I welcome the Bill. As the first Protestant Member to speak on the Bill, I think that there is agreement about it. There is no doubt that the present law discriminates against many people. For instance, it discriminates on time: if you are of a certain religion, you can marry only between certain hours on certain days, but if you do not happen to be of that religion, you cannot marry on certain days or at certain hours. If people belong to a particular church they can have a special licence to marry in their own home, whereas others who do not belong to a church or religious group that is permitted a special licence cannot have any such privilege.

The financial and explanatory memorandum suitably describes the basis of the Bill:

Those laws were discriminatory, and I am glad that they will be abolished.

I should like to associate myself with what the Minister said about the advisory committee. That committee did a very good job, and it started from the basis that discrimination would cease and that everybody would stand on a common platform. The real basis of the change relates to places of worship. In the old days the venue was registered and licensed for marriage, but the Bill will license the minister or the officiant. I have studied the law in Scotland, because I have relationships with churches in Scotland, and I have found that that law is good. It is simple compared to our current Regulations.

One has only to look at marriage law to see the number of new churches that were not given a special provision to facilitate their people to marry outside their own place of worship. All those matters are taken care of in the Bill, which I welcome. The majority of people in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religious convictions, or even if they have no such convictions, will welcome the Bill, because it puts everyone on a common platform, and it will certainly benefit people.

There are different marriage areas in Belfast; for instance, a person can get married in Castlereagh only if he lives there. People must claim that they live in an area where they want to get married, even though they do not. They have to obtain an accommodation address. It is a most awkward situation. All these aspects are to be regulated.

My conviction is that marriage should be permanent. However, the Bill does not deal with the doctrine of marriage, but with the methodology of getting married. We will be taking a closer look at marriage when the divorce Bill comes before the House. At that point there will be a different form of debate.

This is a very good Bill: it will be beneficial to all, and I hope that it will be passed and will be up and running next year. Christian marriage can be beautifully and reverently celebrated at venues other than places of worship, and I do not see why ceremonies should not be performed in such places.

Yesterday, a young lady down at the BBC tackled me. She had a microphone in her hand and she asked: "Where is the most wonderful place to be married?" I replied: "Young lady, it is the wonderful woman I married that I was worried about - it was not the place that mattered". True love is the real basis for marriage - love that can stand the strains of time and living. The two must grow together and, as the scripture says, "they shall be one flesh".

The great commentator Matthew Henry said when writing on the making of a woman that she was to remember that she was not taken from a man's head so as to rule him; she was not taken from a man's hand to control him; she was taken from beside his heart and under his arm for love and protection. Where love rules in a marriage then all the other situations -
[Interruption - Parliament Buildings evacuated due to a fire alert].

Rev Dr Ian Paisley was interrupted before the Assembly was suspended.

I was telling the House about a great Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, who wrote about the making of woman. He pointed out that she was not taken from man's head, for she was not for him to rule, and that she was not taken from man's feet, for she was not to be trampled on. He said that she was taken from near man's heart to be loved and from under his arm to be protected. The lesson for us all is that the supremacy of love is the basis for the ideal marriage and for the permanence of marriage. Love can sweeten all things - even marriage.

I thank Members who contributed to this short debate on the Marriage Bill. Their remarks were essentially complimentary. They appreciated the fact that the Bill is before the House, they appreciated the work of the advisory committee on the recommendations on which the Bill is based and they complimented the Committee on the wide consultation before the Bill was drafted.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr Molloy, highlighted the consultation with that Committee. He underlined its exemplary nature, holding it up to other Committees as a model for consultation in the early stages of preparing Bills. I thank him for his appreciation of the work of my departmental officials.

In welcoming the Bill, Ms Lewsley asked why the legislation is being introduced now. Given the references to the Scottish legislation, one could say that it is long overdue. Pressure was mounting, especially from religious organisations and churches, Christian and non-Christian, that feel that they are not treated with the same consideration in legislation as other religions are. They feel that the way in which they are ignored or treated differently could amount to a form of discrimination. As we must have regard to our equality legislation, the matter was urgent.

During the process, some 90 religious organisations were consulted. That number surprises me, but, nonetheless, it indicates the extent to which the committee and officials from my Department were prepared to go, following the committee's recommendations, to ensure that all views and concerns related to those aspects of marriage were fully consulted on and satisfaction achieved with respect to them. I acknowledge the appreciation expressed by Dr Paisley, as a representative of one of the smaller churches, at least in numerical strength - I hope he does not mind me putting it in that way - with regard to the attempt to achieve satisfaction, fair treatment and equality for all the groups concerned.

Patricia Lewsley, in highlighting venues that might be used for the conduct of marriage ceremonies in Northern Ireland, mentioned the Giant's Causeway and Carrick-a-Rede, which are within my own and Dr Paisley's constituency. I trust that numbers will flock to those venues to solemnise their marriages, if they wish to step outside the more traditional locations. I do not imagine that venues of such considerable beauty, providing a dramatic setting and start to married life, could be found anywhere else in Northern Ireland.

The degree of satisfaction expressed by those who have spoken, and the silence of those who have not, indicates that we can anticipate that the Second Stage of this Bill can be passed.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill:
Second Stage

TOP

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt):

I beg to move

The Bill is necessary to enable Northern Ireland to meet its European commitments in a key environmental area. It is also necessary to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland enjoy the same standard of environmental protection as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This legislation should have been in place in 1999, and the reasons behind the delay are, no doubt, well known to the Assembly. However, its continued absence is already subject to infraction proceedings from Europe. It is vital, therefore, that it be brought into operation as quickly as possible if we are to avoid the real possibility of financial penalties for non-compliance.

The main purpose of the Bill, and the subordinate legislation to be made under it, is to provide a statutory framework to enable transposition of EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control. That Directive is designed to control pollution from industrial sources. Its aim is to provide for a high level of protection for the environment through the establishment of a regulatory framework to prevent or reduce emissions to air, water and land as a result of industrial activities. The Directive's key feature is that it provides for an integrated approach to dealing with pollution from major industrial installations. That is designed to avoid potential problems that may arise if separate approaches are taken to controlling releases to air, water and land. That integrated approach is similar to the current arrangements under the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

The Bill shares many features with the current arrangements under the 1997 Order. Most importantly, it will provide for the retention of the regulatory structures of that Order, with a chief inspector assuming responsibility for regulating those installations listed in annex 1 of the Directive. That means that all such installations will be assessed against their capacity to cause significant pollution to air, water and land. Moreover, the provisions and regulatory structures of the 1997 Order will be repealed and re-enacted in the new legislation. That will remove the need for pollution from industrial installations to be regulated under two separate pieces of legislation, and it will minimise the disruption to industry caused by the new arrangements.

I estimate that approximately 250 existing installations will be subject to the new Directive controls. Some are already regulated under the existing arrangements, but several installations will be brought under control for the first time to meet the Directive's requirements. The main additions above a certain capacity will be: installations for intensive rearing of poultry and pigs; sites for landfilling waste; slaughterhouses; installations for the treatment and processing of milk; installations for the treatment and processing of animal raw materials; and installations for the treatment and processing of vegetable raw materials.

Several other changes will be made to the current controls. Permits will be granted for installations rather than processes, which will enable a more broad-based and comprehensive approach. The range of environmental impacts to be covered when determining applications will be much wider and will include noise, site restoration, accident prevention, energy efficiency, and the selection and use of raw materials. No integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) installation will be exempted from control because of the triviality of its emissions.

In the main, this is an enabling Bill. The detail of the new regulatory controls will be set out in draft regulations, which will be published for consultation in the next few weeks. In addition to providing an opportunity for full and open scrutiny of the proposals, publication of the draft regulations will help to inform consideration of the Bill as it goes through its various stages. The parallel processing of the Bill and the regulations will also ensure that all the legislation is enacted with the minimum of delay, thereby reducing the serious risks associated with the infraction proceedings, as I mentioned earlier.

In addition to providing the statutory framework for transposing of Directive, the Bill has two other main purposes. First, it will provide a general power for EU measures to be transposed by way of regulations, thereby avoiding the need for primary legislation. Any measure intended to be implemented in that way will be required to be designated by Order, and any regulations made under that provision will be subject to full scrutiny and consultation in the normal way.

Secondly, the Bill provides new transitional provisions for waste disposal licences under the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That will facilitate the transition to the new waste management licensing system that is due to be introduced in 2003 and ensure that no one is penalised unfairly because a waste disposal licence has lapsed inadvertently.

My Department set out its policy proposals in a consultation paper that was published in June 2001. The paper was issued to 500 organisations, groups and individuals. Some 30 responses were received, the majority of which welcomed the proposals. Only 16 respondents made substantive comments. Of those, eight were accepted; only one response required a change in legislation, and the other seven can be met through clarification of the proposals. The remaining eight comments were rejected; three were outside the scope of the legislation, one was a clear breach of the Directive, and four were rejected on policy grounds.

The Bill is necessary to enable us to meet our European commitments and to provide a high-quality environment for the people of Northern Ireland. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

In September 2001, the Committee for the Environment considered and responded to a consultation document issued by the Department of the Environment on its proposals for transposing EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control. The Committee subsequently raised several concerns.

I appreciate the need for Northern Ireland to meet its European commitment, and the Minister and the Department's desire for a high-quality environment. The debate is not riveting for many people, but the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is important, and it has implications for the community.

When departmental officials appeared before the Committee and realised that members had concerns, it strove to deal with those and other concerns. That is appreciated. Officials have appeared before the Committee readily in order to clarify outstanding issues. They will make a presentation this Thursday morning as deliberations continue on the Bill.

The concerns include the potential impact on the poultry industry in particular, the farming industry in general, and the proposed level of fees across all sectors. The Committee will keep a close eye on how those concerns, and others that have been identified in our consultation exercise with key interest groups, have been addressed in the Bill or in the draft Regulations that will result from the Bill. The Minister emphasised the value and importance of the Regulations, and draft Regulations will be available to the Committee in early July.

I must advise the House of the discussions that the Committee has had with the Minister about his proposal to use the accelerated passage procedure to progress the Bill. The Minister wrote to me on 22 May 2002 to explain why he believed that it was necessary to use the accelerated passage procedure, thus removing any Committee Stage scrutiny of the Bill. He drew to the Committee's attention the fact that infraction proceedings are lurking in the background and overshadowing much of the discussions.

Although the Committee appreciates fully the potential cost of infraction proceedings by the EC, there was nothing to convince members that EC proceedings were so far advanced that there would not be time for the Committee to complete some form of scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee discussed the issue, and I informed the Minister, clearly and scrupulously, of the decision that the Committee had reached. There was an equally balanced decision regarding a particular stance, and an impasse ensued.

Consequently, the Committee suggested an alternative way forward to the Minister as a follow-up to his discussions with us on 2 June 2002. The outcome was a proposal from the Minister to complete the Committee Stage by mid-September. The Committee agreed with the proposal and I assure the Minister that it is still the Committee's intent. We have no desire to delay the Bill, but we want appropriate and proper scrutiny to ensure that we take on board the considerations of everyone who has an interest.

This is the Second Stage of the Bill. The Committee has been put in a position in which, if it wants to scrutinise the Bill, it must do so and report by mid-September. Some people may say that the Committee was wrong to oppose the Bill's accelerated passage. They may ask why the Committee should put extra pressure on itself when it already has three Bills at Committee Stage, with another due in early September. The reason is simple. One of the most important roles that any Statutory Committee has is the scrutiny of legislation. The Committee believes that it would be wrong to forgo such scrutiny except in exceptional circumstances.

I assure the Minister that, despite the severe time limitations imposed on us in the circumstances, we shall be, as usual, diligent and thorough in examining the details of the Bill, and we shall return with amendments at Consideration Stage if necessary. The Committee has reached out to the Minister, and the Minister and his Department have reacted to the Committee's concerns. That is a healthy exchange, and it is in the interest of having proper and appropriate legislation, which the community can feel has been scrutinised by those with that authority.

I am concerned about the Bill, because I have heard it mentioned in several Departments over the past week. I have listened carefully to the Minister, and one of my greatest concerns is, as is stated in paragraph 11 of the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum:

Will the Minister explain what that means?

Furthermore, paragraph 12 states:

That is all very well, and I do not wish to encourage pollution. However, the Minister spoke this week about pollution in Lough Neagh, for which the farmers are always being blamed. If the Minister or any other Member thinks that farmers are going to be a soft touch and will accept that blame, they are in for a surprise.

What about organisations that receive Crown immunity? There are far greater polluters in other sectors. Those matters must be taken into consideration. I have every sympathy for the Minister; he has a difficult job to do. However, we must have a level playing field. I do not want to see people blamed for pollution for which they are not responsible.

I am standing behind the Minister now, but I would ask him the same question were I in front of him. Can he prove that the agriculture industry is the main polluter? That is the big factor. Many matters, including fraud, were talked about over the past six months in various Departments. However, when the cards are on the table, all accusations must be proven, and that is what the Minister must do.

I do not wish to be awkward, but I must defend the agriculture industry. Other sectors are given time to get their act together - it should be the same for everybody. Farmers do not want to cause pollution. They are conscious of the effects, and they are proud of the environment. Other people are more responsible for pollution, but they get away scot-free. There must be a level playing field.

As the Minister said, the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is designed to protect the environment by the reduction and prevention of emissions to air, water and land through industrial activities, and to comply with the Industrial Pollution, Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Issues such as waste minimisation and the handling of waste on site are vital to reduce the amount of environmental pollution and to place the responsibility on those who produce the pollutants. The Bill addresses the wider range of installations, such as the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry, landfill sites, slaughterhouses, and the treatment and processing of animal and raw materials. Those are some of the areas affected by the new legislation - it is not only farmers who pollute the environment.

Permits will be granted, and issues mentioned by the Minister, such as noise, site restoration, accident prevention, energy efficiency, and raw material selection and use, will be taken into consideration. Installations will also have to show that an assessment has been conducted of the environmental risks and that adequate staff training and provision for appropriate maintenance of the system exists. The permits will be reviewed periodically and will take into account technology and other changes.

The standards, objectives and requirements will be regulated. I welcome the fact that the Department will make information accessible to the public on industrial pollution and waste. The issue of enforcement will be addressed through regular inspections, and the inspectors will have the power to take samples and to arrange preventative or remedial action at the expense of the permit holders.

The Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is another Bill that has been forced on the Assembly by an EU Directive that the Assembly must implement. It is the latest in a long line of EU Directives that direct rule Ministers neglected to put in place. The consequence of not complying with the Directive could mean a heavy financial penalty for many ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I support the Bill.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The introduction of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is in response to the IPPC Directive in Northern Ireland. The European Court of Justice delivered its judgement on 7 March 2002, so new legislation is required in order to avoid financial penalties. That could happen before the end of 2002 and will become a reality in 2003. That is why I support the Minister in getting the Bill through quickly.

There is great concern in the farming community, and the farming industry is under financial pressures. An incentive scheme to improve facilities should be offered, and I urge the Department of the Environment to take the farmers' concerns into account when drawing up the final Regulations.

There is a need for significant improvements in agriculture practices. I advocate a minimum six-month storage requirement for organic waste on all farms and a complete ban on slurry spreading from October to the end of March. However, considering the weather that we have had recently, that would not work.

I am putting this forward because it would improve water quality. Why do I come to that conclusion? The reason is that slurry-spreading on waterlogged or frozen ground creates a high risk of water pollution. There is a case for a straightforward prohibition of overloading land with excessive nitrates from slurry or fertilisers.

General provisions in the water pollution Acts and waste management Acts make it an offence to cause, or to permit, polluting matter to enter waters, or to store, recover or dispose of waste in a manner that causes, or is likely to cause, environmental problems. However, in most cases the odds of securing a prosecution are stacked too high against public authorities, because they do not have the resources for the monitoring and investigations needed for widespread, effective enforcement. Too heavy an onus of proof is required in order to demonstrate that pollution occurs through careless malpractice.

I am also concerned that those who cause the biggest pollution problems have Crown immunity. Organisations that cause a fish kill should be brought to book, but unfortunately, they are immune from prosecution. Farmers have to work through bad weather conditions, financial problems, et cetera. I encourage the Minister to do his utmost to help them. Go raibh míle maith agat.

The Bill provides a framework to control industrial pollution in Northern Ireland. It offers a holistic approach to land, water and air pollution, in line with EC Directive 96/61, and it aims to address industrial pollution setting out the framework whereby that can be achieved. However, it must be stressed that the Bill is only a framework.

The Bill will affect many businesses as well as those in the poultry-and pig-farming sectors. Preventing pollution is beneficial to the environment. The role that farmers have played as stewards of the land must be recognised and credited. The Bill seeks to impose penalties for failure to comply with environmental standards. However, it does not set out adequately the best available techniques to be adopted as the yardstick to assess whether a business complies. It is vital that Departments concerned with the Bill co-operate by assisting the industries that will be directly affected. Departments must offer an incentive to comply with more stringent environmental controls. There is no point in forcing farmers to comply with tighter controls if it is simply not possible for them to do so.

With those considerations in mind, further environmental legislation must not only push industry into complying; it must lead industry through supporting schemes such as waste management. I fear that those whom the Bill will affect must be all too aware of the consequences of incorporating the EC Directive into our law. Current law - the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 - weighs environmental concerns against the costs associated with undertaking practice differently. However, if the Bill were fully implemented, only best available techniques would be considered; financial considerations would be excluded.

I am conscious that this new approach may be less favourable to industry than is the case at present. We are told that general binding rules may offset some of the extra financial burdens associated with the legislation, but we wonder how that can be so.

The Bill is a framework for introducing an EU Directive to our law. I understand that we must avoid penalties from Europe, which would be imposed if the legislation were not introduced. However, I urge the Minister to consider the affected industries when determining the rigour that will be used to implement the Directive. Also, can he assure the House that the legislation is being adopted consistently throughout European member states?

Can the Minister clarify whether additional support will be given to projects such as anaerobic digesters for waste, in the light of the legislation? I fear that farmers could face fines if no realistic alternative course of action exists. Legislation must be fair, reasonable and lead industry to implement more environmentally sensitive measures, which could bring great benefits.

I wish to compliment the Mount Charles caterers. We were rushed out of the Building, so many people arrived back for lunch at the same time, and staff catered very well for everyone.

Having been in Dermot Nesbitt's position, I do not want to say too much other than that this is a worthwhile, important and necessary Bill. Less pollution, urgent measures for its prevention and greater control will benefit society. Less pollution would mean better health, and with healthier people, there would be less medical need. The Bill is also environmentally friendly.

Failure to transpose the Directive into Northern Ireland legislation will result in infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom, and, although the Bill is at an advanced stage, the risk of heavy fines is very real. To avoid those fines, the Bill must be granted Royal Assent before the Assembly is dissolved for the May 2003 elections.

The European Court of Justice delivered its judgement against the United Kingdom on 7 March 2002, ruling that the Directive had not been implemented. Unless the Northern Ireland Executive can demonstrate to the European Commission that the necessary legislation has been enacted, the Commission will go back to the European Court of Justice to have financial penalties imposed. That could happen before the end of 2002, with fines imposed in mid- to late-2003.

As the Minister has said, the Bill is largely enabling, and the Environment Committee will be able to consider fully its substance. I support the need to implement the Bill - it is more important than most people realise.

I thank Members for their comments. I will address each in the order in which they were made. I thank the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, Dr McCrea, for his comments and for appreciating the need for speedy implementation. That is important. He referred to accelerated passage, and the fact that need and efficient delivery have equal priority. I appreciate that he must do something by September, but I have not put him in that position. I think that it was a necessity; it put us all in that position. Therefore, I thank him for his clear intention to have that completed by September 2002.

He mentioned agriculture, as did other Members. I am conscious that more Members seem to raise issues at the Second Stages of environmental Bills than in relation to other Bills at that Stage. He referred to the potential impact of the Bill on poultry farming and the farming industry in general. The extension applies to poultry and pigs only at a certain level - whether it may be 4,000 poultry, 750 sows or 2,000 pigs. The Bill applies only to establishments with that number of animals and birds.

No installation will be exempt from the new controls. No one is excluded. The Department can do nothing about that. That has been made clear. The Department has no option but to bring such poultry and pig installations under the new controls. Failure to do so would be a clear breach of the EU Directive, and would expose the Department to the risk of further infraction proceedings. The thresholds that I referred to are set out in the Directive, and must be applied.

I am conscious of the need to alleviate costs to the farming sector. Mr Savage said that farmers are being blamed for pollution. I come from a farming background and an agricultural constituency, and I put it on the record that I do not blame farmers. I want the polluter - whoever that may be - to pay. The principle that applies in waste management should do so in this context also. The principle of proximity is also similar: he who creates the problem should deal with the problem. I want to make that clinically clear.

However, the Department wants to assist where possible. For example, the Directive says that the installations that I have referred to do not have to be phased in until October 2007. In that case, I propose to defer the call-up for existing agricultural installations until November 2006 to January 2007. The Department will put that off for as long as possible in an effort to accommodate the agriculture industry. However, new installations, and those that have undergone changes, must be brought into line with the Directive immediately.

The Department has also tried to accommodate the agriculture industry with regard to the charges that will be applied. I stress that those matters will be subject to regulation and consultation. They are not part of the enabling power but will go through full consultation. The charges will be in line with those in Great Britain, which have been reduced from the original estimates in order to lessen the impact on the agriculture sector. Those are two examples of how the Department is trying to accommodate that sector.

I want to address the comments made by my party Colleague Mr Savage, who asked why there is no provision for the exemption of triviality. It is quite simple; there are two relevant issues that I want to explain. Under the 1997 legislation, trivial pollution could be dismissed; there is no such exception in this Bill. However, in trivial cases, the level of charges will reflect the extent of the seriousness. Although there is no exclusion, allowances are made. Therefore, a balance is struck.

I referred to the fact that farmers are being blamed all the time. Farmers are not soft touches. I have never thought that for one minute. As the saying goes, they know which side their bread is buttered on. I have every sympathy with the farming community. My officials have closely liaised with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and with the farming industry, on the issues associated with the introduction of the new controls. Earlier this year, officials made a presentation to the Northern Ireland Poultry Federation and the central pigs committee of the Ulster Farmers' Union on the implications of this Directive for intensive pig and poultry farms.

Since then, two working groups, involving my officials, officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and industry representatives, have met to discuss the detailed requirements of the Directives and how they can be applied to the farming industry. The groups will continue to meet as necessary in the lead-up to the introduction of the legislation.

I am very conscious of the farming sector. I meet with its representatives and will continue to do so. The agrisector is about more than farming, and I am conscious of the contribution that it makes to the gross domestic product of Northern Ireland. I am also conscious of the smallness of farms and the difficulties faced by the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland. As an elected body in Northern Ireland, the Assembly should be conscious of, and take cognisance of, those factors. I have tried to mention aspects where we have done that.

I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee for her support for the Bill. I also thank Mick Murphy for his comments about recognising the farming community's concerns. I hope that I addressed that. We will continue to address those concerns. Mr Murphy also raised the issue of Crown immunity - that issue has not gone away. It remains a live issue that must be dealt with.

Mr Armstrong mentioned best available techniques and how to deal with them. Best available techniques are prepared on an EU-wide basis to identify the best techniques for the prevention or minimisation of pollution, taking sectoral affordability into account. That will inform the national technique guidance, which is uniformly applied across the United Kingdom. That aspect was also raised by Mr Armstrong.

A further purpose of best available techniques is to inform the decision-making process for individual permits. Whether it be the chief inspector or the district councils making the decisions, the Department will still have a role to play in ensuring consistency.

Mr Armstrong mentioned anaerobic digesters. My officials will carefully take note of Hansard and reply directly to him about that.

The matter of whether general binding rules could apply, as opposed to issuing permits to individuals, was raised. I hope that they can apply, avoiding the need for individually tailored permits and thus reducing the costs involved. That is a further element of the attempt to reduce costs, which is required for the benefit of Northern Ireland. I thank my predecessor, Mr Foster, for his supportive comments, which were mindful of the benefit to Northern Ireland and of the costs involved, as well as of the sensitivity of the matter.

I thank those who made constructive comments, and I acknowledge again the positive contribution made by the Rev Dr William McCrea and the Committee for the Environment to this sensitive issue. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for the Environment.

Budget (No 2) Bill: Final Stage

TOP

Resolved (with cross-community support):

TOP

I beg to move

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall explain why my Committee seeks an extension. The Committee began its formal consideration of the Bill on 21 May 2002. Since that date the Committee has consulted all local councils, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association to hear their views on the proposed legislation; and it took oral evidence from representatives of Craigavon Council and Belfast City Council and from officials of the Department of the Environment and of the Northern Ireland Office.

Consideration of this Bill is challenging in that it proposes to legislate by introducing new provisions in three unrelated areas. The first of those is a new method for distributing the general grant payable to local councils. The Bill also includes provision for reducing the general grant where it is held that a council has failed to deliver a reasonable standard of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in discharging its functions.

Secondly, the Bill provides for new powers on economic development, effectively removing the limit of five pence in the pound on economic development for those councils wishing to invest more. Moreover, councils must have regard to guidance from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Finally, the Bill provides for new council powers on community safety. These will allow a council to participate in a relevant community safety partnership. However, they will also allow the Department of the Environment to bring forward an order to the Assembly to confer or impose on councils other functions to enhance community safety in their areas.

None of the issues was straightforward, and the Committee identified significant amendments that must be made to the Bill. They affect all the areas mentioned and would result in changes to four of the principal clauses of the 11-clause Bill. The departmental officials responsible for the Bill have worked diligently and have been responsive to the Committee's queries. It is to be hoped that the Minister will agree to table the Committee's amendments, and possibly some others, for the Consideration Stage debate.

The Committee needs time to explore other issues outlined in this complex Bill. Last week, it received a substantial submission from the Northern Ireland Office, which seeks to define community safety partnerships and to clarify how they differ from district policing partnerships. The extension to the Committee Stage is necessary because the outstanding issues will require due and proper deliberation by the Committee. Therefore it is necessary to ask the Assembly for this extension. However, the Committee hopes to complete its work by an earlier date. I ask Members to support the motion.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>