Ms Morrice:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy
Speaker. I have several remarks to make on the motions.
However, at this point I am able to speak only to the
first motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
You can speak to the first two
motions.
Ms Morrice:
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank
the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures for
outsmarting me by going out of his way to allay the
fears that he probably expected me to raise, especially
the potential to extend the hard-fought-for
family-friendly hours, of which the Assembly, as a
modern legislature, can rightly be proud. The Assembly
agreed that there should be family-friendly hours, at
least on a Monday.
I am pleased that the Chairperson has
assured us that an extension beyond 6.00 pm will be used
only occasionally, when there is a delay or some
unscheduled business. The Women's Coalition has always
accepted that, under exceptional circumstances, time
could, and should, be allowed after 6.00 pm. However,
the most important issue is the hard-fought-for
principle that the Assembly's family-friendly hours
should not be broken or disturbed in any way. Having
listened to the Chairperson's opening remarks, I
believe that that is still the case.
At present, we start at 12 noon on a
Monday, so rather than an extension beyond 6.00 pm, why
can we not start business earlier? When we first sat,
and when I was involved in the setting of the Standing
Orders in the original Committee, the agreement was a
10.30 am start on Mondays. Travelling distances, party
meetings, et cetera on a Monday morning suggested that
that time should slip. Again, we are prepared to accept
that. However, why slip to 12 noon? Why not have 11.00
am as the starting time, so that that extra hour between
6.00 pm and 7.00 pm could be made up in the morning? The
family-friendly hours of the Assembly would, therefore,
be preserved. The principle here is that Members have
families that they should, could and would like to -
whether they are men or women - go home to in the
evenings in order to see their children before they go
to bed. I am glad that the Chairperson of the Committee
on Procedures has said that there is the potential for
starting business earlier on a Monday morning and that
only on rare occasions will the principle of the 6.00 pm
finishing time be breached.
11.45 am
Mr C Murphy:
The Committee has made the position
clear, and I give the credit for outsmarting Ms Morrice
to the Committee Clerks rather than to me, as they
prepare the wording on these occasions.
Family-friendly hours are important.
They are not only an issue for the Women's Coalition.
They are an issue for all Members. I have a young
family. I am sure that many other Members in the Chamber
also have young families and are, therefore, keen to
continue with family-friendly hours. However, 6.00 pm
might mean family-friendly hours for someone living in
north Down or in south Belfast. For Mr Gerry McHugh, Mr
Tommy Gallagher, Mr Derek Hussey or Mr Pat Doherty, for
example, a 6.00 pm finish does not necessarily mean
particularly family-friendly hours. By the time those
people get home it is closer to 9.00 pm. Family-friendly
hours benefit those who live fairly near to the
Assembly, but they are not so much of a benefit to those
who live far away.
The Committee has always been
supportive of the principle of family-friendly hours. It
is clear in the proposal that the ability to extend the
time beyond 6.00 pm should be used in exceptional
circumstances only, when the scheduled business has been
delayed or interrupted and it is necessary to continue
until it is finished or until 7.00 pm, whichever is the
earlier. Certainly, that is the intention of the
proposal.
Previously, the plenary did start at
10.30 am on Monday mornings. However, parties were under
pressure because they had no time during the week to
carry out internal party business, given that Committee
meetings are held on Wednesdays and Thursdays and,
indeed, on Fridays, when the Committee for Agriculture
and Rural Development meets. It is difficult for larger
parties to meet at a time when there is no other
pressing Assembly business. A trial period was
introduced in which the plenary began on Mondays at 12
noon. At the end of the trial period, the Committee on
Procedures proposed to make the 12 noon start permanent,
with the exception that the Business Committee can
decide - as it did on only one occasion - that the
plenary should start earlier. At that time, no party
objected to business starting at 12 noon. It appears,
therefore, that those arrangements are satisfactory, and
the Committee on Procedures is still satisfied with
them.
Of course, Standing Orders are open
to change, and any Member can propose an amendment if he
wishes. Standing Orders are constantly under review.
Based on experience, the Committee is satisfied that the
changes that it has proposed today will allow for the
conduct of business on Mondays. The Committee is also
content that the changes will facilitate the extension
of business and that there is no need to start the
plenary before 12 noon, other than in exceptional
circumstances when the Business Committee so decides.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I remind the House that because the
motion relates to amendments to Standing Orders, the
vote requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community
support):
Delete Standing Order 10 and insert
new Standing Order:
"10. SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENTS
OF THE ASSEMBLY
(1) The categories of business to be
conducted in the Assembly shall consist of the
following:
(a) Assembly Business
(b) Executive Committee
Business
(c) Committee Business
(d) Questions
(e) Private Members' Business
(f) Private Business
(g) Adjournment Debates
(h) Party Business.
(2) Subject to the authority of the
Business Committee to determine the time for
commencement of business in plenary session the sittings
of the Assembly shall be arranged as follows:
Monday 12.00 midday - 6.00 pm
Tuesday 10.30 am - 6.00 pm
The allocation of time for
business within these sittings shall be determined
by the Business Committee, except that
(a) on each Monday on which
there is a sitting there shall be a period for
Questions commencing at 2.30 pm and finishing at
4.00 pm;
(b) at the end of each sitting
up to one hour may be set aside for an Adjournment
Debate;
(c) any private notice
questions shall normally be asked immediately
before the Adjournment Debate.
(3) Where business on the Order Paper
has not been disposed of by 6.00 pm on Monday, the
Speaker may allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or
until the outstanding business is completed, whichever
is earlier. Consideration of business on the Order Paper
not concluded by 7.00 pm shall be postponed until such a
time as the Business Committee determines.
(4) If at 7.00 pm a division is in
progress, or a question is being put and a division or a
vote in the chamber results, adjournment of the Assembly
shall be deferred until after the declaration of the
result of the division or vote in the chamber.
(5) If Tuesday's business cannot be
completed in the allocated time, the sitting may be
extended into the evening, into Wednesday, or both.
(6) Additional sittings may be
arranged by the Business Committee according to the
exigencies of the Assembly.
(7) Where statements made under
Standing Order 18 impinge upon the time bands specified
in this Standing Order the Speaker shall take action
under Standing Order 18(5).
(8) An adjournment of the Assembly
shall mean an adjournment until the next sitting
day unless the Assembly, on a motion made by a Member of
the Executive Committee after notice, has ordered an
adjournment to some other definite date.
(9) A Session of the Assembly shall
be that period from the commencement of business
following the Summer Recess until the end of the
subsequent Summer Recess. The Business Committee shall
determine the dates for recess."
Resolved (with cross-community
support):
In Standing Order 18(5) line 7 delete
"Standing Order 10(3)" and insert
"Standing Order 10(5)".
The Chairperson of the Committee on
Procedures (Mr C Murphy):
I beg to move:
In Standing Order 54(1) after
paragraph (l) insert:
"(m) Those functions relating to
the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals
Commission transferred to the Office of the First
Minister and Deputy First Minister by The Departments
(Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland)
2001."
I say at the outset that the motion
to amend Standing Orders has been moved at the request
of the Committee of the Centre, which has asked for an
extension to be made to its remit to allow it to examine
certain functions relating to the Planning Appeals
Commission and to the Water Appeals Commission.
That is because under the Departments
(Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001,
administrative responsibilities for the Planning Appeals
Commission and the Water Appeals Commission transferred
from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the
Department for Regional Development, the Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of
the Environment to the Office of the First Minister and
the Deputy First Minister.
The responsibilities transferred were
administrative in nature, centring on the appointment of
commissioners, the determination of their remuneration
and allowances, the appointment of persons to assist the
commissions in the performance of their functions and to
determine their remuneration and allowances and the
remuneration and allowances for any assessor appointed
by the chief commissioner to assist at hearings, the
making of rules for regulating proceedings before the
commission and the prescription of fees in respect of
appeal applications.
I shall not explain the rationale for
the transfer, as it is not within the remit of the
Committee on Procedures. It has already been the subject
of consideration by the relevant Statutory Committees.
However, the Committee understands that the thrust
behind the Order was to reinforce the independence of
the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals
Commission. The Office of the First Minister and the
Deputy First Minister has recently initiated a
quinquennial review of the Planning Appeals Commission
and the Water Appeals Commission.
The Committee of the Centre wishes to
be involved in that review. To do so, an amendment to
Standing Orders is required, because Standing Order 54,
which sets out the remit of the Committee of the Centre,
is very specific. Unlike Statutory Committees, whose
remit is to advise and assist their respective Ministers
in the formulation of policy, the remit of the Committee
of the Centre is limited, as it can scrutinise only
those functions specified in Standing Orders or any
other matter determined by the Assembly.
The net effect is that each time the
Committee of the Centre wishes to scrutinise a new role
of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First
Minister, an addition to the list of functions in
Standing Order 54 is required; hence this motion to
amend Standing Order 54. The proposed wording of the
amendment reflects the legal advice that the Committee
received to describe the transferred functions.
Ms Morrice:
The Chairperson has again responded
to my query to a certain extent. However, I would
appreciate further information, as the Planning Appeals
Commission and the Water Appeals Commission are to be
the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First
Minister's responsibility.
The Chairperson said that he should
not necessarily comment on that. He said that it was to
do with reinforcing the independence of those bodies,
which we certainly welcome. Will the Chairperson
elaborate on the exact reason for the transfer? If not,
will he tell us where we can find it?
Mr C Murphy:
The reason for the transfer was not a
matter that the Committee on Procedures considered; it
was a matter for the Statutory Committees that were
involved in the transfer and for the relevant Ministers
and Departments. The Departments (Transfer of Functions)
Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 came into force last year.
I am sure that the reasoning behind that legislation is
laid out in the explanatory notes. The Statutory
Committees and the Committee of the Centre have
considered the matter. The Committee on Procedures's
function was simply to table a motion to amend Standing
Orders to allow the Committee of the Centre, whose remit
is firmly fixed in Standing Orders, to consider matters
relating either to the Water Appeals Commission or to
the Planning Appeals Commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community
support):
In Standing Order 54(1) after
paragraph (l) insert:
"(m) Those functions relating to
the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals
Commission transferred to the Office of the First
Minister and Deputy First Minister by The Departments
(Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland)
2001."
The Chairperson of the Committee on
Procedures (Mr C Murphy):
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann
Comhairle.
I beg to move:
Insert new Standing Order:
"75. OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
(1) A substantially verbatim report
of the proceedings at all sittings of the Assembly and
Committee meetings that form part of the legislative
process or at which evidence that will contribute to a
report by a Committee is being taken shall be prepared
and published. The report shall be known as the Official
Report (Hansard) and shall be a record of the
proceedings in the language spoken.
(2) A revised edition of the Official
Report (Hansard) for all Assembly sittings and Committee
meetings which form part of the legislative process
shall be prepared in bound volume form at such times as
the Speaker shall determine. Such bound volumes shall
also contain written questions and answers for the
period covered.
(3) Editorial control of the Official
Report (Hansard) shall rest ultimately with the Speaker
but shall be exercised on his behalf by the Editor of
Debates."
The Official Report, or Hansard as it
is usually called, is the report of proceedings in
plenary. It is a substantially verbatim report, and it
performs a vital function in showing the Assembly's
commitment to openness, accountability and
accessibility. In addition, Hansard offers a unique
record for posterity that will help future generations
paint a picture of how we lived today and how and why we
made decisions.
Standing Orders do not contain
official provision for the production and publication of
the Official Report. That is at odds with the practice
in the Scottish Parliament, the Dáil and the Welsh
Assembly. It could leave the Assembly open to the
accusation that it is not being seen to give Hansard the
standing that it merits. More importantly, it could also
be argued that the omission is contrary to the intention
of schedule 6 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which
states that
"The standing orders shall
include provision for reporting the proceedings of the
Assembly and for publishing the reports."
Standing Order 70 makes provision for
the printing of the minutes of proceedings, which are
the official record of proceedings. Those form the
record of decisions made and should not be confused with
Hansard, which has a separate, independent role.
Moreover, Standing Order 70 is concerned with the Office
of the Clerk and with the records of the Assembly.
Hansard is a separate entity, with editorial control
resting with the Editor, who exercises that
responsibility on behalf of the Speaker. It is important
that that independence is reflected in a separate
Standing Order, rather than by being incorporated it
into an existing Standing Order, such as Standing Order
70.
Although the issue has caused no
problems to date, the new Standing Order makes formal
provision for Hansard and removes any uncertainty as to
its role. It gives Hansard the important place that it
merits in the operation of the Assembly. I commend the
motion to the Assembly.
Mr Fee:
I want to talk specifically about the
role of the Editor of Debates and the role of the
Speaker and about paragraph (3) of the proposed new
Standing Order 75, which states that
"Editorial control of the
Official Report (Hansard) shall rest ultimately with the
Speaker but shall be exercised on his behalf by the
Editor of Debates."
I understand from what the
Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures has said that
we are following the precedent set by Westminster, the
Scottish Parliament, the Dáil and the like. On enquiry
this morning, however, I have not been able to find any
Standing Order of this nature that pertains or applies
in Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Dáil or in
any other Western democracy. There are certainly
conventions, custom and practice, and proper procedures
that have been built up over centuries, but they do not
vest editorial control of the Official Report in the
Speaker of any of those Parliaments.
To be fair to the Editor of Debates
in this House and to the Speaker, both of whom have
provided exemplary performances in recent times, we
should not confuse the authority vested in those two
positions. From the outset, all of us agree that Hansard
has to be a true and accurate account of what happens
here. It is a crucially important historical record.
Following recent judgements in the High Court in
England, it is also a very important legal record from
which courts may draw inference. However, to rest the
editorial control with the Speaker, who may have to
adjudicate on a challenge to the official record, is to
confuse his role with that of the Editor of Debates.
It is the role of the Editor of
Debates to try to ensure that a true and accurate
account of the sittings of this Assembly is recorded and
published at an appropriate time. All of us in this
place know that the Hansard staff have been wonderful in
meeting the deadlines that we have set for them, both
before and after devolution. The former Editor of
Debates did a wonderful job when he was here, and his
successor has followed in his footsteps.
However, to divest the Editor of
Debates of the responsibility for editorial control will
cause the House substantial problems.
12.00
An old journalistic maxim is that the
editor of a newspaper will publish such prejudices of
the owner as the prejudices of the advertisers will
allow. If we allow this new Standing Order, it will open
the House to that accusation. If we consider again the
procedures and precedences in other places, we will find
that the independence of the Speaker guarantees a full
and accurate Official Report and that the independence
of the Editor maintains the Speaker's role and the
accuracy and veracity of the Official Report.
I ask the Committee on Procedures to
reconsider the new Standing Order and to implement
procedures whereby the Assembly Commission, the Clerk
and the Speaker's Office are compelled to ensure that
the Official Report (Hansard) is properly published. I
beg the Committee not to remove the editorial
independence of the Editor of Debates.
Mr B Hutchinson:
The Member for Newry and Armagh, Mr
Fee, voiced my concerns eloquently.
Mr C Murphy:
This Member for Newry and Armagh will
try to answer Mr Hutchinson's concerns eloquently
also.
All new Standing Orders or changes to
Standing Orders brought to the Assembly by the Committee
on Procedures are checked by the Assembly's legal
adviser, and the Speaker is consulted. The Speaker's
view has been sought on this Standing Order. I assure Mr
Fee and Mr Hutchinson that the Committee would be happy
to consider all queries about Standing Orders. If a
Member is not content with the Committee's view, he or
she is free to table an amendment.
This Standing Order confirms current
practice. In Westminster, editorial control rests with
the Speaker, and that arrangement has not caused the
problems that John Fee anticipates occurring here. In
Westminster, the Speaker is responsible for the Official
Report (Hansard) and delegates editorial responsibility
to the Editor of Debates. The Speaker, as required by
Erskine May and, perhaps, Westminster Standing Orders,
appoints the Westminster Editor of Debates.
The Committee on Procedures checks
amendments to Standing Orders and proposed Standing
Orders with the Assembly's legal adviser. If Members
think that that arrangement raises a problem, the
Committee would be happy to re-examine it. The proposed
Standing Order is, however, legally competent and
reflects current practice here and in other
legislatures.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes
14.
Ayes
Nationalist
Bairbre de Brún, Pat Doherty, John
Kelly, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin,
Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy,
Mary Nelis, Dara O'Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry,
Esmond Birnie, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred
Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan
Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sam Foster, Oliver
Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Danny Kennedy,
Robert McCartney, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian
Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson,
Peter Robinson, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim
Wilson.
Other
David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean
Neeson.
Noes
Nationalist
P J Bradley, Annie Courtney, John
Dallat, Arthur Doherty, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Joe
Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alasdair McDonnell, Monica
McWilliams, Eamonn ONeill, John Tierney.
Unionist
Billy Hutchinson, Jane Morrice.
Total Votes 59 Total Ayes 45 ( 76·3%)
Nationalist Votes 25 Nationalist Ayes 13 ( 52·0%)
Unionist Votes 31 Unionist Ayes 29 ( 93·5%)
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community
support):
Insert new Standing Order:
"75. OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
(1) A substantially verbatim report
of the proceedings at all sittings of the Assembly and
Committee meetings that form part of the legislative
process or at which evidence that will contribute to a
report by a Committee is being taken shall be prepared
and published. The report shall be known as the Official
Report (Hansard) and shall be a record of the
proceedings in the language spoken.
(2) A revised edition of the Official
Report (Hansard) for all Assembly sittings and Committee
meetings which form part of the legislative process
shall be prepared in bound volume form at such times as
the Speaker shall determine. Such bound volumes shall
also contain written questions and answers for the
period covered.
(3) Editorial control of the Official
Report (Hansard) shall rest ultimately with the Speaker
but shall be exercised on his behalf by the Editor of
Debates."
12.15 pm
Report of
the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure:
Cultural Tourism and the Arts
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order. Members will leave the Chamber
quietly.
The Chairperson of the Committee for
Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr ONeill):
I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the
Report of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure on
its Inquiry into Cultural Tourism and the Arts and calls
on the Executive to ensure that the Committee's
recommendations are evaluated and implemented at the
earliest opportunity.
The Committee for Culture, Arts and
Leisure launched this important and substantive inquiry
on 25 January 2001. Its terms of reference were: to
determine the status of the existing relationship
between the cultural and tourist sectors; to identify
areas of the arts with the potential to be incorporated
into a cultural tourist product that could be actively
promoted by the tourist industry; to identify the
support required by cultural activities, including
languages, to enable that heritage to be maintained and
enhanced; and to report to the Assembly, making
recommendations to the Department and/or others on
action to strengthen the link between culture and
tourism. The Committee also agreed that the inquiry
should take particular account of the diversity and
unique nature of the cultural tourism product that
Northern Ireland can offer its visitors.
I am not exaggerating when I say that
the Committee was astounded to receive 82 written
submissions from a wide variety of groups and
individuals with an interest in every conceivable aspect
of culture, heritage and the arts.
These ranged from the North of
Ireland Bands' Association to the Ulster Historical
Foundation; from the Hilden Brewery Company to the Lyric
Theatre; from the University of Ulster to the Somme
Association; and from the National Trust to Gael-Linn.
We held 39 oral evidence sessions with key organisations
representing the main sectoral interests. In addition,
the Committee had the opportunity to draw on the
experience gained during fact-finding visits to Boston,
Paris and Barcelona, which were taken in association
with the inquiry. We were fortunate to be able to engage
with key public and private sector organisations in
those cities.
At the outset, the Committee accepted
that Northern Ireland's negative image, combined with
the failure to promote and market the region
enthusiastically, resulted in lost years of tourist
growth compared to other parts of the United Kingdom and
Ireland. We certainly cannot promise good weather and
warm seas in Northern Ireland, but today's traveller
is increasingly seeking more than sun-and-sand
destinations. People are living longer, remain more
affluent in their retirement, and have a growing
interest in visiting places where they can learn about
different cultures.
Most people come to Northern Ireland
to visit friends and relatives, and although this
important market has sustained the industry in hard
times, we now have a tremendous opportunity to develop
new markets. The growth of a top-quality cultural
tourism sector, which will have the potential to attract
the general tourist and the high added-value niche
market, forms the core of that opportunity. Noting that
tourism's contribution to Northern Ireland's gross
domestic product (GDP) is less than a third of that in
the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a stark
illustration of how far we have to go to catch up. In
fact, it is 1·8 % compared to 6% in the other regions.
Also, we cannot rely, at least in the short term, on the
North American market as a visitor source. If Northern
Ireland's culture and heritage are to remain key
attractions, it is essential that targeting customers
outside the long-haul market is given priority. The
Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and continental
Europe must be regarded as critically important.
Nevertheless, the Committee believes
the scope for cultural tourism to be immense. Key niche
products such as roots tourism and local studies,
education and linguistics, literary and other arts-based
summer schools, festivals, theatre, music and dance, as
well as the many facets of our built and natural
heritage, all hold considerable potential for growing a
vibrant cultural tourism product. Northern Ireland has a
wealth of cultural and heritage attractions that are key
elements of the experience that we can offer to the
visitor. Over 440 official heritage sites have been
identified in recent research by the Academy for Irish
Cultural Heritage at the University of Ulster. There are
also many unofficial sites.
Culture and arts enrich our lives,
build confidence and inspire hope in communities. They
must not be seen as elitist pastimes. The Committee also
believes that Northern Ireland's approach to the arts
and culture as products must embrace the principles of
sustainability; long-term viability; limited negative
impact; local involvement; and positive social and
economic benefits for all communities, groups and
individuals involved.
Our inquiry also brought home to us
the importance of industrial heritage tourism and its
potential, largely untapped in Northern Ireland. That
can help to create employment and investment in
industrial areas where manufacturing industry has
declined. It can also restore pride in communities and
improve people's perceptions of their localities. Many
local authorities, particularly in industrial towns in
the English Midlands, are incorporating industrial
heritage tourism into their tourist development
programmes.
By comparison, in Northern Ireland,
we have largely neglected our industrial heritage and
allowed many of its best examples to be destroyed. We
now need to commit ourselves to recognising the
importance of preserving and reusing it for sound
economic reasons, as well as for the education and
appreciation of our community and visitors.
Linked to industrial tourism is the
story of the Titanic. Several written submissions
expressed interest in the development of a maritime
museum in the Belfast shipyard. The story of the Titanic
has been told across the world, but Northern Ireland has
failed to capitalise on the fact that the ship was
designed, built and launched in Belfast.
The plans for the Titanic are
currently held in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum
at Cultra. The original drafting rooms, Thompson Dock
and the keel blocks on which the Titanic rested during
its fitting-out still exist. Furthermore, the SS
Nomadic, the last remaining White Star Line tender,
which was used to ferry passengers to and from the
Titanic, is currently located on the River Seine in
Paris. The acquisition of that vessel could be a focal
point for a Titanic attraction.
It is also evident that we have not
developed the arts festival and summer school sector to
the same extent as the Republic. While we have a few
major festivals that have proven sustainable over the
years, there is enormous scope for further developments.
We must also consider how to fill the gaps that exist
during the summer months with arts- and culture-based
activities and attractions for the community and
tourists.
We must do more to persuade the
promoters of world- class and major international events
that Northern Ireland is a good location. However, we
must be in a position to back that up with hard cash.
Northern Ireland lags significantly
behind England and Scotland as a location for
world-class and major international events. It is even
further behind the Republic of Ireland. The region's
negative image is clearly a major factor for performers,
promoters and sponsors.
The Northern Ireland Events
Company's budget for this year is just over £1
million. Two years ago, the Government of the Republic
allocated an extra £2·5 million a year for three years
to bring in extra events. That was in addition to the
financial support already provided for four major golf
tournaments and a range of other cultural, arts and
sports events. For example, approximately £7 million
has been allocated to the 2005 Ryder Cup from the public
purse, and the return to the Irish Exchequer on this
investment alone is expected to be between £50 million
and £100 million.
That illustrates clearly the need for
that kind of investment. We must persuade promoters that
Northern Ireland has good facilities and is a safe,
sensible location. We also need to persuade ourselves
that we can host major events.
12.30 pm
The devolved Administrations in
Scotland and Wales have allocated significant budgets to
attract big events. With competition becoming more
intense, the key to success is to enable the Northern
Ireland Events Company to give a financial commitment
sufficiently far ahead in the bidding process.
In the year that we have submitted
our bid for European Capital of Culture 2008, it is
astonishing that Belfast is the only major city in the
United Kingdom without a dedicated public art gallery.
The Ulster Museum has a unique collection of Irish art
and a collection of British contemporary art that was
described by 'The Times' as the finest outside
London. Irish art is hugely popular, particularly in
America, but the museum cannot display its full
collection because it does not have enough space. The
development of a museum of creative arts could be, and
should be, the key priority for the Department, and the
Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI). That
would provide a showcase for the prestigious collection
held by the Ulster Museum and enable exhibitions of
world-class collections to be staged.
It is worth noting that the Monet,
Renoir and the Impressionist Landscape exhibit, which
was on show in the new Millennium Wing of the National
Gallery of Ireland between January and April this year,
attracted an average of 2,000 paying visitors each day,
a large proportion of whom would have had a considerable
economic impact on the city with overnight or weekend
stays.
With 60 million people claiming to
have Irish ancestry, there is a worldwide market for
roots tourism. However, investment in, and the marketing
of, genealogy have been largely neglected. We heard
compelling evidence about the impact that a move away
from the use of townland names would have on communities
and potential roots tourism.
Other issues considered included: the
promotion of our linguistic diversity as a unique asset
to the tourism industry; promoting and showcasing our
tradition of quality band music through hosting
international competitions; the cultivation of
traditional song and music; providing support for local
professional opera; developing dance; reviewing the
opportunities which exist to support the independent
professional theatre sector; the potential to develop
and co-ordinate cultural trails and tours; and the
importance of film and television in forging positive
images.
The Committee's report sets out 56
recommendations, and their implementation will be
essential to improving the quality, cohesiveness and
competitiveness of our cultural tourism.
Only two weeks ago Committee
Colleagues and I attended a conference on cultural
tourism in County Cork. The theme of the conference was
'A National Asset Awaiting Sensitive Development'.
Delegates heard that tourism is undoubtedly Ireland's
greatest area of growth, with ever-increasing numbers of
tourists interested in culture and tradition. Those
tourists are prepared to go out of their way to remote
places to find authentic, living culture, much of which
is hidden among the hills and valleys and has lived on
for generations without disturbance. That is every bit
as true in areas such as the Glens of Antrim, the
Sperrins or Rathlin Island as it is in Cork, Kerry or
Clare.
Our hidden locations need to be
developed alongside the better known cultural centres to
ensure a wider spread of attractions and, consequently,
more tourist spending throughout rural and urban areas.
The challenge will be to ensure that authentic culture
survives commercialism.
One of the speakers at the conference
expressed the view that the extent to which a
country's culture is known elsewhere is a defining
characteristic of any people. That is a
thought-providing statement. He encapsulated the
importance of culture for us all by saying that
"If you were to meet a man
coming along the road who couldn't tell you where he
was coming from, it would be a fair bet that he
wouldn't be able to say where he was going
either".
We all have a stake in the
enhancement and development of Northern Ireland's
cultural tourism product, and we must take an interest
in it.
I wish to express a number of
acknowledgements on behalf of the Committee. We were
encouraged by the level of involvement in the inquiry.
We thank all those who sent in written submissions and
those whose appearance before the Committee to give oral
evidence provided us with much vital food for thought.
I wish to record the Committee's
appreciation of the assistance given by Boston College
and the British Council in facilitating our invaluable
study visits to Boston, Paris and Barcelona. As
Chairperson of the Committee, I pay tribute to my
Committee Colleagues, who overcame many traumas to get
to where we are and worked exceedingly hard to bring the
report to publication. I pay an equally glowing tribute
to the Committee staff, the Committee Clerk and its
specialist adviser.
Cultural tourism is a broad area, and
like the Committee's report on inland fisheries, our
recommendations involve several Ministers and their
Departments. It is a prime example of an area in which
joined-up government is essential and can deliver real
benefits for the entire community. My Committee
Colleagues will further develop the issues emerging from
the report, and I look forward to an interesting debate.
I commend the report to the Assembly.
TOP
<< Prev
/ Next >>