Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 25 September 2001 (continued)
Rev Dr William McCrea:
We will soon see.
Mr Dodds:
Members will see whether or not they are prepared to do that. For reasons of fairness and social equality the payment of the levy should be based on a consumer's means. However, Members are asking the fuel poor to contribute the same as the best-off in Northern Ireland which is wrong.
The Assembly should ask NIE what it can do to help eradicate fuel poverty. One Member from the SDLP said that there was no point in asking NIE for assistance because it had not done much for consumers. That is an argument for going back to NIE and trying again. The Assembly should put pressure on NIE; it should not give up and say "They'll not do anything, so let's put the burden on the hard-pressed consumers and charge them all, no matter whether they can pay or not."
However, as was previously stated, responsibility for this matter lies with the Executive. When we discuss to the Budget, Members will be able to table amendments to it. Then we will see whether Members are prepared to look at ways to amend the Budget to deal with the necessary expenditure. However, in advance of that, the House is faced with a proposal to levy the consumers - the customers, the families of Northern Ireland - at the same rate regardless of their ability to pay. The House should resist that proposal.
I mentioned the increase in the pension. Is someone seriously suggesting that one way to prevent the shortfall in housing budgets, which was raised this morning, is to levy the tenants an extra 10p per week to pay for more efficient maintenance programmes from which all tenants would benefit? Would any Member stand in the Chamber and seriously suggest that that is the proper approach to take?
The proper approach is to put it up to the Executive. That is right, and when we come to the Budget, that is something that Members will address. Should the burden be placed on consumers or should NIE be asked to fulfil its responsibilities and be pressurised into making a contribution? That is the question before the House, and if we fail, it will be dealt with in the Budget. We may well fail.
We know that we cannot force NIE to make a contribution: it is a private company. However, it is doing pretty well because of, as a number of Members have stated, the way in which it got its hands on the industry. Effectively, the in Northern Ireland taxpayers were robbed.
We have had a good debate that has dealt with the issues. It is unfair and morally wrong to impose a flat-rate tax on the people who are least able to pay. Let us hesitate before we do that, and let us approach NIE. We will, of course, address the issue when we come to the Budget.
Mr Ford:
I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It is a novel experience to wind up a debate in which there was to be significant disagreement about an amendment substance. The content of almost every speech has been the same, and there has been a unanimous feeling of concern for those people who are least well off in society. Many suggestions have been made as to how to provide the best method of support for them. The problem is that we disagree as to what the best method is. Mr ONeill was first to say that we clearly agree on the ends but disagree on the means.
A huge range of opinions have been voiced about how we should deal with the issue. We started off with a blunt statement from Mr McClarty, who was the first to ask whether NIE would be prepared to pay. That is the crux of the matter.
We had a number of contributions from members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Dr O'Hagan, Dr McDonnell and Ms Morrice raised issues regarding the ongoing inquiry and the total solution to the problems in that area.
Dr O'Hagan said the motion was one part of the equation; I do not suggest that it from the entire equation. The motion, as it stands, is a large part of what we want.
In an interesting exchange with Dr Paisley, Mr O'Connor highlighted the fact that for every £1 the pensioner pays £10 is returned in benefits. He is wrong. The tax is levied at a flat rate. However, the benefits are paid disproportionately - they go to those who are most in need. The tax is not regressive, in the way that the poll tax was. With the poll tax, everyone paid the same flat rate and there were variable benefits. On this occasion the benefits are clearly targeted at those most in need. Therefore, the overall package of benefits is in the ratio of 9:1 or 10:1, but the ratio, as regards benefits for those who are most in need, is significantly better. That is why much of what has been said in support of the amendment falls down. The benefits are paid disproportionately.
Mr ONeill and Mick Murphy asked whether we were really identifying the fuel poor. In my opening statement I said that we need to work to improve the scheme and ensure that there is proper openness and accountability. There is willingness on behalf of those who work under the existing levy to ensure that is the case.
When we come to consider the amendment it seems to me that we are faced with a variety of questions that centre on a number of themes. Dr Paisley asked what is wrong with legislation. Mark Robinson asked where the problem lay in directing money from NIE to the scheme. The answer is that that depends on legislation, and as we know that that takes time. We have not established a record for speedy legislation in the House. I understand that we shall only have one day of business next week. There does not seem to be much business coming from the Executive. Perhaps we will see some improvement in coming weeks, and more business will come forward.
If we wait for primary legislation to solve the problem, we need to look at what we shall do during the two, three or four years before Ministers get round to producing such legislation.
I agree entirely with Dr McCrea on one point: that the best solution would be tripartite. We should look at making use of the existing levy, as well as a contribution from NIE and action by the Executive and by Ministers in relation to how the Budget is put to the House and voted on. What is the balance, and what can be done quickly?
Mr Dodds started off by saying that I had presented the case against my motion very fairly and knocked down most of the substantive points. I return the compliment by saying that both of us have understood the other's position, but have not agreed as to where we will reach that point. We all know what the social objectives are; they have been emphasised.
Those who support the amendment talk about the costs and compare the levy to the increased charges paid by customers to NIE, which, those Members say, inflate its coffers. The levy is not going to the coffers of NIE. Mr Shannon was wrong when he said that the increase was an NIE increase. It is not; it is the increase of Douglas McIldoon, the regulator. Although it is collected by NIE, it is not NIE's responsibility. We should give NIE neither the credit nor the blame.
The levy in Great Britain will shortly rise to £3.60 and then to £4.80 - the £7.50 figure is not in the offing, either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland at the present time.
I have outlined the benefits, which will work out at nine or 10 times the expenditure. What money raised by general taxation as a result of the action of the Assembly ever produces a nine- or 10-times benefit, or even more than that for those most in need?
We have other options, such as Ms Morrice's suggestion of a windfall tax or some form of levy on, or voluntary contribution from, NIE. On the day that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Industry presents a Bill to impose that levy I shall be happy to read it, but there is no sign of that and it is not contained in the Programme for Government. We should accept that that will not arrive in the timescale that we need this year.
We shall see what further amendments may be made to Executive funding by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I am not holding my breath to see a significant and major change to the Budget. That is why we need to work on the basis of the levy. That is what is available and we can act on it now, at the same time as other matters are progressing.
My concern is that the amendment as it is couched will not achieve our aim. Had the amendment proposed to add more or less the words "to put pressure on NIE" to the end of the motion. we could have unanimously agreed. However, the wording of the amendment, as an alternative and not an addition, could potentially damage the existing levy system, whereas the motion reinforces the levy system and allows the option for further action. It affords Members the opportunity to bring forward whatever further proposals they wish and it encourages what is clearly the will of the House: to put further pressure on NIE. It also allows the possibility of legislation.
The Assembly has been asked by Mr McIldoon to give a lead to the entire community on the levy. We can only do that by supporting the motion unamended, which I urge the House to do.
Question put.
That the amendment be made
The Assembly divided: Ayes 23; Noes 31
Ayes
Mr Agnew, Mr Armstrong, Mr Berry, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Mr Leslie, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir.
Noes
Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mrs E Bell, Dr Birnie, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mr Cobain, Mrs Courtney, Mr Davis, Mr A Doherty, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Dr Hendron, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McGrady, Mr McNamee, Mr M Murphy, Mr Neeson, Mrs Nelis, Mr O'Connor, Dr O'Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Mr Tierney, Mr Trimble.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 31; Noes 23
Ayes
Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mrs E Bell, Dr Birnie, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mr Cobain, Mrs Courtney, Mr Davis, Mr A Doherty, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr Maskey, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McGrady, Mr McNamee, Mr M Murphy, Mr Neeson, Mrs Nelis, Mr O'Connor, Dr O'Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Mr Tierney, Mr Trimble.
Noes
Mr Agnew, Mr Armstrong, Mr Berry, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Mr Leslie, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly encourages the Regulator General for Electricity and Gas to contribute to the eradication of fuel poverty by increasing the energy efficiency levy to £5.00 per customer, creating £3·6 million to tackle fuel poverty.
5.15 pm
Motion made
That the assembly do now adjourn. - [Mr Deputy Speaker]
Traffic Demands in North-East Newry
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Members leaving the Chamber should do so quietly, so that we can proceed.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Mr Bradley:
I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister for Regional Development the ongoing traffic congestion on the northern periphery of Newry and the inevitably worsening situation as the development of the area continues. I welcome the Minister's presence in the Chamber to listen to the concerns that I will raise on behalf of the residents of the area and the thousands of road users who commute daily through this part of Newry, and I thank him for his attendance.
The traffic chaos in the area is due to a lack of forward planning. My earliest memory of the Drumcashlone/ Carneyhaugh district is one of cattle grazing on the pasture lands that lay on both sides of the main Rathfriland to Newry road just outside Newry. At that time, there were about 20 detached dwellings on Rathfriland Road and Upper Damolly Road. Similarly, there were no more than 20 homes on Ashgrove Road. The infrastructure serving those properties and the then volume of through traffic was comprised of three through routes - Rathfriland Road, Upper Damolly Road and Ashgrove Road. Changes gradually came about as the area began to expand and the demand for housing increased. Initially the change was slow, but it took off when the Newry and Mourne area plan 1984-1999 came into being.
In order to present a true picture of the ongoing developments, I will detail the number of dwellings in each of the developments that make up the area in question. There are 85 in Annsville, 65 in Ardfreelin, 35 in Ashbrook Mews, 26 in Ashfield Avenue, 46 in Ashgrove Park, 52 in Ashgrove Road, 37 in Beechmount Park, 15 in Castleowen, 19 in Cedar Grove, 60 in Cherrywood Grove, 77 in Chestnut Grove, 35 in Cloverdale, 33 in Drumcashel Villas, 32 in Elmwood Park, 31 in Kenard Villas, 33 in Upper Damolly Road, 43 in Willow Grove, and 27 in the section of Rathfriland Road that covers the area. Also, a building site that could accommodate an additional 150 dwellings is currently being cleared on land that fronts on to Upper Damolly Road.
Added to those figures is the comparatively new Rathfriland Road Industrial Estate. That development includes the premises of one of the largest timber merchants in the area and the busy Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency centre. There are also haulage yards, a caravan sales compound, small factories, purpose-built office accommodation, retail outlets and a major filling station/supermarket nearby - all of which front on to Rathfriland Road.
There are now three large schools in the Ashgrove area: Newry High School with approximately 550 pupils, Sacred Heart Grammar School with 880 pupils and St Ronan's Primary School with 408 pupils. There are proposals for another large, 800-pupil grammar school to be built in the area. It is not necessary for me to describe the traffic mayhem caused each day in this confined area as 2000 or more children, the residents of over 700 dwellings, and thousands of motorists go - or attempt to go - about their daily business.
As I said at the beginning, I attribute this traffic confusion in the area to the lack of forward planning. The Minister, interested parties and those in officialdom will best understand what I mean when I tell them that not one metre of new through road has been provided in the area for over a century. The same through roads that I mentioned earlier remain the only ones in this densely populated area.
To say that this is unacceptable is to put it mildly. I therefore call on the Minister for Regional Development to immediately implement a feasibility study of the area, with a view to not only resolving the current problems but to considering the future needs of the area as it continues to develop. In anticipation that my request will not fall upon deaf ears, I, as a mere layman - but one with an in-depth local knowledge - propose to the Minister that the requested study should start by investigating the ring road potential of the Damolly Road. If a modern, improved route could be facilitated to link the Ashtree roundabout on the Rathfriland Road with the main Newry to Belfast dual carriageway, and an improved Upper Damolly Road brought to meet the suggested ring road, then many of the short-term problems would at least be lessened.
I call for the feasibility study in the full knowledge that the Minister is inundated with requests for new roads in and around every town and village. However, I am confident that the outcome of a Newry-north study would result in the Minister recognising that he has a clear-cut obligation to deal with the ever-growing traffic problems in the area.
Mr Kennedy:
I am pleased to add my support to Mr Bradley's call for an urgent study to be carried out by the Minister's Department. I too welcome the Minister's attendance today - his presence shows he attaches some importance to the issue.
I am aware, from my constituents in that area, of the chaos that road users experience at the junctions on the Rathfriland Road, Upper Damolly Road and Ashgrove Road, particularly at peak times. Those roads are important routes into, and through, Newry for many commuters. The sheer frustration that they experience leaves them almost exhausted before they even start a day's work.
Over the years, various schemes have been introduced in an effort to reduce the chaos. However, none has been successful in eradicating the problem. I hope that the Minister's officials will urgently attend to the matter. Such action would receive considerable local support, particularly from the local authority, Newry and Mourne District Council, of which Mr Bradley and I are members. The council has sought, on numerous occasions, to resolve the issue at local level with Roads Service officials. We have no criticisms of those officials "on the ground", but more lateral thinking is required to produce an acceptable solution that will meet the needs of the people whose daily lives are disrupted by the traffic problems, particularly at peak times.
I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the suggestions and that he will initiate a study that will take a long-term view of the road network needs of the area. I hope that once the consultation process is completed, the Minister will act swiftly to carry out its proposals.
Many of the ad hoc improvements that have been made look unsightly. We have, to some extent, created barriers and roadblocks in an area of high-quality housing, and that has done nothing to improve its general layout. If improvements are to be carried out, we must consider that it is not enough to simply hammer spikes into the road. Local householders, who pay taxes and considerable rates, are entitled to take pride in their properties, and to have improvements carried out in a manner that they find acceptable.
5.30 pm
I hope that the Minister will take these under consideration. As an indication of his commitment, perhaps he could arrange for officials to look at some of the more unsightly ones to see if action can be taken to improve them.
I am happy to agree with Mr Bradley.
Mr M Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also agree with Mr Bradley and Mr Kennedy.
The road around Rathfriland is gridlocked, and one must experience it early in the morning and in the afternoon to appreciate the mayhem. It does not only affect local residents; it also affects commuters from Belfast to Newry and Dublin and vice versa. I must leave very early in the morning to get through Newry.
Motorists in this area are frustrated and bad-tempered at the lack of road structure. The blame lies firmly with absentee Ministers who neglected infrastructure here for many years. Now that we have our own Minister, I hope that he will take on board some of the concerns that were voiced and will try to get a feasibility study started immediately. I recognise that money is a problem but I ask him to make this a priority. Go raibh maith agat.
The Minister for Regional Development (Mr Campbell):
Newry, like many other towns in Northern Ireland that have experienced considerable growth and vitality, suffers from traffic difficulties at certain locations and at certain times of the day. We are all familiar with the traffic problems of the morning peak period - the so-called "school run".
The area in question lies between the A1 Newry to Belfast road to the west and the A25 Newry to Rathfriland road to the east. Approximately 16,500 vehicles a day use the A1, while 12,000 use the A25. There is cross- movement of traffic between the A1 and A25 through the townland of Carneyhough via the Upper Damolly Road, which carries approximately 5,000 vehicles a day. In the past, traffic also used shortcuts through residential roads. The area is primarily residential and has two main schools at Ashgrove Avenue. Additional housing is also planned on land that was zoned in the 1984-99 area plan. The Newry area plan forms the framework for the orderly development of the area.
My Department has been working on several fronts to help to solve traffic problems in the area. To confine traffic to the main route, which is the Upper Damolly Road through the residential area, the Roads Service made the Control of Traffic (Newry) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000 to prohibit the use of three residential roads by through traffic. This scheme involved extensive consultation and a public inquiry, which was held in June 2000.
The Department has accepted the inspector's main recommendations. Three residential roads will be permanently stopped up. The junction of Upper Damolly Road with the Rathfriland Road will be improved and signalised. The signals will be in place early next year, and will incorporate a pedestrian phase to cater for the growing number of school children in the area.
Another scheme that will have a positive impact on the area is the improvement of the road network at Trevor Hill, which forms the junction of the Belfast Road with the Rathfriland Road. The Department has commenced work to increase the road capacity of the two roundabouts in the area. That work should be completed by December this year.
Following a request from Newry and Mourne District Council, my Department intends to consider the provision of traffic-calming measures, and the extension of the 30 miles per hour speed limit, on the Rathfriland Road. Although there has already been some residential development in accordance with the existing area plan, each planning application is considered on its merits in relation to the impact on the local road network. Alterations are requested if the development is considered to have a significant impact. Road improvements, for example on the Damolly Road, have been made a condition of planning approval. Work has commenced on the preparation of the Newry and Banbridge area plan. The Roads Service will play an important part in the area's future development.
The Department will continue to assess all new development planned for the area and will ensure that it is carried out without having an adverse effect on the existing road network. We will continue our plans to carry out improvements at the Upper Damolly Road/ Rathfriland Road junction, and at the junction of the Belfast and Rathfriland Roads. In line with current policy and criteria, we will consider traffic-calming measures and will continue to assess changing needs.
In response to issues raised by Members, I want to stress the importance of my concluding remarks. Mr Bradley and other Members asked me to consider the possibility of a feasibility study of the area. I have outlined some of the measures that are being worked on, or will conclude, in the near future. As a result of today's debate, I will ask my officials to revisit the area to see if there is anything further we can do in addition to the measures that are currently being put in place and which should be operational within two to three months.
Adjourned at 5.38 pm.
24 September 2002 / Menu / 1 October 2001