I advise the Member to stick to the subject of the motion.

I am doing my best, a LeasCheann Comhairle, but other Members also strayed considerably.

Special Branch knows the identities of pipe bombers, the murderers of Danny McColgan and drug dealers and their agents in the UDA who are still in business. No matter how many resources the PSNI will have, it will not have the confidence of the communities that we represent to enable it to deliver effective community policing in partnership with the people.

Marginalised communities need resources to provide jobs, education, housing, a stronger community infrastructure, community and youth services, and support for the elderly and vulnerable young people - that is a separate matter.

Those whom we represent want policing; they need it for community safety. The tragedy is that we are the most politically policed society in Europe, at a huge cost. Last year's policing budget was £645 million, with an additional £102 million for the implementation of the Patten recommendations. The taxpayer funds that. This morning we were told that 87,000 crimes were committed last year. Our communities are patrolled by 11,000 members of the RUC, in addition to the Royal Irish Regiment - one in every four of the population. What percentage of that £645 million budget is spent on guarding retired police chiefs?

Members listed the terrible incidents that are reported daily by the media. We could all recall similar incidents. The destruction of the casualty department in Altnagelvin Hospital some weeks ago happened during a fight between the UDA and the UVF, which started in a nightclub seven miles away. The incident was recorded on CCTV. Was anyone arrested? In this instance, the silence of the PSNI is deafening, as is the silence of the Secretary of State in respect of the continued pipe bombings and arson attacks on Catholic homes. A Catholic trade unionist said on the radio this morning that his home was attacked 20 times.

It is deplorable that the Secretary of State could not attend the rally in protest against the death of Danny McColgan and in support of postal workers, the Fire Service, teachers and the Ambulance Service. It is equally reprehensible that Mr Paisley Jnr should blame everyone, except the DUP, for what has happened. That comes from the member of a party that was involved in gunrunning, which resulted in the deaths of over 400 people. It is sad reflection - [Interruption].

TOP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mrs Nelis's comment that my party is involved in gunrunning is totally erroneous and false. My party has never been involved in gunrunning, has nothing to do with it and will not have anything to do with it.

That is not a point of order. Would the Member please clarify what she has said?

The point was previously made in the House about the DUP's relationship with the agent, Brian Nelson, and its connection with the guns that were brought in from South Africa. I am not going to go into that.

The motion is a lost opportunity to really address the issues of a community emerging from conflict, the problems around this and the resources needed to tackle it.

I will comment on some of the points I have heard so far, and, in that way I will address the substance of the motion.

Mary Nelis, in a somewhat more measured way than usual, outlined how there had been a breakdown in the value system in the North. She said that that breakdown was a product of greed and market forces, and I agree. She said that it was a creation of the culture of sectarianism within law and order and paramilitary policing. I might have some basis for agreeing with her. But never once in her contribution did she outline that if there has been a breakdown in our value systems, it has also been in the creation of paramilitary organisations, their practices and abuses over many years in Northern Ireland society.

When Mary Nelis says that the DUP blames everyone but the DUP for the problems of law and order in Northern Ireland then I say to her that Sinn Féin seems to blame everyone but Republicans for the breakdown - if there is such a breakdown - in law and order in Northern Ireland.

If people from either side of the Chamber approach law and order in a partial and selective basis, then they ill-serve the debate. They must face up to the acceptance that paramilitary organisations involved in crime today are a creation of that which went before, namely the paramilitary organisations that were involved in the use of violence in Northern Ireland to bring about threat and terror in our society. People must face up to the responsibility for that if they want to address the core of the motion.

Iris Robinson - and she is not in the Chamber - asked the SDLP to justify the running-down and ending of the full-time reserve at a time when a call might be made for additional resources for policing. That is a fair question. The answer is simple: the core function and objective of policing in our society, like every other one, is community policing. To bring that about in the lives of the citizens and the communities of the North, an accountable, unarmed, civilianised police service conforming to human rights standards is required. That is what the Patten Report offered, and to bring it about, the full-time reserve should be no more.

The ending of the full-time reserve, while it may create a shortage of police officers, will bring about greater support for the Police Service. Whatever the perceived loss might be, the lives of the citizens of the North will gain in community policing. That is why we want to see the full-time reserve run down, as the Patten Report and the implementation plan intend. At the same time, there should be an increase in the part-time reserve beyond current figures. Each community in the North, particularly where there are few or no members of the part-time reserve at present, will, in future, have members in every street, hamlet, village and town throughout Northern Ireland.

Under Patten and the implementation plan, that will see 2,500 - [Interruption].

The Member has mentioned the Patten Report on several occasions. Does he not agree that the problem lies with the failure to implement that report in full?

If that is the problem, why does the Irish Government not say so? Why does Irish America not say so? Why do the Irish Churches not say so? Why does the United States Government not say so? If that is the case, why do all those voices agree with the SDLP, with the Taoiseach and with many other spokespersons on the national life of this island, to say that the spirit and substance of Patten is now available? That is your answer. The premise of your question is wrong. Those who speak in so many ways for that which represents national life agree with the SDLP.

I concur with Duncan Shipley Dalton and other Members who look beyond the issue of current staffing levels in the Police Service. As they have outlined, the resourcing of the service is more complex than the number of officers. At present, the sickness absence rate in the Police Service is unnecessarily high. There is a disproportion between those in desk jobs and those serving on the ground. Consequently, better management of resources at hand can bring about better response times and a greater presence of police officers on the ground.

If we are to ask the Secretary of State to make more resources available, we should argue for the release of additional funds for more overtime; for anti-racketeering initiatives by the police and other agencies; and to target the godfathers of paramilitary organisations who are directing acts of violence, threat and terror in our society. These legitimate steps are required immediately to tackle the issue of law and order in the North. We ask the British Government to attend to that.

There have been many difficulties in recent days. There have been attacks on private citizens and public servants. Those attacks must be addressed immediately. If I have an issue with the motion, it is the assertion that there has been a breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland. I accept that there are strains and pressures on law and order, but I do not necessarily agree that there has been a breakdown. Both before and since the 30 years of violence, the crime figures prove that the crime rate in Northern Ireland is lower than that in any other region of this island or in Britain.

TOP

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

That is a reflection of the strong community and family values of our society.

I am glad that this motion has come before us for discussion today. Many of us are concerned about what is happening to the police force in the Province. My party has said time and time again that the Patten Report is causing the destruction of this country. How right we are. The police have been cut back to an impossible level, and crime figures are soaring. The pro- agreement parties tell us that this is the way forward to peace, and that the police force had to be modified to fit the new and progressive country that the peace process was creating.

The word "anarchy" is what the "Yes" parties had in mind when they supported the Patten Report. Can they explain that to the 84-year-old woman who was beaten up and robbed in her home at the weekend in my constituency of Strangford? That happened because only two police officers cover the Ards Peninsula, which is such a vast area. So much for the bright new society that we were told a new improved police force would give us. How can it be delivered with fewer officers? I cannot comprehend the logic of the Member who said that the reserve police force must be run down and done away with. Do away with officers, increase crime and violence levels and that is acceptable - I do not think so. I am interested to know whether the Member would support this notional motion.

There have been some police station closures, and every day people in my constituency say that the police took over two hours to get to their houses or that they did not come at all. That is not because they do not want to come - they want to get out to do the job, but they do not have the resources, the manpower or the finances. Last week a group of men attacked a farmer on his farm outside Killyleagh at 9.45 am, in broad daylight. The incident has been treated as attempted murder, but it was a robbery. I have warned about such an incident for months. The police have received reports from rural residents in Strangford and other parts of the Province of men driving slowly past farms and houses. Some people's sheds and vans have been broken into, but the police have not been turning up because of insufficient resources.

I asked the chief inspector in my area what was happening as people were in fear for their property and their physical well-being. I was told that many police officers had been offered packages as a result of the Patten Report and that many had taken them, which left the number of officers on the ground depleted. There are insufficient resources to deal with crimes, and the manpower is not there to help.

The next initiative that the police have been forced to adopt - and I underline "forced to adopt" - to deal with some of the crime committed is the four-tiered response categorisation. I am not sure whether Members are aware of it yet, but the new system will include a response time call schedule. In other words, a police officer will have to allocate a time to respond to a call. This may be at the convenience of the victim, or it may take longer if the police are overstretched. Again we see where problems arise for the police force.

The delay in collecting forensic evidence worries me. Forensic evidence is there for a period, but if a police officer cannot come out to investigate an incident due to insufficient resources, the forensic evidence could disappear. That, along with other things that must be implemented, is more political red tape that officers must deal with before they can get on with the job in hand.

I am fed up with the constant demands that have been heaped upon the police which mean that they are getting weighed down by political red tape. The police want to get on with protecting people, preventing crime and catching those who commit crimes. That is their job, and that is what they want to do. It is time that the Secretary of State gave the police the resources to deal with crime effectively, not just in the rural constituency of Strangford, but in other constituencies which are now targets for out-of-town criminals. They are aware that the police will be at least 20 to 30 minutes away at any one time, and it is the same in other parts of the Province.

Ambulance drivers are under attack from youths and mobs throwing stones and worse, and we have recently seen incidences of that. If there were adequate resources, the police could deal with offenders as quickly as it takes them to gather the rocks to throw. Last week there was a fracas and a free-for-all in the accident and emergency department of Altnagelvin Hospital. Postal workers' and teachers' lives were put under threat a few weeks ago, and there were insufficient officers for the saturation patrols that were needed to protect those who were threatened, due to the Patten Report.

Those who are moaning about the breakdown of law and order - and we have all made comments about it - must look to those in the "Yes" camp. They and they alone instigated the Patten Report and told us all how wonderful it was all going to be. They and they alone gave carte blanche to the yobs and gangsters who are holding us all to ransom. They took away the only defence we had against those people - the Royal Ulster Constabulary. By the way, their new and super- politically correct Police Service will not be on the streets until the end of June, so it will be five months before there are any new officers to relieve the problems that Patten gave us.

Some Members referred to sickness among police officers. That is because they are overstretched. They work long hours, they are under stress, and the problems that they face take a heavy toll on those who served in the RUC and now serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. There are also those who are direct casualties of incidents that take place. That is what is happening. Some police officers are off on long-term and short-term sick leave due to the conditions and the rundown in the service. They do not have the resources - the manpower or the finance - to do their jobs.

They are also not allowed to get experience or tips from any former members of the RUC. They are not allowed to learn by example, as they have been told that that example no longer applies. Why should they not be allowed to gain from the experience and expertise of those who served in the RUC? Can we, therefore, assume that half of our police force from June 2002 will not have the same experience, because Patten said that we must have an all bright and sparkling new police force that has no ties with the RUC? I cannot comprehend that. Where we have police with ability, experience and the wherewithal to deliver a service, let them be of use. Let them pass on their information and experience to those who come after.

I call on the Secretary of State to pour resources into members of our Police Service, who are trying their best with little support - least of all from the Secretary of State. I urge Members who are in the "Yes" agreement camp to stand up and say, "Yes, we want more resources". However, the reason that they do not have the resources they need is the Patten Commission and the Patten Report.

I shall call one more Member. However, to allow enough time to wind up before Question Time, I urge the Member to stay within eight minutes.

My party Colleagues and I fully support the sentiments in the opening paragraph of the motion, where it refers to attacks on postal workers, ambulance staff, the Fire Service, bus and train personnel and elderly members of our community. It is increasingly worrying for elderly people, even those who are in fold and care situations, who are having difficulty with people attempting to come into what should be a secure area.

However, with regard to the remedy that the Alliance Party Members are seeking, once again my party will not be party to a sham. We have heard from Member after Member of the direct link between the surge in crime on our streets and the general lawlessness here and the glaring fact that "organised crime" permeates through every aspect of crime in the Province.

Very few of the crimes that have occurred, despite the comments of Mr Dalton and others, do not have their origins in the paramilitaries' vice-like grip on the community. That is the case, and other Members have said that the RUC could pride itself on a record that was second to none in Europe, given its success rate with ordinary criminal activity. This success rate was an example to other police forces who sent their officers for training here. It also had to deal with the serious terrorist threat, and when the terrorist threat was at its peak, the RUC managed to deal with both types of crime.

I find it difficult to accept how genuine the mover of the motion and her party are in their call for a crackdown on crime. All the parties who signed up to the Belfast Agreement endorsed the Patten recommendations that were sewn into the agreement - including, to his shame, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. They have not only brought this into the democratic process, but they have inhibited the ability of those who were charged with enforcing law and order in Northern Ireland.

They have diminished the possibility of the forces of law and order being able to deal with the godfathers of violence. As mentioned by other Members, those godfathers are in control of certain areas, where, as a law enforcement officer told me, it will soon be impossible to get a handle on the present state of affairs. The Province is in a grave position. The problem for the Alliance Party and the others is clear. When the Belfast Agreement was being negotiated, we had a Secretary of State, Dr Mowlam, who went into the prisons. She came out and told the people of Northern Ireland that she had met two heroes of the peace process - "Johnny and Michael". She informed the press that they were Johnny Adair and Michael Stone. The press were amazed at such a declaration. The sad thing is that all of the parties who signed the agreement sat dumb and nodded like the courtiers in the story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes.' Those parties bought in the idea that people could run a paramilitary organisation and still be part of the wonderful new future for Northern Ireland.

They want peace on the cheap, but if crime in our society is to be dealt with, we need to start at the fountainhead. Let us get the godfathers - the people who are polluting the community - in both the Republican movement and the so-called Loyalist paramilitary organisations. I say to Mrs Bell - through you, Madam Deputy Speaker - that until that nettle has been grasped, it is no good talking about dealing harshly with young people in our community, as Mr Ervine advocated, and as the paramilitary groups do every night.

If, while Mrs Bell asks for that and calls for extra resources to be put into policing in Northern Ireland, there is a Government that refuse to deal with terror; that put gunmen into positions in Government; and that release unreconstructed and unrepentant prisoners wholesale onto our streets, then this breakdown is what we get.

Will the Member give way?

That is all going according to plan. The plan is the Belfast Agreement. Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton and others, who were party to the agreement - [Interruption].

Will the Member give way?

- may wish to hold up their hands and say "It is nothing to do with the agreement; we had violence before we had the agreement". That is true. The difference, however, is that the decent ordinary citizens, who wanted nothing to do with the paramilitaries and the godfathers of violence, now find those people sitting in the House.

In an effort to fool the electorate, Mr Trimble has come up with a novel idea.

Will the Member give way?

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I am speaking about law and order.

The Member has been asked whether he will give way.

No, I will not give way.

Mr Trimble's latest attempt to fool the electorate and the Unionist people is to appoint a spymaster general - [Interruption].

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was told by the Speaker that I should speak to the motion. I do not think that the Member is speaking to the motion.

I was about to draw Mr Wilson's attention to the fact that he must speak to the motion, as other Members have been advised.

I was discussing law and order, which is an issue that needs to be discussed in the Province. Mr Trimble tells us that he is going to have a spymaster general to keep an eye on the Sinn Féin Members at Westminster. If Mr Trimble wants to know the pedigree of the Member of Parliament Mr McGuinness, he has only to read 'From Guns to Government'.

Order.

If he wants to know what Mr Gerry Adams was doing - [Interruption].

Order. I have reminded the Member to speak to the motion, which is about resources. I ask him to do so.

I certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am calling - and I cannot see how it is in any way departing from the motion - for the House to recognise that it needs to be genuine in its calls for law enforcement and for the orchestrators of violence to be brought to justice. Some have suggested the establishment of another Committee to investigate violence. I heard Ms McWilliams calling for that.

In my hand I have a glossy document published by the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Taskforce. It cost several thousand pounds to produce, and it has a foreword written by the then Minister, Adam Ingram, telling us that now that the agreement was in place, it was time to get tough on organised crime and terror.

That report was published in September 2000. Where is the evidence that anything has been done about organised crime? This House must get real and recognise that in order to decommission the terrorists and criminals, it must start by removing them from the Government of Northern Ireland. Let us give credit to the men and women of the police who stood between the criminals and the ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizens.

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

It is a disgrace, and we will not be party to it.

This debate has come at an appropriate time, and I thank my Assembly Colleagues for agreeing to discuss this matter.

The lack of resources is of paramount importance. There is no doubt that there is real concern about the escalation of all types of crime in Northern Ireland. We acknowledge that policing in Northern Ireland is going through a radical change. Nevertheless, ordinary people simply wish to be protected. They have a right to expect the state to provide sufficient and efficient policing. I am greatly concerned about the Report of the Chief Constable 2000-01. Among other things, it says:

It is my understanding that the Police Service has a budget shortfall of approximately £15 million this year. Unless it receives a drastic increase in resources soon, that figure will be magnified to outrageous proportions. In turn, that will leave our community with a poorly financed Police Service.

I make an appeal to the Northern Ireland Office, John Reid, Des Browne and Jane Kennedy to ensure that our community does not suffer unnecessarily. We do not want to see law and order going down the same road as the Health Service. Everyone is aware of what is going on in relation to law and order, and every area is affected. Almost every morning newspapers and news bulletins report incidents of sectarian attacks on the public services, schools, ambulances and the Fire Service. People even go into hospitals to commit acts of lawlessness. There are robberies and burglaries; senior citizens are being attacked and terrified in their own homes. I have not even mentioned the bigger issues of drugs, beatings and intimidation.

The community must come to its senses. We need more visible signs that policemen and policewomen are out on the beat. In this age of instant communications, extra personnel should be available almost immediately. We also need the co-operation of the whole community. The police cannot do the job on their own. People should be alert and look after their neighbours, or their neighbours' property. If anything suspicious happens, they should alert the police. In this way, they can prevent crime.

Sometimes it appears that the increase in crime might have been expected. The paramilitary activists, who are supposed to be on ceasefire, feel that they must turn to criminal activity. There can be no excuse for that. Society must not tolerate any excuse for the lawbreaking that it is experiencing.

It would appear that, because of the lack of police personnel on the ground across Northern Ireland, criminal activity has escalated significantly. In my area, and right across Northern Ireland, there are a limited number of police officers on duty to cover huge areas. It is unacceptable that decent people must endure that. The criminals are well aware of the situation. They commit their dastardly deeds knowing that they might never be apprehended.

People elected us to the Assembly so that we would make their lives better. At the moment many people, particularly the elderly, live alone and in fear. Given that the Assembly does not have the necessary powers, it is its duty to ensure that Dr Reid, the Northern Ireland Office and the Chief Constable take what action is necessary to get the issue of law and order under control as soon as possible. Last week Dr Reid publicly asked the whole community to support the Police Service. The Alliance Party agrees with that and asks Dr Reid to ensure that sufficient funding is available for the Police Service.

I thank those Members who spoke in support of the motion. I am disappointed by the attitude of Sinn Féin. That party blames everybody but itself. It is wrong that it should play politics with law and order. Must every issue satisfy Sinn Féin before it will support the Police Service? My party apologises to Members if some services have been excluded from the motion. Mr Ervine mentioned that the Fire Service had been left out. The Alliance Party wishes to include everyone who provides a service to the community.

The Belfast Agreement and the Patten Report cannot be entirely to blame for the breakdown of law and order, as some Members have suggested. The Alliance Party is neither naive nor hypocritical. I am glad to see that Mr Boyd has admitted the error of his ways by leaving the Chamber.

No one has mentioned the enormous resources that have been used at Drumcree and in north Belfast. I hope that those two major obstacles can be cleared soon and that the immense resources that have been ploughed into those and other such incidents will go into the financing of real policing in Northern Ireland. I ask Members to support the motion.

There are one and a half minutes until Question Time, and rather than suspend the House, I suggest the House takes its leisure until 2.30 pm.

TOP

Oral Answers to Questions

Enterprise, trade and investment

I wish to advise the House that question 1, in the name of Mr Roger Hutchinson; question 2, in the name of Mr Gerry McHugh; question 7, in the name of Mr Eddie McGrady; question 16, in the name of Mr Barry McElduff; question 18, in the name of Mr Mark Robinson; and question 19, in the name of Mr Joe Byrne have been withdrawn and will receive written answers.

3.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail the number and cost of trips by IDB officials to the United States in the past year; and to make a statement.

(AQO 680/01)

Since January 2001, IDB officials have made 34 visits to the United States, at a total cost of £123,461, which included flights, accommodation and subsistence costs. Such visits are necessary to meet with potential investors, key influencers and parent companies of existing IDB client companies and to participate and trade in export events, such as trade missions and international exhibitions.

I wish the Minister well with his endeavours to attract new inward investment to Northern Ireland. How are those trips measured for cost-effectiveness? How many new jobs are likely to materialise as a direct result of those trips?

There is a variety of reasons for those visits. For instance, some firms make trade visits to international exhibitions. That happens on a regular programme that is announced in advance each year. When companies go out, they are invariably led or accompanied by IDB officials.

One measurement of cost-effectiveness is the success of each company in attracting new business. That varies, but the fact that the participation of companies is consistent - in many cases the same people come back time and again - proves that the companies feel that they are making progress.

Other visits involve calling with companies to move forward on letters of offer, or for negotiations. In the current financial year, an incubator unit was opened in Boston, which necessitated several visits to make the legal arrangements and so on. There are many reasons for visiting. The circumstances surrounding the events of 11 September made it necessary to visit several key investors to see if we could act to prevent further redundancies or to open up further investment opportunities.

The Member is right to draw attention to the issue, which is constantly reviewed. There are a variety of mechanisms that must be used to monitor it. However, it remains the responsibility of the IDB to ensure that, when it sends officials out at public expense, there is proper rationale and appropriate monitoring of actual visitations.

Does the Minister believe that the expenditure is an effective use of taxpayers' money? Does he agree with the current advertisement from British Airways that it is, on occasion, very important to do business in person, and that faxes and reports may not be enough to secure investment to Northern Ireland?

Such visits are effective tools. About six or seven years ago, Belfast City Council began serious economic development activities by deciding to visit New York and Boston. That was met with outrage, because the council was going to spend around £300 or £400 on air fares. Several major investments, such as Liberty Mutual and others, came about as a result of those visits. It is a question of balance and common sense.

The Member is correct that modern communications such as e-mail save a lot of travel and other costs. However, when you are persuading people to invest, in many cases there is no substitute for approaching them in person. Any company that is investing large amounts of money wants to know with whom they are dealing and to be satisfied and persuaded. The costs that have been incurred with such trips are not excessive when compared to the size of the budget for which the IDB is responsible.

TOP

4.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he has met elected representatives to discuss the problems being experienced by Saintfield Yarns Ltd.

(AQO 656/01)

9.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail any action taken to protect jobs at Saintfield Yarns Ltd; and to make a statement.

(AQO 676/01)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 9 together. My officials in the IDB have worked closely, and continue to work closely, with the management of Saintfield Yarns. An agreement to provide a financial assistance package aimed at securing the company's future and at safeguarding jobs was agreed in principle on 9 January 2002. I had one informal meeting with Lord Kilclooney MLA specifically on the subject of Saintfield Yarns.

I welcome the successful resolution of the temporary difficulties faced by Saintfield Yarns, and the company's retaining a place in the global textile industry.

However, can the Minister confirm that I was the first elected representative to contact his office on Wednesday 19 December 2002 and Friday 21 December 2001 to arrange an urgent meeting to discuss the problems faced by Saintfield Yarns? I was promised the first available meeting with him after his Christmas vacation, which ended on Monday 7 January 2002.

Can the Minister provide an explanation for his meeting with an elected Member of his own party who became involved with the matter only after my involvement was reported in the local press?

Is it not, therefore, a flagrant abuse of his office and a major breach of his commitment to meet with me that the Minister went behind backs to meet with a party Colleague?

The Member is right to say that the important thing is that the company has been helped. I am pleased to relay a response from the managing director of Saintfield Yarns that he is pleased with the result of the negotiations, and that we had helped the firm over quite a hump.

The Member is correct: she approached my office and was the first representative to do so. I arranged a meeting to be held after the recess; however, after I left for the Christmas recess, Lord Kilclooney contacted my office. Subsequently, my party leader called a meeting of Assembly Members after Christmas. That meeting had not been advertised in the public domain, and we did not know about it before the holiday. At that party meeting Lord Kilclooney approached me personally and gave me a letter. That was the informal meeting reported in my initial answer.

If the hon Lady is saying that I should have refused to speak to Lord Kilclooney or to accept his letter in regard to the matter, that is clearly nonsense. In a press statement issued by the hon Member she made several serious allegations, attacking the IDB, my Department and me. My officials had nothing whatsoever to do with arranging any meeting with Lord Kilclooney. No officials from my Department were present. The allegations made in the hon Member's statement were untrue, and I hope that she will withdraw them.

The important thing is that, so far, we have managed to secure those jobs. It is irrelevant to me whose name appears first in the press.

The Minister will not have failed to see the criticism levelled at the IDB by Iris Robinson, MLA for Strangford, for achieving such a positive outcome for Saintfield Yarns. Can the Minister explain that condemnation when, through sterling efforts, the IDB safeguarded jobs in the company and in Strangford?

I do not understand, and neither do my officials understand, the nature of those attacks. I have attacked the IDB in the past when I felt that it had been inappropriate in its actions.

Will the Member give way?

Order. It is not appropriate for the Minister to give way to a Member during Question Time.

In this case the IDB was exemplary. I have followed this issue closely and have had two face-to-face meetings with the acting chief executive. I have received several written briefings and phone calls. I am satisfied that the IDB has acted appropriately, and the company has put in black and white that it is satisfied.

What happened was simple. The Member for Strangford contacted me to arrange a meeting, which was fine. The meeting was arranged. Subsequently, by sheer coincidence, a party meeting was called, and at that meeting another MLA from the same constituency approached me. It is as simple as that. Officials were not involved, and so what? The important thing is that we managed to secure the jobs. We must remain focussed on that - not on other forms of codology.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Order. The Member is aware that I do not take points of order during Question Time. If the Member wishes to raise a question of order at the end, she is at liberty to do so.

5.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to give a breakdown of the unemployment figures by gender in the South Down area in each of the last four years.

(AQO 701/01)

I placed a copy of the requested information in the Assembly Library. The nature of it renders it too complicated to read out.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he give details of which wards are experiencing the highest level of unemployment in South Down?

The Department keeps copies of the information that is available at district council level. I suspect that it is not possible to give the Member information at ward level. The Department can provide the Member with the information at district council level, and I would be happy to place that in the Library for his perusal. Anecdotal information may be available at local level, but official figures are not kept.

What are the Department and the IDB doing about the number of unemployment black spots in South Down? I refer, in particular, to the withdrawn question of my Colleague, and the concern that we have about progress on the Down Business Park, Downpatrick.

The Member has referred to question 7 in the name of Mr McGrady. A Written Answer will be given and will be available in the Library. The IDB has arranged a significant number of visits to the Down Business Park. That development is constantly kept to the fore, because it received significant investment. A fully-serviced site is available, negotiations are ongoing with a developer, and, in the last 12 months, the IDB has sponsored five company visits to the site.

It is not the only area in South Down that requires assistance, and I have received representations from Ballynahinch and other towns. The Member will recall that, a couple of months ago, I attended a meeting with Down District Council, and we discussed a range of problems in the area. Therefore, the Department is acutely aware of the pockets of deprivation there. We are also acutely aware that some companies have recently experienced difficulties, and I will write to Mr McGrady about that.

TOP

6.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail (a) the terms of office; and (b) the conditions that apply for reappointment in respect of chairpersons appointed to serve on his departmental public bodies.

(AQO 681/01)

The normal term of office for the chairpersons of the public bodies for which I am responsible is three years. Reappointments are made in accordance with guidance given by the Office of Public Appointments for Northern Ireland.

When a chairperson who is being reappointed has business links with a company carrying out substantial work for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, is there a review of the way in which the contracts have operated prior to the reappointment? In view of the great public disquiet about the issue, will the Minister tell the House why - if there is no such review - that is the case?

The Member is asking me an indirect question on a matter that is obviously to the forefront of his mind. I will answer in the broadest possible terms. The performance of any member of a public body, including the chairman, is appraised regularly when he or she becomes eligible for reappointment. The allotted time for chairpersonship of a public body is three years. A chairperson might be invited to serve a further term; usually that person will leave after that. Occasionally, there is a limit on how long someone may serve on a body, which may preclude a second term as chairperson. However, the chairperson, and every member, is appraised according to performance, attendance and other factors.

With regard to the Member's general point, I refer him to the remarks made to me here on 14 January by his hon Colleague Dr McDonnell who said that we must ensure that we do not exclude ourselves from access to a good deal of expertise in the business community. For example, it would be difficult to construct public bodies if we were to prevent business representatives from becoming members in case their businesses should have dealings with those bodies. In the case that the Member refers to, the individual concerned was carrying out the work in question before he was offered a public appointment. Furthermore, he was involved in more business activity then than he is now. People must be careful, but an assessment is carried out of an individual's performance and of all other circumstances that are pertinent to a public appointment.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>