Northern Ireland Assembly, 5 June 2002

110 contributions from 38 members. The official report.

Public Petition

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

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

I beg leave to present to the Assembly a petition signed by over 1,000 North Belfast constituents objecting to a planning application to site a telecommunications mast at 138 Somerton Road, Belfast. The petition cites the potential health hazards, the loss of visual amenity and the adverse impact on the general environment as good reasons for opposing the mast. I support the campaign and present the petition to you, Mr Speaker, for forwarding to Mr Nesbitt, the Minister of the Environment.

Mr A Maginness moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Voting in Both Lobbies

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice from Hansard that after the debate on Tuesday 28 May on one elected position, one Member managed to take the subject of the debate to its logical conclusion and have his name recorded in both Lobbies. I refer to Mr McNamee who, according to Hansard, contrived to vote both for and against the motion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall look into the matter, but there is nothing to prevent a Member from voting in both Lobbies. In fact, if a Member concludes that he has voted in the wrong Lobby, the only way of correcting that is to negate that vote by voting in the other Lobby.

I shall, however, check whether this is an error in the Hansard record or, perhaps, the first time that a Member has availed himself or herself of the opportunity of voting more than once — a practice not entirely unknown in Northern Ireland outside of the Assembly Chamber.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. How do Members express their abstention from a vote? Pat McNamee’s understanding was that, to abstain from voting, Members must vote in both Lobbies. That was the reason for his decision.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is absolutely correct. The only way to ensure that an abstention is recorded is to vote in that way. There have been those in the past, as the Member will recall, who have gone to some very considerable lengths to abstain in person. It is something that is not unknown in certain parts of Northern Ireland either.

Human Organs Inquiry

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that she wishes to make a statement on the outcome of the human organs inquiry.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members have only just received copies of the bulky report and the statement on the outcome of the human organs inquiry, and there has not been appropriate time to consider them. Is there a mechanism that allows more time to be given to Members prior to —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. There is no requirement on a Minister to provide material in advance of a statement. The only requirement is for a Minister to present the intention and the subject of the statement to the Speaker two and a half hours in advance so that the Speaker can decide whether to permit it. The purpose of most statements is to make available new material that the Assembly may wish to debate on foot of a normal motion. It is not possible to accommodate the Member’s request.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is mian liom ráiteas a dhéanamh ar thoradh an fhiosrúcháin ar orgáin dhaonna. I ndiaidh domh an ráiteas seo a dhéanamh, scaipfear tuarascáil an fhiosrúcháin chuig Comhaltaí, chuig na teaghlaigh a tháinig chun tosaigh ar lorg freagraí, chuig an tSeirbhís Sláinte agus chuig an phobal i gcoitinne.

Inniu, tá an tuarascáil ar fhiosrúchán na n-orgán daonna á foilsiú ina hiomláine agam. Agus sin á dhéanamh agam, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Uasal John O’Hara QC, a bhí ina chathaoirleach ar an fhiosrúchán, do bhaill an fhiosrúcháin, don Ollamh Eithne McLaughlin agus do Paddy Kelly Uas, as a dhíograisí agus a bháúla a bhí siad agus iad i mbun an fhiosrúcháin thromchúisigh seo. Tá sé 15 mhí ó shin nach mór ó d’fhógair mé go raibh fiosrúchán na n-orgán daonna á chur sa tsiúl agam. Ag an am, rith sé liom chomh tábhachtach agus a bhí sé beart a dhéanamh go práinneach le tacú le cearta agus le mianta na dteaghlach sin ar mór an méala leo bás duine clainne agus lena chinntiú nach ndéanfaí neamart ná faillí iontu. Ba mhian liom chomh maith muinín an phobail as na nósanna imeachta iarbháis a chothú in athuair.

Mar gheall ar an chleachtas a bhíodh ann maidir le baint as agus coinneáil orgán, ní bhíodh deis ag teaghlaigh ceadú a bhí bunaithe ar an eolas a thabhairt, rud a mhéadaigh go mór ar an mhéala agus ar an fhulaingt. Chuaigh an cleachtas a bhíodh ann sa réimse seo i gcion ar bheatha móran gnáthdhaoine anseo. Ba le deireadh a chur leis an chleachtas a bhíodh ann san am a chuaigh thart agus le creat daingean a cheapadh a bheadh mar mhúnla don chleachtas sa todhchaí a chuir mé fiosrúchán reachtúil ar bun. Tasc tromchúiseach a bhí san fhiosrúchán seo agus tá mé faoi chomaoin ag foireann an fhiosrúcháin, a thug go bríomhar, macánta báúil faoin dúshlán. D’obair siad go gníomach i gcomhar leis na teaghlaigh sin ar bhain na seanchleachtais dóibh, agus rinne siad gach dícheall le teacht ar na fíorais agus le teacht ar bhealaí le cleachtas níos fearr a cheapadh don todhchaí.

Is cuntas cothrom, tomhaiste tuisceanach é an tuarascáil seo agus molaim go hard í. Ní amháin go ndírítear aird ar leith inti ar na heasnaimh a bhí ar an chleachtas san am a chuaigh thart, ach tugtar faoi chleachtas a fheabhsú, faoi chearta agus chosaintí nua a chur i bhfeidhm lena chinntiú go mbeidh seirbhís againn a mbeidh lánmhuinín ag an phobal uilig aisti. Cuirtear ceisteanna sa tuarascáil seo faoinár gcumas mar sheirbhís comhairliú agus tacaíocht chuí a sholáthar do dhaoine agus duine ceana dá gcuid ag fáil bháis. Cuirtear ceisteanna inti chomh maith faoi chumas ár seirbhísí sláinte freagairt go práinneach, báúil cuí nuair a tharlaíonn géarchéim nach bhfuiltear ag súil léi.

I ndiaidh domh tuarascáil an fhiosrúcháin a bhreithniú go cúramach, tá sé de rún agam a cuid moltaí a chur i bhfeidhm ina n-iomláine. Is mian liom aird a tharraingt ar chuid de na príomhréimsí i moltaí na tuarascála.

Ba chóir an tAcht um Fhíochán Daonna a aisghairm go huile agus go hiomlán. Glacaim go hiomlán le moltaí an fhiosrúcháin gur chóir reachtaíocht úr a chur in áit na reachtaíochta atá ann faoi láthair sa réimse seo. Tá mé ag déanamh bearta láithreacha le moltaí i leith reachtaíocht úr a thabhairt isteach de réir mar a mholtar sa tuarascáil. Tá sé de aidhm agam iad a bheith i gclár reachtaíochta an Tionóil do 2003-04.

Ba chóir don Roinn treoirlínte a eisiúint ar úsáid blocanna agus sleamhnán sa todhchaí taobh istigh de shé mhí agus a dhearbhú nár chóir aon taighde nua a bhaineann le hábhair dhaonna a cheadú gan cead follasach a fháil. Roimh dheireadh na bliana, eiseoidh mé treoirlínte i gcomhar leis na coistí um eitic taighde maidir le húsáid blocanna agus sleamhnán. Eiseoidh mé fosta socruithe stiúracha do choistí um eitic taighde níos moille i mbliana. Faoi na socruithe seo beidh gá roimh ré le ceadú eitice le haghaidh aon taighde chliniciúil bheartaithe ina mbeidh úsáideoirí na Seirbhíse Sláinte páirteach agus atá á dhéanamh ag aon ollscoil nó ag aon fhoireann de chuid na Seirbhíse Sláinte.

Ba chóir do iontaobhais foirmeacha toilithe aonfhoirmeacha agus bileoga eolais a thabhairt isteach. Caithfear na dréachtaí deiridh a aontú le grúpa tagartha na ngaolta. D’iarr mé ar mo chuid feidhmeannach foirmeacha nua toilithe a ullmhú chomh maith le cáipéisí treorach agus cáipéisí comhairle, agus foilseofar iad roimh dheireadh 2002.

Chomh maith leis seo, aithním an ról luachmhar atá ag grúpa tagartha na ngaolta, a bhunaigh mé go príomha le tacaíocht a chur ar fáil do thuismitheoirí a bhfuair leanbh dá gcuid bás; ba sin a bhí ar intinn agam nuair a chuir mé an fiosrúchán ar bun. Déanfaidh mé leathnú ar a ról de réir mholtaí na tuarascála. Chuige sin, déanfaidh mé foirmealú ar an mhaoiniú a thugtar dó agus cuirfidh mé leis an am a bhí leagtha amach dó le go gclúdóidh sé an tréimhse idir seo agus teacht i bhfeidhm na reachtaíochta úire. Déanfar athmhúnlú ar théarmaí tagartha an ghrúpa a léireoidh an ról a bheidh aige san am atá le teacht.

Caithfidh iontaobhais a chur in iúl don Roinn gach bliain go bhfuil cleachtas iarbháis á chur i bhfeidhm de réir phrionsabail na tuarascála. Iarrfaidh mé forógra bliantúil ar iontaobhais maidir leis seo; agus déanfaidh mé mo mhacnamh ar cheanglas reachtúil a dhéanamh de seo faoin Acht um Fhíochán Daonna úr.

Ba chóir don Roinn tabhairt faoi fheachtas ilmheáin dhá bhliana le cur in iúl do thuismitheoirí gur féidir leo blocanna agus sleamhnáin a iarraidh ar ais. Coimisiúnóidh mé feachtas den chineál i gcomhar le grúpa tagartha na ngaolta a gcuirfear tús leis san fhómhar.

Tá moltaí ar leith ann maidir le feachtais oideachais agus faisnéise, lena n-áirítear: an Roinn an pobal a chur ar an eolas faoi scrúduithe iarbháis; oiliúint éigeantach á cur ar fhoireann chnáimhseachais, ar fhoireann nua-naíoch agus ar fhoireann phéidiatraiceach maidir le brón agus méala othair; agus socruithe ionduchtaithe do dhochtúirí nua, lena n-áirítear oiliúint éigeantach ar bhealaí le toiliú láneolach a fháil.

Beidh mo chuid feidhmeannach ag obair go díreach le Coláiste Ríoga na Paiteolaíochta, Ollscoil na Ríona, Béal Feirste, le Comhairle na nIarchéimithe um Oideachas agus Oiliúint TÉ agus le heagraíochtaí oiliúna eile agus le grúpa tagartha na ngaolta. D’iarr mé orthu teacht aníos le moltaí daingne i ngach ceann de na réimsí seo faoi fhómhar na bliana seo. Tá rún daingean agam moltaí an fhiosrúcháin faoi chúrsaí oiliúna a chur i bhfeidhm agus clár oideachais/feasachta pobail a cheapadh le toiseacht níos moille i mbliana.

Agus an tuarascáil agus a cuid moltaí á mbreithniú agam, chuaigh sé i gcion go mór orm an méid a bhí le rá san fhiosrúchán in alt 8.8, ainneoin go n-aithnítear an tionchur an-diúltach a bhí ag an chonspóid, ar sholáthar seirbhíse cuí paiteolaíochta:

Is de dhlúth is de inneach soláthar cuí Seirbhíse Sláinte Náisiúnta iad scrúduithe iarbháis. Tá tábhacht ag baint leo don phobal i gcoitinne, ach i gcás teaghlach áirithe tá siad ríthábhachtach.

Is fearr inniu ná riamh an córas atá i bhfeidhm anseo le toiliú le haghaidh scrúdú iarbháis a fháil ó ghaolta agus le heolas, comhairle agus comhairliú a thabhairt do na gaolta sin.

Tá ról barrthábhachtach ag scrúduithe iarbháis agus ag coinneáil blocanna agus samplaí fíocháin — ach ceadú cuí a fháil — má tá togha an chleachtais chliniciúil le forbairt agus má tá feabhas le cur ar shláinte othar. Luaitear samplaí sa tuarascáil den dóigh ar cuireadh chun cinn eolas cliniciúil agus ar sábháladh beatha naíonán de bharr cleachtais den chineál seo.

Luaitear san fhiosrúchán agus luaigh roinnt teaghlach a dteachaidh coinneáil orgán i gcion orthu an imní a bhí orthu nach raibh na socruithe ann le déileáil leis an tuile fiosrúchán a tháinig amach i ndiaidh an t-ábhar seo a theacht chun solais an chéaduair; agus aithním an imní sin. Tá sé tábhachtach go ndéanfaidh an taithí seo ár súile dúinn sa tSeirbhís Sláinte. Chuige sin, tá mé ag scríobh chuig cathaoirligh uilig na n-iontaobhas á iarraidh orthu athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar na socruithe atá acu le tabhairt faoi ghéarchéimeanna nach bhfuiltear ag súil leo lena chinntiú go bhfuil pleananna acu freagar láithreach, éifeachtach cuí a thabhairt ar a leithéid de éigeandáil thobann. Beidh dearbhú air seo á iarraidh agam ina bhforógra bliantúil faoi chleachtas iarbháis. Tá rún agam plean gníomhaíochta a dhréachtú ina leagfar amach sceideal do na gníomhaíochtaí atá luaite thuas, agus cuirfidh mé Coiste Sláinte an Tionóil ar an eolas faoi sin sna seachtainí amach romhainn.

Tríd is tríd, creidim gur freagra cuimsitheach ar thuarascáil an fhiosrúcháin iad na gníomhaíochtaí a chuir mé os coinne an Tí inniu. Molaim an tuarascáil agus iarraim ar Chomhaltaí a thabhairt dá n-aire na gníomhaíochtaí atá beartaithe agam lena moltaí uilig a chur i bhfeidhm.

I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the human organs inquiry. Following the statement, the inquiry’s report will be circulated to Members, to the families who came forward seeking answers, to the Health Service and to the public.

Today, I am publishing in full the report of the human organs inquiry. In doing so I record my thanks to the chairperson of the inquiry, Mr John O’Hara QC, and to its members, Prof Eithne McLaughlin and Ms Paddy Kelly, for undertaking this difficult task with rigour and sensitivity.

It is nearly 15 months since I announced the establishment of the human organs inquiry. At the time, I was struck by the importance of taking urgent action to support the rights and expectations of families who had been touched by the intense sadness of the death of a loved one and to ensure that they were not set aside or ignored. I also wanted to rebuild public confidence in post mortem procedures. Past practice, involving the removal and retention of organs, did not enable families to give informed consent and led to a great deal of additional grief and suffering. The impact of that practice has affected the lives of many ordinary people here.

I established the inquiry to draw a line under past practices and to develop a firm framework for shaping future practice. The inquiry was not an easy task, and I am grateful to the team, which took up the challenge with energy, integrity and sympathy. Its members actively engaged with families who had been affected by former practices and were industrious in establishing the facts and devising solutions for developing better future practice. I commend the report as a balanced, measured and thoughtful account of past practice. Its focus was not restricted to finding out where past practice had been deficient; it also considered how to improve practice and build in new rights and safeguards to ensure that the service has the full confidence of everyone.

The report raises important questions about the service’s capacity to provide proper counselling and support for next of kin at the time of a loved one’s death. It also raises questions about our Health Service’s ability to provide urgent, sympathetic and appropriate responses when faced with unexpected crises.

Having given careful consideration to the inquiry’s report, I will implement its recommendations in full. I want to draw particular attention to several key areas covered by them. The Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 should be repealed in its entirety. I fully accept the inquiry’s recommendations on replacing the current legislation, and I am taking immediate steps to initiate the process of introducing proposals for new legislation along the lines recommended. I aim to include this in the Assembly’s 2003-04 legislative programme.

The Department should issue guidelines on the future use of blocks and slides within six months, and no research involving new human material should be permitted without explicit consent being obtained. I will issue guidelines on the use of blocks and slides before the end of the year in consultation with the research ethics committees. I will also be issuing new governance arrangements for research ethics committees later this year requiring prior ethical approval for any proposed clinical research involving Health Service users conducted by university or Health Service staff.

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

Trusts should introduce uniform consent forms and information leaflets, the final drafts of which must be cleared with the Relatives Reference Group. I have asked my officials to prepare new consent forms, supporting guidance and advice documents for issue before the end of 2002. Alongside that, I recognise the invaluable role played by the Relatives Reference Group, which I set up at the same time as the inquiry primarily to offer support to bereaved parents. I will now develop its role in line with the recommendations of the inquiry, formalising its funding and extending it to cover the period up until the new legislation comes into force. The group’s remit will also be recast to reflect its future role.

Trusts must inform the Department annually that post mortem practice has been in accordance with the principles of the report. I will require trusts to make an annual declaration to that effect. I will also consider making that a statutory requirement under the new human tissue legislation. The Department should engage in a two-year multimedia campaign informing relatives that they may reclaim blocks and slides. I will commission the development of such a campaign, in liaison with the Relatives Reference Group, to be initiated in the autumn.

There are separate recommendations on education and information campaigns. They involve the Department educating the public about post mortems; obstetric, neonatal, and paediatric staff receiving mandatory training in patient grief and bereavement; and induction arrangements for new doctors, including mandatory training on obtaining fully informed consent. My officials will work directly with the Royal College of Pathology; Queen’s University, Belfast; the Northern Ireland Postgraduate Council for Education and Training; other training organisations; and the Relatives Reference Group to address those issues. I have asked them to come up with firm proposals in all of those areas by the autumn. I am committed to meeting the inquiry’s recommendations on training and to developing a public education and awareness programme for commencement later in the year.

In considering the report and its recommendations, I was struck by the statement in paragraph 8.8 that, despite the very negative impact that the controversy has had on the delivery of a proper pathology service

"Post mortems remain an important and integral part of the proper provision of a National Health Service. They are important to the public generally but to some families they are essential … The system of obtaining consent from relatives to a post mortem and informing, advising and counselling those relatives has never been better in Northern Ireland than it is today."

Post mortem examinations and the retention, with appropriate consent, of blocks and tissue samples are crucial to building and developing better clinical practice and improving health outcomes for patients. The inquiry report cites examples where such practices have advanced clinical knowledge and saved children’s lives.

I recognise the concerns expressed by the inquiry, and by some families affected by organ retention, that arrangements for managing the flood of enquiries when the issue first arose were deficient. It is important that the Health Service learn from experience. With that in mind, I am writing to all trust chairpersons, asking them to review their arrangements for dealing with unexpected crises to ensure that they have plans in place to respond quickly, effectively and appropriately to any sudden requirement of that nature. I will be asking them to include an assurance to that effect in their annual declarations regarding post mortem practice.

I intend to draw up an action plan to provide a schedule for the actions that have been outlined, and I will share that with the Assembly’s Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the coming weeks. I believe that, taken together, the actions that I have outlined today represent a comprehensive response to the inquiry report. I commend the report and invite Members to note my proposed actions to implement its recommendations in full.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Before I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I remind Members that this is an opportunity to ask questions, not to make additional comments or statements.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I welcome the human organs inquiry, which was chaired by Mr John O’Hara. I also welcome the Minister’s statement that she will take on board all the report’s recommendations. However, I am disappointed that, as far as I am aware, neither my Committee colleagues nor I had a chance to examine the report or the Minister’s statement earlier this morning. However, it is important that the report has been published. I also take on board your point, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I hope that the report and the implementation of the recommendations will bring to an end almost two years of heartache for families. The psychological trauma has been massive and many hospital staff have tried hard to help and console those most directly affected. There must be proper and informed consent.

The Minister referred to the repeal of the Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. The Department issued guidelines on the retention of blocks and slides and uniform consent forms throughout Northern Ireland. The Minister and the Committee have commented on that. Has a specific timetable been drawn up? The Minister has said that she will consult with the Committee. How will she ensure that the Committee is fully consulted and that it will have a part to play in advising the Minister on actions to be taken by her Department?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

This morning, I asked officials to inform the Committee Clerk that I will send the action plan to the Committee. I will work with the Committee, and I will ensure that it is involved fully.

With regard to a specific timetable, it is clear that if we want to include legislation in the 2003-04 Assembly timetable, we must examine the recommendations immediately. We must work with all those that the inquiry has recommended in order to ensure that the usual processes are progressed so that legislation can be included in the timetable.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I recognise the efforts that are being made to alleviate the pain and grief of the next of kin. However, will the Minister assure the House that the time taken to return organs after a post mortem will be reduced to an acceptable level, including a specific date for the return of the organs so that families can plan the second part of the funeral service?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will ensure that the best of current good practice is used throughout health and personal social services. Coroners’ post mortems are not within the remit of the Executive — we have no powers over coroners. However, I will send the report to the coroners and to the Northern Ireland Court Service, and I expect it to be an important input into the review of coroners’ powers and duties.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

According to the report, the scandal has resulted in fewer people consenting to post mortems, fewer people agreeing to donate their organs after death, and a decline in the number of pathologists because of the "siege" that they appear to be under. What is the Department doing to

"encourage doctors to think afresh about careers in pathology"?

Will the Minister give us the relevant statistics on the decline in the number of pathologists, the number of post mortems that have been refused and the number of organ donations?

Paragraphs 6.30 and 6.31 of the report are entitled ‘What do the Relatives want?’ That section states that relatives want recognition and apologies for what happened. Can the Minister, to use the word that seems to be avoided at all costs — "sorry"— express her sorrow to the relatives, as that would be very helpful to them?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I draw the Member’s attention to the public apology I made on TV earlier this year when I announced that the inquiry was to be set up. I have no difficulty in ensuring that the relatives hear it again today, as I ensured they heard it then. I am extremely sorry for what happened, and I will make every effort to ensure that our service is carried out in a way that enables the next of kin to give fully informed consent. I shall ensure that all the matters drawn to the attention of the inquiry are fully addressed.

I do not have the relevant statistics to hand; however, the current problems in paediatric pathology are not specific to the North. I recognise the difficulties being faced by the paediatric pathology service and the additional pressures on it since the issue of organ removal and retention was highlighted. It is crucial that confidence in the service be restored if we are to attract new medical students to pathology. The report makes several recommendations, and an action plan is being prepared to put those recommendations into effect. In the meantime, my Department is working with boards and trusts to try to resolve the current difficulties and to restore full services as soon as possible.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement and for her commitment to implement the report’s recommendations in full. It is almost 15 months since the scandal first came to light and since the Minister took action. Will those who are responsible for past failings be held accountable, because there is an issue about future breaches of practice? Queen’s University failed to declare that it had retained organs or tissue until the eleventh hour. Has the Minister had any contact with the Minister responsible for Queen’s University? Go raibh maith agat.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The report has not called for any specific action to be taken against individuals. However, if any evidence of inappropriate conduct by specific individuals is brought to my attention, I shall consider it carefully. The main focus of my follow-up action will be to ensure that identified system failures are put right and that deficiencies in the legislation are corrected.

The report made recommendations about the Human Tissue Act 1962 and proposed introducing new legislation. A new law will be drafted to introduce legal sanctions that will be used in the event of individuals and organisations acting in breach of the Act’s provisions.

The report mentions several organisations. However, I have not spoken to Carmel Hanna about Queen’s University. I said in reply to a previous question that I will send a copy of the report to the coroner and the Court Service. I shall also send a copy to Queen’s University.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Alliance Party welcomes the report. It is unfortunate that so many families have suffered such unnecessary pain, especially in recent days in the wake of further revelations. That has put enormous strain on the families concerned. Let us hope that the report’s implementation will — [Interruption].

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order. Mr McCarthy, are you coming to your question?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Minister’s apology to the families on behalf of the Department. I hope that it will go some way towards alleviating their worries.

Does the Minister agree that the outcome of this sorry saga has been a severe reduction in human organ donation throughout Northern Ireland, thus depriving many patients of that life-saving facility? If so, what action will she take to increase the number of organ donations to a reasonable level?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I would not like to give the impression that the levels of organ donation have become unsatisfactory — they are far from it. I am pleased that people continue to donate organs. In the past year, I have done several things to promote organ donation, and I shall continue to do so.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It may go some way to address the grief that parents have been through because of bereavement.

I note that the Minister said that the Relatives Reference Group may be included in the now mandatory training for obstetric, neonatal and paediatric staff, as well as in the induction arrangements for new doctors. After all, nobody is better placed than the parents to be involved in that training. It may not be enough for the Department to speak to the Royal College of Pathology and to the Postgraduate Council for Education and Training. On all future occasions, where possible, we must continue to involve the relatives.

Will the Minister answer Mr Coulter’s question on the time lag with post-mortems that exists as a result of the stress that the paediatric pathologist at the Royal Victoria Hospital has been put under? I have received letters from parents who are still grieving because they have not received the results of post-mortems — the wait goes on and on as a direct result of what has happened.

It is not sufficient for the Minister simply to send a copy of the report to the coroner. That is not joined-up government. Although the matter is reserved, we must take devolution seriously. I ask the Minister to include the coroner in any interdepartmental arrangements for implementing the recommendations, because the recent scandal over Queen’s University’s discovery that it had not submitted all its evidence had to do with the fact that some of that evidence comes directly from the coroner’s office —

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I believe that the Member posed a question at the beginning of that personal statement.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Mr Deputy Speaker, everything that I said led to a question. If you look at Hansard, you will find that there was no statement. Everything I said led to a question.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have no difficulty whatsoever with people from the coroner’s office taking part in any group that I set up to examine future practice. However, I reiterate that the Executive have no powers over coroners. As I explained when the details of the inquiry were announced, coroners’ post-mortems are covered by separate legislation — they are not within my remit as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. However, I shall do all that I can to ensure that we have the best possible practice.

With regard to the time lag, I have already said that I shall do all that I can to ensure best practice and to ensure that relatives can have the results of post-mortems as quickly as possible. I shall also ensure that, through future work and through addressing the recommendations on respect to the Relatives Reference Group, relatives can become fully involved in future work if they wish.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I hope that it gives closure to those parents who were so sadly bereaved. Having attended the first public inquiry, I saw real grief on the faces of the young people who had to give evidence. It was quite traumatic. I also witnessed chief executives say that they were guilty and that they were sorry. I hope that such an inquiry need never happen again.

I am glad that the Minister took the opportunity this morning to apologise once again to those relatives. How will she ensure that grieving parents will have all the information that they require before being asked to sign for a post-mortem? Last week’s disclosures of the amount of tissue and the number of foetuses laid aside were disturbing. Will the Minister ensure that there will be no more disclosures of that nature?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I reiterate that matters of practice at Queen’s University are the responsibility of the Department for Employment and Learning, and are for the Minister to comment on. A thorough and open investigation will lay the foundation for the future and will help to ensure that public confidence is restored.

The key improvements will include developments in post-mortem practice and procedure, and the introduction of new legislation that ensures that the principle of fully informed consent is at the core of the service. There will be new accountability arrangements, development of training for all staff involved in patient care and post- mortems and public education and information programmes aimed at raising awareness and understanding of the practice of post-mortems.

I am confident that the inquiry’s recommendations will, when implemented, work towards increasing public confidence in the service and ensuring the highest possible standards.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. The subject is highly sensitive and emotive, and I urge the Minister to consider, and perhaps outline to the House, methods by which we can investigate ways in which coroners’ reports and research carried out at Queen’s University can be made subject to the new regulations. The matter remains one of great concern to many people. The House and the public will be reassured if real joined-up government can be brought into effect on that matter.

Will the Minister confirm that post-mortems that include the removal of the heart will be subject to the new regulations? Will she confirm that relatives will be informed of all procedures affecting their loved ones before and after they are carried out? Are the dates given by the Minister for the repeal of the Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 and for the introduction of new legislation the earliest on which that can be done? Must blocks and slides be reclaimed or will they be automatically returned to the relatives?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The inquiry has recommended that there should be a two-year multimedia awareness campaign to ensure that relatives are aware that they can reclaim blocks and slides. It emerged during the inquiry that some people do not wish to be approached, and that the appropriate way forward is to make the information available so that those who wish to reclaim can do so.

The dates that I have given for the introduction of new legislation are the earliest possible dates.

As regards coroners’ reports and the research at Queen’s University, I shall do my best to ensure joined-up government. However, I am here to answer questions on matters that fall within my remit. It is not that I do not wish to answer other questions. I am neither able nor empowered to answer questions on matters that fall within the remit of another Department. I shall do my best to ensure that everything that I have responsibility for will be done.

Work has already begun on measures to standardise procedures for post-mortems.

I made it clear that all hospital post-mortem examinations must be covered by fully informed consent. That has been endorsed by the inquiry. I have asked departmental officials to review the Human Tissue Act 1962 in line with the inquiry’s recommendations. Other measures will be required to develop how consent to a post-mortem is obtained and by whom, ways in which health professionals can respond and how post-mortems are recorded and reported. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will work with health professionals, trusts and other key interested parties to ensure that those important measures are expedited. By working with the Relatives Reference Group, the Department will ensure that the measures are developed appropriately.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Points of order will be taken at the end.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I refer the Minister to my point about the removal of heart organs.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister wish to respond?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Work will be undertaken with all key stakeholders to determine how we proceed with new guidance.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The idea of organ donations has been seriously damaged by the discovery made 15 months ago. How does the Minister propose to restore confidence in that successful and essential way to extend useful life?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

In 1999, there were 20 organ donors. In 2000, there were 21 and, in 2001, there were 33. The figures speak for themselves. The number of organ donations continues to rise. I refer the Member to answers that I gave this morning on public awareness of the issue and on the greater weight that is being given to asking people to donate their organs.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I preface my question by thanking the inquiry membership and staff for this comprehensive report, and I thank the Minister for her comprehensive statement. It is hoped that both those statements will begin to put to rest the emotional trauma that the scandal of the organ retention issue has caused the families of those affected. I also welcome the Minister for Employment and Learning’s attendance this morning. Her presence will perhaps mark the beginning of addressing what happened at Queen’s University and the trauma that was caused by its late disclosures on organ retention.

I thank the Minister for her support for the families and the Relatives Reference Group. Does the Minister intend to put in train compensation for those who have been affected by the scandal?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Individual families may decide whether they wish to pursue compensation.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Alongside the crucial point of trying to alleviate the suffering of concerned relatives, the Assembly should also recognise the value to medical teaching and medical research — hence the long-term health of the entire population — of having an archive of blocks and slides. Considering that, does the Minister agree that where the identity of materials cannot be established and where families do not ask for the return of organs after the two-year publicity and media campaign proposed in the report, the archive collections — as at Queen’s University Belfast, for instance — should be maintained for the general good?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I recognise the benefits that arise, and I have referred to them in my statement. The inquiry dealt specifically with that issue. In future, any research that involves human materials for which explicit consent has not been given should not be permitted. The inquiry’s terms on that are very clear. As part of its recommendations, it requests a two-year multimedia campaign to ensure that those who wish to reclaim tissue and organs that are being held know that they can reclaim them. The inquiry was explicit in recognising that it would not be of benefit that that possibility should be lost to medical science.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The report clearly defines that there has been a loss of confidence in the system as a result of the revelations about past practices. There is a target date of 2003-04 for the implementation of new legislation. Can we have an assurance that the new legislation will be the Department’s number one priority? How realistic is that date? Public confidence should be restored; that is paramount. Every effort must be made to ensure that the target date of 2003-04, which is going on to the legislative programme, will be met. It is only by the introduction of new legislation that some degree of confidence will be restored to the public and, in particular, to those who are most affected.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is my aim that the legislation should be included in the Assembly’s 2003-04 legislative programme. However, that is not the only issue that the Department will address. In reply to an earlier question, I reported that key improvements will include not only the introduction of new legislation but new accountability arrangements, development in post-mortem practice and procedures and a public education information programme to make next of kin aware of what a post-mortem consists of and the safeguards that are in place. There will also be training for all staff involved in patient care and post-mortems.

In the next few weeks, I shall announce new proposals that arise from the consultation document ‘Best Practice, Best Care’. They will be aimed at ensuring that appropriate governance arrangements are in place in health and personal social services to provide assurances about the quality of health and social services delivered here. That will include arrangements for improved governance covering research conducted by, or within, health and personal social services organisations.

Executive Position Report

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have received notice from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the Executive position report.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Deputy First Minister and I wish to make a statement on the issues that will affect the Executive’s work to develop a Programme for Government and Budget for the financial year 2003-04 and beyond.

In his statement to the Assembly on 4 March 2002, the Minister of Finance and Personnel identified the main stages for this year’s Programme for Government and Budget cycle. A key first phase is the development of the Executive’s position report on the Programme for Government and Budget, which has been made available to all Members this morning.

The position report reflects our commitment, under the agreement, to agree each year a programme that incorporates an agreed Budget. It gives the Executive an opportunity to outline for the Assembly’s consideration the key issues affecting public services, which should influence the preparation of the next Programme for Government and the Budget that will support it. The report formally launches the consultation, with the Assembly and others, on the next Programme for Government and the Budget.

The position report is distinct from the annual report; the number of reports on this subject can result in confusion. The annual report, which will be produced before the end of this month, outlines the Executive’s performance in the past year on their first Programme for Government: where progress has, or has not, been made; reasons, where appropriate, for any lack of progress; and the action that has been taken. The position report projects how the Executive can refine their priorities in the Programme for Government to target more effectively the resources in the Budget in order to deliver progress.

The development of the Programme for Government has been continuous. Less than six months ago, the Assembly endorsed the current programme, which focuses on the financial year 2002-03, and its implementation began just over two months ago. The current cycle represents an important opportunity. For the first time, we intend to set plans for a three-year period, which will be informed by a more thorough analysis of the needs and effectiveness of our major public service programmes. Our approach will depend on the conclusion of the negotiations on the Treasury spending review, which will be known next month.

In December, the Executive indicated, through their spending plans for 2003-04, their determination to change the pattern of public services in order to reflect more fully the priorities of the Programme for Government. In addition, the reinvestment and reform initiative, which we launched on 2 May, adds several new dimensions to the debate that is needed on how our public services develop under the Executive and the Assembly, in co-operation with the North/South Ministerial Council and the other structures created under the agreement.

The development and annual revision of the Programme for Government, incorporating the Budget, is the core task of the Administration. Through that, they set out their policy direction, plans and priorities for the years ahead. Those plans and priorities will, in turn, inform budgetary decisions. We seek to develop, among the four parties in the Administration, a collective direction of agreed priorities, through which we shall continue to build the basis of the new democracy. Through discussion, debate and consultation, in the Chamber and further afield, we seek to draw together the views of the Assembly and society on the priorities for Northern Ireland.

The position report reflects clearly the Executive’s desire to focus debate on the quality of our public services, and to ensure that those are fairly and effectively administered. We emphasise the need for investment in infrastructure; the desire to improve service delivery; the importance of tackling social exclusion, especially poverty; and of working in partnership with others. We want to deliver reinvestment and reform that will result in high-quality public services. The reinvestment and reform initiative provides an opportunity for us to invest substantially in improving and modernising our infrastructure. In allocating resources, we need to identify closely the reforms that may be required and their potential outcomes. The Executive are already committed to reviewing the structure of public administration, which involves considering the types of structures that best serve the needs of Northern Ireland and how we might improve efficiency to allow resources to be focused where they are most needed.

As we said in our statement on the reinvestment and reform initiative, resources and reform must go together. The position report makes that clear. It sets out the Executive’s determination to articulate their vision for public services and to explain how they might reform those services and improve their quality. The position report also underlines their commitment to ensure that everyone can share the benefits that should flow from the investment and reforms that they want to see.

The Executive recognise that, for too long, poverty has blighted the lives of too many people. They remain committed to developing policies and programmes, to allocating resources to support them and to focusing on areas and people in greatest objective social need — in line with targeting social need (TSN). The position report also recognises the need to see how different Departments can best work together in that and with other partners. The Executive rely on others, such as local government, business and the voluntary and community sectors, to help them to deliver the Programme for Government. It is right that those relationships should be developed.

The Executive’s work to develop and agree the Programme for Government and the Budget does not take place in a vacuum. Important contextual issues need to be understood, reflected in the Executive’s work and taken account of by the Assembly and others in response to the position report. First is the financial context. The position report explains that the spending power available to the Executive for the years 2003-04 to 2005-06 will be largely determined by the outcome of the 2002-03 spending review. It is understood that that will be announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July 2002. The Executive’s key reference point, and the baseline for the entire process, will be the spending plans for 2003-04. Those were first set out in the spending review for 2000 and were updated and converted to resource accounting and budgeting stage 2 classifications to provide the foundation for that spending review, which will set revised plans for 2003-04 and new plans for the two succeeding financial years.

The Chancellor’s Budget announcement on 17 April 2002 has already provided significant additions for the period from 2003-04 to 2007-08 — arising from the application of the Barnett formula to the allocations for services in England and Wales. The Chancellor has also given signals of the likely outcome of the spending review. He has confirmed that the Treasury envisages real growth in spending over the spending review period — growth that is over and above the provision that has already been made for the Health Service. That suggests that there will be further limited additions for public expenditure in total and hence, through the Barnett formula, for Northern Ireland. The precise amount will depend on the outcome of discussions with, and within, the Treasury.

Even limited growth in spending could lead to substantial additional spending for Northern Ireland in 2004-05 and 2005-06 if the Chancellor applies the increase to spending areas that are comparable with our programmes. However, if he is obliged to use the spending power that is available for annually-managed expenditure, such as social security benefits or debt interest, or for spending on defence and other non-comparable programmes, additional amounts available to the Executive will be much more limited.

There are, of course, other contexts for our work. With regard to the economic context, it is encouraging that over the past year our economy has performed well. Employment is at a record high, and unemployment is approaching the lowest level for a generation. However, the impact of foot-and-mouth disease and global economic uncertainty have constrained progress in some areas — Northern Irish firms face difficult trading conditions, particularly in industries in which there has been a worldwide decline in trade. That has contributed to problems in manufacturing output. Agriculture and tourism have also experienced declines in earnings as a result of foot-and-mouth disease and the wider economic and fiscal environment. While there has been a modest improvement in the past year, farming is still well short of levels seen during the mid-1990s.

The outlook for the economy over the next few years is reasonably benign. Growth is expected to accelerate in 2002-03. However, the Assembly needs to understand the conditions in which we currently operate. We need to be able to identify the economic challenges we are likely to face, and we need to develop our proposals for tackling those challenges as we take forward the Programme for Government and the Budget.

We also need to be aware of the social and environmental contexts — we know the challenges too well. I have already highlighted our determination to focus on poverty and social exclusion, but our work must also reflect responsibilities to promote good relations within and between communities. We also need to be aware of wider environmental issues and ensure that the principle of sustainable development underpins everything that we do.

The position report, which Members will be considering in Committees in the weeks ahead, recognises the importance of ensuring that the Programme for Government reflects the economic, social and environmental challenges that we face. It provides an appropriate, relevant and evidence-based policy framework for decisions on financial allocations and for departmental work programmes. To that end, the Programme for Government must set out a thorough analysis of the context in which we work.

The report also needs to explore, and seeks views on, the Executive’s priorities and sub-priorities. It is important that the priorities we set reflect and keep pace with the changing environment. The current priorities, which have received broad support here and from social partners, continue to provide a useful framework for our work. However, we want to explore ways in which we might refine our overall economic and social strategies.

The Executive are not solely content with setting out a work programme for the years ahead. We are also committed to maintaining a focus on measuring results and assessing impact. Our first two programmes have sought not only to explain the policy priorities that we have identified, but have also clearly set out the actions that we will take to deliver those priorities and the sub-priorities that support them.

We have gone further. The priorities incorporate public service agreements (PSAs) that aim to set out targets reflecting the key outcomes that Departments want to achieve with the resources voted to them by the Assembly. The PSAs are, in turn, supported by service delivery agreements (SDAs) for each Department, which explain the actions that each Department will take in order to deliver its Programme for Government commitments and PSA targets and to raise standards.

Open and accountable government is, and should be, a defining characteristic of the Executive. We want to be responsive, to listen to the views of others and to ensure that the Assembly and the public can see the benefits that a locally accountable Executive can deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The position report, therefore, seeks views on current arrangements for measuring results and the effectiveness of those arrangements.

To further underline that commitment to open and accountable government, we will shortly be bringing a full report on the progress made during the first year of our programme to the Assembly. It will provide information on the actions contained in the programme and the targets in the 11 departmental PSAs. We will also be making the report more widely available so that the public can assess our progress.

We are also determined that the programme should continue to reflect our responsibility to promote equality of opportunity and good relations. The position report, therefore, seeks views on the equality aspects of the issues that we have raised and how those can best be taken into account as we develop the Programme for Government and the Budget.

Today’s statement does not only provide a starting point for the Assembly’s consideration of the position report; it also represents the start of a process of wider consultation on those issues. It is crucial that we have the views of the Assembly on the issues raised in the report. But in keeping with the theme of partnership that I mentioned, it is worth noting that we also recognise the value of a wider debate. For that reason, we intend to make the position report more widely available following this statement, sharing it with our social partners and our colleagues in local government and with other interested organisations and individuals.

The position report sets out the timescale for providing views on the issues that it raises. We will need comments from Committees on issues that relate to the Programme for Government before the end of August. As was the case last year, the Committee for Finance and Personnel will co-ordinate the comments on the associated resource issues, and we will be seeking those comments before the end of July. We look forward, of course, to receiving the views of Assembly Committees and of individual MLAs.

I have outlined some of the key issues that we must address as we develop the Executive’s Programme for Government. The Deputy First Minister will now elaborate on some of those matters, particularly those that relate to the financial context in which we operate.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I support the First Minister’s statement, and I will develop some of the themes that he covered in his opening remarks. In particular, I would like to focus on the financial context in which we find ourselves and on the resource issues that the Executive have highlighted in their position report on the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond.

The Budget that was agreed by the Assembly in December 2001 set "indicative minima" figures for Departments for 2003-04. By holding back some £125 million of available spending power at that time, we retained the option of making changes in our expenditure programmes to reflect local needs and priorities and to maintain a significant degree of flexibility.

Aside from the money that remains unallocated from the Chancellor’s Budget, we are committed to maximising other immediate sources of funding available for allocation to services. For this Budget cycle and for the longer term, we are taking important action to improve the quality of public services and get better value from the resources available to us. That includes the needs and effectiveness evaluations, which are being carried out in health and social care, education, housing, training and vocational education, financial assistance to industry and culture, arts and leisure. Those six areas account for about 75% of planned public expenditure here.

Important issues must also be addressed in agriculture, regional transportation, water and sewerage services, long-term unemployment and the work of the employability task force, hospital services and the review of post-primary education. The Executive are scheduled to receive evaluations on those major areas of work in the next couple of months.

The evaluations will also be important for informing the Executive as they make funding decisions about the 2002 Budget. Although changing strategic direction or skewing resources to new areas of expenditure takes time and careful planning, the Executive are determined to make a real difference and to reshape public expenditure to support key priorities. Reports from each study will be made available to the Assembly and more widely.

The First Minister referred to the reinvestment and reform initiative or RRI, which will provide a unique opportunity for a substantial infrastructure investment programme. Many of our services, especially health, education and transport, require levels of capital investment far in excess of the available resources if they are to be funded in the traditional manner.

From 2004-05, a new borrowing power will give the Executive and the next Assembly the option of using additional revenue sources. That will make possible a multibillion-pound programme for the coming decade and beyond to address our most acute infrastructure needs.

Those resources will help to meet a pressing need, but money alone will not produce the scale of change that the Executive are seeking. It will be just as important to take a highly innovative approach to managing and financing the infrastructure programme, so that resources will be used wisely and will complement our existing programmes.

The Executive have decided to create a new organisation in the form of a strategic investment body to ensure that strategic infrastructure is planned and delivered in a way that makes the most of all the available means and resources. It is intended that the strategic investment body should have the necessary expertise and resources to serve the Executive’s programme of strategic capital investment. By using the new body, the Executive hope to provide the best possible opportunities to promote the effective use of all the various means available.

More work is required to settle the detailed arrangements for that body. As a first step towards securing the best possible approach, we have invited our Executive Colleagues to nominate representatives to a project board. That board, which will work closely with an Executive subcommittee to scope the way ahead, will be asked to work within a tight timetable.

If Northern Ireland is to be a better and more prosperous place in which to live and work, the means of delivering the priority commitments in the Programme for Government must be established on a sound and equitable basis. The rating policy review examines the appropriate distribution of the revenue burden between households and businesses, and in each sector. The review will address the inequities and anomalies of the current system in order to produce a fairer and more equitable one. That will be of fundamental importance, should the future Executive and the next Assembly choose from 2004-05 onwards to raise more finance locally to fund reinvestment in our infrastructure through the borrowing power.

The First Minister, the other Ministers and I have often been asked in the Assembly to address the shortfall in public services by securing bonds or increasing our block baselines. The short-term position can be addressed by negotiating that package. We must now decide the extent to which we want to avail of the borrowing power. That decision must be based on priorities. Aside from our own sources of revenue, we shall explore all possible means of financing and providing affordable public services that deliver value for money and provide effective solutions to meet our needs. The use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) is a possible means of addressing the needs of our public services. Other options are provided by the creation of the strategic investment body and the possible use of borrowing financed by local revenues. In that new context we have examined all options carefully and objectively to develop a clear policy and to learn from national and international experiences. We will consider carefully the responses to the Financing Our Future consultation exercise before settling an Executive policy on PPPs, and so forth.

Against that background, the position report highlights various issues that must be addressed as we begin to develop the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond. The Executive are determined to make a difference through the services and policies for which they are responsible. We want to break away from approaches that are no longer effective or relevant to the best interests of this community. Not surprisingly, despite a recent trend of rising spending in real terms, spending pressures have intensified. We must face up to significant backlogs in investment and the great demand on some programmes. For that reason we have emphasised in the position report the need to consider seriously and extensively the scope for reprioritising spending. We must focus more carefully and effectively on the Administration’s top priorities, the region’s most strategic requirements and the most pressing needs of our community.

The position report concludes with a short summary of the strategic issues faced by each Department. The summary highlights the many substantial demands being made on future spending power, together with a host of useful and desirable purposes for which additional resources could be allocated. However, many of the departmental pressures outlined in the report and in the individual position reports provided by Departments to their corresponding Committees will have to be absorbed through reprioritisation in a departmental budget, or simply not be met. Nevertheless, as we move to develop our Programme for Government and Budget, we must consider some of the strategic issues faced by the Executive.

In agriculture, key challenges include progressing the work of the vision group and ensuring that Northern Ireland’s views are represented effectively in negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

In education, consideration must be given to the future reorganisation of post-primary education following the Burns review, though we do not expect that there will be any significant expenditure implications in the 2002 Budget. Other strategic studies to be either concluded or undertaken in that timescale include a curriculum review and an assessment of the local management of schools (LMS) common funding formula.

There is a need to implement strategies to address long-term unemployment, to improve adult literacy and to meet the changing skills needs of the local economy. We must enable the economy to respond and to increase employment through business expansion and inward investment. Increased participation in education and training, especially by those at the bottom of the economic and social ladder, can have significant economic and social impact. Progress has been made locally on that through the student support review, but more must be done, not least in further education.

The creation of Invest Northern Ireland (INI) provides new opportunities for us to facilitate the development of large and small businesses that can compete and win business in global markets and in the face of changing consumer demands. However, INI will face several strategic and operational pressures as it seeks to implement new strategies and to establish new relationships and methods of operation, particularly in the areas of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Our agenda for modernising the devolved Administration and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery is also wide and challenging. Key initiatives will be developed and implemented in the areas of public procurement, Government office accommodation and e-government. We will also implement the review of public administration and determine our policy framework for public-private partnerships following the current consultation exercise.

Health and personal social services continue to demand our attention. The acute hospitals review and the measures needed to address capacity problems in the acute sector, including winter pressures and waiting lists, remain the most significant issues. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will shortly issue a consultation paper on the proposed way forward.

We must introduce a large volume of EU environmental Directives to Northern Ireland legislation and implement them through monitoring and enforcement. If the risk of infraction proceedings is to be reduced, it is essential for work on EU Directives to be further advanced. We also want to modernise the planning framework to ensure that that development takes place in line with the principles of sustainable development and that it can contribute to a quality environment and meet economic and social aspirations.

The regional development strategy has outlined the strategic planning framework for the spatial development of Northern Ireland and is designed to shape our social, economic and environmental well-being between now and 2025. The ten-year regional transportation strategy is an important component of the regional development strategy. Consultation on the proposed transportation strategy was recently completed, and we must consider its implications.

Key challenges for the Water Service include the development of a leakage strategy and a water efficiency plan. Considerable investment in water and sewerage infrastructure is needed to secure a proper service for the public. That will also ensure that we comply with EU Directives on water quality and waste water standards.

To fulfil our social agenda, we will continue to drive forward the welfare reform and modernisation programme, keeping pace with similar developments in Great Britain. In line with targets in the Programme for Government, strategies for neighbourhood renewal, the Belfast regeneration initiative and regional town centre reinvigoration are emerging.

We also want to focus on culture, arts and leisure issues, including consideration of the future role of the public library service. Several reviews have been planned during the 2002 Budget period, including an examination of museums and galleries and a community arts review.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will implement several strategic measures. They include the arrangements for the appointment of a commissioner for children and young people; a children’s strategy; a new community relations strategy; and work to implement the commitments and actions identified in the victims strategy.

I hope that those remarks have helped to contextualise the important work that the Assembly will undertake in the summer when it scrutinises and reviews the Executive position report. We accept that the timetable is tight, but that is a necessity. However, as the First Minister made clear, it is important that there be debate in Committees and between Members on the issues that the position report highlights. It is also important that this debate translate into comments and suggestions that can inform the Executive’s work in the coming months so that the Programme for Government and the Budget can be developed.

The First Minister mentioned the Programme for Government’s role in building the basis of a new democratic society. The philosopher John Dewey said that "democracy is born in conversation". Conversation and debate are needed in the Assembly and elsewhere. We assure Members that Ministers, their Departments and the Executive will consider carefully their comments and suggestions. Those comments will be used to inform the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have been advised that copies of the statement were not made available to Members before its delivery. The Ministers will be aware that Standing Order 18(1) provides that if a written copy of a statement has not been made available to Members, an explanation will be given to the Assembly. Will the Ministers clarify that now?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We are sorry that the statement was not available in advance. However, the position report was available to all MLAs this morning. The statement was delayed because of the long bank holiday weekend, which meant that the final revisions were done early this morning. I had the final revision in my hand only 10 minutes before making the statement. I am sorry that the printer did not give us enough copies for one to be put in every Member’s hand before the statement was delivered.

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

Will the Ministers go a step further and tell the House whether there is an unallocated nest egg? If so, how do they propose to spend that nest egg?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

There are monitoring rounds at various times of the year, depending on departmental expenditures. With regard to a nest egg, the only thing to which I can refer the Member is the table on page 21 of the Executive position report. That table sets out how we arrive at the baseline, and the significant figure that refers to the Chancellor’s Budget additions is at the bottom of the table. Those Barnett-related additions have become available as a result of the Budget, but have not yet been allocated formally.

The Budget that the Assembly agreed in December 2001 set indicative minimal figures for Departments. That involved holding back sufficient funds at the start of Budget 2002 to provide a clear starting point for the Budget and an opportunity to address local priorities. We adopted that approach in anticipation of limited increases in public expenditure so that we could retain some flexibility. The Executive have recognised that it may be necessary to restore some of the amounts that have been held back, but resources are not available to restore all those amounts.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

No nice gloss can be put on this bad news story for Northern Ireland today. It means taking a scalpel to Departments and cutting back resources. Ten million pounds will be cut from the Housing Executive and £9 million will be cut from public transport. Despite there being a rates increase, £4·4 million will be cut from local government services and £21 million will be cut from the budget for recurrent schools’ problems. It is little wonder that there are 100 redundant schoolteachers in my North Antrim constituency.

12.00

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

I wish to consider the policies and resource issues identified under the section for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Again, as regards policy, there is no agreed version of rural proofing, which is very disappointing — the Department has had some time to put that in place. There is a proposed overall decrease of £8·8 million and that will affect the two most important areas: rural development, which will be cut by £1 million; and food and farming. Are those cuts not inconsistent with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s stated aims? The cuts will have an immediate impact on 40% of the population. More than 40% of the population lives in rural areas, and yet the rural development programme is being reduced.

I am also disappointed to see that the Government are —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member come to his second question?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. The Government have shown that the vision group needs resources, but no resources have been identified for it. I am also disappointed that there has been a change in the language used. The first statement mentioned an end to the beef export ban —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. I realise that the Member has already asked two questions. If he has a third question, I would like him to ask it instead of making a statement.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I am coming to the question. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain why there has been a change in language between their first statement, which considered the issue of an end to the beef export ban, and the current report, which calls for a relaxation of the ban? Why has there been a change in the language used? Are they no longer committed to achieving an end to the beef export ban?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member has asked the three questions.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I return to the Deputy Speaker’s question of why our statement was not available. Preparing and clearing joint statements is more difficult for the First Minister and me than it is for individual Ministers because we must agree who will make certain points so as to minimise repetition and maximise complementarity. It is also important to remember that the Executive position report came before the Assembly only last week. The Assembly receives the report from the Executive hot off the presses, which really is a sign of just how transparent the new arrangements are. What is being published is exactly what came before the Executive.

I do not know how many times we shall have to explain the nature of the exercise to the Member and the people in his party. This is a position report, drawn from Departments’ assessments of their priorities and pressures. The Departments have consulted and engaged with Committees already, and there will now be significant consultation with Committees. This report is in advance of Budget planning; we are setting out the issues before the draft Budget in September.

With regard to the Member’s nonsense about proposed cuts to various programmes, I refer him to what the First Minister and I said about the indicative minima set out in last year’s Budget. The indicative Budget for 2003-04, which we introduced in December 2001, set indicative minima so that we would not commit all the resources in the indicative Budget for 2003-04.

Who told us not to automatically commit all the money to the Departments because that would make them think that they need not do anything? Members told us that. Members told us to take £10 million from every Department to make more money available for priorities. We managed to take £125 million from the indicative Budget for priorities, including, possibly, the priorities that the Member mentioned. Who agreed with that approach to indicative minima? All the Ministers agreed to taking £125 million from next year’s Budget so that it could be available for what would then be our priorities, after full consultation by the Executive, the Committees and the Assembly.

That is a good government story, not a bad news story.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for presenting the report; however, the Members did not see their comprehensive statement beforehand. I welcome their comments that we need time to examine and debate the report. We must consider properly the many serious and fundamental questions that it poses, and both Ministers invited the Committees and the Departments to do so. I look forward to taking that opportunity.

The needs and effectiveness evaluations represent, for the Departments concerned, around 75% of planned public expenditure. How soon shall we able to see the conclusions of those evaluations, which will determine Members’ budgetary considerations and the financial implications?

How do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister envisage the operation of the strategic investment body? The agency is a welcome development, but who will hold the decision-making power? Will it lie with the Executive, or could it be held by the strategic investment body, which would not be fully democratic?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for acknowledging that the report was available, although Members may have found it a challenge to absorb its 141 pages in the time that was available before the statement.

We presented the report as quickly as possible to maximise the time in which to debate it. The report was presented to the Executive only last week. Time is constrained by the Budget timetable: we shall not know the outcome of the spending review 2002 until July, and we shall have to start to take decisions on the Budget in September or October.

The timescale for needs and effectiveness studies will be constrained also. The studies are in their final stages and will be discussed by the Administration, among the Departments, and between the Deputy First Minister, the relevant Ministers and myself, culminating in decisions by the Executive. We shall then have to consider the budgetary implications. The timescale will, therefore, be extremely tight, but the Administration will want to have the broadest possible discussion — internally and with others.

We are well aware of the sensitivities that Mr Maskey highlighted as regards the strategic investment body, and he is not alone in raising those points. Another party, which takes a slightly detached position with regard to the Administration, raised the same issues. That is partly why we have invited the parties that participate in the Administration to nominate Members to the project board of the strategic investment body. We are glad that parties have made nominations, and we hope that their involvement will enable the strategic investment board to proceed.

The strategic investment body will be crucial to the delivery of the Administration’s programme — the key word is "delivery". It will seek solutions to financial problems. The Executive will make decisions on the programmes and priorities, while the strategic investment body will exist to seek solutions, and to implement and deliver them. The practice of that structure remains to be seen.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

To put it on record, I join with other Members in expressing disappointment that the statement was not available before the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister rose to speak. It is not an exception; it is happening more often that Members are obliged to respond to a statement without having it to hand. I hope that my interpretation of the reason suggested for the delay by the Deputy First Minister is wrong; that it was due to a lack of agreement as to what they would say. I hope that that was not the real reason. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong.

In the statement, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister correctly states the need to identify more closely the reforms that might be required and the outcomes that might be achieved from such reforms. I welcome that. I want to know when the Executive propose to give Members some idea of what outcomes are proposed from the different reforms. For example, as regards the review of public administration, are the Executive aiming towards the type of resources that could be released from a proper review of public administration? I could repeat that comment with respect to the other ongoing reviews, such as on procurement et cetera. It would be useful to have a quantifiable figure that we knew was possible to achieve through saving and making better use of resources.

My understanding is that needs and effectiveness evaluations act as a tool to advise the Executive on policy and priorities. As they have not yet been completed, I have difficulty in knowing exactly what value to place on a document that develops the Programme for Government. If we are not yet sure about the outcome of the needs and effectiveness evaluation, there may be some flaws in the document. Perhaps the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could elucidate.

My final question refers to the reinvestment and reform initiative. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure the House that negotiations are ongoing with the Treasury to ensure that we are not getting a pig in a poke, and that these gift horses will not have bad breath and cause problems in future years with our departmental expenditure limits across Departments through capital charges, cost depreciation and the cost of making good?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I was always warned not to look gift horses in the mouth; now, I seem to be being advised to smell them in the mouth.

The delay was not a result of disagreement as to what was to be said, we were trying to ensure that we have a reasonably coherent and balanced statement. In answering the questions, the key point is the position report itself. In our statement, we have summarised and highlighted aspects of the position report and not used any different inflections other than those in the position report itself.

The Member asked several questions. We hope to have stage one of the review of public administration completed by next March. In many ways, work in stage one will determine whether we can indicate amounts of money that might be saved or the targets that should be put in place. Given that many in the House said that they wanted the review to have as much independence as possible and not be dictated to or constrained simply by Ministers and the Executive, we did not think it appropriate, or a good basis, to fix an amount of money that we wanted to save, or outline a particular way. The review of public administration is an open review. I am glad that people want to ensure that that review leaves us in a situation where less money is spent on structures and systems and more of our public expenditure goes to services.

We definitely want to achieve that, and it was one of the underlying motives behind the review.

There is never a time when negotiations with the Treasury stop. There are different aspects of the reinvestment and reform initiative that we shall continue to deal with, and there are other aspects that we shall return to the Treasury on. We shall not make any headway with the Treasury if we do not start to play our part in the initiative and to take advantage of our opportunities. That includes setting up the strategic investment body that will provide financing solutions to meet policy needs and project priorities determined by Ministers and the Executive.

The Assembly, the Executive and Ministers will commission projects and spending priorities, and the strategic investment body will deliver the best financing solutions to ensure that we spend money to meet as many of those needs as we can. We are engaged in developing the Programme for Government, and in sharing it with the Assembly and the public. It is an ongoing reform. The position report is a pre-draft Budget consultation document, and there will be further consultation following the draft Budget. The position report is shared with the Assembly, its Committees and a wide range of community interests. As far as key community interests are concerned, it is an exercise in joined-up government, joined-in government and joined-with government.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The Executive’s position report states that the Executive are scheduled to receive five of the needs and effectiveness evaluations in June and July, and we are already in June. Will the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister say which evaluations will be reporting this month, so that Members can do some work before the recess? The deadline will be the end of August or September, and we must have the evaluations as soon as possible.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are inviting Executive Colleagues to nominate a representative to the project board. What does "representative" mean? Does that mean an MLA, a party member, a Minister or someone else? If democracy is based on having conversations — to paraphrase the John Dewey comments at the end of the Deputy First Minister’s statement — why is it limited to representatives of the Executive parties, given the difficulties that the Executive face in getting collaboration from all the parties on it?

Would the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consider sending the report to the Civic Forum? It would be more than glad to be consulted. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have no problem with sending the position report to the Civic Forum. Our concluding comments showed that we want to distribute the position report as widely as possible. The object of the exercise is to develop discussion and debate.

The position report gives Colleagues a snapshot of the position immediately before the Chancellor makes his decisions on the spending review 2002, so that it will be easier for them to work out what the possible impact of the spending review 2002 will be.

The needs and effectiveness studies are being finalised. The Member said that the evaluations are scheduled to report in June or July. I hope that they will all be with us in June, and that the deadline will not become July.

Ms McWilliams will gather from my remarks that we expect to get the reports soon. Significant discussion and debate will then have to take place within the Administration, and we shall have to consider precisely how to act on the reports.

We were not prescriptive about who the parties should nominate to the project board of the strategic investment body. We approached the parties in the Administration because the implementation of the decisions that are made, departmentally and collectively, will relate to the Administration’s work. It is entirely open to the parties concerned to make nominations. I think that I am right when I say that we have received three such nominations.

We were not prescriptive because we wanted the board to be open to a party, it if wishes, to nominate someone who has particular expertise in financial matters — financing programmes et cetera. It will be open to parties to nominate an MLA, if they so wish. We do not consider that failure to do so will in any way detract from accountability to the Assembly. Ministers will make decisions, and they are accountable to the Assembly. The strategic investment body will examine the most cost-effective way to deliver those decisions and solutions. That will require a degree of expertise, but it will also require the parties in the Executive to work together, which is why we look to them to form the basis of the project board.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the First and the Deputy First Ministers’ policy statement on the approach to government. I also welcome their intention to have an innovative approach to managing and financing the infrastructure programme, and note that a similar approach has been adopted south of the border. Can we be assured of collaboration?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mrs Courtney has made an important point by emphasising what must be done to manage infrastructure. We have often heard in the Chamber about the historic deficit that we have inherited with regard to investment in infrastructure and other key public service fabrics. That is one of the reasons why we negotiated a package with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that will allow us to undertake significant investment programmes. As that involves our capacity to undertake capital expenditure far in excess of what would have been possible under existing funding lines and current patterns, it is right that we look at an innovative way to manage that new level of expenditure and consider a strong means of driving investment on such a scale. For that reason, we opted for the concept of a strategic investment body. By coincidence, people came up with the idea of establishing a similar body in the South to drive a significant infrastructure investment programme — proof that great minds think alike. Taking advantage of facilities such as the common chapter and using the devices available to us through the North/South Ministerial Council, it is right to compare notes where possible, and to co-ordinate investments and co-operate where we can. That is particularly fitting, given that both bodies will want to consider not only how they can use the moneys from managed public expenditure, but to see what other moneys can be levered in from elsewhere. Such money might come from not only the domestic private sector but from further afield. It would make sense for the two bodies to know what each other is doing and to ensure that our strategic investment plans, especially for infrastructure on the entire island, complement each other and are well co-ordinated and well matched to ensure that everyone gets the best possible return on that significant investment opportunity.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

It is not surprising, given the cuts suggested in the report, that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister did not release the statement before the debate. I trust that Members will have picked up on the details of the report’s figures, in respect of the potential disastrous impact on support to district council resource grants if the figures are reflected in the final Budget. The combination of not carrying forward the 2002-03 grant levels and the impact of the indicative minima would represent a drop in overall grant from £20 million to £13·6 million in 2003-04.

I have the unanimous support of the Committee for the Environment when I say that such a cut would undoubtedly have a major impact on district rates and on the services available in many district council areas. As resource grants only apply to the poorest councils, I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to explain the justice of such cuts, as they blatantly contradict the Executive’s policy of targeting social need. Will the Ministers give a commitment to the House to re-examine the issue as soon as possible? A sizeable increase in the £105 million to the Department of the Environment would be marginal in the Northern Ireland block grant of some £7 billion, but would have a significant impact on the protection of the environment. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should seriously examine those issues.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We are aware that there are problems on councils, especially on environmental issues that arise from EU Directives. The position report provides for a general resources grant, which consists of a derating element compensating for loss of rate income due to the derating of properties, and a resources element. In the latter part, a total of £50 million has been allocated for distribution in 2002-03, determined by a statutory formula.

However, the Member must bear in mind the indicative minima that the Deputy First Minister explained in his first response. They involved an initial withholding of £125 million across the Departments. If I remember correctly, it is the Member’s ministerial Colleague who has talked about the need to pare and, indeed, withhold more money from Departments. One must question the consistency in those matters.

As the Member knows, this is a progress report, which sets out the position as it is at the moment. It is not the draft Budget. There will be plenty of opportunity for further discussion and consultation. It ill befits a Member who belongs to a party that talks about the need to cut left, right and centre, and the amount that can be cut, to come and complain when there are attempts to find flexibility. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. Time is up.

Employment Bill: Second Stage

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

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Employment Bill (NIA 11/01) be agreed.

Before explaining the substantive provisions of the Bill, I shall set those provisions in context. Improved quality of life is a key issue for all. We each have competing demands on our time, and we have to juggle priorities in our social, domestic and professional lives. The traditionally held view of success is that it can only be achieved by adopting a working culture of long hours and hard graft. However, the conviction is gradually spreading that that is not necessarily the case.

Instead, it is increasingly being recognised that greater productivity is achieved by employers and employees working together in effective partnership. This is about developing people’s knowledge and skills and about innovation and finding better and smarter ways to work. Those are essential from the point of view of employers and employees — especially employees with young children.

A huge segment of the population is involved in rearing young children. In Northern Ireland, 17% of households have at least one child under the age of six. That equates to 120,000 people who are parents of a young child or of a child with a disability. Those parents have a key role to play in the economy, as their children will one day.

It should not be necessary for anyone to feel that they have to choose between being a good parent and being a good employee. The Employment Bill addresses the real-life problems of work and parenting. It introduces a series of measures designed to help employees balance their family and employment responsibilities while taking account of the need for businesses to compete in an increasingly competitive market. Specifically, the Bill provides for new rights to paid time off for fathers and adoptive parents, extends the amount of paid and unpaid leave available to new mothers, and gives a new right for parents of young children to request flexible working conditions. These measures mirror provisions in the Employment Bill currently before Parliament at Westminster and will ensure that our employers and employees have the same family-friendly employment rights as are enjoyed by their Great Britain counterparts.

Other related measures, such as revised paternity pay arrangements that correspond to social security provisions in the GB Employment Bill, are included in the social security Bill being brought forward by the Department for Social Development.

The Department for Employment and Learning carried out extensive public consultation on the proposals in the Bill, and they received widespread support. A summary of the responses received is on the Department’s web site.

Social inclusion and equality of opportunity are at the heart of the Executive’s Programme for Government. Advancing the social inclusion agenda is also a key priority for my Department, and I am pleased to say that an assessment of the equality impact of the proposals in the Employment Bill has confirmed that they will have a positive impact on promoting equality of opportunity. For example, they will enable single parents to participate more fully at work by recognising the particular difficulties that they face. I am sure Members will join me in welcoming this.

We need to avoid, where possible, imposing burdens on businesses. There will be some costs to employers, for instance, in setting up systems to administer the new arrangements and facilitate requests for flexible working, but there will also be advantages. Members will be aware of the difficulty for businesses of recruiting and retaining skilled staff. Research carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reveals that the cost to an employer of filling a vacancy is, on average, £3,500. To lose a trained and skilled person because no effort was made to try to accommodate his parenting responsibilities does not make good business sense.

The Work-Life Balance campaign managed by the Department for Employment and Learning has demonstrated the benefits to business of enabling employees to achieve and maintain a better balance between work and other aspects of their lives. Employers are discovering for themselves the wide-ranging benefits from working with employees to find mutually agreeable solutions tailored to particular circumstances. Businesses that do that tend to attract talented people, and they have a more motivated workforce with reduced stress and sick leave and a lower staff turnover. These are the very real benefits as a consequence of addressing employees’ needs as a whole, not just at the workplace.

I will take a few moments to comment on the core elements of the Bill. With regard to paternity leave and pay, the Bill provides for a new right to two weeks’ paid paternity leave following the arrival of a new child. That will allow new fathers more time to care for the child and build a relationship with the child and offer support to the mother. The payment mechanism will be standardised with that of maternity pay, thus making for simplicity. In Northern Ireland, around 12,000 employed fathers will qualify each year for the new right. However, many employers already voluntarily provide paid paternity leave. The costs associated with paternity leave will be low for most employers, as the majority will be reimbursed. As with maternity and adoption pay, businesses qualifying for small employer’s relief may recoup 100% of paternity leave pay, plus an additional 5% compensation for administration costs.

The Bill has the effect of simplifying the arrangements for maternity leave. That was a key priority for employers — particularly small employers — who responded to the public consultation. Most of the changes will be implemented by subordinate legislation. Ordinary maternity leave will be extended from 18 weeks to 26 weeks with the option of additional unpaid maternity leave of 26 weeks. Members will welcome anything that can be done to make the system easier for women and their employers to understand. Increasing the amount of leave available to new mothers will provide them with greater choice about when to return to work. Enabling mothers to take a longer time off work allows them to return when they are stronger, and it allows them more time to secure appropriate childcare arrangements. At the margin, that will enable some mothers to remain in employment, with recruitment and training savings for their employers. Detailed arrangements for the changes will be set out in the Regulations, but it is appropriate to mention them now in the context of the suite of measures planned to support working parents.

For the first time, under the provisions of the Bill, adoptive parents will have the right to paid time off work to care for their children. The introduction of paid adoption leave is a valuable step in recognising the important role that adoptive parents play. An adoptive parent will be able to take 26 weeks’ paid leave and 26 weeks’ unpaid leave, which is the same as women on maternity leave. As with maternity and paternity pay, small employers will recoup 100% of adoption pay plus additional compensation for administration costs.

With regard to flexible working, I have already commented on the need to ensure that the world of work allows people to combine home and employment responsibilities. Flexible working arrangements are viewed as a potential means of relieving pressures that arise from trying to combine family life and work. I feel strongly that flexible working has a role to play in enhancing working arrangements in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to note that the majority of responses to the consultation agreed with the proposal to legislate to give parents of young children the right to request flexible working conditions.

I have said that I appreciate that employers may have concerns about the potential financial burden that the measures may entail, and I accept that there will be some costs for employers in processing applications and accommodating requests. Businesses that have not yet explored the potential of flexible working hours will need time to familiarise themselves with the processes involved in considering requests from staff. Small businesses, in particular, will need assistance in implementing the proposals. I intend to ensure that my Department addresses their needs through the provision of comprehensive guidance.

It is difficult to estimate the extent of likely uptake of the right to seek flexible working hours. I fully expect costs to reduce significantly as the principles of a work/life balance become imbedded in our business culture. I anticipate that such practices will become commonplace as employers adapt to the needs of modern society. The availability of the new right may well contribute to the development of innovative ways of working, rather than always accepting traditional practices. For example, new technology provides rapidly increasing opportunities for different approaches. Change is an inevitable process in all our lives, and it should be welcomed, not feared.

A change of mindset should be encouraged in business, with employers being open to new ways of organising work and using new technology. Communication between employers, managers and employees is a key component to good employment relations. The new flexible working conditions do not oblige employers to introduce flexible working arrangements. I recognise that some small firms may find it impossible to accommodate such requests. However, employers are being asked to consider carefully the possibility of meeting the requests of staff. The employee has a duty to consider how the employer might accommodate the request for flexible working without any detrimental impact on the business. That is where dialogue, good employment relationships and open communication between employers, managers and employees are vital. Ultimately, the Bill must be viewed not only from the narrow perspective of its impact on employment rights, but in the wider social context of its potential to contribute to a better society in Northern Ireland.

I firmly believe that businesses must address work/life balance issues if they are to succeed in the modern economy. Providing support for working parents is not only about retaining their skills and experience in the workforce, it also creates more opportunity for mothers and fathers to spend more time with their children at key points in their lives. As a working mother, I know only too well the challenges that parents face as they try to reconcile their home responsibilities with the demands of their professional lives. The Employment Bill will provide parents with greater choice, in turn leading to a more flexible, motivated workforce. I am confident that by encouraging employers to put the work/life balance on the agenda, the provisions of the Bill will contribute to Northern Ireland’s business moving forward in a modern, socially aware twenty-first century.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. There have been several Committee actions on issues addressed in the Bill. For example, in a letter to the Minister on 21 January, we stated that the Committee was broadly in agreement with proposals outlined in the Work and Parents Taskforce’s ‘About Time: Flexible Working’ report, produced for the Department of Trade and Industry in London. The Committee also had no objections to Statutory Rule 135/2002, the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, which enabled parents of children born or placed for adoption up to five years before 15 December 1999 to take parental leave between now and 31 March 2005.

The Committee notes the broad principles of the Employment Bill, which have been outlined by the Minister: first, the proposals to attempt to retain working parents in the labour market as a key element in the strategy; secondly, the commitment to a work/life balance, and thirdly, the proposal to introduce rights for working parents in Northern Ireland that will match those provided by the forthcoming Employment Bill in Great Britain.

I may have to declare an interest, as some of the issues have become of personal interest to me in the five weeks since I became a parent for the first time. Several MLAs and many others in the labour market could, and hopefully will, benefit from some of the provisions.

Some considerations that are likely to be taken at Committee Stage include the position of low-paid workers, self-employed workers and other non-employees, the costs of the provisions to other workers, and issues of possible discrimination. The Committee is also likely to consider the cost of the Employment Bill to employers. It wants to ensure that compliance costs for the corporate sector are kept as low as possible. Ideally, flexibility arrangements between parents and their employers should be made by mutual agreement. The regulatory touch should be light, as in the GB legislation. The Committee has also noted a new report, issued in May 2002 by the Better Regulation Task Force in London, which calls for a review of the overall effects of the employment legislation on firms.

The Committee notes the parity with the Westminster Bill, which the Minister has rightly pointed out. The Department for Employment and Learning’s Employment Bill is intended to come into effect simultaneously with the GB Employment Bill on 6 April 2003. The provisions of the Department for Employment and Learning’s Bill correspond with clauses in the GB Bill with regard to paternity leave and adoption leave, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay, administration and enforcement of pay, rights during and after paternity leave, and flexible working. Other provisions in the GB Bill are not included in this Bill. The Committee noted — as the Minister also pointed out — that the Department for Social Development’s social security Bill, which will be progressed simultaneously with the Employment Bill, includes provision for statutory maternity pay in relation to rate, period and entitlement, maternity allowance rate, work-focused interviews for partners, and use of information for or relating to employment training, all of which correspond to clauses in the GB Bill.

I welcome the opportunity of moving the Bill forward to Committee Stage.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the new father?

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Thank you.

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

The issues outlined by the Minister are fundamental to building a society in which the rights of all workers are respected and protected by employment laws. Scenes of mothers who have not fully recovered from giving birth leaving carrycots at the homes of childminders in the early hours are inappropriate in a modern society. It is not fair to those mothers and it is not in the best interest of their children, whose umbilical cords have perhaps not yet healed. That can hardly represent the best circumstances for employers.

The SDLP hopes that the Bill will address the difficulties that arise when parents have to cope with work and parenting, and believes that it will address some of the fundamental issues of equality of opportunity and social inclusion. However, my only concern is that the new legislation might impose an unfair burden on small and medium-sized businesses, which do not have the same resources as large organisations. We must be reassured that there will be advantages for those employers. I am pleased that the Minister has outlined some of those in her introductory remarks.

I am particularly pleased that paternity leave has been built into the legislation. However, is two weeks’ paid paternity leave sufficient for a father to contribute meaningfully to parenthood? What happens if the mother is suffering from post-natal depression and needs the father’s support for longer?

However, maternity leave is the core issue. Although an extension from 18 weeks to 26 weeks is welcome — with an additional 26 weeks without pay included in the proposals — there is still inequality. That is particularly true of low-income and one-parent units. It is now better understood that differences between children with regard to academic achievement begin long before they reach school age. The Assembly must be mindful of that when provision is made for extended maternity leave, especially if children have special needs or are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

One of the greatest injustices done to working mothers in the last decade by some employers, especially some larger employers in the retail sector, has been to compel them to work antisocial hours when they should have been at home with their children. Does the Bill address that problem? Have the details been worked out? I ask again that small employers be fully supported when implementing the legislation so that they are not driven out, to the delight of the multinationals.

Employees should have every opportunity to update their training so that their work can be addressed in different ways. They should always be able to seek jobs that are more appropriate to their needs while they are parenting. I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the recognition afforded to adoptive parents.

Can the Minister assure us that the Bill will genuinely advance the cause of equality and social inclusion among people who require it most? They are responsible for bringing the next generation into the world. The Government have a responsibility to address those people’s needs when they are most vulnerable and to protect them through legislation.

The Bill is going in the right direction. I support the motion.

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

Before I comment on the Second Stage of the Employment Bill, I must declare an interest in that my wife is an employer with a small retail business in the Craigavon area.

I recognise the positive aspects of the Bill, given the social contexts in which it is brought forward, especially modern domestic arrangements and the objective of establishing a more realistic work/life balance with the creation of family-friendly work practices. I also recognise the aspects that mark parity with legislation in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, having said that, other matters must be closely examined in the Committee Stage, because they could have an adverse effect on the performance and, indeed, the viability of some small businesses here. For instance, in March 2002 the final report on flexible working of the Work and Parents Taskforce said that

"Employers will have to manage the high number of requests for flexible working and will have to rearrange work patterns where parents are granted flexible working. That will impact on small businesses in particular, which usually have less flexibility than larger organisations. It is likely that there will be increased management costs both in dealing with requests, appeals and industrial tribunals and in managing work."

That highlights the increased costs. Indeed, the regulatory impact assessment shows that the total impact on employers here is estimated at between £1·6 million and £3·8 million in recurring annual costs. There are additional start-up costs of between £200,000 and £800,000, so there will be additional overheads for small businesses here that they can ill afford.

The Committee has already said that many small businesses and their proprietors are unpaid tax collectors already. They operate the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) scheme for National Insurance and income tax. Recently, the tax credit scheme was imposed on employers, and the operation of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay and the collection of student loan repayments are additional administrative burdens on the small employer. We must be careful that we do not impose the final straw that breaks the camel’s back.

The Minister must listen carefully to what the small businesses say on the subject. They operate in a highly competitive world, and, in the global economy, they suffer from competition from multinationals. However, they are the backbone of Northern Ireland’s economy, and we do not want to impose additional burdens that will impact adversely on their ability to trade.

Will the Minister elaborate on her statement, published in ‘The Irish News’ on Wednesday 29 May, that

"The costs in relation to the adoption, paternity and maternity provisions are not overly burdensome, and can be recouped in full by small businesses"?

The House should have her explanation of that statement on record.

Will the Minister tell us what she thinks about the inequality of a system where people who look after young children have the right to request flexible working, but those who care for elderly parents or relatives do not? That issue is of particular concern, given that we have an ageing population. Does the Minister have plans to include paid leave for those who must look after a terminally ill family member, for example?

Does the Minister have any plans to address the inequalities faced by the self-employed? Self-employed people have children and families too, yet there seems to be no provision in the Bill for them. How will they be gathered into the net?

These matters will be subjected to close scrutiny at the Committee Stage. Members of the Committee have asked questions during the discussions that led up to today’s debate. I trust that, when the Bill reaches Committee Stage, the Minister will take cognisance of the valid case that will be presented.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Two further Members wish to speak in the debate, and the Minister will make a winding-up speech. As it will not be possible to conclude the debate in the time available, the Assembly will suspend for lunch and will resume business at 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.58 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Bill, although its title is something of a misnomer. The Bill concerns the equality rights of working parents, and it might have been better named "The Parenting Employment Rights Bill". The Bill also concerns parity, and I have serious reservations about parity Bills. Contrary to what some Members may believe, we are not as British as Finchley, nor could social and economic circumstances here be compared to those in Finchley. Our situation is different in many ways. To begin with, I understand that our birth rate is the highest in Europe. Our social and economic structures are different.

That said, however, I welcome the broad principles of the Bill. It increases paid maternity leave for working mothers to 26 weeks, and provides two weeks’ paid paternity leave. I should have liked paternity leave to be extended, especially where more than one child is involved. I also welcome parity for natural and adoptive parents.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, in respect of flexible working requests, we could start with the Assembly and all Departments. The legislation could, however, be more specific and a little stronger. It allows parents of children under six years old to request flexible working, but not to compel its provision. The Bill does not state that employers must comply. I ask the Minister to explain what options have been considered for employers. Giving parents the right to work reduced hours for as long as they wish following maternity leave, and the payment of maternity pay directly to mothers, must be a step in the right direction, but the legislation is weighted heavily in the employer’s favour.

Neither does the Bill distinguish between small and large employers. It is not clear how small employers can recoup the administration costs involved. Will the additional burden on employers encourage discrimination against pregnant women in job opportunities? Those are serious questions, because the track record of discrimination against pregnant women has not been fully examined or properly recorded. The Bill is not clear about maternity and paternity leave for parents on training schemes or on fixed-term contracts.

Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill as a first step in the recognition of parental rights and the importance of creating a balance between work and home. It will certainly ease the anxiety of working parents during pregnancy, at childbirth and afterwards. Go raibh maith agat.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I welcome the Bill with a sense of near déjà vu. So many of us who campaigned 25 years ago for such parental rights now face the Bill’s introduction when our children have grown up. It is important because many of us never thought that such legislation would see the light of day. Obstacles were put in its path, especially by employers who felt that increasing regulation was a burden to their business. It should not be seen in that way. Mr Carrick said that those points were made in 1970 against the introduction of the Equal Pay Act and in 1975 against the Sex Discrimination Act. It was argued that equal work for equal value would cripple businesses to the extent that they would go out of business. Far from it; we have been able to recruit and retain more women in business.

I agree with Mary Nelis that the Bill’s title is rather drab and is something that the Health Committee may consider revising. A problem with the devolved Assembly is that it gives innovative and original Bills generic titles that do not describe their intentions. Therefore, it would be interesting if Members could decide on a short title that truly explains that the Bill will legislate for parenting rights.

Members referred to statutory maternity pay and the introduction of statutory adoption pay and statutory paternity pay. It may not have been possible for those who financially costed the Bill to include the reduction of statutory sick pay, but Members must consider it. Given that the proposed rights, especially 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, were not available in the past, employees took that time off as sick leave. Often, to get a certificate from their doctor that would allow them to claim statutory sick pay, they had to find an illness with symptoms similar to their own. I look forward to the days when such practice is no longer necessary. That measure may create a saving, although others may see it as a cost.

I welcome that another saving has been recognised. There has been an annual reduction of £2·45 million in recruitment costs due to the predicted increase in the number of mothers who return to work after pregnancy. Therefore, although there are costs, there are benefits. As we push through the legislation, it will be important for us to monitor whether statutory sick payments are reduced as a consequence.

I have one concern. Will the Minister outline the practical reasons why those who choose intercountry adoptions are not entitled to the same rights as those who choose domestic adoptions? Members need to know those reasons in order to explain them to people who discover that they are not entitled to the same rights. The term "intercountry adoptions" is more applicable than the word "abroad". The Health Committee recently considered legislation on intercountry adoptions, and it found that those adoptive parents do not see their children as coming from abroad.

I hope that employers will comply with the legislation. The Equality Commission states that most complaints come from pregnant women who are not given their entitlement under current legislation. The Equality Commission says that it spends many hours dealing with such complaints, many of which result in tribunals. In order that the public and those who run small businesses are not overly alarmed by the introduction of such welcome legislation, will the Minister state when the comprehensive guidance will be available? It is important that it is available as soon as possible.

The Bill is welcome. I am pleased that the Assembly is finally recognising the role of all parents — natural and adoptive. For many years, those who could not have children and therefore adopted children, whom they reared as though they were their own, were not entitled to the same rights as natural parents. It is good that Northern Ireland has introduced real rights for adoptive parents.

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

Members have referred to a wide range of employment issues. The Bill’s core principle is that it is important to realise that what is good for employees can also be good for employers. The best employers offer the best conditions for their workforces, and that is no coincidence.

Successful employers need valued, skilled and committed employees — as does the economy as a whole — and my Department’s role is to spread that successful model throughout the economy.

Northern Ireland needs modern, productive workplaces that can meet the challenges of the new century. That is why the Bill is aimed at helping parents to balance the competing demands of work and family, so that they have a choice of continuing their careers if they wish; increasing maternity leave; introducing paid leave for fathers and adopting parents; simplifying the procedures to claim those payments; and giving parents of young children the right to request working hours that will allow them to balance their professional and home lives more effectively.

The modern economy faces the potential long-term problem of needing to increase the supply of skilled and unskilled workers. Much of that supply could come from women, who, traditionally, have taken long, and often involuntary, absences from employment. Any provision that makes it easier for women to return to work should be welcomed and encouraged, as long as it is properly balanced. It is also important to recognise the key role that fathers play in raising their children.

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning for his welcome of, and agreement with, the Bill. I assure him that we shall look into the issues in much greater detail at Committee Stage. Mr Dallat and Mr Carrick referred to the impact that the Bill would have on small businesses, and Mr Carrick specifically mentioned my press release of 20 May. I should explain that larger firms will be able to recoup 92% of maternity, paternity and adoption pay. Smaller businesses will be able to recoup the full amount of paternity and adoption pay, plus an additional 5% to cover administration costs.

It is difficult to estimate what the costs of flexible working would be, especially for small firms. However, I hope that the Bill will encourage employees and employers to reach sensible and mutually acceptable arrangements that will minimise the costs. As I mentioned, some of the costs will be offset by reductions in the cost of such matters as training, recruitment, and time off due to stress.

Mr Dallat queried whether two weeks’ paid paternity leave was sufficient. The provision is intended to support the father at the time of the birth to allow him to become more involved in supporting the mother and caring for the new child. Two weeks is a balance between the interests of the employee and the employer. It will be necessary to keep the period of leave under review as we gain experience of how the provision works in practice. Of course, fathers may take up to four weeks’ parental leave in a year, although it would be unpaid.

Mr Dallat queried the Bill’s impact on low-income families. I presume that he is concerned about those fathers, or parents who adopt, who do not meet the earnings qualifications for statutory paternity pay. Relatively few fathers will not qualify for such pay. We must remember that the Bill is intended to help ease the problems of combining work and parenting. It does not seek to deal with the entire range of social security issues. Other forms of financial support, such as the new tax credits, will be available to working families in 2003. Of course, fathers who have the relevant continuous service with their employers will be able to take paternity leave, even if they do not qualify for paternity pay.

Mr Carrick asked about what I am doing to facilitate the work-life balance of individuals other than parents. I support flexibility in the workplace for all, but I see helping parents of younger children to achieve a better balance between the needs of their work and children as a priority. My Department continues to fund the national ‘Work-Life Balance’ campaign, which asks employers to consider the business benefits of enabling all their employees to achieve and maintain a better balance between work and other aspects of their lives.

Mrs Nelis also asked about small businesses, and I hope that I have answered that question. On the wider consultation, we came up with similar suggestions and proposals to those in Great Britain. Mrs Nelis also mentioned that the introduction of more family-friendly policies might have the unintended consequence of harming younger women’s employment opportunities. However, I would be surprised if most employers did not opt to employ the best person for the job.

Monica McWilliams spoke about the Bill’s title. It may be possible to consider an addition to the title that would better describe what the Bill will do.

Children adopted from abroad deserve exactly the same chance to spend time with their new families as those adopted here. Adoption leave is designed to allow all parents time off work to spend it with the child so that they can adjust to their new relationship.

Northern Ireland needs a modern, productive workplace that can meet the challenges of the new century, and that is what the new Bill aims to achieve. It is designed to help parents to balance the competing demands of work and family so that they have the option of continuing their careers if they so wish.

This Bill is very important. I am convinced that greater partnership and trust between employers and staff are key to enhancing productivity. As Ms McWilliams said, we should have had the Bill years ago, but I am pleased that we have it now. I wish that we had had it many years ago when I was a young staff nurse with four small children, but I welcome it today. It covers a range of issues with a common thread — better employment arrangements for everyone. The package offers a balance of rights and responsibilities; provides for a workplace reflecting a modern economy; encourages the retention of skills; extends help to working mothers; and recognises the role of fathers. It will reduce stress and conflict at work to the benefit of society.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Employment Bill (NIA 11/01) be agreed.

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

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Employment and Learning.

Enterprise Bill: Consumer Protection Measures

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

We now move to the next item on the Order Paper. The Minister will make a statement, but we shall break at 2.30 pm for Question Time.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of extending the consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill to Northern Ireland.

I seek the Assembly’s endorsement of the principle that certain transferred consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill be applied UK-wide. If endorsed, that will be done with the agreement of the Department of Trade and Industry in Great Britain by inserting certain clauses into the Bill during its Report Stage. The relevant measures in the Bill are mostly outstanding items from the consumer affairs agenda set out in the 1999 White Paper entitled ‘Modern Markets: Confident Consumers’. The measures mainly amend and replace corresponding provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973, which was given UK-wide effect under direct rule, despite the fact that consumer protection was and remains a transferred matter.

I seek the Assembly’s agreement to notify the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that those measures and other related consumer protection measures included in the Bill should be considered by the UK Government and introduced at Westminster. I wish to explain why it is sensible that one instrument in one place should carry all those necessary amendments.

A key factor in my consideration is to strike the right balance between establishing local accountability and securing the benefits of utilising UK-wide legislation for the advantage of Northern Ireland consumers, especially when it can be secured at no local cost. Another key factor in my consideration is the proposed establishment of a new authority with extensive expertise — a new fair trading authority — whose remit might be extended to include Northern Ireland, again at no local cost.

The legislative approach that I propose would have the effect of maintaining the status quo, whereby the Fair Trading Act 1973, to which I referred earlier, would continue to operate on a UK-wide basis even though it would be dealing with transferred matters. That approach will ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged in any way as regards their standard of protection compared with people in England, Scotland and Wales.

Members should also be aware that to adopt the proposed approach would not preclude the Assembly from taking a different approach at a future stage and introducing its own legislation. If that is seen as the desired longer-term preference, it will be facilitated. In the meantime, I propose to have my Department conduct a review that will address the unusual policy and legislative situation that has arisen in Northern Ireland concerning consumer protection matters and make recommendations on the best way forward in the longer term.

I should now like to inform Members of the details of the particular consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill that I propose should be applied throughout the UK. First, part I of the Fair Trading Act 1973 will be amended to replace the Office of the Director General of Fair Trading with a new statutory authority. That authority will exercise the director’s current functions of consumer protection, which is a transferred matter, and competition, which is a reserved matter, in a more effective and efficient way.

Secondly, part II of the 1973 Act will be repealed. That part was intended to provide a means of dealing with new trade practices that might develop and that might have an adverse affect on consumers. It has not been successful and has not been used since 1977. The two Orders already made under part II, the Consumers Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976 and the Business Advertisements (Disclosure) Order 1977, would remain in place.

Thirdly, part III of the 1973 Act will be reformed to enable the new statutory authority and other enforcement bodies, such as my Department’s Trading Standards Service, to take proceedings to obtain a court order against traders who do not comply with their legal obligations to consumers. That will be possible if the provision is extended to Northern Ireland. The new remedies available to enforcing bodies, and the procedures to obtain them, will be included in the Bill. That will make it much easier for trading standards officers to take effective action against rogue traders.

Fourthly, the powers of the new statutory authority will be enhanced to approve and monitor industry codes of practice, which safeguard and promote consumer interests. Fifthly, the new statutory authority will be given a broad power to produce and disseminate educational material on matters affecting consumers’ economic interests, or otherwise to take part in educational activities. Finally, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be granted a power to fund third parties to provide consumer advice, information, and educational activities.

To conclude, there are sound reasons to vote in favour of the motion. As Members may be aware, the Fair Trading Act 1973, which is one of the key foundation stones of consumer protection in Northern Ireland, operates across the UK. If the Enterprise Bill’s new consumer protection measures were not to be extended to Northern Ireland, the 1973 Act would continue to apply unchanged in Northern Ireland until the law is amended. The result would be that there would be the anomalous situation of the Office of the Director General of Fair Trading being retained in Northern Ireland even though it would be abolished and replaced by a new authority in Great Britain. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would continue to operate the 1973 Act in Northern Ireland while operating the Bill’s new powers in Great Britain. Finally, and in my view the most serious deficit, Northern Ireland consumers would be forgoing the enhanced levels of protection offered by the Bill until such time as a Northern Ireland measure could become law, which could take two years or more.

I am pleased to confirm that the Executive have endorsed, subject to Members’ approval, the proposal that those transferred consumer protection measures be applied throughout the UK. I also confirm that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, at its meeting on 29 May, agreed in principle with the consumer protection measures in the Bill and that Northern Ireland be included within the Bill’s scope. I commend the motion to the House.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

The Committee considered the proposals at its meeting last week, and it supports the endorsement of the Enterprise Bill. It is important to recognise that this is a special situation. The Committee’s one reservation, which I am sure that the Minister would appreciate, is that it would prefer to see home-grown legislation. As the Minister said, the proposals do not preclude that happening.

The Committee consulted the General Consumer Council, which is in favour of the proposals. In many ways, it is a method of fast-tracking. The Minister and the Department are determined to strengthen consumer protection law in Northern Ireland, and they recognise its importance. At its meeting this morning, the Committee supported the Department and the Minister in the four bids to obtain extra funding to strengthen consumer protection. The Committee is in favour of that and looks forward to an extended consultation on further necessary consumer protection law.

One consumer protection issue that I would like to be considered is whether the laws that deal with public transport could be strengthened, in much the same way as there is a regulator for electricity prices.

The Committee supports the endorsement, and I call on the Assembly to support the Minister.

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

I shall be brief. Time is short and my speech was disrupted by Ireland scoring in the ninety-third minute. We live to fight another day, but that is perhaps for a different occasion.

I strongly endorse the Minister’s recommendation, which has the full support of the General Consumer Council. Consumer protection must be strengthened here. The 1973 arrangements must be upgraded for several reasons, because life has changed considerably in those 29 years. In the past few weeks, I have said on the record that an energy agency should be set up. Although we stopped short of doing that, nevertheless all the issues contained therein and the fragmented nature of consumer protection concern me.

I support the Minister in his efforts to strengthen the hands of trading standards personnel against rogue traders, and those who are less than honest and honourable. There is a need for better educational efforts across the range of consumer entitlement, because we often buy goods when we are away from home, in places we are unsure about or when we are on vacation. All too often it is more bother than it is worth to take action if those goods are faulty. There should be a mechanism to deal with that. The funding of third parties would go a long way to addressing that issue.

My time is running short, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. On my behalf and on behalf of my party, I fully endorse the Minister’s efforts.

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

Members, please take your ease until 2.30 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I am glad that I was not called at 2.30 pm because I have just heard the sad news that Germany did not win the match in the World Cup. I happily walked into the Chamber believing that the Germans were leading 1-0 only to find out that a certain other unmentionable country had equalised. The shock has worn off, and I have more or less recovered my equilibrium.

I support the Minister’s proposed legislation on consumer protection. The Enterprise Bill is a parity issue. The Committee has looked at it and is reasonably happy with it. All Committee members would have preferred home-grown legislation made and tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland, but they accept the circumstances and that this is the best that can be done.

I hope that the Minister will not join the cohort of his Colleagues who are introducing legislation in great dollops leading up to the recess. I do not know what is in the pipeline, but I hope that this is the first of a few Bills that are coming up between now and the end of the month rather than many.

I especially welcome the tightening of legislation on rogue trading. That is a great problem in many areas, particularly those close to the border. I had a meeting with the local divisional police commander the other day, and he told me that the police raided a certain Sunday market somewhere in south Armagh, which will also remain nameless. In that raid, 60% of all the seized goods were counterfeit, fake or stolen. That is a remarkable statistic, because it shows that 40% of the goods were not counterfeit, fake or stolen. I do not believe that anyone who goes to that market is under any illusion that the stuff is from the top shelf. He knows that the stuff was brought in by unusual means. That is having an effect on genuine traders; in many cases the genuine traders cannot compete, so the legislation needs to be tightened.

I was a member of the old Assembly between 1982 and 1986, and one of its successes was the establishment of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. That organisation has worked well, but there is a need to increase its powers and scope, and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is more than happy with anything that does that. It will watch the progress of the legislation with interest and hopes that it gets a speedy passage.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has already spoken about the Committee’s discussions and its welcoming of the Bill. It has received backing from the General Consumer Council, given that it contains several advantages for business and consumers, and that it paves the way for business across the United Kingdom.

Under the reform of part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973, the new enforcement bodies will have the power to obtain a court order against traders who do not comply with their legal obligations to consumers. The amendment will make it easier to take action against rogue traders. The Bill may also help to target social need as the new provisions are likely to benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged groups that suffer at the hands of rogue traders.

The Bill makes provision for the Office of Fair Trading to become a more proactive body. It grants the Office of Fair Trading a stronger input into codes of practice for formal approval, and there is the requirement to monitor and withdraw approval if necessary. The Bill will also grant power to the new enforcement bodies to produce and distribute educational materials on matters that affect consumers — economic or otherwise.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be unable to fund third parties to provide consumer advice, information and education. There is a new super complaints procedure. Under the new legislation, consumer bodies will have the right to bring a super complaint to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation when the market is not working. That should improve efficiency and increase the protection of consumers’ rights.

If the Assembly embraces the Bill in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that there will be additional costs, as the Minister has said, since the Trading Standards Service will enforce the new measures in line with its other operational priorities. If, however, the Assembly does not support the Bill at this stage, the cost could ultimately be far greater for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the Enterprise Bill and its expeditious inclusion in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank all the Members who contributed today. I hope that the Member for South Down is not indulging in purchases from the top shelf — that would not send out the right messages. However, I welcome his support. When the Official Report is printed, I shall ensure that Members receive a written response to any matters that I have omitted.

The main purpose of the debate is to give Members an opportunity to endorse the principle of extending the consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill to Northern Ireland. Agreeing to such an extension is the best way to ensure that Northern Ireland consumers are not disadvantaged in any way as regards their standards of protection compared with consumers in England, Scotland and Wales. However, that in no way removes the right of the Assembly to look afresh at measures in future and to introduce our own legislation. I have become increasingly concerned that that is an area in which the law is confused, as we have a transferred matter with regard to consumer protection that is regulated by primary reserved legislation — the Fair Trading Act 1973. Therefore, in the autumn, I shall establish a review of all consumer legislation in Northern Ireland to clarify that and to ensure that we have proper protection for consumers. If remedial action were necessary, I would not hesitate to introduce measures.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will introduce more legislation; I shall propose two further measures next week, and I hope to introduce major legislation on energy in the autumn. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of extending the consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill to Northern Ireland.

Adjournment Motion: Stormont Estate

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to advise the House that Dr Adamson, who had succeeded in having a topic for the Adjournment motion chosen, has advised me that he cannot be present for the debate. Therefore, the Adjournment motion, although it will be put, will not be the subject of a debate at the end of the sitting. I understand that he has a requirement to be in another place.

Future of Europe

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before I call the junior Minister, Mr Leslie, I remind the House that I expect it to stick to the motion. I say that not for the benefit of the Minister; this is a debate on the Laeken declaration and the establishment of the Convention on the Future of Europe, not an opportunity to talk about all sorts of other matters that may be connected with the European Union. I wish to ensure that the House sticks to the motion within reason. I have no doubt that the Minister does not require any such injunctions.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Laeken declaration and the subsequent establishment of a Convention on the Future of Europe.

Mindful of your comments, Mr Speaker, the key words are "Convention on the Future of Europe". The aspects that may be considered were included in the declaration, a copy of which has been circulated to Members.

I welcome the opportunity to initiate the debate. It is a subject of some complexity, but also of potentially great importance for all that are in the EU and for the accession countries that plan to join over the next few years.

Today’s debate is the start of the process, not the end. We are not offering the Executive’s views on the issues raised by the future of Europe debate. During the summer, the Executive will consider their view on the future of Europe and prepare their report, which will serve as input to the work of the convention. Any consideration or response made by the Executive will take account of the views expressed today, as well as those expressed at the conference planned for 27 June and any other views that are put to us in the coming weeks. Views can be offered through the web site that we shall establish on the future of Europe debate. That will provide an opportunity for people to contribute their views, and for others to read and offer comment.

The importance of having a debate in Northern Ireland is highlighted in our EU strategy framework, which is the first step towards developing an EU strategy for the Executive. The future of Europe debate is an important part of that strategy, and we want to look at the contribution that we shall make to the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The Nice Intergovernmental Conference in December 2000 launched the debate on the future of Europe in light of the challenges that the European institutions would face upon enlargement. At the Laeken European Council in December 2001, the European heads of Government decided to call a convention that would supplement the national and regional debates with a Europe-wide forum to debate the issues and to agree a conclusion within a year.

The convention will be chaired by an ex-President of France, Mr Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and it is currently in what is described as its listening phase, which is likely to last until September or October 2002. The convention will then enter an analytical phase before producing recommendations. Those recommendations are expected to emerge in the spring or summer of next year. That will inform an intergovernmental conference on the future of the EU, which will be held in 2004. At that point, decisions will finally be taken on the issues that we discuss today. It is therefore vital that we consider what contribution we should make to that debate.

We need to be clear about the nature of our role. As one region among many in the EU, we must recognise the limits of our influence and seek to deal with issues that are of fundamental importance to Northern Ireland. We do not have to reach a view on all the elements of the debate. However, we must identify what matters to Northern Ireland and deal with those issues.

We recognise that there are different views in the Assembly on the EU, as there are in wider society. The debate focuses on the reforms that are needed in order that the EU can operate effectively after enlargement, so that it can be more meaningful to its citizens. It may be difficult to reach a consensus on all issues, but we do not need to address them all. None the less, the process of debate will bring out many of the factors that we need to consider.

We must try to agree the way ahead on the role of the regions and their place in the EU. A decade ago, the EU established a new advisory institution, the Committee of the Regions, to give a limited place for sub-state authorities within the European institutions. Northern Ireland has two representatives on that Committee, Mr Dermot Nesbitt and Mr Alban Maginness. Although we are conscious that the status and composition of the Committee of the Regions has been criticised, it is an advisory rather than a decision-making body. In recent years, the devolution of parts of regions has occurred in many member states, most notably in the UK, Spain and Italy.

The increase in the number of devolved regions and the increase in the powers that they exercise have yet to be fully recognised by the EU. At present, Northern Ireland’s role in decision-making in Brussels is limited and indirect. That gives rise to some questions. Should regions such as Northern Ireland make their voices heard in the EU? Is there sense in our seeking to co-operate with similar regions to maximise the influence that we can bring to bear? Should the regions have direct access to some EU institutions? Should the EU recognise the growth of regional power in relation to how it seeks to regulate for its member states?

It is clear from the discussions that my Colleague Mr Haughey and I have had in Brussels that that question is currently exercising the Commissioners. We must bear in mind that although the United Kingdom has devolved regions — as do Spain and Italy — there are various European countries that work on an opposite principle.

In considering the matter, we must be pragmatic about what is achievable. Irrespective of one’s views about Northern Ireland as a region, nothing should diminish the importance of the principal member states in the EU. When trying to determine the role of the regions, we should be mindful that an enhanced position — imagined or otherwise — for the regions might enable the Commission to divide and rule. When it deals with the major member states only, it can find that more difficult. We must therefore carefully consider the cause and effect of any proposals.

We shall continue to contribute as actively as possible to the development of the UK Government position, concentrating specifically on areas in which we identify interests for Northern Ireland. The Joint Ministerial Committee is the vehicle for doing that. The Committee meets regularly at Westminster; indeed, it meets next week. It draws together Ministers from across Whitehall and the devolved Administrations to consider what the UK line should be on European matters.

The Laeken declaration essentially raises four matters. First, who does what in the European Union? Linked to that are questions about what the balance should be among the EU institutions, the member states and the regions, and how any changes can be made. There is, therefore, a specific context for discussing the role of the regions.

Secondly, there is the matter of EU laws. Many Members feel that too much regulation comes from Brussels and that there should be greater flexibility in its implementation by member states. To take that further, there should be further flexibility within member state regions. The entire business of who produces the law, and how much of it is produced, has major implications for the consideration of where sovereignty lies. That is a source of considerable interest and debate.

Thirdly, issues arise concerning democracy, transparency and efficiency. Specifically, those involve looking at the balance of power within the European institutions — among the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. Again, the question is raised as to whether the regions should have a more direct voice in those institutions than that which the Committee of the Regions provides. That is an area in which the impact of enlargements on the workings of the EU is most significant. If one considers the issues that are raised by having 15 member states, and the difficulties in getting the sort of demographic expression that we would understand to bear on the decisions, it will be much more difficult if there are 25 or 30 members.

The fourth question raised in the declaration is whether there should be a constitution for Europe and whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the treaty. Those questions go to the heart of the way that the European concept and the associated institutions will develop over time. Again, that raises significant issues of sovereignty.

All those issues impact on Northern Ireland. Issues such as a constitution of Europe will affect all parts of the EU similarly. Others, such as the possible incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, could have unpredictable outcomes in Northern Ireland because we already have a complex framework of rights and equality law, which is derived from the Human Rights Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and local anti-discrimination law. That could lead to a classic situation whereby the sovereignty that has thus far been exercised on our affairs is in conflict with measures arising from a constitution for Europe as a whole.

I hope that the debate will begin to tease out the Assembly’s thinking on Northern Ireland’s key interests in the future of Europe debate. It will set the tenor for progressing a wide-ranging discussion in Northern Ireland on the future of Europe. That will include a conference on 27 June that will include social partners, academics, the non-governmental sector, local government and Assembly Members.

An issue that may occupy the attention of that conference is the conspicuous absence in the Laeken declaration of any reference to economic and financial matters. Those clearly have a bearing on the structure and future of the European Union and are significant to the single currency. Although that is not within the scope of the debate, none the less one cannot make any sensible judgements on the future of Europe unless economic issues are considered carefully.

When the United States suddenly starts to protect its steel industry and enhance support for its agriculture industry, we must ask ourselves what kind of playing field we are on and where that leaves the World Trade Organization. The free trade area in Europe must decide whether it is working to protect its own trade bases or working on a wider worldwide free trade basis. Those issues cannot be left out when the future of Europe is being considered.

The debate also signals our determination to engage meaningfully with the Assembly on major European policy issues. That will be followed by discussions with the Committee of the Centre, although I appreciate that other Committees have areas of specific interest on European matters. We are also finalising our response to the Committee of the Centre’s EU inquiry report, which was debated some weeks ago, and we expect to agree broadly with its recommendations.

In addition to our engagement with the Assembly, we are also determined to draw in civic society, of which our planned conference is one element. In his winding-up speech, my Colleague Denis Haughey will provide more detail on the progress that has been made with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE) to ensure that we can utilise to best effect the expertise available to the Executive. The debate marks a start to an important discussion.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Committee of the Centre welcomes the motion on the Laeken declaration and the subsequent establishment of a Convention on the Future of Europe. The issue goes to the heart of how Europe will be organised and managed. The Committee therefore welcomes the proactive approach taken by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in assessing the views of the Assembly. It gives the Assembly an important opportunity to make its views clear.

We also welcome the conference to be held on 27 June by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That will involve wider civic society in Northern Ireland in the debate. Greater involvement of civic society was an area of major concern in the Committee’s recent EU inquiry report, and the conference is a welcome indication that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is beginning to take it on board.

The European Union will be enlarged in the near future, with the potential for a further 10 countries to be added to the current 15. The future of Europe debate is about how the European Union will meet that challenge.

The Laeken declaration agreed to set up a convention to consider changes to the European Union’s treaties; its working methods after enlargement; and how it can find a role for itself in a rapidly changing, globalising world. However, many see the convention’s biggest challenge as how the widening gap between European institutions and citizens can be tackled. There are no easy answers to those complex matters. The convention has outlined 64 separate questions that cover a wide range of issues and it expects to get a large number of diverse responses.

The Committee of the Centre’s consideration of those matters has allowed it to identify several major themes. The first of those is the simplification of the treaties. There is widespread agreement that the four EU treaties are extremely complex and should be simplified. Objectives, powers and policies are spread across the treaties, and the many amendments that have been made to them over the years have left them a tangle of regulation. However, the treaties are complex because they cover the concerns and issues of 15 member states. The Committee of the Centre agrees that simplification is needed, but not to the extent that it eventually leads to some type of constitutionalism.

Some form of common standard and text that the ordinary person can grasp is needed. Making the EU easier to understand is, perhaps, a first step in tackling the widening gap between the citizen and European institutions. However, a major concern of the Committee is how simplification can be achieved, given the impact of the enlargement of the treaties.

The second issue that the Committee of the Centre looked at was the delimitation of competences — who does what in the European Union. Critics hold that the current system is imprecise and unclear, with the result that it is often the courts that decide who can do what. That imprecision and lack of clarity is seen as enabling the EU to legislate in areas in which it is not competent to do so. The Committee agrees that there must be clarity on that issue. Some 60% of our regional legislation arises from EU law. Are we sure that the EU has a right to create so much of our legislation? The Committee wishes to see the roles of the EU, the member state and the region clarified, but it agrees that any system that is developed must be flexible.

Of all the issues to be explored by the future of Europe debate and the convention, that of subsidiarity and proportionality is one of the most important. There is a view that the lack of definition in that area has led the EU to legislate in areas in which it may not be needed and to go beyond that which is necessary to achieve its objectives. The Committee of the Centre expressed most interest in that concept as it applied to ensuring that a distinctive Northern Ireland viewpoint is heard when appropriate. The Committee recognises that the devolved institutions will not always agree with the position taken by the UK as member state, especially in respect of agriculture and fisheries – such disagreement is quite common in other UK and European regions. Although difficult to attain, any strengthening of the regional position is to be welcomed. There are more than 200 regions in the European Union, a number that will increase after enlargement, so how can the EU take account of the differing needs of so many regions? The Committee of the Centre wishes to see Northern Ireland have a stronger voice and receive greater EU accountability, but it recognises that that would be difficult to achieve. The Committee also applied that reasoning to the convention’s structure. With so many regions and interest groups contributing to the convention, it will be a difficult task to ensure that the Northern Ireland viewpoint is heard.

There are limited routes to the convention open to us. We can provide input via the two UK parliamentary representatives on the Committee of the Regions. We can only attend the convention as observers only or access it through a web-based forum. The Committee of the Centre has decided that it will provide input to the convention through those two UK parliamentary representatives, and to that end it has invited them to meet the Committee on 20 June.

The issue of achieving more democracy in the EU is being explored Europe-wide through ideas such as having a second chamber, a President of the European Commission and/or the European Council, with more openness and transparency in the Council’s decision- making process.

It has been suggested that the main role of a second chamber would be to give national and regional Parliaments a say in EU power structures by allowing them to police the subsidiarity principle. The Committee of the Centre does not feel that a second chamber is a viable option for increasing democracy in the EU. It feels that that could be better achieved by increasing and strengthening the role of MEPs.

The Committee recognises that the concept of an elected President of the Commission and/or the Council probably appeals to those who believe in a federal Europe. The current system whereby each country has a six-month presidency works well, although it may not be so suitable following enlargement.

The Committee of the Centre finds that the current system works well. It allows the Committee to invite the UK ambassador of the country that holds the presidency to come to the Committee and give an authoritative view on the priorities of the presidency. Therefore, the Committee can check that Northern Ireland is prepared. Twice each year the Committee can check that Northern Ireland is keeping up with EU priorities and is prepared for the EU agenda. That would be much more difficult if the president were to be elected.

The real power in the EU lies with the European Council. As regards the openness of the Council, the Committee of the Centre sees no reason why almost all of the European Council’s sessions should not be held in public, particularly those applying to legislation. Public meetings would allow regional Parliaments to see whether their viewpoint had been noted by member states and to see how member states voted on important issues such as the common agricultural policy.

Briefly — and taking off my Committee Chairperson’s hat — I do not support further federalism in Europe. There is much concern among my community that the EU has undermined the sovereignty of the national Government and that that will be further eroded as the EU vests more powers in itself.

I trust that the debate will be open and will not be used to create further federalism. I hope that the debate will genuinely reveal whether there are issues of subsidiarity for national Parliaments and not be about the EU taking more power for itself. The EU has a major role to play and, whether we like it or not, we are members of the EU and must therefore be bound by it.

The UK is the fourth largest economy in the world and it must not wholly tie itself to the EU. We must keep our options open: we must look to our historical links with the Commonwealth and north America. I recently attended a function held by the British Ambassador in Washington at which it was indicated that more than £100 billion of trade takes place between the United States of America and the UK. Exchanges on the money markets because of investments between the UK and the USA are even greater. It is, therefore, important that our country retain its national independence and integrity. The debate offers the United Kingdom the opportunity to make its mark and to assert that, although it wants to be in Europe, it wants to be a nation in its own right and does not want its sovereignty to be undermined.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the junior Ministers for tabling the motion and note the proposed conference on the future of Europe, which will take place later in June, as an indication of a positive response from the Executive.

The establishment of a convention to consider the future of Europe is a defining moment in the life of the European Union. It is made necessary by the accession of 10 member states, mostly in central and eastern Europe. Chaired by a former French President, with two former Prime Ministers of Italy and Belgium as his deputies, the convention is a serious body and no mere talking shop. Driven by a presidium that meets twice a month, it possesses an inbuilt mechanism for forward momentum. Therefore, the direction that it takes is critical. Representatives of the national Governments and Parliaments heavily outweigh the representatives of the Commission and the European Parliament by almost three to one. That is a critical equation and demonstrates that the vision of a Europe of co-operating nation states has prevailed over a centralised bureaucratic vision, which is a good start. It is how Britain has always seen it and it is how France and other member states are increasingly seeing it.

The Laeken declaration says that

"European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens".

It addresses the democratic challenge that faces Europe, the need for Europe to be less unwieldy and rigid and to be more efficient and open. It also says that

"citizens also feel that the Union is behaving too bureaucratically… the basic issue should continue to be proper operation of the internal market and the single currency, without this jeopardising Member States’ individuality."

It further states that Europe should be about

"opening up fresh opportunities, not imposing further red tape."

and that what the people expect is

"more results, better responses to practical issues and not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life".

The convention is a great window of opportunity to mould the future of the European Union. Europe is a treaty-based free association of states, which is why a constitution for Europe is wrong; it logically presupposes the existence of a superstate. It is counter to the expectations of the European people. People want to gain advantages from Europe and to see tangible benefits from its mutualism. On the other hand, bureaucracy is a disease. Under the guise of being logical and organising affairs better, it is a parasitic organism that grows at everyone’s expense.

A balance must be struck between the benefits of organising the affairs of state, both economic and political, en masse and the democratic deficit and sense of disempowerment that over-regulation and bureaucracy cause. Therefore, the Laeken declaration is a crossroads. We must establish a European Union with the light touch of networking and mutual benefit, not the heavy hand of bureaucracy. A protracted, detailed debate on the form and structure of a European constitution would be time- consuming. That time would be better spent focusing on how to make Europe less bureaucratic and more democratic.

The desire of the European institutions and national Governments to jealously guard their competencies against encroachment is understandable, but their shared willingness to exclude regional input is unforgivable and represents a weakening of their declared aim of greater involvement with the citizen. It would be remiss therefore of the Assembly, given its local experience with agriculture and fisheries, not to make the case for a stronger regional voice.

As a constitutional region, it is important that we use the opportunity to play a full part in the crucial debate on the future of Europe. We must therefore use all three channels that are available — the European convention, the Committee of the Regions, even if it is an observer to the convention, and the forum that runs parallel to the convention itself.

Having said that, we in the regional Assemblies, which have proliferated all over Europe, must assert our role in that new Europe. The regional Assemblies and Governments have an immediacy that enables them to relate to Europe more directly, more responsively and more effectively than a national Parliament can ever hope to. The essence of how those regional Assemblies and Administrations can interface with Europe is through networking. The House will recall that a Committee of the Centre report on how Northern Ireland could interface more effectively in Europe said that informal, as well as formal, networking was the key. That is a function of size and immediacy, part of that informality generated by smaller, more local and less formal regional Assemblies, as compared with national Parliaments.

It is a question of scale and of tailoring economic and governmental packages to suit the specific needs of a particular province or region. There must be a dynamic and vibrant relationship between the regional Assemblies, such as this one at Stormont, the national Parliaments and the European Parliament. Westminster is in danger of becoming a bit of a backwater as it increasingly rubber- stamps the many decisions that are made in Europe in the first instance. Strangely, the less formal regional Assemblies interface better with the central European institutions, the European Parliament and the European Commission. More democratic accountability, the creation of an upper chamber of the European Parliament fed by members of national Parliaments, with an injection of democratic accountability for the Commission and the Council of Ministers, may be a way to achieve this.

That course, however, is fraught with danger for the nation states. As the European Parliament became a focus of real democratic accountability and, therefore, of power, it would increasingly challenge the independence of the national Governments and Parliaments. Power moves with spending power; that is the way of the world. That is why we must craft a new post-Laeken Europe with care, for every opportunity contains a threat, and every threat contains an opportunity.

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

Some interesting comments have been made, and I am inclined to think about the origins of the European Union. It began as an economic unit, instituting the coal and iron ore agreements. The parliamentary tier was introduced later, and that provided a role for representation. Now, some 50 years later, we stand at a crossroads, facing two basic challenges about where we should go in Europe. One of those challenges comes from inside the union, and the other from outside, as has been mentioned already. There is a challenge in Europe to make the institutions more relevant, more accessible, and more identified with the needs of the people. Matters under discussion with regard to a revision of those institutions include changes in representation, a further chamber, which has been mentioned in the debate, and different forms of election and representation.

For me and my party, however, it is the outside pressures that dictate one of the great reasons for the existence of the European Union, and one of its great successes — and it has been tremendously successful. There have been no major European wars since it was established. That was not the case in the previous centuries when the European Union did not exist. The European Union has also succeeded in economic development. It is now a major international player and may be one of the richest communities in the world. We must remember those major successes.

The nation state is not a suitable form of government in the modern world. For example, the head of cabinet at the European Commission’s environment private office, Rolf Annerberg, recently reported to the European Commissioner for the Environment, Margot Wallström, that 84% of European citizens consider environmental protection to be a priority. In a situation such as the Chernobyl disaster, which affected many countries and was dealt with internationally, an individual nation state would be powerless. The same applies to whaling, which the EU has dealt with effectively. Such issues motivate us to hold greater expectations for the European Union in creating environmental policy or preventing crime, for example. More can be done through international co-operation. All transnational issues could be dealt with in an improved way, and much work remains to be done.

After the destruction of the Berlin Wall, many thought that major international tensions, divisions and wars might end. Yet, on 11 September we saw another frightening aspect of international violence. Europe has a potential peacekeeping role to play, which could be developed, possibly to create a European foreign policy. Such areas are open for discussion.

The Convention on the Future of Europe opened on 28 February, and the SDLP believes that it should provide a draft treaty that would serve as a European constitution. Perhaps it is time to take a bold and positive step by designing a constitution that would not need to be substantially altered every few years. The constant process of treaty revision through successive intergovernmental conferences may have reached its limit. Such a constitution would have to address certain issues.

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights should be given a constitutional basis and status. The enhancement of the political and social rights of our citizens must be a top priority, and Europe should never become indifferent to injustice. A key test for any new constitution will be its capacity to bring citizens closer to the European Union and its institutions, and that is a major internal problem for the EU. That will not be easy, given Europe’s unique structure — it is not a state, but it has many of the characteristics and functions of one. The respective powers of the EU, the member states, and the regions of Europe should be delimited — a matter that is under consideration in the European Parliament.

Given the debate over the democratic legitimacy of the institutions of the EU, the possibility of direct or indirect elections for the presidency of the European Commission should be examined thoroughly. Although it is clearly a matter for each member state, there should be a minimum set of standards — for scrutiny by members in state Parliaments — for the activities of Government representatives in the Council of Ministers. That may be an accountability gap, but a set of standards could overcome many of the concerns of member state Parliaments about their role in the EU decision-making process, and obviate the need for another tier of organisation in the EU.

The distinctive feature of the EU is its commitment to providing decent social conditions for all its citizens — a commitment often defined by the term "the European social model". The SDLP believes that that model must be maintained and enhanced, as an EU limited to a free trade zone is not desirable. To that end, it is also important that the powers of the Council of Finance Ministers are balanced by an enhanced role for the Council of Employment and Social Affairs Ministers. In particular, employment and social indicator targets should be given comparable status to economic and monetary targets. The position of employment policy, health, education, equality, industrial relations and the treaties must all be upgraded.

The SDLP strongly believes that the single market and single currency are only sustainable if the citizens of Europe are assured of high levels of employment and social standards. It is also important for the political legitimacy of the EU that its citizens be convinced that it pursues economic prosperity and social justice.

Moreover, in a more global world, transatlantic relations cannot be a one-way street. Europe must provide greater assistance to those seeking peace and justice, which is one of the other issues identified as being a problem. Globalisation cannot go unrestrained: we must take hold of it and render it positively to democracy, and it must be regulated in an ethical manner.

All constitutions require periodic review and amendment, and we must ensure that that takes place in an adequate, open, and democratic fashion. The SDLP believes that a European constitution should be put to the people for acceptance. That would be a time for real decisions, and I hope that we do not lose the opportunity to make them.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I understand that it is essentially a take-note debate dealing with the Laeken declaration, but I want to make some observations that relate directly to Northern Ireland.

Devolution provides a major opportunity for us to ensure that our citizens benefit as much as possible from the EU. I am a member of a newly formed organisation called Northern Ireland into Europe, which recognises the role of the regions in relation to membership of the EU. I welcome the growing realisation among Members of the importance and impact of the EU. A recent debate on a Committee of the Centre report was helpful, constructive and worthwhile.

There are two main issues in the declaration. The first is the Europe of the regions. As Minister Haughey knows, I acted as an alternate on the Committee of the Regions for several years; it was a worthwhile experience.

The second issue is the enlargement of the European Union. We have all come to accept the effect that the European Union has on our everyday lives through its many Directives. However, European Union bureaucracy must be considerably reduced. European Union instruments must be simplified. Reform of the European Union is not only desirable, it is essential in developing national, regional and European institutions that are effective, efficient and democratic.

I welcome the establishment of the convention to discuss those issues and to consider the needs of European citizens in the twenty-first century. Europe today is very different from 50 years ago, when the first moves were made towards European co-operation. The needs of twenty-first-century citizens must be taken into account.

As the Laeken declaration suggests, it is vital that European institutions be brought closer to Europe’s citizens. The declaration rightly questions the need for so many EU Directives, and it also acknowledges the need for greater regional consultation. This is one of the issues that has given the European Union a bad name. Many of the European Union Directives can be very helpful. Recently in the Chamber, I spoke about the European Directive on energy and on equalising cost to consumers throughout Europe. That is good legislation. However, talking about bananas does nothing to encourage association between the European Union and its citizens.

I have been concerned by the antipathy and ambivalence of many here towards the European Union. The European Union must now create a sense of ownership towards its institutions and between its citizens, not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the EU.

James Leslie spoke of the conference on 27 June. I am pleased that a broad spectrum of people will be involved in it. I also welcome the involvement of the Committee of the Regions to feed the views of the regions of Europe into this vital debate.

I look forward to the enlargement of the European Union, and Northern Ireland should look on that as an opportunity rather than a threat. Like other Members, I regularly receive ‘The Parliament’, and recently it has been assessing the developments in those countries that would like to be considered for accession. I am impressed by the progress in their economies, social development and democracy. It is encouraging to see that, for many of those countries, accession to the European Union is a major incentive.

Finally, Ministers and the Executive should note that all Members want to be involved in this debate. We can be constructive, and I look forward to further debate on this vital issue.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I declare an interest. I am a former head of the European Commission Office in Northern Ireland, a member of Team Europe, a speakers’ panel, and, like Sean Neeson, a member of Northern Ireland in Europe.

I am one of the few — although I hope the numbers are growing — designated Unionists in the Chamber who is ready, willing and proud to be described as a truly committed European. The term "European Unionist" springs to mind, but I do not think that traditional party politics here is ready to embrace, let alone understand, that concept of political inclusivity — at least not for a while anyway.

As a European, I have become totally disillusioned, as Sean Neeson said, by the half-hearted approach that Northern Ireland has had to the hugely important and enormously exciting project that is the future of the European Union and Europe in general. Our entire demeanour has been to milk it dry and cry foul any time it asks us to do anything in return, such as clean up our beaches, ensure that our animals are free from disease or even label our children’s toys correctly.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member agree that some local councils, such as Newtownabbey Council, have been actively engaged in the expansionist aspect of Europe to the east in the town of Rybnik in Poland, and that many people in Northern Ireland are involved at that level?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Superb stuff and more of the same. I appreciate exactly what Mr Robinson says, and I shall refer to some of his remarks. Several Unionists here are beginning to see the light with Europe.

As the junior Minister said, one of the key problems is how we simplify the law-making procedures, the framework Directives, et cetera. However, although that is important, it is also important to start allaying some of the misconceptions about those procedures. All too often when good things happen in Europe we say that we are wonderful. However, when bad things happen, we say that the Brussels bureaucrats are interfering again.

People must understand how the system works. Interfering Brussels busybodies do not make the laws. Laws are decided at European Council meetings where the UK representative is the democratically elected Minister. More often than not, thanks to devolution, that Minister can be from here. If Brid Rodgers were in the Chamber she could testify to that, as she has attended meetings several times to negotiate for Northern Ireland.

There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has reaped tremendous benefits from belonging to the European Union. This debate is about giving something back. We have had peace programmes, a common agricultural policy, structural funds, cross-border initiatives, INTERREG — the list is endless. I agree that we have not always spent the money wisely. A new industry is growing here — consultants are teaching us how to access the money rather than how to make it.

That said, we must realise that we should be using the funding not as a sofa but as a springboard; we have not done that often enough. There has been discussion about enlargement. We know that the money will run out in 2006. What will we do when those more needy countries — the 10 in the first raft to enter the European Union — get preference? That is part of the debate on the future of Europe.

For example, do we follow Sinn Féin’s line — I am sorry that none of its Members is present — in the Nice referendum, and do everything in our power to keep Eastern bloc countries out so that we can have more spoils for ourselves? Or do we begin in earnest to play a constructive role in building the future of Europe?

Northern Ireland is described as a constitutional region of the European Union, and its people are being asked their opinion on the future of Europe. In my vast experience of European affairs, I have never before known the people of Northern Ireland to be asked that. It is hugely important.

What is our reply? According to the motion, we "take note". We should be doing a great deal more than that, and I welcome the fact that we are doing so. We must take positions on the main issues.

What is the problem? For many in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the European Union, Brussels is foreign, faceless, and far too far away. I shall repeat that because Members who have just entered the Chamber may appreciate the description. For many, Brussels is foreign, faceless and too far away.

There are simple remedies. The problem is that the Laeken declaration describes those remedies as the delimination of power, status of charters, et cetera. All that Euro-talk is far too hard to understand. Let us deal with the problems: foreign, faceless and too far away.

How do we deal with Brussels being too far away? I agree with Mr Ken Robinson that the role of the regions should be strengthened. We must bring Europe closer to home and to its citizens. Thus, it becomes less far away.

We had a debate on subsidiarity, but we should come out of the closet and mention the "F" word — federalism. In the days of Margaret Thatcher, we were taught that federalism was a centralisation of power in Brussels. However, the German, Spanish and Belgian examples show us that federalism is not about centralising power in Brussels — it is about decentralising it. Sure enough, it means less power to the capital of the nation state and more power to the regions. That is an interesting concept that we must debate more fully. We should not be afraid of that debate. I appreciated Éamonn ONeill’s contribution that he was not sure that the nation state is a suitable form of government in the modern world.

The debate on federalism should be brought out into the open. In the United Kingdom, it is called devolution; the European Union calls it subsidiarity as a means of avoiding the "F" word. However, it is important that we debate it.

The next consideration is the idea that Europe is faceless. Some of the questions that have been raised today are valid. Why are meetings of the Council of Ministers not held in public? It is wrong that they are held behind closed doors. I was a journalist in Brussels behind those closed doors, hoping to get stories about what was coming out of those Council sessions. The UK Minister would tell us one story, and the French Minister would tell us a totally different one. We never knew who won and who did not. If the meetings are open, we can judge for ourselves, which is very important.

The notion of an elected President is fascinating. That would certainly get us more involved in European affairs. Perhaps a President would have more powers.

It would be worth examining the idea of a second chamber. I am disappointed that, according to Mr Poots, the Committee of the Centre has ruled that out. A second chamber with representatives of national Parliaments would bring it closer to home and make it less faceless.

Many other ideas have been mooted, but I shall not take up more time than both Ministers together. We want more transparency and to bring Europe closer to home. We have something to offer. We are a region that is emerging from conflict, and the means by which we are making that transition with help from our European and American friends could serve as a tremendous example to other regions in the world. We should start to flex our regional muscle and contribute to the debate on Europe. Foreign matters can be a cause of fascination, not a cause of fear.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I am not sure that it is wise to engage in a take-note debate at six o’clock in the evening. There have been some ridiculous comments about Europe.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is operating on Brussels time.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I was simply hoping to get home early. However, I did hear the SDLP abandon Nationalism. Suddenly, they have become Unionists, and Éamonn ONeill says he wants to be a European Unionist. National Socialism and Republicanism are no longer relevant; there has been a volte-face, and the SDLP has left the junior Minister on his own. Its members have suddenly become European Unionists. That is interesting, because then I have heard someone else speak who was a Unionist one day, became something else for the next, but is back to being a Unionist this afternoon. We are becoming well used to conversions and lapses.

Let us look at what is happening. The Convention on the Future of Europe has been called because Europe is in a mess. It has no relevance to people. The number of people who participate in European elections declines every election year. Europe must look at how it can become relevant again. The convention has set out a three-stage process but asks 64 questions. In the ‘European Voice’ magazine we can see how the disparity and disagreements begin. The Centre for European Reform has suggested that

"The danger is that we will end up debating abstract points of principle rather than the concrete problems that enlargement in the Union will face. The debate could also be incoherent, owing to the number of voices competing to be heard."

It is apparently not enough that 104 people be part of this convention — it was suggested in the debate that the 240 regions of an extended Europe be included. There will not merely be competing voices, there will be a large number of competing voices. There will be great difficulty in answering the 64 questions sensibly and coherently.

Peter Hain, the United Kingdom’s Minister for Europe, set out the United Kingdom’s position. Speaking to the Scottish Parliament, he said:

"I hope there will be a way in which the Scottish Parliament, Scotland and other regions of Europe can contribute and have a dialogue to the convention rather than on the convention floor which would not be practical as the convention would be massive if each country had original representatives. There would be an opportunity for structured dialogue in which the regional dimensions, which are important, can be heard. The principal vehicle for British and Scottish input will be the British Government, as the matter is reserved."

That is our position exactly. Let us not get carried away into flights of fancy and rainbow politics. Let us deal with what is being offered in this take-note debate.

In an answer to me earlier this year, the junior Ministers stated:

"The convention will inform the thinking of the heads of governments about the inter-government conference in 2004. We attended a joint ministerial committee meeting in London on 7 March and agreed arrangements for briefing the devolved administrations and for contributing Northern Ireland’s views to the development of the United Kingdom position. In the convention there is also scope for conveying Northern Ireland views to the convention through the Committee of the Regions and the convention’s parallel forum."

The convention’s parallel forum is a web site. Members who are IT-minded can make a substantive contribution that way.

Members are invited to make their contributions at a conference on 27 June. Ideas are emerging to make Europe more easily read by simplifying the treaties. Gattinara and Monsù say:

"The numerous revisions of the last 50 years have led to an impressive increase in treaty provisions, turning them into a tangle of regulations sometimes dating back to different historic periods not always co-ordinated. Some articles contain reference to concepts that are obsolete such as the title on economic and monetary union, even now the European euro is already in existence. Besides the treaties, there are also various protocols for obtaining exemptions and reservations on countries’ positions in certain matters which undermine the unity of the system and above all the clarity of the rules."

That is the reason for the convention. Europe has become a stack of uninterpretable protocols and Directives, some of which are getting into the system in spurts and gulps. Some of our Departments are having difficulty in meeting their deadlines. Northern Ireland will be heavily fined by Europe if it cannot deliver on time.

Some people claim — and Mr Éamonn ONeill made a great point of this — that we are getting a great deal of money from Europe. However, the United Kingdom is a net contributor to the extent of around £1,900 a head. In 1973, we were net contributors of around £500 a head. It now costs us almost four times as much to be Europeans. We do get money from Europe, but the reason for this convention — and I welcome it — is the fact that we shall get an opportunity to put forward a different perspective from that of rainbow politics.

Europe does not have a record of being successful on any unified front throughout history. The first great attempt at unifying Europe was by the great Church, and that ended in disaster. Since then it has fragmented. What has been suggested under this great convention of the regions would take us back into history to the great Christian state of the Holy Roman Empire, which did not even have 240 regions. What has been suggested is, therefore, a historically backward step rather than a forward one.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre was correct to point out that the American Business Association, which is the largest single business grouping, did more business with the United Kingdom than with any other region. Therefore, all those who hail commercial importance and global activity should not think in European terms only. Commercially, we think globally, but we should not put all our eggs in one European basket, given that we have to spend three years and three stages deciphering the present ritual of protocols. By 2004, we will have as many more protocols and Directives to be simplified, and it will take another four years to make sure Europe is in a real mess.

The conference will be a great opportunity to debate and discuss six areas of concern, rather than having three areas to discuss. Europe needs be examined and considered — but considered with reality.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The Laeken declaration starts with some expansive claims about how the European Union and its predecessors have promoted prosperity and peace in Europe. The first page of the declaration states that

"The European Union is a success story. For over half a century now, Europe has been at peace. Along with North America and Japan, the Union forms one of the three most prosperous parts of the world."

I want to evaluate the contribution that the European Union has made to prosperity and peace in Northern Ireland, because we are thinking today about Northern Ireland’s unique input to that convention. It is true — and many Members have referred to it — that we have been net financial beneficiaries from Europe to the order of several hundred million pounds a year in transfers from Brussels, mainly through the farming policy. However, as Mr Gibson has pointed out, the United Kingdom as a whole is still a substantial net financial contributor to the Union.

There are two aspects of overall unified policies across Europe that do not seem to have worked well for Northern Ireland. It could be well argued that, in the long run, the prospects for the farming and fishing industries here would be much better if the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, which in the past week has been subject to reforms and revisions, were to collapse.

It is likely that they will unravel, given their cost and the impact of EU enlargement to the east, which is a driver behind the Laeken declaration and this process.

Mr ONeill referred to the need to use the European Union to give an ethical steer to globalisation. The outlook for the Third World, especially parts of Africa and Latin America, would be much better if the European Union, the United States and Japan did not distort world agriculture patterns, especially the food trade, to such an extent.

The Laeken declaration emphasises Europe’s peace- building role in Northern Ireland. The impression is sometimes given that the European Union was a major broker of our so-called peace process. That is almost certainly an exaggeration, although some help was undoubtedly given, for which we should be grateful. However, the impact of the so-called peace and reconciliation money, derived from the Delors packages, will become clear. It is feared that some of that funding will have a limited effect. Similarly, it is absurd to claim, as the Laeken declaration seems to suggest, that the EU is the main cause of peace in western Europe since 1945 — I should imagine that the Cold War and NATO had a part to play in that regard. Furthermore, it could be argued that aspects of foreign policy that arose from the EU had a malign effect on Yugoslavia during its disintegration and troubles of the 1990s.

The best position on the future of Europe is one of Euro-realism: we are part of the European Union, but that does not mean that we should give all its institutions a blank cheque, as some of them have damaged the interests of Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom, or both. Culturally and geographically, we are part of Europe, but we have strong links with the rest of the world, especially the United States and the Commonwealth. We shall rely mainly on our own efforts to build peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. Although the European Union is important, it is a facilitator, at best, for such activity.

I wish to concentrate on the questions that were posed at the convention. First, how can the EU treaties be simplified? That seems to be a good aspiration; however, I doubt whether it could be achieved if we continue to strive to fulfil the increasingly impossible goal of achieving policy harmony among all European Union member states. Harmony among the 15 members is difficult to achieve; therefore, I cannot imagine how much more difficult it will be if, or when, the European Union expands to comprise 20, 25 or 30 member states. If the European Union is to survive as a confederation of states it will have to accept a good deal of variable geometry — I apologise for using such Euro-jargon. In other words, subgroups of member countries would form different "sub-clubs" with common standards on certain issues, while other member countries would opt out. That structure already exists with respect to the euro; it could also apply to immigration, farming or fisheries policies.

The relationship between the EU institutions and the member states is a further issue. The Blair Government seem to oppose a delineation of competencies between, for example, the Commission and member states. In theory, the idea of setting cast-iron limits on the total powers of the Commission is attractive; however, in practice, any such barriers would be breached progressively.

In the United States, notwithstanding the constitutional provision that all powers that are not declared as resting at the centre — Washington DC — remain with the governments of the states, powers have drifted to the centre over the past 200 years. That is one reason why I disagree with the praise that Ms Morrice gave to so-called "federal systems". Historically, in practice they tend to centralise over time.

Similarly, on the third question relating to the Laeken declaration, regarding so-called subsidiarity, I recognise the apparent attraction of the ideal but doubt its practicality. Subsidiarity can be a "weasel word" because of the problems of defining and enforcing it. The Assembly must be careful about recommending the pursuit of separate regional negotiating lines by, for example, the component parts of the United Kingdom. Occasionally, Northern Ireland is best served with regard to relative bargaining power within the EU by a common United Kingdom position.

The fourth question relating to the Laeken declaration addresses the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I remain to be convinced about it. If each member country has already incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as the United Kingdom has done, it is unclear to me what additional protection is provided by the EU itself subscribing. Incidentally, the Republic of Ireland has yet to subscribe to the ECHR.

The final question relating to the Laeken declaration is to do with how "more democracy" can be promoted within the EU institutions. As Mahatma Ghandi said of Western civilisation, "It would be a good idea". There are great concerns with that. Like Ms Morrice, I wonder why Council of Ministers’ meetings cannot be held in a more transparent way. The European Central Bank in Frankfurt am Main is an example of how massively significant decisions are already being made in a way that is well out of touch with many of the peoples of Europe. Is the common interest rate that is set across the euro zone truly appropriate for the South of Ireland, which is threatened with inflation and a rise in the price of houses and other assets?

The long development of the euro will probably require not just the centralisation of monetary policy-making, the setting of interest rates, and so on — and, indeed, a common European exchange rate relative to the dollar and the Japanese yen — but the centralisation of fiscal policy, such as taxing and spending power In that regard, there may be a time bomb ticking away that has worrying implications for Northern Ireland and the entire United Kingdom. Many continental European social security systems, and particularly their pension systems, have large liabilities building up. It must be asked whether, if the United Kingdom joined the euro, Northern Ireland would become liable for bailing out the Italian, German or French Governments by funding their state pension schemes in the future — leading to our citizens becoming poorer.

Even the d’Estaing Convention on the Future of Europe is less than wholly open, because a 12-member presidium decides which issues will be discussed by the convention, rather than the 105 members as a whole. The word "presidium" is interesting because, I believe, the old Soviet Union’s governing Cabinet was called that.

I do not think that an elected President would be a good thing. Obviously, those who favour euro-federalism can look towards that. I do not think that there is a sufficient common European political culture to warrant it, although perhaps the Prime Minister is looking for his next job — for when he leaves UK politics.

The Laeken declaration and associated convention are important. However, there is a danger that they will remain a babble of conflicting voices. Perhaps I should say a "Babel" of conflicting voices — separate voices on pro- or anti-federalism or on whether the EU is viewed as a destination or a final process. The d’Estaing convention is unlikely to parallel the convention of Philadelphia, which produced the United States constitution in the late 1780s. Europe is not now, and perhaps never will be, ready for a United States of Europe.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Many people believe that the treaties on which the EU rests have become a tangle of regulations. There is a serious lack of clarity surrounding the European articles. It is, therefore, necessary that the treaties be simplified for the sake of open and accountable government.

It is in everyone’s interests that the EU’s objectives, powers and policies be unambiguous. There must not be codification. I do not want a European superstate, nor a one-size-fits-all approach.

Devolution was meant to give us accountable and representative government. Therefore, any future convention must respect the important role carried out in the Assembly. I call for a greater role for regional Assemblies to help maintain producers’ incomes, encourage more guarantees in food safety and quality, and preserve our rural landscape. The EU was set up for practical reasons, and we must ensure that it does not stray from those purposes. It should not become something in its own right. I urge the Commission to simplify and clarify the common agricultural policy, reduce the need for red tape and help farmers. There must be an urgent review and fair implementation of EU laws.

Our sovereign state still has a very real part to play in today’s society, especially in the light of the massive turnouts for the recent Jubilee celebrations. In the aftermath of the Laeken declaration, I call for a more accountable EU that will not impinge on matters concerning our regional and national legislatures.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Laeken declaration broke new ground when 15 Prime Ministers referred to constitutional regions and invited them to play their full part in the debate on the future of Europe. As individuals and elected representatives, we are probably more familiar with EU regulations than most. In the past, there have been issues about square strawberries, correctly coloured carrots and the diameter and shape of bananas. Indeed, it has been said that there is too much chocolate in our chocolate.

Although we are aware of those issues, we also find it difficult to understand why regulations should come from the EU to do away with things that we have had and that have been of no harm to anyone. Those highly publicised issues astounded many of us. People wonder what real impact the EU has on their daily lives. The Laeken declaration has made a move to at least discuss, and, I hope, to address, the problems and the perceptions of the EU held by many people here.

The Committee of the Regions should be given more powers, which should be enhanced and built upon. People see the EU as a source for grants, whether they are for farming or other issues, or for peace money to address community problems. That is the perception that many people have of the EU. As some Members said, it is a way to get money to use here. We are all aware that we pay out more than we receive.

Our Objective 1 status will disappear in a few years. In tandem with that, other countries will be admitted to the EU, which will directly impact upon everyone. The Laeken declaration has provided a forum to discuss the changes.

The declaration looks at the simplification of the treaties, as has been mentioned. No one can say that that has happened in the past. Indeed, it has been quite the opposite. A tangle of regulations exists instead. People see Europe as a bureaucratic nightmare or a web that prevents them from getting in or out of the process. They also see it as a place where decisions are made, but far divorced from where we live and our problems. If European citizens knew what their constitutional rights, were that would be an enormous advantage. If this process becomes a pretext for centralising power and creating a superstate, no one will be interested, so we need to be careful what goes forward.

In relation to the limitation, many feel that it lacks clarity, with the result that European citizens find it difficult to understand how powers are divided between the European Union and the member states. They have the impression that the European Union intervenes in areas in which it should not and, conversely, does not intervene in areas in which action at European level is necessary.

Some of the issues are raised in the Laeken declaration. Subsidiarity is one of the biggest worries, and Members have all commented on it. People have said that decisions are taken, and I will give one example; other Members have given examples that are detrimental and create hardship for, for example, the fishing industry. EU decisions are taken in Brussels that ignore Northern Ireland as being on the periphery of Europe. That has a direct impact on jobs, the economy and our business sector. Where is the accountability? That is what we want to see coming out of this process — accountability. Where is the responsible attitude that should be given and, indeed, offered? If it turns out that the Laeken declaration is only to be a talking shop, our paper mountain will be disastrous. For many of us and for many of the people whom we represent, the EU is over there, and we are over here. If the Laeken declaration can address that issue, at least we are starting to move. I want to see European decisions that affect our constituents being discussed openly and in a transparent fashion, and with the regions, before any Directive whatsoever from Europe is made.

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

It is with great pleasure that I rise to close this debate on the future of Europe. It is important to point out at this stage that I am only closing this debate in the House. The debate generally in Northern Ireland and Europe on the future of Europe is only just beginning. I welcome the contributions made by many Members today, and I would like to respond to some of the issues raised. First, however, I want to talk about the context in which we approach the issues raised in the debate.

James Leslie drew attention to our desire to engage the Assembly and, indeed, wider civic society in Northern Ireland on the issues involved in the whole question of the future of Europe. Today’s debate is part of our engagement with the Assembly, and, in addition, we will be talking about this regularly to the Committee of the Centre. The conference that we plan for 27 June is part of the process of working with civic society. It will focus on the future of Europe, but its purpose goes wider than that. The conference will be the first step towards an EU forum, which will draw in the key sectors of our society, and enable us, not only to consider the future of Europe, but to address regularly and continuously the question of how we work together to deal with the issues that arise out of our membership of the European Union. It should also help to maximise our contribution to the European Union and the benefit that we derive from membership.

There is a need to take a step back from the day-to-day activity of politics and life and consider Northern Ireland’s place as a region of the European Union and what its place should be. The European Union institutions cover a huge range of issues. Some have greater importance and resonance here than others do, but we need to focus our reference on what is really important to us. To attempt to range over all the issues addressed by the European Union would be futile and a waste of our efforts.

To that end, I am pleased to report that last week the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, working with the Department of Finance and Personnel, agreed projects on which the assistance of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE) would be sought. Members have consistently pointed out the need to use the expertise that NICE has built up over years — in my case, they have been pushing at an open door. For a considerable time, I have been convinced that the Executive must supplement their existing efforts by using people with expertise based on experience derived from working with key players in the European scene and from dealing with European matters in Northern Ireland and further afield.

We have put a means of utilising that expertise into place. In the coming months, NICE will lead, and seek to support, a process from which we hope a vision of Northern Ireland as a region of the EU will emerge. NICE will work in participation with the key sectors. The work will be publicly available, and I look forward to a tangible outcome that will assist the Executive and the key sectors in Northern Ireland society to develop new thinking and new ways of doing things. It will be an outward-looking expression of our role.

Minister Leslie has already reflected on our work to develop an EU strategy. That strategy will draw together departmental priorities and needs alongside the wider EU policy context. We have met departmental Ministers to identify the issues to be addressed, as well as the clear priorities already established in areas such as agriculture and the environment.

The strategy, on which we shall elaborate, will also examine our influence on the UK Government’s position overall and our means of interaction, both with the other devolved Administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh and with the Government in Dublin.

The debate will deal with the core issues of how the EU can be accessible to the people of Europe and how a better connection can be made in the context of enlargement and against the background of citizens who feel increasingly remote from Government, particularly from the EU institutions. The debate is very important, and I am glad that Jane Morrice emphasised that so vigorously. We cannot afford to stay out of the debate; we should enter it and think our way through it.

As members of the European Community, we have a voice on how Europe should be shaped for the future; that voice should be heard. As Europeans, we have an interest in how an enlarged EU will operate and what that will mean for Northern Ireland.

As a region, Northern Ireland needs to consider what place regions should have in an enlarged EU. That was a constant theme in the contributions to today’s debate. We must also reflect on the influence we have, and on how that can be best targeted for maximum impact.

Those are among the core questions to be addressed in the debate. Today we have begun to debate them, and they will be discussed for some time to come. It was not our intention to reach conclusions today, but rather to open up those ideas for further examination and exploration.

I want to reflect on some of the ideas that today’s debate offered. First, I welcome the contribution by Mr Poots on behalf of the Committee of the Centre. I am sorry that he is not present. His measured contribution helpfully teased out several core issues for the Convention on the Future of Europe, and those will help in the wider debate we seek to develop. As the debate moves forward, I look forward to further discussion with him and with the Committee of the Centre.

Rather than deal with the contributions in detail, I will refer simply to the themes that arose in the speeches. Common to almost all contributions was, first of all, an insistence on the need for less bureaucracy in European decision-making and policy processing. Secondly, Members stressed the need for greater simplification of structures and instruments to bring the EU closer to people by making it more user-friendly and easier to understand. Thirdly, almost all Members who spoke were in favour of greater accountability and transparency — democratisation — of the EU’s processes, although there were differing opinions as to how that might be facilitated.

Several Members, in particular Ken Robinson, stressed the need for formal and informal networking. Mr Robinson made the interesting point that that is easier for regional legislatures, such as our own, than it is for national Parliaments. Also, the need to strengthen the role of the regions and to bring decision-making closer to the ground, where practical, through the subsidiarity process was a constant theme.

Different opinions emerged on the overall objective and final shape of Europe. Several Members, including Jane Morrice, favoured greater integration of Europe, moving towards a more federal, or confederal, model.

Members disagreed on the need for a draft treaty or a constitution for Europe. Éamonn ONeill suggested that, if there were such a process, there should be a referendum to give the new European arrangements greater legitimacy. Jane Morrice mentioned the possibility of having an elected presidency in Europe to give greater popular involvement in decision-making. The possibility of a second chamber was mentioned, and there was constant reference to the need to more clearly delineate the competencies of the various levels of decision-making in the EU.

Éamonn ONeill referred to the need to balance the regulation of the free market and the promotion of industrial and economic development with the continued elaboration and development of a European social model. He spoke of the need to have regard for the EU’s global responsibilities for international development and peacekeeping. He also dwelt on the issue of human rights and equality. However, not all Members who spoke agreed with him.

Oliver Gibson made an interesting point about the SDLP abandoning Nationalism. I am sorry to contradict him, but my party continues to believe in the national ideal of a united Ireland, and that is what Nationalism means in the context of Irish politics. However, Nationalism in Europe means something quite different. It represents tattooed bully-boy skinheads in jackboots who enforce racist views that would not find widespread sympathy in this community. Mr Gibson also accused my party of abandoning National Socialism. Given that it has never adopted a National Socialist model, I find that theory interesting.

Dr Birnie made a considered speech that gave me food for thought. I understand his point about the federal model in the United States and the gradual and seemingly inexorable expansion of federal power. If the United States model were the only federal model, that would be a fair point. As Dr Birnie said, latent power in the United States lies with the federal Government, and only specified powers rest with the states. The reverse is the case in Canada and Australia, for instance. The powers of the federal Governments in those countries are delineated in their constitutions, and all latent or residual powers lie with the provinces and the states.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I may be wrong, but I understand that that is precisely the situation with the American constitution: it confers defined powers to the federal Government. It is principally the provision on the regulation of interstate commerce that, over the past 200 years, has allowed the gradual drift to Washington DC.

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

I was going to make that point. The Supreme Court has been the motor for the expansion of federal power in the United States because its expansionism rests on provisions such as interstate commerce. The exact case that gave rise to that was the Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States — I am showing off slightly there.

However, Dr Birnie raised several interesting points. He legitimately questioned the effect of the net inward transfer of resources from the European Union. He questioned the extent to which that has been responsible for economic development here, and whether its contribution was a lasting one. Net inward transfers have made a useful input to our infrastructure’s development. However, they have not been as important a factor in our economic growth as they have been in the Republic of Ireland, where they have made a useful impact. If net inward transfers of wealth were the key factor in generating economic growth, then, given that every year we derive approximately £4·5 billion more from the Exchequer in London than we generate, our economic growth rate should be about 10 times that of the Republic — but it is not. One must question where the wellsprings of economic growth are. Dr Birnie appropriately raised the matter, and it requires further debate.

I also recognise Dr Birnie’s point about the limitations of a common currency on countries such as the Republic in determining interest rates, and so forth, to regulate the economy and combat inflation. The last time that Europe had a common currency was under the Roman Empire, when the denarius was used from the Black Sea to the Atlantic. I am not sure what they did about interest rates in those days. We need to explore those issues, because economies can be regulated in ways other than manipulating interest rates.

Having gone over the general themes that arose in the debate, I welcome Members’ contributions. This is the first stage of a debate that will continue until at least 2004. We have not sought to set the terms of or limit the debate in any way; we have simply reflected the fact that the Executive will need, in time, to consider their contribution to the Convention on the Future of Europe under the chairmanship of Giscard d’Estaing. We will then be able to draw on the views raised in this and further debates, in our discussions with the Committee of the Centre and in exchanges we conduct in any other forum.

We want any input that we make from the Administration to the convention to reflect as closely as possible the views that are widely held in this society.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the Laeken declaration and the subsequent establishment of a Convention on the Future of Europe.

Adjourned at 5.59 pm.