Does the Minister agree that it is shocking that so many people are waiting for public-sector housing in the Lisburn district? Will he agree to investigate the circumstances in which the Housing Executive is reducing the amount of public housing available in some areas? It is selling land, and there is a limited expansion of the housing base in that district.

I do not agree that those figures are particularly shocking, because the current ratio of applicants in housing stress to relets is 1:1·25, which shows that the housing needs of the whole area are largely being met. However, in order to deal with existing and anticipated pressures, housing associations, which provide all-new social housing, have planned a work programme for the next three-year period.

I want to give some details about the Lisburn area. The last phase of 96 new houses in Poleglass and 15 new houses in Lisburn has just been completed. A further nine homes are under construction in Old Warren in Lisburn, and they will be completed in the autumn. In addition, over the next three-year planning cycle, housing associations plan to start building a further 218 new homes. In 2002-03 they plan to start three schemes of 180 new homes. In 2003-04 they plan to start four schemes of 40 new homes. In 2004-05 they plan to start seven schemes of 98 new homes.

TOP

5.

asked the Minister for Social Development what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate houses of multiple occupation for the benefit of tenants and neighbours of such dwellings.

(AQO 1094/01)

The proposed housing Bill contains provisions to allow the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to introduce a mandatory registration scheme for houses of multiple occupation. First, such a scheme will increase the protection given to tenants in such establishments by ensuring that the accommodation provided is safe and of good quality. Secondly, it will include measures to ensure that the owners and operators of houses of multiple occupation conduct themselves in a way that does not interfere with the rights of neighbouring residents to enjoy peaceful occupation of their homes.

Can the Minister clarify the nature of the legislation? For example, if someone has a tenancy agreement with the Housing Executive, a neighbour or local resident can approach the Housing Executive with allegations about a breach of that agreement. Does the legislation allow a neighbour of a person living in a house of registered multiple occupation to deal with a complaint in a similar way?

The scheme for houses of multiple occupation is designed to regulate those houses for the benefit of tenants and neighbours. If the Housing Executive moves towards a mandatory scheme, it will include measures to ensure that owners and operators of houses of multiple occupation conduct themselves in a way that does not interfere with the rights of neighbouring residents. I am aware of the need to introduce measures that will allow residents and neighbours to deal effectively with antisocial behaviour. The scheme that is being introduced to address antisocial behaviour, which is contained in the legislation, will deal effectively with the problem and is welcomed widely.

There are many defects and problems in the current system. The general body of the legislation will include remedies and measures that currently cannot be used to deal with antisocial behaviour, which is why I am keen to see that legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. The provision of a mandatory licensing scheme will also go some way towards improving the situation for those who live in houses of multiple occupation.

The Minister will be aware that, after double glazing was installed, many houses of multiple occupation became fire traps. Indeed, he will be aware that several people, including students, have lost their lives. Is he satisfied that the legislation is adequate to prevent further tragedies?

Currently there is a voluntary licensing scheme, which will allow the Housing Executive to introduce a mandatory scheme.

It will go a long way to improve the situation that the Member mentioned. Up to 30,000 people live in houses of multiple occupation throughout Northern Ireland. We must accept that that includes both high-quality and very poor, often overcrowded, accommodation.

Student accommodation is not covered by current legislation. It will be covered under the proposed legislation, which will make a big improvement. Many landlords provide acceptable accommodation, but standards fall short in some areas. Once the legislation is through, those standards will be better addressed.

Regarding the Member for West Belfast's supplementary question, will the Minister join me in welcoming the apparent change in stance by IRA/Sinn Féin in dealing with antisocial elements in housing? It seems that they would now prefer to have those matters dealt with through legislation than by thugs wielding baseball bats.

That may be out of order, but I will allow the Minister to use his discretion.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Any move that encourages those who have been prepared to use methods outside the law to use the law instead is to be welcomed. However, I fear that the transformation does not even near completion, because we hear daily reports of people who have been terrorised, threatened, had limbs broken or been forced out of their homes for antisocial behaviour by the movement of which the Member for West Belfast is part.

There being no further questions to the Minister, we will resume the debate on the Report of the Committee of the Centre.

Report of the Committee of the Centre:
 European Union Issues

TOP

Debate resumed on motion:

I thank those who made this inquiry and the report possible, especially the Committee staff, the witnesses and our special advisers. Speaking in broad support of the report and the motion as amended, I want to highlight some of the recommendations.

Recommendation 3 refers to the attendance of Northern Ireland Executive Ministers at relevant European council meetings. I support that as an attempt to try to get Northern Ireland and our concerns closer to the heart of European decision-making. However, I want to go further than the recommendation as it stands. Indeed, I made this suggestion in the Committee. The regions of some other European Union member states represent their entire country on a rotational basis. Germany is a notable example, with the heads of provincial Governments representing the rest of the Länder. Northern Ireland ministerial representatives could represent the whole of the United Kingdom, and on other occasions, representatives from the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and their Administrations could do likewise.

I support recommendation 4 with respect to the maintenance of an up-to-date database on forthcoming European Directives, and provision of that information with adequate notice to the relevant departmental Committees. I link that to recommendation 6, which refers to the provision of up-to-date reports on the implementation of European Union Directives and, in particular, on so-called infraction proceedings that might arise from the insufficiently speedy implementation of such Directives, which could lead to fines. Many Members mentioned those. Indeed, in that case a stitch in time could indeed, financially speaking, save nine.

I also support recommendation 7. The Executive's framework proposals on the relationship with the European Union contained 100 high- and medium-level priorities. That is simply far too many, because if everything is made a priority, nothing will be a priority, and the list as it stands is unfortunately close to meaningless.

I had more problems with recommendation 10, which proposes the creation of a dedicated committee for European affairs. I understand its logic and, as other Members have pointed out, several external witnesses said that it was a good idea. However, I want to put it on record that there are practical problems with implementing recommendation 10, and the report notes that.

The first is that, as many of us know, we already face problems in maintaining adequately the existing number of Committees by retaining a quorum.

The second problem is the potential for turf wars between Committees. For example, the Committees for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Environment have a heavy diet of EU-related matters. How would they take to offloading those responsibilities or rights to a dedicated Committee? Perhaps they would be happy, but perhaps they would not be, and that must be considered.

The third problem is the worrying precedent that arose when the Committee of the Centre took evidence. We heard that the Scottish Parliament has created a dedicated European Affairs committee. Similarly, for some years, the House of Commons has had such a Committee. If we create a Committee for Europe we must look very carefully at the relationship - in fact, the co-ordination - between that Committee and its counterpart in the House of Commons. There is evidence from our visits to London and Edinburgh that the relationship between the London-based Committee and that in Edinburgh is severely dysfunctional, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact that in both cases the majority of members are from the Labour Party.

I strongly support recommendation 26 that one of the junior Ministers should take a lead on European-related affairs. By implication, that would lead to the other junior Minister leading on matters concerning OFMDFM. That is perhaps a necessary piece of good administrative housekeeping which should have been introduced some time ago.

In closing my remarks, I will make some general comments. We should be optimistic, but realistic, about what we could, and should, aim for the Northern Ireland Administration to achieve in the European Union. As was noted by other Members, we are a small player in that regard. Our region's population is 1·7 million - barely 0·5 per cent of that of the entire European Union. That percentage will obviously go down further if, as I hope, enlargement into the East occurs. In the recent past we may have punched above our weight in the influence stakes for several reasons. One was sympathy for us, given the troubles since 1969. Another seems to be a feeling in the Commission that it contributed powerfully to the so-called peace process after 1995. Neither of those factors is likely to endure, although we should make the most of them while they exist.

During the 1990s the economic transfer from the European Union to Northern Ireland with respect to the common agricultural policy, the likely effects on foreign direct investment, the impact of more free trade and, very notably, the structural funds, though on the debit side higher food prices paid by consumers, may in total have amounted to 5% net of our regional gross domestic product. That is a significant economic benefit, but it is dwarfed by the net transfer from the United Kingdom Treasury system. Therefore, in that respect, it is important to put EU matters in perspective.

No matter how far upstream we manage to get in the policy-making process in the Commission in Brussels, there are doubts about how much we can change some of the so-called common policies, such as the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, in our favour. In the case of the common agricultural policy, the possibility that, in the coming years, it will gradually collapse under its own contradictions may work in our favour. The agricultural policy may return to being operated, funded and administered at separate national levels. It will be repatriated to the national Governments in the European Union.

If the Executive can get their overall social and economic policy right through measures such as the Programme for Government, to a degree the correct strategy for European matters will be implied. Subject to the implementation of all the qualifying factors, I support the motion as amended.

As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Committee was pleased to note that the draft EU Framework document goes some way to address several of the recommendations made in its response to the Committee of the Centre's European inquiry. For example, the development of appropriate training and secondment opportunities which several Members mentioned, and the commitment to improving essential networking skills should assist Northern Ireland to participate more fully in the early stages of policy formulation and to pursue its own interests in Europe more effectively.

The Committee noted that in addition to the specific environmental policy, four of the seven European policy areas identified in the draft EU Framework document have important environmental content. These included the EU structural funds, agriculture, fisheries and education and training and employment, which came under the heading of education for sustainable development and training and building skills for the green economy.

The Committee is concerned that the environment should not be compartmentalised, rather it should be viewed by the Executive, the Government Departments and the wider community as a core cross-cutting issue. In that light, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may wish to emphasise the opportunity presented by the EU structural funds as an important vehicle to bring Northern Ireland in line with the levels of environmental awareness and good practice in other parts of the EU by ensuring that the funding programmes are rigorously proofed for their environmental impact.

The introduction to the draft EU Framework document refers to facilitating an improved understanding of the EU among the Northern Ireland Departments and the wider community, and paragraph 4 goes some way to recognise that concern. Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that work in Northern Ireland, including the World Wide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, have considerable understanding of the workings of the EU and are involved in Europe-wide networks that have wide experience of lobbying on environment issues. The Committee agrees with some of the recommendations that the Department may wish to utilise the experience and contacts provided by such organisations in developing strategies to engage with EU institutions.

It is important that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has the necessary co-ordinating role in EU policy. The Committee is concerned that the experience of direct rule may have had a negative impact on the skill levels in Departments, and it believes that all Departments, including the Department of the Environment, must address the growing need for radical change in organisational culture to meet the demands of the devolved Administration.

Therefore the Committee recommends that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister adopt a more proactive leadership role to take the necessary steps to facilitate the training and secondment opportunities that have been mentioned, to assist Departments' identification of priorities and to balance the need for policy innovation against the more familiar processes of dealing with the backlog of EU Directives that have not yet been transposed.

In its response to the Committee of the Centre's European inquiry, the Environment Committee expressed a concern that there is a considerable risk that the Department of the Environment's outlook on the European Union may be dominated for some time to come by the risk of infraction proceedings. The Committee reiterates that the Department of the Environment should not simply view itself as a delivery mechanism for EU decisions and legislation but should develop its understanding of EU institutions and improve communication with EU officials in order to gain a sense of ownership of European environmental policy-making.

Under objective 5 of the draft EU Framework document, the Executive identified several steps to address the need to raise Northern Ireland's positive profile in Europe, including arranging visits to EU member states and institutions by Ministers and other delegations. We have already heard from the Chairperson of the Committee about the number of Ministers who have not yet engaged in or communicated actively with Europe. That ties in with the Committee's recommendation that the Minister of the Environment should take the lead in developing a positive relationship between the Department and the EU institutions.

I would now like to speak on the matter in more general terms, and as a member of the Committee of the Centre. Communication is vital to promote awareness of, and to encourage debate on, EU issues that directly affect Northern Ireland. The establishment of a web site as a central resource would be valuable, and an excellent way to share information with non-governmental organisations and local government. The inclusion of evidence- gathering and widespread consultation would provide a basis for benchmarking and best practice in relation to the other UK regions. We must also facilitate the development of links with other devolved institutions to promote our involvement at an early stage in matters that affect Northern Ireland.

The exchange of information among the agencies involved in European matters, and the utilisation of expertise in that area, is vital to increase our knowledge of, and familiarity with, EU policies and legislation, as well as their impact on Northern Ireland.

I too express my thanks to the staff involved in producing the report, and I commend the report to the Assembly.

I have great pleasure in supporting the recommendation from the Committee Chairperson earlier today. The 43 recommendations are a serious attempt to represent the various interests that take the view that Northern Ireland, as a region, should be well represented in Europe. As several Members have said, those people are fully aware that 80% of the policies that affect us directly in Northern Ireland emanate from Europe. Furthermore, 60% of our legislation is influenced directly by Europe. Therefore, it would be foolish for any Executive or region to ignore a power that has such a great impact on our day-to-day lives.

The distilled wisdom that is to be found in the 43 recommendations was gathered from the sincere presentations that were made to the Committee. The Committee heard from some people who had a great deal of experience in Europe. I am thinking about people such as the UK Permanent Representative to the EU, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, who gave us some very important pointers that are included in the recommendations. The Northern Ireland Centre in Europe has already made a massive contribution. It has 10 years of experience and was able to bring to us a working knowledge of how a region can be effective and efficient. Their contribution helped us to form our opinions. The forthright comments of our three MEPs cannot be ignored either. They are experienced in Europe - they have been effective there and have helped to deliver a massive amount of money, which has been useful in developing this Province. They have a vision of how the Executive, the Assembly, the non-governmental agencies and Northern Ireland plc can influence policy and decision-making. John Simpson, who has long European experience, also impressed me. He made several helpful concrete suggestions.

This is a positive report. The infant body of the new Executive, which is trying to make its way in Europe, has been given good directions and sensible guidelines by the Committee. This has been developed from the experiences of those who have seen how it works and who have made a judgement on how our region can be effective. Members have already covered several of the recommendations and have made important points. However, it would be wrong for the Executive to ignore this report in its totality. In fact, they cannot ignore it, as the report combines the collected wisdom of those who are working in the best interests of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Assembly accepts and recommends the report. I hope that the Executive and the two junior Ministers will use this as a stairway to the future of Northern Ireland as an effective and efficient region of the European Union. I commend the report.

During the Committee's investigation into European issues, it became clear that European engagement from a Northern Ireland perspective was not being comprehensively addressed - far from it. That should not surprise us, because during direct rule Ministers were content to let Westminster Ministers take the lead on European issues, with the largely Great Britain perspective of Labour or Conservative Governments. Our investigations have shown that other devolved regions have recognised the importance of monitoring European affairs, particularly where issues have had a regional effect on them.

In the recommendations there are 100 priorities, and that highlights the lack of focus. It also suggests that the unit is under-resourced, and I hope that the junior Minister is pleased that, for once, a cross-party group of Members is calling for additional resources and not criticising top-heavy bureaucracy in a Department. Additional resources are needed.

The example of Scotland Europa compares favourably with the experiences of the office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. The titles suggest the differences between the approaches of the two devolved regions of Northern Ireland and Scotland. The office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels is just that - an isolated office serving the Northern Ireland Executive. It must be widened to involve the entire European Community.

Scotland Europa and the Scottish EU Office are now housed under the same roof. Scotland Europa encompasses a wide network of Scottish regional organisations in Europe: the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; local commerce and industry; universities and the world of academia. It is vital to develop a similar network to monitor issues that are significant to Northern Ireland.

However, I add a note of caution: we will not be able to control what is going on in Europe, therefore people must be realistic about what they expect to come out of this. Northern Ireland is a small cog linked to a bigger cog - the UK's representation in Europe - that contributes to EU policy. However, there will be several issues of particular importance to Northern Ireland that we might be able to lobby effectively with other devolved regions.

In common with other contributors to the debate, I note the similarity of regional interests that affect Northern Ireland, Scotland and, to a certain degree, Wales. These are rurality; the importance of agriculture and, to a degree, the importance of forestry and fishing, and our peripherality in Europe.

Several Members commented on recommendations concerning networking. Clearly, the experience gained in that area to date has not been properly tapped. I fully support recommendations 9, 29, 32 and 33. I also endorse the recommendations referring to the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe highlighted by my East Antrim Colleague Sean Neeson and others.

I recall the helpful, friendly and constructive engagement that the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe had with Members during the first visit to Brussels prior to devolution, and I know that that has continued to a degree. However, financial support is needed so that it can bear the fruit that could develop.

I give my broad support to the thrust of the recommendations, and it is in that spirit that I support the amendment proposed by the Chairperson of the Committee to accept the report. However, I wish to highlight that further work must be done. For example, recommendation 10 proposes the establishment of a Standing Committee on EU affairs and that we must firm up the Committee's workload, its membership and its quorum. I must express reservations - which I did to the Committee of the Centre - about the establishment of yet another Committee.

I serve on several Committees, and I am aware of the difficulties of maintaining a quorum on occasions. Indeed, an examination of the proceedings in the Committee's report shows that there was a poor turnout frequently in what is a 17-member Committee. My concerns about the introduction of yet another Committee must be addressed. Membership and quorums of all Committees might have to be reassessed if Members are unable to attend meetings. Perhaps some Members should also have to answer for the frequency of their non-attendance.

I support the recommendations in the spirit that more work must be done. I particularly look forward to hearing not only the comments from junior Ministers Denis Haughey and James Leslie but also to a detailed response from OFMDFM on how they intend to address each recommendation, or if there are other issues that we are not aware of: we must think about how best to address such issues.

I am content to accept the broad thrust of the report. I acknowledge that it has brought a significant improvement to what has been happening to date. It has brought a new perspective, a new level of scrutiny, and I hope that the net result will be to the betterment of everyone in Northern Ireland.

I support the recommendations and wish to make some points. The main problem with the EU is that many of our constituents know that we are a part of Europe and that European legislation affects many parts of our lives. However, they know very little of how, when and where such effect takes place. The public has heard of the EU only through tabloid press stories about straight bananas; one flavour of crisps; an EU law, and, indeed, metrication, which we have all heard about lately.

This is why the Committee's first recommendation is important. It recommends that the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be open and transparent on European Union matters, including membership of the working group, its aims, agenda and its outcome. As the Ministers in question were voted into their offices somewhat democratically, we should insist that every part of the process of government is democratic and, therefore, open to scrutiny. Not only does the public want to know what is going on in this country and what affects it on a wider European scale; it is entitled to know. After all, any legislation that we in our offices believe is right and good for the country affects the people directly, but it may not be what the people want.

It is recommended that the database of EU Directives be brought up to date, as there is much legislation coming into being every day, some of which can be used to help or to hinder Northern Ireland. The database must be current and readily accessible so that the devolved Assembly can be adequately prepared for the future and the ramifications of any new legislation or Programme for Government order. Further to the updating of the database of EU Directives, a central resource should be established that not only collates all the available European Union information, but also helps explain the context, the implications, the opportunities and the threats.

That is to be concurrent with the establishment of web-based portals and should be investigated as a method of sharing information with the rest of Northern Ireland. It is only sensible that, as the point of entry for these laws, the Assembly should facilitate the availability of such information to the people of the Province. Those of us who are not fluent in the workings of the law and legal terminology can have specialist advice and translations that make the lengthy and sometimes laborious wording of these Directives less confusing and more user-friendly. It will also be of great benefit to the children of our Province who study politics. They could access this web site and use it to their advantage and to its main purpose. It would be invaluable to the smooth running of the Assembly, not to mention Northern Ireland as a whole.

The main suggestion that I support is that of European Union familiarisation for all Assembly Members, which does not just focus on their Committee responsibilities. We all move around the Assembly and take up new posts. Even today we have seen a change of Committee membership. An overview of the effects of the EU on each part of the Assembly should be available to everyone; in fact, it must be given to every entrant when taking a position in the Assembly.

If this is combined with the recommendation that the Assembly should provide secondments for Assembly staff to EU institutions that will also facilitate a better understanding of the European Union and its policies. The staff who are given the go-ahead for secondments could help in the development of the web site and in the collation of all available information.

We are all agreed that the main problem is that while the European Union's policies impact on 80% of Northern Ireland's policies and 60% of the Programme for Government, our contact for European legislation is Whitehall, and some links have yet to be established between Whitehall and the Assembly. As the Assembly in its present form is new and innovative, we should perhaps exercise more caution. We must ensure that the legislation that is being handed down is not detrimental to the democracy and the policies of the parties involved in Northern Ireland. The safeguard of Whitehall is not fully implemented, and thus we must insist in the strongest terms that the explanatory memorandum from the United Kingdom's Cabinet Office is shared with the Assembly and its Committees.

We may be living on the periphery of Europe, but we must ensure that Europe is central in our thoughts so that we can stop any detrimental legislation forcing restrictions on the people of Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the fiasco in the fishing industry; it has been almost crippled by the restrictions and the quotas placed on it. If we had known as soon as possible what was happening in Europe, we could have done our best to ensure that Northern Ireland's voice was heard and taken account of. Representing the constituency of Strangford, I know, perhaps better than most, how much events in Europe have impacted on the fishing industry in a village that is almost dependent on fishing for its future.

We must also address the lack of detail in the Framework document on resources and methodology.

It is obvious that the funding for many of our programmes will be stopped in 2006, and we need to know what other options will be made available. With a lack of clarity in the Framework document, the recommendations will be important. We need to know what is stated in the light of legislation, and we need to know immediately that such information is published. Therefore, we need to have people who are in touch with the European Union, and we need to have the policies interpreted and made accessible for all Members of the Assembly. Members also need to be educated in the way the European Union works, so that they can access funding for their respective Committees.

The recommendations of the report must be accepted. They are a very focused way forward and would benefit everyone in Northern Ireland. They would take the unknown element out of the European Union for many people - and also for some politicians. The European Union and Northern Ireland have a great deal of history, but for many that history is shrouded in legal red tape and lengthy technicalities that need explanation. We need to agree to the recommendations so that we can remove the bureaucracy and put Northern Ireland firmly on the map of Europe, and not on the edge, where it seems to be now and has been for many years.

I commend the Committee of the Centre on its excellent report. Its 40-odd recommendations are all useful and will advance how Northern Ireland interacts with the EU in a more structured, organised and effective way. As a member of the EU Committee of the Regions, I understand fully the critical role that Europe plays in what we do here and how we can achieve our maximum.

Eighty per cent of the Programme for Government is derived directly from EU initiatives, and that shows where the power lies. The whole concept of networking set out in the report is critical to the success of Northern Ireland in Europe. I refer not just to government networks but also non-governmental networks and informal networks. There is a great deal of EU expertise and experience in our community, and we must tap into it, recognise it and use it to our advantage. Networking is the key to success in Europe, and it needs to be focused. We must have a Europe Minister and a European affairs Committee. As a high proportion of our laws are made in Europe and a high proportion of our funding comes via Europe, it merits such treatment.

Let me illustrate this from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development's point of view. Each year, Northern Irish farmers are paid about £160 million in subsidies by the European Union, and UK sources pay only £16 million. That is why we need to be more EU-focused. Europe is increasingly regional. Regional parliaments like ours play a major role in all countries - in federal Germany and what is now a federal France - so we must espouse Europe. It is part of our identity, and we must directly and energetically interface with it.

We must throw off the shackles of direct rule, during which we were at the wrong end of the UK queue with a begging bowl in hand. We must become active and aggressive Europeans. This Assembly has only been in existence for a few years, and we are still in a learning process. However, as time goes on, we will learn and be able to hold our own anywhere in the world.

We have talked about what has happened in different places, and a Colleague referred to subsidies for fish. According to the Commission's latest assessment, national subsidies fell by over 30% between 1997 and 1999. The second scoreboard reveals a steady decline in EU state aid for sectors such as industry, services, agriculture, fisheries and railways. However, the survey still finds significant disparities between member states in the distribution of state subsidies. For instance, state aid to manufacturing and to the coal and service industries, as a percentage of overall aid, ranged from 16% in Luxembourg to 69% in Portugal. Aid to fisheries accounted for only 7% of overall aid in Germany, but was as high as 73% in Finland and some other countries. In the UK, which had the lowest total amount of state aid at less than 0·05% of gross domestic product, most went to manufacturing and the railways.

We need a strong representation in Europe, because that is where the real power base resides. It is of paramount importance that we get the fair share of money to which we are entitled. As time goes on I fear that unless we pay more attention to what goes on in Europe we will be worse off. We need full-time people there. I know that the MEPs spend much of their time in Europe. That is where the power lies, and it is where we must make a big impact.

Some Members spoke earlier about their involvement in the Committee of the Regions. Unless we have people there from Northern Ireland to speak their mind when policies are being made that affect the UK, we will get nothing. I have seen that over the past three weeks. We need representation to fight for our entitlements. I support the proposals and recommendations made by the Committee of the Centre.

The Junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister) (Mr Leslie): I have several observations to make on the report, after which my Colleague Mr Denis Haughey will sum up in detail on behalf of the Executive. I apologise for being late for the restart. I had thought that we would start again at 4.00 pm, and was caught on the hop by the small number of questions to the Minister for Social Development.

I welcome the debate and the report from the Committee. It is important that we reflect on European issues and on the relationship that Northern Ireland should be seeking to build with the EU and its constituent parts. I acknowledge the detailed work that the Committee has done to produce the report, which is full of constructive and thoughtful suggestions.

The Executive are committed to developing an effective EU approach, which is crucial. The remarks that Mr Savage has just made from a regional perspective are exceedingly pertinent. We also need to be aware that timing is very important, as the European Convention is engaging in a wide-ranging debate about the future of the EU and its structures. That work is about to commence, and it is important that Northern Ireland formulates views that will form part of that debate. Northern Ireland, with only 1·7 million people, is a very small part of the EU. We are not going to have much influence on our own, so it is important that we find common cause with other regions.

To get that process started, we intend to host a conference in the summer that will focus on the debate on the future of Europe. That conference will draw together interest groups from across sectors of society, and will provide a natural forum in which to address the major strategic EU policy issues. We envisage that the conference will be, in effect, a first annual forum.

The Committee specifically mentioned a forum, and I hope that it will react favourably to the proposal by OFMDFM.

The inquiry contains 43 conclusions, and these set a direction for policy. In view of the number of recommendations made and the detail in which the Committee has formulated them, it would be unrealistic for us to respond in detail at such short notice. However, all the matters raised are worthy of detailed consideration, and that is what we will give them. We will respond in detail, item by item, to the Committee as soon as we can. Some of the proposals that the Committee made are already part of our plans, and progress on these will soon be seen. Other proposals are new suggestions to which OFMDFM will have to give careful consideration.

There are also some proposals that cut across the work of more than one Department. Although overarching responsibility lies with OFMDFM, individual Ministers will inevitably have specific views on matters significant to their Departments. In that respect, the proposal for a Committee on EU matters, which is a matter for the Assembly to decide for itself, requires quite a lot of thought. For example, who will take the lead on issues relating to the common agricultural policy? Hitherto, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has done so because it reflects directly on that Department. Is it suggested that the EU Committee should do that? There are important issues that need to be carefully thought through. Nonetheless, the Committee makes the point that many of these issues are cross-cutting, and that is crucial.

The report makes recommendations on cross-cutting themes and using the range of available expertise and networks including those outside the Government. It urges us to involve, in a more systematic way, key players such as MEPs and representatives on EU institutions. We know that we must consult with these people and bodies. Some work has been done, and more is continuing.

We are also looking with interest at how measure 4·1 of the Peace II programme, which is worth about £6 million up to the end of 2006 and which seeks to promote Northern Ireland and the border counties as an outward and foreign looking region, can best be used. By the end of this month we should have responses to the call for projects, and through these we hope to develop our approach and see how groups can be supported in this work. It is an area on which OFMDFM has more to learn, but we want to get started with some projects and look for further tranches as our experience develops. We are giving thought to ways in which communication with MEPs and the Committee of the Regions can be developed.

We note the Scottish model. That the Committee took a close look at that and at the arrangements in Wales was valuable. However, the Scottish Parliament's European Committee has regular meetings with MEPs and other representatives, and we will be looking carefully at that, but it is a two-way process. If such meetings were to be held in Brussels, all our MEPs would have to be in Brussels. Although Mr Nicholson is exemplary in that regard, the same cannot be said of the others.

The Executive put forward a draft strategic framework to the Committee in February. In that we reflected on the links with UK Government and, as has been highlighted today, while national policy is not devolved, there are elements in it that have a devolved effect. The links with Departments in Whitehall will inevitably be crucial. We have to be realistic about this. The Prime Minister came into office making a great fuss about how he was going to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe. It is not particularly noticeable that he has succeeded in that. Therefore, we have to be realistic in our expectations of the position that Northern Ireland might be able to achieve.

The report is sensible in recommending that a small number of strategic priorities should be identified. That relates to my previous point; it is sensible and realistic, as to try to pursue too many at once would inevitably lead to disappointment. The framework strategy identified all the areas of current work. It was not intended to be a list of priorities; it was a list of the work. The Committee is right to say that specific priorities need to be identified, and we will be working on that and liaising with the Committee.

The report also reflects on how work is organised in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and on the staffing issues. These are being addressed, and we are undertaking a considerable increase in staff numbers. We hope that the European Policy Co-ordination Unit will be doubled in size in two or three months.

We have looked at the methods being used by the Scottish Executive in their Brussels office, and there are useful lessons for us. I hope that Members will be aware that extra space was deliberately taken in our offices in Brussels with a view to expansion being available and to being able to have different entities develop there. My Colleague, Mr Haughey, will say more about that in a few moments.

I welcome the report and the interest of the Committee. We will be taking its recommendations seriously and responding to them in detail. Mr Gibson seemed to think that we were going to ignore the report. I assure him that we will not, although he said that we might not be able to accept it in its totality, and I dare say that that may prove to be the case. However, the Committee will see, in early course, a number of measures coming forward that will closely mirror the suggestions made in its report.

I will call Mr Haughey to make a response. In the earlier contribution there was an element of response as well as a personal contribution, but I was in a tolerant mood.

I wonder why. I greatly appreciate your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the members of the Committee of the Centre for their detailed and valuable work in producing the report. I know that the inquiry has been detailed and robust, and I welcome that.

I listened with interest to the remarks about the change in the wording of the motion. We were a wee bit surprised that we were not given some notice of that. However, overall we welcome the report of the Committee, and on first reading I have found, as I think we all have, much in it on which we are likely to agree. It is heartening that on an issue such as this where, in the past, there has been some difference of view and emphasis, we have found so much common ground and agreement across the divide between the parties in the Committee of the Centre, and in the Assembly, on how we should approach being part of the European Union.

A report of this kind, weight and depth will require careful reflection. We will respond in full as an Administration on each of the recommendations as quickly as we can. I cannot say today that we accept the report totally or that we will implement in detail every one of its recommendations, as there are many matters to be considered. However, we will commit ourselves to carefully considering the report and the recommendations, although we cannot be bound by it in every detail.

Today's debate demonstrates the Assembly's interest in, and concern with, European affairs. We are determined to broaden the debate in the community in the coming months. Our detailed response to the Committee's report will be one input into that debate. The Administration's work in planning, addressing and reviewing our relationships in the European Union is an important element of the Assembly's role.

Before I respond to the details of the Committee's report, I will make a few comments. First, the report is wide-ranging and includes 43 recommendations. Many of those have important implications and must be studied carefully by the Executive. Those recommendations also have implications - not the least of which are the cost implications - for various Departments, not only for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Administration would not want to be bound to implement all 43 recommendations - or those that apply to the Administration - and incur the substantial costs involved, only to have those who made the recommendations jump on them for spending all that money. The Executive will look carefully at all the implications of the recommendations.

The Assembly will have to consider the recommendations as they apply to it. Six of them - recommendation 10 and others - have direct implications for the Assembly. Would an Assembly Committee on European affairs lead on the matter of CAP reform, or would the Committee for Agriculture and Regional Development play the lead role? Would the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment lead on competition policy? These important issues need to be thought through carefully, as they would have an impact on the work of the Committees and of the Assembly. Given that we have had a relatively short time to read the report and look at the recommendations, we need to give the matter careful consideration over time, rather than to rush into accepting the recommendations in total today.

It is timely to remember that membership of the European Union has brought Northern Ireland and its citizens a considerable range of benefits and opportunities. I am aware that some Members are not fully persuaded of the value of the European Union. That is their absolute right. For my part, I am convinced that there are many gains for all citizens of the European Union, not least the citizens of Northern Ireland, through the widening and deepening of contacts across the continent. Some commentators seek to obscure those gains and introduce irrelevancies about European superstates, about the loss of identity, and as Mr Shannon pointed out, make ridiculous points about the straightening of bananas and about the planting and growth of square tomatoes. They also seek either to deceive the public about the implications of European union or to rubbish it by introducing all kinds of nonsense about it.

The increasing co-operation and development across Europe has produced significant and measurable advantages for the citizens of Europe, and it has seen a prolonged period of peace, which is no small or unimportant matter. It has seen the growth of greater economic prosperity and support for those citizens in society most in need. It has also seen a growth in equality Directives and the outlawing of discrimination. Much greater progress has been made in those areas in a European context than was ever made in the national context. These are all positive outcomes of our membership of the European Union. It is my conviction that these outcomes have been achieved through the establishment of an ever-closer union between the people of the member states.

Despite the range of views in the Assembly and in the community about European integration, a positive feature of our approach has been cross-community co-operation on European issues.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>