5.

asked the Minister for Social Development if the Housing Executive will review its policy on the sale of homes to tenants aged 60 and over.

(AQO 1472/01)

The Housing Executive has consulted on proposals for changes to its house sales scheme, including that element concerning tenants over 60 years of age. My Department awaits the Housing Executive's submission of a revised scheme for approval.

The present policy discriminates against tenants because of their age. Like discrimination of any kind, it must be made illegal as soon as possible. Will the Minister encourage the Housing Executive to scrap this discriminatory regulation at the earliest opportunity?

The exclusion from sale of pensioners' and old people's dwellings has been the subject of a recent judicial review. It was accepted in court that there is an objective and reasonable justification for the exemption from sale of dwellings suitable for the elderly. It was also accepted that there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim.

However, until the Housing Executive submits proposals for changes to the scheme, and my Department and I consider them, I cannot say what any revised scheme might provide for generally, or for those types of dwellings in particular.

During the process that the Housing Executive is engaging in, will the Minister ensure that due consideration is given to protecting any new scheme from the abuses that this scheme suffered? Equally, will he ensure that the equality requirements, which are on all Departments, are covered as well? If this scheme is made more open to sale, will the Minister give us an undertaking that sufficient resources will be put into new build, whether through housing associations or whatever, to ensure that there is a good stock of houses available for old age pensioners in our community?

Equality provisions are a matter of law, and Departments are bound by the provisions in the legislation - that goes without saying. As far as stock for the provision of accommodation for senior citizens is concerned, I want to see as much money as possible in the general housing budget to cover not only the needs of the elderly, which are a priority, but also the needs of the homeless, people on waiting lists, and people in housing need across the board. That should be a priority for the Assembly.

While focus has naturally, and, in some cases, inevitably, fallen on areas of public policy in recent times, one should not forget the enormous contribution that housing makes - not just in providing a roof over people's heads, but also in contributing to their general well-being, their health,their education, their social inclusion, and so on. It is important that the issue remain a priority for the Assembly and the Executive as regards budgetary provision. Finally, I will certainly provide the Member with the assurances he seeks on the other matters

Could the Minister summarise the elements of the scheme which are being considered for change?

The main issues that the Housing Executive has been considering have been subject to a lengthy period of consultation and review. The Housing Executive has yet to submit them to the Department, which will consider them in due course. The main issues cover things such as a requirement for joint purchasers to be resident in a property; the capping of discount; the exclusion of dwellings suitable for the elderly from sale in any circumstances, and a new residency period of two years after which applications can be made to purchase a Housing Executive home.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the thoughts expressed by Mr McCarthy, and I understand the difficulties that the Housing Executive has in matching stock to potential clients. Will the Minister take local situations into account during the review? There are areas where there is ample stock, and Housing Executive area managers could be given leeway to release suitable housing stock to the over-60s in particular areas.

I hear what the Member says on the issue of allowing local circumstances and discretion to dictate what happens. However, as all tenants would not be treated equally under such a policy, it could fall foul of equality legislation. Mr ONeill raised this very issue earlier. For example, under the sort of proposal that Mr Hussey has spoken of, those living in dwellings for the elderly in some parts of the Province might be eligible to buy, while those in other parts of the Province would not. That would pose serious legislative difficulties.

I do not see Mr Savage in the Chamber, so we will move on to the next question.

TOP

7.

asked the Minister for Social Development how management transfers impact on the allocation of social housing, especially on those who are homeless; and to make a statement.

(AQO 1479/01)

The points-based design of the common selection scheme incorporates transfer cases. However, the management transfer policy allows district office managers the discretion to transfer tenants, under certain circumstances, without reference to their points status under the common selection scheme. That can mean that tenants are transferred to available accommodation ahead of other applicants to facilitate the best use of stock and for the redevelopment or clearance of a particular block or area. Vacancies that arise may be available for allocation to other applicants, including the homeless, if the vacancies are in an applicant's area of choice.

Does the Minister not agree that this is a wholly iniquitous system that allows the Housing Executive to bribe people with £1,800 to move out of a perfectly good house that they do not want to move out of and then to move them into another area ahead of people who are homeless? Surely the homeless must be in the greatest need, and management transfers should take account of that. In my area, in the district of Carrickfergus, people who are homeless take precedence. Areas have been knocked down, but they can wait. In Larne, it seems to be the reverse. The Housing Executive is paying people to move out of houses so it can knock them down, and other people continue to remain homeless as a result.

I am always interested to hear from any Member, particularly the Member who has just spoken, about any specific cases that they wish to draw to my attention. There are circumstances in which management transfers can be made and in which district offices can exercise their discretion and create such transfers. Those operate within certain guidelines. There are exceptions to the general rule of allocation to the applicant with most points. For instance, applicants who have been awarded priority status under the previous selection scheme and who retained that status when the new scheme was introduced can be offered a tenancy before those with a points-based priority. In addition, rent arrears, illegal occupation of a dwelling or involvement in serious antisocial behaviour can militate against the offer of a tenancy, regardless of the number of points awarded.

There should not be any question of inequity. There may be justifiable cases where a management transfer can ease a housing problem and allow a situation to be unblocked that would otherwise cause serious housing difficulties. It is not a case of unfairness. The common selection scheme was designed to be fair and open, and it gives applicants a greater choice of areas in which to live. As far as management transfers are concerned, the common selection scheme sits alongside, and does not always take precedence over, other policies designed to make the best use of existing stock and to facilitate, for instance, regeneration or redevelopment.

There are occasions when the management transfer discretion is important and should be used. The Minister mentioned the review of the common selection scheme. Can he give some indication of the timescale for completion of the process, the criteria that will be used, and the people who will be consulted on the common selection scheme? When does the Minister anticipate conclusions from the report?

The evaluation of the common selection scheme began in December 2001 and has involved the Housing Executive, housing associations and my Department. It is envisaged that it should have reached its conclusion, with the findings summarised and circulated for wider consultation, later this year. As part of the consultation process, Assembly Members and agencies that contributed to its design, including housing associations, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and my Department, will be involved. There will be an opportunity for Members who have shown an interest to make a contribution in the House.

TOP

8.

asked the Minister for Social Development to outline (a) the reports he has received in the last two years from the General Consumer Council; and (b) the action he has taken based on these reports.

(AQO 1493/01)

The General Consumer Council has produced several reports in the past two years, dealing with a range of issues. The two most relevant to the work of my Department are the one on improving the house-buying process and 'Frozen Out', which addresses fuel poverty in Northern Ireland.

The report on improving the house-buying process made several recommendations, and many were relevant to other Departments. My predecessor wrote to other Departments to commend the report to them and to encourage them to adopt whatever recommendations were pertinent to their areas of responsibility.

'Frozen Out' makes several recommendations on fuel poverty, and my Department is already introducing measures to address that. The report's recommendations will be considered as part of the integrated strategy that my Department is producing for wider public consumption.

Is the Minister happy with the remit of the General Consumer Council, and will he undertake to consult his Colleagues as regards supplying whatever expertise is needed to enable the council to arrive at informed comment across its range of reporting responsibilities?

My Department is happy to co-operate with those who wish to discuss or produce a report on areas that are of concern to it. Whether I, as Minister, am happy with the remit of the General Consumer Council is not for me to say, as that lies without my departmental responsibility. I am interested in receiving reports from the General Consumer Council and other organisations that have contributions to make in areas that affect the work of my Department.

The home-buying process and fuel poverty are two areas of great public concern and matters that have been raised in the House. I look forward to working with the General Consumer Council, and I am sure that other Departments do as well.

Has the Minister any plans to extend the warm homes scheme, which helps with fuel poverty when it is applied?

The warm homes scheme successfully reached 4,311 households in its first year of operation. This year it will deliver approximately 4,150 energy efficiency measures and 2,100 heating installations at a total cost of £7·95 million. We must address the fact that participation in the warm homes scheme has been greater in some areas than in others. We should ensure that the scheme is publicised; for example, public representatives in areas in which there has been a low uptake could advertise the scheme.

It is a good scheme, and it has been commended by many who work to combat fuel poverty. If we had more money, we could do more. I am keen to ensure that as many resources as possible are used to address an issue that affects so many people each year and causes the deaths of so many in Northern Ireland. In this decade, we must press ahead with plans to eradicate fuel poverty in Northern Ireland.

TOP

9.

asked the Minister for Social Development what plans he has to ensure that carers looking after family members are not left in poverty when opting to give up careers to attend to the needs of their loved ones.

(AQO 1462/01)

In autumn 2000, a package of measures was announced to introduce enhanced social security provision for carers. From April 2001, the earnings limit for invalid care allowance was increased to the level of the lower earnings limit, and the carer premium paid through income-related benefits was increased by more than £10 a week. I hope that the remaining provisions, including allowing carers over the age of 65 to claim the allowance, will be in place by autumn. From 6 April 2002, carers can avail themselves of an additional state pension through the state second pension.

Does the Minister agree that many are still left out of the loop, including relatives who leave professional jobs to care for their loved ones, thereby losing their pension rights? Does he agree that legislation that encourages people to care for their sick and elderly relatives must be updated constantly?

I am sure that all Members share Mr Dallat's concern and would pay tribute to carers, especially family members who have made sacrifices to care for a relative. People accept that burden for many reasons, and their enormous contribution should be recognised by everyone in society.

I accept the need to constantly review the legislative regime that affects people in that situation. The issue has arisen before; therefore, Mr Dallat and other Members will recognise that this part of the United Kingdom, and others, have a parity system.

In April 2002, the state second pension was introduced as a replacement for the state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS) to assist low and moderate earners, carers and people with a long-term illness or disability to build up an additional state pension. That should help in the circumstances to which Mr Dallat referred.

TOP

10.

asked the Minister for Social Development to detail any cases where Northern Ireland departs from the norm in the payment of housing and other benefits, compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.

(AQO 1494/01)

Social security legislation in Northern Ireland closely mirrors that of Great Britain, and provision operates on the principle of parity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Given that brevity is required, that reply might become the record.

I recognise the importance of Northern Ireland's keeping in general step with the rest of the United Kingdom on issues such as housing and other benefits. Are there any avenues that would enable the Minister to exercise discretion as regards such benefits? If so, would he permit such leeway in the local interpretation of Regulations?

First, the parity principle is not new. It has been maintained since the inception of social security. The Member will be familiar with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which gave legislative expression to parity for the first time. The 1998 Act requires the Secretary of State in Great Britain and the Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland to run single systems of social security, child support and pensions to the extent that they agree to do so.

The Member asked about the issue of flexibility of payments; I caution him and other Members to be careful. Parity means that people in Northern Ireland pay the same rates of income tax, make the same National Insurance contributions and, in return for that, have the same range of contributory and non-contributory benefits, paid at the same rates and subject to the same rules and conditions as people in Great Britain. If that were to change, it would have a major financial implication in that the money to establish that extra provision and the computer systems to operate it would have to come out of the Northern Ireland block. It would also have implications for the easy movement of citizens between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK with regard to their entitlement to benefits. We should hesitate before going down that line. Members will recognise that the principle of parity has served the people of Northern Ireland well over the years. We tamper with that at our peril.

TOP

11.

asked the Minister for Social Development how many households in West Tyrone have benefited from the warm homes scheme.

(AQO 1480/01)

The information is not available in the precise form requested by the Member, as work under the warm homes scheme is categorised by postal code area. However, 320 households have benefited from the warm homes scheme in the postal code areas that equate approximately to the constituency of West Tyrone.

Is the Minister satisfied that enough administrative staff are available to process warm homes scheme applications? Are there enough select tender- approved contractors available to carry out the installation work on approved schemes?

The number of administrative staff available and the number of contractors on select tender lists have not been an issue for the Department for Social Development in seeking to fulfil the objectives of the warm homes scheme. The Department has no concerns on that matter. However, as I said earlier, I am concerned that we should ensure that as many people as possible across the Province take up access to the scheme. Thus far, £340,000 has been spent in West Tyrone, which is low in comparison to other constituencies and other areas.

We must try to improve knowledge of the scheme so that people can access it. As public representatives, we all have a role to play. The scheme's managing partnership has been running a continuous promotional campaign since the scheme began in July 2001.

Enterprise Bill: 
Consumer Protection Measures

TOP

Debate resumed on motion:

I am glad that I was not called at 2.30 pm because I have just heard the sad news that Germany did not win the match in the World Cup. I happily walked into the Chamber believing that the Germans were leading 1-0 only to find out that a certain other unmentionable country had equalised. The shock has worn off, and I have more or less recovered my equilibrium.

I support the Minister's proposed legislation on consumer protection. The Enterprise Bill is a parity issue. The Committee has looked at it and is reasonably happy with it. All Committee members would have preferred home-grown legislation made and tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland, but they accept the circumstances and that this is the best that can be done.

I hope that the Minister will not join the cohort of his Colleagues who are introducing legislation in great dollops leading up to the recess. I do not know what is in the pipeline, but I hope that this is the first of a few Bills that are coming up between now and the end of the month rather than many.

I especially welcome the tightening of legislation on rogue trading. That is a great problem in many areas, particularly those close to the border. I had a meeting with the local divisional police commander the other day, and he told me that the police raided a certain Sunday market somewhere in south Armagh, which will also remain nameless. In that raid, 60% of all the seized goods were counterfeit, fake or stolen. That is a remarkable statistic, because it shows that 40% of the goods were not counterfeit, fake or stolen. I do not believe that anyone who goes to that market is under any illusion that the stuff is from the top shelf. He knows that the stuff was brought in by unusual means. That is having an effect on genuine traders; in many cases the genuine traders cannot compete, so the legislation needs to be tightened.

I was a member of the old Assembly between 1982 and 1986, and one of its successes was the establishment of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. That organisation has worked well, but there is a need to increase its powers and scope, and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is more than happy with anything that does that. It will watch the progress of the legislation with interest and hopes that it gets a speedy passage.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has already spoken about the Committee's discussions and its welcoming of the Bill. It has received backing from the General Consumer Council, given that it contains several advantages for business and consumers, and that it paves the way for business across the United Kingdom.

Under the reform of part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973, the new enforcement bodies will have the power to obtain a court order against traders who do not comply with their legal obligations to consumers. The amendment will make it easier to take action against rogue traders. The Bill may also help to target social need as the new provisions are likely to benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged groups that suffer at the hands of rogue traders.

The Bill makes provision for the Office of Fair Trading to become a more proactive body. It grants the Office of Fair Trading a stronger input into codes of practice for formal approval, and there is the requirement to monitor and withdraw approval if necessary. The Bill will also grant power to the new enforcement bodies to produce and distribute educational materials on matters that affect consumers - economic or otherwise.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be unable to fund third parties to provide consumer advice, information and education. There is a new super complaints procedure. Under the new legislation, consumer bodies will have the right to bring a super complaint to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation when the market is not working. That should improve efficiency and increase the protection of consumers' rights.

If the Assembly embraces the Bill in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that there will be additional costs, as the Minister has said, since the Trading Standards Service will enforce the new measures in line with its other operational priorities. If, however, the Assembly does not support the Bill at this stage, the cost could ultimately be far greater for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the Enterprise Bill and its expeditious inclusion in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I thank all the Members who contributed today. I hope that the Member for South Down is not indulging in purchases from the top shelf - that would not send out the right messages. However, I welcome his support. When the Official Report is printed, I shall ensure that Members receive a written response to any matters that I have omitted.

The main purpose of the debate is to give Members an opportunity to endorse the principle of extending the consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill to Northern Ireland. Agreeing to such an extension is the best way to ensure that Northern Ireland consumers are not disadvantaged in any way as regards their standards of protection compared with consumers in England, Scotland and Wales. However, that in no way removes the right of the Assembly to look afresh at measures in future and to introduce our own legislation. I have become increasingly concerned that that is an area in which the law is confused, as we have a transferred matter with regard to consumer protection that is regulated by primary reserved legislation - the Fair Trading Act 1973. Therefore, in the autumn, I shall establish a review of all consumer legislation in Northern Ireland to clarify that and to ensure that we have proper protection for consumers. If remedial action were necessary, I would not hesitate to introduce measures.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will introduce more legislation; I shall propose two further measures next week, and I hope to introduce major legislation on energy in the autumn. I commend the motion to the House.

Adjournment Motion: 
Stormont Estate

TOP

I wish to advise the House that Dr Adamson, who had succeeded in having a topic for the Adjournment motion chosen, has advised me that he cannot be present for the debate. Therefore, the Adjournment motion, although it will be put, will not be the subject of a debate at the end of the sitting. I understand that he has a requirement to be in another place.

Future of Europe

TOP

Mr Speaker:

Before I call the junior Minister, Mr Leslie, I remind the House that I expect it to stick to the motion. I say that not for the benefit of the Minister; this is a debate on the Laeken declaration and the establishment of the Convention on the Future of Europe, not an opportunity to talk about all sorts of other matters that may be connected with the European Union. I wish to ensure that the House sticks to the motion within reason. I have no doubt that the Minister does not require any such injunctions.

I beg to move

Mindful of your comments, Mr Speaker, the key words are "Convention on the Future of Europe". The aspects that may be considered were included in the declaration, a copy of which has been circulated to Members.

I welcome the opportunity to initiate the debate. It is a subject of some complexity, but also of potentially great importance for all that are in the EU and for the accession countries that plan to join over the next few years.

Today's debate is the start of the process, not the end. We are not offering the Executive's views on the issues raised by the future of Europe debate. During the summer, the Executive will consider their view on the future of Europe and prepare their report, which will serve as input to the work of the convention. Any consideration or response made by the Executive will take account of the views expressed today, as well as those expressed at the conference planned for 27 June and any other views that are put to us in the coming weeks. Views can be offered through the web site that we shall establish on the future of Europe debate. That will provide an opportunity for people to contribute their views, and for others to read and offer comment.

The importance of having a debate in Northern Ireland is highlighted in our EU strategy framework, which is the first step towards developing an EU strategy for the Executive. The future of Europe debate is an important part of that strategy, and we want to look at the contribution that we shall make to the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The Nice Intergovernmental Conference in December 2000 launched the debate on the future of Europe in light of the challenges that the European institutions would face upon enlargement. At the Laeken European Council in December 2001, the European heads of Government decided to call a convention that would supplement the national and regional debates with a Europe-wide forum to debate the issues and to agree a conclusion within a year.

The convention will be chaired by an ex-President of France, Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and it is currently in what is described as its listening phase, which is likely to last until September or October 2002. The convention will then enter an analytical phase before producing recommendations. Those recommendations are expected to emerge in the spring or summer of next year. That will inform an intergovernmental conference on the future of the EU, which will be held in 2004. At that point, decisions will finally be taken on the issues that we discuss today. It is therefore vital that we consider what contribution we should make to that debate.

We need to be clear about the nature of our role. As one region among many in the EU, we must recognise the limits of our influence and seek to deal with issues that are of fundamental importance to Northern Ireland. We do not have to reach a view on all the elements of the debate. However, we must identify what matters to Northern Ireland and deal with those issues.

We recognise that there are different views in the Assembly on the EU, as there are in wider society. The debate focuses on the reforms that are needed in order that the EU can operate effectively after enlargement, so that it can be more meaningful to its citizens. It may be difficult to reach a consensus on all issues, but we do not need to address them all. None the less, the process of debate will bring out many of the factors that we need to consider.

We must try to agree the way ahead on the role of the regions and their place in the EU. A decade ago, the EU established a new advisory institution, the Committee of the Regions, to give a limited place for sub-state authorities within the European institutions. Northern Ireland has two representatives on that Committee, Mr Dermot Nesbitt and Mr Alban Maginness. Although we are conscious that the status and composition of the Committee of the Regions has been criticised, it is an advisory rather than a decision-making body. In recent years, the devolution of parts of regions has occurred in many member states, most notably in the UK, Spain and Italy.

The increase in the number of devolved regions and the increase in the powers that they exercise have yet to be fully recognised by the EU. At present, Northern Ireland's role in decision-making in Brussels is limited and indirect. That gives rise to some questions. Should regions such as Northern Ireland make their voices heard in the EU? Is there sense in our seeking to co-operate with similar regions to maximise the influence that we can bring to bear? Should the regions have direct access to some EU institutions? Should the EU recognise the growth of regional power in relation to how it seeks to regulate for its member states?

It is clear from the discussions that my Colleague Mr Haughey and I have had in Brussels that that question is currently exercising the Commissioners. We must bear in mind that although the United Kingdom has devolved regions - as do Spain and Italy - there are various European countries that work on an opposite principle.

In considering the matter, we must be pragmatic about what is achievable. Irrespective of one's views about Northern Ireland as a region, nothing should diminish the importance of the principal member states in the EU. When trying to determine the role of the regions, we should be mindful that an enhanced position - imagined or otherwise - for the regions might enable the Commission to divide and rule. When it deals with the major member states only, it can find that more difficult. We must therefore carefully consider the cause and effect of any proposals.

We shall continue to contribute as actively as possible to the development of the UK Government position, concentrating specifically on areas in which we identify interests for Northern Ireland. The Joint Ministerial Committee is the vehicle for doing that. The Committee meets regularly at Westminster; indeed, it meets next week. It draws together Ministers from across Whitehall and the devolved Administrations to consider what the UK line should be on European matters.

The Laeken declaration essentially raises four matters. First, who does what in the European Union? Linked to that are questions about what the balance should be among the EU institutions, the member states and the regions, and how any changes can be made. There is, therefore, a specific context for discussing the role of the regions.

Secondly, there is the matter of EU laws. Many Members feel that too much regulation comes from Brussels and that there should be greater flexibility in its implementation by member states. To take that further, there should be further flexibility within member state regions. The entire business of who produces the law, and how much of it is produced, has major implications for the consideration of where sovereignty lies. That is a source of considerable interest and debate.

Thirdly, issues arise concerning democracy, transparency and efficiency. Specifically, those involve looking at the balance of power within the European institutions - among the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. Again, the question is raised as to whether the regions should have a more direct voice in those institutions than that which the Committee of the Regions provides. That is an area in which the impact of enlargements on the workings of the EU is most significant. If one considers the issues that are raised by having 15 member states, and the difficulties in getting the sort of demographic expression that we would understand to bear on the decisions, it will be much more difficult if there are 25 or 30 members.

The fourth question raised in the declaration is whether there should be a constitution for Europe and whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be incorporated into the treaty. Those questions go to the heart of the way that the European concept and the associated institutions will develop over time. Again, that raises significant issues of sovereignty.

All those issues impact on Northern Ireland. Issues such as a constitution of Europe will affect all parts of the EU similarly. Others, such as the possible incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, could have unpredictable outcomes in Northern Ireland because we already have a complex framework of rights and equality law, which is derived from the Human Rights Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and local anti-discrimination law. That could lead to a classic situation whereby the sovereignty that has thus far been exercised on our affairs is in conflict with measures arising from a constitution for Europe as a whole.

I hope that the debate will begin to tease out the Assembly's thinking on Northern Ireland's key interests in the future of Europe debate. It will set the tenor for progressing a wide-ranging discussion in Northern Ireland on the future of Europe. That will include a conference on 27 June that will include social partners, academics, the non-governmental sector, local government and Assembly Members.

An issue that may occupy the attention of that conference is the conspicuous absence in the Laeken declaration of any reference to economic and financial matters. Those clearly have a bearing on the structure and future of the European Union and are significant to the single currency. Although that is not within the scope of the debate, none the less one cannot make any sensible judgements on the future of Europe unless economic issues are considered carefully.

When the United States suddenly starts to protect its steel industry and enhance support for its agriculture industry, we must ask ourselves what kind of playing field we are on and where that leaves the World Trade Organization. The free trade area in Europe must decide whether it is working to protect its own trade bases or working on a wider worldwide free trade basis. Those issues cannot be left out when the future of Europe is being considered.

The debate also signals our determination to engage meaningfully with the Assembly on major European policy issues. That will be followed by discussions with the Committee of the Centre, although I appreciate that other Committees have areas of specific interest on European matters. We are also finalising our response to the Committee of the Centre's EU inquiry report, which was debated some weeks ago, and we expect to agree broadly with its recommendations.

In addition to our engagement with the Assembly, we are also determined to draw in civic society, of which our planned conference is one element. In his winding-up speech, my Colleague Denis Haughey will provide more detail on the progress that has been made with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE) to ensure that we can utilise to best effect the expertise available to the Executive. The debate marks a start to an important discussion.

The Committee of the Centre welcomes the motion on the Laeken declaration and the subsequent establishment of a Convention on the Future of Europe. The issue goes to the heart of how Europe will be organised and managed. The Committee therefore welcomes the proactive approach taken by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in assessing the views of the Assembly. It gives the Assembly an important opportunity to make its views clear.

We also welcome the conference to be held on 27 June by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That will involve wider civic society in Northern Ireland in the debate. Greater involvement of civic society was an area of major concern in the Committee's recent EU inquiry report, and the conference is a welcome indication that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is beginning to take it on board.

The European Union will be enlarged in the near future, with the potential for a further 10 countries to be added to the current 15. The future of Europe debate is about how the European Union will meet that challenge.

The Laeken declaration agreed to set up a convention to consider changes to the European Union's treaties; its working methods after enlargement; and how it can find a role for itself in a rapidly changing, globalising world. However, many see the convention's biggest challenge as how the widening gap between European institutions and citizens can be tackled. There are no easy answers to those complex matters. The convention has outlined 64 separate questions that cover a wide range of issues and it expects to get a large number of diverse responses.

The Committee of the Centre's consideration of those matters has allowed it to identify several major themes. The first of those is the simplification of the treaties. There is widespread agreement that the four EU treaties are extremely complex and should be simplified. Objectives, powers and policies are spread across the treaties, and the many amendments that have been made to them over the years have left them a tangle of regulation. However, the treaties are complex because they cover the concerns and issues of 15 member states. The Committee of the Centre agrees that simplification is needed, but not to the extent that it eventually leads to some type of constitutionalism.

Some form of common standard and text that the ordinary person can grasp is needed. Making the EU easier to understand is, perhaps, a first step in tackling the widening gap between the citizen and European institutions. However, a major concern of the Committee is how simplification can be achieved, given the impact of the enlargement of the treaties.

The second issue that the Committee of the Centre looked at was the delimitation of competences - who does what in the European Union. Critics hold that the current system is imprecise and unclear, with the result that it is often the courts that decide who can do what. That imprecision and lack of clarity is seen as enabling the EU to legislate in areas in which it is not competent to do so. The Committee agrees that there must be clarity on that issue. Some 60% of our regional legislation arises from EU law. Are we sure that the EU has a right to create so much of our legislation? The Committee wishes to see the roles of the EU, the member state and the region clarified, but it agrees that any system that is developed must be flexible.

Of all the issues to be explored by the future of Europe debate and the convention, that of subsidiarity and proportionality is one of the most important. There is a view that the lack of definition in that area has led the EU to legislate in areas in which it may not be needed and to go beyond that which is necessary to achieve its objectives. The Committee of the Centre expressed most interest in that concept as it applied to ensuring that a distinctive Northern Ireland viewpoint is heard when appropriate. The Committee recognises that the devolved institutions will not always agree with the position taken by the UK as member state, especially in respect of agriculture and fisheries - such disagreement is quite common in other UK and European regions. Although difficult to attain, any strengthening of the regional position is to be welcomed. There are more than 200 regions in the European Union, a number that will increase after enlargement, so how can the EU take account of the differing needs of so many regions? The Committee of the Centre wishes to see Northern Ireland have a stronger voice and receive greater EU accountability, but it recognises that that would be difficult to achieve. The Committee also applied that reasoning to the convention's structure. With so many regions and interest groups contributing to the convention, it will be a difficult task to ensure that the Northern Ireland viewpoint is heard.

There are limited routes to the convention open to us. We can provide input via the two UK parliamentary representatives on the Committee of the Regions. We can only attend the convention as observers only or access it through a web-based forum. The Committee of the Centre has decided that it will provide input to the convention through those two UK parliamentary representatives, and to that end it has invited them to meet the Committee on 20 June.

The issue of achieving more democracy in the EU is being explored Europe-wide through ideas such as having a second chamber, a President of the European Commission and/or the European Council, with more openness and transparency in the Council's decision- making process.

It has been suggested that the main role of a second chamber would be to give national and regional Parliaments a say in EU power structures by allowing them to police the subsidiarity principle. The Committee of the Centre does not feel that a second chamber is a viable option for increasing democracy in the EU. It feels that that could be better achieved by increasing and strengthening the role of MEPs.

The Committee recognises that the concept of an elected President of the Commission and/or the Council probably appeals to those who believe in a federal Europe. The current system whereby each country has a six-month presidency works well, although it may not be so suitable following enlargement.

The Committee of the Centre finds that the current system works well. It allows the Committee to invite the UK ambassador of the country that holds the presidency to come to the Committee and give an authoritative view on the priorities of the presidency. Therefore, the Committee can check that Northern Ireland is prepared. Twice each year the Committee can check that Northern Ireland is keeping up with EU priorities and is prepared for the EU agenda. That would be much more difficult if the president were to be elected.

The real power in the EU lies with the European Council. As regards the openness of the Council, the Committee of the Centre sees no reason why almost all of the European Council's sessions should not be held in public, particularly those applying to legislation. Public meetings would allow regional Parliaments to see whether their viewpoint had been noted by member states and to see how member states voted on important issues such as the common agricultural policy.

Briefly - and taking off my Committee Chairperson's hat - I do not support further federalism in Europe. There is much concern among my community that the EU has undermined the sovereignty of the national Government and that that will be further eroded as the EU vests more powers in itself.

I trust that the debate will be open and will not be used to create further federalism. I hope that the debate will genuinely reveal whether there are issues of subsidiarity for national Parliaments and not be about the EU taking more power for itself. The EU has a major role to play and, whether we like it or not, we are members of the EU and must therefore be bound by it.

The UK is the fourth largest economy in the world and it must not wholly tie itself to the EU. We must keep our options open: we must look to our historical links with the Commonwealth and north America. I recently attended a function held by the British Ambassador in Washington at which it was indicated that more than £100 billion of trade takes place between the United States of America and the UK. Exchanges on the money markets because of investments between the UK and the USA are even greater. It is, therefore, important that our country retain its national independence and integrity. The debate offers the United Kingdom the opportunity to make its mark and to assert that, although it wants to be in Europe, it wants to be a nation in its own right and does not want its sovereignty to be undermined.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>