I am satisfied that the structures of our devolved Administration are capable of ensuring that the Executive's policies are effectively and jointly established and managed without necessarily having a major reorganisation of the type proposed in the motion. The present arrangements ensure clarity of responsibility and accountability and avoid unnecessary cost and disruption. Therefore, while it is not appropriate to support the motion now, I accept the spirit in which it was moved. I also accept without any hesitation the sentiments that many Members expressed.

As we progress this year, we will collectively be able to make progress in the energy field. As has been pointed out, energy is vital to our competitiveness because the higher the cost, the harder it is to be competitive. That, of course, ties in with debates on rating policy, local government financing and other issues. I am keener than anybody to ensure that we get over the hump of high energy costs because they are a direct challenge to our competitiveness and affect jobs.

I repeat my thanks to every Member who spoke. The debate was useful, although it came earlier than expected and was perhaps a little surprise to some. However, we got it together reasonably well, and most issues were aired. I am indebted to Members who took the time to collect their thoughts, to prepare speeches and to contribute to the debate.

The purpose of tabling the motion was to keep the energy issue alive - it is a big issue that is never quite top of the agenda. It is third or fourth on the agenda, and it should be higher. Most Members welcomed the principle and thrust of the motion, which was to do exactly that and create some form of joined-up strategy. It is fairly clear that, from whatever corner of the Chamber, we agree that we must find a more effective mechanism to deal with energy.

I welcome the Minister's comments about legislation that may be coming forward. However, we need some sort of a driver. That was my concern when I tabled the motion. I have seen the good work of the Department and OFREG, and I have the highest regard for the regulator and the many consumer and pressure groups that have been working to combat fuel poverty. However, someone must drive the policy forward because, mostly, it just reacts to a difficulty or shortfall.

We must also make progress on energy procurement, which may be a major issue in the long term, and conservation. Much of that concerns the Department of the Environment, given its responsibility for building control and the quality of buildings.

The report is an excellent document, but it is only fair to say that the issues are so vast and so greatly in need of debate that a permanent committee could have dealt with the subject of energy alone. That is not to do the report any disservice. We had to draw a line somewhere, and, unfortunately, we could not go into every detail. This debate supplements the report. If the Minister does not get the recommendations right, we will come back, and perhaps keep coming back, to the issue. That is a compliment to the Minister, rather than a threat.

I want to thank specific Members. Conor Murphy welcomed the report and made a very good contribution. I agree with all his points. There may be a major need to deal with structural and conservation problems. I was not particularly confining myself, as he seemed to suggest, to Northern Ireland or the Six Counties. I see a very strong all-Ireland dimension in this, just as there is a very strong British dimension. It is not a political all-Ireland dimension; it is purely a business dimension to ensure survival. Overriding all that is the European dimension, both in legislation and in long-term supply. If we adopt gas, we shall be able to obtain it from the Corrib field in the west of Ireland for perhaps 10 to 15 years. After that, we shall have to explore eastern Europe, into Russia and perhaps beyond.

Conor Murphy made a point about this being another quango. We should get rid of most quangos. However, there are some good ones, so we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should not be averse to creating a quango for tomorrow if a scattered issue such as energy needs a focus and a driver. I return to the concept of drivers because the scatter creates a situation in which we react to emergencies and crises rather than taking a proactive, long-term view.

I thank Sean Neeson for mentioning overlaps and for clarifying who does what. That returns to the driver principle. I am sure that we all agree with what he said about the oil companies, about strengthening the role of those responsible for consumer affairs and about the European dimension.

Jane Morrice agreed with the spirit of the motion and emphasised the need to avoid duplication. I do not want to see any duplication.

Roy Beggs supported the principle of the motion, but expressed some worry about the agency's functions. The agency's functions concern a proactive and aggressive view of the energy situation. I do not suggest duplication, but a much harder and clearer focus on the future is necessary. Mr Beggs queried the all-Ireland aspect. There is such an aspect, and the Minister articulated that much better than I could have done. However, there is also an east-west aspect, with the European dimension overlying it all.

The Minister mentioned that most energy is privatised, and that those private companies are fairly shrewd and capable of finding ways around regulations. An aggressive organisation is needed to confront them.

I have the highest regard for the regulator. However, he would be the first to admit that his difficulty is that both the legislation and his authority are limited. In many cases he reacts like the rest of us do to a crisis or difficulty. He has no responsibility for the long-term supply of energy; he can deal only with the day-to-day situation and attempt to ensure that tomorrow will be a little better than today, and that prices will be kept under control.

Arthur Doherty spoke of mobilising goodwill and of moving away from fossil fuels. He also mentioned the health issue. Some interesting comments on hydrogen have come from Scotland.

Annie Courtney talked of the gas industry in general and of the gas pipeline for the north-west. That is vital. It does not concern getting gas only to Coolkeeragh, but to every town along the route where it would not otherwise be economical to do so.

I thank the Minister for his kind comments. He may be correct to suggest that the call for the agency is premature, but will it be premature in six months or in a year?

I dealt with the question of energy in private hands. That is not a bad thing, if we take an aggressive approach and are equal to a situation in which those private hands perhaps play games or milk the system.

Those members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment who visited Denmark were impressed. When the Minister spoke of the Danes, the powers and authorities, I was not sure whether he advocated the setting up of a new department of energy, not simply an agency. The Danes' approach is aggressive. They have taken energy seriously, and that has stood them in good stead. Their energy costs have been considerably reduced and there have been environmental benefits.

The Minister mentioned the fuel poverty implications of renewable energy. The point that I made about the all-Ireland dimension is summed up by the fact that Northern Ireland was isolated previously. Even now, the few electricity interconnectors with the South, and the one with Scotland, are relatively trivial. We need a second interconnector with Scotland, because it is impossible to have an energy market without a supply. Our problem is that all of the energy supply going through the interconnector with Scotland is committed, and that given that the take up of energy in the South is so high, it does not have surplus to send through the cross-border interconnectors. The Minister is frowning. Is my statement incorrect?

The infrastructure is in place to facilitate a substantial amount of trading through the interconnector with the Republic. However, the distribution network on the Southern side is not sufficiently robust, and for technical reasons it can only operate at full capacity for short periods of time. Therefore, for most of the time, it operates at substantially less than half of its capacity.

When I attended the recent opening of the interconnector with Mary O'Rourke TD, electricity was being imported to Northern Ireland: given the good weather then, our local power stations decided to close some sets for maintenance. Therefore, current was being sucked through the interconnector to Northern Ireland. However, because of demand, current is exported most of the time. The big advantage is that the process reduces spinning reserve, which is generating capacity that is spinning but not supplying current. It is there in case a breakdown occurs, and that, coupled with the ability to trade nation-to-nation through the interconnectors with Scotland and the South, is the key advantage. There are technical reasons for the interconnector not working to full capacity, and work is continuing to improve it so that it becomes more efficient.

A high percentage of the electricity from the interconnector is traded on the open market - only about 125 megawatts are contracted.

I stand corrected. My brief visits to power stations have convinced me that it is difficult to be an expert on such highly technical matters.

When I proposed the motion, I felt that we needed to create the stability, consistency and confidence in our energy markets that have been lacking. Energy markets have been unstable and, perhaps, that was emphasised most in the 1970s, when we were heavily dependent on oil. Many people who depend on oil are uneasy about the potential for shenanigans in Iraq that would send oil prices through the roof.

We must ensure that energy is supplied at a reasonable price and that people can access it fairly. People who live close to the border may access electricity easily from the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) across the border, but we must ensure that people who live in rural areas such as Belleek or Killeter are not compounded further into fuel poverty or energy poverty. I strongly endorse the message that there should be no duplication.

I am very interested in renewable sources of energy. Wind power could supply 25% to 30% of our electricity requirement. Wave power is interesting, and I appeal to the Minister to consider seriously the mouth of Strangford Lough. I have been told that if we could persuade other interested parties to co-operate, which might be a bigger task than first thought, the mouth of Strangford Lough could produce up to 30% of our energy requirements.

I am aware of the strong tide in Strangford Lough. Although the construction of a tidal barrage is a valuable option, many people have serious concerns about the environmental impact on that part of the lough.

That exemplifies how contentious and serious the issues are. I sympathise with those who have an environmental interest in Strangford Lough, but in a couple of years we will have to choose between a view across the lough but higher electricity prices, and a perhaps less exciting environment but cheaper electricity.

An energy agency could oversee the introduction of combined heat and power. I am told that Kilroot power station - and Mr Neeson would know more about that than I - could provide Carrickfergus with free hot water and central heating. However, where is the connectivity between the power station and the consumer? The Department for Social Development would not oversee the scheme; an agency is needed to glue the pieces together. Great work is being done, but the bodies that are involved must be pulled together.

When we burn oil, we extract only one third of its energy to generate electricity. The remaining two thirds are released into the air or, as unused hot water, into the sea. The Danes have managed to extract 90% of the energy from the fuel that they consume, and we should try to do the same.

Ten years ago, we began the charade of talking about introducing an open market and privatisation. We cannot have an open market without choice, and, although the Minister's comments about the interconnectors are welcome, that is only a first step. There is not enough choice, and there are big gaps - for example, the failure to develop the combined heat and power mechanism at Kilroot. Such matters must be acted upon, but I am unsure whether responsibility lies with the Department for Social Development, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, or another body. I tabled the motion to try to clear the bottlenecks for which nobody seems to be responsible.

Does the Member wish to move the motion?

I would be happy to withdraw the motion in the interests of consensus in the Chamber. The issue is more important than the success of the motion, or any one detail. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

1.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the role to be played by the Civic Forum on the proposed North/South consultative forum.

(AQO 1312/01)

On 15 January 2002, we made a statement to the Assembly on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its institutional format, which took place on 17 December 2001. The Council had agreed that the independent consultative forum, as envisaged in paragraph 19 of strand two of the agreement, should be based on formal interaction between the structures that represent civil society in Northern Ireland and in the South. We are consulting the Civic Forum to ascertain its views on how such interaction might be arranged.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and the emphasis that he placed on the formal nature of the North/South consultative forum. Will he assure me that its establishment will not be delayed by the review of the Civic Forum? Will he also assure me that the Civic Forum will meet with its counterparts south of the border, and that the North/South consultative forum will be established formally at the next North/South Ministerial Council plenary meeting?

We agreed that a formal link should be established between the structures that represent civil society in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. The official working group put forward that proposal and is considering recommendations that it hopes to bring forward at the next plenary meeting. The consultation process is focusing on the terms of reference, the composition of the consultative forum, its initial work programme, how it would be chaired and where and when it would meet.

The Civic Forum in Northern Ireland has already submitted some initial views on several of those matters. The official working group is considering those and expects to receive views from the Republic of Ireland shortly. The establishment of the consultative forum is proceeding. I do not wish to use the word "delay", but the outstanding matter is the receipt of the views of the civic partners in the Republic of Ireland.

Does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the Civic Forum is a significant disappointment and a waste of time, energy and resources? Can some light be shed on the cancellation of a regional strategy for social inclusion that was to have been launched tomorrow? Was the cancellation due to the fact that the Civic Forum has been unable to agree on the matters that were to have been launched? What was the cost to the Exchequer of the cancellation?

If the Member were fairer in his approach, he would acknowledge that the Civic Forum is remarkably cheap and represents good value for the people of Northern Ireland. It provides a mechanism for aspects of society that are not represented in the Assembly to have a consultative input to socio-economic issues. I know that in the fantasies of some Members in that corner of the Chamber, the Civic Forum is some sort of puppet operated by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I can assure the Member that that is not the case. I cannot answer his questions in detail because the Civic Forum - and not the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister - is dealing with those matters.

Does the First Minister agree that it would be best to postpone the imminent review of the Civic Forum until the wider review of public administration has been completed?

I understand the point, but we cannot simply wait. It is hoped that we will soon be able to launch the review of public administration, which will be looking at administrative structures rather than at the Civic Forum. Therefore I do not see that there is any necessary interaction between the review of public administration and the continued operation of the Civic Forum.

The Civic Forum will be under review - that is provided for and is understood. We are consulting the Civic Forum about the nature of the review, and I see no reason why the two exercises cannot proceed on their own terms. The question is what will come out of those exercises, and the review of the Civic Forum in particular. I do not wish to express any view about the review of the Civic Forum, as that might lead some persons to think there is some sort of prefiguring of it. We should await the outcome of the review.

2.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline plans for establishing links with Third-World countries.

(AQO 1310/01)

International relations are an excepted matter, and our Department has no plans to establish official or formal links with developing countries. However, although we do not have power in this matter, as a devolved region we do have responsibilities. There is a long tradition of links and a history of support between here and the developing world, which is particularly evident in this Christian Aid week. It is a tradition worthy of all our support.

Does the Minister agree with me that during the darkest days of the troubles, and particularly in the lead-up to the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland received much goodwill, encouragement and, indeed, money from other parts of the world? Does he also agree that now that we have political stability there is an opportunity for us to express a direct interest in the affairs of the Third World, particularly Malawi, which is suffering famine?

I acknowledge the point that the Member has made. Northern Ireland has benefited from significant international attention and goodwill. Now, as we step forward, we should be trying to find ways to help others - not only regions like ourselves that are stepping forward from conflict, but also parts of the world that suffer from long-standing underdevelopment. The ways to do so are not immediately available to us as a devolved region with no formal powers in this matter. However, we can show some lateral thinking. That has already happened in the Assembly in relation to fair trade, and the Assembly has already passed resolutions on the debt issue.

This is appropriate. Too often in Northern Ireland we are good at telling each other that the eyes of the world are upon us. In reality, more often than not the eyes of the world are rolling up to heaven as we yet again create problems for ourselves and try to trap ourselves in the past when we should be showing example by trying to help others.

Will the Minister give details of the efforts that Invest Northern Ireland has made to foster links with developing countries?

The trade division of Invest Northern Ireland, as its name suggests, organises trade missions and related initiatives that link Northern Ireland business with developing countries. In recent years, visits have been made to Argentina, Brazil, China, Kenya, Mexico, Oman, South Africa and Tanzania. Over the next year, it is planned to make trade visits by companies from here to Brazil, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and Vietnam.

3.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the number of trips outside Northern Ireland made on behalf of the Executive in the last six months.

(AQO 1306/01)

During the last six months, the Deputy First Minister and I, as First Minister, have represented the Northern Ireland Executive outside Northern Ireland on seven occasions together. In addition, the Deputy First Minister has made seven visits on his own, and I have made 10 during the same period.

With the lack of Executive business, this is a matter of concern. Is the travelling interfering with the work of the Executive and causing the lack of business before the Assembly?

I am satisfied that the joint and individual visits of the Deputy First Minister and me were made for Northern Ireland's benefit and promotion. They also promoted the good lessons to be drawn from what we have achieved here. They are in stark contrast to the behaviour of the questioner's Colleagues, particularly in Colombia. Last weekend, their activities caused the death of over 60 people sheltering in a church, as what Colombians described as Irish gas cylinders were discharged at them. I would have thought that the Member might have a little concern about his own moral responsibility for his association with a movement that produced those horrific results.

What benefits have resulted from visits to Brussels and Washington?

They were of a darn sight more benefit than those I last referred to. During our visit to Brussels in January to open our office formally, the Deputy First Minister and I met President Prodi, five EU Commissioners, the President of the European Parliament and several other leading figures. Meetings provided a welcome opportunity to forge good relations with those at the top levels of European Union policy making and helped to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests were taken into account. Those contacts have been maintained, particularly by junior Ministers who returned to Brussels in April and held several meetings there.

Similarly, we were able to be in Washington for the formal relocation of the Northern Ireland Bureau to its new downtown premises, which are strategically located. This is a significant shift in the operation of the Northern Ireland Bureau, and we hope to see its work further enhanced in the near future.

4.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it plans to develop an all-Ireland approach towards the formulation of a strategy on European Union issues; and to make a statement.

(AQO 1315/01)

The North/South Ministerial Council has agreed the establishment of a working group to consider how to advance the Belfast Agreement's commitment to consideration of the European Union dimension of relevant matters. The working group will identify those EU-related policies, programmes and proposals that might most usefully be discussed by the Council and will also look at the most effective arrangements for developing the role set out in paragraph 17 of strand two.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his reply, which was much better than the disgraceful reply earlier from the First Minister. Does the Deputy First Minister agree - [Interruption].

Order.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that Irish citizens, North and South, can only benefit from a closer working relationship with the Dublin Government in the development of a cohesive European policy for the entire island? Does he agree that, particularly in agriculture and other areas, Irish citizens, North and South, can benefit from direct ministerial contact?

I agree with the thrust of the Member's question. All the people of the island can benefit from North/South co-operation where that is for mutual benefit and the advancement of common issues. That is particularly appropriate in the context of the EU. All the people of this island can also benefit from wider EU co-operation. I wonder whether the thrust of the Member's question means that he and his Colleagues are now more favourably disposed towards co-operation at a European level as well as at an all-Ireland level?

We can use the North/South Ministerial Council to improve co-operation in sectoral matters. We also must improve our approach to issues of common concern that arise at an EU policy level. That is why we have undertaken the work outlined in my original answer.

In view of the strategic importance to the European Union of stability in the Near and Middle East, does the Deputy First Minister agree that interference in the internal affairs of Turkey by Sinn Féin members does not promote Northern Ireland's positive participation in the European Union?

Turkey is not actually in the European Union, although it clearly has ambitions in that direction.

We are well outside the brief of the Executive or the Assembly in matters of foreign and security policy. It is beyond my competence to give the answer the Member wants on matters of party political and personal activity in Question Time.

Will the Minister ensure that special attention is given to the common chapter of the European programme and consider how best that can be used to support key cross-border co-operation?

I worked on that in my previous post as Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel worked with colleagues in the South on improving our performance with the common chapter.

Our present common chapter is not the first chapter. Experience has shown that although the book was good, the movie was never made. This time we are trying to use the facilities of the North/South Ministerial Council and other initiatives to ensure that we meet the goals and aims in the common chapter. We want to ensure that funding support from Europe is used to achieve sensible North/South co-operation and economies of scale in infrastructural development.

5.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on business transacted at the last meeting of the Executive.

(AQO 1317/01)

The last meeting of the Executive was held on 9 May. A copy of the press release issued after that meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

I am deeply disappointed, but that answer was not unexpected. I have asked that question twice before. The first answer was that Executive business was confidential, and the second answer was that a press release had been placed in the Assembly Library.

We are living in an era where openness and transparency are the order of the day. People need to know what is going on in the Executive on general issues. Will the Minister tell the Assembly what action is taken on House resolutions? Was the water tax debated on 9 May, as reported in last week's 'Belfast Telegraph'? Was Lord Ouseley's report on employment conditions and retirement for the Northern Ireland Civil Service discussed, and, if so, what were the recommendations? If the Executive have nothing to hide, let us hear from them.

I will gently point out to the Member - perhaps he was not in the Chamber then - that last Tuesday we made a detailed statement and answered questions for an hour on the reform and reinvestment initiative, the most significant matter that we have dealt with recently.

The Member must understand that discussions in the Executive are confidential, and press releases are issued about the business transacted. They do not give details of the discussion; that is quite right, and the Member knows that. Important matters are brought to the Assembly; statements are made and questions are answered.

Lord Ouseley's report on appointments and promotions to the senior Civil Service and allied matters has not yet come to the Executive. When it does, and decisions are taken, a press release will be issued or a statement will be made in the House, if that is considered appropriate.

Would it not be better to bring the business from last Thursday's Executive meeting to the House rather than make a press statement? The press could find out details from the House. Members whose constituencies were affected should be able to debate matters raised in the press last week.

Mistaken impressions get around. While that question was being asked, I saw a Member flourishing a newspaper headline. It is an erroneous headline. The Member concerned will discover that when the consultation paper, which we think it refers to, is published in the next few weeks. The Member will then discover that having things published through the normal channels is much better than relying on rumour and report.

I am aware that the Member who asked the supplementary question has many serious concerns about events in his constituency. We are trying to focus on those concerns and to make some progress. We are happy to deal with those matters as openly as we can. Procedures exist, through statements and the tabling of private notice questions on matters of urgency, to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for the Assembly to express views on those matters. The type of open questioning afforded by Question Time also provides an opportunity to range widely, and we welcome that.

Before we move to the next question, I remind the House that it is not in order for Members to use any kinds of devices, to wave newspapers or otherwise. I understand that it is in order to wave Order Papers in approbation, but not newspapers.

6.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister how it appraises the benefits of money allocated to community relations.

(AQO 1309/01)

The benefits of money allocated to community relations are appraised in three main ways: by attitudinal surveys; by research projects; and by independent evaluations of funded groups. The bulk of community relations funding goes to the Community Relations Council and to support district council community relations programmes. That funding amounts to some £4·5 million of the total allocation of just over £5 million. Both the Community Relations Council and the district council community relations programmes have been subject to independent evaluation in the past 18 months. In both cases, positive conclusions were reached with regard to the impact of their activities and their value for money.

Over the past 10 years, Departments have spent well over £100 million on community relations. All the evidence on the streets shows that community relations are worse. Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that the OFMDFM-commissioned report by Dr Peter Shirlow also expressed that view? Is that why the report has not seen the light of day?

In answer to previous questions, I had to correct Members because of their confusion over two different reports. Dr Shirlow carried out work commissioned by the Belfast European Partnership Board. However, a separate piece of work, relating to other areas and times, was commissioned by OFMDFM. I caution the Member not to confuse the two.

A significant amount of money has been spent on community relations, and a significant amount of work remains to be done. It is a huge problem, and nobody is pretending that all the problems are behind us. We must be cautious about making sweeping judgements that community relations are worse, based on anecdotal evidence, on impressions from particular areas or on studies specific to those areas.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that there could not be a more graphic demonstration of community relations problems than the recent disorder in north Belfast? Is that not precisely the kind of issue that the Administration's community relations policy should be tackling?

The situation in north Belfast clearly reveals problems in community relations. However, there are also other problems. That is why the initiative that has been undertaken on behalf of the Executive is looking at various issues. The programmes of several Departments are relevant to the work that is being undertaken in north Belfast. We will continue to work to get on top of the problems in that area. We are reviewing our wider community relations policies to ensure that we are alert to all the problems and that we have responsive policy systems and support mechanisms, particularly in areas where problems are manifested.

Does the Minister concur that the aim of community relations policies in the North is to light candles rather than curse the darkness, and that that approach is required? Will he comment on the events in east Belfast last weekend? As the Deputy First Minister has travelled many roads over the years, will he concur that our society is now more tolerant?

I hope that everyone in the House will join me in expressing concern at the events in east Belfast. We do not want violence in any form, in any location, from any quarter, against any target, be that in north Belfast, east Belfast, east Derry, or anywhere else. We have seen violence in different forms, and I have consistently condemned it all. I hope that everyone in the House will continue to do so.

Although we repudiate and condemn such violence, we should take heart from the fact that new relationships are being built and are growing in this society, and new attitudes are being expressed. People can relate to one another politically, and they can relate to, and with, the shared Administration, albeit at times they may be critical of delivery and the pace of activity. We now have shared political space, and we must find ways to share the streets also.

7.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what interim assessment it can make of those Programme for Government targets that it anticipates will be met within the agreed timescale.

(AQO 1304/01)

The Executive monitor progress on delivering the actions set out in the Programme for Government regularly. The latest available information from the Departments shows that 28% of the 256 actions contained in the Programme for Government for 2001-02 have been achieved. A further 46% were in line for achievement in the published timescales. We are now collating the information, and we plan to report to the Assembly next month. Where progress has been slower than anticipated, our report will identify the reasons for the delay and the remedial action that the Executive intend to take. We are also working to deliver the commitments in the 2002-03 Programme for Government, which was finalised in December 2001. We will continue to monitor progress on all the actions in our first and current Programme for Government.

The Minister is aware of the concern that, because of the modest budget for the Programme for Government, targets will not be met. What action has he initiated to ensure better progress?

I outlined our key action in the lead answer. I emphasise its significance, because we are aware that some of the actions, precise targets and timetables have not been met. In order to deal with those delays, we must identify where and why they happened, and we are publishing information on that. It is worthy of attention, and the Executive ought to be congratulated on that.

We are the first Administration in any jurisdiction that operates a programme for government to publish details of the cases where they failed to achieve targets. Plenty of Governments will publish details of their successes, while trying to cover up difficulties. Many targets were not met because of circumstances beyond our control, but there cannot be an intelligent debate on that or a full appreciation of the difficulties of achieving change unless people can identify and focus on the problems and our actions to overcome them.

We intend to be as open about this matter as possible.

In the light of the Executive's continuing failure to meet their own targets, does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the proposed salary increases for the House are overgenerous? Does it believe that we require greater productivity from the Executive and the House to justify such increases?

It is not appropriate for me to comment on views expressed by the Senior Salaries Review Body or to call into question the actions of the Assembly Commission. Those bodies will take whatever decisions are appropriate. However, the supplementary question was misconceived. It is not appropriate to judge the Assembly's success on whether the Departments and their officials have met all the targets in the Programme for Government.

I must bring the Minister's response to a close because we are over the time for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Regional Development

I wish to inform Members that question 4, in the name of Mr David Ford, has been transferred to the Department of the Environment and will receive a written answer.

1.

asked the Minister for Regional Development what plans he has to erect multilingual signs at airports and ferry ports to provide for the safety of foreign visitors.

(AQO 1340/01)

The police have not given the Roads Service any indication that there is a road safety problem associated with foreign drivers leaving the country's airports or ferry ports. Therefore, I have no plans to erect multilingual signs at those facilities.

The provision of signs within ferry ports and airports is a matter for the authorities in those facilities. The majority of drivers visiting Northern Ireland come via airports and ferry ports in Great Britain or by road from the Republic of Ireland, and they will already have experienced the need to drive on the left hand side of the road.

On this occasion I encourage the Minister to think positively and to accept that an increasing number of Europeans, particularly from Germany and France, come directly to Northern Ireland and hire vehicles here. Does he accept that he should consider the road safety aspect, as well as the politeness of recognising the German and French languages, as they do for us?

Visitors are very welcome to Northern Ireland, and many of the road signs here will be part of the general harmonisation of road traffic signs in European countries. Road signs, where possible, include easily recognised symbols or pictograms to convey messages. However, there are significant cost considerations for multilingual signs, and at times they can cause confusion.

Can the Minister guarantee that his Department will not spend millions of pounds unnecessarily on bilingual signs when there are higher priorities in his Department?

The original question was about multilingual signs; bilingual signs take us into a new area, and I assure my hon Friend that I have no intention of spending millions of pounds of much-needed infrastructure funding on bilingual signs.

Following Pat McNamee's promotion of plain English in last week's debate on house purchase, is the Minister satisfied with the present signage in English at the Belfast City Airport, where some key signs are very confusing?

For a moment I thought I was going to get a question about McDonald's restaurant. I am happy to look at the signage at Belfast City Airport. I travel to and from it every week and I have not been confused, but maybe I was not looking at the signs as carefully as I should. I will look at the signs and see if there is any area of confusion.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>