Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 September 2002

110 contributions from 38 members. The official report.

Points of Order: All-Ireland Football Championships

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Two Members wish to make points of order. I will take Mr ONeill’s, and then Mr John Kelly’s.

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

Mr Speaker, would it be in order for you, as Speaker of the House, to send your congratulations to the victorious Armagh senior and Derry minor football teams on their magnificent successes at the weekend? Could I, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, arrange with you a reception to recognise those wonderful achievements?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Kelly, does your point of order concern the same issue?

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. Will the Assembly send a message of congratulations to the Armagh senior county team, since it is based in the First Minister’s constituency, and to the Derry minor team? We must not forget that the Derry minor team won the all-Ireland minor championship yesterday. Will you send congratulations to both teams?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Does your point of order concern the same issue, Dr Paisley?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. People in this House are greatly saddened by what took place in Lurgan yesterday when the supporters, who were supposed to be celebrating their victory, not only attacked the police and the Protestant people, but, to add insult to injury, hung a tricolour on the war memorial. On the previous night, there was a savage attack on places of worship in Keady. The Orange hall was painted over, the gospel hall’s windows were smashed, a beautiful stained glass window in the Presbyterian church was smashed, and the Church of Ireland church was also smashed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Dr Paisley, I ask you to come to the point of order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

This should also be made public at this time.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is it on the same issue?

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It would be sensible to have whatever points of order there are on this issue at the same time. However, I must emphasise that we cannot turn this into a debate.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I wish to correct the erroneous statement made by the Member. I represent Upper Bann. I come from Lurgan and know the situation that occurred there yesterday. The fact is that GAA supporters were attacked by a Unionist crowd. The PSNI — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We need to correct an erroneous statement. I come from Lurgan and know the situation on the ground. GAA supporters were attacked by a Loyalist/ Unionist mob. The PSNI failed to protect GAA supporters in Lurgan yesterday.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must ask the Member to take her seat. Order.

It is quite clear that we have gone well beyond points of order and that we are now into points of disorder in the Chamber.

I will advise the House of my ruling on the issue. First, it is entirely in order for the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to bring to his Committee the question of whether it would like to hold a reception to celebrate this event. He knows from previous occasions that if the Committee wants to hold such a reception, but does not have the resources to do so, and he approaches the Speaker’s Office, he will get the same positive response to this particular request, should it come from the Committee, as he had in respect of previous requests. That is the appropriate way to deal with this.

Responding to Mr Kelly’s point of order, it is not possible for the Assembly to make such a gesture without having a motion for debate. The Member may wish to put down such a motion, but it would, of course, lose something in terms of the timing.

Dr Paisley mentioned some concerns, and Dr O’Hagan mentioned her concerns about the same point. I ask that Members compose themselves, not only on this matter, but also on the general business of the day. It is a funny old place here. I do not suppose I imagined that I would find Nationalists demanding that Stormont have orange flags outside it, and Unionists expressing a degree of concern about that. However, that would be the circumstance if the Armagh team were here celebrating.

I ask members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to consider if that is the appropriate context in which to deal with this matter. If the Committee has a view on this, and comes to the Speaker’s Office, it will receive the usual generous reply that my Office tries to give to these matters.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not wonderful —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is this point of order on the same issue?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

It is just an observation. Is it not wonderful how sport —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I know the Member to be an imaginative and creative man, which is why I checked in advance.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is it on the same matter, Mr Kelly?

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am afraid I cannot take any further points of order on this matter.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I was going to suggest that orange flags —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The previous Member was close, but you are not. You are not getting a further point of order.

Speaker’s Business: Assembly Commission Visit to Ottawa and Quebec

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform the House that I will be absent from the plenary sittings of the Assembly next week.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Thank you. At the invitation of the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament, I will be leading an Assembly Commission visit to Ottawa and Quebec.

Point of Order: Scheduling of Assembly Business

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I assume it is on a different point.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I assure you that it has nothing to do with Armagh, though Armagh will be waiting to hear your response. On 2 September 2002, my Colleagues and I tabled a motion that called for the dissolution of the Assembly to enable an election to take place. We recognised then — as most of the House will recognise now — that the Assembly will lurch from one crisis to another because of the shenanigans in the Ulster Unionist Party.

I understand that to date, the Business Committee has set itself up to vote down the hearing of that debate simply on a political basis. As there is a statutory basis for the motion, Mr Speaker, surely you can use your influence to ensure that a large group of Members who wish to see a motion debated can have the opportunity to do so, and then we can move to elections, negotiations and the possibility of real, stable political structures in Northern Ireland.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is clearly a matter for the Business Committee to decide what goes on the Order Paper as far as private Members’ business is concerned. In the past, I have indicated that — [Interruption]. Order.

When motions are set down and have some statutory basis, which I think is the reference that the Member is making, if there is some reasonable chance of success as evidenced by support within the Business Committee to have the debate, one, as the Chairperson, might well urge the Business Committee to consider the matter. I cannot do more. I am the one member of the Business Committee who does not have a vote, and I do not seek to influence it politically in any way, except to do what is wise for the general well-being of the Assembly.

Of course, the Member’s Colleagues are at liberty to raise the matter in the Business Committee, which will meet tomorrow to consider next week’s business. Therefore, it will be a matter for the Business Committee to consider. I dare say that its members will consider the question, taking full account, as business managers, of what they judge to be the likely approach of their parties to the matter. That is not a wholly unreasonable way for them to consider the question.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am more concerned after listening to your response. Surely it can never be the Business Committee’s role to make judgements either on the outcome of a motion or on the basis of whether it likes or agrees with the principles behind it. The Assembly has the right to consider matters and reject them if so desired. The Business Committee does not have a veto in determining which particular political party policies should be allowed to be aired in the Chamber.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Nor did I suggest that that was the case. Since there is a long list of no-day-named motions, the Member is asking the Business Committee to put the particular motion from his party ahead of other motions. I am saying that as far as the Business Committee is concerned, I would certainly urge it to consider an extra degree of significance to motions that bear on the statutory basis of the Assembly. The Business Committee must make its own judgements.

However, I dare say that the Business Committee will make a judgement on the basis of what it believes to be the motion’s level of support. For example, since no seconder is even necessary, it would be entirely possible for a single Member to table a motion that was on a statutory matter of the type referred to. The Member would judge it not reasonable that that on its own should take precedence over everything else. Of course the Member is saying that this motion does not involve a single Member, but a significant body. In other words, he is saying that the level of support is significant. That is simply all that I am pointing out also — the level of support is significant and not unreasonably so in the mind of the Business Committee when making a judgement.

It would be wholly inappropriate to bring the discussions of the Business Committee on to the Floor. I am simply ruling on the procedural question. I trust that the Member is at least clear on the question, if not entirely happy.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I reassure the House that what you have said is exactly what happens. The Business Committee was unable to judge the level of support for the DUP motion because the DUP Chief Whip withdrew that particular motion —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I interrupt the Lady at that point because she is about to discuss the conduct of the Business Committee on the Floor of the House. The Business Committee minutes — [Interruption]. Order.

The Business Committee minutes are on record and on the web site once they have been approved. It is inappropriate that further debate takes place on that issue.

Draft Programme for Government

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on behalf of the Executive on the draft Programme for Government 2003-2004. Following a proposal from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister the Business Committee considered the form in which the Programme for Government should be presented to the House and agreed that it should be presented in the form of a statement today. A motion to take note of the draft Programme for Government will be debated tomorrow.

The Business Committee agreed to a different form of statement. As the House is aware, statements are usually followed by a series of questions to the Minister, or Ministers, who make the statement. However, in view of the fact that the Programme for Government is a singular presentation, it was viewed as appropriate — and the proposal came from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — that party leaders should not be restricted to simply asking questions, but should have the opportunity to make a statement for up to five minutes, obviating the need for questions or response.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will make their presentation, and all parties will have an opportunity, restricted to the party leader or a nominee, to make a response lasting five minutes. If that is clear, we will proceed.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Deputy First Minister and I have pleasure in presenting to the Assembly, on behalf of the Executive, our draft Programme for Government covering the next financial year and beyond. At its meeting on Thursday 19 September, the Executive agreed a draft Programme for Government, supported by a draft Budget. We are laying that programme before the Assembly for scrutiny and for future approval after examination in Committees.

The draft Programme for Government sets out the Executive’s plans and priorities for the next few years, and will be supported by the draft Budget to be presented to the Assembly tomorrow by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Programme for Government is a detailed and comprehensive document, and Members will know that it is not a quick and easy read. We could translate the document and merely present a series of sound bites taking up a few pages, but we believe that it is important that the Assembly and others should see our plans and priorities in some detail and understand the context in which they are to be taken forward. Members should have the necessary information to carry out their role in scrutinising the document.

We have been keen to build on the progress already made as an Executive when developing this programme. We have the experience of developing and implementing two previous programmes that have been endorsed by the Assembly. We want to use that experience and build on our achievements to steer us through the months and years ahead.

We have achieved much, and there is much that we can be proud of. We have shown that we can work together across all four parties in the Administration to plan for, and deliver, good government. We have brought about real improvements in areas as diverse as education, infrastructure and the needs of children. We have demonstrated a commitment to accountability and a readiness to report openly on our progress that is unparalleled.

This is a time for commitment, not complacency. This draft programme demonstrates our commitment to deliver government that makes a real and positive difference to the lives of people here. Reinvestment and reform are the twin elements at the core of this programme; they must underpin our efforts to make a difference in the years ahead. We also want to deliver real progress in tackling social exclusion, promoting sustainable development and building stronger partnerships — partnerships with local government and the social partners in influencing the development of policies and programmes and their delivery. We have highlighted in our draft Programme for Government those key themes that cut across our priorities, and we will say more about them shortly. Members will have received a copy of the document, and the chapter on investing in the future sets out further details.

Another feature of this year’s document is our wish to bring out more clearly than before the context in which our economic, social and environmental policies and programmes are developed and implemented. We should not develop new policies or continue with existing ones without a clear understanding of the economy and society, and the challenges which the Executive and Assembly face. Chapter 2 of the document sets out the current position on some key indicators, the improvements which have occurred and the problems which continue to exist. The Executive’s programme needs to address the challenges identified.

I wish now to focus on our commitments in this draft Programme for Government on investing in our infrastructure and promoting sustainable development. I also want to say something about our plans for modernising and developing public services. The Deputy First Minister will later pick up the theme of reform and also outline our work to tackle social exclusion and build partnerships.

This draft Programme for Government makes clear our commitment to delivering new and substantial investment in infrastructure. We know from the work on examining the opportunities for public-private partnerships that we have an estimated £6 billion investment deficit in that infrastructure. We must try to remedy that deficit over the next decade. The need to address that problem has been raised by Members, most recently in the debate last Monday.

Tackling that deficit is not just about bricks and mortar, it is also about standards: the standard of education in our schools; the quality of treatment in our hospitals; the quality of our drinking water and the ability of our transport network to carry people and goods safely and effectively. It is about improving the infrastructure to improve the services that we all use.

In May 2002, we announced details of a new reinvestment and reform initiative designed to address the infrastructure problems that we have identified. In July 2002, we made a start in implementing the initiative. At that point we allocated £270 million to improve key areas of infrastructure. The draft Programme for Government reflects the work to date and our plans for the years ahead. We hope that in the first year covered by the programme, we shall have a new strategic investment board in place to assist us in improving the state of our infrastructure significantly.

For example, the draft Programme for Government states our commitment to investing in the road network. We shall work to eliminate 75% of the road maintenance backlog over the period of the regional transportation strategy. We shall undertake improvements to our major routes, in particular building on our earlier commitment to upgrade the trans-European network from Larne to Newry.

We shall strengthen our energy infrastructure. The draft programme contains our proposals in those areas. We are also determined to improve the health and education estates. We have already announced our plans for the new cancer centre — a development that should result in better diagnosis, treatment and care for those living with cancer. The draft programme signals our intention to increase capacity in hospitals, providing 100 more hospital beds by March 2005 to help ease the worst pressure points.

We also set out our proposals to start more major capital improvements to primary and post-primary schools and to deliver a programme of investment to improve the state of our further education colleges. We shall also bring about improvements to our public library network.

One of the big challenges in taking forward this programme of investment is making sure it is sustainable. We have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the improvements we make to meet our needs now are not at the expense of future generations’ ability to meet their needs. That message came across very clearly at the recent world summit in South Africa.

For that reason, we identify promoting sustainable living as a theme which cuts across all the Executive’s work — in improving infrastructure and public services and in tackling poverty and social exclusion. In the draft programme we set out many commitments, which reflect that theme — for example, through investing for health and in our approach to securing a competitive economy.

On planning, for example, we wish to develop a more co-ordinated and efficient planning process that integrates our economic, social and environmental needs. That is why the draft programme commits us to modernising the planning process. We are also concerned about transport — and the draft Programme for Government highlights our determination to introduce measures to support public transport.

We recognise the need to reduce waste and tackle issues surrounding its disposal. For that reason, we have restated our intention to promote the recovery, or recycling, of 25% of all household waste by 2006.

If the principles of sustainable development need to underpin our work to address the infrastructure deficit, so too do they need to be reflected in our work to improve public services. The simple provision of more resources to improve our infrastructure will not result in the scale of change that the Executive want. That is why the focus in this draft programme is not just on reinvestment, but also on reform.

We want to deliver reform on several levels.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. There is a general hubbub in the Chamber, which is unhelpful to Members who wish to listen to the statement. Members should restrain themselves or have their conversations in the Lobby.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

First, we want to examine how to finance our work to improve infrastructure and the delivery of public services. Secondly, we want to examine how to improve public services and public administration. Thirdly, we want to reform how the public sector operates, identifying new ways of working that will create real changes.

Of course, change for change’s sake is never effective. We are determined that our driving force will be reform that brings real and measurable improvements that people can see, feel and experience. The draft Programme for Government sets out a challenging and ambitious programme that, when implemented, will bring about real change for the better. It contains many specific commitments that are supported by the draft Budget, which the Minister of Finance and Personnel will present to the Assembly tomorrow. It reflects our continuing focus on delivering progress across our five priorities in the context of the Executive’s key themes.

The programme is in draft form; it is not set in stone. We want to consult on its content with the Assembly and more widely. We look forward to hearing the views of Members in tomorrow’s debate and over the coming weeks.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The draft Programme for Government represents another step forward in delivering accountable government that meets people’s needs.

We launched a consultation on the Executive’s position report on 5 June to seek views on this year’s programme. We have received responses from Committees, the Civic Forum and other interested bodies, which have helped us to develop this draft. Based on those comments, the Executive concluded that the five priorities adopted before remain valid and should be retained. They are: growing as a community; working for a healthier people; investing in education and skills; securing a competitive economy; and developing relations.

We also identified relevant sub-priorities and specific proposed actions to support our priorities. Any commitments will have to be budgeted for in the draft Budget. It is right that, in all our priorities and at the heart of this Programme for Government, we focus on reinvestment and reform. We want to deliver modern, efficient public services. That will require investment and change.

I wish to outline the areas for reform identified in the draft programme. I will also comment on our commitments on social exclusion and our work to build stronger partnerships.

The draft programme makes it clear that we must take a more innovative approach to managing and financing our infrastructure programme. The reinvestment and reform initiative has already demonstrated our desire to think differently and to challenge the traditional methods of public sector financing. We want to continue in that vein. The new strategic investment board will ensure that investment in our strategic infrastructure is planned and delivered in a way that makes the most of the resources and the expertise available to us.

Our consultation on public-private partnerships (PPPs), which ended recently, is helping to shape our thinking on how to make best use of opportunities for PPPs in financing our future.

The creation of Executive programme funds has been another important innovation, and we will continue to use them to support actions to deliver progress in the five priorities. The draft Programme for Government makes it clear that there is other work to be done. Agreement must be reached on a fair rating system for Northern Ireland after the rating policy review, and we must continue to press for reform of the Barnett formula to ensure that our resources meet our needs.

We have underlined the importance that we attach to modernising government and to reform. The Executive intend to develop departmental plans to reform service delivery, including efficiency improvements and the use of assets. Those plans will be completed in the coming weeks and will feed into the departmental service delivery agreements to be developed later this year.

We want to improve the quality of our public services and the structures for delivering them and to ensure that our efforts are targeted at those most in need. The draft Programme for Government sets out several commitments that the Executive are ready to make. We will continue our work to improve health and promote healthy lifestyles, modernise our hospital services and introduce new standards of clinical governance — all the while directing resources to those most in need and most vulnerable.

The Department of Education will introduce new curricula in primary and post-primary schools that reflect the needs of our economy and society. We will also take action to ensure that young people leave school with the highest possible standards of literacy and numeracy. We will reduce the proportion of pupils in schools serving the most disadvantaged communities who leave school with no GCSEs and the number of poor attenders. The Executive intend to make changes to how the education system deals with children with special educational needs and to make sure that they can share equally in the planned improvements. The draft Programme for Government underlines the Executive’s commitment to having pupils with special educational needs educated, where possible, alongside their peers in mainstream schools.

Another important focus will be welfare reform. The Executive want to play their part in implementing reforms to the social security and pensions systems. The draft Programme for Government commits us to joining up our jobs and benefits services. By March 2004, we will have extended a new jobs and benefits service to 20 combined social security and jobcentre offices across Northern Ireland. In line with a focus on putting work at the forefront of the benefits system, we want to improve services for those seeking work. In particular, we plan to take action to tackle poor literacy and numeracy in adults by helping an extra 2,500 learners to update their essential skills.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is already implementing an ambitious programme of modernisation, focusing on the needs of farmers and the agrifood industry, e-government and the delivery of research and education. We will also implement the recommendations of the vision exercise.

The Executive want to ensure that Invest Northern Ireland provides a new opportunity to improve competitiveness and encourage investment and enterprise. The draft Programme for Government sets out our plans in that area.

We also have key decisions to take over the life of the draft Programme for Government. We must reach agreement on the right structures for our acute hospitals and post-primary schools. We want to make sure that our decisions bring about positive improvements in the quality of service.

We must also reach agreement on the structures of public administration. The draft Programme for Government conveys our intention to introduce by the end of next year a new model for public administration. Our proposals will be driven by a desire to improve the delivery of public services.

The draft Programme for Government also sets out our commitment to improve community relations and tackle division. The need to support the capacity of local communities to deal with matters of dispute or division is particularly important. Our experience in north Belfast and other areas has shown that improved relations can only develop when elected and community representatives work together. By the end of next year, we want to have in place a new policy and strategy on good relations, which will include actions and targets. We also want it to include action focused on local areas with acute community difficulties and action to support the capacity of local communities to deal with issues such as sectarian flags and graffiti.

If we are to facilitate improvements in relations and an end to the trouble on our streets, we need to focus on delivering equality of opportunity for all. One of the greatest inequalities in Northern Ireland is that which exists between the affluent and the most disadvantaged. The draft Programme for Government emphasises, therefore, our determination to tackle poverty and social exclusion. It sets out our work to evaluate and improve our policy on targeting social need. It also highlights our determination to take action to root out child poverty.

The development of a children’s fund demonstrates our commitment to supporting children in need and young people at risk, a commitment which is restated in the draft Programme for Government. It also demonstrates the value of a partnership approach: working across sectors to do the best we can for children.

The draft Programme for Government represents what we can achieve by working in partnership in Government. However, we also need to build partnerships between the Government and social partners. It is not enough simply to change the form of government: our goal must be to change the face of the Government, the face of politics and the face of our society. Nor is it sufficient to have the social partners as passive consultees. They must be active participants in the development of policy. It is only by harnessing our collective energies and insight that the soundest solutions to our problems can be found.

The promoting social inclusion initiative and the work of the Economic Development Forum show the value of involving social partners not only in consultation, but in policy formation. We must consider how that can be extended as we consult further and, ultimately, implement the Programme for Government. The draft programme indicates our readiness to do that.

As in previous years, we are also presenting the latest public service agreements (PSAs) for the eleven Departments. The PSAs will support the Executive’s priorities and commitments by setting out what is to be achieved from the Budget allocations. They reflect our commitment to openness and accountability to the Assembly and the public, and they focus on improving public services. The PSAs are in draft form, and we invite the Assembly and the Committees to examine them during the consultation period.

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

The draft Programme for Government is a manifesto for reinvestment and reform, a pledge to improve public services. In moving forward, our guiding principle must be the desire to deliver a better service to the public. We need to focus on delivery, on the end result and how that can be improved. However, as the First Minister has emphasised, it is a draft Programme for Government. It represents the Executive’s current thinking on their plans and priorities for the years ahead. That thinking should now be debated, discussed and, where necessary, challenged inside and outside the Chamber. On that basis, we commend the draft Programme for Government to the Assembly.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The draft Programme for Government is an impressive document, not least because it provides a comprehensive analysis of the problems facing Northern Ireland before attempting to outline solutions.

Page 10 shows that unemployment has fallen dramatically in the past decade, although an employability issue remains. Chart 3 on page 11 reveals a crucial economic and social problem: our level of gross domestic product (GDP) per head continues to lag seriously behind the United Kingdom and European Union averages. However, one technical but significant point is that the chart almost certainly exaggerates the extent to which the Republic of Ireland’s living standard improved compared with that of Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe in the same period.

The reinvestment and reform package mentioned in paragraphs 3.9 to 3.12 must be a driver to deal, at last, with the long-standing backlog in infrastructure investment, which amounts to around £6 billion. By attempting to deal with the problem, the initiative represents an act of political courage and financial wisdom.

Sub-priority 8 of ‘Growing as a Community’ identifies a role for museums. I hope that they will be able to show what is distinctive about Northern Ireland and its history, while recognising the substantial east-west links with the rest of the United Kingdom as well as the North/ South aspect. I note also the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s proposal to implement an archives policy.

My party is pleased that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will provide support for implementing the football strategy from April next year and that new training facilities will be provided in at least seven sporting areas by March 2006.

Sub-priority 1 of ‘Securing a Competitive Economy’, which deals with improving and developing infrastructure, is immensely significant for the reasons that I have already given, especially the backlog in investment that developed during the direct rule period.

That chapter’s sub-priority 2 deals with modernising the planning process. Hitherto, our planning process satisfied no one. On the one hand, developers argued that economic progress was held up by undue backlogs in the system. On the other hand, residents felt that their vital interests were being overridden. A general debate about planning processes is taking place across the UK, so Northern Ireland’s problems are not unique. However, some aspects are peculiar to this region. The Ulster Unionist Party is pleased that the planning process will be modernised.

Paragraph 1.5 of the document points out the progress and achievements made in several areas that were highlighted in previous Programmes for Government, including the expansion of higher and further education and the provision of free public transport for the elderly.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the draft Programme for Government in the hope that it, and future programmes, will support further achievements.

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

The guiding principle of this draft Programme for Government is "making a difference". Let us reflect for a moment on what that means and how it can be implemented. It means building on what the Assembly has achieved in the past four years. It means no return to the corruption that occurred during the three decades of direct rule, when deals were struck in smoke-filled rooms, and millions of pounds worth of contracts were issued without tenders, or issued to companies that did not tender the lowest bid.

It means a fundamental change to the Senior Civil Service and non-departmental public bodies. It means an end to the soirées and the flagrant abuse of credit cards. However, it means more than that: it means building on the good work of Seán Farren and Carmel Hanna to end the scandal whereby one in four people have poor levels of literacy and numeracy, so that everyone can hold his or her head high when applying for a job or seeking promotion.

I am glad that the Programme for Government addresses also the needs of students in serious debt, who are at the other end of the scale. In the past four years, access to colleges of further education and universities has been widened substantially. The threshold above which parents must pay fees has been raised and will continue to increase as a fundamental principle of the SDLP. Pressure will be continued on the British Government for improved central funds.

Will we allow those and other possibilities to be wiped out because a few weeping willows in the "No" camp, particularly the DUP, do not have the stomach to face the challenges of the future and have no alternatives to the Good Friday Agreement? Are we to turn our backs on the Health Service, which is in crisis? Are we to forget about our commitment to decentralisation and cross-border bodies, which bring untold benefits, particularly in west Belfast, Strabane, Derry and other unemployment black spots? I should think not. Those who connive behind closed doors to bring down the Assembly must rethink their actions. It does not seem to matter to them that they are creating a political vacuum, which gives the kiss of life to killer gangs that are long past their sell-by date.

The SDLP will not abandon the people to whom it made a firm promise in the Good Friday Agreement. We will fight for an extension to the free transport scheme for people over 60 years old. We will back our Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in radically reforming the industry to secure the future of new and existing farmers. We will support her efforts to develop a new vision for agriculture, to improve animal health and to show the British Government that they can no longer treat farmers as they do. However, none of that will be possible if members of the Saturday morning fur-coat brigade continue to vote like turkeys for Christmas. The "No" campers do not give a damn about equality, social inclusion or unemployment black spots. [Interruption].

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

Order.

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

They seem to believe that they can turn back the clock to the good old days when they reigned supreme. We are not going back to those days: there will be no cap in hand, no begging bowl, and no subservience to our absentee landlords. Will we be left to do it alone? Those who fooled themselves at the weekend that they could turn the clock back should get real with the electorate and begin to tell them the truth. The world is moving on, and so are we, whether they like it or not. Dismantling the political structures to stop the clock is not an option. In a global world, and in a European context, partitionist politics are as dead as a dodo. Let us face the future together, rather than trying to lift the ball and run away with it. It is no longer theirs, but ours to share. If Armagh and Derry can do it, so can the Assembly.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Having listened to the interesting statement of the petty comic, we should now get down to business. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister really think that they can bluff the people of Northern Ireland with the documents that they presented today? The First Minister’s constitutional position is in jeopardy, and his party is stating, in the strongest possible manner, that things will change. We are told that the last date will be 18 January.

The First Minister told us that he was presenting his priorities for the next few years. It is quite interesting that an attempt is being made in this House to sweep the reality of the situation conveniently under the carpet and pretend that all is well when it is not.

As for Mr Dallat, he may have no respect for the electorate, but the electorate will not go away. In fact, the electorate or a Sinn Féin member in his own constituency may tell him to go away. Mr Dallat made as good a speech as any Shinner could have made in the days of absentee landlords and little fairies at the end of an Irish garden.

The report says that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will apply themselves to dealing with the troubles, but the Deputy First Minister did not have the honesty to say that the trouble lies with one member of the Executive, an active member, who takes his seat with us. The Deputy First Minister did not have the honesty to say that that member’s party is dedicated to keeping this country in turmoil. It has the arms to do it, and it has been producing the goods.

The Deputy First Minister says that they will declare war on sectarian flags. I will ask him a straight question: does he think that the Union flag is a sectarian flag? Of all the flags, it has been the Union flag that has been most attacked and removed. Is that what he is after? The people of this country know what is wrong. They have a right to demand the right to live, the right to be free from gangsters and paramilitaries, from whatever side they come, and the right to maintain their place in a democracy.

It is quite amusing to hear the Deputy First Minister talk about equality of opportunity for all. There is no equality of opportunity in our new police service because of his party’s policy that the Roman Catholic minority must have a majority over Protestants. The 50% share that is given to Protestants must also include Jews and Hindus and everyone else. There cannot be equal equality of opportunity for all, yet he unblushingly said that that great target has been set.

This House had better realise that sooner or later, no matter about the dodges of the Business Committee and no matter about the First Minister. I read carefully a statement from the First Minister that said that this would not be a fudge but that there might be flexibility. That was a good get-out. No doubt, he will have to run for shelter and quote that. We are not running for shelter. We believe in direct confrontation with the electorate. Let the electorate speak.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We have only had a limited opportunity to consider the draft Programme for Government in detail and, regrettably, even less opportunity to study this morning’s statement.

They can only be properly considered in the context of the draft Budget, the content and detail of which we await. In the past couple of years, we have become familiar with the thematic content of the Programme for Government. In fairness, most people are content with that approach. The devil is in the detail. However, it is time for the Executive to demonstrate clearly their ability to translate the identification of priority areas such as health, education and transport into "deliverables". That is how the draft programme and the accompanying Budget will be judged. The litmus test for the Executive will be their ability, or otherwise, to set aside party political interests and, on a truly collective basis, bring together and deliver on proposals for meaningful change that will make a tangible difference.

It is ironic — some may say surreal — that we are being asked to consider how the Executive propose to make a difference when they are under a cloud and in the midst of the contrived crisis into which the Ulster Unionist Party is driving the political institutions. It is difficult to reconcile what appears in the draft Programme for Government with the general political context being shaped by those in the Ulster Unionist Party who are opposed to change. How do we square the commitment to ensuring that the transfer of political power to our political institutions makes a real and positive difference to our economic and social life with the fact that one half of the Executive now wants to collapse those institutions? How do we reconcile the commitment to tackling the underinvestment that is part of the legacy of direct rule with the Unionist half of the Executive marching down the road to nowhere? How do we square the Executive’s strategic objectives to achieve equality, partnership, sustainability and prosperity with the political objectives of half of the Executive, which are based on exclusion? How should we view the commitments contained in section 8 of the draft Programme for Government? Paragraph 8.4 states:

"The Agreement provided a unique framework to develop relations within the island of Ireland."

Yet the First Minister has declared that he will, with immediate effect, act in a way that will significantly damage those institutions. Paragraph 8.4 also says that the Executive will focus on

"developing North/South relations and realise the potential for enhanced co-operation".

Paragraph 8.5 begins

"We will continue to work together with the Irish Government to realise the full potential of enhanced cross-border co-operation for mutual benefit. We will take forward co-operation through the North/South Ministerial Council and in particular through the agreed areas for co-operation — (Agriculture; Education; Environment; Transport; Health; and Tourism)."

That was agreed last Thursday. Some 48 hours later, David Trimble contradicted that commitment. He negotiated and agreed with his partners on the Executive while he had in his pocket a proposal to wreck the all-Ireland institutions. When half of the Executive has adopted the policies and politics of the "No" camp, it is time for the public to ask questions.

Those are only some of the questions that will spring to people’s minds when they read the detail of the draft Programme for Government — they will think of cloud cuckoo land. When we debated the draft Programme for Government last year, it was clear that it had been developed through agreement between all the political parties against a backdrop of serious political difficulties. However, at least there was a collective approach. Today’s draft Programme for Government comes 48 hours after yet another Ulster Unionist Council meeting and against the backdrop of yet another Ulster Unionist Party threat to walk away from the institutions.

Let us be clear: Unionists are fighting a concerted campaign to frustrate and delay the required changes to our society with regard to the equality agenda, the human rights agenda, the all-Ireland agenda, criminal justice, demilitarisation and policing. Unionists have attempted to delay and dilute the progress in all those areas, which are the cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement. However, my greatest concern is whether the Executive’s Programme for Government will be able to deliver on the agenda for change in the light of the political cowardice of the Unionist political leadership.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Ministers for their statement. Like other Members, I received a copy of it late this morning, so I have not had time to read it or the draft Programme for Government. However, I wish to make a few comments that I will expand on in tomorrow’s debate.

There have been real achievements in children’s issues and in health matters, such as the cancer centre. Although I do not want to undermine those achievements, the Alliance Party is once again disappointed that, in the key themes of the draft Programme for Government, community relations, which will make our society more tolerant and build on those achievements, are not apparent. I have direct experience that, over the years, community relations projects have contributed greatly towards mutual understanding and tolerance, which is tragically missing in Northern Ireland.

Stronger partnerships must be built, and not only with local government and social partners. Sub-priority 2, which should have been a full priority, states:

"We recognise that we have to deal with the very deep and painful divisions in our society after decades of conflict and that we must tackle the scourge of sectarianism, racism and intimidation."

That sub-priority also states that elected and community representatives must work together. Community relations projects and personnel should be included in that.

A community relations strategy has been delayed time and again, and the draft Programme for Government does not make it clear when, or how, the strategy will be announced or when the consultation process will begin. That must be dealt with in tomorrow’s debate. The building of a strategy must be a priority, together with the efficient allocation of resources to community relations councils to ensure that all citizens will benefit from their projects.

No clear account has been given of money allocated, and no questions have been asked about the benefits to the entire community. Four years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, people are still being intimidated, terrorised and exiled by men and women of violence who wage their campaigns with ease. That should not be tolerated. It is not solely a matter for the Executive or for the Assembly, and my party and I believe that sufficiently strong, decisive local political leadership has not been shown. That must not continue.

Social inclusion, social exclusion and New TSN are good foundations to help disadvantaged ordinary people. However, those ordinary people deal with dreadful situations every day, and they must be supported and encouraged to come together in a viable and informed way. That can be done only by working with community relations organisations, which have their own confident and sustained strategy. That support and encouragement should be evident in all elements of the draft Programme for Government, which represents a manifesto for reinvestment and reform and a pledge to improve public services. I agree with those sentiments, and I have no doubt that they will be carried through. However, the basic safety and livelihoods of our people, together with their confidence, must be a priority.

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement this morning, to which my main remarks have been addressed. Tomorrow I shall refer to the draft Programme for Government, and I look forward to the debate.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

As the Unionist community views the proceedings today, it may be bewildered or bemused by the spectacle of the First Minister presenting a draft Programme for Government to the House. He referred to the length of time that it will take for the programme to come to fruition.

However, in Government partnership with Colleagues, as they are referred to by Mr Trimble, are members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party who represent the Unionist community. They are, by their outward pleadings and statements, declaring that they recognise that the Unionist electorate do not support the institutions. Furthermore, they are exhibiting signs of nervousness as they approach next year’s elections.

It is on that basis that Mr Trimble beats his chest and declares that he will not sit in a power-sharing Administration with Members who continue to be inextricably linked with those who are actively involved in terrorism. However, if Mr Trimble, his party and the DUP really were representing those who elected them to the Chamber, they would not sit in the Executive for one more day with those whom they are committed to removing. Mr Trimble will find it difficult to remove himself from his position because, like all his Ministers and those from the DUP, he is pledged under annex A, strand one, of the Belfast Agreement, to

"participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government".

That is what we are here to consider today.

Despite that pledge, Mr Trimble knows that he has no mandate, and he knows that people supported the DUP because it pledged to use the Assembly to bring down those institutions it believed to be undemocratic. Mr Trimble has now demonstrated that he also believes that, given the Assembly’s track record and the undemocratic structures that are in place, if he were to present his party to the electorate next year, he would face meltdown. However, it is only that prospective situation that is causing concern. There is no degree of recognition that those who front paramilitary private armies on the Republican and the Loyalist sides should not have been allowed to sit in government over the people whom they terrorised.

Mr Trimble also stands indicted of hypocrisy because of his new-found realisation that he cannot sit in government with those who front paramilitary organisations. Of course, he is the same Mr Trimble who walked into the negotiations at Castle Buildings flanked by representatives of Loyalist terrorist organisations and who continues to nominate those people to bodies such as the Civic Forum, to which he recommended a person who is inextricably linked to a Loyalist organisation. At the same time, he has representatives on the Loyalist commission.

Mr Trimble knows well that ordinary, decent people — Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Nationalist — do not want those people to serve in the bodies and institutions. Also, the Secretary of State has come up with the silly notion of a monitor to determine whether those people are still engaged in acts of terrorism and intimidation and holding the communities to ransom. Ordinary, decent people know what is happening; they do not need a monitor to translate the actions of paramilitary organisations: they want to see an end to them. They want the paramilitaries on both sides put out of business. Mr Trimble’s problem is that, although he beats his chest and pretends that he has had a road to Damascus experience in relation to opposing terrorists in government, he continues to sit in government with them, putting off the day on which he will pull the plug on that unseemly gathering of rogues. I appeal to the DUP to lead the Unionists out of the Executive and to leave Mr Trimble isolated.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

It amazes me how hard people will work to be seen to be even-handed, even though everyone knows that they are not. I have some difficulty with the draft Programme for Government, and, indeed, I have some difficulty with how it was presented this morning. Have you noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, how two parties spoke from prepared scripts, while the rest of us have to wing it? Two stooges stand up and tell their party leaders that they are wonderful. We keep falling into that trap; it has almost become a form of convention, and it does us no favours at all. The Opposition, for what they are worth, are small, weak and lacking cohesion. They do not even get the chance to have a look at what will be put in front of Members, and they often get only ten minutes’ notice about statements that will be made. The stooges with prepared scripts then come out. There is something inherently wrong about that.

However, let us move on. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said that there is a search for stronger partnerships. The Executive are superb role models for stronger partnership: we have a dysfunctional Executive talking about creating stronger partnership. That Executive have plunged themselves very quickly in the direction of PPP — perhaps soon to be PFI — without being remotely inventive about other possible options for raising finances following the disinvestment here caused by the Conservatives handing us their policies by the back door or by default.

In my constituency, 1% of children will go on to further and higher education, and when I read the draft Programme for Government I wonder how long it will take to destroy the iniquitous process of denying children higher education opportunities. I wonder when the Executive will truly invest the resources necessary to make a difference to those who live in the postal address areas that suffer discrimination every day, whether they are Protestant or Catholic.

When the weekend debacle occurred, we saw the frightened offering the controls of the machinery again to the frightening. Instead of forging ahead with politics that might work by genuinely building partnerships along lines that can build common purpose, we saw an illusion, similar to the decommissioning illusion, in which we hand the throttle, the clutch and the brake to the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. When will we learn that one should not offer the controls to the lowest common denominator? When will we learn that there has to be a way to get over our fears? That is what this is about — you cannot be seen to be too close to those with whom you are in Government, because one side will shout that you are selling out. Both sides play that game.

How many times have we seen one element of the Executive opposing the very decisions made by the Executive because it is popular to do so? That has happened with issues such as pay rises and office cost allowances. On numerous occasions collective decisions have been made, and individual Ministers have opposed them in the Chamber. Everybody wants to be the Opposition, rather than to take responsibility for decisions.

We are kidding ourselves about this process. The wording, while good in parts, is creating illusions for the people. There is the illusion that the Executive Ministers are going to deal with each other in a way that can make a difference; the illusion that they are going to deal with sectarianism and the illusion that they will deal with the crass and serious circumstances of poverty and disadvantage. Never has the community sector been so weak at a time when the Executive are talking about capacity building and making communities stronger. There are more groups scurrying about, hoping and begging to get some share of the funding provided by the Executive than ever before. We should end those illusions and get on with the practical work.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Given the decisions made at the weekend, it is difficult to anticipate what will happen as regards some of the programme’s targets, the legislative framework and our expenditure plans. I am full of questions.

It is good that the document is aspirational while trying to be practical. However, like David Ervine, I wonder where we go from here. The draft programme announces plans to introduce great new legislation on housing, planning and other issues, which people here awaited for years. Until now, we did not have our own Ministers and legislation to take account of local circumstances. The document carries a good message also as regards how we will provide for our children.

However, Members, who are to deliver the programme, must ask what will happen between January and the Assembly election. What will happen if we do not meet the targets for December, as in the case of community relations? Will those targets go to the wall? We may not be able to deliver the whole programme. Let us get real.

We need a contingency plan for the period until January, so that employers will know whether they must make redundancy plans for staff. The gap between the provision of Peace I and Peace II funding resulted in a situation similar to that which we are creating today: plans could not be made, and people could not be told what would happen in the next month, never mind the next three years. We must be fair by telling people that the targets may not be met and that they should continue as before rather than try to meet some of the programme’s objectives.

When community relations were discussed in the House two weeks ago, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister guaranteed that they would carry out a strategy, talk to parties and build partnerships. Members have not even built partnerships in the Chamber, never mind outside it. Parties who wish to be involved in the development of a community relations strategy, including Members with experience of working at interface areas, still await an invitation to participate in the discussion.

If there are plans for December 2003 — and I do see such a target — much work must be done to take account of what we did not get right and to put something different in place.

Major problems exist in communities, where the focus is mostly on paramilitary groups; however, we must focus also on the depoliticised, politically homeless young people who live there too. What kind of targets should we set? Two pages of targets have been set for schools; however, the text of the programme’s objective for youths is longer than the target set. The sole aim is to increase, over the next three years, participation in youth organisations by 2%. That is a sad indictment, given our communities’ problems.

Surely we could have many more imaginative projects and programmes, such as those listed under the targets for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There should be a greater link between the projects of that Department and the Department of Education to help young people who do not attend youth clubs and who need to be involved in the community. Good projects and practice that are not funded should have been taken on board. In both its projects on educational disadvantage, and in its document launched last week, ‘Could do Better’, the Civic Forum described some such good practice models.

When discussing exclusion, partnership and sustainability, we should take a hard look at what can be delivered between now and January.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

When I was listening to the Ministers’ statement this morning, I was tempted to think of the ship of state sailing along, all sails set and loaded to the gunwales with goodies for the future, while, up on deck, the captain and his mate, the First Minister and his Deputy First Minister, fight over the steering wheel about which rock — be it Scylla or Charybdis — they will crash the ship of state on. The presentation was a cross between ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and a Brothers Grimm story. Not since Orwell’s animals decided to take over the farm has there been such a declaration of aspirations. One could hardly think of anything — apart from zip-fasteners on bananas and self-peeling oranges — that is not promised in this great document.

The truth is that there is something in what Mitchel McLaughlin said about the document being long on talk, and very short on "deliverability" — a word I think he must have got from David Ervine. Delivery is the essential issue: what are these people going to deliver, and how will they deliver it? It is said that there is a black hole of underinvestment of £6 billion for the next decade, but the true figures are probably nearer £12 billion to £15 billion. Where is the money going to come from? Any sensible businessman, taking over a company, would get his accountants to look at the books to check the debts and deficits, and his engineers to look at the equipment. Nothing of that nature was attempted by those who negotiated the Belfast Agreement.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

You ran away from it.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

This talk about running away is like a broken record. It comes from a man who wept in 1992 because he thought that he was going to be excluded from office, and that he might not get his sticky fingers on the levers of devolved power. I am very glad I ran away from that.

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

Order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are promising all these goodies, but how are they going to be paid for? Perhaps they will be funded by public-private finance. However, those who would supply the money for that finance would borrow it on the market and make their profit from the additional interest that they would charge those who are going to involve themselves in a form of high-level hire purchase. Future generations will be burdened by repayment of that debt, because neither the capital nor the interest will be repaid out of the Barnett formula money.

Alternatively, the services may be financed with the new money that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are going to borrow from the British Government. Again, the capital will have to be repaid with interest. Where will they get the money to make the repayments? They will get it by screwing the population with a vast hike in rates, including a possible tap tax on water, and a possible effluent tax on sewage. All of this will be done to make good their inefficiency at the beginning.

I welcome all the aspirations of the draft Programme for Government. However, the fact is that Mr Trimble is once again telling the canard and the untruth that Sinn Féin signed up to deliver decommissioning by 22 May 2000. He knows that it did nothing of the kind. The burden imposed upon it was the same as that imposed on all other parties, which was to use its best endeavours to bring about decommissioning by that date. He knows better than anyone else that Sinn Féin threatened to walk away from the negotiations if they were obliged to give any other undertakings. This is not some sort of excuse for Sinn Féin, whose performance has been disgraceful, and whose alleged decommissioning is a farce.

We must tell the people the truth. We must stop telling them fairy tales about the future, such as those encapsulated in this draft Programme for Government. We must remind ourselves that the duty of any Assembly is to serve the interests of the people, and not to delude them with false promises that their children or grandchildren will have to pay for.

Audit and Accountability Bill: First Stage

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

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 6/02] to provide for access by the Comptroller and Auditor General to information for the purposes of audits and examinations; to transfer to the Comptroller and Auditor General responsibility for the audit of certain public bodies; to provide for the re-organisation of the administration of local government audit; to confer additional functions on the audit committee of the Assembly in relation to the appointment of the accounting officer and the auditor of the Northern Ireland Audit Office; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

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

Health and Personal Social Services (Quality Improvement and Regulation) Bill: First Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Chéad Chéim don Bhille Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Pearsanta (Cáilíocht, Feabhsúchán agus Rialachán).

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 7/02] to establish the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Regulation and Improvement Authority; to make provision for the registration and regulation of certain establishments and agencies and to make provision relating to the quality of health and personal social services and to adoption, fostering and children under 12; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

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

Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill: Second Stage

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am not exactly firing on all cylinders today, so I beg the indulgence of the House. I have a slight flu, to say the least, and perhaps I should not even be here. I am trying to breathe directly ahead so that I do not spread any germs.

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill (NIA 02/02) be agreed.

Areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) are the jewels in the crown of our diverse and rich landscape. They are special places, rich in all forms of wildlife, and almost 200 such areas have been declared to date. I want to see these sites properly safeguarded so that they can be appreciated by future generations. That is why I am introducing the Bill.

The Bill meets the commitment in the Programme for Government to have a policy and legislative framework for the protection and management of ASSIs in place by July 2003. It will also help to address the requirements of the EC Directive on habitats by ensuring that Northern Ireland can better protect sites that, in addition to being ASSIs, have also merited designation under European legislation. I believe that the Bill will avoid the current threat of infraction proceedings from the European Commission and any potential fines that could result.

For some years my Department has been aware of the shortcomings in legislation pertaining to ASSIs, and those shortcomings were also recognised by the Assembly in the debate held on 23 January 2001 when there was strong support from all parties for better legislation. The Bill is the result of an extensive consultation process, which began when my predecessor, Mr Foster, launched the consultation paper ‘Partners in Protection’ on 2 March 2001.

It set out 20 key issues pertaining to the protection and management of ASSIs and sought public comment on how best to deal with those issues. Responses were received from a wide range of organisations with strong support for new legislation. On the basis of the comments received, my Department drew up several proposals, which were subject to a further round of public consultation in November last year. There was further strong support for those proposals, so, in bringing forward the Bill, we have endeavoured as fairly and equitably as possible and accommodate the wishes and concerns of all parties that contributed to the consultation process.

The Bill replaces the existing provisions for ASSIs in the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. It builds on many of the features of the 1985 Order, but it also incorporates the new proposals that were the subject of the public consultation exercise.

The Bill has several key features. First, we are improving some of the procedures associated with declaration. For example, by allowing greater flexibility in the ways that amendments to site boundaries or citations can be introduced, we want landowners to be better informed about the declaration in general, so the Department will be required to provide a statement on how it considers the land can best be managed in the interests of conservation. Public bodies, including Departments, must also play their part. The Bill contains provisions that will ensure that the discharge of responsibilities complies with the need to conserve and enhance these valuable sites.

The Bill also contains measures to ensure more effective protection of ASSIs, with measures to address damaging operations that are undertaken by owners, occupiers or so-called third parties and our current inability to react appropriately and in a timely way to these concerns. Neglect or inappropriate management can be equally damaging. We must be equipped to deal with such occurrences, which are, thankfully, rare.

These measures may give some people cause for concern, particularly those in the farming community who feel that they place additional burdens on them. Let me assure them that I do not intend that to be the case, nor do I believe that it will be so. The vast majority of ASSI declarations over the last 16 years have proceeded without difficulty. Good working relationships have developed between my Department and the farming community. My aim is to ensure that the Bill, together with the other measures that I will be introducing, further strengthens those relationships.

Many of the measures contained in the Bill are needed for the small number of landowners who wish to carry out activities or operations that could irreparably damage these valuable sites. That is particularly important for sites whose importance is further recognised by designation under European legislation. The threat of infraction already hangs over the United Kingdom. The European Commission perceives that the UK has failed to implement fully the requirements of article 6 of the Habitats Directive, and the Commission has issued a reasoned opinion letter against the United Kingdom. Action to address that has already been taken in England and Wales through provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, otherwise known as the CROW Act. The measures in the Bill will address the shortcomings in Northern Ireland and ward off the threat of infraction and potential fines.

There are also safeguards built into the Bill for landowners, including the right of appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission against a decision made by the Department.

Another feature of the Bill is the provision to ensure better management of sites. Good management of ASSIs is a fundamental principle of the partnership approach that we have fostered over the past 16 years. There are presently over 250 management agreements in place between the Environment and Heritage Service and ASSI landowners or occupiers.

The measures contained in the Bill create the right climate to encourage and support the beneficial management of ASSIs. They will reinforce the change to positive management agreements that the Environment and Heritage Service has introduced recently. Our consultation paper ‘Partners in Protection’ recognised the importance of encouraging and rewarding beneficial management of sites rather than merely preventing damage.

We also said that we would introduce our own scheme for the positive management of ASSIs. I am delighted to announce today that a scheme is now in place, and available to all landowners and occupiers in ASSIs, called "MOSS", which stands for "management of sensitive sites". It is an acronym that I hope everyone will find easy to remember. MOSS acknowledges that the wildlife value of sites is the result of sensitive management of the land by both past and present landowners. It aims to build on that by encouraging farmers and landowners to adopt management practices that sustain and enhance the special features of an ASSI. In return, landowners will receive payments calculated to redress income forgone. I appeal to all those involved in the management of land within ASSIs to take advantage of this important initiative, so that the Department, in partnership with the landowners, can further protect Northern Ireland’s most important wildlife sites for the conservation of biodiversity and the benefit of society at large.

In conclusion, the Bill can meet the needs and concerns of the wide range of interested parties who are stakeholders in this matter. It will achieve our Programme for Government target for better legislation. It will also bring Northern Ireland into line with comparable legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it should also meet our EC obligations. The Bill strikes the right balance between the need for effective protection of ASSIs — sites that are vital to the well-being of all our diverse natural heritage — and allows for the continuation of established and sustainable land practices.

I speak especially to the more than 5,000 ASSI landowners across Northern Ireland, who have worked in partnership with the Department over the last 16 years to safeguard those valuable conservation sites. I stress to them that it is my wish that that continues and is further strengthened. There is a need for partnership among the landowners and those in the Administration who give the protection. This Bill will help achieve that aim, and I commend it to the Assembly.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Given that the Committee is already scrutinising four substantial Bills, the Minister will understand if that thanks is somewhat guarded. Despite their workload, members of the Committee are looking forward to discussing the specific terms of the Bill at Committee Stage, and, therefore, I will keep my comments relatively short.

The Minister will be aware that the Committee has already received several detailed representations on the consultation exercises that preceded the Bill. That demonstrates the importance that the Committee gives to this legislation — indeed, to all legislation — and the Committee’s clear determination to come to terms with the details of what, in many instances, is a complex Bill.

There is no doubt that legislation in respect of ASSIs must be updated. Although ASSIs are vital for the delivery of nature conservation and provide real protection for rare and important species of fauna and flora, as well as for those geological and earth science features present in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong to pretend that there have not been problems. Indeed, the Committee considered a letter at its meeting last week that highlighted the problems that 39 landowners in County Tyrone were having in challenging the proposed designation of a huge area of land around Newtownstewart as an ASSI.

Although the Committee will give no opinion on whether the proposal is right or wrong, that letter demonstrates quite clearly how this subject can have an impact on the community. However, I thank the Minister for his assurance to the House that it is his intention to ensure that there is a strengthening of the relationship between the farming community and his Department and that they work in partnership.

In March 2001, the Department issued an initial and broad-ranging consultation document called ‘Partners in Protection’. Following a number of presentations and discussions with the Department’s officials, the Committee made a formal response in June 2001. The Department received a total of 35 responses to that consultation document. To the Department’s credit, that paper was followed by a further consultation exercise in November 2001 on the specific policies on ASSIs that it proposed to take forward. The Committee in turn responded to that consultation paper in February 2002. The outcome of that consultation was to form the basis of the Bill before the House.

My Committee will be particularly interested in how the Bill will seek to address a range of issues such as changes in ownership, powers to refuse potentially damaging operations and to make management orders and the level of fines. The maximum level in some circumstances in the Bill is £20,000, a figure that the Committee has already considered too low to act as an effective deterrent in two other Bills which have come before it.

In March 2002, the Minister appeared before the Committee, and we discussed a proactive approach to co-operating with him to deal with certain Bills from his Department. At that time, my Committee gave assurances that it would co-operate fully with the Department, subject to its being fully satisfied with the specific terms ultimately adopted in the Bills. I affirm that this remains the intention of the Committee. However, I can assure the Minister that, as he would expect, it will be diligent and thorough in examining the details of the Bill and will come back with any amendments necessary at the Consideration Stage.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement that he wishes to ensure the preservation of all our important areas. To ensure that ASSIs are effectively managed, it is important that new owners or occupiers of land be made aware of any conservation designations in place. The Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 could be amended to include a requirement that an owner or occupier notify his or her successor.

I also welcome the Minister’s statement that the Department will supply each owner and occupier with a site management statement outlining the conservation objectives and indicating the appropriate management. I very much welcome his new MOSS designation whereby owners will receive payment, and I hope that owners of such sites and areas will take advantage of that. We must have legislation in place so that the Environment and Heritage Service can refuse consent for notifiable or potentially damaging activities. There is a gap in the current legislation that means that ASSIs do not afford protection against acts of deliberate damage by landowners or occupiers, and I hope that it can be plugged.

I agree with the Chairman of the Committee for the Environment, Rev Dr William McCrea, that the present deterrents for wilful damage to ASSIs are much too lenient. I hope that there will be increased fines for those causing or permitting damaging operations and new penalties for those who commit intentional or reckless damage or disturbance — that must be covered.

I look forward to the Minister’s providing the Committee with some more information and to a fruitful completion of the next stage of the Bill.

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

My party fully appreciates the need to protect and conserve our natural and physical environment. However, the proposals, as they stand, could have a negative effect on the farming community and on industrial and residential development in rural areas, especially where ASSIs are sited near to villages and smaller towns.

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment mentioned a designated ASSI in Newtownstewart in west Tyrone. That designated ASSI has caused great concern to the local community. The issues raised by the Newtownstewart example will have relevance to the Bill’s implementation. Many in the community fear that the proposed Deer Park ASSI will restrict landowners and farmers in the daily management and cultivation of their land at a time when the agriculture industry is experiencing serious economic difficulties. Furthermore, the Newtownstewart community is concerned that the Deer Park ASSI will restrict the land that can be used for industrial or residential development, mainly because the current proposal almost encircles Newtownstewart. It falls right inside the town’s inner designated limits.

The Department of the Environment has acknowledged that the Deer Park ASSI includes good quality, productive agricultural land and areas of commercial forest, so it is important that the procedures by which the Department declares an ASSI should be revised to take into consideration the quality of the agricultural land that an ASSI covers. An ASSI can be effectively declared and preserved only if there is proper local consultation, so that communities can work with the Environment and Heritage Service to protect the agreed ASSI in future.

Once an ASSI is declared, objections must be made within three months. As the residents and landowners of Newtownstewart have found, that gives little time for concerned parties to make formal representations to the Department. The three-month time frame must be extended to allow for wider consultation with the community that is affected by the declaration of an ASSI.

In the Newtownstewart case, the Department of the Environment has acknowledged the need to clarify and simplify the list of notifiable operations and those for which consent is not needed. The Environment and Heritage Service has, therefore, agreed to re-consult its statutory advisory body, the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, on that. That underlines the fact that the Bill must give greater clarity on the matter; it must state to what extent an ASSI declaration will affect normal farming activities.

The concept of designating carefully chosen ASSIs is a good thing. We should be concerned about protecting our natural environment, especially those parts of our region that have significant and special physical features. The purpose of the Newtownstewart ASSI is to preserve a unique glacial feature of that area. However, people who wish to live and work in rural areas must not feel that the imposition of ASSIs, as determined by official bodies, is a conspiracy against them to hinder rural-based development, whether for residential or farm-related business activities.

I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the MOSS initiative. That is a step in the right direction.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Many concerns about the consultation process have been intimated to me and to others. The Minister outlined a consultation and appeal process. However, ASSIs have created much concern and interest among landowners and farmers. Will the Minister assure us that nothing will take place before consultation with landowners and farmers? People who have businesses in ASSIs are also concerned, especially those who own caravan parks.

I am concerned that this designation comes before consultation, with the result that caravan park owners do not feel that they are part of the process. The caravan industry is geared towards leisure. Designation of ASSIs may mean that caravan sites, which are traditionally by the seaside and involve water-based activities, will be restricted. Caravan site owners, tenants and lessees of the caravan sites will therefore be unable to continue with their businesses.

In the light of all the obvious concerns and obstacles, can the Minister assure the House that the Department of the Environment will adopt a cautious attitude in its approach to ASSI designation? Will he also assure Members that the views of landowners, farmers, caravan site owners and all those who will be affected by ASSI designation will be taken on board? Can the Minister also assure the House that there will be full, positive, transparent consultation with everyone concerned before any designations are made and that their views will be endorsed and encompassed in the Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. All Members welcome the idea of good legislation to deal with the protection of heritage. However, I share the caution of other Members. The farming community, in particular, should have been consulted with, listened to and provided with relevant information. Farmers in my area feel that they have not been involved and that some of the earlier designations have been made with little or no consultation. People feel that the designation of ASSIs are being imposed on the countryside. The Bill mentions "owners", but people feel that they own very little land when the Department decides that it wants to do something with it: the Department makes the decision and the farmer faces the consequences.

Although designation can cause the devaluation of an area, adequate compensation has not been provided. That has been the case in the Cookstown/Kildress area where sand extraction has taken place over recent years. It is an area rich in sand deposits, and the rest of the country has benefited from that in the past. However, because of farm diversification, that area is a honeypot for people to develop and expand a business, and a small area of conservation in the middle of it can be detrimental to those trying to develop it. If it is only a small area, the rest of the land can be landlocked, with damaging effect on the area to be preserved. Therefore, Members must look at the nature and purpose of the conservation and consider what they want to see the Bill develop and protect.

Clause 1(1) mentions the consultation between the Department of the Environment and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. Consultation must be wider than that. There must be proper consultation with farmers and the entire rural population. If policies are to be implemented to bring about ruralisation, and rural proofing, as the Minister of Agriculture mentioned, informative consultation must take place. It is hoped that the ASSIs will be properly managed. Members must also look at farm diversification and bear in mind that farmers in some areas do not have any other means of support.

The Environment and Heritage Service played an important role in the drafting of the Bill, but decisions should be made in partnership with the farming community. Decisions should not be imposed on the farming or rural community as they have been in the past. With some exceptions, the rural community has been the best protector of heritage. If you point out the special nature that you are trying to preserve, people will work in partnership with you. It is to be hoped that the measures in the Bill will be used in the proper manner and that decisions will not simply be imposed from the top.

The issue of right of appeal is also important. Those who want to pursue the right of appeal should have proper access and be given support. There should also be a back-up service to ensure that people get a fair hearing. In the past, too many tribunals have merely been about people making representations, while Government Departments have all the legislation and legal and administrative back-up to ensure that it is they who succeed. Those who want to appeal decisions need support to ensure that they have all the information. I welcome the opportunity for further discussion in the Committee and for debate in the House.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I give a general welcome to the Bill, but it is a disgrace that Northern Ireland is so far behind Europe and the rest of the UK in implementing environmental Directives. The Bill is overdue, and the Alliance Party is keen for it to be placed on the statute book as soon as possible. Other Members have spoken about consultations — that is the name of the game. However, the Department has failed dismally to consult properly with landowners and farmers. Some years ago Strangford Lough was designated as an ASSI. There was almost a revolt because landowners were not given the correct information and were being dictated to by the Department. There was a similar situation last year when Grey Point to Ballyquintin Point in Portaferry was to be designated as an ASSI. There were, again, lapses, despite my representation to the Department at a meeting of Ards Borough Council to ensure that consultation was the name of the game.

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

Order. Dr McDonnell, it is extremely discourteous to turn your back to Mr McCarthy and continue a conversation when he is on his feet.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Some landowners were informed only by second or third parties, and that does not help the process. Everyone must get involved.

The Alliance Party also welcomes the requirement for the Department of the Environment to provide a statement on the management of the land as stated in clause 1(2). That should be of major benefit to the owner/ occupier of the land as well as improve conservation. Another important point is the provision for management agreements, as stated in clause 7, which includes costs being met by the Department. It is wrong that many landowners who care for valuable natural sites do so at their own cost. We also welcome clauses 11 to 13 with regard to the statutory duty on public bodies to promote conservation. However, in some respects, it is less robust than the requirements on private owners.

In paragraph 19 of the explanatory and financial memorandum "modest additional resources" are mentioned, yet the Bill provides for management agreements and payments where consent is withdrawn. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 requires a full management declaration, as in clause 1, for all existing ASSIs within five years. Can the Minister assure us that this can be done with "modest additional resources"?

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have listened attentively to all the Members who have spoken, and I cannot disagree with the comments that have been made. I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially with regard to the management of sensitive sites.

I am concerned that many people who live in sensitive areas do not want to sign up to the MOSS scheme. What is their situation under the legislation?

I urge the Minister and his Department to be careful and to try not to force the issue. As Mr Molloy said, if the Department consults with the farmers it will find that they are sensitive to what happens in their areas. No one knows more about the issue than the farmers because they live in the rural areas. Although they understand what the Department is trying to do, they will not be pushed into doing something that they do not want to do.

I hope that consultation takes place. The Department must understand that it is entering into a partnership with the farming community. The last thing that farmers want is to have people turning up on their premises telling them what to do. I am not suggesting that the Minister will take that sort of attitude. However, as a farmer, I know that they will consult the Department if asked to do so. We are talking about a working relationship that will survive only if both partners work together.

Many issues affect rural areas at present, and agriculture has been going through a difficult patch. All those issues now come together. We must introduce a Bill that will protect the farmer as well as the sensitive sites, and that will take on board good farming practices. We are entering into an arrangement that will work, and, provided there is goodwill, it will survive.

The Minister must take all the issues on board. For example, he must address matters such as the farmers who do not want to have people tramping over their land. However, if there is a will, there is a way to address the issues, and I wish him success.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I remember clearly the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, because it was one of the pieces of legislation that took a long time to pass through the Assembly that sat between 1982 and 1986, and it attracted an almost record number of submissions.

A main point of that legislation was the issue of areas of special scientific interest. The law has come full circle, because, 16 or 17 years later, we are examining proposals to strengthen the protection of such areas. There is much to be welcomed in the Minister’s statement.

In many respects, the Assembly passes some types of legislation because it has no choice. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 covers England, Scotland and Wales and has greatly strengthened sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) legislation. We must introduce similar legislation in this part of the United Kingdom in the interests of parity.

There is also the matter of European legislation. We are signatories to many international conventions, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and European Directives on special areas of conservation and special protection areas for birds. There is a panoply of legislation and European Conventions. As part of the European Community, we are duty-bound to implement legislation that will protect such areas whether we like it or not.

As the Minister stated, the European Community is concerned that the United Kingdom is not doing all that it can to conserve habitats. A European Union policy, Nature Europa, obliges member states to designate areas representative of nature conservation among the top European sites. The Irish Republic and, to a lesser extent, Northern Ireland are a fair bit behind in meeting their obligations under that policy. It is in that context that the Minister finds himself having to amend and update legislation on ASSIs.

As a civilised, western industrialised nation, we would be hypocritical were we to criticise the Indians of the rainforests or the tribes of Africa for destroying their habitats and important wildlife areas if we have not put our own house in order. The main mechanism that we have to protect our environment is ASSI designation, which is important for nature conservation. That is particularly relevant because we do not have national parks as in Canada or the United States. That being the case, it is incumbent upon us not only to designate all the areas that meet the standard but also to ensure that they are adequately protected. The proposals go a long way to achieve that, particularly in dealing with third-party damage. In my constituency of South Down, ASSIs have been damaged not by the owner or occupier but by fly-tippers who damage sites without the consent of the landowner.

A point that has been overlooked in the Minister’s statement and which deserves a fair hearing is the MOSS proposals. They propose grant aid for farmers and other landowners to assist them in the management of ASSIs. That is positive, because we all know farmers’ desperate situation. Their incomes are at an all time low, and anything that provides more money for them is to be welcomed. It will change people’s perception of ASSIs. Instead of regarding ASSIs as negative and restrictive, farmers could see them as an opportunity to reach management agreements with the Department to work together with the Environment and Heritage Service to manage these important areas and to bring in much needed income. Some farmers would rather have the positive income that MOSS provides than lose perhaps £15 for every sheep they produce.

Mr McCarthy, Dr Birnie and other Members must remember that ASSIs cover only 6% of Northern Ireland. Even when all the sites have been designated, they will probably still cover less than 10%. Therefore 90% of the Province could be farmed in the normal way without any restriction.

It is worth having the special designation, but it is more important to have the funding to reach the agreements. I hope that sufficient finances are made available to the Department of the Environment so that the agreements can become widespread and positive. His constituents might even plead with Mr McCarthy to have their land designated as areas of special scientific interest so that they can avail of the funding.

Strangford Lough is in the constituencies of Strangford and South Down. There was much opposition to designating Strangford Lough as an ASSI. However, there has been little mention of it in the past three or four years, as landowners have realised that it is not the bogeyman that they assumed — it is positive. We owe it to future generations to preserve the 6% or 8% of the best of our nature conservation habitats in Northern Ireland so that they can enjoy these wonderful areas.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I thank Mr Wells for his beautiful words of help for me. He was not in the Chamber when I said that I look for assistance because I have the cold. I shudder to think what assistance he would have given me if he had heard me ask. Nonetheless, he spoke some wonderful words of support for what I am trying to do.

I thank all Members for their contributions and for their interest. Mr McCarthy and Mr Savage gave the farming point of view. We heard from Mr Shannon, and Jim Wells made a genuine point about the opportunity to protect our habitat. I will respond to some of the comments made. The departmental officials will scrutinise Hansard, and any of the detailed questions that have not been answered will be addressed in due course.

I thank Rev Dr William McCrea for his comments. The legislation requires updating. I entirely agree that it would be wrong to pretend that there are no problems — this very debate has shown that there are. I note the letter he mentioned from 39 landowners. The Member welcomed, as Mr Savage did, the strengthening of the relationship between the Department, in administrating ASSIs, and the farming and landowning community.

I will answer three of Rev Dr William McCrea’s points. He mentioned powers of refusal. The Department will have entry powers and power to refuse consent for operations that would damage special features of ASSIs. The Department will also issue management notices that will address neglect. That may be viewed as a stick, but it satisfactorily complies with human rights legislation.

The Bill provides for an appeal mechanism for the various aspects where the Department has authority. We must ensure that the powers are not abused, but we, as the public sector custodian, must also have the appeal mechanism and be seen to be using it correctly.

Rev Dr William McCrea mentioned management notices. We want a theme of agreement and partnership. We want to exhaust all possibilities in trying to seek agreement between those who must work the land and those who want to designate an ASSI. The safeguard of the right of appeal remains available if we do not get it quite right.

The Member also mentioned that the maximum level of fines in some cases in the Bill is £20,000. However, as the Member has said before, fines in other Bills have been higher. There is now a parallel. Where a maximum fine was £5,000, it has been brought up to £20,000. A fine of £30,000, which would reflect inflation, has been suggested. We are conscious of that and have been negotiating on it. I also remind the House that that is the figure in the lower court.

As projected under another Bill that the Environment Committee and the Department are considering, there are unlimited fines in the higher court. That will take care of the fines aspect, but I take the Member’s points about the £20,000 fine versus the £5,000 and the £30,000 fine, which features in another Bill.

We want fines to be an appropriate deterrent. Like the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, we believe that the current fine is an inappropriate deterrent. That answers Mrs Carson’s point about increasing fines.

Mr Byrne mentioned the negative impact on the farming community. He mentioned the deer park at Newtownstewart. I do not want to address that specific area now, so my officials will address it directly with the Member. I have often said that the farming element is important. Mr Savage said that he is a farmer. I said that I come from a farming background. I empathise with farming and farmers. There are farmers in my family and in my constituency. Therefore, I try to empathise and understand the points raised by the farming community.

We do not want to place unnecessary burdens on the farming community. Many of the 5,000 people who own the 200 ASSIs are from the farming community, and we need their co-operation. The vast majority of owners work well with us — there are exceptions, but we try to deal with them. Mr Wells said that not enough attention had been paid to the management of sensitive sites. Again, I thank him for raising that point. I see from Mr Wells’s facial expression that he is concerned by the fact that I am commending him again.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It might be in the papers.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

It might well be in the papers. However, it must be noted that I am commending him for commending me.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

That is even worse.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

That is true.

We will offer payments in return for managing land, and for the purpose of conservation. Thus we hope to give landowners the satisfaction they need. The Bill will provide for the compensation, through management agreements, of landowners who are unable to continue certain activities.

We do not want another management scheme — that is provided for in existing legislation. We would prefer to have an agreement, but, if we cannot do so, we will use management notices, which could be viewed as "the stick". We prefer to work in partnership, and it is essential that we do so.

Mr Shannon urged caution and sought assurance that nothing would take place until there had been further discussion. We recognise that we must work in partnership with those who manage the ASSIs.

Mr Molloy mentioned sand deposits and farm diversification, which we must examine to see how they can fit in with ASSIs. If land were not part of an ASSI, what would the farming community do with it? In economic terms, what would be the opportunity cost? What would be lost if land were designated as an ASSI? That opportunity cost needs to be considered when making decisions about compensation. Mr Molloy warned that decisions should not be imposed on the farming community. I have tried to convey the message that we do not wish to impose from the top. I disagree with Mr McCarthy’s remark that the Department failed dismally to consult with farmers and landowners.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Yes, dismally.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Two full consultations were carried out, and we tried to reflect their outcome in the Bill. The Bill will go to the Committee Stage, which will involve further consultation and deliberation, before it comes back to the Assembly. We will try to consult and work in partnership with those who will be affected by the Bill.

I apologise for not catching all of Mr McCarthy’s point about resource implications. We have sufficient resources to start the implementation work set out in the new legislation, partly because of the recruitment of additional staff, as provided for through the spending review of the Budget 2000-01. Of course, when resources are not available, I will bid for additional resources to ensure the fullest implementation of the work. However, to place a bid is not to guarantee its success. I can but hope, and shall wait to see how the spending rounds go.

The final contributors, Mr Savage and Mr Wells, encapsulated what I had already said. At the beginning of my winding-up remarks, I mentioned tension. Mr Savage spoke of partnership, saying that telling farmers what to do would not work. Both parties must work together. No one tells the farmers in my family what to do; instead, they should be asked to work together to get things done.

Mr Wells spoke of the "panoply of European Union legislation and conventions". It is our bounden duty — like it or not — to implement those. European Union Directives to protect the environment cannot be disregarded, otherwise we face infraction proceedings. The Bill takes account of the legal imperative, of European Union desires, and the need for partnership with the community in creating areas of special scientific interest. The Bill will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that it will be fair to all the interests involved, to those who seek further measures to safeguard the natural heritage, to what EU Directives require of us, and to the owners and occupiers of the land, who continue to use it in a sustainable manner. I hope that it will be fair to the community as a whole, whether land-users or users of those areas of special scientific interest that need protection.

I commend the Bill’s Second Stage and look forward to the comments of the Committee for the Environment.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill (NIA 2/02) be agreed.

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

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for the Environment.

Company Directors’ Disqualification Bill: Consideration Stage

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

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Company Directors’ Disqualification Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

State Pension Credit Bill: Consideration Stage

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

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the State Pension Credit Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Social Security Bill: Final Stage

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That the Social Security Bill (NIA 3/02) do now pass.

I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill and the speed with which the deliberations took place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Social Security Bill (NIA 3/02) do now pass.

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

Before I ask Ms Hanna to move the motion, I remind Members that a draft Statutory Rule that is subject to approval by resolution requires the approval of the Assembly before it can be made by the Department.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

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

Mr Speaker, these two regulations are closely linked. With your permission I propose to move them at the same time.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am content for you to do that.

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

I beg to move

That the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 be approved.

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002) be approved — [The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna).]

I express my appreciation to Dr Birnie and the Committee for Employment and Learning for considering the Regulations so promptly. I regret the short time available to the Committee, but, once policy had been settled as to how best transpose European Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work in the UK, my officials had little time to process the Northern Ireland draft Regulations.

The fixed-term Regulations will implement European Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work. They will also prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees. Most statutory employment rights already protect employees on fixed-term contracts. Part-time workers, however, enjoy additional protection from being less favourably treated than comparable full-time workers.

The new fixed-term Regulations have been designed to give similar rights to fixed-term employees by ensuring that, because of the nature of their contracts, they are not treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees, unless that treatment can be objectively justified. In short, the Regulations’ key aims are to prevent discrimination against fixed-term employees and to place a limit on the use of successive fixed-term contracts to prevent abuses arising from their use. Fixed-term employees will be able to compare their conditions with those of employees who are not on fixed-term contracts and are employed by the same employer to do the same, or broadly the same, work.

I realise that there may be occasions when employers may have objective reasons for treating a fixed-term employee differently from a similar permanent employee, and the Regulations provide for that. In particular, they state that different treatment is objectively justified, providing the fixed-term employee’s overall package of conditions is not less favourable than those of a comparable permanent employee. Employers will not, therefore, be prevented from giving a fixed-term employee a higher salary to compensate for their not having other benefits, such as access to a pension scheme.

A core aim of the EC Directive is that member states take measures to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts. The Regulations aim to achieve that by limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts to four years, unless the use of further fixed-term contracts is justified on objective grounds. For the purposes of that area of the Regulations, service accumulated from 10 July 2002 will count towards the four-year limit.

There is no limit on the duration of the first fixed-term contract.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I fear I must interrupt the Minister in full flow, but Standing Orders do require me to interrupt at 2.30 pm for Question Time. After Questions to the Assembly Commission, which come after Questions to the Ministers, the House will, return to the debate on the two Statutory Rules as requested by the Minister. Other Members who wish to speak may do so, speaking on either or both. The Question will then be put on each Statutory Rule in turn.

The debate stood suspended.

Planning (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Planning (Amendment) Bill (NIA 12/01).

The Committee for the Environment formally began its scrutiny of the Planning (Amendment) Bill on 25 June 2002. Members will know that it is the Committee’s practice to seek the views of all key stakeholders, as well as those of groups most likely to be affected by any legislation.

This is an important piece of legislation. Consequently, the Committee has canvassed the views of all 26 councils and 17 other bodies, such as the Construction Employers Federation, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Woodland Trust. Seventeen responses have been received to date. As expected, some have raised interesting and valid concerns, and these were passed to the Department for comment. Over the past weeks, the Committee has received presentations from departmental officials responding to those points, and that process is ongoing.

During the Second Stage of the Bill, some Members spoke of the need for third-party appeals. The Committee has already obtained a commitment from the Minister that his Department will commence a full public consultation on the way forward for third-party appeals by Christmas of this year. The Committee is concerned about the Planning (Amendment) Bill in relation to third-party appeals.

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

Although full details will be provided in the Committee’s report on the Bill, Members will be pleased to learn that the Committee has persuaded the Minister to take other important issues forward. Two of those require the Secretary of State’s approval; namely, increasing the maximum fine from £20,000 to £30,000, and introducing a new offence of commencing development before planning permission is given. Those are significant steps forward and highlight the Committee’s hard work on the Bill.

There are more issues for the Committee to explore that will require due and proper deliberation. Consequently, the Committee has considered it necessary to ask the Assembly for an extension. As always, it is the Committee’s hope that its work will be completed by an earlier date.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Planning (Amendment) Bill (NIA 12/01).

Local Air Quality Management Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Air Quality Management Bill. (NIA Bill 13/01).

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will explain to the House why the extension is being sought. The Committee for the Environment began its formal scrutiny of the Bill on 18 June 2002. Members who have read the Bill will appreciate that it is complex, of a technical nature and requires close scrutiny.

The Committee heard presentations from and held discussions with departmental officials. This included a structured clause-by-clause presentation of the Bill on 20 June 2002. The Committee has also canvassed the views of all district councils together with 12 other interested bodies, such as the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, and the Royal Town Planning Institute. To date, seven responses have been received and, as expected, they have raised some pertinent and legitimate concerns which have been submitted to the Department for its comment and consideration.

It was also agreed that the Department would consult with key stakeholders to ascertain their views on the terms of the Bill. That consultation has taken longer than expected, and the Department has indicated that it will shortly be in a position to come back before the Committee on this Bill. It should prove to be a valuable exercise for all concerned, and it will require due and proper deliberation by the Committee. Consequently, the Committee has considered it appropriate to ask the Assembly to grant this extension of time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 29 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Air Quality Management Bill. (NIA Bill 13/01).

Energy Inquiry Report

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly take note of the response from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to the Committee’s Report on Energy (03/01R).

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his full and comprehensive response to the Committee. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Armagh team on its fine victory yesterday; perhaps the Chamber is so empty because Members are all down celebrating in the county.

The Committee wishes to see energy remain at the top of the political agenda, so it decided to stimulate a further debate on the energy report and the issues contained in it rather than deal with them by correspondence alone. We hoped that that would afford other Members the opportunity to contribute to this area of public policy. The Committee is looking forward to having a closer look at some of the relevant issues when considering the energy Bill later in the session.

As there are 45 recommendations, I do not have enough time to deal with each one and the Minister’s response to them. I will concentrate on two issues which Committee members feel strongly about. I was pleased that many of the Committee’s most important recommendations were accepted by the Department: recommendation 3 on consumer protection; recommendation 4 on cross-subsidies; recommendation 14 on Coolkeeragh; and recommendation 40 on postalisation of costs. However, I remain disappointed that Departments were not prepared to think outside the box in some cases. Some responses were negative and lacked imagination, and I will deal with them later.

The Committee made three recommendations regarding the eradication of fuel poverty. It has been said in previous debates, but it is worth repeating, that it is a scandal that 170,000 homes in the North are considered to be fuel poor. The Executive must make every effort to deal with the problem. The Committee recommended that the Government match, pound for pound, the money raised through the energy efficiency levy — £600,000 per year. If such funds cannot be directly obtained from the Treasury, they should be found from the Executive funds. That would reduce the time taken to eradicate fuel poverty from 10 to five years.

Some £600,000 is a small price to pay. The knock-on benefits to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s budget, for example, would be enormous, as it would reduce the cases of illnesses related to fuel poverty such as flu and chest infections and other chest-related illnesses by a huge amount. It would be money well spent.

The Committee was pleased to note that the Minister for Social Development is committed to producing a fuel poverty strategy, and we look forward to examining his proposals. The Committee was also pleased to note that the regulator is introducing plans that will make the energy efficiency levy process more accountable and transparent so that the public can see exactly how and where the funds are being spent.

On the question of renewable energy, the Committee is encouraged with the progress on developing the potential offshore wind farm off the north coast. I agree with the Minister that that development will be crucial if renewable energy targets are to be met. I hope that the Minister will agree that the misinformation being used against the development is extremely unhelpful and that it only serves to breed fear and confusion. The Committee is disappointed that the Minister could not agree with our target of having 15% of electricity from a range of renewable sources by 2010 but has instead opted for 10%. I accept that the majority of respondents to his consultation exercise agreed that 10% was appropriate, but the Committee believes that a target of 15% will encourage greater imagination in research and development of the necessary technologies. That target is challenging, but it is achievable if we put our minds to it. The Committee made various recommendations that sought to encourage greater demand for green electricity. We are deeply disappointed that the Departments responsible for dealing with those recommendations could not be more positive in their responses.

In recommendation 27, for example, the Committee stated that local area development plans should include provision for the location and development of renewable energy sources. The response that we received may have been technically correct, but it did not attempt to address the real issues, which are about helping to plan ahead for the development and use of renewable energy sources.

Recommendation 28 called for the planning and building control bodies to be proactive in the encouragement of low-energy buildings and renewable energy. The response saying that current strategies and legislation do not cover this point is simply not good enough. If the Executive want to take their obligations under the Kyoto protocol seriously, they need to demonstrate joined-up thinking on the encouragement, stimulation and development of renewable energy sources and technologies. It is unacceptable that Departments appear to be unsupportive of one another on the matter.

The Committee is pleased that the Minister and his Department are trying to develop the renewable energy industry in response to recommendations 34, 35, 36 and 37.

The Committee intends to keep plugging away at the issues raised in the energy inquiry report. I am glad that the report will help to stimulate public debate, and I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to look afresh at points raised today.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s response to the Committee. The energy inquiry was an in-depth investigation that lasted longer than the Committee anticipated. The Committee will soon consider the draft energy Bill, which is very detailed. I assure the Minister that the Committee will approach the task with the same interest that it took in the original investigation.

The major issue is the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Assembly must consider long-term contracts. The Committee recently met Jamie Delargy and Sir George Quigley to discuss bonds financing as a possible means of buying out the contracts. Only two weeks ago, I met senior officials from Northern Ireland Electricity to discuss their proposals. The Committee has not decided how it will proceed with the matter. It will examine those, and other, proposals. It must focus on its aim, which is to lower the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the fact that the natural gas pipeline will go ahead, not only because it will benefit the north-west, but because of its benefit to the South/North pipeline. I sincerely hope that natural gas will benefit domestic consumers as much as businesses and that it will create a level playing field for all consumers in Northern Ireland.

I am still dismayed that people inside and outside the Assembly are trying to impede the project’s development. One of the first all-party delegations that met in the Assembly dealt with the provision of natural gas to the north-west. Every party was represented before we even had devolution. Natural gas has widespread support across the political boundaries. I am delighted that the projected commissioning date of autumn 2004 has been agreed for Coolkeeragh power station, which will be one of the main beneficiaries of the pipeline to the north-west.

We must not put all our eggs in the one basket. We must remember that the new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station at Ballylumford will be commissioned soon. I, and local representatives, will visit that power station in a week or so.

Combined cycle gas turbine will also power Coolkeeragh, so we must be careful not to put all our eggs in one basket. The future energy uses at Kilroot must be different from natural gas. If Kilroot goes ahead with phase two of the power station, it could use gas, but there must be some diversification.

The Committee took considerable interest in the development of renewable energy, and we welcome the Department’s commitment to it. However, I agree with the Chairperson that the larger target of 15% by 2010 is preferable.

It was remiss of me to leave out postalisation when talking about the natural gas pipeline. It is important that all consumers pay the same price for natural gas, regardless of where they live in Northern Ireland. The Committee has a major challenge ahead in dealing with the energy Bill, but we will approach it with the same determination with which we approached the original report.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

As a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I am well aware of the challenges facing consumers and businesses with regard to the higher cost and lower availability of energy resources in Northern Ireland. I commend the energy inquiry report to the Minister; its numerous recommendations can provide a cheaper, greener service for energy consumers, and they suggest means for transforming waste into energy.

When the industry was privatised in 1992, long-term contracts were introduced that will continue until 2012; these have benefited only stakeholders at the expense of consumers. The report recognises the failings in the energy sector and seeks to improve consumers’ lot — the ordinary men and women for whom energy is a basic need.

The report recognises the need to make consumer protection a priority when determining arrangements in the energy sector. That is why we suggest that the General Consumer Council be given stronger powers to represent consumers’ rights to cheaper, diverse sources of energy.

Some 170,000 householders in Northern Ireland are classed fuel poor. I welcome initiatives, such as the warm homes scheme, which seek to redress people’s difficulties in affording energy. The report’s recommendation to increase the energy efficiency levy to £5 per customer is one way of eradicating fuel poverty, and the Minister should consider that more closely.

Increasing the efficient use of energy is one way of reducing cost to the consumer. Efficient appliances are vital, as they use energy sources with more care. However, the report also suggests ways in which the price per unit of electricity and other costs can be reduced. It is unacceptable that a 306% rise in output per generation worker has translated into only a 15% productivity gain to consumers. It is unacceptable that consumers are expected to fund long-term contracts while shareholders make large profits at their expense.

The importance of the environment in any future energy strategy is recognised in the report. I suggest that alternative sources of energy should receive assistance through Government funding. The report mentions the recently established biogas scheme in Fivemiletown. I am in favour of such schemes that convert waste products, particularly farm waste, into useful sources of energy. There is great potential for locating biogas digesters throughout Northern Ireland to reduce waste storage difficulties and to provide power for local schools and communities. The Minister will recall that I have written to him on this, and I hope that he will fully consider it.

Northern Ireland depends on traditional energy sources. Much more needs to be done to promote the use of renewable energy. Some 60% of our electricity is produced from gas, as opposed to 38% in the UK as a whole. With volatile worldwide markets for oil and, perhaps soon, gas, we must act immediately to redress our energy deficit. We are aware of the huge potential to generate electricity through harnessing wind power. However, that must be sensibly managed to preserve the natural beauty of our landscape.

Especially in the face of international obligations, the Northern Ireland energy sector must undergo significant changes in the next few years in order to comply with obligations on renewable energy. In the Republic of Ireland, one company supplies green electricity generated by wind at a lower price than electricity generated by fossil fuels. I support an eco-energy tariff that does not impose additional charges on customers who opt for green energy.

It is vital that all parties concerned are encouraged to adopt environmentally friendly measures to generate energy. I hope that the Minister will further consider funding biomass schemes, such as the one at Brook Hall Estate in Londonderry. Willow coppice is a feedstock for producing electricity from biomass. The benefits of introducing such a scheme on a more widespread basis include an aid to rural development in addition to further diversifying the energy mix. There is also the further side benefit of reducing waste because biomass acts as a bio-filter.

I hope that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will seriously consider the importance of increasing the range of energy sources used to generate power. The report recommends that planning and building control bodies should also show greater awareness by encouraging low-energy buildings to reduce energy consumption.

In planning for the future fuel-energy market, we must give particular consideration to fuel poverty in rural areas. There are no plans at present for the alternative energy source of gas to be extended outside Belfast and the north-west and south-east of the Province, so I hope that the Minister will consider the importance of promoting and funding alternative energy sources, such as anaerobic digesters, in rural areas. The Minister should also endorse postalisation so that more dispersed rural communities can also benefit from renewable energy sources.

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

Discussions on energy are always timely — we could probably discuss energy once a month. As I said in a debate a few months ago, the future of energy is one of the most important issues that we face. It is a lifeblood of our society not only socially, but economically. We shall have to keep returning to the matter.

Although I disagree with one or two points, I broadly welcome the Minister’s response. It is only appropriate that I should pay tribute to the sterling work of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The Chairperson, Pat Doherty, the Deputy Chairperson, Sean Neeson, and my Colleagues on that Committee should be thanked for the massive amount of work that was put into the original inquiry.

Several issues must be addressed, including financing debt at a lower cost. We must buy out the stranded costs and do what we can to reduce the excessive charges that were tied up in the original scandalous contracts. The legislation must contain, or new legislation must be enacted to provide for, low-cost borrowing mechanisms in the energy industry that will allow for the servicing of debt and for the burden of debt to be reduced. That in itself would create small but significant savings for customers.

I am told that if lending institutions were allowed to use customers’ credit ratings, they might rate customers as more creditworthy than do NIE and would charge lower rates of interest, which would benefit the customers. There seems to be no great desire to include a low-cost financing option in the forthcoming energy Bill, but one must be included. If that option is not included in the original Bill, it must be included at Consideration Stage.

My Committee Colleagues have already touched on the scandal of fuel poverty. The Committee Chairman, Pat Doherty, cited the 170,000 homes — 28% of our people — that experience fuel poverty. I welcome the Minister’s support for the increase in the energy levy to an average of £5 per customer. The extra money that that will generate will be of great value to the homes affected by that scourge and will go some way towards eradicating it.

However, I also agree with recommendation 10. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Social Development must together develop an aggressive and effective task force on fuel poverty. It is not enough to take action such as raising levies in a passive or semi-active way; this problem must be dealt with aggressively and forcibly. The task force and the Executive must make the rapid eradication of fuel poverty a priority underpinned by legislation.

Like Mr Doherty, I believe that if the Exchequer cannot provide the necessary resources to eliminate fuel poverty, it behoves the Executive to find them as quickly as possible. The longer that that scandal pertains, the longer the Assembly will be ridiculed for not effectively getting to grips with government and the issues that affect people’s lives.

Recommendation 38 proposes the consideration of the establishment of a renewable energy agency. If such an agency is established, it will help us to focus on and adopt a much more serious approach to renewables, especially in the light of the Executive’s commitment to ensuring that 10% of energy will come from renewable sources. Like other Members, I am not satisfied with 10% — it should be 15%. A much greater commitment to developing renewable energy is needed. In many respects, we pay little more than lip service to it. It sounds nice, and it seems green, reasonable and user-friendly. However, as I told the House before the summer recess, an all-embracing energy agency is needed. I have let the matter rest until other issues have been debated, but if we do not return to it, we will never be in control of our energy resources. We can talk all we like, but there is no evidence that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is offering farmers effective incentives to produce renewable energy products. Until we have joined-up government that involves the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Social Development, and which pulls in all aspects of energy production, consumption and usage, we will not have the necessary grip on energy issues. The renewable energy debate must be renewed and engaged in with much more vigour than has been the case.

The Department of Agriculture should be involved. There are problems in the agriculture industry and, if a few people knew that they could diversify into energy products if the market were stable, it would perhaps be a welcome respite. However, I see no great incentive to do that.

I welcome the question of creating an all-island energy market, which was raised in recommendation 42 and in other recommendations in the report. North and South, we are an island community of only five million to six million people. That is not a large number in relation to a stable energy supply from multiple sources, and it is not enough in respect of an all-island energy economy. Greater co-operation with the UK must be obtained, particularly with Scotland. The Moyle interconnector is an excellent example of that. It has been fully loaded and used, and has gone some way towards creating an opening in the market. An open energy market is not possible without the supply. Douglas McIldoon said:

"The Moyle Interconnector, with a capacity of 500MW, has been developed as a strategic infrastructure project to link the previously isolated NI electricity system to the systems of Great Britain (GB) and the European mainland. The benefits of access to these larger systems for the NI electricity consumer include downward pressure on electricity prices from increased competition in generation along with enhanced security and diversity of supply."

Without adequate interconnecting capacity there can be no market. Our current problem, however, is that because the interconnector is fully used and fully loaded, there is no spare capacity. Expensive as it may be, we may very well need a second interconnector to double the capacity between Northern Ireland and Scotland. We must have a freer, more competitive and relatively open market as quickly as possible. If that is not done, if there are closed shops and restricted supplies, opportunities and choice, we can talk all we like, but that will not bring about change.

I could make other points, but I shall not. Other Members referred to the scandalously high price of the privatisation of the power stations. One primary focus should be to concentrate on the liberalisation of the market to promote as much competition as possible, so that the price of electricity comes down and the economics begin to make sense. They do not make sense now.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Once again, sadly, the debate on energy has not proved to be the hottest ticket in town. I am delighted that Mr Davis has appeared. At one stage, it looked as if Dr Birnie would be the only non-member of the Committee to take part in the debate, with the exception of the Minister. It is either a tremendous vote of confidence or a sign of apathy with regard to the work of the Committee. Members perhaps feel that the Committee has done such a good job and that the report is so watertight that it is not necessary to scrutinise its work, that it is a five-star Committee and there is nothing to worry about. Either that, or the level of interest in the crucial subject of energy is not what it should be. I am not sure of the reason, but on the three occasions on which this topic has arisen it has attracted very few Members. That said, however, it reveals a slight deficiency in the Standing Orders of the Assembly. There is no provision for a statement to be made by a Committee Chairperson. That provision existed in previous Assemblies and is a neat way of dealing with responses from Government Departments to Committee reports.

Of course, we are required to use the more unwieldy mechanism of a motion, which is often heard late in the afternoon, rather than during the morning’s business. Having said that, the Minister has made a steady but positive response to the Committee’s report.

If I were asked to describe the Minister in cricketing terms, I would say that he is more of a Geoffrey Boycott than an Ian Botham. Geoffrey Boycott tended to bat steadily and solidly, deflecting the bouncers and chalking up quite a few maiden overs, as opposed to Ian Botham, who nailed his colours to the mast and struck out with the bat. In reading the Minister’s report, I realised that he has a deft way of saying no. He reminds me of a young lady whom I asked out many times. Rather than say "No, I think that you are the ugliest person in the school", she offered good excuses that did not upset me, such as "I am doing my hair", "I have to look after my maiden aunt", or "I have to go shopping". The Minister does the same thing. Nowhere does he say that the Committee’s report is a load of nonsense or that it is extreme. He always has a "no, but" reply to the recommendations, which, I suppose, is how Ministers attain the tacit support of Committees on many issues.

The Minister could have been bold and responded to the recommendation on nuclear power as follows: "It is not a transferred matter. It is for officials at Westminster, but my view is: nuclear power in Northern Ireland — over my dead body". He could have nailed his colours to the mast, made a name for himself, and gained much support from the people of Northern Ireland, who are extremely worried about the health implications of Sellafield and nuclear power production. But, no, the Minister batted steady, sidestepping the issue by saying that it was not a matter for his Department — a neat answer but not, perhaps, the bravest.

The report recommends a radical rethink of the proportion of energy that will be produced by renewable fuel. Again, the Minister played with a straight bat, stuck to previous policy and stated that the proportion should be 10% — no more, no less. He could have said that although he would welcome an increase to 20% or 25% he must comply with the constraints, but, again, he did not comment.

I do not want to be negative, because the Department responded positively to several issues raised by the Committee. The Committee, the Assembly and the Minister are agreed on fuel poverty, an issue that unites the community. It is one of the few situations in which everybody would gain. If there were an adequate programme to tackle fuel poverty, we would lower carbon dioxide emissions, because less heat would be lost up the chimney and less fossil fuel would be used. We would also improve the health of the community, because fewer old people would contract serious diseases and die from cold-related illness. Those measures would result in a saving for the Exchequer, because less money would be spent on treating the ill and less would be wasted on social security payments to provide fuel.

The Committee supports strongly the recommendation to increase the levy to £5, especially as it learnt that the average levy would be £5 a household. The home occupied by Dr McDonnell, the hon Member for South Belfast, a man of numerous incomes, would therefore sustain a much higher levy than the home of a working-class person in east Belfast. The richer members of society will pay a much higher proportion of the levy than poorer people. The Committee also discovered that, as the levy is also taken from industrial and commercial users, it is not spread over 600,000 domestic consumers; it is spread over the entire community. In some instances, therefore, the levy could be as little as 75p a year for households that use little energy. If that is the case, it is a small price to pay to alleviate the scourge of fuel poverty in the Province, especially among the elderly. One of the main obstacles to the increase of the levy was that many people felt that £5 a household was too much. That is not the case, and the fuel poor are not paying the lion’s share. Therefore, the Minister’s response was positive.

I am also glad that he left the door open on Orimulsion. There is no getting away from it: Orimulsion has been a controversial fuel in some parts of the world. Work on the energy inquiry led to one of the most beneficial and productive visits that any Assembly Committee has ever made; it was to the Orimulsion-fired power stations in Denmark. I was not part of the delegation because I had been there previously, but I can verify the Committee’s findings on the efficiency and the high environmental standards of that plant in Zealand.

Indeed, on my visit, we quizzed the representatives of green organisations. I do not mean the SDLP but groups such as Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund, and so on and their equivalents in Denmark. Having investigated emissions from that plant and having examined the programme that was established to deal with spillage, those groups were extremely happy with the work going on at the plant, and they gave it their seal of approval. If Kilroot were converted to dual-fired Orimulsion and oil burning, it could go a long way to bridging the gap between generation costs in this part of the UK and in England, Scotland and Wales.

I am glad that the Minister kept the door open to the Committee’s recommendation, and indeed, this is perhaps the one issue over which the Committee almost came to blows. From memory, the only two issues on which it disagreed were the name of Londonderry and whether the use of Orimulsion should go ahead at Kilroot. Both engendered a great deal of heat and required much energy, but they were both resolved.

The triple lock offered by the Committee gives the Minister a way forward to deal with this difficult issue — and there is no getting away from it, it is a complex matter — but it also ensures that the highest possible environmental standards will apply.

First, the Committee said that the use of Orimulsion should be subject to a planning application, which is, of course, only right. That planning application would be the subject of an inquiry or a similar mechanism that would allow the public to air their views. Secondly, the strictest of environmental impact assessments should be carried out in public, which will enable the public to see exactly what measurements are taken, what statistics are used and how the consultants arrive at their conclusions on the environmental issues.

Particulates and spillage are the two remaining unresolved, yet crucial, issues. There is no doubt that the conversion to Orimulsion burning will lead to a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from Kilroot. Sulphur emissions, when combined with flue-gas desulphurisation plant, will fall appreciably. Therefore, we have a win-win situation as far as oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulphur (SOx), as they are called, and emission gases are concerned. However, questions remain about the fine particulate matter, cadmium and vanadium, as well as about the other particulates that can cause some respiratory problems. With flue-gas desulphurisation and electrostatic precipitation it is possible to eliminate the majority of those particulates from the atmosphere. However, there are remaining concerns about that, and the environmental impact assessment must examine it in detail.

More crucially perhaps, although only 11 or 12 tankers a year are likely to come to Kilroot from Venezuela, we must ask what would happen if any of those were to sink in Belfast harbour or along the coast of Northern Ireland. The environmental impact assessment must examine in detail any contingency plans to deal with that should it ever occur. Therefore, the second lock is the environmental impact analysis.

Thirdly, the Assembly should make any decision on the production of power, because this is an important regional issue that, given those three provisos, should be taken seriously. In the response to the report, the door has been left open for that proposal. I came to the proposed use of Orimulsion with a cynical and jaundiced viewpoint. My impression was that Orimulsion was the last thing we needed in Northern Ireland. However, when I considered the facts, the use of Orimulsion elsewhere and read the literature, I concluded that there was merit in considering the proposal.

Dr McDonnell raised the issue of the lack of legislation to provide a low-cost borrowing mechanism to reduce the real cost to the consumer of the capital tied up in the power industry. A simple piece of primary legislation is needed, which some believe could be included in the energy Bill. It could be used to buy out the Ballylumford long-term generator contract.

The Committee is examining the energy Bill, and some members are minded to suggest an amendment to allow that provision to be included, not as a mandatory provision but as enabling legislation that would allow a proposal to be considered. The Minister would not be compelled to do anything. It would be a question of "may" rather than "shall". At least the provision would be there if a realistic proposal were put forward.

As Dr McDonnell stated, in pure numerical terms the savings are small, one suggestion being that the figure would be between £1 million and £1·2 million. However, that saving, combined with tackling the long-term generator contracts, and perhaps moving to the use of Orimulsion, would go a long way to reducing the gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. If nothing else is achieved during the Minister’s short term of office, a series of steps would have been set in motion to bridge that gap and the Minister would have made a significant achievement for Northern Ireland. If the Assembly is to mean anything to the people of Northern Ireland, something has to be done on this crucial issue.

The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is considering industrial derating, and some difficult decisions will have to be taken. Industrial derating was introduced because of the significant difference in electricity prices for industry in Northern Ireland. Many witnesses appearing before the Committee said that the abolition of industrial derating could not be justified until the problem of high electricity costs was addressed. There is much merit in that argument. That does not presuppose one or other decision on the matter, but the two elements are linked.

The energy issue is extraordinarily complex, and no one will pretend otherwise. However, the Committee’s report and the Minister’s response were a step in the right direction and, if we go forward together, many positive changes will be put in place for the people of Northern Ireland.

I welcome most of the response and understand the reasons for saying "no" and "perhaps". No matter how tactful those responses are, I understand that those decisions have to be made.

We will get a second bite at the cherry when we debate the energy Bill, and these issues will reappear many times. As far as the Assembly is concerned, the book on energy is far from closed.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Before I make my contribution to the debate, I send my congratulations to the Armagh team and the Derry minor team. I am being very parochial in relation to Armagh. It is disappointing that the erroneous —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you; that issue has been covered.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will not discuss all of the recommendations, as the report was substantial, and the response was very detailed. This is part of the continuing debate on energy, and I look forward to further discussion on the matter.

Recommendation 2 deals with the consumer bond. In addition to Orimulsion, this issue exercised the members of the Committee a great deal. There is growing recognition that bonds could be an effective way of reducing prices. The matter certainly requires full public debate and consultation. It appears that people are increasingly coming around to the idea that bonds are a low-cost borrowing mechanism for energy. However, the proposal needs detailed examination, debate and consultation.

Recommendation 9 deals with eradicating fuel poverty. The revised framework for the energy efficiency levy must ensure openness and transparency with regard to how money is spent and the extent to which people are lifted out of fuel poverty. The eradication of fuel poverty must be considered from the inception of any scheme or project funded by the energy efficiency levy. The evaluation of the warm homes scheme will provide some valuable information on the levy contribution. We need a comprehensive, resource-based evaluation of the energy efficiency levy, and this should be formalised and implemented as quickly as possible.

Recommendation 10 concerns the establishment of a task force on fuel poverty. Although a fuel poverty strategy is very welcome, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment called for the task force in order to inject some political momentum into the situation. I would like to see that established as quickly as possible. The Assembly has demonstrated that there is cross-party support for tackling fuel poverty, but that needs to be harnessed and driven forward. The eradication of fuel poverty in the North of Ireland within 10 years would be a testament to the Assembly’s work.

Recommendation 11 seeks greater transparency with regard to the use of the energy efficiency levy. For example, how does Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) select projects to fund? What criteria are used? Are some organisations refused funding, and, if so, what happens to them? I would welcome clarity and openness on these matters. A panel of independent assessors could help NIE to assess projects.

Recommendation 24, which deals with a renewable energy target, has already been mentioned. I would like to see a more vigorous response from the Department on the promotion of renewable energy. The Committee set a target of 15% of all electricity to come from renewable sources by 2010. That is not impossible, and it would help to drive a more vigorous project forward. I look forward to the implementation of the strategy and to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s plans to promote renewable energy.

Recommendation 38 deals with the establishment of a renewable energy agency. I would like to see that done as soon as possible, in line with the Committee’s recommendation.

With regard to recommendation 45, the consultation on the abolition of the Government royalty tax is to be welcomed. However, all parties recognise the need for an all-Ireland energy market. One of the key issues —

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon Member to mislead the Assembly? The recommendation refers to an all-island energy market, not an all-Ireland one. That is an important distinction, so what is being said is slightly misleading.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you for guiding the Assembly in that way.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Words are certainly important, but my preference is to use the term "all-Ireland energy market".

The promotion of an all-Ireland energy market should benefit consumers as well as businesses, so consumer issues should be a key consideration. I broadly welcome the Department’s response. The ongoing debate is healthy and frank, and I welcome that. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Given the limited time remaining, I must ask Members who still wish to speak in the debate to restrict their contributions to five minutes.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I am not a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, but energy issues are so important that we should all take an interest in them.

A key issue in the report and the Minister’s response is that of relative energy charges, particularly in Great Britain and the rest of the European Union. Along with Dr McDonnell and Mr Wells, I argue that consideration should be given to permissive legislation for so-called low-cost borrowing mechanisms. Several billion pounds worth of capital is tied up in the energy industry, so a relatively small reduction in interest charges on loans — even by 0·1% — could lead to tens of millions of pounds worth of savings for customers.

Primary legislation — for example, the forthcoming energy Bill — is needed to achieve that laudable objective. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, through the regulator, could commit consumers to repay on loans. Given that there are approximately 600,000 electricity users in the Province, the lending institutions such as the banks would view that as better security, given the current risk, albeit unlikely, of Northern Ireland Electricity’s bankruptcy. Consequently, consumers could make savings, as the loan repayment would be at a lower interest rate. I understand that, in principle, the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses support such permissive legislation.

It might be argued that the systems operator could levy charges on customers within the framework of existing legislation. However, that would not be enough to satisfy the lending institutions. They need assurance, in the form of primary legislation, that consumers would ultimately repay loans. I commend the report and the ministerial response. However, we need to act now to lower electricity prices through, for example, permissive legislation to provide for a low-cost borrowing mechanism.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s response, which, for the large part, was positive. Most of the 45 recommendations fall within his remit.

Recommendation 14 relates to the Coolkeeragh development. As regards its support and implementation, all the necessary statutory consent for the construction of a combined cycle gas turbine station has been granted. The projected commissioning date for the project is autumn 2004.

On 12 February 2002, the regulator granted a gas conveyance licence to Bord Gáis Éireann for the construction of a gas pipeline to supply the new generation station and downstream markets along the route of the pipeline.

The new power station will act as an anchor customer for the new natural gas pipeline to the North and northwest. Over 80,000 new domestic gas connections, including the city of Derry, Limavady, Ballymena, Antrim and Letterkenny, could be made possible in the years after the construction of the gas pipeline, facilitated by the power station.

Developing the power plant at Coolkeeragh will enhance economic activity in the north-west. The development of the new power station represents an inward investment of £150 million in the region, bringing jobs and other benefits. It will provide 600 jobs at the peak of the construction phase, and there will be 40 secure jobs in running the station when it has been built. The local economy is set to benefit significantly from the power plant development at Coolkeeragh. To facilitate local companies being given the opportunity to supply products and service to the main contractor, a unique supplier model initiative supported by Invest Northern Ireland and delivered by North West Marketing has been developed.

I support the report but, as I have a little time left, I would also like to commend recommendation 9 on eradicating fuel poverty. The energy efficiency levy is to be increased to £5 per customer. I also commend recommendation 10 on the setting up of the task force on fuel poverty. The Department for Social Development is already advancing the fuel poverty strategy. Recommendation 15 relates to the climate change levy, which is a reserved matter. We already have a derogation for five years, and I appreciate the Minister’s assurance that he will seek a 10-year derogation.

I welcome very much recommendation 22 on waste minimalisation and the Minister’s positive response to it. Recommendations 39 and 40 deal with gas to the north-west and the postalisation of costs. The fact that costs will be evenly distributed to all gas consumers must be welcomed. I agree with Dr Birnie, Mr Wells, Dr O’Hagan and my Colleague, Dr McDonnell, who spoke in favour of recommendation 45 — its implementation would undoubtedly benefit all in the electricity market.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Committee for the motion, which will help to keep the extremely important question of energy high on the Assembly’s agenda. I have listened carefully to a very positive debate on energy, although I share Mr Wells’s disappointment that we did not attract more Members. This issue affects every household and business in the Province, so it should be high on the agenda. I will attempt to cover as many of the issues that were raised as possible.

The Committee Chairperson and many other Members spoke about renewable energy. I want to make it clear that the target has not yet been set. However, it will be set in the energy strategy, which will be published later in the year. I understand why the Committee feels strongly that we should have set a higher target, but Members are omitting one issue — most potential renewables will come from wind power. Mr Armstrong and others raised questions about biomass, anaerobic digesters and other forms of renewable energy. All have their place. However, if we are to reach a significant target of 10% or 15%, 95% of it will come from wind. That is the reality. We must also remember the huge cost involved.

A figure of 15% would cost the consumer a further £40 million. That excludes the cost of upgrading the network to distribute that energy, and that could be as much again. Wind energy generators are usually located in isolated areas, and the existing network for wind energy is not equipped to deal with intermittent sources of energy supply and would have to be radically upgraded and changed at a huge cost to the consumer. Members must understand that there is a double cost involved: it may be more expensive to produce, and the high distribution costs must also be taken into account.

My Department is committed to renewable energy. Mr Armstrong and other Members raised issues such as anaerobic digesters, and I am working closely with my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to encourage such matters. However, it is not easy to set such a target. In any event, there is no point in setting a target that is not achievable, and I hope that can be avoided. Nevertheless, I take Members’ points very seriously, and I know how sincerely held their views are on the subject.

Virtually every Member referred to fuel poverty. The figure of 170,000 people below the fuel poverty line is, in this day and age, a disgrace. However, that is primarily a matter for my Colleague, the Minister for Social Development, and I will draw his attention to the points raised. I have had experience of fuel poverty in my constituency. The staggering fact is that even though we were offering, through the fuel poverty pilot scheme, to convert and insulate properties, to provide modern, efficient gas boilers and to give other advice, an enormous number of people did not apply for it. I found that disturbing. Home helps have to light fires for people who cannot manage solid fuel, and, even though the scheme was available in certain areas and people could get new equipment, homes insulated and free advice, there was still an insufficient number of applicants. That is shocking.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

There were two schemes, one in the Beechmount area of west Belfast and one in Willowfield in the Minister’s constituency. The Beechmount scheme was incredibly successful with a very high take-up, but the Willowfield scheme was much less successful. However, that had more to do with the level of community organisation in the two areas rather than the attractiveness of the scheme.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I accept that to a point. Nevertheless, even though significant efforts were made to draw the scheme to the attention of people in the area, I was disappointed with the take-up. I accept that we must all do more at community level. However, almost every Member has made the point about fuel poverty, and I will draw it to the attention of my Colleague.

Significant bids are being made in the Budget. The Minister for Social Development is bidding for substantial resources from the Northern Ireland block grant to back the increase in the OFREG levy. There is a real chance of making a significant difference on that.

The Chairperson referred to recommendation 27 on local renewable energy plans and recommendation 28 on planning and building control bodies. Again, some of those matters are the concern of the Department of the Environment, and I will draw Mr Nesbitt’s attention to them as many Members found them significant.

Mr Neeson, Dr Birnie, Dr McDonnell and other Members raised the issue of the bonds. I am aware of the problem, and I am looking at it closely. A range of issues must be considered, including tax and state aid issues. However, Members have made it clear that they intend to raise the matter during the passage of the Bill. As the Executive approved the Bill at their meeting last week, we hope, with your permission, Mr Speaker, to introduce it this month. It will then move to Committee Stage, when Members will be able to discuss its provisions at some length — we shall see where that leads us.

Mr Neeson and other Members also referred to the high cost of electricity. I have now had two meetings with Sir George Quigley, one the week before last and one some months ago. I am acutely aware of all the major issues, and I assure the Member that not a week goes by without our trying to address them in the Department. They are very difficult and complex, and we shall continue to work at them, for each half point that we can shave off the cost is of advantage to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Neeson also referred to diversification; I am aware of the percentage of our electricity that we shall eventually produce with gas when Coolkeeragh comes on-stream and when the new combined cycle gas turbine starts to work. Of course, that will be a much more efficient form of generation; we shall use less gas at Ballylumford when the new power station opens than we use with the present facilities because of increased efficiency. Coolkeeragh, as Mrs Courtney is well aware, is a state-of-the-art, highly efficient combined cycle gas turbine. I am aware of Mr Neeson’s point, but at least now we have the interconnector. There is also interconnection with the Republic, so we are not as isolated as we used to be, and that is of significant satisfaction to us.

Dr McDonnell spoke about the all-island market. Of course, a population of five million is a small market for energy, and we all know that. That is why interconnection, both North/South and east-west, gives us a platform upon which we can play more effectively. We are working very closely with the regulators both North and South, who meet monthly. The two Departments have a high-level working group, and we had a report in 2001. These reports are accessible on our Department’s web site, and one can see there what we are doing. The market is opening up because of the interconnection with Great Britain.

That brings us neatly to the nuclear option to which Mr Wells referred. He used some cricketing analogies, and at one stage he was in danger of putting us in some doubt about how he ever got married; but someone must have said "Yes" to him at some stage. We have an interconnection with Great Britain, and the electricity that flows through that interconnector can come from various sources, including the south of Scotland, which has access to nuclear plants.

I do not favour any such plants being built here, but Sellafield is of environmental importance to all of us, quite apart from the generation of electricity. There can be no guarantee of the source from which electricity comes when it passes through the interconnector; it is not possible to identify that.

Mr Wells also raised the question of Orimulsion. As he says, we are keeping an open mind, but the Member should not forget the significant environmental issues with that fuel. It sinks when it enters water, and I am satisfied that he has no desire to tarmac the bottom of Belfast Lough. We should bear in mind that there is only one source of supply in a very unstable part of the world — there was an attempted coup d’état there some months ago, and we must all take account of that.

5.45pm

However, I know that he and other Committee members were impressed by their visit to Denmark. We shall examine any proposal that comes to us. Apart from the environmental issues, the change in the generating regime will require the consent of the Department. There are other options, such as coal, and a range of issues has been designed to reduce costs. We must take a view based on our regulatory position.

The debate has shown that the Committee has taken a consistent interest; it has done more work on energy than on any other heading in the portfolio. That is important, because the issue affects what is in people’s pockets and has an impact on our industrial competitiveness, which is a key area in which the Committee and the Department are engaged.

Together we are involved in evolving policy. I have been able to take on board several recommendations, and when the energy Bill goes to the Committee for consideration we shall examine the consumer issues, which Dr O’Hagan mentioned, and postalisation, which is a huge matter for all of us.

I know that Mr Neeson has been angered by the reactions that we received from some quarters. However, we can post a letter anywhere in the Province for the same price. Every unit of electricity is sold to consumers at the same price, wherever they are. The principle of postalisation is already established. Would it be fair to charge a consumer in south Fermanagh the real cost of electricity that is produced in Larne and transmitted from there? It would clearly cost more than it would for a consumer in Carrickfergus. It would be insane to go down that road. No part of the Province, especially the rural areas, could hope to survive under that sort of regime.

I earnestly hope that the Committee and the House will support the Bill’s postalisation element, because that is the only way to deliver what is, in cross-border terms, the largest single project that we have undertaken together since partition. I would like to think that that project could be delivered to benefit thousands of people in Northern Ireland who were denied access to fuel. We used to be the only region in western Europe with no gas supply to its main towns. I hope that we shall have support. I look forward to working with the Committee as the Bill proceeds, and I shall be keenly interested in the Committee’s responses and suggestions.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I wish to thank, a Cheann Comhairle, all my Colleagues on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for making a thoughtful contribution to the debate. Those contributions represented our consensus on three different levels: a general consensus on the original 45 recommendations; a general consensus that we would broadly welcome the Minister’s initial response; and a consensus that the more innovative recommendations that have been refuted should be pursued. I would also like to thank Esmond Birnie, who was the only non-member of the Committee to speak, for his usual thought-provoking words.

I shall deal with the Minister’s points in some detail later on, but his general contribution was very solid and recognised the work in which the Committee has been involved. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee mentioned bonds, which is an issue with which we are still struggling at times, because a huge amount of money is involved.

The Committee has yet to conclude its views on bonds, but it was right that Mr Neeson should highlight that. Mr Neeson welcomed the work being done on the natural gas pipeline from South to North and the north-west, and he made some historical references to various all-party delegations that tried to bring it all about. He also made a clear reference to the need for postalisation and the work done by the Committee in dealing with the energy Bill.

Mr Armstrong mentioned the benefits of turning waste into energy, which the Committee saw on its visit to Denmark. He also stressed the need for cheaper electricity and energy, and that was what helped the Committee initially to focus on energy.

Every Member who spoke mentioned fuel poverty. Biogas is another notable source of renewables, and the energy savings that can be made by properly implementing building regulations were also mentioned.

Dr McDonnell spoke of the need for Members to debate energy constantly, such is its importance — particularly the cost of electricity and how to tackle it. He also referred to the ongoing discussions on bonds and their implications, and he had clear views on fuel poverty. There are 170,000 households in Northern Ireland living in fuel poverty. Members spoke of the levy paid by each customer, and Mr Wells made detailed reference to how well spread the levy could be if Dr McDonnell paid a bit more than the rest of us. Given the number of people and the enormity of the suffering involved, a £5 levy per customer per annum is very little to ask, and it would eradicate fuel poverty in five years.

The Assembly, the Committees and the Executive have been involved in many enormous projects that take a lot of strategic planning, time and money. However, the report states that another £1 million would wipe out fuel poverty in five years. That can be achieved; the money can be found. If the Exchequer will not give it, the Executive can surely find it.

Dr McDonnell also mentioned renewable energy, the all-island market and the Moyle interconnector which links us up not only with Britain but with the wider EU, bringing about security of supply and the potential for reducing costs. He also referred to the privatisation of power stations; that subject spills over into the issue of bonds.

Mr Wells was concerned about the small turnout for the debate, but I think he answered his own question when he said that the energy issue is so complex that very few understand it. It has taken the Committee over a year to cover all the associated issues. The Committee jokes about Mr Neeson promising an easy inquiry that would last six weeks after completion of the economic inquiry. However, we are still at it. We may not be experts, but we are much more knowledgeable now than when we started.

Mr Wells "praised" the steady and positive response from the Minister and the Department, and referred to the Minister’s straight bat response. He also said that the Minister should have said that nuclear power would be used in Northern Ireland over his dead body.

Mr Wells elaborated on fuel poverty. He dealt in huge detail with Orimulsion and said that the debate on the matter was ongoing. He also talked about the triple-lock mechanism, and the Minister dealt with those concerns in his response. The Committee had a huge debate on that, but the door has been left open, as we have not yet made a decision on it. Mr Wells also discussed the buying out of electricity contracts, which is tied to the issue of bonds. He talked about industrial derating, which will come before the House soon, and the fact that the Committee was considering how it would deal with the matter.

Dr O’Hagan, after praising the Armagh team for its fine victory, talked about the Minister’s detailed response to the Committee’s report. She dwelt on the issue of consumer bonds and the need for a full debate. She elaborated on fuel poverty, the energy efficiency levy and the Committee’s target of generating 15% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Dr O’Hagan also mentioned recommendation 38 on the establishment of a renewable energy agency and recommendation 45, which would enable companies to trade in a fair and equitable all-island energy market. She also welcomed the Department’s response to the Committee’s proposals.

Dr Birnie talked about the low-cost borrowing mechanisms that are available and the need to conclude the debate on that issue.

Mrs Courtney expressed support for the Coolkeeragh project, about which the Committee has felt strongly since the beginning. She also spoke about the need for a fuel poverty task force.

I have lost my notes on the Minister’s detailed response. He explained why it was difficult to push the target from 10% to 15%, outlining the cost factors, on which the Committee will reflect. The Committee was trying to put Northern Ireland at the cutting edge with renewable resources rather than leave it behind in the game with regard to European Directives and the activities of other countries.

I understand that aspects of fuel poverty related to other Ministries, but the issue could be resolved by means of a collective, all-embracing, cross-cutting response. Bonds and the cost-saving aspects of diversification were discussed. That reminded us that even an all-island market would be small and that energy could flow in more than one direction, for example, from an electricity interconnector linking us to Britain and the EU.

Mr Wells may have been told that nuclear plants were an option, but the Minister rejected that possibility. However, he highlighted the fact that he could not determine from which source energy would be manufactured. The Minister responded to the question of Orimulsion, and it will feed into the Committee’s thorough deliberations. We have had a lively debate on energy, and no doubt we shall return to the issue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Just in case the Member finds his notes, I draw his attention to the fact that only three minutes remain.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Two minutes will suffice.

The Minister recognised the Committee’s work, for which I thank him, and also how the Committee worked with the Department. It was an example of the right way for a Committee and Department to work together. The Committee did its best in that regard, because the issue is so serious. I was glad that the Minister said that the principle of postalisation has long been established.

The debate has been useful, although, as Jim Wells said, it was a pity that more Members were not present. However, as we continue to debate and promote the issues, and especially as the Committee scrutinises the draft Bill, everything will be dealt with.

6.00pm

I thank the Members and you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me a little extra time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of the response of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to the Committee’s Report on Energy (03/01R).

Adjourned at 6.01 pm.