Northern Ireland Assembly, 13 May 2002

33 contributions from 16 members. The official report.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill: First Stage

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

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 8/01] to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill: First Stage

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 9/01] to make provision for limited liability partnerships.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Committee Business: Change of Membership

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Two motions concerning Committee membership stand in the Order Paper in the name of Mr Tierney. However, Mr Tierney has advised me that he is unable to attend this afternoon’s sitting due to untoward circumstances. The two motions will, therefore, not be moved.

Establishment of Ad Hoc Committee on the Updating of Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975

Prayer of Annulment

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do not see Mr Ford in the House. That being the case, I am afraid that the motion falls.

Northern Ireland Energy Agency

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do not see Dr McDonnell in the House. However, in all reasonableness and fairness to the House, the Member would not have expected the motion to come at this time. Therefore, I propose that the sitting be suspended for five minutes to enable the House to gather itself. The House will now, by leave, suspend. The House is suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.06 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls for the urgent establishment of a Northern Ireland energy agency to assess, plan and actively manage all aspects of energy procurement, supply and conservation in Northern Ireland.

I am perhaps a little unprepared, as I anticipated speaking in an hour and a half. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to speak, premature though it is.

The supply and use of energy is one of the biggest issues that affects us all. It affects everything from the personal cost of living to the costs of major industrialists, whether in service or manufacturing industries. It adds a considerable amount to the bills and overhead costs of any establishment, and, indeed, it adds a considerable amount to the Executive’s expenditure because the Civil Service Departments probably consume large amounts of energy and, therefore, large amounts of money — that energy costs perhaps 25% or 30% more than it should.

The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, of which I am a member, spent months working hard on a range of energy issues and presented its report to the Assembly earlier this year. It was well received and, some weeks ago, Sir Reg Empey produced initial proposals for consultation.

During the preparation of the report, it became evident that there is very little stability, cohesion, certainty or security in the energy market. It is bitty, scattered and disorganised. I hope I am making my points in a non-contentious way. The island of Ireland is relatively small in energy terms. Indeed, we probably need a much more open energy market in these islands, including Scotland, Wales, England and the other regions involved. In the short term, I want the various aspects of energy to be opened up and joined up on an all-island basis.

I could go into the major debate about gas pipelines at length, but it is fairly obvious that gas connections are needed, both North/South and east-west with Scotland and England. Gas is opening up, and the electricity market needs to be opened up very quickly too.

I do not intend to go into the details of the generator contracts, which the House has debated at length before and which were also considered in the energy report. I know that the generators’ contracts — [Interruption].

I cannot hear myself, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

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

Is Mr Weir finished?

We will debate at length whether we should buy out the generator contracts over the next eight years or leave them to fizzle out. Leaving them creates problems, because we must ask what will happen after 2010 or 2012. Will we end up with no locally generated electricity? Are our stations stable enough to produce electricity beyond 2012, or will their owners let them chug on inefficiently and switch them off in 2012?

A range of questions must be answered, and again I emphasise that they must be examined in an all-island perspective. Some people in Fermanagh have discovered that it is more efficient and effective to buy their electricity from the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) than from NIE. I suggest that the Southern Irish electricity market should be opened up and the ESB’s monopoly reviewed, but that is a matter for investigation by the North/South bodies.

It is not a question of our taking a daily or weekly look at the energy market or, as prices fluctuate, being chancers and buying cheap gas or a bit of cheap coal. If we are to produce stable energy for the twenty-first century, we must produce a 35- to 40-year plan for the direction in which the energy debate should go. Generators will not invest, because the life of a power station is 35 to 40 years, and no one will invest unless the outcome is known.

In a domestic situation, no one will invest in an oil-fired boiler if the price of oil is to go through the roof in two years’ time. Equally, if coal is to be out of date in three years’ time, no one will invest in a solid-fuel boiler. Gas is popular, but many people have no access to gas. The discussion and perspective must be balanced by what works in rural areas without gas and by what works in urban areas where gas is. I represent an urban constituency, and all too often matters are viewed from an urban perspective. The energy situation is just as important in Newtownstewart as it is on the Newtownards Road, and the needs of both must be addressed.

Although I welcome the efforts of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and his Department over the last couple of years to work with the regulator to create some kind of stability, we must go further. To some extent, energy can be seen as being added on to, or piggy-backed by, a much bigger Enterprise, Trade and Investment job-creation agenda. Energy is like a motorbike sidecar — it is there when it is needed, but most of the time no one pays much attention to it. Primary concentration and a stronger group of people who are organised are needed to make a real difference in the energy market by finding supplies of energy — gas or whatever — and ensuring that those supplies are delivered at an affordable price.

I am concerned at the scatter of interests beyond those vested in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a major responsibility for renewables. That includes the energy potential of biomass from willow and other rapidly grown softwoods. It also includes the potential for biogas production, whereby pig slurry can be used to produce copious methane gas that can then be used efficiently and effectively.

That was an outline of the agricultural issues. I could go on at length, but I do not want to delay the House unduly.

The issue should interest the Department of the Environment because of the potential to create considerable amounts of energy from much of the waste that is dumped in landfill sites, where it causes other problems. However, from the perspective of the man or woman on the street, most of the responsibility for energy conservation and fuel poverty, which results from houses being badly designed and built, lies with the Department for Social Development. The Department of the Environment is also responsible to some extent through its building control measures.

A plethora of energy issues permeates every Department. There are major contentions. The energy inquiry failed to resolve the debate on the burning of Orimulsion at Kilroot power station. Orimulsion is a tarry substance that can be burnt efficiently and effectively and, with the proper controls and chimney-washing measures, it is cleaner than either coal or oil. That issue must be resolved.

Unless energy prices come down by 25% to 30%, the local economy will be affected. Our economy is not as efficient, effective or welcoming as others are, and in a few years’ time, when grants and other incentives are tighter, investors will consider criteria such as energy prices. Although our well-trained, work-friendly workforce can be promoted in Europe and North America, the fact that our energy prices are excessive will rapidly counter our efforts.

Would it be worthwhile to buy out the contracts now, or would it be worthwhile to take the pain now in order to avail of the gain later? We must ensure that in the future we do not fall into the trap that the contracts created. Nevertheless, the contracts and the regulator must be considered. When the contracts expire in 2010, we must ensure that we have not created a free-for-all market, because we could be subject to either the fluctuations of the market or the power station being switched off by the operator if it did not like the price that it was receiving.

There is a long-term need, which must be thought out carefully, for the regulation and control of energy. Therefore, we must consider how best we can pull together all the components and interests that the Assembly has in energy issues. Those issues mainly involve the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, but the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development are also involved.

I have no great sympathy for quangos, and I am not proposing that another quango be created simply for the sake of it. However, in this case, it is prudent to consider the formation of a twenty-first-century quango with the remit to either produce the goods or to be wound up after a set period.

I do not want to go on too long; I have probably talked for long enough. However, I would like to mention fuel poverty. I remind Colleagues that the last statistics showed that approximately 170,000 of our households — 28% — are in fuel poverty. I hope that the number has been reduced a little since then.

Fuel poverty is when people cannot afford enough energy or fuel to keep themselves and their homes warm. It is a scandal that, in this day and age, 28% of our population are in fuel poverty. Although I have not dwelt on energy conservation at length, it is a big part of the equation. We must tackle fuel poverty, and, in order to have the teeth necessary to do so, we need an energy agency. The agency must cover all aspects of energy, from the beginning of the energy production process to its ultimate consumption, with the customer switching on an electric kettle or other appliance.

There is great excitement about gas at the moment, and for people in the Belfast region and some other towns who can access it, gas seems to be clean, efficient and cheaper than oil and other fuel sources. We have been promised large supplies of gas from the Corrib gas field off the west of Ireland, and that may last for 10 or 15 years. In 20 or 25 years’ time we, or those who succeed us in the Chamber, might return to the debate, because it may be necessary to procure gas supplies from places such as Siberia and pipe it across Europe. That would be a major task, and it is why this issue is too big for the present structure to handle.

We need a dedicated team under the structure of a special agency, which would report regularly to the Assembly or to the appropriate Ministers, to pull the fragmented energy framework together. Such an agency would co-ordinate the existing structure and set us up strongly for the future. I urge Members to support the motion.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin broadly welcomes the objectives of the motion, but with some reservations. This debate, and the establishment of an agency, might bring about a much-needed examination of our energy situation. Major long-term structural problems with energy arrangements must be addressed.

The proposed energy agency has merits, since it could bring much-needed co-ordination and planning to the generation and supply of energy. The motion further proposes that conservation — energy efficiency — be included in the agency’s remit, and that suggestion is welcome. There are stringent targets for the control of energy consumption in the North of Ireland, and electricity generation from renewable or sustainable methods has been proposed. Such an agency could provide the necessary clout and co-ordination to meet our needs. Too often we hear about the barriers that people generating electricity from renewable or sustainable methods encounter when they attempt to spill their extra capacity onto the grid. The proposed agency could streamline that process and support electricity production from those means.

It has been suggested that the agency’s remit would include assessing the energy needs of the Six Counties in the medium and longer term, and it could build on the British Cabinet Office’s recent energy review. The agency would need to examine the expansion of the gas network and the impact that lack of access to natural gas might have on the competitiveness and economic development of our rural community. It should be further tasked with proposing plans to overcome that disadvantage.

Any such agency must also have a pivotal role in the development of the all-Ireland energy infrastructure, and its remit would need to be expanded to encompass the whole of Ireland or any other reciprocal arrangement when the all-Ireland infrastructure is established.

However, I am concerned because the Administration does not need another quango. Given that we wish to curb public administration, we must think long and hard about the financial liability and the implications of such a body. Will the public bear the burden of such an agency, and will its effectiveness and efficiency make the expenditure worthwhile?

My final reservation is the most significant. There are long-term problems with the energy infrastructure in the North of Ireland, as evidenced by high electricity prices and the lack of access to natural gas. The proposed role and remit of the energy agency may help by tinkering at the edges but will not begin to address the fundamental problems of fuel poverty and commercial competitiveness, which must be dealt with.

Sinn Féin believes that it is time to explore fully all possibilities for solving the problems created by the expensive and archaic energy infrastructure that we inherited. Westminster has retired from the picture, happy in the knowledge that it has reaped millions of pounds from the sale of the North’s generation and supply industry. This has resulted in high prices for consumers and high profits and dividends for shareholders. It is time for a full and open debate on all potential solutions. Consumers will pay through their electricity bills for the Moyle interconnector with Scotland. However, only the shareholders will benefit from the profits of electricity trading on the interconnector, which is socially and economically unjust.

An energy agency might help to deal with the immediate issues of co-ordinating generation, supply and energy efficiency. However, for Sinn Féin to support such an initiative, the agency would have to be more than a quango: it would require a radical agenda for mapping and planning energy issues throughout Ireland for the next 50 years. The proposed agency does not go far enough to address the real energy issues in the North of Ireland, and Sinn Féin believes that it is time to open the debate fully. Go raibh maith agat.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank Dr McDonnell for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Energy is of great interest to me and to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, which presented its report to the Assembly on 13 March 2002. The inquiry was expected to last a matter of weeks but took almost a year. The subject is of great interest to me because 20 years ago one of my predecessors appointed me as the Alliance Party spokesperson on energy, and I have had the remit ever since.

I agree in principle with the motion, but we must give further consideration to what Dr McDonnell is trying to achieve. There is an overlap in the work of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and that of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. It is important to clarify what the proposed agency’s role would be.

Once again, I must express my disgust at the Oil Distributors’ Association’s interference. It is trying to create obstacles to the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the north-west. It is disgraceful that an unregulated sector should do that. The price differential across Northern Ireland is outrageous, particularly for domestic consumers. If an agency were established, it would be important that it examine all aspects of energy consumption in Northern Ireland, including petrol. One need only look around Northern Ireland to see the major price differentials and the unacceptable levels of the importation of illegal petrol and diesel. Therefore the remit of the agency should be shown in greater detail.

We all want to see a level playing field for all consumers in Northern Ireland, and that is why the Committee and I have been so keen for as many areas of Northern Ireland as possible to benefit from natural gas. The Department will introduce its energy Bill soon, and I look forward to that. Although I am not speaking as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, it also looks forward to the publication of the Bill. One of the issues to be addressed is the strengthening of the role of those with responsibility for consumer affairs. In the Committee’s report, which was presented to the Minister and the Department, we outlined the need to ensure that there are adequate resources to deal with consumer affairs.

Finally, such an agency would have to take the European dimension into consideration. When the Committee visited Denmark and Brussels last September we became aware of the impact of European Directives on the energy market throughout an expanding European Union. I agree with Dr McDonnell when he talked about the possibility of using natural gas from as far away as Siberia. We can look forward to some exciting opportunities in the future, and I look forward to the enlargement of the European Union, which will provide other major opportunities. In principle, I accept the spirit of the motion, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I declare an interest, as my sister is involved in the gas business in the Fermanagh/Sligo area. I have a great interest in energy issues, particularly the renewable sector, from my work with the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee.

I will begin by thanking Dr McDonnell for bringing the matter to the Floor of the House. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee certainly had lengthy debate on the issue when compiling its report on energy, but it is valuable to keep the issue alive in our minds and in the minds of the public and the press. Having said that, I agree with Sean Neeson when he said that he agrees with the spirit of the motion. I am slightly concerned — and this also applied to a previous motion proposed by Dr McDonnell — about any suggestion to set up agencies, given the possibility of duplicating work. However, the value of this motion is to concentrate minds on the need to do something better. I totally agree that there needs to be a streamlining of the joined-up government approach to energy issues.

That is vitally important, because energy, as we have discovered, takes in many different departmental responsibilities. These include social, economic and health issues ranging from fuel poverty to energy conservation and energy efficiency. We desperately need some form of streamlining. I wonder whether there is justification for an agency, but some sort of team, task force or joined-up government approach would certainly be valuable.

We must consider the importance of the all-Ireland approach — the North/South approach — to energy programming. Although the North/South dimension is important, I agree with Members that we cannot deal with the issue by having an island mentality. There must be an east-west approach, involving the British-Irish isles, and a European dimension. That would cover not only the examples of best practice we saw during our trip to Denmark, when we learnt about the energy market there, but also tapping into energy in Europe and countries beyond the former Iron Curtain. The global aspect must be included, but it will be difficult to achieve that if we have a single unit in Northern Ireland. The onus is on the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council to see this as a priority for work in infrastructure.

Last, but by no means least, is my bandwagon — the renewable energy sector. We are lagging too far behind in that area. Nevertheless, good, healthy momentum has been achieved. There has been great progress on wind farming. I welcome the plans for the wind farm off the north coast, but I wonder about them. I would appreciate a progress report outlining what the potential delays might be.

This is definitely the energy source of the future. We must move away from fossil fuels. We do not even have to keep up with the demands of European Directives; we can go further. Why can we not develop the technology for the new energy markets using wind, wave, tides, and biomass? Why can we not use our agriculture industry to provide us with renewable energy? This is the way forward for our economy. It would allow us to use our university research to develop new technologies, and it would be good for consumers. We are talking about healthy social and economic development — renewable energy is about that.

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

This is the twenty-first century — however, we are inclined to forget it, as many people are still deeply rooted in the late seventeenth century. Some people are trying to solve our political problems using seventeenth century methods marked by appalling bigotry, superstition and violence. Despite the greatest efforts of our best people — our active visionaries — the Enlightenment has passed by too many of our leaders. The vision enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement is beyond their understanding: so much for Dark Ages politics.

Things become a little better when we look at social, economic and technological thought and achievement. As an SDLP Back-Bencher, I blush prettily, but modestly, at the knowledge that the SDLP is at the forefront of progressive political thought and because it has so much to offer in the social, cultural and economic fields.

I welcome Dr McDonnell’s initiative. The provision of economical, reliable, safe energy is essential for economic prosperity and the health and well-being of the entire community. It is scandalous that the neediest and the most vulnerable have the greatest dependence on the most expensive and least healthy fuels. For their sake and that of the economy and environment, the generation and supply of energy must be brought out of the early twentieth century and into the twenty-first. We have the power sources and the technology; all we need is the will and a great deal of co-operation from many people and organisations. That would include involving those who are concerned about protecting and improving the environment. It would involve the quickest possible move away from fossil fuels.

We all know about the "polluter pays" principle, and most would agree with it. The harsh reality is that we pay the polluters to heat and to light our homes and to power our factories and vehicles. The cost is not only monetary; we pay with our bad health, the desperate pressure on our social services and the poorer quality of our lives.

We need a body with substantial independence from the power producers and providers. That would be the only way to emphasise energy production from our plentiful renewable resources, which Jane Morrice highlighted. We have endless supplies of wind, water, and, unfortunately, waste. I thoroughly approve of wind farms. Concerns about their visual impact on the environment could be eased through sensitive management.

I will devote the rest of my precious time to Sandy Bain, whose letter to the ‘Sunday Herald’ in Scotland was published on 17 March 2002. Like a good Irish politician, I was in Scotland on that day.

The letter reads:

"It is disappointing that so much of the debate about Scotland’s energy needs 10 or more years in the future is being conducted with reference to 20th century technology. The coming pollution-free fuel is hydrogen. … More importantly, however, using electricity from renewable sources to produce hydrogen will give a much greater degree of flexibility.

Electricity derived from wind, wave and tidal power at locations along the northwest coast and in the Western Isles should be used to produce hydrogen from sea water. This hydrogen would then be transported by sea in gas tankers to the existing coastal thermal power stations at Peterhead, Inverkip, Cockenzie and Longannet, adapted to use hydrogen as fuel. The electricity produced would be distributed to consumers through the existing national grid, removing the need to lay an expensive subsea cable or despoil our scenic areas with overhead lines. The unreliability of renewable sources of electricity will be overcome too. Ideally Clyde shipyards would build the gas tankers required and Scottish engineering companies would become market leaders in building the hydrogen production plants and doing power station conversions. Any surplus hydrogen could, of course, be exported worldwide."

Sandy, quite naturally, speaks for Scotland. However, our scenario is so similar that what would be good for Scotland could be equally good for us, by which I mean everyone on this island. That is why I wanted Sandy’s words to be recorded in Hansard and to be food for thought when Dr McDonnell’s agency is set up, as I hope it will be soon.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I support the concept of a greater co-ordination of energy supply and conservation in Northern Ireland to protect our environment and to reduce electricity prices for residential and industrial consumers. Northern Ireland suffers from some of the highest prices in Europe, and those key issues must be addressed so that we can remain competitive, continue to protect our environment and respect it more.

Is the proposed agency needed or will it simply duplicate other projects? Would it try to draw strands together and form another layer of bureaucracy in this small part of the United Kingdom? That must be considered carefully. Should we examine how we could restructure our present system? The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has an interest in willow biomass and electricity production through the farming industry. Should responsibility for those matters be transferred? In addition, the Department for Social Development is interested in energy conservation. Should that role be transferred so that one area deals with the supply and conservation of electricity?

Perhaps the Department for Social Development’s role in identifying those suffering from fuel poverty should become a key aspect of its work. There may also be scope for the issue to be included in the review of public administration. The restructuring of Departments is not the issue; subject to agreement, some sections of Departments might logically sit somewhere else.

I have not heard much about how OFREG will fit into this plan. Will it become defunct? I value OFREG’s independence and believe that its powers should be increased. It is disappointing that OFREG has not been as successful as we would have liked in driving down electricity prices in Northern Ireland.

Improvements are necessary. The electricity contracts that were handed out during direct rule were a licence to print money, and that was of no benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. NIE is moving towards electricity generation through the Huntstown power station in the Republic of Ireland. The grey area is becoming larger. Is NIE an independent distributor or a generator? Does it give greater priority to the profits of its shareholders than it does to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland? That question must be answered.

OFREG’s powers should be increased to favour the consumer. Considering the initial investment in their shares, the private companies have made healthy profits. Increased downward pressure on prices should now be applied. There have been benefits by way of improvements to the generating equipment, but that has been transmitted into their profits.

Nationalist Members have emphasised the all-island aspect. However, we must fit into the United Kingdom structures of electricity production and regulation. The Kyoto agreement provided for that, and we must abide by it. There are two sides to the coin. There is a United Kingdom and a European aspect as well as the all-Ireland aspect. We must ensure that any benefits are delivered to the consumer. A sizeable electricity interconnector is now on-stream, which is also applying downward pressure on electricity prices in Northern Ireland.

I consider Dr McDonnell’s proposals to be at the early stages. It would be premature to jump now. Further consideration is required, and I look forward to hearing what Dr McDonnell and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have to say in reply.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I support the motion. However, other issues must be highlighted. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s energy inquiry concluded that if we were ever to get an efficient system, it should have as wide a remit as possible, possibly on an all-Ireland basis, and it should conform to EU Directives.

It has been obvious for some time that the energy industry needs an all-Ireland remit if it is to have a stable future. After the storms in the winter of 1998, when lines came down and many people suffered a miserable Christmas and new year, the industry invested in greater volume, modern installations and upgraded lines. However, the problem remains that NIE has a monopoly, with Belfast being the only area that has the alternative of British Gas.

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

This system has proved effective — it is more economical and it provides consumer choice. Renewable energy is becoming more effective, but it still falls far short of Government proposals. The recent decision to install a North/South, east-west gas pipeline throughout Ireland will be a real boost for the north-west of Northern Ireland and for Donegal. The Oil Promotion Federation has taken the matter to the EU to try to prevent that, and that says more about the federation than anyone else could. The Oil Promotion Federation is not controlled, and it is regulated by providers and consumers. The federation calling "foul" brings to mind the pot and the kettle. I support the call for a Northern Ireland energy agency to assess, plan and actively manage all aspects of energy procurement, supply and conservation in Northern Ireland.

Members supported the report produced by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I agree that, in the short term, a Northern Ireland energy agency would ensure that our aims are achieved sooner rather than later, and it would provide consumer choice to more people.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Ms Morrice said that she welcomed the fact that the motion was keeping the issue alive in our minds and that it was allowing us to remain focused on a matter that was important to everyone. I entirely agree that the debate achieves that objective. I have listened carefully to Dr McDonnell calling for the establishment of a Northern Ireland energy agency. However, I point out that his proposal goes much further than the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s recommendation in its report on the energy inquiry. It simply said that the agency idea should be considered. There is no suggestion in the Committee’s report that the wider proposition was seriously examined. However, I intend to respond fully to the Committee’s report in the near future and to deal with some of those issues.

I agree, to some extent, with Mr Neeson, Ms Morrice and Mr Beggs that the call for an agency is somewhat premature. We must remember that the energy sector in Northern Ireland is privatised. All the generation is in private hands, as is the distribution. However, in the Republic the generation is primarily in the control of the state. The Committee visited Denmark to look at its model. The Danish Energy Agency is responsible for climate change negotiations, oil and gas exploration, research programmes and bilateral programmes with Eastern European countries. In other words, it is a significant body that interfaces with powers far and beyond any that devolution would have. It is responsible for oil and gas exploration, for example, so it is a very different animal. Many Members have referred to the desirability of greater co-ordination, and I have no difficulty with that. It is entirely common sense that where several Departments have at least some degree of interest in a subject they should co-ordinate. However, it is impossible to get every subject matter that has a cross-departmental activity gathered together in one place.

Many issues and themes in Government are cross-cutting. I accept what Members have said about fuel poverty. However, I recently attended the opening of a scheme in my East Belfast constituency. A home had been fitted with gas central heating, insulation et cetera under a pilot scheme that the Department for Social Development was carrying out in Belfast. Insufficient applications had been made to use all the money available on the pilot scheme, although it was fantastic to see what had been achieved. For example, hundreds of home helps in Belfast spend hundreds of man-hours lighting fires for people, yet those facilities could be installed cheaply and efficiently, and would prove less hassle for someone who is unable to get around easily. It is a terrible shame that the scheme is not receiving the level of support that we would like. I sympathise with the objectives to which Dr McDonnell and other Members referred.

My Department recently published a consultation paper, ‘Towards a New Energy Market Strategy for Northern Ireland’, which recognised the interaction between energy and other priorities such as climate change, social inclusion, fuel poverty, health and equality. That echoes my previous point that many energy issues are cross-cutting. The paper posed the question of how an integrated approach to the issue might be secured, and we are currently analysing the responses that we received.

I cannot say with absolute conviction that all the energy concerns that have come before the Assembly would have been solved more easily if an organisation of that kind existed; we must remember that we deal with a privatised industry. The energy issue is in no way "bolted on" to the Department’s activities; I view it as a mainstream part of my work. I was surprised in that I underestimated the amount of time and effort that that would take, all because the energy sector is a privatised industry. I spend much of my time on the issue, as do my officials. A division of the Department is dedicated to energy.

Members will be aware that, in the current session, I intend to introduce a utilities Bill to deal with a range of issues, including the consumer arrangements and the situation with regard to the regulator, which Mr Beggs mentioned. I accept that a range of issues must be dealt with.

Mr Neeson referred to the European dimension. We hope to achieve more market opening, as that is the trend in the European Union, and we hope that that will bring down prices. It is frustrating that we have been unable to bring proposals to the House that will achieve reductions; however, I hope that those proposals will emerge in the coming weeks. I do not despair, because the situation has been changing for the better in the past couple of years. A new combined-cycle power station is under construction at Ballylumford. That will introduce state-of-the-art generating equipment, which will produce electricity more efficiently than the current station does. As the consumer will pay fuel costs directly, electricity will be produced more efficiently, which will have a downward impact on prices.

A project, which includes the extension of the gas pipeline, has been earmarked for Coolkeeragh. However, I share the anger of some Members at what has been happening there, and the attempts that have been made to frustrate a strategic decision. As Dr McDonnell said, Coolkeeragh has had a power station for 30 or 40 years and someone is making decisions on the basis of what may happen to the plant’s profits in the next six or 12 months. We must plan strategically for energy production for future generations, given that the infrastructure is so expensive.

If the Coolkeeragh power station developments take place, they will result in a state-of-the-art, highly efficient gas turbine. Mr Beggs referred to the Moyle interconnector, which has come on-stream and which will help to bring competition into the market in the long term.

The renewable energy sector has potential, but there are limitations to the use of renewables in Northern Ireland. For example, the geography here does not enable us to create meaningful amounts of hydroelectricity. My Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are interested in biomass, anaerobic digesters and other new technologies, and we will be pursuing those options. However, such technologies have a long way to go before they can deliver electricity at commercial prices.

Wind energy is one area in which we may have made more progress. However, Members must understand that there are lessons to be learnt from privatisation when dealing with renewables. Although we may be anxious to introduce renewables into the mainstream energy system, we must plan carefully and be cautious about the cost. There is no point in producing renewable energy that is so expensive that no one can buy it.

Apart from wind energy, the renewable energy technologies have a long way to go. My Department will wish to discuss those matters further with the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment as we move towards introducing policies concerning renewables.

Jane Morrice and Arthur Doherty mentioned offshore wind farms. That method of energy production has potential and, as Members may know, my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Public Enterprise in the Republic, prepared a report on the options for wind energy production, particularly offshore production, around the island. The Tunes Plateau site, situated off the north coast of Northern Ireland, emerged as a strong possibility. Discussions between the Crown Estate and a possible applicant are at a delicate stage, and I cannot predict the outcome. If the project were to proceed, a substantial period of public consultation on the environmental impact would be required. I am not in a position to say whether it will proceed.

I welcome the fact that energy management is being kept on the agenda, because it is an area of activity that has been neglected. Reference was made to the unfortunate contracts that were entered into several years ago. Those contracts have now run for over half of their allotted time, and we have spent much time examining the matter.

I accept the spirit of the motion, but I am not convinced that setting up another quango would add to the sum of knowledge on the issue. I am not trying to pour cold water on the motion, because I fully understand the Member’s concerns. The spirit of the motion is going in the right direction, and I accept that there needs to be a joined-up approach. However, bearing in mind that we are dealing with the private sector, I am concerned that another body might not achieve better results than those that can be achieved by adapting existing systems and ensuring that there is the sort of cross-departmental activity that already exists in other areas. I want to discuss the matter further with the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I hope to be able to say something on this when making a formal response to the Committee’s valuable report.

Action has already been taken on the matter that Mr Beggs raised about different Departments having bits and pieces of interest across the subject. For example, the Department for Social Development deals with fuel poverty, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has interests in wider energy issues and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development also has energy-related interests. Following devolution, the Department for Regional Development was considered to have a strategic energy role. In fact, that Department did not have the statutory basis or the staff for such. It was a kind of anomaly. The proposal is to draft an Order to incorporate responsibility for energy again in my Department. Functions have already been moved around, and that may happen again. From time to time it may be that functions will not be in the right place and will have to be moved around.

With regard to linkages, while energy is being considered in an all-Ireland context, my Department is considering it in a European context. The island of Ireland is a tiny energy market in international terms. Over the years, Northern Ireland’s problem has been isolation from major sources of supply. The Department’s objective is to ensure that we do not remain isolated. That is why I am pleased that we now have gas and electricity interconnection with Great Britain, which will progress to a European connection. That will ensure that we have supply reinforcement and do not depend on one source. That was the rock on which we perished in the 1970s when we were entirely dependent on oil. That was ruinous, and I warmly welcome the opening-up of sources of supply. That is the best way to bring prices down in the long term, once contracts are dealt with.

I welcome the debate and appreciate the interest and concern of Members, which I share. I assure them, and particularly Dr McDonnell, that I do not regard the Department’s responsibility for energy as a sidecar on a bike. I regard it to be mainstream, and officials will confirm that because they put much time and effort into energy. It is important. I also hope that if the Assembly brings the Bill forward during this session, it will address the range of significant matters that concern Members, particularly on the consumer side, about who operates the system — the transmissions operator — and buying and selling. All of those matters must be considered.

I will respond in detail to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. However, I cannot yet support the Member’s proposal for another body. The Assembly must wait and see and discuss further with the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment to decide whether the draft legislation will achieve its objectives. We should not yet proceed to create another agency.

I understand the merits of what the Member has said and the need for a co-ordinated, strategic long-term view. However, I am not convinced that another non-departmental public body attached to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment would achieve our shared objectives. I ask the Member to address that point in his summing-up.

When the Assembly votes on the motion it should consider the Cabinet Office’s major energy review, which was published in February 2002 and which was mentioned by Mr Conor Murphy. The review considered new institutional arrangements for energy policy-making and delivery. A cross-departmental unit is being created in the Department of Trade and Industry in London with its future position subject to review depending on the roles of climate change, energy policy and transport policy within the Government. That document did not consider removing those critical issues from direct departmental and ministerial responsibility and putting them into an agency. However, we will watch that development closely because there may be lessons to be learned.

I am satisfied that the structures of our devolved Administration are capable of ensuring that the Executive’s policies are effectively and jointly established and managed without necessarily having a major reorganisation of the type proposed in the motion. The present arrangements ensure clarity of responsibility and accountability and avoid unnecessary cost and disruption. Therefore, while it is not appropriate to support the motion now, I accept the spirit in which it was moved. I also accept without any hesitation the sentiments that many Members expressed.

As we progress this year, we will collectively be able to make progress in the energy field. As has been pointed out, energy is vital to our competitiveness because the higher the cost, the harder it is to be competitive. That, of course, ties in with debates on rating policy, local government financing and other issues. I am keener than anybody to ensure that we get over the hump of high energy costs because they are a direct challenge to our competitiveness and affect jobs.

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

I repeat my thanks to every Member who spoke. The debate was useful, although it came earlier than expected and was perhaps a little surprise to some. However, we got it together reasonably well, and most issues were aired. I am indebted to Members who took the time to collect their thoughts, to prepare speeches and to contribute to the debate.

The purpose of tabling the motion was to keep the energy issue alive — it is a big issue that is never quite top of the agenda. It is third or fourth on the agenda, and it should be higher. Most Members welcomed the principle and thrust of the motion, which was to do exactly that and create some form of joined-up strategy. It is fairly clear that, from whatever corner of the Chamber, we agree that we must find a more effective mechanism to deal with energy.

I welcome the Minister’s comments about legislation that may be coming forward. However, we need some sort of a driver. That was my concern when I tabled the motion. I have seen the good work of the Department and OFREG, and I have the highest regard for the regulator and the many consumer and pressure groups that have been working to combat fuel poverty. However, someone must drive the policy forward because, mostly, it just reacts to a difficulty or shortfall.

We must also make progress on energy procurement, which may be a major issue in the long term, and conservation. Much of that concerns the Department of the Environment, given its responsibility for building control and the quality of buildings.

The report is an excellent document, but it is only fair to say that the issues are so vast and so greatly in need of debate that a permanent committee could have dealt with the subject of energy alone. That is not to do the report any disservice. We had to draw a line somewhere, and, unfortunately, we could not go into every detail. This debate supplements the report. If the Minister does not get the recommendations right, we will come back, and perhaps keep coming back, to the issue. That is a compliment to the Minister, rather than a threat.

I want to thank specific Members. Conor Murphy welcomed the report and made a very good contribution. I agree with all his points. There may be a major need to deal with structural and conservation problems. I was not particularly confining myself, as he seemed to suggest, to Northern Ireland or the Six Counties. I see a very strong all-Ireland dimension in this, just as there is a very strong British dimension. It is not a political all-Ireland dimension; it is purely a business dimension to ensure survival. Overriding all that is the European dimension, both in legislation and in long-term supply. If we adopt gas, we shall be able to obtain it from the Corrib field in the west of Ireland for perhaps 10 to 15 years. After that, we shall have to explore eastern Europe, into Russia and perhaps beyond.

Conor Murphy made a point about this being another quango. We should get rid of most quangos. However, there are some good ones, so we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should not be averse to creating a quango for tomorrow if a scattered issue such as energy needs a focus and a driver. I return to the concept of drivers because the scatter creates a situation in which we react to emergencies and crises rather than taking a proactive, long-term view.

I thank Sean Neeson for mentioning overlaps and for clarifying who does what. That returns to the driver principle. I am sure that we all agree with what he said about the oil companies, about strengthening the role of those responsible for consumer affairs and about the European dimension.

Jane Morrice agreed with the spirit of the motion and emphasised the need to avoid duplication. I do not want to see any duplication.

Roy Beggs supported the principle of the motion, but expressed some worry about the agency’s functions. The agency’s functions concern a proactive and aggressive view of the energy situation. I do not suggest duplication, but a much harder and clearer focus on the future is necessary. Mr Beggs queried the all-Ireland aspect. There is such an aspect, and the Minister articulated that much better than I could have done. However, there is also an east-west aspect, with the European dimension overlying it all.

The Minister mentioned that most energy is privatised, and that those private companies are fairly shrewd and capable of finding ways around regulations. An aggressive organisation is needed to confront them.

I have the highest regard for the regulator. However, he would be the first to admit that his difficulty is that both the legislation and his authority are limited. In many cases he reacts like the rest of us do to a crisis or difficulty. He has no responsibility for the long-term supply of energy; he can deal only with the day-to-day situation and attempt to ensure that tomorrow will be a little better than today, and that prices will be kept under control.

Arthur Doherty spoke of mobilising goodwill and of moving away from fossil fuels. He also mentioned the health issue. Some interesting comments on hydrogen have come from Scotland.

Annie Courtney talked of the gas industry in general and of the gas pipeline for the north-west. That is vital. It does not concern getting gas only to Coolkeeragh, but to every town along the route where it would not otherwise be economical to do so.

I thank the Minister for his kind comments. He may be correct to suggest that the call for the agency is premature, but will it be premature in six months or in a year?

I dealt with the question of energy in private hands. That is not a bad thing, if we take an aggressive approach and are equal to a situation in which those private hands perhaps play games or milk the system.

Those members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment who visited Denmark were impressed. When the Minister spoke of the Danes, the powers and authorities, I was not sure whether he advocated the setting up of a new department of energy, not simply an agency. The Danes’ approach is aggressive. They have taken energy seriously, and that has stood them in good stead. Their energy costs have been considerably reduced and there have been environmental benefits.

The Minister mentioned the fuel poverty implications of renewable energy. The point that I made about the all-Ireland dimension is summed up by the fact that Northern Ireland was isolated previously. Even now, the few electricity interconnectors with the South, and the one with Scotland, are relatively trivial. We need a second interconnector with Scotland, because it is impossible to have an energy market without a supply. Our problem is that all of the energy supply going through the interconnector with Scotland is committed, and that given that the take up of energy in the South is so high, it does not have surplus to send through the cross-border interconnectors. The Minister is frowning. Is my statement incorrect?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The infrastructure is in place to facilitate a substantial amount of trading through the interconnector with the Republic. However, the distribution network on the Southern side is not sufficiently robust, and for technical reasons it can only operate at full capacity for short periods of time. Therefore, for most of the time, it operates at substantially less than half of its capacity.

When I attended the recent opening of the interconnector with Mary O’Rourke TD, electricity was being imported to Northern Ireland: given the good weather then, our local power stations decided to close some sets for maintenance. Therefore, current was being sucked through the interconnector to Northern Ireland. However, because of demand, current is exported most of the time. The big advantage is that the process reduces spinning reserve, which is generating capacity that is spinning but not supplying current. It is there in case a breakdown occurs, and that, coupled with the ability to trade nation-to-nation through the interconnectors with Scotland and the South, is the key advantage. There are technical reasons for the interconnector not working to full capacity, and work is continuing to improve it so that it becomes more efficient.

A high percentage of the electricity from the interconnector is traded on the open market — only about 125 megawatts are contracted.

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

I stand corrected. My brief visits to power stations have convinced me that it is difficult to be an expert on such highly technical matters.

When I proposed the motion, I felt that we needed to create the stability, consistency and confidence in our energy markets that have been lacking. Energy markets have been unstable and, perhaps, that was emphasised most in the 1970s, when we were heavily dependent on oil. Many people who depend on oil are uneasy about the potential for shenanigans in Iraq that would send oil prices through the roof.

We must ensure that energy is supplied at a reasonable price and that people can access it fairly. People who live close to the border may access electricity easily from the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) across the border, but we must ensure that people who live in rural areas such as Belleek or Killeter are not compounded further into fuel poverty or energy poverty. I strongly endorse the message that there should be no duplication.

I am very interested in renewable sources of energy. Wind power could supply 25% to 30% of our electricity requirement. Wave power is interesting, and I appeal to the Minister to consider seriously the mouth of Strangford Lough. I have been told that if we could persuade other interested parties to co-operate, which might be a bigger task than first thought, the mouth of Strangford Lough could produce up to 30% of our energy requirements.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I am aware of the strong tide in Strangford Lough. Although the construction of a tidal barrage is a valuable option, many people have serious concerns about the environmental impact on that part of the lough.

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

That exemplifies how contentious and serious the issues are. I sympathise with those who have an environmental interest in Strangford Lough, but in a couple of years we will have to choose between a view across the lough but higher electricity prices, and a perhaps less exciting environment but cheaper electricity.

An energy agency could oversee the introduction of combined heat and power. I am told that Kilroot power station — and Mr Neeson would know more about that than I — could provide Carrickfergus with free hot water and central heating. However, where is the connectivity between the power station and the consumer? The Department for Social Development would not oversee the scheme; an agency is needed to glue the pieces together. Great work is being done, but the bodies that are involved must be pulled together.

When we burn oil, we extract only one third of its energy to generate electricity. The remaining two thirds are released into the air or, as unused hot water, into the sea. The Danes have managed to extract 90% of the energy from the fuel that they consume, and we should try to do the same.

Ten years ago, we began the charade of talking about introducing an open market and privatisation. We cannot have an open market without choice, and, although the Minister’s comments about the interconnectors are welcome, that is only a first step. There is not enough choice, and there are big gaps — for example, the failure to develop the combined heat and power mechanism at Kilroot. Such matters must be acted upon, but I am unsure whether responsibility lies with the Department for Social Development, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, or another body. I tabled the motion to try to clear the bottlenecks for which nobody seems to be responsible.

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

Does the Member wish to move the motion?

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

I would be happy to withdraw the motion in the interests of consensus in the Chamber. The issue is more important than the success of the motion, or any one detail. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The sitting was suspended at 1.33 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Lack of Investment in the A20 Newtownards to Portaferry Road

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I would like to thank Members for giving me the opportunity to bring this important aspect of our daily lives before the Assembly, and I would also like to thank the Minister for his presence.

Lack of investment in roads means risks for road safety. I offer my deepest sympathy to the relatives of the latest victims of a serious road accident, on the Ballymena to Ballymoney road over the weekend. Recently, there was also a fatality on the A20.

Although the A20 Newtownards to Portaferry road is a main arterial route carrying an ever-increasing number of vehicles every day, its condition, and the lack of funding for maintenance and upgrading, is replicated on every public road south of the floodgates as one leaves Newtownards, throughout the Ards borough and the Strangford constituency.

The deplorable conditions of our roads affect every constituent. Road users are angry and frustrated, and they ask constantly why they pay car tax. There is little or no industry on the Ards Peninsula, which means that constituents have to travel to where they can find employment, and the vast majority of people are forced to use the A20. Some people are employed on the other side of Strangford Lough, and they use the ferry and then travel on to their work.

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

I doubt that the conditions of the roads on the other side of Strangford Lough are much better. However, I offer sympathy to those who live in Portaferry and beyond who must use the main road to Newtownards twice daily to get to and from work. The A20 contains continuous twists, corners, humps and hollows, with a scattering of potholes, utility manhole covers, sunken gratings, sunken verges and flooding when there is heavy rainfall. All those deficiencies contribute to a less safe road environment, and, thus, we are vulnerable to road accidents, and, unfortunately, fatalities.

Although the local Roads Service office does its best with its limited resources, I continue to hear from angry road users who have driven into a pothole and smashed a tyre and wheel, but who find it difficult to get compensation from the Roads Service. This morning I received a letter from a constituent who had lodged a claim for £64·63 against the Department for Regional Development as a result of damage caused by a pothole. After an eight-month investigation, that constituent was told:

"your claim for compensation has been unsuccessful. As the leaflet enclosed with your claim form explained, the DOE (NI) is obliged, under the relevant legislation — the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 — to maintain the roads to a reasonable standard.

Where it has not done so and a road user sustains damage to their vehicle because of this lack of maintenance, the legislation allows them to claim compensation from the Department."

On that occasion, a pothole contributed to £64 worth of damage. However, the letter further states that

"where the Department can show that it was carrying out a reasonable system of maintenance of the road in question, it is entitled to defend any claim for compensation brought under this legislation."

The Department dismissed this genuine claim for 64 quid. The loophole seems typical; ordinary road users are treated abysmally. Other Members may have heard similar accounts.

The A20 has remained largely unchanged despite the ever-increasing volume of vehicular traffic and newer, larger lorries, which undoubtedly contribute to the deterioration of roads. A further concern is the risk of serious accidents involving the many school buses, sometimes overcrowded, on that road.

The appalling condition of the A20 at Main Street in Kircubbin must be brought to the Minister’s attention. As with all busy streets, a pedestrian crossing was needed on Kircubbin’s Main Street to increase the safety of children and senior citizens. The Roads Service denied a request for a crossing, and a concoction of kerb build-outs was provided, to the dissatisfaction of local residents. A request has been sent to the Roads Service for the build-outs’ removal, because they actually caused an accident. Recently, improvements were completed on a small section of Main Street in Greyabbey, which is also part of the A20, leaving the rest of the town in an appalling condition.

I remind the Minister of his recently launched regional transport strategy, in which no forward plan for the Ards Peninsula was considered. In the summary of funding for each area, neither the Ards Peninsula, nor Portaferry, nor Kircubbin was even mentioned. There is not even a line on the map to show that the A20 exists.

As matters stand, the traffic congestion on the A20 can only get worse as more vehicles take to the road. Surely there has been some thought of future investment such as in the provision of a light rail system along the centre of the peninsula or a dual carriageway, or even widening the existing A20. Constituents expect, at minimum, extra funding for a good, even road surface that will allow safe passage without risking lives every day, and the Minister must give us a fair share of funding for better roads and for the A20 in particular.

I am grateful to the MP, Mrs Iris Robinson, who set up a meeting with the Minister and the Roads Service to allow me to discuss the problems on behalf of my constituents.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

Many areas of great natural beauty suffer because of their attractiveness, and the Ards Peninsula is no exception. There are constant conflicts of interest between the legitimate economic needs of the local people, the equally legitimate need to conserve the undoubted natural beauty of the peninsula and the right of the population of Greater Belfast to enjoy the scenic resort value of the area, and finding a balance between those conflicting interests will never be easy. Added to that is the increased volume of traffic that is inevitably caused by the expanding towns along the A20, such as Greyabbey, Kircubbin and Portaferry.

The regional development plan envisages building some 7,000 extra dwellings on or around the peninsula in the next 10 years. Existing road traffic volume problems are bound to get worse and are important enough to be addressed, but underinvestment makes them doubly important.

I have been raising the issue of underinvestment in the Ards Peninsula’s roads for some time, and the Minister for Regional Development’s answer to a question tabled by me on 12 March 2002 revealed its true extent. In 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the amounts spent by the Department on roads in the boroughs of Ards and Castlereagh that comprise my constituency of Strangford tell a sorry tale. In the three successive years £453,000, £204,000 and £297,000 respectively was spent on roads in the borough of Ards. In the same years, £1,431,000, £408,000 and £1,167,000 was spent on the roads in Castlereagh. That means that a total of £954,000 was invested in the Ards roads in the three-year period compared to some £2,500,000 in the Castlereagh roads. Broadly, Castlereagh received 75% of the investment, while Ards received only 25%.

Although I welcome the level of investment in Castlereagh, which is part of my constituency, I am alarmed at the year-after-year disparity between Castlereagh and Ards. Recurring disparities such as that soon build into major disadvantage, and Ards is approaching that situation.

I am surprised that the Minister is not sensitive about this, as Castlereagh is his home territory and political stamping ground. It is only recently that his family interests have expanded, albeit temporarily, into Strangford. I would have thought that in the interests of the Minister’s own domestic bliss and harmony, he might listen to his lady wife, who represents Strangford at Westminster — at least for the time being. I am surprised that the Minister can stand over such a massive disparity in spending on roads in two adjacent borough council areas.

What is even more revealing is the fact, again gleaned from the Minister’s answer to my question, that Ards Borough Council receives only 1% of Province-wide spending on roads. That happens year after year. There are 26 district councils, so that amounts to an average spend of around 4% in each council area, yet Ards receives only 1%. When that is compounded year after year, it amounts to disadvantage. The Minister’s argument that roads policy is decided Province-wide and is linked to traffic flow, the number of accidents, environmental impact and value for money is all very well. Those are factors in mitigation, but they are not substantive enough to explain the glaring 3:1 disparity in spending on roads in two adjacent borough council areas. I welcome the spending on roads in Castlereagh. However, that disparity between the Ards average and the provincial average and the fact that an adjacent borough received three times as much as Ards must be explained.

Traffic flows on the Ards Peninsula must be addressed strategically before they inevitably worsen as a result of growing populations in key towns. The balance between business traffic, such as prawn and fish lorries from Portavogie, and domestic traffic that uses the A20 as its main route must also be addressed. Patterns of road utilisation — why the A20 is favoured over the Irish Sea coast road, for example — must be investigated. However, nothing beats investment. The Minister knows that, and so does the House. It seems that Ards has been left behind by all the standards of fairness. The Assembly must seek a commitment from the Minister that that will be addressed urgently.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I request investment for the A20 Newtownards to Portaferry road. That encompasses several roads along the Ards Peninsula. Those of us who use the A20 several times a day know that the road is notoriously dangerous, with its sharp corners and sweeping bends. Many residents are loath to use the road at night. Imagine one’s travel or activities being restricted because the main local road is too dangerous to travel at night.

The road is also dangerous in the rush hours: first thing in the morning and between 5.00 pm and 7.00 pm. A few months ago a car and its lady driver ended up on the lough shore. Luckily for that lady, the tide was out, or there could have been another fatality. In the past few months there have been two fatalities on the A20, and our thoughts are with those families who lost loved ones. The lady’s car ended up on the lough shore because there were no defensive barriers. She had to be cut free from the wreckage. The problem is compounded by the fact that the emergency services also use the A20 to reach people who have been injured. The road has received little investment in the past 20 years.

Mr McCarthy has suggested that a pedestrian crossing is needed in Kircubbin. There have also been requests for pedestrian crossings at other locations, such as Greyabbey and Ballywalter.

Greyabbey is on the A20; Ballywalter is on the other side of the peninsula. There have been requests for pedestrian crossings but they have not yet been acceded to, primarily because of legal criteria on pedestrian crossings. Perhaps the Minister could inform us of the position on pedestrian crossings and whether there is any intention of changing those criteria so that the people who have requested, and badly need, pedestrian crossings in Greyabbey, Kircubbin and Ballywalter can have their requests met.

The same thing applies to traffic-management schemes. Local groups and elected representatives have requested that traffic-management schemes be put in place, again for Greyabbey and Ballywalter. Unfortunately, the necessary finance has not yet been forthcoming. The A20 has been given what I call "reactionary repairs", which usually means patching up potholes and erecting defence barriers at accident black spots.

There has been very little concerted effort to bring the road into the twenty-first century. The volume of traffic is increasing, and as cars become more affordable as they come into line with European prices, it can only be assumed that there will be more cars in the future. Therefore, it would seem impossible for the Government not to spend money on the country’s infrastructure to keep up with the demands of the people. The infrastructure is at least 20 years out of date. The A20 has had little significant investment since the early 1980s. That is evident by the state of the road. The surface has been tinkered with, but there has been no significant work, such as road-widening.

The road floods at many places, and heavy rainfall makes it treacherous. If there is a storm, the road is closed because it is too dangerous to use. Waves from Strangford Lough crash onto the road, and sections of it have been eaten away by the storms, wind and tides that occur at certain times of the year. Closure of the road, as experienced this year, leaves many people stranded, adding at least 30 or 40 minutes to each journey, because drivers must use an alternative road down the middle of the Ards Peninsula. That can cause great difficulties in medical emergencies.

People’s lives have been, and continue to be, put at risk because of the lack of investment in the A20. A delay in the arrival of the emergency services because of the poor quality of the road or its closure could mean that someone who has suffered a stroke, heart attack or seizure, or even someone who has been involved in a traffic accident, does not get the urgent attention that they need.

The situation is compounded by the fact — and this is not the Minister’s responsibility — that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will not set up an ambulance outstation on the peninsula, leaving it to be covered by the Ards depot, which must use the A20, which is sometimes cut off from Newtownards. If the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not prepared to help the people of the lower peninsula, we urge the Minister for Regional Development to use his Department’s influence to try to ensure that that scheme goes ahead.

Investment is needed to ensure that the A20 is accessible and safe for all. The maintenance budget for the past 10 years has remained almost unchanged. Although the volume of traffic and demands on the road have increased, it is a pity that the money that is needed simply to maintain the road — not to build a new road — has not matched those demands. The road must be made safe and user-friendly and must be able to withstand the increasing volume of traffic not just over the past 20 years, but also over the next 20 years.

The road will carry more and more tourists. Ards Borough Council is committed to a tourism policy, and more tourists are visiting as a result. If more tourists should come to the country, we will try to attract them to the peninsula’s shores. It is therefore imperative that visitors have a safe, modern road when they visit what we believe are some of the most historic and beautiful sites in Northern Ireland. For those of us who live in the area, Strangford Lough is undoubtedly the jewel in the crown of the Ards Peninsula, if not the whole of Northern Ireland.

There are roads dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. More infrastructure investment is needed, especially on the A20, so that we can make the most of the area and improve the overall impression of the country and the area that we represent.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I thank Kieran McCarthy for bringing this matter up. I have clocked up hundreds of thousands of miles on that road over the past 40 years, and I know every corner and every twist and turn in it.

All of us could describe horrific accidents that have occurred on the road. If the statistics were made known, and given the length of the road, it is probably one of the greatest accident black spots in the Province. Many of my constituents refer to it as "the highway to hell" because of the numbers of fatalities that have occurred and the number of people who have been severely injured and who will have to be cared for for the rest of their lives.

Regarding the condition of the road — apart from its dangerous corners and twists — public transport providers have said that vehicles using the A20 require more frequent replacement of suspension and shock absorbers than those on any other route throughout the Province. That is a fair indication of the poor condition of the A20.

The condition of the road, coupled with underinvestment in road infrastructure on the Ards Peninsula and the massive development that is taking place along its length and breadth, makes a very dangerous cocktail. The A20 cannot deal with the current volume of traffic.

It would be interesting if the Department were to examine the number of planning applications that have been approved in the last four or five years, together with those currently coming on stream. Mr Hamilton referred to 7,000 new dwellings in the Ards area, and few people know that many of those houses are being built between the floodgates and Portaferry.

A disproportionate number of houses are being built at the tip of the Ards Peninsula; there are plans to build between 900 and 1,200 dwellings close to my home. If we accept that there are two cars per dwelling — and few families have fewer than two cars: families with growing children sometimes have more — there is the potential for many thousands more vehicles to be thrown onto those roads in the coming years.

The Planning Service needs to address the problem immediately. People in the villages, towns and hamlets on both sides of the Ards Peninsula must demand answers from the Planning Service about why it can continue to approve large-scale building developments when it is known that the road and sewerage infrastructures are not capable of dealing with the current situation. Developers are driving a coach and horses through the legislation.

All Members, especially those who serve on Ards Borough Council, know that developers deliberately avoid public inquiries into some large-scale developments by submitting their planning applications piecemeal. They apply for planning permission for 100 dwellings or fewer, rather than for the full number of dwellings that they intend to develop. I do not know how, but that must be addressed. It must be made clear that the Planning Service will place a moratorium on large-scale building developments on the Ards Peninsula until the infrastructure has been dealt with. No one is grasping the nettle.

Before anything happens, we shall hear of more fatalities. I appeal to those with responsibility to give top priority to the Newtownards to Portaferry road; it deserves nothing less.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I congratulate Mr McCarthy on securing the Adjournment debate and for raising an important subject that is of concern to all Members from his constituency.

The A20 from Newtownards to Portaferry, which is 19 miles long, is, as Mr McCarthy stated, sinuous in nature, following as it does for much of its length the inside coast of the Ards Peninsula. It is the main route servicing the peninsula, and passes through the villages of Greyabbey and Kircubbin. It carries a two-way traffic flow and is the main distributor road southwards on the Ards Peninsula.

Traffic flow decreases towards Portaferry. Although the most recent data shows that the traffic level just south of Newtownards stands at about 10,400 vehicles a day, at the Portaferry end it decreases to 2,700 vehicles a day. The road is a standard single carriageway on which the 60 miles an hour national speed limit applies — except through the villages to which I referred, where a 30 miles an hour speed limit applies. A large amount of holiday and leisure traffic uses the route at weekends and during the summer months. It is, therefore, an important road and commuter route for those who live on the peninsula. Although passing opportunities are severely limited by the road’s alignment, and slow-moving vehicles can cause driver frustration, no specific congestion occurs on the route.

The Roads Service recently carried out several improvement schemes on the route, directed at road safety. They include an environmental improvement scheme, costing £110,000, that was substantially completed in Greyabbey earlier this year. In addition to environmental aspects, that scheme also improved the profile of Lower Main Street and incorporated carriageway resurfacing, street lighting, a short length of footpath at the local primary school and improved signing to show the school’s proximity to the carriageway. I have noted some of Mr McCarthy’s criticisms, and I shall consider them.

Mr McCarthy also criticised the traffic-calming scheme that was completed in Kircubbin last month at a cost of £18,000. The scheme included the provision of entry gateway features, lay-by central road markers, kerb buildouts, colour surfacing and signing. I shall consider the Member’s criticism of the kerb buildouts.

A scheme costing £10,000 to provide higher friction surfacing and a crash barrier at a bend at Ballygarvan was completed in September 2001, and an £8,000 improvement scheme at Kelly’s Corner was completed in September 1999. In addition to those improvement schemes, during the past seven years the Roads Service has resurfaced, or surface-dressed, some five miles between Newtownards and Portaferry. That is about a quarter of the 19-mile route. That work cost approximately £300,000.

I was privileged to launch the new ferry, the MV Portaferry II, for the Strangford Lough ferry service last January. That was paid for by the Roads Service budget for the area. The new vessel cost approximately £2·7 million and was essential for the development of social and economic links between the Ards Peninsula and south Down.

As Members are aware, the resources available for the roads programme are finite, and funds for major road improvements are being targeted largely at schemes to upgrade the regional strategic transport network as defined in the regional development strategy. I would point out to Members who criticise the proposed regional transportation strategy — because we have not had that strategy yet — that there are no specific schemes for the area. The regional development strategy, which was unanimously supported by the Assembly, did not include the A20, so the Roads Service has no plans to upgrade the route significantly. The Roads Service recognised that it had to concentrate on the regional strategic transport network as opposed to other roads.

Resources available for those schemes would not permit a comprehensive realignment scheme, so any changes to the A20 would have to be carried out through minor road improvements or road maintenance schemes. That will require the Department to look at several issues, such as the realignments and accident reviews. We would also look at temporary calming assessment proposals as well as targeting accident sites for possible re-engineering. In that context, the Roads Service is assessing the feasibility of a bend realignment scheme at Ballygarvan. If the scheme is viable, it will be considered for possible inclusion in the future minor works programme. The Roads Service also plans to surface-dress a three quarter mile section of the A20 north of the Cunningham Road and south of the Mountstewart Road later this year.

Considering that it is not part of the regional strategic network, I trust that the investments that I have mentioned illustrate that my Department will continue to be committed to doing what is possible in the area using the available resources.

I would like to respond to some of the specific points raised in the debate. Mr McCarthy mentioned compensation, and that is always a matter of concern for those who seek compensation because their vehicles have been damaged but who do not automatically get it through the Department. However, that is only the first stage of the process, and people can challenge any decision by the Department for Regional Development in the courts. The Department has been severely criticised for paying out directly and without testing claims. It was criticised by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee in one case for meeting compensation claims. The Department is required to have objective criteria to determine whether payments are made.

The Member also asked the rhetorical question about where the car tax goes. However, he moved on quickly because I suspect he knows the answer. The money goes to the Exchequer; unfortunately, not to the Department for Regional Development. However, there has been some talk, although it has not amounted to much, that there will be some direct hypothecation for car tax. That would be desirable.

Mr Hamilton, the Member for Strangford, made a mean-spirited statement that did not relate to the subject, but as he has put it on the public record it is right that it should be answered. It is curious that someone who sneaked into the Assembly through the back door and who has no mandate to be here would call someone a temporary Member, even though that Member has been elected by the people and has a clear majority at Westminster.

The Member is more likely than any elected representative to be given that label. He was obviously never an accountant and is incapable of understanding statistics, or he would not have made those remarks. Those Strangford electors who live in Castlereagh will be interested to note how little he cares for their welfare. Those who live in Ards will not consider him to have done them any favours when they realise the way in which he mangled the statistics to reach that conclusion. If he had looked at the Roads Service budget for the Ards area as a whole, he would have seen that expenditure over the past three years has been greater in Ards than in Castlereagh. However, the Member managed to exclude parts of the roads budget, such as the expenditure on the Strangford ferry. He should not demean that, because it is only by its inclusion in the budget as a "road extension" that it can be paid for by the Department for Regional Development.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister give way?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will give way in a moment, but first I will really give the Member something to answer.

In addition, the Member did not bother to mention that I announced my Department’s intention to construct the Comber bypass at the cost of some £3 million to £4 million. If he were to add that to his figures, he might well find that it would be the people of Castlereagh who would be asking why they were getting the rough end of the stick. I will give way to the Member, and I hope that he has more sense this time.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister accept that the figures that I gave were from a written answer, provided by his Department?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

No, I do not accept that. Those figures were only part of the answer. If the Member cannot take the information in by listening, he might like to read it in the report of the proceedings. If he had listened to what I said, he would know that the total expenditure is greater than the sum of the figures that he added together. If he were to look at the total roads expenditure — rather than only the items that he decided to take into account — he would see that Ards comes ahead of Castlereagh.

As I pointed out to him, the further expenditure that has been announced by the Department for Regional Development for the Comber bypass will put Ards well ahead of Castlereagh. Therefore when those figures are produced for him, I hope that the Member will show as much interest in the Castlereagh electors of Strangford as he does in the Ards electors of Strangford.

The distribution of expenditure is decided objectively by the Roads Service professionals on the basis of the needs in the various areas of the Province. If the Member does not like money being spent on the regional strategic transport network, he will have to explain to his constituents why the Assembly unanimously supported it. I did not hear any voice from Strangford saying that it was the wrong policy to adopt.

It is also important to say that there has been a significant increase in the proposals for the Strangford constituency since devolution. I have heard no words of thanks or praise from the Member for the substantial increase since devolution and since I have had responsibility for the Department. It contrasts with the negligence during the years when his party had the Strangford parliamentary seat and, therefore, the responsibility for bringing infrastructural improvements into the area.

Various Members, including Mr Cedric Wilson and Mr Jim Shannon, spoke about road safety in the constituency, and it is a matter of significant concern. Believe it or not, I could quote the professional findings of the comparative road safety record for this area, as opposed to the rest of the Province. The figure is almost exactly the same as the Province-wide average, which is not a particularly high level. However, Members are right to say that it is still high. The road accident statistics for Northern Ireland are much higher than any Government Minister would find acceptable, and, therefore, we must deal with the problem.

We therefore have a policy. Road accidents occur for many different reasons. Road accidents are not always the fault of the road and are not always something that can be dealt with by a Minister. One determines whether it is the fault of the road by looking at road accident clusters. A cluster is a series of accidents that have occurred at the same spot over three years. However, there are no clusters on the peninsula. There have been several accidents, but they have not followed any particular locational pattern, which makes it more difficult to get an engineering response.

The issue raised by Cedric Wilson with regard to what I would describe as "incremental development" is a sleight of hand and is not restricted to developers on the peninsula. Many developers across the Province attempt to avoid any major infrastructural improvement by putting in a lower level of houses for development. Although the number they put in might be dealt with by the existing road network or by some minor changes to it, they still have to bring forward their further proposals. Those are then factored into the requirements for the infrastructure. If the two proposals together require major improvements, then the second part of their development must carry that infrastructural cost. Although they may get away in the smoke in the first instance, when they come back for the full scheme they will be caught.

My Department’s Roads Service will always give advice to the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service on these issues. However, as Minster, I am not satisfied with the present arrangements for developer contributions. Changes are required, not just for roads but for water as well. The proposed regional transport strategy has a section dealing with funding through developer contributions, and we need to look at these issues.

Mr Shannon made the point about pedestrian crossings. Both he and Mr McCarthy have raised the issue of a pedestrian crossing in this area with me, and I have agreed to look at this. Even with the technical advice I get, I find it very difficult to unravel the formula for pedestrian crossings, which is almost like an algebraic formula. If we are going to make people believe that we are following objective criteria, we require objective criteria that they understand. We need to get the road-speak out of the formula so that people can understand how the decisions are taken — what is the factor that can cause a change in the decision to put a pedestrian crossing in place or not. I am happy to look at that issue so that we can have a formula that is more easily understood and has greater public confidence.

Finally, I am aware that the Member of Parliament for the area has been seeking a meeting to look at these issues, and I will ensure that this meeting is set up and processed. We can arrange a site visit, as it is always much better to see these issues first-hand. We can then see what steps can be taken beyond those I have already referred to.

Adjourned at 4.49 pm