element of the package is £75 million of our own resources, using money available from Departments’ underspends and end-year flexibility. Applying the money in that way to create the £200 million spending boost represents the best value for money and the best strategic use of the money. The £200 million will be spent in a way that combines and complements the further spending that we have to undertake with regard to the Executive programme funds.

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

I welcome the statement and congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the negotiations that brought about the package. Members, myself included, have frequently and urgently called for additional resources for schools, colleges, hospitals and roads. The initiative gives us the opportunity to make positive choices for better quality services.

There has been a good deal of speculation about rates. Will the First Minister assure the House that decisions about rates, whether in the light of the package or as part of the rating review, will not be taken without fully consulting the Assembly?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Full consultation with the Assembly will take place. Any decisions to be made will come through the Executive to the House. However, even before decisions are taken, there will be a full consultation on the question of local government revenue and forms of finance.

Choices must be made. It is an uncomfortable fact that revenue from rates in Northern Ireland runs below the level of revenue collected through council tax and other analogous methods across the water. It is difficult to draw exact comparisons. Some of the figures bandied about in the local press are unrecognisable. However, there is a difference. When arguing for additional money from the Treasury, the issues of equality and the taxpayer’s interest must be addressed. That matter arises irrespective of this exercise. The question of the comparability of local revenue will have to be addressed.

As long as we can show the Treasury that the Assembly can conduct its business in a responsible fashion, we shall be able to manage changes without making sudden increases. That is a general principle, regardless of the new initiative. The initiative presents the prospect of significant borrowing power, which will give us greater flexibility in the planning stages. In the course of life, people regularly borrow in order to handle major investments in a more convenient way. We can look at that issue over the next year or two before decisions have to be taken.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Ministers for their statement. However, the Deputy First Minister said that

"The initiative presents a challenge to us all."

It certainly does when one has not had the opportunity to read it and to do it justice by asking the Ministers probing questions. I would have preferred that the statement be delayed until this afternoon to give us the chance to read it.

Will the assets — in the form of military establishments — that have been transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive attract an annual 6% charge under the resource accounting regime? If so, what impact will that have on our block grant and departmental expenditure limit?

I am delighted to have the categorical assurance of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that rates will not be doubled in the next four to five years. However, I welcome even more the fact that minds are now open to other ways of raising finance. I assume, therefore, that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister now have an open mind on the concept of local income tax. Do they share with me the idea that that is a much fairer way to raise revenue than the current iniquitous rates system?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept that Mr Close has not had time to read the statement. However, in my experience, regardless of what I say in a statement, or of how much time the Member has to read it, he pays little attention to it, and does not rely on it anyway. Perhaps the Member is making a new departure in that regard.

The assets will be transferred to the Executive; therefore, they must be accounted for in the same way as are other assets. When I was the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I emphasised that resource accounting and budgeting would involve a significant change in how assets are treated. In addition to controlling the flow of spending, the Assembly now controls the stock of assets, which we must account for and treat in the manner that Mr Close described. That is why it is imperative that we put the sites to best use, enable others to do so, and make the best decisions about those assets. We will be working to that end.

A review of rating policy began some time ago, and the first stage is now complete. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will soon issue a public consultation document based on the work that was carried out during the first stage of the review. That document will set out all the issues on rates. We do not need Members’ scare stories about the removal of relief from charity shops or a massive increase in business rates. I was criticised — [Interruption].

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

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

When I was the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I was criticised by several councils because I would not withdraw relief for charity shops. The matter will be included in the rating policy review for Members and the public to see, so that a fairer system of generating local revenue can be achieved. All the necessary facts will be included in the review; we do not need scare stories. We will examine the issues, make decisions on them and move forward. Anyone is free to argue that a local income tax would be better; however, that is not on the agenda of the rating policy review. There is no ulterior agenda; we need to consider honestly and hard-headedly the need to raise local revenue, and we must ensure that we do so fairly.

As regards scare stories about business rates, the Executive have increased business rates by 3·3% in the past few years, which was as close as possible to the rate of inflation. They did not increase it further, nor did they increase it at the same rate as domestic charges, because they recognised and emphasised that businesses in Northern Ireland already pay rates equivalent to those paid by businesses across the water. Neither the Treasury nor anyone else could argue that we have a gap to close in business rates — [Interruption].

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

Order, Mr Poots.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I welcome the new strategic approach. The ability to overcome the departmental bottlenecks that have blocked progress for so long is important and long overdue. However, the package from the Chancellor should bear a large bright label that reads "handle with care", because much small print must be read, and clarification is needed.

How much will it cost to borrow the £125 million that we have already agreed to accept? I do not want to know where it is coming from; I want to know how much it will cost. Secondly, how much will it cost us to borrow £1 billion, or other larger amounts? Has an interest rate been fixed?

Thirdly, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister made an announcement containing much spin about investing in future generations. Is it not rather the case that we are asking future generations to pay for our debt?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I agree that we need to handle these things with care, and I wish that commentators would do so also. We see remarkable stories in the media about what this will mean. As was stated openly and clearly, this is a matter of taking on power, and the question arises of how and when it is to be used. In our lives we purchase major capital items such as cars and houses, and rather than save the cost from income, we usually borrow. The costs involved will depend on the rates available and how they are drawn down. Crucially, we can cover the cost of borrowing £125 million initially with existing departmental budgets.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

How much will it cost?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The cost will depend on when it is drawn down. For example, if £1 billion is borrowed, the cost depends on the interest rates at the time. The rates available at the moment are around 5·25%, so that would mean expenditure of around £75 million, which is a competitive rate.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Five per cent?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes. The current rate is 5·25%, and it is better than floating a bond. The Member will note that we intend to create a strategic investment body. The body will maximise available public finance expertise and explore a range of possible sources of finance, which includes borrowing from the Treasury, using assets more effectively and raising funds through public-private partnerships.

One must not assume that the cost of all the investment infrastructure will be met by borrowing. There is the possibility of exploring public-private partnerships and using them to lever in more finance. Borrowing can provide funds, which can be used to bring in similar or greater funds. While we cannot use the proceeds of the disposal of assets to fund borrowing, we can use them to fund investment, so infrastructure investment can come from a number of sources. Those who see a need for several billion pounds to be spent on infrastructure and assume that it will all come from borrowing are wrong. Some of the figures that I have given are within our resources, even if we borrow. Our Budget is in excess of £5 billion, and it should be possible to find £30 million, £40 million, £50 million or maybe £75 million a year to fund substantial borrowing. However, that would be on the basis of our agreeing the detail with the Treasury, and we are still in discussion on how we should handle longer-term borrowing.

I did not give the Member a specific answer about the cost of borrowing £125 million in the short term. I understand that the loan is likely to cost less than £10 million a year, based on repayment over 25 years.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I suppose we will know soon enough whether Santa Claus has come early to Northern Ireland.

We must find out the finer details of the financial package, and how it stacks up economically. Will the Committees have opportunities to fully discuss the package and its financial implications?

I welcome the recent developments concerning Ebrington Barracks, which is in my constituency. High-level discussions have been taking place for some time to try to secure public ownership of the site. Will there be wide consultation in the Foyle constituency — particularly in the Waterside area — on the future use of the site? Many useful discussions have been held with various bodies in the city about that. However, now that the Executive have control of the site, many people in the community are worried about whether such consultation will continue.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept the Member’s point that people will want to appraise the package. Any future use of borrowing power by any Executive will be subject to the full scrutiny of the budgetary process, not least because additional borrowing would be resourced through additional revenue raised from rates. Nothing will bring about more transparency in the use of borrowing power than that.

For that reason, the Executive want to make it clear that future borrowing power will be used solely for strategic capital investment. Borrowing will not be used to fund running costs, pay wages or cover other expenses; it will be used solely for strategic infrastructure and public service investment. The Executive are conscious that the payments will be spread over time, and we want to ensure solidarity between generations. This Assembly will provide the necessary public service infrastructure for future generations. All the Committees will know how those matters are being handled.

The existence of the strategic investment body, and the qualitative difference that it makes to our capital expenditure profile, will enable the public to see the additional benefit of new investment, so that the added value will be obvious. That is part of the transparency that is important for the public and its representatives in the Assembly.

The Member also referred to Ebrington. I am aware of, and have been involved in, many discussions about the site, because I too represent the Foyle constituency. Having made the case to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for the transfer of the sites, the Executive want to ensure that they are put to optimum use in the public interest. We will continue discussions involving a range of sectoral interests to decide the best use of that particular site.

Many people urged the Executive and Departments to buy some of the sites that have now been transferred.

Members told us to buy Ebrington Barracks and to pay £10 million for it. Instead, through this package, the Executive have acquired the sites free of charge. The Executive can use the money that Members told us to spend on buying the sites to fund £125 million of borrowing power for short-term investment.

If Members listened to what they have advocated, they would realise how good this deal is. They wanted the money to be spent on buying those sites, and additional money would then have had to be found to develop them. Instead, the sites have been acquired free of charge, and the money that would have been spent on buying them can now be put towards infrastructure and public service investment.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the statement and the package that goes with it. This is mature politics in action, which is long overdue in Northern Ireland.

Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that the investment needed for water services alone is around £3 billion, or £6 million a week for 10 years? If that investment were not made, what would the consequences be? The Assembly and the public want to know whether the Minister for Regional Development has made any suggestions on how to meet the responsibility and the enormous backlog. I hope that he does not take the same attitude as his Colleague Mr Poots, who sits back and complains and lets other people do the work for him.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The information that we have received from the Department for Regional Development is that a substantial investment of around £3 billion is needed for water services. We cannot sit on that issue. It must be dealt with.

A point was raised earlier about the charges that would be incurred on the bases that have been transferred: those charges come under the new regime of resource accounting and budgeting and involve a charge of some 6% for held assets. Water services have considerable assets. Under resource accounting and budgeting, we would be charged for those assets. Consequently, there would be significant additional charges.

There is also the issue of how the Administration is funded. Funding increases come with per capita equivalents to increases in England in Wales. There are no longer any increases in public expenditure on water in England and Wales. No additional money is available in that way. If we are to deal with the investment that is needed in the water sector, additional sources of finance must be found. That is an important matter.

European Union Directives are a source of concern for water services. Those Directives will require expenditure, and if they are not implemented, penalties will be incurred. That is an important issue that must be addressed urgently. We understand that the Minister for Regional Development is considering how to deal with those problems, and he may soon introduce proposals. Those proposals may address the raising of finance, if finance is to be raised at all. I do not know whether that matter is on the Minister’s mind. However, we will consider with interest his proposals for water services.

The Department for Regional Development has significant problems. Other Departments also have problems with infrastructure. We hope that the package will benefit all Ministers and will enable matters to be dealt with strategically without displacing the interests and responsibilities of individual Ministers. That is why, as the Deputy First Minister said, we will invite other parties to associate with the operation of the strategic investment body.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on taking the steps that secured the package. Everyone agrees that more resources should be put into public services, and all parties have, in one way or another, called for such investment. The package offers a chance to accelerate investment in vital services. I also welcome the response given to Mr Hay regarding public consultation on Ebrington Barracks.

Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the initial package will be spent on strategic investments such as the new cancer centre, so that people can see that devolution does make a difference, and that we advocate quality public services to meet society’s needs?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I said, the First Minister, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and myself raised issues that would be significant elements in the shorter-term when we negotiated the short-term spending boost as part of the overall package. The cancer centre was the primary significant project that we thought could be funded from a short-term package. All Assembly parties know how important the regional cancer centre is to the regional health strategy. Achieving the regional cancer strategy will make good the work of the important new cancer units.

We are determined — and we are sure that our Executive Colleagues are determined — to support the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in realising the regional cancer strategy. We regret the different things that have prevented progress being made, and it is for such reasons that we believed it important to secure a short-term dividend, and not just to rely on longer-term borrowing power. Decisions and announcements on precisely how the money will be used will follow.

I am happy to reiterate the reassurance about public consultation on Ebrington Barracks and other sites.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Last week, I was tempted to hijack a plane that was supposed to be arriving laden with millions of pounds. However, the roads infrastructure in west Tyrone was so bad that there were no white lines to guide the plane down.

First, have Government bonds been ruled out? Is that a good financial manoeuvre in view of the fact that loans would be long-term? Are we talking about a fixed-term contract with an interest rate of 5·25% for 20 or 30 years?

Secondly, other means of raising money were mentioned. I welcome that the Deputy First Minister said that he would inflation-proof the business rates. Could there be a tremendous hike in domestic rates to compensate for that? What are the other means of raising money, and will they be put into the public domain for consultation?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The prospect of issuing bonds to finance infrastructure investments has some attractions, but all bonds would ultimately have to be guaranteed by the Northern Ireland Executive. The Treasury has made it clear that it would not support a bond-financed approach, nor would it be prepared to act as ultimate guarantor — that would probably be sought from financial institutions and investments if a bond were to be floated.

Significantly, the Treasury’s rates are better than those that would be gained from the market on floating a bond. It is therefore not simply a matter of the Treasury’s difficulties with the concept of bonds. Some of those difficulties are not related to Northern Ireland but rather to other areas. The arrangements offered are better financially, and that is significant.

With regard to other sources of finance, we hope to set up public-private partnership (PPP) deals through the strategic investment body. PPP partners could raise finance through bonds, and they would carry the risk. Other ways of raising finance may be available, some of which were referred to earlier. The objective of the strategic investment body is to bring in expertise and to focus the existing expertise in the Administration on examining what is available and what can be done to provide the finance to achieve progress in the best possible way.

Business and domestic rates are not connected with this initiative. Rates are already a problem, because of comparisons between local taxation and taxation across the water. The increase in business rates was kept low because there is no significant disparity between business rates here and business rates across the water. There is, however, a disparity in domestic rates, and there have been significant arguments on that issue. We must show that there will be equality with regard to tax, rates and council taxes across the United Kingdom. That has been happening. I hope that the message is getting through that there will be no sudden or dramatic change.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I congratulate the Ministers on securing the free transfer of security sites and prison sites to the Executive. Those named so far are of major strategic and monetary value. There has been much speculation, in the Lagan Valley constituency, for instance, about the possible use of the Maze site. Will the Ministers consult fully with local authorities and responsible community groups in the areas concerned before the use of those sites is determined?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am aware that in different localities there are different levels of interest in the sites, and there has already been some debate on the issue. Now that we have the sites we must ensure that best use is made of them. In determining the best use for the sites, it is important that they relate directly to the benefits of a transformation to a peaceful situation. They must be symbols of reconciliation, and they must be used for regeneration. If the sites were sold, the money raised would have to be used for similar purposes. That is fair in the context of the normalisation dividend that we started to negotiate before Christmas.

All relevant local interests must be involved and consulted. Strategic interests must also be considered. Given that the transfer of particular bases as part of the package has been a matter of luck, circumstance and negotiation, it would be appropriate to involve the strategic investment body.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Members will have a mixed reaction to the news that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister negotiated the package jointly, and, with their respective records of success at negotiation, we must be glad that the Deputy First Minister had a large input.

Given the restraints that have been imposed on borrowing, which are outlined in the statement, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that a large percentage, if not all, of the borrowing would be unnecessary if investment were made as a result of reductions in public expenditure? In the light of that, what plans do they have to examine the number and cost of Government Departments, the size and cost of the Assembly and the amount of money that is allocated to the North/South bodies and the Civic Forum?

Finally, what comfort can ratepayers take from the fact that the increases over the next four years in domestic rates are anticipated to be only four times the rate of inflation rather than more?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It is not our intention to change existing patterns for rates increases over the next couple of years. I have stated the reasons for the above-inflation domestic rates increases several times. I will not speculate as to why Mr Weir has not quite understood the point about comparabilities with other parts of the United Kingdom. Normally, the Member is enthusiastic about bringing us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, and it is strange that in this case he is not. Perhaps, though, it is not surprising. Is he willing to accept the benefits but not the burden of such matters?

There is some substance in the Member’s comments. We are keenly interested in reducing expenditure where possible, and that is an element of the review of public administration that will be advanced quickly. We hope that it will be implemented in the course of the next year, and, as is necessary, it will run in parallel with the review of the rating system. We will consider whether significant savings can be made in the management of public bodies outside the central Departments. The Member may not have appreciated that the creation of the strategic investment body to centralise expertise on finance and rating and financing projects through PPPs may itself involve a reduction in expenditure at departmental level.

The cost of the Assembly is not a matter for Ministers; it is entirely for the Assembly Commission. However, I am confident that the people of Northern Ireland are glad that they have an Assembly that enables them to influence the decisions that are taken on such matters. The people of Northern Ireland are glad that the Assembly exists, and they can put value on the carping that comes from people who contributed nothing to the creation of the Assembly or to society’s progress here in recent years.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I join Members who have congratulated the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on a wonderful achievement. It is a strategy for Northern Ireland that I hope will help to pay for what we need. At times, our attitude is awful. We demand and beg for this, that and the other thing, believing that, somehow, the money will fall from heaven. I do not know from where people get that idea, but the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made it clear that heaven will not be so easily persuaded to pay for us.

Members may have heard the Confederation of British Industry’s economic expectations for UK regions in this morning’s news. Northern Ireland was excluded, and I am worried about that. Could this be connected with the serious leak that occurred prior to the Chancellor’s announcement last Thursday, particularly as the focus of the leak appeared to be on a doubling of rates, even though that has proven to be wildly inaccurate? Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister concur with that viewpoint?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his observations on the package that we negotiated. It is important to set the matter in context. The First Minister, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and I have listened repeatedly to people saying that more money and more borrowing power were needed to ensure that spending outside the departmental expenditure limit could be made. That is precisely what we have negotiated. Most people encouraged us towards bonds, but we have negotiated a spending power with a better interest rate than we would have been able to achieve by using bonds. I hope that everybody — and many Members asked us to use bonds to secure a borrowing power — would have the same honesty as the Member in congratulating us.

We are trying to create, in the strategic investment body, a central driver to improve the quality and rate of investment. The Committee for Finance and Personnel touched on that point in its excellent report on public-private partnerships and alternative sources of financing. The Committee identified such a need precisely, and that need is being made good. I hope that the people who were ready to talk about that need will welcome the fact that we have acted on it.

Unfortunately, much public understanding and perception about the initiative was marred by many false conclusions and misinterpretations about the rates. In so far as that information came from leaks, we must try to correct those wrong impressions, while finding out exactly how the leaks occurred. The Executive have already asked the head of the Civil Service to make enquiries about that. It is most important that people are assured that we have a borrowing power that will be used wisely, not wildly. The arrangements in the Chamber mean that there will be no massive hiking of the rates while the rating system remains unreformed and while its anomalies and inequities are in place. People will not vote for significant rate increases without knowing what the significant additional benefits will be.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome this morning’s statement and the initiative announced last week. The Deputy First Minister talked about the strategic investment body. The important discussions on the functions of that body will take place not once my Colleague Mr Close has managed to read this morning’s statement but when Ministers come to the House with a detailed package and say exactly how the body will operate and what its role and functions will be. Ministers should not use the generalities that we have had so far. The Deputy First Minister said that parties in the Executive would be invited to make nominations to a working group. That seems to be a new constitutional arrangement. Did he mean that Ministers will make nominations, or do the Executive plan to be inclusive and suggest that parties that participate in the Assembly will get such an opportunity?

I welcome the fact that the First Minister went some distance in his response to Mr Close’s question on the unfairness of the rates. In recognising that that is a legitimate concern, the First Minister went considerably further than his Colleague Sir Reg Empey did in discussions with me last week. Are there plans for the rates review to be extended into a review of the raising of public finance, or will it merely pretend that tinkering with the existing system is all that is required?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The consultation paper on the rates review will be published shortly. It will concentrate on a review of rating policy because, in revising the existing system, we must begin by considering that system. The current system contains inequities and anomalies. The big problem with rates is that it is a tax that is not related to people’s ability to pay; it is superficially attractive, therefore, to create a system that is. Mr Close mentioned a local income tax. We look forward with interest to the proposals for such a tax. I hope that they will be properly developed and carefully considered.

It is not surprising that the Scottish Parliament has not used its power to vary income tax rates. That shows what those who have the capacity to consider the matter think about it. There is the possibility, as I have already said, of replacing the rates with a different form of local taxation. I do not imagine that anyone will suggest that we introduce a poll tax, although someone could, and, under the terms of the rates review, it is theoretically possible that that could happen. If that is what the Member has in mind, we look forward to it. The other possibility is a tax similar to the council tax that exists across the water. Other taxes may be introduced, but all possibilities must be considered within the limits of what the Assembly can do. We may consider the introduction of new local taxes, but income tax is a reserved matter, and the Member’s party’s suggestion of changing it would have to be dealt with elsewhere.

The strategic investment body is intended to centralise expertise and the capacity for managing assets, raising funds and dealing with infrastructure investment matters. The Deputy First Minister said that limited capacity for those matters, and a certain degree of expertise, is currently scattered across 10 or 11 Departments. It is more efficient to centralise and develop the capacity and expertise through a single body that can coherently study the whole range of public sector investment and the management of public assets. That will be done within the Administration, and it will be appropriate, therefore, to bring together people from within it who represent it as a whole.

That is why it was an obvious first step to turn to the parties that participate in the Administration. To go beyond that and look to other Assembly parties that do not participate in the Administration would run counter to the thrust of the initiative, which is that the body will operate within the Administration to enable the most efficient asset management.

We have taken a decision in principle to establish a strategic investment body, and we will work out the detail as quickly as we can. We will be happy to share our decisions with the Assembly as we go through the process. It is a new concept, although the idea has surfaced in other jurisdictions. Quite a few people in government are moving towards it because of the desirability of ensuring that the public administration’s assets and capacity to raise finance are used in an efficient and effective way.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will make my question brief. The Deputy First Minister intimated that there might be other sites, referring to security bases that are going to be closed down, and said that when other sites became available, they would utilise those also. Does he have any particular sites in mind that he would like to tell the Assembly about?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I did not say that as other sites became available, we would utilise them also. What I did say was that as other sites became available, it would fall to the Executive to consider whether we wanted to intervene on the strategic use of those sites. In saying that, I was not implying that additional sites would come free of charge. Many Members anticipated that we were going to have to pay for the Ebrington site, for example. They said that it would be a good site to buy, and a good use of our budget. We have got it free of charge. In relation to other sites, we might have to decide whether to purchase them — that is the arrangement and the understanding that existed prior to this package.

We have done well to get these sites free, and we must make the best use of them. We must all consider responsibly what to do in relation to future sites. I would like to think that we could persuade the Treasury to give us future sites free of charge, and our ability to do that might be related to whether we do anything with the rest of this package — that is, the strategic reforms that we are talking about and our approach to revenue issues.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: First Stage

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 7/01] to make new provision for the payment of general and other grants to district councils; to confer new powers on district councils in relation to economic development and community safety; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

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

Children Leaving Care 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 26 June 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Children Leaving Care Bill (NIA 5/01).

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is examining the Children Leaving Care Bill, which overlaps the Committee’s ongoing consideration of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. Although the Children Leaving Care Bill is relatively short, it contains important provisions for this vulnerable group of young people. It will establish a basis for new and improved leaving care and aftercare services, including pathway plans and personal advisors for these young people. The Committee warmly welcomes this Bill in the light of its recent inquiry into residential and secure accommodation for children.

It is important for the Committee to devote sufficient time to scrutinising the provisions of the Bill, especially in relation to the ability of trusts to provide assessments and meet identified needs in a uniform and consistent manner, with proper accountability. In order to be satisfied that the Bill can deliver fully on its intent and provide safeguards for vulnerable young people once they leave care, the Committee asks that the Committee Stage of the Bill be extended to 26 June 2002. 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 26 June 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Children Leaving Care Bill (NIA Bill 5/01).

Draft Amendments to the Flags Regulations (NI) 2000

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move:

That this Assembly take note of the proposed changes to The Flags Regulations (NI) 2000 as set out in the Draft Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2002.

The Secretary of State wrote to the Speaker on 26 April 2002 formally referring draft amendment Regulations to the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, as required under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. Article 4(2) of the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 says that

"The Assembly shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly on the proposed regulations."

On this occasion, the Secretary of State has specified the period until 8 May for a response.

Normally, a business motion would be tabled by a member of the Business Committee requesting that an Ad Hoc Committee be set up to consider the matter and report to the Assembly. Given the extremely tight deadline set by the Secretary of State, the Business Committee agreed on 29 April that the only viable way of getting the Assembly’s view on the proposed amendments was by way of a debate, and this motion fulfils that purpose. The Speaker will write to the Secretary of State, attaching a copy of Hansard, to inform him of the Assembly’s views.

The Secretary of State has advised that the amendments are minor and bring about no change in the principle that underlies the legislation. The amendments have two main purposes. First, following the deaths of The Princess Margaret and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, it is sadly necessary to make an amendment to remove the requirement to fly the flag on official buildings to celebrate their birthdays in the future.

Secondly, the legislation was originally drafted to ensure that flag flying in Northern Ireland replicated the policy on flags elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To celebrate the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty, it has recently been decided that flags will be widely flown from official buildings. Consistent with the original approach, the Secretary of State intends to add the Jubilee weekend at the beginning of June to the list contained in part II of the schedule to the Regulations for this year only, so that flags will be flown in Northern Ireland from the official buildings covered by the Regulations. The Secretary of State has apologised for the short notice, but the proximity of the Jubilee weekend makes the matter quite pressing. After consideration by the Assembly today, the Regulations will go to Parliament.

Wearing my party hat, the DUP’s position on flag flying is well known — flags should fly when the Assembly is sitting. The DUP will try to find days to compensate for the loss of these two days.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I support what Mr Morrow has said. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with this because of the deaths of The Princess Margaret and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. However, in contrast to those sad occasions, we are also celebrating the year of the Golden Jubilee, in which we can look back and be grateful for the reign of Her Majesty The Queen. It is important that we in Northern Ireland are consistent with the rest of the United Kingdom in flying the flag of our country throughout the Queen’s Golden Jubilee celebrations.

I hope that we will not see the controversy which usually follows the flags issue, but rather that people will have respect for those who hold the monarchy dear to their hearts. Parity of esteem does not impact on just one community in Northern Ireland; it should apply equally to all communities.

The Union flag represents the broad and natural constituency of the British Isles. It is not — or should not be — a flag of hate for some people, used for sectarian or tribal purposes. It should be a flag for all people, symbolic of the importance of democracy and the fact that we live in a multicultural British society. The sooner that opponents of Britain and all things British realise that, the sooner we will begin to achieve a mature and stable society in Northern Ireland.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Morrow outlined why it is necessary to have a debate, rather than an Ad Hoc Committee, on these amendments. A debate on the amendments to the Flags Regulations is a side issue. The real issue is that the Secretary of State continues to abuse a power that was originally devolved to the Assembly and that was seized from it by his predecessor, Peter Mandelson, at the behest of the Ulster Unionist Party.

The negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement recognised that the issue of flags and emblems was sensitive and problematic, and needed to be dealt with in a way that reflected the new political dispensation, rather than the dominance of one community over the other, which was the hallmark of previous Administrations here.

The guidelines for dealing with flags and emblems are set out in the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the agreement:

"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."

The task of agreeing a policy on flags and emblems was rightly given to the Executive, who duly set up a subcommittee to consider the issue. However, unknown to the other parties in the Executive, the Ulster Unionist Party had already reached a private agreement with Peter Mandelson that its position on flags would be enforced in the event that no agreement was concluded by the Executive.

The existence of that private deal was not only a disincentive for the Executive to reach agreement on the issue, but an incentive for the Ulster Unionist Party not to reach an agreement with its Executive Colleagues, as its position was already guaranteed by the Secretary of State. It is not surprising that the Executive subcommittee did not agree a policy.

However, despite the fact that the Executive did not come to a conclusion on the issue, as correspondence from the then Deputy First Minister revealed, the Secretary of State acted on his private commitment to the Ulster Unionist Party and unilaterally removed the power to decide on this issue from the Assembly. In doing so he usurped the power of locally elected Ministers over their own departmental headquarters on what are termed "designated flying days" and produced a set of Regulations that flew in the face of the agreement that his Government had signed up to. Arguably, his Regulations also contravened the Fair Employment Code of Practice, which states that

"Employees do not have to tolerate reminders or suggestions that particular religious beliefs or political opinions have a special place in their workplace."

Sinn Féin and other parties objected to the Regulations when they were submitted to the Assembly. The former went on to challenge the authority of the Secretary of State to arbitrarily remove powers from the Assembly at the whim of a single political party.

The current Secretary of State should recognise that the power to set policy on this issue should rest with the democratically elected representatives of the Assembly. Rather than giving us minimal notice on the proposed removal or addition of a couple of "designated flying days", he should legislate for the return of those powers, so that a policy for the use of flags and emblems for public purposes can be agreed by ourselves in a manner consistent with the agreement that the vast majority of Members have signed up to. Go raibh maith agat.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party supports the amendment of the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. I hope that the amendment will rationalise the situation, so that during the Jubilee weekend this year the Union flag will be flown with dignity and as a sign of respect to The Queen, and not be left to fly until it is in tatters, with neither respect nor dignity. I also hope — perhaps in vain — that local politics will not besmirch that event.

It is encouraging that other organisations have advised the flying of the Union flag only on a time-restricted basis. I hope that the whole question of flags and emblems can be agreed as quickly and as sensitively as possible, although again I suppose that that hope is in vain.

Once again, we extend our sympathy to the Royal Family on the deaths of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and The Princess Margaret. However, we support the amendment.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

This is a take-note motion, because, at the time of devolution, that settlement provided that matters relating to the Crown, including the flying of the national flag — the Union flag — would remain at Westminster. On that basis, I disagree with Conor Murphy. The powers to regulate the flying of the national flag never properly lay with the Assembly in the first place. Therefore, there was no surreptitious snatching-away of that power through a back-door deal.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member explain why it was necessary for the previous Secretary of State, by Order in Council, to take back from the Assembly the power to regulate the flying of flags, if that power never rested with the Assembly in the first place?

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The point is that there was no previous legislation; that is why it had to be established. It is clearly set out in the devolution settlement that matters relating to the Crown, including the flying of the Union flag, would not be devolved and would rest with Westminster.

Furthermore, Conor Murphy misinterprets page 20, paragraph 5 of the Belfast Agreement where it refers to symbols and emblems. The national flag, according to good legal interpretation, does not fall into those categories. The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 were subject to consultation by the Secretary of State with the Ad Hoc Committee of the Assembly. At that time and since, the Ulster Unionist Party has welcomed those Regulations, because, for the first time in the existence of the Northern Ireland state, they put the official flying of the national flag on a legislative footing, which it never had throughout the previous period of devolution between 1922 and 1972. It also establishes a degree of comparability between official practice by Departments here and their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

The draft amendments, with which the motion is most directly concerned, have been made necessary by the recent sad deaths in the Royal Family, and on a more positive note, by this year’s Golden Jubilee. I support the motion, as it continues the practice established by the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 of properly regulated and, therefore, dignified flying of the national flag. That contrasts markedly with the mass of varied flags put up on all too many lamp posts.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I support the motion. I am not a flag flaunter. Flaunting demeans the flag; it belittles its dignity and what it stands for. Those who wave the flag in a taunting and provocative fashion are often the first to waive what it stands for.

Having said that, I find it most provocative and offensive that this state’s flag is not allowed to be flown from council buildings where Sinn Féin are in control. That is happening in Fermanagh District Council, where an attempt has been made to remove any hue of Britishness from the council buildings. Even a plaque in honour of Captain Oates of the famed Antarctic expedition has been removed. Sinn Féin says that it is "a neutral environment". I say that such actions do not create a neutral environment. Rather, for thousands of others and myself, they create an environment which is hostile, highly insulting and grossly offensive.

The national flag — in this instance, the Union flag — should be flown from all Government and local government buildings in Northern Ireland on, at least, designated days. If we have all acknowledged the Belfast Agreement, which states that we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so long as the majority of the electorate indicate that that is their wish, there should be no problem with the flying of the national flag.

The issue must be resolved soon, because we cannot remain in limbo, demeaning this state’s flag of sovereignty and almost apologising for flying it. Any objection to the sovereignty of Her Majesty and her flag is inconsistent with the fact that everyone accepts coins that bear an image of the Queen’s head.

The Belfast Agreement confirms that there is only one sovereignty here, and those who wish to cherry-pick cannot ignore that point. I support the motion.

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

The SDLP recognises that this take-note debate relates to the broad issue of flags and emblems, not just the specific recommendations of the motion. The SDLP wishes to be careful when debating the matter, and point scoring has been taking place, so we waited until the end of the debate to comment.

Although the Ad Hoc Committee failed, after considerable work, to reach consensus on the flags issue, it produced a report. If the Secretary of State requires information on, and evidence of, the SDLP’s position, I refer him to the party’s lengthy submission in that report, in which the SDLP advocates that the issue of the display of flags should be kept under periodic review. That is consistent with, and a requirement of, the Good Friday Agreement. A more consensual approach to the display of flags on Government buildings may emerge in time, and a periodic review of the matter may create some impetus. I hope that everyone aspires to that position. In addition, the SDLP submitted that the application of the proposed Regulations should be time-limited to one year only in the first instance. We look forward to development that creates progress for everyone without resulting in confrontation. Each time the issue is considered, party political point scoring takes place.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened carefully to all the contributions, and, although most Members grasped the spirit of the motion, we heard the usual rant from Sinn Féin, a party which sees merit in nothing. It is sad that Sinn Féin should use the opportunity to carry out a divisive political stunt — that will not go unnoticed. I take the point that when Sinn Féin has been in control, it has quickly demonstrated its intolerance for anyone with a differing opinion, which is regrettable. I wish to say nothing more, because I recognise that most of the comments were constructive and were made in the spirit of the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of the proposed changes to The Flags Regulations (NI) 2000 as set out in the Draft Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2002.

The sitting was suspended at 12.24 pm.

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

Good Friday Agreement

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I wish to advise Members how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated one hour by the Business Committee. One amendment has been selected and has been published on the Marshalled List. Speaking times will be as follows: the proposer of the substantive motion will have 10 minutes for proposing the motion and five minutes for his winding-up speech. The proposer of the amendment will have seven minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes for his winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes each.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly supports the principles of the Good Friday Agreement.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this fundamental motion. No one in the House or outside could argue that we in the Assembly have not created many opportunities to debate the Good Friday Agreement. It was in that spirit that I introduced the motion.

It is sad that the UUP has had to put forward an amendment. I have no problem in talking about policing, if that is what it wants to debate. However, the purpose of the motion is to focus on the fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement and to bring forward and query the reasons why we are not using the Chamber to debate and exchange views on that subject.

Our society has emerged from conflict lasting more than 30 years, against the background of a previous 50 years of division. We must find ways, means, mechanisms and debates for resolving that conflict. We only have to look at the Middle East to see how conflict returns when a peace process goes wrong. There is a huge onus on all of us to never allow that to happen.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible for a person who is closely identified with IRA/Sinn Féin to use the Assembly to issue threats of a return to violence if they do not get their way?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not a point of order. Next time, I would ask the Member to state the Standing Order to which he refers.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

One of the fundamental principles underlining the Good Friday Agreement is that of inclusion and equality — [Interruption]. There are some smart alecs over there. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

If we are to follow through on inclusion and equality, there should be no reason why we cannot have thoroughgoing debate on the concepts contained in the Good Friday Agreement. At Weston Park we were promised an implementation group, which would allow that debate, yet it has met only once. No one can deny that, and we have had no regular exchange of views. Unionists must ask themselves why they do not want to debate those issues in the Chamber.

DUP Members are afraid of their shadows, but what are the Ulster Unionist Members afraid of?Surely nothing in the Good Friday Agreement would cause them concern. Plenty in it would concern the DUP, because it favours inequality and the divisions that caused mayhem for previous generations. Why is the UUP so reluctant to debate the fundamental elements of the Good Friday Agreement? Let us debate the issue.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Did Pat Doherty not request that only 60 minutes be allocated to the debate?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Business Committee allocates the time for each debate, and it agreed that this one should last for 60 minutes.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

At the request of Sinn Féin.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

That is not true. Dr Paisley would be better off attending his other duties today, rather than raising false points in the House.

Sinn Féin is committed to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, to equality, inclusion and dialogue with Unionists to find ways to overcome any outstanding issues that they feel must be addressed. If Unionists want to address policing, let us consider that although the Good Friday Agreement promised a new beginning for policing, we have not had that. The Patten Commission’s recommendations were decimated by Peter Mandelson’s Bill in Westminster. The British Government promised that they would introduce new legislation, but we have seen no sign of that. Sinn Féin is not afraid to debate policing, but I am concerned by the Unionists’ reluctance to debate the fundamental components of the Good Friday Agreement. What aspects of equality and inclusiveness are they afraid of?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

One amendment is published on the Marshalled List.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move the following amendment, standing in my name and those of Mr Nesbitt, Mr Cobain and Mr McFarland: Delete all after "Assembly" and insert:

"endorses the Belfast Agreement with its promise of a new beginning based on exclusively peaceful and democratic means and accordingly calls on all parties to support the police in the present difficult circumstances."

Pat Doherty said that he was sad that the amendment was tabled. Although he referred in his motion to supporting the principles of the Good Friday Agreement — or the Belfast Agreement, as it is properly called — he did not say that he supported the agreement itself. That relates to the fact that around four years ago Sinn Féin debated whether it supported the agreement, but we are still waiting to hear whether it does. Pat Doherty supports the principles of the agreement, but only selectively. The motion is not an explicit endorsement of the agreement. It is dishonest and a sleight of hand to talk about supporting the principles without supporting the agreement.

Although Mr Doherty said little that allowed Members to get their teeth into the substance of his argument, he is well aware that Sinn Féin and Republicans have walked away at every opportunity from a key part of the agreement: the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their constitutional future. That implies that the inhabitants of the island of Ireland do not form a nation in the political sense and that they have no right to national self-government, no right to unity of the national territory and, above all, no right to national self-determination. Those are key elements.

Another key element of the agreement is the support for exclusively peaceful and democratic means, without the use, or the threat, of force. That is a stark paradox, given the tenets of last week’s debate in which Members discussed the situation in Colombia and the investigation into the "Bogotá three" by the Committee on International Relations in the United States House of Representatives, chaired by Henry Hyde. That Committee’s evidence stated that two of the Irish nationals being held in Colombia were the IRA’s leading explosives experts and that another was Sinn Féin’s representative in Cuba, who was probably funded by the Cuban Government. It seems to me that those events contradict the principles of the Belfast Agreement.

We reflect on the report that those found guilty of gunrunning in Miami have been endorsed as IRA prisoners of war. We also reflect on the situation in north Belfast. A Sinn Féin councillor in north Belfast blames everything on the UDA, no matter what happens — whether it rains, or whether there is violence. However, Republicans have a strong case to answer regarding the orchestration of violence in that area, particularly in relation to the argument that in Ardoyne — where Loyalists represent 20%, and Nationalists 80%, of the population — Loyalists are constantly picking on the overwhelming majority in that area.

That contradicts the efforts that Mr Pat Doherty made to convince the House that he endorses and supports the principles of the agreement. There is a long way to go before the Assembly can accept what Mr Pat Doherty claims to represent, and agree with his view that Sinn Féin and Republicans are fully behind the agreement. There are strong suggestions that Sinn Féin is often far from happy with the agreement and with what we all consider to be its principles — the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, democracy, and non-violence.

Ceasefires are about more than simply an absence of so-called military activity. Everybody in Northern Ireland who signed up to the agreement and the peace process believes in an exclusively peaceful and democratic society. That means a complete absence of violence. What those associates of Sinn Féin orchestrate is far from that. However, they are not alone in the "paramilitary constituency" — if I can call it that. There are movements towards violence throughout that "constituency".

Sinn Féin and Mr Pat Doherty are hypocrites who talk about Unionists being frightened of the debate and of not being prepared to take part in it. We had this debate many years ago. As far as I am concerned, it is over. The agreement was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland. We move on from that. We are all in the House working the process, no matter what we say.

The bottom line is that Sinn Féin and Republicanism are the main threat to the Executive, the Assembly and the entire process. They must do better than simply point the finger at something they claim Unionists are frightened of. Unionists are not frightened of the process. We know exactly where we are going, what our targets are and what our strategy is in this. We will continue to pursue that strategy. Sinn Féin and Republicans are currently the biggest threat to the process.

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

There is a fundamental flaw in the debate and in the contributions so far. Sinn Féin talks about how others dishonour the principles and substance of the Good Friday Agreement, but not about how it might be doing the same. Likewise, Unionists talk about how others dishonour the substance and details of the Good Friday Agreement, but do not talk of themselves.

That is the fault line in this debate. In talking about how the Good Friday Agreement is being honoured and dishonoured, it is incumbent upon each party to talk about how each party is honouring and dishonouring the spirit and substance of the Good Friday Agreement, and not simply to point the finger at other parties in the Chamber.

I welcome Pat Doherty’s belated commitment to the implementation group. The SDLP, along with other parties, argued for an implementation group. The SDLP argued for it and secured it at the Weston Park negotiations. I welcome the belated enthusiasm of Sinn Féin for this key mechanism of the Good Friday Agreement.

I hope that the implementation group will meet soon, and regularly, to discuss all aspects of the agreement, not least policing. Pat Doherty said that he wants to discuss policing. I look forward to that debate and to his realising that, rather than nobbling the powers of the Police Ombudsman, as he recently alleged it did, the Policing Board endorsed the Police Ombudsman as a result of its actions after the Omagh report.

I look forward to the debate with Pat Doherty, so that he can recognise that when the Policing Board agreed a new symbol for the Police Service it did not include the British Crown but symbols that reflect the diversity and traditions on this island. I look forward to that debate with Pat Doherty, so that, rather than having a slogan about the disbandment of Special Branch, we can discuss a strategy to deconstruct and reconstruct Special Branch in an open and transparent way.

I look forward to meeting Pat Doherty at the implementation group where we can show how the Policing Board and the SDLP are getting policing right, and Sinn Féin can show why it still says that policing is wrong. I look forward to telling him how the Policing Board is facing up to its responsibilities on behalf of the citizens in the North, unlike Sinn Féin, which shirks those responsibilities. I suggest to Pat Doherty that it is past the time that Sinn Féin should recognise the policing challenge. Having missed the boat, his party should get in a dinghy and start rowing.

I also look forward to debate with the Ulster Unionist Party at the implementation group and to its explaining to the people of the North and the parties in the Chamber how it is honouring the agreement when it insults the citizens of the Republic of Ireland, as its leader did some weeks ago. I look forward to the Ulster Unionist Party’s explaining to the people of the North and the parties in the Chamber how parity of esteem is being recognised — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Does the Member accept that as he mentions Mr Trimble’s insulting the people of the Irish Republic, he himself insults the majority of people here when he uses terms such as "the North"?

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

I am of the North and from Northern Ireland. That is sufficient rebuttal of that last comment.

What have we gained from this debate and last week’s debate? What have the people of the North gained? What have the kids in the Gallery today gained from it? Are people any more confident that some of those who seek to defend the Good Friday Agreement in the Chamber will live out its true meaning outside? Will those who speak with such conviction inside the Chamber be any more respectful of the convictions of the people who endorse the Good Friday Agreement outside it? I ask that question because it has not been answered.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

"I have … always made it clear that we regard Sinn Fein and the IRA as inextricably linked."

Who said that? The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

"We said that we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or to threaten terrorism."

Who said that? The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

Who had the following words written as graffiti on the walls of Northern Ireland?

"No change in the status of Northern Ireland without the express consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Power to take decisions returned to a Northern Ireland Assembly, with accountable North/South co-operation. Fairness and equality guaranteed for all. Those who use or threaten violence excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland. Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good."

It was the Prime Minister again, and what happened? All those things changed. Today, Northern Ireland has seen the Royal Ulster Constabulary destroyed and terrorist prisoners released. It has seen unaccountable all-Ireland bodies set up and IRA/Sinn Féin in the Government of Northern Ireland. The Union flag is banned from Government buildings for most of the year. Security installations have been removed, on-the-run terrorists have been pardoned, and there has been discrimination against victims in funding. There has been no substantial and credible IRA decommissioning.

Mr Attwood spoke of what he got at Weston Park. However, there was one thing he did not get, as his leader said. Officials of the United Kingdom said "You have no guns; therefore, you cannot get what you desire." That is the very cradle of the matter that we deal with today.

I am glad to have had the opportunity today to table a motion that will give the House the opportunity that the deputy leader of the IRA here shouted about — an opportunity really to discuss the police in Northern Ireland. The Official Unionists’ amendment could not be more hypocritical. It mentions endorsing the Belfast Agreement. The majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland do not endorse it. Furthermore, it calls on parties to support the police. The police have been destroyed by the agreement. The hatchet of Republicanism now hangs over the heads of the Special Branch and the full-time Reserve. The opportunity will shortly be given to the House to have a real debate. We will not ask for an hour. Let us have a full debate, in which every man elected to the Assembly can give a full answer to the question of where he stands. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The time has come for the House to face up to the fact that the majority of the Unionist population is opposed to the agreement and does not want it. Until that is recognised and there is a fair election for the people of Ulster to decide the issue, we can only move forward to more of the underhand violence and murder orchestrated, as it is in north Belfast, by IRA/Sinn Féin.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Four years on from the signing of the Belfast Agreement, the Good Friday Agreement, or whatever we call it, it is rather sad that today’s motion looks merely at its principles. I had hoped that we would be looking more at the practice — the collective ability of this institution and others to bring to fruition all that we expected to see, and ensuring that the agreement works for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. However, the fact that the motion returns to the issue of principles, rather than the practice of four years’ experience, suggests that the agreement was the ceiling of some people’s ambitions. It suggests that once agreement was reached, people could scurry back to their corner to look after their self-interests, rather than its being the foundation on which we could build a united community and move from the notion of managing a divided society.

All parties have obligations under the agreement — few parties have lived up to all of them. Therefore, we should not debate support for the principles of the agreement only. We should consider how the Assembly, and the other institutions of the agreement, should work to bring it to fruition.

There have been countless examples of failure to implement the agreement on the part of all who worked on it. The establishment of the institutions has been too slow. We have failed to establish a proper legislative programme here. We have hardly had a single meeting of the British-Irish Council. Decommissioning has been slow, but at least there have been two recent episodes of Republican decommissioning — there has been none by Loyalists. I fail to see how we can suggest that it is a matter of discussing principles rather than practice.

Mr Doherty referred to the amendment. He suggested that the Bill that Peter Mandelson introduced in Westminster had decimated the Patten Report. That is an erroneous interpretation, and it is noticeable that Sinn Féin has produced little other than niggling examples of how it fails to seize the opportunity in relation to policing. Sinn Féin appears to be scrabbling for every excuse possible to avoid taking its places on the Policing Board — and, presumably, on the local district partnerships, when they are established later this year.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland is fully built on the principles of Patten and, in almost every respect, on the fine detail of Patten. It should be seen by all that it is capable of working for all, and it should be supported by all. The PSNI is working for the good of the entire community. It is not, as some would have alleged in the past, representative of one group only.

The amendment deserves support because it gives a more balanced picture than the motion does. I noticed with some amusement that when Mr McGimpsey said that Republicans were the biggest threat to the agreement he faced no disagreement from the DUP. I thought that the DUP hoped that it was the biggest threat to the agreement, but it is clear that it is comfortable working in the Assembly and the other institutions in which it participates. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have no doubt that the DUP will continue to be comfortable in doing so. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The threats to the institutions do not come from those who proclaim their opposition to the agreement, but from those who reached the agreement four years ago only to spend all their time, on whatever side they are, running back to their own tribes and ignoring the needs of the wider community. The Assembly must move away from those party games. We should support the amendment. We should then cease to discuss such issues and implement the agreement.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

The principles of the agreement fall into two categories. They are those that legitimise terrorism and those, contrary to Mr McGimpsey’s opinion, that legitimise Irish Nationalism and undermine the legitimacy of the Union. That latter set of principles has never been the subject of proper public debate.

The agreement legitimises terrorism by placing the representatives of terror in the Government of Northern Ireland without any requirement for the IRA to decommission. The principle there is that Northern Ireland’s citizens should be governed by those who terrorised them for 30 years. That principle is an affront to democracy and common decency.

The agreement also legitimises terrorism by releasing terrorist prisoners. In order to be released, a person must be convicted of a terrorist crime and be a member of an organisation that is on ceasefire. Again contrary to Mr McGimpsey’s opinion, the courts have ruled that that ceasefire cannot be broken by either murder or gunrunning. Dr Reid recently ruled that a ceasefire cannot be broken by engagement in the development of the technology of terror at the heart of international terrorism. Therefore, a ceasefire that cannot be broken under those circumstances is no ceasefire at all.

"The idea that people who have committed appalling crimes should be released from prison because they have committed those crimes and because they are members of an organisation that directed that sort of criminality is a legalised corruption of the rule of law that is without precedent in any democratic or civilised state. When you reach the position of legitimising terrorism to the extent of putting the representatives of terror into Government and letting terrorists out of jail, what you have actually done is that, on one hand, you may concede that the terrorist organisation actually committed some horrendous acts, but what you are really saying is that that organisation cannot be held culpable — cannot be held blameworthy — for committing those acts."

That raises a fundamental question about the core nature of the Belfast Agreement. Where is culpability mentioned in the terms of the Belfast Agreement? The amazing, indisputable answer is that the ultimate culpability for what the Patten Report referred to as "the tragedies of the past" lies not with those who perpetrated those appalling criminal acts but with the legitimate forces of law and order that stood between the terrorist and the citizen. According to the remit given by the Belfast Agreement to Patten, the ultimate culpability lies with the RUC. For example, the Patten Report stated that the RUC is

"at the heart of many of the problems that politicians have been unable to resolve in Northern Ireland".

That clearly states that somehow the culpability lies with the RUC. At the core of the report is the statement that we must

"reorient policing in Northern Ireland onto an approach based on upholding human rights and respecting human dignity".

I do not need to take time to spell out the core implication there. Having made the RUC culpable, the report proceeded to lay the foundation for a new so-called police force that would integrate terrorists into the heart of policing. Patten argued that without the recruitment of Republicans — not just Nationalists — the new police force could not operate effectively. Terrorists are elevated by the agreement into Government and into policing those citizens whom they terrorised for 30 years.

Where did those ideas come from? I do not have the time to elaborate, but the fountainhead of the legitimisation of terror can be found in the Mitchell principles. A key factor about those principles is that they have nothing to do with decommissioning. This went undetected by the media, who can hardly read a report. Decommissioning is not required, but those principles require a political settlement that would take the gun out of politics. When one argues for a political settlement to take the gun out of politics, one has elevated the terrorists to arbiters of the content and implementation of what is required to remove the gun.

From where did this Mr Mitchell, who should have been chased out of this country, get all of that? He got it from the Sinn Féin submission to the Mitchell Commission, because taking the gun out of Irish politics by an agreement is central to that party’s terminology. Therefore, Mr Mitchell elevated terrorism and its legitimisation into the Belfast Agreement. Nobody can support that agreement.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order, order. The Member’s time is up.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

It is rather sad that just after a debate on the future economic confidence of this country, we have a debate on our lack of political confidence.

The agreement should not be used in the Chamber or anywhere else in Northern Ireland to shame the other side. I have said repeatedly that nobody has a monopoly on the agreement. Listening to some of the debate, including Mr Roche’s contribution, one could almost forget some of our achievements on constitutional questions. The agreement accepts that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the will of its people. That principle is important to the agreement. Most, if not all, of us agree with that major principle. I would like to be shown the person who does not agree with that principle.

Secondly, articles 2 and 3 were removed from Bunreacht na hÉireann —[Interruption].

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I find it amazing that we hear the words "big deal" from those on the anti-agreement side of the House. It was a big deal when we were in negotiations —[Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The removal of articles 2 and 3 was a big deal during the negotiations.

There is a devolved Administration at Stormont, which Members around the Chamber are involved in, or they would not be here. The British-Irish Council was established, and it was recognised that all aspirations and identities carry equal legitimacy. Power sharing was introduced, and a commitment was made to democracy and peaceful means of change. The list goes on and on. We once had such confidence in the agreement. What can we do to re-establish that?

I am glad that Alex Attwood said that the negotiations in Weston Park resulted in a round table meeting of the pro-agreement parties. They have met only once, and the meeting may as well not have happened; it was so good that I am beginning to believe that the Secretary of State has decided that that was all that was needed. That is not how we implement agreements. We must continue to restore people’s best intentions, rather than reinforce their worst fears, which is all that we are hearing today. Let us give some life back to these institutions.

I will support the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment because we have gone a long way towards restoring confidence and establishing the kind of police service in which Northern Ireland can have confidence — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I say to Dr Paisley that I would be glad to participate in that debate. I would be glad —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member should address her remarks through the Chair.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Through the Chair, I will be glad to respond —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. Mr Paisley Jnr has a point of order.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

You should call your own party Colleague to order, Madam Deputy Speaker, because she is addressing comments directly to another Member. You are showing favouritism.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I am pleased that I did not score party political points when Dr Paisley referred to the ability of only the men in the Chamber to participate in the debate. I decided to let that remark go, but given that that side of the House has turned into a playground, it is important to say that I — and I assume all parties — will be glad to participate in a debate on policing.

If we have forgotten the principles to which we signed up, it is time that the implementation committee restored some confidence in the process to the people who watch debate after debate and wonder what has happened. Patience and perseverance are required, not fatigue and failure, which are all that that side of the House ever promises.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

When is a document not an agreement? It is not an agreement when all the parties to it do not subscribe to any of its contents. Any fool would realise that the parties agreed little or nothing of what is alleged to be the subject of this document. There was no meeting of minds, which is essential to any agreement. In ‘The Daily Telegraph’, the First Minister said that the implementation process was not implementing the agreement that he thought he had signed. If the leader of that party is not sure about what he signed, we can be fairly confident that no one else is.

The consent of the people in a referendum to the approval of this document was induced by a wave of propaganda that would have done justice to Joseph Goebbels. It was also induced by the lying, mendacious, duplicitous behaviour of a Prime Minister — one Anthony Blair. He told the people of Northern Ireland, in his own handwriting, what those pledges were and has resiled and reneged on every single one of them.

This alleged agreement was never intended to be an agreement or political settlement between democrats. It was never more than a schedule or scheme for conflict resolution between the British state and violent Republicanism. In order to keep the bombs off the mainland, the British Government were prepared to enter into an agreement. [Interruption].

Yes, the only man in cloud cuckoo land is the First Minister — the king of cuckoos. And what did Mr Trimble do? So greedy was he to become the First Minister, that he entered into an agreement without any provision for making good the deficit in infrastructure of the previous 30 years. He did not even have the wit to say to the British Government, which was absolutely hanging its tongue out to get rid of Northern Ireland to a devolved Administration: "Here is our price". Instead, he and Mr Empey have engaged in a brazen con over the last few days. They are going to get £5 billion on loan and, over 25 years, repay £10 billion. At the same time they are spending £1·2 billion out of the grant on an absolute welter of bureaucracy, which they have done absolutely nothing to reduce in the last two and a half years.

Then, of course, we have Sinn Féin/IRA and their partners in harness, the SDLP. We have Monica McWilliams talking about the great principle of consent. The Unionist people have been given consent to pass the legal title deeds of Northern Ireland over to the Republic of Ireland, when, in fact, it has already got, de facto, an actual possession of the place. As for her suggestion of the great amendment of articles 2 and 3, whatever else she is and whatever expertise she has, it is certainly not that of a lawyer. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

We also have the gunrunners, the non-police people, the trainers of terrorists — the people who have really decommissioned nothing, though the king of cuckoos now tells us they have done it twice. If he can get the people of Northern Ireland to believe that, he can get them to believe anything.

The truth is that, increasingly, pro-Union all classes, even the middle-class yuppies, are beginning to get the message that this agreement has totally shafted them — in education, health, sewerage, water and every conceivable aspect. More accountable, more sensitive, more efficient government for Northern Ireland — that must be the biggest joke of the century, perpetrated by the cuckoo king.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a few points. Some comments were made earlier about the time available for this debate. All Members will be aware that it is open to any Member or party to propose a motion to the Business Committee and to argue for whatever time they want for it. It was noticeable that at this afternoon’s meeting of the Business Committee the DUP sat quietly and did not propose anything for next week. In fact, we have only one plenary sitting next week. Tuesday was available, and if the DUP had wanted to put forward any proposal for debate, it was free to do so. Either it was not prepared, or it was not able or not interested. Then DUP Members come into the Chamber and make noise about wanting longer debates, yet they sit on their hands at the Business Committee.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, you will be able to inform the House that the motion has only just been tabled and therefore could not be debated next week.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Further to that point of order, is it in order for the Member for West Belfast to tell tales outside the Business Committee? The proceedings of the Business Committee are supposed to be held entirely in confidence. It is improper for a Member to divulge discussions held at those meetings.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. It is quite correct that the proceedings of the Business Committee are confidential, but the minutes are published on the Internet.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am happy to have my knuckles rapped. The essential point remains — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The essential point remains that next week we will have one plenary meeting. That left another day for any of ten or twelve pages of no-day named motions, which could have been tabled by the DUP or any other Member. They chose not to do so.

I support the motion and oppose the UUP’s amendment. This motion is essentially aimed at the Ulster Unionist Party — there is no question of trying to convince the DUP and its cohorts on the Benches opposite. They are entitled to their opinion, but they are avowedly anti-agreement and wait with bated breath until it collapses. That is their choice, and they are entitled to that.

However, the Ulster Unionist Party is supposed to be a pro-agreement party. I am disappointed with Michael McGimpsey, a Minister in the Executive who should be more responsible. I will stand corrected, but I think he said that Sinn Féin never really endorsed the Good Friday Agreement. Michael McGimpsey should know that we negotiated the agreement, went away and considered it, embraced it and then went to our constituencies and sold it. We have been working hard on its implementation ever since.

Without giving a litany of examples, the Ulster Unionist Party, in ongoing negotiations here and in the British Parliament itself, has sought to restrict, minimise and subvert every element of legislation that emanated from the agreement. The Ulster Unionist Party is formally a pro-agreement party, but it has worked hard and assiduously to undermine it.

I would prefer to have a discussion on the Good Friday Agreement and its principles. As David Ford said earlier, it is important to go back to the principles of the agreement. There have been many failures and fault lines in its implementation during the last four years. Whether it is through an implementation body meeting or any other forum, we all welcome the opportunity to ensure that the agreement is implemented properly and fully.

Policing was mentioned and is included in the UUP amendment. Alex Attwood said that he looks forward to having debates. We have had debates with him and other party members in several venues. For the life of me, I cannot understand why he wants to have more debates because at any that I attended, the SDLP did not seem to do too well.

This motion is more important. It is supposed to be a reminder that we are four years on. There are many serious difficulties emanating from the non-implementation of the agreement. Michael McGimpsey again mentioned north Belfast. I listened to the media this morning and heard people talk about being bored by news of north Belfast. It is disgraceful for leading journalists and other commentators to talk about being bored by the events in north Belfast. Anyone with any insight into or knowledge of what has happened there knows that a kernel of the Good Friday Agreement is its ability to bring us out of a conflict situation to better times for all. Michael McGimpsey should know better. His Colleague, Fred Cobain, Billy Hutchinson and others who have been talking with party members and others throughout north Belfast know that there is a need to quell the disturbances in that part of the city.

This morning we produced a video, and I challenged the PSNI to produce its evidence of who was firing guns at it this weekend, never mind the last 12 months. Who was throwing the pipe bombs at the weekend? It was not football hooligans; it was not people coming from football matches or those annoyed at one team or another losing. There are serious difficulties in that area, so the conflict is not over for many people here.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I am amazed that Sinn Féin introduced the motion. Despite what we have just heard, Sinn Féin has not accepted the agreement; there was no acceptance of it at the party’s Ard-Fheis. There is no sign that they support peaceful and democratic means. Society is in chaos as a result.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

What are you doing in Government with them?

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

How do they square their words and actions in the community over their acceptance of the consent principle — that Northern Ireland is British until the people vote otherwise?

Mr Pat Doherty gave a list of grievances, which consisted of problems with the implementation of the agreement. The Republican movement has been the biggest obstacle to the implementation of the agreement, particularly with its reluctance to start decommissioning. We have heard a complaint from Sinn Féin about the implementation group. That is such hypocrisy. Sinn Féin was the biggest obstacle to the implementation group. They were petrified that the other parties might gang up and give them a time-scale for decommissioning. It is only after the second act of decommissioning that they now express some urgency for the implementation group.

Our amendment carries support for the police, and Sinn Féin oppose that. What type of society do Sinn Féin want? Nationalist and Republican areas have problems with crime, and are no different from other areas. Sinn Féin must realise that the Martin Ferris school of justice is not the way forward.

One only has to drive through north Belfast, Toomebridge or Draperstown to see enormous posters urging people not to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin cannot afford to stay off the Police Board. How will Sinn Féin square the anti-PSNI circle when they join the board and expect their people to join the police service?

Such is the present level of crime that I urge all Members to follow the amendment and support the police. I call on the DUP not to run under Sinn Féin’s skirts and vote with them again this week. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I urge Members to support the amendment. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I urge all Members to vote for the amendment. [Laughter].

(Mr Speaker in the Chair).

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

The Speaker should not be shouted down.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for that helpful clarification of procedure.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. There were several inaccuracies in Michael McGimpsey’s statement. Sinn Féin is not the IRA, and Unionism needs to get its head around that fundamental fact. Sinn Féin does not speak for the IRA. While Michael McGimpsey continues to con himself by thinking that that is the case, he will never be able to handle the situation. He spoke about north Belfast, and ran away from the issue once again. The fundamental problem in north Belfast is that the UUP in particular has abandoned a whole section of its own community and left them leaderless and in the hands of the idiots in the DUP.

Michael McGimpsey also said that he has a strategy. If he has, I wish he would share it with us, so that we could debate it. We have no sign of what that strategy is about.

Alex Attwood spoke passionately about the implementation group, saying that it was the SDLP’s idea. He totally ignored the fact that Sinn Féin has been arguing for inclusion in all aspects of politics for years. Mr Attwood said that he is looking forward to a debate on policing with Sinn Féin. I remind him that we have already had one round of debate in Strabane where he was soundly beaten. He has not come forward with a date for the second round, which we agreed was to be in Omagh. The people know that the SDLP have sold them short on policing.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley’s position is understandable, even though it is continually clouded with his bigotry. He is against the Good Friday Agreement. He campaigns and rallies against it. The UUP position is different, however. They say that they are for the Agreement and then keep dodging the issues that would move the situation forward.

David Ford said that the remaining policing issues are only minor matters. I remind Mr Ford that there are still some serious issues to be dealt with in the area of policing.

Mr Roche rants and raves on. However, he would not be here today if it were not for the Good Friday Agreement that he so despises. Then we have Bob McCartney, who is eloquent and passionate, but cannot get past the simple fact that the people of Ireland, North and South, democratically endorsed the Good Friday Agreement. He laughs at democracy, because it does not suit his argument.

I largely agreed with Monica McWilliams’s position, although I do not agree with her support for the amendment. I remind her that articles 2 and 3 were not removed from the Irish Constitution. They were amended and rewritten. I argue that they were rewritten in a much more inclusive way than previously.

Alan McFarland worries about the Sinn Féin position on consent: let me explain it simply. Sinn Féin consented to all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, including the all-Ireland dimension, the Assembly and all the issues that deal with justice and equality. We have no problem with any of that. We consented to all of the Good Friday Agreement, not to one small, narrow aspect of it.

I say to the UUP that we must continue the debate outside the House. Let us pursue it and find a way forward, because these idiots are going nowhere.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Rev Dr Ian Paisley was afraid to go to Derry today to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He cannot even face that. These people are leading Unionism nowhere. This debate is only beginning — it will continue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Question put,

The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I would normally take a point of order after the vote is declared.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It concerns the validity of the vote.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take the point of order on that basis.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My understanding is that there was no pro-amendment teller in the "No" Lobby. According to Standing Orders, the vote is invalid. I would like a ruling on that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is difficult for the Speaker to challenge tellers when they come forward on the basis of whether they are voting "Aye" or "No". We can check afterwards which way they voted. However, I must ask the proposers whether they had someone supporting the amendment as a teller in both Lobbies.

The Members who proposed the amendment indicate that they are not content that they had a Teller in both Lobbies. [Interruption]. Order.

On that basis, the amendment falls.

Question accordingly negatived.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members must vote once more before Question Time, which has already been delayed by some 10 minutes.

Main question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 29.

Ayes

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Noes

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.

Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly supports the principles of the Good Friday Agreement.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although it is not customary, unless there is a petition of concern or if it is a certain type of vote, to have a breakdown of the Nationalist and Unionist composition of a vote, can you confirm whether there were any Unionists in the Lobbies supporting the Belfast Agreement?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is not something that I can confirm at this moment but, as the Member knows, Hansard will show the names of all those Members who voted, and Members will be able to see for themselves.

The House-buying process

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls for the implementation of procedures to simplify the house-buying process and, in particular, to regulate estate agents and to provide financial concessions for first-time buyers.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue on the Floor of the Assembly. It is over a year since I first embarked on a fact-finding and information-gathering task to see what we can do to help first-time buyers, in particular, to cope with the problems of making what may be the greatest financial undertaking of their lives.

Nobody in Ireland or Britain can have failed to notice the recent spiralling increase in house prices. That may be a welcome trend here in Northern Ireland. Stability has followed the peace process, and an increase in property prices reflects some kind of economic upturn. However, I believe that it has brought several problems with it, and I have some concerns about what this kind of price rise will mean.

In the first instance, it is eclipsing the increase in wages, and the gap, particularly for first-time buyers, is widening. First-time buyers had no problem accessing a mortgage four or five years ago, but that category can no longer do so. The first-quarter figures for this year show a small drop of 0·7% in house prices, believe it or not, but you get a better picture if you look at the last three years, during which there was a 22% increase in prices. There has been no comparative increase in income levels and salaries to compensate for that. That is where the concern arises. If we are to avoid the kind of situations we have seen recently in London and Dublin, we should try to put together some means of dealing with it.

Co-ownership in Northern Ireland has been one of the more successful initiatives introduced to help people who have difficulty getting into the housing market in the first instance. Uptake in co-ownership has been vastly more successful in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. A total of 16,681 households have taken part in the scheme, and 74% of those have "staircased up" in that they have entirely bought out the part of the house they were renting and have become full owner-occupiers. Of those who have not done so, two thirds have remained in the home-owning market, even though they may still not have bought out the portion they were renting.

Recently there has been an increase in the amount of money available, and there has been an increase in the levels of house prices that can be dealt with. However, I particularly want to draw attention to this today because it is not enough. In April, the scheme had 50% more applications than expected. There is a big demand; people want to make use of this facility in order to enter the first-time buyers’ market. There is an indication that this trend will increase. There is also a suggestion that the equity margin might be reduced from 50% to 40%. I urge the Minister and his Department to consider whether this is possible alongside the co-ownership scheme and also if it is possible to provide some further funding.

The home buy scheme has been successful in Wales. It differs from the co-ownership scheme in that the Government offers an interest-free loan on a percentage of the mortgage, which in Wales currently stands at 25%. When the property is sold, the owners are required to pay this back, together with the same percentage of the profit made on the property. Even if in Northern Ireland it were a mere 10% to begin with, first-time buyers might be able to use it as an opportunity to get on to the first rung of the ladder towards homeownership.

People sometimes argue for a first-time buyer’s grant and some type of Government intervention. In the South, where this practice has been in operation for some time, evidence indicates that this becomes incorporated into the house price. It pushes up the price of the property and, in the end, is little help to the first-time buyer. Although it would appear to be a helpful suggestion, it has not been proven to give great support to the first-time buyer.

A popular suggestion has been to scrap stamp duty for first-time buyers. We hope to see the first benefits of that when the legislation comes into force in January next year.

However, the motion is not simply about affordability per se; it is also about making the process of buying a home more efficient. There are several streams in the motion, all of which will be helpful if they are examined and advanced.

One of the main recommendations of the report published in 2000, ‘Improving the House Buying Process — Recommendations of the General Consumer Council for NI’, was the establishment of a seller’s pack along the lines of the prepared legislation in the United Kingdom. This pack would contain relevant information on the property, including property certificates, warranties and, most importantly, details of a house condition survey.

There is debate about the effectiveness of the seller’s pack. I hope that when that important issue is looked at, we will look at the needs of Northern Ireland and adopt that excellent idea to suit the needs of Northern Ireland, and there are reasons for that.

All buyers — not just first-time buyers — find themselves having to pay for more than one survey each time they are interested in a home. It is not unusual for several different surveys to be commissioned for one house, and those surveys may all have differing results depending on the standards of the surveyor. That is simply a waste of money, and the people who benefit are not the buyers or sellers.

The Government in Westminster have put the surprising figure of £380 million wasted annually on a process that is not completed. When a house-buyer is interested in a house he has a survey carried out, and if the sale is not completed the money spent on the survey is lost. The house-buyer could also have legal and other fees, and if the deal is not completed, that money is also lost. That is a huge amount of money.

How many millions of pounds are wasted in Northern Ireland each year on aborted transactions? That includes money spent on surveys that tell buyers that they cannot afford to buy, money paid to solicitors for carrying out wasted work, and weeks or months wasted in trying to purchase a house, during which time house prices continue to rise.

As most sellers go on to buy another property, an outlay on a seller’s pack would balance itself out. The pack is formulated upfront, but it does not need to be paid for upfront. It could be incorporated into the whole process. There would be great benefits in having a seller’s pack.

To further simplify the process it has been suggested that buyers should have access to information prior to and during the house-buying process. At present the buyer must buy advice from a professional body. The General Consumer Council (GCC) identified difficulties in accessing written quotations to enable the buyer to shop around, and it recommends that clear information should be available to buyers.

Many people entering the property arena have no idea of what to expect, what costs are involved or what the pitfalls are. A totally independent, Government-regulated buyer’s information pack would save time, money and unnecessary inconvenience for the independent buyer.

The motion calls for the regulation of estate agents. Many buyers and sellers are unclear about what to expect from estate agents, what costs are involved and what their rights are. I have seldom met any buyers, particularly first-time buyers, who were completely satisfied that the process had been open and transparent and that everything had been done correctly. Other Members could bear me out on that. Even if that is only a perception, it should be removed.

There is an ombudsman in England, and the introduction of an ombudsman service in Northern Ireland would make people more secure in the transactions that they undertake. It would leave the process more open and examinable.

Contrary to some suggestions, many estate agents in Northern Ireland have voluntarily become involved in the English system and have become members of the club that makes use of the ombudsman service. The estate agent in my town is one of the few in the area to have become involved, and that is to be commended. However, it should not be voluntary; it should be mandatory, and through that service we could gain confidence in the house-buying process.

The ombudsman service in Northern Ireland would dictate that estate agents must make a consumer guide available, thus committing themselves to a fair and stringent code of practice. The buyer would be able to access internal complaints procedures and have a legal right of access to bidding books so that they could see the bidding on a house. It would wipe out the possibility that estate agents have the ability to push up prices for their own benefit.

The process of buying a house must be overhauled, particularly in the light of what we have learnt from our counterparts in Dublin and London. This is a detailed matter, and I have touched only briefly on some of the issues. I am glad that the Minister for Social Development is present and taking an interest in the debate. I hope that he will take the issue to his Department and see what he can come up with.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

My party supports the general thrust of what Mr ONeill has advocated. It is worth making the point that several large planning applications are being made for housing estates in Northern Ireland. It would be in the interest of the less well-to-do or first-time buyers if part of the planning application ensured that they could afford some of the properties on the estate.

Mr ONeill’s words about the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association were wise and timely. The acquisition of 16,000 new homes for people who might not otherwise have been able to afford them is a great achievement. I am happy to say that that occurred at a time when I had a fair amount to do with housing.

Another way to help the less well off was the self-build scheme, which got off to a good start in Northern Ireland. The Housing Executive paid for advisers to ensure that people did not embark on the scheme without knowing what was required to build a house, and that it did not fall down or turn out to be a useless property. It may be worth looking at that scheme again. There is no doubt that people need to get their feet on the first rung of the housing ladder. If we do not enable them to do so, it will cause disruption for the rest of their lives, whether they are married or not.

As Mr ONeill pointed out, there is a degree of naivety among those who have never embarked on anything that approaches the required sums of money that are being talked about. One hears of figures in the region of £70,000 or £80,000 as if they were throwaway prices. Imagine two young people attempting to visualise that amount of money in their hands. We must ensure that a sufficient amount of social housing, which the Minister for Social Development is eager to have, is made available. We must also ensure that when people are thinking of buying a house, they get all the help possible. The seller’s pack — or even a buyer’s pack — would be a sensible way to do that. The Council of Mortgage Lenders Northern Ireland might be prepared to put money into that, because it would suit that body.

It would not be too difficult to reduce the co-ownership quotient from 50% to 40%. If we do not tackle that matter, we shall have many disgruntled and unhappy young people who will never be able to achieve what nearly all of us have achieved.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support Mr ONeill’s motion. This is an opportune time to try to address some of the issues of concern, not just to Mr ONeill as an elected representative, but also to me. People have visited my advice centre with the same problems that have been reiterated today. If we cast our minds back to the first time that we purchased a house — presumably all Members have done so — the process of borrowing the money and working out the system of repayment was simple. Today it is not. We are trying to address that.

I want to make a couple of points about some relevant issues that my constituents have raised. From time to time estate agents hand out personal telephone numbers. Perhaps the Assembly cannot make a ruling on that, but it does happen. Those numbers then become the method of contact between the vendor and the purchaser. However, that system bypasses the estate agent. In many cases, it can cause heartache. Disagreements can arise over the completion date, for example, all because the estate agent gave out the telephone number. That point should be taken on board at an early stage.

I also hear many complaints about bidding wars. I use that terminology because that is exactly what they are. In the past month, people have told me of cases where the person who put in a higher bid has suddenly backed out and the estate agent has come back with his tail between his legs to ask if they will still hold firm to their earlier bid. Bidding wars and the role that some estate agents play in them is a matter that must be addressed. It is ridiculous that house prices should soar simply because some estate agents are acting in that way — presumably higher prices mean more commission.

We are not only highlighting the issues here; we are also seeking solutions. An independent third party should monitor the process. That party should not be in receipt of commission on completion of the sale. That is one way to address the issue. It would guarantee the vendor and the purchaser complete impartiality, and the sale could go ahead. The third party would not be concerned about selling at a higher price to get more commission or about delaying the sale to see what happens.

I also want to highlight the issue of fixed interest rates. It is important that first-time buyers get a foothold in the market. They are penalised for the housing market’s rise and fall, and they are being priced out of the market by mortgage rates. The mover of the motion mentioned that some people are unable to get mortgages because they are impossible to bring together. The Assembly is in the business of giving first-time buyers the opportunity to purchase houses, but to do so we must ensure that they have a mortgage that they can pay back in a time that they can cope with. We must also ensure that they are given all the help they need to ensure that the process runs smoothly.

First-time buyers should know all the options available to them. They should be presented in a clear and simple way. They should know about co-ownership, about social housing and about all the different aspects of the house-buying process, so that they can make a decision based upon all the available information.

There should be a level playing field in the housing market, so that people who buy to invest do not monopolise the market and therefore reduce the number of homes available to young couples starting out. I make that point because it has happened to some people that I have been involved with, and those concerns come directly from my constituents. Those who are buying to address their need or buying for the first time should receive help; not those who are buying houses to sell later on and make a profit. I am not against property investment, but it is unfair in that it penalises those buying for the first time.

I wish to suggest a way of trying to address some of the heartaches and problems that arise in house-buying, especially for first-time buyers. Estate agents could publish a booklet that would explain the whole system. It could detail what is available; where the help is; the types of housing available; and the terminology involved. It should also detail the fees involved, such as stamp duty and search fees, because people need an idea of what the process of buying a house costs so that they can budget accordingly. It should detail all the moneys involved so that there are no hidden add-ons or costs that they are unaware of. In many cases first-time buyers are on a finite budget, and they need to know how far their money will have to go.

The booklet should outline the responsibilities of the sellers, the buyers and all others involved in house purchase. We must get the details down, safeguard the first-time buyer and give them the protection that they need. It should not be a rule book; it should be a guideline or Highway Code for first-time buyers.

I suggest the use of an independent negotiator, who can resolve issues around such items as completion dates. Many people approach us about problems with completion dates; they are annoyed at being put off month after month and the process becomes laborious and awkward. It would be helpful to have someone to negotiate on that type of problem. The negotiator should not have a vested interest — like an estate agent’s commission or a solicitor’s fee — in the completion of the contract. The negotiator should be independent.

Many people are frustrated, angry and bewildered with the paperwork involved in buying a house, and they need help. The motion gives us the opportunity to bring the issues forward. I am sure that the Minister will be able to respond to our constituents’ concerns and, it is to be hoped, able to bring forward ideas to address those concerns.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and the people who are trying to buy their first home. I declare an interest, as I have been an estate agent. After the next Assembly election I may return to that type of work. I have two children who will potentially become first-time buyers in the not too distant future.

The motion calls for the implementation of procedures to simplify the process, and we must identify all the bodies involved in house purchase. The motion deals specifically with estate agents, and I will return to that. However, there is a range of professionals and institutions involved in the house-buying process that the first-time buyer has to deal with.

First-time buyers face a major challenge in dealing with estate agents, banks, building societies, financial institutions, conveyancers, solicitors, financial advisers, life assurance companies, insurance companies, valuers and surveyors, all of whom have two things in common. First, they cost the purchaser money, and, secondly, they use esoteric, incomprehensible terminology that would put anyone off.

Often estate agents are the first professionals with whom a first-time buyer comes into contact. Although many transactions with estate agents take place without problems, buyers can experience difficulties in their dealings with them. Although a first-time buyer might have viewed a property, decided to buy it, made an offer, paid a deposit, reached the "sale agreed" stage and dealt with the other professionals who are needed to secure the purchase, the estate agent may later tell him or her that someone else has bought, or agreed to buy, the property, or that the price has increased.

I agree that the activity of estate agents must be regulated to prevent gazumping, in particular. The Assembly should consider introducing a requirement that estate agents issue an offer-acceptance certificate when a deposit is paid for the purchase of a property. That certificate should identify clearly the property, the price that was agreed, the deposit paid and the fact that the sale was agreed. At present a "sale agreed" sign means nothing, and, until the contract is signed and completed, the estate agent or the vendor can withdraw from the sale. The estate agent, the purchaser and the vendor should sign the certificate so that when a purchaser pays a deposit, the vendor will be bound to a sale, subject to the finance and property title being in order.

The real challenge begins when first-time buyers go to see a financial adviser. They are bombarded with financial and insurance terminology. They must choose between capital repayment or endowment mortgages; fixed-rate or variable-rate mortgages; one-year discount mortgages, with or without payment protection; and term assurance, with or without critical illness cover, and with or without accident cover. Then they will hear a spiel about endowment policies, unit-linked funds, trust-managed funds, index-linked premiums, loan-devalue percentages and indemnity premiums. After that they must choose home and contents insurance, with or without accidental cover, with or without voluntary excess, and with or without an annual value adjustment. That is off-putting to all but the strong-hearted. I imagine that most people leave their financial adviser’s office knowing much less about the house-buying process than they did when they arrived. A message must be sent to financial advisers and everyone involved in the process that they must speak in plain English, especially to the first-time buyer.

Solicitors must also speak in simple language. They use terminology such as title searches, way leaves, rights of way and encumbrances. Often they will talk about everything except their fees, and there is a wide disparity in the charges of different solicitors for doing the same basic job. Someone once told me that an expert is an ordinary man away from home. However, an expert in any field is someone who can explain a difficult, complicated concept or procedure in plain English. All the professionals involved in a house purchase must speak to their clients in plain English or nó as Gaeilge más mian leo.

The proposer of the motion mentioned some of the possible financial concessions that could be made for first-time buyers. The South operates a scheme that provides a grant to genuine first-time buyers. The Assembly should consider the provision of such a grant for genuine first-time buyers that would at least cover the fees that they face when purchasing a house.

Stamp duty is a significant bill. In the current housing market, £75,000 is considered a fairly modest price for a property. However, a property at that price has a stamp duty of £750. As Sir John Gorman indicated, that is a significant bill for a young married couple who are venturing into buying their first home. Stamp duty should be abolished for first-time buyers.

Most financial institutions require a mortgage applicant to be in full-time permanent employment for a period of time prior to making the application, which is usually three years. Many people are employed on 12-month contracts. They may be employed by the same body and may be doing the same job for several years, but technically they are not in full-time permanent employment. It is extremely difficult — sometimes impossible — for them to be accepted for a mortgage. Indeed, some local authorities, Government Departments and agencies employ people, directly or indirectly, on 12-month contracts. The Assembly must examine the terms and conditions of people in that type of employment so that they can engage in the house-purchasing process and be eligible for a mortgage.

I support the motion.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I would like to join with other Members in welcoming the motion. Mr McNamee spoke "from the horse’s mouth", as an expert. It was valuable to hear about the problems that are associated with the housing-buying system that he, as a former estate agent, understood.

The major issue concerns the host of organisations that are involved in the process and the associated problems. Mr McNamee mentioned all the different interests — estate agents, banks, solicitors, financial institutions, surveyors, and so on. There are also problems with the process: the type of mortgage — endowment or capital repayment; completion dates, which Mr Shannon mentioned; and the definition of fixtures and fittings, which has not yet been mentioned. People are unsure about the definition of fixtures and fittings. Carpets and curtains form part of the parcel that few people understand fully, even those who buy houses and move regularly, and more especially first-time buyers.

Gazumping can happen after a prospective buyer has agreed a sale, had a survey conducted, waited four to six weeks for legal issues to be resolved, and signed a contract. The prospective buyer will have spent money on the survey and on paying for lawyers for either party. At any time until the end point, before the transaction is binding, there is little to stop the seller from accepting another offer. Every Member who has spoken in the debate has mentioned that issue. The procedure is not clear and it must be made more transparent. A buyer should not have to risk so much before the transaction is binding.

It is important that the seller’s pack, mentioned by Mr ONeill and advocated by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, is investigated because it could protect the consumer. The onus would then be on the seller to provide standard information and a house condition report.

It would reduce financial risk and the time between agreement and sale. Estate agents will be interested in that, because they see themselves as having a pretty bad reputation in the marketplace and would like it to be enhanced. It would be very valuable if the four- to six-week period — or longer — could be reduced.

Éamonn ONeill made an interesting point about the right of access to bidding books. Jim Shannon mentioned bidding: who bids against whom, and whether there are fictitious bidders. The facility to examine bidding books would be valuable. The seller’s pack must be reliable and regulated so that it meets the standard, and house condition reports should be objective.

The regulation of estate agents is important because of their growing number. New estate agents have been springing up all over the market in recent years. I do not know how important it is that houses can be bought on the Internet. Nothing should stop that new form of transaction, but online buying must be regulated.

The industry is policed by the Office of Fair Trading, but is largely self-regulating. There must be some sort of independent complaints procedure. The UK Ombudsman For Estate Agents is a voluntary scheme, and 36% of UK estate agents subscribe to it. The possibility of requiring all estate agents to subscribe to an independent complaints procedure, such as an ombudsman, is worth exploring. If Northern Ireland is to have its own procedures, do we need an ombudsman, or would the UK ombudsman take Northern Ireland estate agents under his control?

The Assembly or the Department may have a role in monitoring and regularly reviewing the effectiveness of any complaints procedure. If the industry cannot regulate itself to the satisfaction of the consumer — which is the ultimate objective — we must create some type of complaints system, perhaps on a statutory footing, to give the consumer confidence.

I am grateful to Sir John Gorman for raising the issue of social mix housing, which is very important for first-time buyers. The fact that Housing Executive property is being sold off should not be neglected. Sir John talked about having estates and new developments with a social mix, with houses that are accessible to first-time buyers and to the less well off. They have no opportunity to get into the market otherwise. I support the motion.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I congratulate Mr ONeill on initiating the debate. It has been very useful, and some issues highlighted are of concern to constituents. The motion is wide-ranging and involves several Departments: not just the Department for Social Development. Members who contributed to the debate will appreciate that I am wearing my ministerial hat and do not have all the answers — I would never claim that anyway, but it is particularly true for this subject. I will ensure that any points that fall to other Departments are responded to in writing.

The motion covers three topics: the home-buying process, the regulation of estate agents and the need to assist first-time buyers. As several Members noted, buying a home is a stressful event. For most people, it is the single biggest financial transaction that they will ever carry out. In Northern Ireland, where home ownership stands at approximately 70%, many people have first-hand experience of buying a house. It has been pointed out that buying a home is not only stressful, but time consuming and complex. For that reason, my Department and the Housing Executive jointly funded the General Consumer Council’s report ‘Improving the house buying process’. That report, which was launched almost two years ago to the day, made several recommendations. I commend the report to those Members who have participated in the debate. Those recommendations were aimed at enhancing the buying process, and at protecting buyers and sellers. The report contained recommendations addressed to Government, to the professions and to the industry in general. My Department actively encouraged other Departments to embrace the report’s recommendations and, where possible, to adopt them as policy. I am pleased that many proposals were taken on board.

Several initiatives have been introduced to speed up the home-buying process. For example, the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service has computerised and centralised its property certificates section. Before that, a request for a property certificate took at least six weeks to process; 95% of all transactions are now completed inside 10 working days.

Needless to say, Land Registry has a vital role to play. It is currently involved in a PFI project to computerise its systems and archives. That project, LandWeb Direct, will transform the agency’s entire operation, and will include the digitising of maps into a geographical information system, providing image retrieval and workflow processes, building computerised archive services and integrating the management of customer telephone calls, faxes and e-mails.

Ms Morrice mooted Internet use, et cetera. The LandWeb Direct service marks the first stage in providing land registry services online, and will become available later in 2002. It will enable accredited users, such as solicitors and estate agents, to access Land Registry information electronically from their own offices. The service will also be available outside normal working hours, and it will be of particular benefit to customers in more remote areas.

The General Consumer Council’s report recommended that the seller of a property should assemble a pack of such standard documents and information for prospective buyers as title documents and a house condition report, to be known as a seller’s information pack. Several Members mentioned that. That recommendation was based on developments in Great Britain, where the idea was the subject of a major pilot study in Bristol. Since the study’s completion there have been mixed reactions. One major area of concern was the house condition survey, which, it was felt, might not be of sufficient detail to satisfy the potential purchaser and — perhaps more importantly — the potential purchaser’s lender. There were also concerns about the price of the seller’s information pack, which could cost more than £500. Since the seller’s information pack for the Bristol study was produced at nil cost, it was suggested that that did not give a true reflection of its advantages or disadvantages.

We continue to monitor developments in Great Britain, where the specific details of the proposals for the seller’s information pack are now being developed. Publication of a consultation document in the summer of 2002 is proposed.

Several issues must be considered before the seller’s information pack can become a legal requirement. Therefore, it makes sense for us to maintain a watching brief in order to learn from the experience of Great Britain. Meanwhile, I am confident that the changes already made, and those that are proposed, will considerably improve and simplify the house-buying process in Northern Ireland. It is important to bear in mind Mr ONeill’s point that account must be taken of Northern Ireland’s specific needs. We must learn from practice and experience elsewhere, while addressing specifically what must be done in Northern Ireland.

There is a difficulty in the seller’s information pack with the surveyor’s report. Can a potential purchaser have confidence in a surveyor’s report prepared for the seller? We do not want a situation in which both buyer and seller feel compelled to have a surveyor’s report.

The second aspect of the motion calls for the regulation of estate agents. It has been suggested that an ombudsman for estate agents be established. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is responsible for enforcing the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. The Estate Agents Act 1979 gives enforcement powers to the Director General of Fair Trading, and its purpose is to ensure that estate agents act in the best interests of their clients and that buyers and sellers are treated fairly, honestly and promptly.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is responsible for ensuring that estate agents comply with certain financial transactions between estate agents and house buyers and in particular ensure the safe keeping of deposits.

Under the Estate Agents Act 1979, the Director General of Fair Trading can issue warning and prohibition orders that can stop a person working as an estate agent. A warning order can also be issued if an estate agent breaks the law by, for example, making misleading statements, giving false information on charges or providing clients with misinformation about offers. A prohibition order can be issued if an estate agent breeches a warning order or is convicted of a serious offence such as fraud, other dishonesty or violence.

The Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 prohibits the use of false or misleading statements, made in the course of estate agency business, that relate to certain matters such as location or address, aspect, view, outlook or environment and fixtures and fittings. That legislation gives the Director General of Fair Trading much stronger powers than an ombudsman would have.

In the past three years, fewer than 1% of the complaints received by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s consumer affairs branch related to estate agents. In the same period, no estate agent was prosecuted, nor were any warning or prohibition orders issued to estate agents in Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, that Department’s view that the present legislation to regulate estate agents is sufficiently robust, and it has no immediate plans to amend it. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will read Members’ comments about that.

Members commented on the need to make financial concessions available to first-time buyers. As the Minister responsible for housing, my vision is one of a society in which everybody has a home that is safe, affordable, in the area of his or her choice, of an acceptable quality and designed to meet the needs of its occupants. The media regularly report on the rising house prices here and the difficulty that that causes first-time buyers. Much of that reporting is fuelled by recent problems in the South of England and the Republic of Ireland, where house prices increased dramatically in a short time.

House prices in Northern Ireland have risen. In recent years, those increases have been considerably higher than the increases in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it must be borne in mind that our increases started from a much lower baseline. For many years, house prices here were significantly lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom, so in some respects there is a catch-up process.

The ratio between house prices and wages remains relatively healthy in Northern Ireland. Although some areas have localised affordability issues, particularly in parts of Belfast and north Down, home ownership remains a viable option for most prospective first-time buyers.

Sir John Gorman mentioned the idea of making planning applications conditional on the provision of affordable housing. That is a matter for the Department for Regional Development, and was addressed in the regional strategic framework.

I am aware that the situation must be monitored carefully, particularly with regard to first-time buyers. I want to do whatever I can to ensure that those who wish to become homeowners have the opportunity to do so.

The co-ownership scheme was mentioned, and I agree with Mr ONeill about its popularity, value and usefulness. Since becoming Minister, I have made co-ownership one of my top priorities. I have made available considerable additional funding to ensure that the scheme can meet growing demand, and in the last financial year, I doubled the allocation for co-ownership — from £5 million to £10 million. I have made a commitment in the Programme for Government to continue to fund this important programme.

The Housing Executive sales programme is an important method of getting people into the housing market, and that also applies to Housing Association tenants. Financial and lending institutions have a major role to play, and I have built up close contacts with their representative body, the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

At the end of the day, we have a free market, and we must recognise that there are limits to what the Government can do. We are conscious of the situation and will continue to monitor it closely.

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

I thank Members who participated in and gave their attention to this debate — some good points were made. Regrettably we had only an hour, and Members who may have wished to participate but did not have time. However, the quality of the contributions reflects the concern that Members have about this serious situation.

John Gorman, with his wealth of experience and wisdom, drew attention to several important issues, and I welcome his comments. When we studied the situation with the Minister in the South, he explored a policy that he had of zoning certain land for social housing, although not necessarily for affordability. He said that regardless of what he did, there were problems, such as developers wanting to maximise the best part of the site and not use the rest. Although there are difficulties with that approach, it is a sound suggestion. It is important that we get the right mix and ensure that all developments offer a range of housing and house prices.

Jim Shannon dealt with a large number of important issues. He expressed concern about the bidding process. Access to the bidding book, which Jane Morrice also mentioned, is important, as it ensures that people have confidence in the process. That is part of the policy of transparency that I hope an ombudsman would propose.

Jim Shannon also referred to the delay and problems people experience in agreeing completion dates, and the fact that buying a house can be a long-drawn-out process. Along with Pat McNamee and other Members, he hinted at the delay that the legal process can cause. We must help to simplify that process, particularly for the first-time buyer. The long-drawn-out process is difficult for them, as they have to negotiate to put together the financial package and loans that they need. We must consider how to reduce the time that that takes and put a better formulation together.

I was interested in Pat McNamee’s practical comments. He emphasised the effect of jargon on first-time buyers, for whom that language is totally alien. He painted a picture of a jungle of jargon, and he is right to say that we must reduce it. That is exactly what I was trying to get at in the motion.

Jane Morrice came up with a good point about Internet selling, which I had not thought of. This is actually growing, and I came across some information on the growth of Internet sales in the work I was doing. Like other things, it is quite difficult to control Internet buying and selling. I know of emigrants wishing to return home who are using the Internet to purchase properties in Northern Ireland. There is a real problem there, and Ms Morrice made an important contribution.

I also thank the Minister for becoming involved in this. I recognise that not every issue here falls within his particular bailiwick, but as the lead Minister I can depend on him to expedite those points that do not belong to him through the various agencies. The Minister gave a good rundown on what has been done in support for the General Consumer Council’s proposals and the simplification of the house-buying process.

He expressed some concerns about the seller’s pack that have emerged from the pilot scheme in Bristol, and he is right to do so. Indeed, there are some other points about the seller’s pack that we need to take into consideration — not least its shelf life. That could actually accrue an extra cost because there is only three to six months before another valuation is needed. I welcome his emphasis on the need for Northern Ireland, which he did in his summary. I still think that there is sufficient merit in the proposal of a seller’s pack and in this simplification of the process that we are all trying to achieve.

My final point is about estate agencies. I welcome the Minister’s comments about financial support and control. To a large extent he may be right about professional, inbuilt safeguards — but it is in-house. We are looking for a more independent agency, such as an ombudsman or an ombudsman-type service. People would have confidence going to the ombudsman because they would not be baffled by jargon and science. People would know that they would get satisfaction with an established, transparent procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls for the implementation of procedures to simplify the house-buying process and, in particular, to regulate estate agents and to provide financial concessions for first-time buyers.

Motion made:

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

Closure of Limavady Courthouse

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

When I first put in for this Adjournment debate, my voice was a bit stronger. I hope you will forgive me if I take a drink of water now and again to clear my throat. With that in mind, perhaps my comments will be brief.

I bring forward this debate on the closure of Limavady courthouse following publication of a consultation document titled ‘Court Accommodation in Northern Ireland 2001-2010’, which deals with the accommodation needs of the Court Service for the next eight years n Northern Ireland. More specifically for people in the Limavady area, it proposes the closure of Limavady courthouse. This recommendation has caused great consternation in the borough of Limavady. Indeed, a petition bearing over 1,000 signatures and expressing opposition to this proposal has been presented to officials in Downing Street. The people of Limavady believe that this facility is vital.

A proposal to close the courthouse would contradict the comments of Rosie Winterton, a parliamentary secretary at the Lord Chancellor’s Department, that appear in the foreword to the consultation document. She said that the Northern Ireland Court Service wished to address the needs of everyone who used the courts, especially those with special needs, disabilities and children, and vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. Such people would be better served by a court in an area that they know well and in which they feel comfortable.

Londonderry courthouse is the alternative venue that is offered. Although that courthouse’s merits are in no doubt, given its recent refurbishment, Limavady courthouse also served the people of Londonderry during many years of sectarian strife, when the IRA targeted constantly Londonderry courthouse at Bishop Street, frequently rendering it unusable. If the Northern Ireland Court Service had consulted before publishing its document, solutions could have been proposed, at minimal cost, to provide the amenities that the Limavady facility lacked. The document seems to leave little room for manoeuvre; its authors seem to want it rubber-stamped even as it is published.

The other considerations for the Court Service are rationalisation and value for money; however, raw figures often do not give the true picture. The increased cost to the public of making the longer journey to Londonderry for court hearings, combined with the increased cost of legal aid and higher levels of policing, must also be considered.

The estimated saving of £300,000 in running costs, which would be made as a result of the closure, must be put into context. People should balance that saving against the costs of the many public inquiries that are taking place in the Province, which could fund the entire Northern Ireland Court Service many times over. Moreover, the expenses that will be paid to the Sinn Féin MPs at Westminster, despite their not taking their seats, could offset those court savings with £100,000 to spare. We must be realistic, and we should emphasise those points to the Government as often as possible, despite their current policy of placating and appeasing the lawbreakers at the expense of the decent, law-abiding citizens of this country.

Given that the Borough of Limavady has above-average unemployment levels, high levels of deprivation, many single parent families and low levels of educational achievement, many of the increased costs that would result from the closure would be intolerable. The Limavady area has felt a cold wind blow through it due to the so-called "peace dividend". Over the years, it provided vital court services in a reasonably safe venue. It also provided a home for many Court Service and police personnel. The town is feeling the effects of the loss of vital funds from those sources, along with the loss of traditional industry from the town. The further loss of the courthouse gives local people the impression that they are being treated as second-class citizens — that is disgraceful. Over the years, the people of Limavady have been among the most law-abiding citizens in the Province, making up much of the silent majority of decent people here. Consequently, it is fundamentally wrong that they should be subjected to wave after wave of public and private service closures that further downgrade the town.

The Assembly and the Executive have put in place a policy of rural proofing, which is being disregarded in the centralisation of many court facilities in the Province — not least the facility in Limavady, which is predominantly a rural borough. Many Members have pressed for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs, which would result in rural invigoration by bringing more money into country areas. Although rationalisation is being carried out under the control of central Government, regional variances should be considered when formulating policies.

Those factors should be considered in conjunction with the fact that the natural affinity of the people of the area is more in keeping with the rest of the rural county of Londonderry rather than the city itself.

Many are loath to go to the west bank under normal circumstances, and more so when they are anxious about an impending court appearance. The fear and trepidation are such that people from the Waterside area of Londonderry would rather go to Limavady for their service than travel to the west bank of the city. Those are real concerns for decent people, and they should be addressed rather than ignored because it is inconvenient to do otherwise.

The Court Service must re-examine the proposal, and come to Limavady to view the facility to see if the unused accommodation can be upgraded to meet people’s needs. That might have already happened.

The document shows that the Magherafelt facility, which is also poor, will be upgraded due to its position. That should happen in Limavady because of the fear of travelling to Londonderry.

We must not have an inadequate, unjust evaluation imposed upon the people of the Borough of Limavady simply because that is expedient. There would be additional delays in hearing cases if they were moved to Londonderry courthouse. The court at Bishop Street is already working to capacity, and people from the whole area would face even greater delays and attendant worries.

Such a situation would be totally unacceptable and must not be allowed to happen. The Limavady facility should be upgraded and used more effectively to ease court time in Londonderry, thus speeding up the system in the division.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I support the motion. It has been tabled as a result of the Northern Ireland Court Service’s consultation document ‘Court Accommodation in Northern Ireland 2001-2010’, which was launched in December of last year with the aim of charting the future of court accommodation in Northern Ireland.

The strategy proposes the rationalisation of courthouses, with the closure of several courts that are deemed to be inadequate. Venues to be closed include the court facilities in Banbridge, Larne, Clogher, Kilkeel, Cookstown and Limavady. It is envisaged that business will transfer to adjoining venues. Limavady’s business will be transferred to Londonderry courthouse.

The review of court accommodation in Northern Ireland by the Court Service aims at improving the quality of court accommodation for court users. A press release issued by the Northern Ireland Court Service on 7 December 2001 stated that particular emphasis would be given to

"those members of the community who have special needs including persons with disabilities, children, and vulnerable and intimidated witnesses."

Other Members may wish to speak about court closures in their constituencies; I shall highlight the imminent closure of Limavady courthouse.

Limavady courthouse is one of three court complexes in the Londonderry county court division. The others are located in Magherafelt and Londonderry. There are seven county court divisions in Northern Ireland, and the nearest major court complex to Limavady is Coleraine courthouse, which is within the boundary of the Antrim court division.

There are compelling reasons for rescinding the decision to close Limavady court. First, the closure of the courthouse would result in discrimination on the grounds of geography. Limavady lies in the north-east of the Londonderry court division. Transferring court proceedings to Londonderry would increase journey times unnecessarily and would be excessively expensive. Some of those who use the court system are among the less economically privileged. Financially, many of them would find it a strain to travel the extra 20 or 30 miles. What about the people mentioned earlier — parents with young children, the disabled and the vulnerable? How will the closure of Limavady courthouse affect them?

Secondly, Limavady is not a blink-and-you-have-missed-it village. It is a thriving town, which has grown substantially in recent years. It has a busy commercial core, with good tourist facilities and international branding, and it is getting a major infrastructure improvement, a bypass, to accommodate excess traffic.

The town has a distinctive identity and catchment area. It is bounded geographically by the Roe Valley to the west and a mountain plateau to the east. By virtue of its geography, Limavady has a distinct catchment area and rural hinterland, and people living there would find it alien to have to use court services elsewhere in the Londonderry county court division. The fact that the town is in the county court division is a good reason for repelling the threat of closure.

The courthouse, which is sited in the centre of Limavady, has provided the town with a raison d’être, a sense of purposefulness, character and employment for many years. Surely small funds could be channelled to any refurbishment programme deemed necessary to provide the judiciary and the public with modern facilities.

The Northern Ireland Court Service has stated that its aim is

"to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the highest possible quality court accommodation that meets the needs of everyone who uses the courts."

That is a worthy aim, which I fully support. However, that ought not be at the expense of ill-judged rationalisation. Small town courthouses have provided a sense of justice to communities for decades, if not centuries. Closing Limavady courthouse would be to misinterpret community needs and perceptions, and it would contradict the objectives of ensuring equality of access and quality of provision.

I appeal to the Northern Ireland Court Service not to rationalise for the sake of expediency.

"Overall, we need to provide facilities that reflect the dignity of the law and its importance to everyone in the community."

Those are not my words. They come from the Court Service’s accommodation strategy document. Limavady courthouse fulfils that criterion. I support the motion and urge others to do likewise.

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

I commend Mr Douglas for tabling the motion. We are Colleagues on Limavady Borough Council as well as in the Assembly, and although we differ widely in our political beliefs and aspirations for the future of this country, we share a desire to do everything we can to protect and promote the well-being of our constituents. That well-being will be seriously compromised if the threat to close Limavady courthouse is realised.

I accept the case made by Limavady Solicitors’ Association for retaining the wide range of services currently provided at the courthouse as well as for much needed improvement to its facilities and an expansion of services to include a family proceedings court. The case is made not just to allow the solicitors to continue to provide an efficient and cost effective service to their clients but to target the social needs of a mainly rural community, thus sparing those in need the cost and inconvenience of travelling a considerable distance to a large, unfamiliar and intimidating court that is already extremely busy.

I shall add another dimension to the issue with some trepidation, and I shall tread delicately, for I must introduce the controversial subject of symbols and symbolism. I am not referring to the use and misuse of flags and other emblems. This is a matter of great concern to those with a genuine commitment to civil rights and responsibilities. However, it is something criminally abused by the sad, bad, mad and dangerous, who exploit the fears and passions of people whose quality of life is so tragically disturbed and deprived. There is something abysmally evil about a society in which a young person can be killed for wearing a football jersey, or gangs claim some sick allegiance to extremists who are creating such misery in the near east.

The symbolism I am referring to is that which is created by some structures of the state, particularly those relating to justice and the law. It is a rather unfortunate coincidence that the possible closure of a courthouse comes at a time when predictions are rife about the shutting down of prisons and military installations. Prisons and courts of justice are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I stress the word "justice" rather than "law". Justice is an absolute, but the law is sometimes an accident — sometimes a bad accident.

The over-prevalence of prisons, H-blocks and houses of correction symbolise the failure of a society — Government and people — to be civilised. The shutting down of prisons and armed camps is an indication that society is, at least, struggling away from barbarism. The economic impact of that on workers and the community will initially be drastic, but with proper insight and planning that may be temporary. A healthier and more normal economy is possible when conditions are right for the attraction of inward and indigenous investment. That is particularly so in areas such as Limavady and the north-west with regard to tourism development.

The symbols of prisons and militarism are all negative. That is not so for courts of justice, so long as true justice is being administered. True justice drives out bad laws. Circumstances must exist, or be created, in which people can be convinced that they will receive justice from their courts. Courts must be close to the people; they should not be remote and threatening. The symbolism of a court is that of a society that is, at least, aspiring towards civilisation in its truest sense. People must have a sense of ownership of the system of justice that exercises a measure of control over how they relate to one another in society. The preservation and enhancement of petty session courts, such as that in Limavady, can give them that sense of ownership and can be a positive influence in civilising this confused and unhappy place.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I support the motion. Mr Arthur Doherty referred to the closure of prisons, and I hope that he will be able to support the campaign to retain Magilligan Prison, which the Limavady area is heavily dependent on to keep the economy buoyant, but we will come to that on a future date.

The Limavady Solicitors’ Association is to be highly commended for the way in which it has taken the campaign to retain the courthouse to the people. I want to place on record that the association has carried out an assiduous campaign. I was glad to be able to use my offices at Westminster and, in my capacity as Member of Parliament for the area, to ensure that the petition was delivered to Downing Street.

The issue has been well aired and well supported in the locality. The Limavady Solicitors’ Association and the greater public have rallied behind the campaign to retain the courthouse, and Members have spoken at some length about the necessity to retain it, so I do not want to duplicate what has been said. However, during the campaign two months ago I met with Rosie Winterton, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor’s Department who is responsible for the issue.

Even though the matter will be decided at Westminster, it is right that it be discussed in this appropriate forum. However, in discussions with Ms Winterton it became clear that, despite the list of courthouses earmarked for closure, she would be prepared to take a fresh look at the courthouse. To encourage that, there was a recent meeting between Limavady Borough Council and officials, which I had requested. The Northern Ireland Court Service has carried out a survey, the results of which will be released this week; the solicitors’ association also conducted a survey. Both surveys concur with the views of the area’s Members: people in Limavady do not wish to travel excessive distances to the nearest courthouse. In some parts of the constituency, as Mr Arthur Doherty will know, people would have to travel 25 miles to the nearest courthouse.

A chill factor affects parts of the community, and Mr Douglas mentioned that. However, an issue that has not been mentioned is that the small claims court meets in Limavady. Small claims cases by individuals or small businessmen can go either way, and the benefit may be offset against charges if the claimant loses. Solicitors in Limavady think that the number of small claims will fall. The burden of travel on top of the possibility of not winning the case will make people reluctant to go to the small claims court. In that case, justice would not be done and would not be seen to be done, because it is not available to people in the area.

Other issues came up in the Court Service’s survey. The most important is that three quarters of the people surveyed in Limavady felt that they would be affected if court business were transferred to Londonderry. Ms Winterton and the Court Service cannot set aside a survey that states that three quarters of people would be adversely affected. That must be allied with the unanimous views of the local borough council and other public representatives, MLAs and the MP. I hope that the campaign to retain the courthouse in Limavady succeeds.

Adjourned at 5.48 pm