Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We have only had a limited opportunity to consider the draft Programme for Government in detail and, regrettably, even less opportunity to study this morning's statement.

They can only be properly considered in the context of the draft Budget, the content and detail of which we await. In the past couple of years, we have become familiar with the thematic content of the Programme for Government. In fairness, most people are content with that approach. The devil is in the detail. However, it is time for the Executive to demonstrate clearly their ability to translate the identification of priority areas such as health, education and transport into "deliverables". That is how the draft programme and the accompanying Budget will be judged. The litmus test for the Executive will be their ability, or otherwise, to set aside party political interests and, on a truly collective basis, bring together and deliver on proposals for meaningful change that will make a tangible difference.

It is ironic - some may say surreal - that we are being asked to consider how the Executive propose to make a difference when they are under a cloud and in the midst of the contrived crisis into which the Ulster Unionist Party is driving the political institutions. It is difficult to reconcile what appears in the draft Programme for Government with the general political context being shaped by those in the Ulster Unionist Party who are opposed to change. How do we square the commitment to ensuring that the transfer of political power to our political institutions makes a real and positive difference to our economic and social life with the fact that one half of the Executive now wants to collapse those institutions? How do we reconcile the commitment to tackling the underinvestment that is part of the legacy of direct rule with the Unionist half of the Executive marching down the road to nowhere? How do we square the Executive's strategic objectives to achieve equality, partnership, sustainability and prosperity with the political objectives of half of the Executive, which are based on exclusion? How should we view the commitments contained in section 8 of the draft Programme for Government? Paragraph 8.4 states:

Yet the First Minister has declared that he will, with immediate effect, act in a way that will significantly damage those institutions. Paragraph 8.4 also says that the Executive will focus on

Paragraph 8.5 begins

That was agreed last Thursday. Some 48 hours later, David Trimble contradicted that commitment. He negotiated and agreed with his partners on the Executive while he had in his pocket a proposal to wreck the all-Ireland institutions. When half of the Executive has adopted the policies and politics of the "No" camp, it is time for the public to ask questions.

Those are only some of the questions that will spring to people's minds when they read the detail of the draft Programme for Government - they will think of cloud cuckoo land. When we debated the draft Programme for Government last year, it was clear that it had been developed through agreement between all the political parties against a backdrop of serious political difficulties. However, at least there was a collective approach. Today's draft Programme for Government comes 48 hours after yet another Ulster Unionist Council meeting and against the backdrop of yet another Ulster Unionist Party threat to walk away from the institutions.

Let us be clear: Unionists are fighting a concerted campaign to frustrate and delay the required changes to our society with regard to the equality agenda, the human rights agenda, the all-Ireland agenda, criminal justice, demilitarisation and policing. Unionists have attempted to delay and dilute the progress in all those areas, which are the cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement. However, my greatest concern is whether the Executive's Programme for Government will be able to deliver on the agenda for change in the light of the political cowardice of the Unionist political leadership.

I thank the Ministers for their statement. Like other Members, I received a copy of it late this morning, so I have not had time to read it or the draft Programme for Government. However, I wish to make a few comments that I will expand on in tomorrow's debate.

There have been real achievements in children's issues and in health matters, such as the cancer centre. Although I do not want to undermine those achievements, the Alliance Party is once again disappointed that, in the key themes of the draft Programme for Government, community relations, which will make our society more tolerant and build on those achievements, are not apparent. I have direct experience that, over the years, community relations projects have contributed greatly towards mutual understanding and tolerance, which is tragically missing in Northern Ireland.

Stronger partnerships must be built, and not only with local government and social partners. Sub-priority 2, which should have been a full priority, states:

That sub-priority also states that elected and community representatives must work together. Community relations projects and personnel should be included in that.

A community relations strategy has been delayed time and again, and the draft Programme for Government does not make it clear when, or how, the strategy will be announced or when the consultation process will begin. That must be dealt with in tomorrow's debate. The building of a strategy must be a priority, together with the efficient allocation of resources to community relations councils to ensure that all citizens will benefit from their projects.

No clear account has been given of money allocated, and no questions have been asked about the benefits to the entire community. Four years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, people are still being intimidated, terrorised and exiled by men and women of violence who wage their campaigns with ease. That should not be tolerated. It is not solely a matter for the Executive or for the Assembly, and my party and I believe that sufficiently strong, decisive local political leadership has not been shown. That must not continue.

Social inclusion, social exclusion and New TSN are good foundations to help disadvantaged ordinary people. However, those ordinary people deal with dreadful situations every day, and they must be supported and encouraged to come together in a viable and informed way. That can be done only by working with community relations organisations, which have their own confident and sustained strategy. That support and encouragement should be evident in all elements of the draft Programme for Government, which represents a manifesto for reinvestment and reform and a pledge to improve public services. I agree with those sentiments, and I have no doubt that they will be carried through. However, the basic safety and livelihoods of our people, together with their confidence, must be a priority.

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement this morning, to which my main remarks have been addressed. Tomorrow I shall refer to the draft Programme for Government, and I look forward to the debate.

As the Unionist community views the proceedings today, it may be bewildered or bemused by the spectacle of the First Minister presenting a draft Programme for Government to the House. He referred to the length of time that it will take for the programme to come to fruition.

However, in Government partnership with Colleagues, as they are referred to by Mr Trimble, are members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party who represent the Unionist community. They are, by their outward pleadings and statements, declaring that they recognise that the Unionist electorate do not support the institutions. Furthermore, they are exhibiting signs of nervousness as they approach next year's elections.

It is on that basis that Mr Trimble beats his chest and declares that he will not sit in a power-sharing Administration with Members who continue to be inextricably linked with those who are actively involved in terrorism. However, if Mr Trimble, his party and the DUP really were representing those who elected them to the Chamber, they would not sit in the Executive for one more day with those whom they are committed to removing. Mr Trimble will find it difficult to remove himself from his position because, like all his Ministers and those from the DUP, he is pledged under annex A, strand one, of the Belfast Agreement, to

That is what we are here to consider today.

Despite that pledge, Mr Trimble knows that he has no mandate, and he knows that people supported the DUP because it pledged to use the Assembly to bring down those institutions it believed to be undemocratic. Mr Trimble has now demonstrated that he also believes that, given the Assembly's track record and the undemocratic structures that are in place, if he were to present his party to the electorate next year, he would face meltdown. However, it is only that prospective situation that is causing concern. There is no degree of recognition that those who front paramilitary private armies on the Republican and the Loyalist sides should not have been allowed to sit in government over the people whom they terrorised.

Mr Trimble also stands indicted of hypocrisy because of his new-found realisation that he cannot sit in government with those who front paramilitary organisations. Of course, he is the same Mr Trimble who walked into the negotiations at Castle Buildings flanked by representatives of Loyalist terrorist organisations and who continues to nominate those people to bodies such as the Civic Forum, to which he recommended a person who is inextricably linked to a Loyalist organisation. At the same time, he has representatives on the Loyalist commission.

Mr Trimble knows well that ordinary, decent people - Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Nationalist - do not want those people to serve in the bodies and institutions. Also, the Secretary of State has come up with the silly notion of a monitor to determine whether those people are still engaged in acts of terrorism and intimidation and holding the communities to ransom. Ordinary, decent people know what is happening; they do not need a monitor to translate the actions of paramilitary organisations: they want to see an end to them. They want the paramilitaries on both sides put out of business. Mr Trimble's problem is that, although he beats his chest and pretends that he has had a road to Damascus experience in relation to opposing terrorists in government, he continues to sit in government with them, putting off the day on which he will pull the plug on that unseemly gathering of rogues. I appeal to the DUP to lead the Unionists out of the Executive and to leave Mr Trimble isolated.

It amazes me how hard people will work to be seen to be even-handed, even though everyone knows that they are not. I have some difficulty with the draft Programme for Government, and, indeed, I have some difficulty with how it was presented this morning. Have you noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, how two parties spoke from prepared scripts, while the rest of us have to wing it? Two stooges stand up and tell their party leaders that they are wonderful. We keep falling into that trap; it has almost become a form of convention, and it does us no favours at all. The Opposition, for what they are worth, are small, weak and lacking cohesion. They do not even get the chance to have a look at what will be put in front of Members, and they often get only ten minutes' notice about statements that will be made. The stooges with prepared scripts then come out. There is something inherently wrong about that.

However, let us move on. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said that there is a search for stronger partnerships. The Executive are superb role models for stronger partnership: we have a dysfunctional Executive talking about creating stronger partnership. That Executive have plunged themselves very quickly in the direction of PPP - perhaps soon to be PFI - without being remotely inventive about other possible options for raising finances following the disinvestment here caused by the Conservatives handing us their policies by the back door or by default.

In my constituency, 1% of children will go on to further and higher education, and when I read the draft Programme for Government I wonder how long it will take to destroy the iniquitous process of denying children higher education opportunities. I wonder when the Executive will truly invest the resources necessary to make a difference to those who live in the postal address areas that suffer discrimination every day, whether they are Protestant or Catholic.

When the weekend debacle occurred, we saw the frightened offering the controls of the machinery again to the frightening. Instead of forging ahead with politics that might work by genuinely building partnerships along lines that can build common purpose, we saw an illusion, similar to the decommissioning illusion, in which we hand the throttle, the clutch and the brake to the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. When will we learn that one should not offer the controls to the lowest common denominator? When will we learn that there has to be a way to get over our fears? That is what this is about - you cannot be seen to be too close to those with whom you are in Government, because one side will shout that you are selling out. Both sides play that game.

How many times have we seen one element of the Executive opposing the very decisions made by the Executive because it is popular to do so? That has happened with issues such as pay rises and office cost allowances. On numerous occasions collective decisions have been made, and individual Ministers have opposed them in the Chamber. Everybody wants to be the Opposition, rather than to take responsibility for decisions.

We are kidding ourselves about this process. The wording, while good in parts, is creating illusions for the people. There is the illusion that the Executive Ministers are going to deal with each other in a way that can make a difference; the illusion that they are going to deal with sectarianism and the illusion that they will deal with the crass and serious circumstances of poverty and disadvantage. Never has the community sector been so weak at a time when the Executive are talking about capacity building and making communities stronger. There are more groups scurrying about, hoping and begging to get some share of the funding provided by the Executive than ever before. We should end those illusions and get on with the practical work.

Given the decisions made at the weekend, it is difficult to anticipate what will happen as regards some of the programme's targets, the legislative framework and our expenditure plans. I am full of questions.

It is good that the document is aspirational while trying to be practical. However, like David Ervine, I wonder where we go from here. The draft programme announces plans to introduce great new legislation on housing, planning and other issues, which people here awaited for years. Until now, we did not have our own Ministers and legislation to take account of local circumstances. The document carries a good message also as regards how we will provide for our children.

However, Members, who are to deliver the programme, must ask what will happen between January and the Assembly election. What will happen if we do not meet the targets for December, as in the case of community relations? Will those targets go to the wall? We may not be able to deliver the whole programme. Let us get real.

We need a contingency plan for the period until January, so that employers will know whether they must make redundancy plans for staff. The gap between the provision of Peace I and Peace II funding resulted in a situation similar to that which we are creating today: plans could not be made, and people could not be told what would happen in the next month, never mind the next three years. We must be fair by telling people that the targets may not be met and that they should continue as before rather than try to meet some of the programme's objectives.

When community relations were discussed in the House two weeks ago, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister guaranteed that they would carry out a strategy, talk to parties and build partnerships. Members have not even built partnerships in the Chamber, never mind outside it. Parties who wish to be involved in the development of a community relations strategy, including Members with experience of working at interface areas, still await an invitation to participate in the discussion.

If there are plans for December 2003 - and I do see such a target - much work must be done to take account of what we did not get right and to put something different in place.

Major problems exist in communities, where the focus is mostly on paramilitary groups; however, we must focus also on the depoliticised, politically homeless young people who live there too. What kind of targets should we set? Two pages of targets have been set for schools; however, the text of the programme's objective for youths is longer than the target set. The sole aim is to increase, over the next three years, participation in youth organisations by 2%. That is a sad indictment, given our communities' problems.

Surely we could have many more imaginative projects and programmes, such as those listed under the targets for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There should be a greater link between the projects of that Department and the Department of Education to help young people who do not attend youth clubs and who need to be involved in the community. Good projects and practice that are not funded should have been taken on board. In both its projects on educational disadvantage, and in its document launched last week, 'Could do Better', the Civic Forum described some such good practice models.

When discussing exclusion, partnership and sustainability, we should take a hard look at what can be delivered between now and January.

When I was listening to the Ministers' statement this morning, I was tempted to think of the ship of state sailing along, all sails set and loaded to the gunwales with goodies for the future, while, up on deck, the captain and his mate, the First Minister and his Deputy First Minister, fight over the steering wheel about which rock - be it Scylla or Charybdis - they will crash the ship of state on. The presentation was a cross between 'Alice in Wonderland' and a Brothers Grimm story. Not since Orwell's animals decided to take over the farm has there been such a declaration of aspirations. One could hardly think of anything - apart from zip-fasteners on bananas and self-peeling oranges - that is not promised in this great document.

The truth is that there is something in what Mitchel McLaughlin said about the document being long on talk, and very short on "deliverability" - a word I think he must have got from David Ervine. Delivery is the essential issue: what are these people going to deliver, and how will they deliver it? It is said that there is a black hole of underinvestment of £6 billion for the next decade, but the true figures are probably nearer £12 billion to £15 billion. Where is the money going to come from? Any sensible businessman, taking over a company, would get his accountants to look at the books to check the debts and deficits, and his engineers to look at the equipment. Nothing of that nature was attempted by those who negotiated the Belfast Agreement.

You ran away from it.

This talk about running away is like a broken record. It comes from a man who wept in 1992 because he thought that he was going to be excluded from office, and that he might not get his sticky fingers on the levers of devolved power. I am very glad I ran away from that.

Order.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are promising all these goodies, but how are they going to be paid for? Perhaps they will be funded by public-private finance. However, those who would supply the money for that finance would borrow it on the market and make their profit from the additional interest that they would charge those who are going to involve themselves in a form of high-level hire purchase. Future generations will be burdened by repayment of that debt, because neither the capital nor the interest will be repaid out of the Barnett formula money.

Alternatively, the services may be financed with the new money that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are going to borrow from the British Government. Again, the capital will have to be repaid with interest. Where will they get the money to make the repayments? They will get it by screwing the population with a vast hike in rates, including a possible tap tax on water, and a possible effluent tax on sewage. All of this will be done to make good their inefficiency at the beginning.

I welcome all the aspirations of the draft Programme for Government. However, the fact is that Mr Trimble is once again telling the canard and the untruth that Sinn Féin signed up to deliver decommissioning by 22 May 2000. He knows that it did nothing of the kind. The burden imposed upon it was the same as that imposed on all other parties, which was to use its best endeavours to bring about decommissioning by that date. He knows better than anyone else that Sinn Féin threatened to walk away from the negotiations if they were obliged to give any other undertakings. This is not some sort of excuse for Sinn Féin, whose performance has been disgraceful, and whose alleged decommissioning is a farce.

We must tell the people the truth. We must stop telling them fairy tales about the future, such as those encapsulated in this draft Programme for Government. We must remind ourselves that the duty of any Assembly is to serve the interests of the people, and not to delude them with false promises that their children or grandchildren will have to pay for.

TOP

Audit and Accountability Bill: First Stage

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 6/02] to provide for access by the Comptroller and Auditor General to information for the purposes of audits and examinations; to transfer to the Comptroller and Auditor General responsibility for the audit of certain public bodies; to provide for the re-organisation of the administration of local government audit; to confer additional functions on the audit committee of the Assembly in relation to the appointment of the accounting officer and the auditor of the Northern Ireland Audit Office; and for connected purposes.

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

TOP

Health and Personal Social Services
(Quality Improvement and Regulation) Bill: First Stage

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Chéad Chéim don Bhille Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Pearsanta (Cáilíocht, Feabhsúchán agus Rialachán).

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 7/02] to establish the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Regulation and Improvement Authority; to make provision for the registration and regulation of certain establishments and agencies and to make provision relating to the quality of health and personal social services and to adoption, fostering and children under 12; and for connected purposes.

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

TOP

Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill: Second Stage

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt):

I am not exactly firing on all cylinders today, so I beg the indulgence of the House. I have a slight flu, to say the least, and perhaps I should not even be here. I am trying to breathe directly ahead so that I do not spread any germs.

I beg to move

Areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) are the jewels in the crown of our diverse and rich landscape. They are special places, rich in all forms of wildlife, and almost 200 such areas have been declared to date. I want to see these sites properly safeguarded so that they can be appreciated by future generations. That is why I am introducing the Bill.

The Bill meets the commitment in the Programme for Government to have a policy and legislative framework for the protection and management of ASSIs in place by July 2003. It will also help to address the requirements of the EC Directive on habitats by ensuring that Northern Ireland can better protect sites that, in addition to being ASSIs, have also merited designation under European legislation. I believe that the Bill will avoid the current threat of infraction proceedings from the European Commission and any potential fines that could result.

For some years my Department has been aware of the shortcomings in legislation pertaining to ASSIs, and those shortcomings were also recognised by the Assembly in the debate held on 23 January 2001 when there was strong support from all parties for better legislation. The Bill is the result of an extensive consultation process, which began when my predecessor, Mr Foster, launched the consultation paper 'Partners in Protection' on 2 March 2001.

It set out 20 key issues pertaining to the protection and management of ASSIs and sought public comment on how best to deal with those issues. Responses were received from a wide range of organisations with strong support for new legislation. On the basis of the comments received, my Department drew up several proposals, which were subject to a further round of public consultation in November last year. There was further strong support for those proposals, so, in bringing forward the Bill, we have endeavoured as fairly and equitably as possible and accommodate the wishes and concerns of all parties that contributed to the consultation process.

The Bill replaces the existing provisions for ASSIs in the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. It builds on many of the features of the 1985 Order, but it also incorporates the new proposals that were the subject of the public consultation exercise.

The Bill has several key features. First, we are improving some of the procedures associated with declaration. For example, by allowing greater flexibility in the ways that amendments to site boundaries or citations can be introduced, we want landowners to be better informed about the declaration in general, so the Department will be required to provide a statement on how it considers the land can best be managed in the interests of conservation. Public bodies, including Departments, must also play their part. The Bill contains provisions that will ensure that the discharge of responsibilities complies with the need to conserve and enhance these valuable sites.

The Bill also contains measures to ensure more effective protection of ASSIs, with measures to address damaging operations that are undertaken by owners, occupiers or so-called third parties and our current inability to react appropriately and in a timely way to these concerns. Neglect or inappropriate management can be equally damaging. We must be equipped to deal with such occurrences, which are, thankfully, rare.

These measures may give some people cause for concern, particularly those in the farming community who feel that they place additional burdens on them. Let me assure them that I do not intend that to be the case, nor do I believe that it will be so. The vast majority of ASSI declarations over the last 16 years have proceeded without difficulty. Good working relationships have developed between my Department and the farming community. My aim is to ensure that the Bill, together with the other measures that I will be introducing, further strengthens those relationships.

Many of the measures contained in the Bill are needed for the small number of landowners who wish to carry out activities or operations that could irreparably damage these valuable sites. That is particularly important for sites whose importance is further recognised by designation under European legislation. The threat of infraction already hangs over the United Kingdom. The European Commission perceives that the UK has failed to implement fully the requirements of article 6 of the Habitats Directive, and the Commission has issued a reasoned opinion letter against the United Kingdom. Action to address that has already been taken in England and Wales through provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, otherwise known as the CROW Act. The measures in the Bill will address the shortcomings in Northern Ireland and ward off the threat of infraction and potential fines.

There are also safeguards built into the Bill for landowners, including the right of appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission against a decision made by the Department.

Another feature of the Bill is the provision to ensure better management of sites. Good management of ASSIs is a fundamental principle of the partnership approach that we have fostered over the past 16 years. There are presently over 250 management agreements in place between the Environment and Heritage Service and ASSI landowners or occupiers.

The measures contained in the Bill create the right climate to encourage and support the beneficial management of ASSIs. They will reinforce the change to positive management agreements that the Environment and Heritage Service has introduced recently. Our consultation paper 'Partners in Protection' recognised the importance of encouraging and rewarding beneficial management of sites rather than merely preventing damage.

We also said that we would introduce our own scheme for the positive management of ASSIs. I am delighted to announce today that a scheme is now in place, and available to all landowners and occupiers in ASSIs, called "MOSS", which stands for "management of sensitive sites". It is an acronym that I hope everyone will find easy to remember. MOSS acknowledges that the wildlife value of sites is the result of sensitive management of the land by both past and present landowners. It aims to build on that by encouraging farmers and landowners to adopt management practices that sustain and enhance the special features of an ASSI. In return, landowners will receive payments calculated to redress income forgone. I appeal to all those involved in the management of land within ASSIs to take advantage of this important initiative, so that the Department, in partnership with the landowners, can further protect Northern Ireland's most important wildlife sites for the conservation of biodiversity and the benefit of society at large.

In conclusion, the Bill can meet the needs and concerns of the wide range of interested parties who are stakeholders in this matter. It will achieve our Programme for Government target for better legislation. It will also bring Northern Ireland into line with comparable legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it should also meet our EC obligations. The Bill strikes the right balance between the need for effective protection of ASSIs - sites that are vital to the well-being of all our diverse natural heritage - and allows for the continuation of established and sustainable land practices.

I speak especially to the more than 5,000 ASSI landowners across Northern Ireland, who have worked in partnership with the Department over the last 16 years to safeguard those valuable conservation sites. I stress to them that it is my wish that that continues and is further strengthened. There is a need for partnership among the landowners and those in the Administration who give the protection. This Bill will help achieve that aim, and I commend it to the Assembly.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Given that the Committee is already scrutinising four substantial Bills, the Minister will understand if that thanks is somewhat guarded. Despite their workload, members of the Committee are looking forward to discussing the specific terms of the Bill at Committee Stage, and, therefore, I will keep my comments relatively short.

The Minister will be aware that the Committee has already received several detailed representations on the consultation exercises that preceded the Bill. That demonstrates the importance that the Committee gives to this legislation - indeed, to all legislation - and the Committee's clear determination to come to terms with the details of what, in many instances, is a complex Bill.

There is no doubt that legislation in respect of ASSIs must be updated. Although ASSIs are vital for the delivery of nature conservation and provide real protection for rare and important species of fauna and flora, as well as for those geological and earth science features present in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong to pretend that there have not been problems. Indeed, the Committee considered a letter at its meeting last week that highlighted the problems that 39 landowners in County Tyrone were having in challenging the proposed designation of a huge area of land around Newtownstewart as an ASSI.

Although the Committee will give no opinion on whether the proposal is right or wrong, that letter demonstrates quite clearly how this subject can have an impact on the community. However, I thank the Minister for his assurance to the House that it is his intention to ensure that there is a strengthening of the relationship between the farming community and his Department and that they work in partnership.

In March 2001, the Department issued an initial and broad-ranging consultation document called 'Partners in Protection'. Following a number of presentations and discussions with the Department's officials, the Committee made a formal response in June 2001. The Department received a total of 35 responses to that consultation document. To the Department's credit, that paper was followed by a further consultation exercise in November 2001 on the specific policies on ASSIs that it proposed to take forward. The Committee in turn responded to that consultation paper in February 2002. The outcome of that consultation was to form the basis of the Bill before the House.

My Committee will be particularly interested in how the Bill will seek to address a range of issues such as changes in ownership, powers to refuse potentially damaging operations and to make management orders and the level of fines. The maximum level in some circumstances in the Bill is £20,000, a figure that the Committee has already considered too low to act as an effective deterrent in two other Bills which have come before it.

In March 2002, the Minister appeared before the Committee, and we discussed a proactive approach to co-operating with him to deal with certain Bills from his Department. At that time, my Committee gave assurances that it would co-operate fully with the Department, subject to its being fully satisfied with the specific terms ultimately adopted in the Bills. I affirm that this remains the intention of the Committee. However, I can assure the Minister that, as he would expect, it will be diligent and thorough in examining the details of the Bill and will come back with any amendments necessary at the Consideration Stage.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he wishes to ensure the preservation of all our important areas. To ensure that ASSIs are effectively managed, it is important that new owners or occupiers of land be made aware of any conservation designations in place. The Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 could be amended to include a requirement that an owner or occupier notify his or her successor.

I also welcome the Minister's statement that the Department will supply each owner and occupier with a site management statement outlining the conservation objectives and indicating the appropriate management. I very much welcome his new MOSS designation whereby owners will receive payment, and I hope that owners of such sites and areas will take advantage of that. We must have legislation in place so that the Environment and Heritage Service can refuse consent for notifiable or potentially damaging activities. There is a gap in the current legislation that means that ASSIs do not afford protection against acts of deliberate damage by landowners or occupiers, and I hope that it can be plugged.

I agree with the Chairman of the Committee for the Environment, Rev Dr William McCrea, that the present deterrents for wilful damage to ASSIs are much too lenient. I hope that there will be increased fines for those causing or permitting damaging operations and new penalties for those who commit intentional or reckless damage or disturbance - that must be covered.

I look forward to the Minister's providing the Committee with some more information and to a fruitful completion of the next stage of the Bill.

My party fully appreciates the need to protect and conserve our natural and physical environment. However, the proposals, as they stand, could have a negative effect on the farming community and on industrial and residential development in rural areas, especially where ASSIs are sited near to villages and smaller towns.

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment mentioned a designated ASSI in Newtownstewart in west Tyrone. That designated ASSI has caused great concern to the local community. The issues raised by the Newtownstewart example will have relevance to the Bill's implementation. Many in the community fear that the proposed Deer Park ASSI will restrict landowners and farmers in the daily management and cultivation of their land at a time when the agriculture industry is experiencing serious economic difficulties. Furthermore, the Newtownstewart community is concerned that the Deer Park ASSI will restrict the land that can be used for industrial or residential development, mainly because the current proposal almost encircles Newtownstewart. It falls right inside the town's inner designated limits.

The Department of the Environment has acknowledged that the Deer Park ASSI includes good quality, productive agricultural land and areas of commercial forest, so it is important that the procedures by which the Department declares an ASSI should be revised to take into consideration the quality of the agricultural land that an ASSI covers. An ASSI can be effectively declared and preserved only if there is proper local consultation, so that communities can work with the Environment and Heritage Service to protect the agreed ASSI in future.

Once an ASSI is declared, objections must be made within three months. As the residents and landowners of Newtownstewart have found, that gives little time for concerned parties to make formal representations to the Department. The three-month time frame must be extended to allow for wider consultation with the community that is affected by the declaration of an ASSI.

In the Newtownstewart case, the Department of the Environment has acknowledged the need to clarify and simplify the list of notifiable operations and those for which consent is not needed. The Environment and Heritage Service has, therefore, agreed to re-consult its statutory advisory body, the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, on that. That underlines the fact that the Bill must give greater clarity on the matter; it must state to what extent an ASSI declaration will affect normal farming activities.

The concept of designating carefully chosen ASSIs is a good thing. We should be concerned about protecting our natural environment, especially those parts of our region that have significant and special physical features. The purpose of the Newtownstewart ASSI is to preserve a unique glacial feature of that area. However, people who wish to live and work in rural areas must not feel that the imposition of ASSIs, as determined by official bodies, is a conspiracy against them to hinder rural-based development, whether for residential or farm-related business activities.

I welcome the Minister's announcement of the MOSS initiative. That is a step in the right direction.

Many concerns about the consultation process have been intimated to me and to others. The Minister outlined a consultation and appeal process. However, ASSIs have created much concern and interest among landowners and farmers. Will the Minister assure us that nothing will take place before consultation with landowners and farmers? People who have businesses in ASSIs are also concerned, especially those who own caravan parks.

I am concerned that this designation comes before consultation, with the result that caravan park owners do not feel that they are part of the process. The caravan industry is geared towards leisure. Designation of ASSIs may mean that caravan sites, which are traditionally by the seaside and involve water-based activities, will be restricted. Caravan site owners, tenants and lessees of the caravan sites will therefore be unable to continue with their businesses.

In the light of all the obvious concerns and obstacles, can the Minister assure the House that the Department of the Environment will adopt a cautious attitude in its approach to ASSI designation? Will he also assure Members that the views of landowners, farmers, caravan site owners and all those who will be affected by ASSI designation will be taken on board? Can the Minister also assure the House that there will be full, positive, transparent consultation with everyone concerned before any designations are made and that their views will be endorsed and encompassed in the Areas of Special Scientific Interest Bill?

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's statement. All Members welcome the idea of good legislation to deal with the protection of heritage. However, I share the caution of other Members. The farming community, in particular, should have been consulted with, listened to and provided with relevant information. Farmers in my area feel that they have not been involved and that some of the earlier designations have been made with little or no consultation. People feel that the designation of ASSIs are being imposed on the countryside. The Bill mentions "owners", but people feel that they own very little land when the Department decides that it wants to do something with it: the Department makes the decision and the farmer faces the consequences.

Although designation can cause the devaluation of an area, adequate compensation has not been provided. That has been the case in the Cookstown/Kildress area where sand extraction has taken place over recent years. It is an area rich in sand deposits, and the rest of the country has benefited from that in the past. However, because of farm diversification, that area is a honeypot for people to develop and expand a business, and a small area of conservation in the middle of it can be detrimental to those trying to develop it. If it is only a small area, the rest of the land can be landlocked, with damaging effect on the area to be preserved. Therefore, Members must look at the nature and purpose of the conservation and consider what they want to see the Bill develop and protect.

Clause 1(1) mentions the consultation between the Department of the Environment and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. Consultation must be wider than that. There must be proper consultation with farmers and the entire rural population. If policies are to be implemented to bring about ruralisation, and rural proofing, as the Minister of Agriculture mentioned, informative consultation must take place. It is hoped that the ASSIs will be properly managed. Members must also look at farm diversification and bear in mind that farmers in some areas do not have any other means of support.

The Environment and Heritage Service played an important role in the drafting of the Bill, but decisions should be made in partnership with the farming community. Decisions should not be imposed on the farming or rural community as they have been in the past. With some exceptions, the rural community has been the best protector of heritage. If you point out the special nature that you are trying to preserve, people will work in partnership with you. It is to be hoped that the measures in the Bill will be used in the proper manner and that decisions will not simply be imposed from the top.

The issue of right of appeal is also important. Those who want to pursue the right of appeal should have proper access and be given support. There should also be a back-up service to ensure that people get a fair hearing. In the past, too many tribunals have merely been about people making representations, while Government Departments have all the legislation and legal and administrative back-up to ensure that it is they who succeed. Those who want to appeal decisions need support to ensure that they have all the information. I welcome the opportunity for further discussion in the Committee and for debate in the House.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>