This Bill has come in advance of the Assembly's and my Committee's being in a position to comment on the outcome of the interdepartmental working group on personal care - Mr McCarthy referred to it - that is to report at the end of the month. If resources were available now, the Committee would want to see free care covering the nursing and personal care needs of residents. Every Member of the Assembly - including those who are not here today - and every member of the Committee would like to see free personal care as well as free nursing care.

The interdepartmental working group has not yet reported to the Executive, and I have not been talking to the group, so I cannot speak with any authority. However, I look forward to its findings. A decision is not due until later this month, and we do not know what position the Executive will take. However, it is estimated that the cost of free personal care will be in excess of £25 million a year. That is in addition to the £9 million annual help with nursing care costs.

I have looked at the amendments proposed by Mr McCarthy. The introduction of free personal care is a commendable aspiration. The Committee and I feel as strongly about it as he does. However, Committee members wrestled long and hard with the problem of separating nursing care from personal care, and how the introduction of personal care could be taken forward. We concluded that this is not the right time to introduce free personal care. In doing so, we obtained commitments from the Department on how financial assistance for nursing care would be implemented to help avoid the potential problems identified.

If the Committee had recommended free personal care now, the money would have had to be found from the block grant allocation: the Treasury would not have given us extra money. The Department would have had to find a time when the pressure on funding for key health priorities was not preventing many desperately needed projects from being properly funded.

My experience of primary care extends to only about half the period of Dr Hendron's, and is in social services rather than in general practice. Can he give us any information that the Committee has on the cost of administering the difference between nursing care and personal care? From my limited experience of primary care, the time spent on assessments, and on these nugatory points, is likely to be potentially the same as that spent administering the service if it were provided in full.

I accept what Mr Ford says, up to a point. The difference between personal care and nursing care is a major debate in itself, and much has been written about it. I assure Mr Ford that the Committee gave detailed consideration to the matter.

Only last week, the Committee heard about the difficult position faced by social workers coping with severe inadequacies in childcare services: Mr Close will appreciate that point. It is due in no small part to the lack of funding available. The absence of money to provide adequate services is causing untold damage to the children and families affected, as well as imposing immense stress on the social workers responsible for their care and protection.

Clause 1 is essentially about equity, and correcting an anomaly faced by some 2,000 self-funding residents of nursing homes. The Minister will, no doubt, refer to that problem. Those people have been put at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with the nursing care that is supplied free as a health service to people in their own homes. Mr McCarthy referred to the fact that people in residential care homes also get free care if it is supplied externally by a trust via the community nursing service.

The Committee decided that the adoption of clause 1 should be seen as a first, necessary step towards meeting basic equity of provision. That will ensure that we will be able to provide benefits similar to those already provided in England and Wales. Although it is limited in its intent, the Committee welcomed the aim of the clause.

At this point I urge a word of caution. The claims of free nursing care being held out in the Bill and the explanatory material provided by the Department must be taken with a pinch of salt. We have been told that £85 a week might be available. If that is the correct amount, it is unlikely to provide for free nursing care, and the public is in danger of being misled. That amount will only help to cover the cost of nursing care. Unless the Minister is able to provide money, the public should be told clearly in the publicity material that the money will help pay for nursing costs but will not meet all of the costs.

It is important to note that the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will reconsider free personal care and the conclusions of the Royal Commission, a subject that we have considered many times. We will be able to learn from the Executive's examination of personal care, and the experiences in Scotland, and we will be better able to gauge the benefits and costs of introducing free personal care.

Two thousand people are facing inequity in nursing care. Mr McCarthy's integrity and the aspirations of his amendments are beyond question. However, the Minister will explain that if the amendments are passed, they will pose great difficulty for the 2,000 people in nursing homes who are not getting free nursing care. That is a subject that the Committee will return to in detail in the autumn.

I support clause 1. However, I fully appreciate the position that Mr McCarthy has adopted. I support the aims of the Bill, because we all recognise that the 2,000 residents of nursing homes that the Chairperson mentioned are currently paying the full cost, or part of the cost, of nursing home care. They should not be disadvantaged any longer: they should be treated in the same way as others who are being cared for. If that argument is looked at, then we will be able to fully support the sentiments of the clause.

All Members will want people who have served the community all their lives and who have paid National Insurance, et cetera, to be looked after fully when they need care. As Mr McCarthy said, the Royal Commission on Long Term Care recommended that personal care be provided free of charge on the basis of assessment of need. I have a difficulty with that. It is demeaning for an old person who has given his life in the service of the community to be assessed. They should be taken care of, if for no other reason than to relieve their anxiety and that of their families.

However, now is not the time to be looking for free personal care, especially since the Executive have established an interdepartmental group to examine the costs and implications of introducing free personal care here. The needs of the Health Service also suggest that now is not the proper time to look for free personal care. It would be wrong to siphon funds from services such as cancer treatment, cardiac operations and those that are aimed at reducing the waiting lists. The Assembly must await the report from the interdepartmental group on the funding of the scheme. Members will then find out where the funds will come from, if there will be extra funding, or if the funding will be taken out of the health budget.

I have a query about free nursing care, as the Chairperson of the Health Committee did. The term "free nursing care" is misleading. Is £85 a week sufficient to meet personal care needs when in other places they are talking about amounts of £100 a week for the same purpose? Anyone who has spoken to the Health Committee or to its members individually thinks that £85 a week will not be sufficient, so it will not be free nursing care.

I appreciate the sentiment of Mr McCarthy's amendments, but this is not the time to be asking for the full costs of personal care to be met. Let us take the first step and begin the process. Let us support the Minister and the Bill, and, when we get the report from the interdepartmental group, take another step on the basis of what it says towards what we all want.

Before I call Mrs Courtney, I remind the House that we will break at 2.30 pm for Question Time.

I commend the Bill to the Assembly. The Health Committee considered the wishes of those representing approximately 2,000 nursing home residents who pay for most of the cost of their care, and those who need care in their own homes, which involves only a small fee. This Bill will remove the anomaly whereby care is provided in nursing homes at a charge but is almost free in all other settings. It addresses financial assistance towards nursing care, but the Health Committee accepts the Bill as only a partial response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care report.

The Royal Commission thought that personal care should be provided free from central taxation on the basis of assessment of need. The Scottish model was recommended, but the Committee took the view that that would lead to a reallocation of the block grant that would, as Mr Coulter said, have a detrimental effect on other areas such as transport, education, regional infrastructure and the health budget. The fact that the Executive have established an interdepartmental group to examine the costs and implications of introducing free personal care here, and that the group is to report its findings later this month, is very important to the Committee. In addition to that, the understanding that free personal care could cost in excess of £25 million a year meant that its introduction would be detrimental to current overall care.

The Committee was also advised that there had been widespread consultation on the nursing care assessment tool that had been piloted in seven areas across Northern Ireland and across the four health and social services boards. The pilot scheme also involved the independent sector, and the Committee agreed with the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust that the nursing care assessment tool should be open, transparent and set against clear criteria.

The Committee also sought assurances that the assessment tool would cover those with Alzheimer's disease or dementia. That was an important consideration because evidence from Arthritis Care and the Alzheimer's Society suggested - and I agree - that it is often difficult, with people who require long-term care, to distinguish between personal care and nursing care, that is, care that has to be given by a registered nurse or carer. The Committee thought it positive that the chief nursing officer was awaiting the consultation and outcome of the assessment of free nursing care before passing final comment.

The appeal process was examined in great detail, and the Committee approved the fact that three weeks was the maximum time for an appeal to be determined. It was also assured that sufficient resources would be available for a smooth transition to the new nursing care arrangements and appeal review system. The Department must also monitor the entire system carefully. The Committee welcomed the establishment of the Northern Ireland Practice and Education Council for Nursing and Midwifery, which will be funded by a transfer in the Budget from the local national board to the new body.

The Bill should have been effective from April 2002, and when it did not come into effect there was grave disquiet in the entire community, including the elderly and those in need of care. The fact that up to £85 will be provided for each individual from October 2002 should go some way to alleviating anguish, but I agree with the Committee Chairperson that if the finance had been forthcoming, the Committee would have given unanimous support to nursing and personal care being provided free. However, in the event that the assurance could not be given, I support the introduction of clause 1 of the Bill, but, like others, I support Mr McCarthy's sentiments.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too support clause 1. I agree with the Chairperson and with Rev Robert Coulter. I would like to thank the Committee staff and the groups that submitted written and oral evidence. Mr McCarthy's amendment is visionary, and the Committee supports it. All parties support the need for free nursing care and personal care, but the finance is not available from the Executive for the Minister to introduce it. The Committee is trying to be realistic, as well as sympathetic to Mr McCarthy's amendment.

The working group on personal care has not yet reported to the Executive, and the Committee is waiting for it to come forward with its recommendations. The report of today's debate should be forwarded to that group so that it is aware of the Assembly's feelings. The Committee is aware of concerns, and it is asking for an extension to the Committee Stage of the Bill to listen, to debate and to take on board people's concerns. Although there was genuine concern that voting against the clause or supporting the amendment would affect over 2,500 people, the Committee thinks that the Bill should proceed. The Committee will continue to lobby the Executive for the money required to introduce personal care.

We are coming up to Question Time. I propose, therefore, that we suspend the debate on the amendments and resume at 4.00 pm - or earlier, should Question Time finish before 4.00 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

TOP

I wish to inform Members that question 3, in the name of Mr Alban Maginness, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer. Mr Dalton is not in his place, so I call Dr Adamson.

TOP

2.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the number of Executive meetings planned for the months of July and August 2002.

(AQO 1632/01)

The next meeting of the Executive is scheduled to take place on 27 June. [Interruption].

It is likely that one meeting will be held in July, and there are no plans to hold Executive meetings during August.

There was a jolly intervention there, but I call on Dr Adamson to make a more considered contribution than his Colleague did.

Will the First Minister tell us whether the Executive have discussed the recent disgraceful attack on a Roman Catholic recruit to the PSNI?

There was no discussion in the Executive on that. However, I am sure that I speak for most, if not all, Members when I say that we completely abhor that attack and condemn those responsible.

I note that the police believe dissident Republicans to be responsible. It is unfortunate that there are so few representatives of Sinn Féin here at the moment. However, Mr Adams said some time ago that he thought that the Republican movement would treat Roman Catholic recruits to the new Police Service in the same way that it treated the RUC, and that in itself can be regarded as an incitement to attack. With regard to whoever was responsible for the assault which the Member refers to, until that statement is withdrawn or qualified by Mr Adams, he has some moral responsibility for any attack on any Catholic recruit to the Police Service.

In view of the Prime Minister's recent efforts to make the business of his Executive meetings public, will the First and Deputy First Ministers follow his lead and organise a press conference after Executive meetings to let people know what they are up to?

The First Minister: The Prime Minister held a 75-minute press conference in Downing Street last week. However, he does not do that every week, and it does not happen after Cabinet meetings. In fact, it followed a recent controversy and the Government's realising that it faced a little credibility problem. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will agree that we are happy, at appropriate occasions and intervals, to have such press conferences. However, the occasional press conferences that we have had after Executive meetings have not excited much attention.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Further to the First Minister's previous answer, I was standing beside Gerry Adams when he made those remarks, and he said "in the current context", which is one of peaceful opposition to the RUC.

Given Mr Trimble's seizing on remarks and how they can lead to a deterioration in the situation, has he considered the effect of his description of the Southern state, his remarks about the performance of his Executive Colleagues to his party conference and his one-sided intervention in the sectarian strife in east Belfast and other parts of Belfast? Does he consider any of those remarks helpful to the peace process and to our current difficulties with it?

I find the Member's initial comments disingenuous in the extreme. It is clear what Mr Adams said on that occasion. If Mr Adams does not support, and does not wish to be seen supporting, the violent attacks such as that which occurred in Ballymena, he should say so clearly, and the Member could do likewise. It would have been welcome if we had heard him say that he condemned the bomb attack on a Catholic recruit to the Police Service.

Why could he not say that when he was on his feet?

TOP

4.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail any discussions held with the Prime Minister at the recent British-Irish Council meeting; and to make a statement.

(AQO 1635/01)

The Prime Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I participated in various discussions during the British-Irish Council summit meeting, which was held in Jersey on 14 June 2002. The main discussion in the meeting - as distinct from any in the margins - focused on the issue of the knowledge economy. Discussions were also held on the British-Irish Council programme of work and a memorandum on institutional matters that was previously submitted by the Northern Ireland Executive. The communiqué that was issued after the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library. The Deputy First Minister and I will make a detailed statement on the meeting to the Assembly next week.

Is it not the case that, under British-Irish Council ground rules, a meeting can take place with any number of British-Irish Council members outside formal British-Irish Council sessions? If so, why has more not been done to develop a relationship with the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales?

I thank the Member for that question, because the first matter that he mentioned - having, or making more use of, the opportunity for bilateral and other multilateral meetings - was discussed at the plenary session in Jersey. There is a limit to the matters that all eight participating Administrations would be interested in. Indeed, during the visit that the Deputy First Minister and I made to Scotland last week to meet Jack McConnell, Jim Wallace and other members of the Scottish Executive that matter came up. We intend to follow it up in a meeting that we hope to have later this year with Rhodri Morgan and his Colleagues in Cardiff.

It has tentatively been agreed with Jack McConnell - and it will, we hope, be confirmed with the Welsh Assembly - that the three devolved Administrations should meet together perhaps twice each year to consider matters of mutual interest, and that that should be done in the British-Irish Council. One issue that we are considering, with a view to progressing it fairly quickly, is whether the three devolved Administrations want to make joint representations to the Convention on the Future of Europe, with regard to the position of regional Administrations. I believe that that could be worthwhile. We found the discussions in Edinburgh last week extremely interesting. I am sure that similar discussions that we may have in Cardiff in the autumn will be likewise.

TOP

5.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the launch date and timescale for the review of public administration.

(AQO 1650/01)

The Deputy First Minister (Mr Durkan): The Assembly is to debate the terms of reference for the review today. If they are agreed, the review will commence immediately. The names of the panel of independent experts were announced today, and we held an initial meeting with the panel this morning. The Executive have asked for final timetable recommendations by the end of 2003, with an interim report next spring.

Ms Lewsley:

I welcome the panel of independent experts, which includes Tom Frawley; Anne O'Keefe, who has worked with local government in the South of Ireland; James B King, who was a civil servant in the Clinton Administration; and others. However, will the Deputy First Minister say what guidance the terms of reference will offer the review for its interim report?

The interim report will detail progress made on the review by March 2003. It will reflect the research and public consultation carried out under the review, as well as the considerations offered by the independent experts. The terms of reference are not narrowly prescriptive. They set out various characteristics that should underpin the ideal system of public administration. It will be for the review to examine those in detail and to consider which should carry more weight and how the system of public administration should be organised to best reflect those characteristics.

In a recent comment by the Secretary of State for Wales, he acknowledged that there had only been a reduction from 38 to 36 non-departmental public bodies in Wales since devolution.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that a much greater potential to reduce the number of administrative bodies exists in Northern Ireland?

In the debate on 25 February, Members identified considerable potential to reduce the number of bodies and to make more sense of our structures. We must be careful about taking an "everything must go" stance. We must be discerning and discriminating on what bodies perform what role, especially on how other bodies can best supplement the work of Departments and, indeed, the Assembly.

The range of interests to be consulted in the review will take all those considerations on board. The independent panel of experts, and other independent people, will be brought on board for specific areas of work. We shall see significant changes and improvements, but I shall not set any target figure at this stage.

TOP

6.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what co-ordination is likely to take place between the Executive and the national development finance agency in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the reinvestment and reform initiative.

(AQO 1654/01)

Clear similarities exist between the approach being adopted in the Republic to drive a significant infrastructure investment programme and the initiative that we have introduced to help to address the infrastructure deficit in Northern Ireland. Both initiatives are at an early stage of development. We expect both bodies to be in contact with each other. It is right to compare notes and to co-operate where appropriate. I am sure that we shall take advantage of the appropriate channels to do that to ensure the best possible outcome.

Does the First Minister accept that there has been a traditional lack of investment in border areas in important services such as roads, schools and hospitals? Does he recognise that, if the two Governments work together, this package has the potential to make up for some of that lack of investment in the counties of Fermanagh, Tyrone, Monaghan and Cavan? Will he assure the House that that will be given immediate attention?

The entire purpose of the initiative is to address the infrastructure deficit, although one can argue about particular services and particular matters. However, I stress that the question of what projects should be undertaken, whether in Fermanagh or elsewhere, is a ministerial matter. They are policy issues. The strategic investment body will be more concerned with the finance to deliver those projects. It will be for Ministers to consider the priorities and particular projects. Of course, matters that involve cross-border links, such as those that the Member mentioned, will be discussed and pursued at North/South Ministerial Council meetings.

I am grateful to the First Minister for giving details of the reinvestment and reform initiative. What progress is the project board making in mapping out the way ahead?

I am happy to tell the Member that significant progress has been made. The project board's first meeting, at which members agreed the terms of reference, was held on 11 June 2002. Further meetings will take place tomorrow and on Friday of this week in order to gather information and agree a work programme for the coming months.

The board's primary function will be to advise on the role, remit and status of the strategic investment body in order to prepare the way for legislation, which we hope to introduce later this year. That body will be crucial to carrying out the Executive's plans, so we are glad that all four parties in the Administration are represented in the strategic investment body. In that respect, the DUP has taken a small step towards full involvement in every aspect of the institution.

TOP

7.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the Executive's proposed calendar for September 2002 to March 2003.

(AQO 1627/01)

The Executive's primary focus for the period in question will be to develop and agree the Programme for Government and Budget for 2003-04 in the context of the spending review. The position report on developing the Programme for Government and Budget, which we presented on 5 June 2002, sets out a detailed timescale for that work. Until the end of August, we shall be consulting Assembly Committees, the Civic Forum and others on the proposals contained in that report.

The contributions that we receive will help to shape the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, which will be brought to the Assembly in September 2002.

After consultation, we hope to present the final Programme for Government and Budget to the Assembly for endorsement in mid-December.

Furthermore, during the period in question we shall maintain focus on the delivery of actions and targets contained in the Programme for Government for the current financial year. Where legislation is necessary for the actions set out in the Programme, or in departmental public service agreements, it will be taken through the Assembly in the normal way. We shall continue to progress the legislative programme that is building up in the Assembly as well as taking forward the reinvestment and reform initiative and keeping in touch with the review of public administration.

I thank the Minister for his very long and detailed reply. In view of last week's presentation to the House of Lords, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister expect another Blair prop for the Belfast Agreement or have they booked the Long Gallery for a departure meeting? Will they advise us how they intend to proceed with further props to the agreement or are they prepared to join the DUP, the party that has been right all along?

I am not at all sure that the matter is not in any case sub judice, but it certainly seems to me that it is not really a supplementary question.

I acknowledge the Minister's earlier answer. Will he outline how much progress will be made in the time mentioned on the needs and effectiveness review?

Comprehensive needs and effectiveness evaluations are being carried out in six key spending areas - health and social care, education, training and vocational education, financial assistance to industry, housing, and culture, arts and leisure. Work on each study will be discussed by the Executive in the weeks to come. The studies are expected to give a better understanding of the needs facing each programme and the effectiveness of the use of resources in each area. The studies will help to inform the work that will take place over the coming months to review and roll forward our Programme for Government and to develop our future Budget proposals.

TOP

8.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the management of tensions at community interfaces.

(AQO 1652/01)

We condemn the recent violence at several interface areas in Belfast. Everyone must support the police in their efforts to maintain law and order, as well as stepping up our own efforts to deal with the underlying causes of sectarianism.

The Community Relations Council is working in partnership with local people and community workers at several interface areas. The council supports local mobile phone networks, mediation, and community dialogue initiatives. It also works directly with district councils and local political representatives to establish local community forums and networks that identify and address the concerns and needs of both communities. Many of the organisations that are core-funded by the council, for example the Mediation Network and Counteract, the trades union anti-intimidation unit, play a key role in defusing sectarian tension and in opening lines of communication between the communities.

The key to managing tensions at interface areas is dialogue, and we stand ready to support any local initiative aimed at developing and maintaining dialogue.

I thank the First Minister for his answer, and I concur that it is important to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland where it is pursuing a protection and prosecution policy - the protection of vulnerable communities and the prosecution of those who direct, or are involved in, threatened terror.

I ask the First Minister whether there are any proposals from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that might ease community and interface tensions? In particular, are there any proposals to divert young people away from points of conflict and towards more creative activities during the summer months?

I very much appreciate the Member's point, particularly with regard to providing activities for young people during the summer months. The current tensions are not totally divorced from the fact that the nights are brighter for longer and that young people are not at school. Consequently, there is a danger of their being drawn into violent activity.

In conjunction with the work of the North Belfast Community Action Project, we are considering a summer interface programme in north Belfast that would help organisations, from both communities, to provide services and programmes that would include diversionary activities for young people. The programme will cost about £250,000, and we are considering whether such funding will be available. Ideas are being developed through consultation with community groups, and, to avoid duplication, we are liaising with other Departments and agencies about similar schemes. Through the programme, we hope to promote working partnerships both in and across communities. It is to be hoped that the programme will tie in with, and perhaps encourage, other partnership projects at interface areas in north Belfast.

I apologise to the House for my earlier musical intervention.

Do the increased outbreaks of violence at interface areas make a compelling case for community relations policy to focus on those areas where action is most urgently required?

The project that I mentioned in reply to Mr Attwood is an example of the policies to which Mr McClarty referred and is a result of the work that we have encouraged through the North Belfast Community Action Project. Consequently, I am sympathetic to the Member's assertion that we should focus as much as possible on the areas where the need is greatest. That should mean a focusing of community relations policy to improve the situation in areas where conflict is most apparent. That is an aim that we shall bear in mind as we continue with the review of community relations policy.

Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister condemn the sectarian attacks orchestrated by the Provisional IRA on the Orange Order last Friday night in north Belfast, and, in the light of such attacks, will they outline what action they will take against the Provisional IRA?

The question of dealing with an attack from any source is a matter for the police, and we shall continue to support the police and to facilitate them where we can. The Administration has facilitated police action on matters such as that which Mr Boyd mentioned by encouraging the provision of CCTV at flashpoint areas. That is an important element of police strategy. I am especially disappointed by weekend events because, until then, we had had several violence-free days in Belfast. Whether what happened was spontaneous or whether it was part of a plan to destabilise the situation, I cannot say. However, we shall do what we can to support the police and to fashion appropriate initiatives to alleviate the problem.

TOP

9.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, pursuant to AQO 1551/01, whether the Executive have discussed the recent sectarian violence in areas of Belfast.

(AQO 1637/01)

We condemn the recent violence in areas of Belfast, which has brought fear, suffering and hurt to local communities. The Executive have not discussed the recent sectarian violence, but we stand ready to support any local initiative that is aimed at allowing local communities to resolve their differences peacefully. As in north Belfast, the solution will be found only in dialogue. Together with the Community Relations Council, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has provided support for several groups and projects, which I itemised in answer to a question two weeks ago. That support is aimed at improving community relations. We must encourage the police to take effective measures to maintain law and order and to provide protection to people who are under threat and attack. Moreover, we must support the police in their efforts. We must increase our efforts to address the underlying causes of sectarianism.

Sectarian violence is a sensitive issue that must be dealt with carefully.

Does the Deputy First Minister share my welcome of the Loyalist Commission's recent statement, which, as well as committing Loyalists to a no-first-strike policy, also calls for measures along interface areas to encourage community contact to be conducted in an open and honest manner, thus demonstrating an effective way to prevent problems arising?

I want to see any positive developments in interface areas that will allow people who face difficulties, threats and attacks to mitigate such threats. Therefore any schemes that can be developed at interface areas to nip difficulties in the bud and to put the lid on situations are welcome, and I encourage such initiatives.

The Loyalist Commission's statement also mentioned reaffirming a no-first-strike policy. I have been talking to many people who did not see any evidence of the Loyalist no-first-strike policy in the first instance, so many will be rightly forgiven for being sceptical about aspects of that statement. Nevertheless, I know that positive efforts went in to securing that statement, and we must judge its value on the consequences, such as evidence of any improvements on the ground.

The Deputy First Minister referred to the Loyalist Commission's statement and the work that was done to achieve it. In the light of the police in Larne recently stating that the UDA was behind a concerted attempt to drive Catholics out of the town, does he not agree that for many people in areas such as Larne that statement has a hollow ring?

As my previous remarks suggested, I recognise that many people will have a sceptical and cynical interpretation of the Loyalist Commission's statement. People will judge the significance of that statement on the circumstances as they affect them.

As the Member knows, I was in Larne recently and met people who have been threatened and attacked. Those people articulated graphically the impact of what the Police Service of Northern Ireland recently described as clearly blatant, one-sided sectarian activity that is unprovoked. Therefore there can be no pretence or fudge about the sort of difficulties that Catholics in Larne face. I hope that those who are involved in those attacks will move away from that sort of activity. If the Loyalist Commission's statement means anything, I hope to see evidence of that in places such as Larne.

I also note some of the asides from other Members about the situation in the Fountain estate. I have categorically condemned and denounced the attacks on people in that area, both in my capacity as MLA and in my other capacities.

Does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the recent sectarian violence in many areas of Belfast is the result of militant Republicanism stirring tension? For example, five Protestants were shot in Belfast recently. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that is a breach of the ceasefire? What action will he take? Will he also explain why, after a financial commitment was given for improvements to the infrastructures in other parts of Belfast, there were long delays in the implementation?

When Ministers are asked questions, those questions should be on areas for which Ministers are responsible; the first part of the Member's question is outside the Minister's responsibility.

Sectarian violence in Belfast rightly raises many emotions. There have been many allegations about who was involved in orchestrating what. I categorically condemn any act of any paramilitary, without having to equivocate about the actions of other paramilitaries. Therefore where violence was used and Protestants shot, I categorically condemn the use of arms by any paramilitary group, be they authorised, unauthorised, or whether its members were involved.

Equally, I categorically condemn the sustained and orchestrated attempt by Loyalist paramilitaries to put Nationalists under systematic and serialised attack in a number of locations, not least in Short Strand.

We have come to the end of the time for questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Ministers should give their responses in writing to any questions that were not taken.

TOP

Question 3, standing in the name of Mrs Courtney, has been transferred to the Minister of the Environment and will receive a written answer.

TOP

1.

asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, pursuant to AQO 1055/01, when the response to the review of regional museums will be published.

(AQO 1639/01)

My Department has completed the first draft of a response to the review, which is with the Department of the Environment and key stakeholders and will require some discussion before it is published for consultation. I estimate that publication will take place in early autumn.

I thank the Minister for his somewhat disappointing reply. I say that because the original review was published in the spring of 2001, and there does not seem to have been any movement since then. The Minister must be aware of the urgency of filling that gap in policy so that the people involved can plan for the financial future of regional and other museums.

I assume that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will take the lead in developing culture and art, including - to use the coined phrase - cultural tourism, which has yet to be properly defined.

I share Mr McGrady's disappointment that it has taken longer than anticipated to deal with the matter. The review is with the Department of the Environment for response. This is a joint exercise between that Department and mine. The Department of the Environment is responsible for heritage. Other major stakeholders are involved, such as heritage lottery funders and Environment and Heritage Service. The matter raises major strategic issues. There are 400 local museum and heritage sites in Northern Ireland. The question is how we proceed strategically and how we advance the sector.

The Department is almost at the end of the review process, and I anticipate that it will be completed in early autumn. We will then have a consultation period of 12 weeks, and an implementation plan will be put in place. It is important that we are

There are a large number of sites, and this is an important issue. We want to get things right, so that we do not have to return to this matter in a few years' time. We must cover all the bases. We want to define cultural tourism and visitor amenities, as those aspects have not been completely and satisfactorily addressed. We are now near the end of the process, and when the implementation plan is in place, I hope that Colleagues will feel that it has been worth the wait.

TOP

2.

asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what channels exist for liaison between his Department and Environment and Heritage Service to protect our historic buildings.

(AQO 1631/01)

The primary responsibility for the protection of historic buildings rests with the Department of the Environment. However, where an area overlaps with my Department's responsibilities, there is a need for joined-up government to ensure coherence and promote synergy. The two Departments communicate with each other on matters of common concern, for example, and most notably, on the European Capital of Culture bid, the local museums and heritage review and inland waterways.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>