I give a general welcome to the Bill, but it is a disgrace that Northern Ireland is so far behind Europe and the rest of the UK in implementing environmental Directives. The Bill is overdue, and the Alliance Party is keen for it to be placed on the statute book as soon as possible. Other Members have spoken about consultations - that is the name of the game. However, the Department has failed dismally to consult properly with landowners and farmers. Some years ago Strangford Lough was designated as an ASSI. There was almost a revolt because landowners were not given the correct information and were being dictated to by the Department. There was a similar situation last year when Grey Point to Ballyquintin Point in Portaferry was to be designated as an ASSI. There were, again, lapses, despite my representation to the Department at a meeting of Ards Borough Council to ensure that consultation was the name of the game.

Order. Dr McDonnell, it is extremely discourteous to turn your back to Mr McCarthy and continue a conversation when he is on his feet.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Some landowners were informed only by second or third parties, and that does not help the process. Everyone must get involved.

The Alliance Party also welcomes the requirement for the Department of the Environment to provide a statement on the management of the land as stated in clause 1(2). That should be of major benefit to the owner/ occupier of the land as well as improve conservation. Another important point is the provision for management agreements, as stated in clause 7, which includes costs being met by the Department. It is wrong that many landowners who care for valuable natural sites do so at their own cost. We also welcome clauses 11 to 13 with regard to the statutory duty on public bodies to promote conservation. However, in some respects, it is less robust than the requirements on private owners.

In paragraph 19 of the explanatory and financial memorandum "modest additional resources" are mentioned, yet the Bill provides for management agreements and payments where consent is withdrawn. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 requires a full management declaration, as in clause 1, for all existing ASSIs within five years. Can the Minister assure us that this can be done with "modest additional resources"?

I have listened attentively to all the Members who have spoken, and I cannot disagree with the comments that have been made. I welcome the Minister's statement, especially with regard to the management of sensitive sites.

I am concerned that many people who live in sensitive areas do not want to sign up to the MOSS scheme. What is their situation under the legislation?

I urge the Minister and his Department to be careful and to try not to force the issue. As Mr Molloy said, if the Department consults with the farmers it will find that they are sensitive to what happens in their areas. No one knows more about the issue than the farmers because they live in the rural areas. Although they understand what the Department is trying to do, they will not be pushed into doing something that they do not want to do.

I hope that consultation takes place. The Department must understand that it is entering into a partnership with the farming community. The last thing that farmers want is to have people turning up on their premises telling them what to do. I am not suggesting that the Minister will take that sort of attitude. However, as a farmer, I know that they will consult the Department if asked to do so. We are talking about a working relationship that will survive only if both partners work together.

Many issues affect rural areas at present, and agriculture has been going through a difficult patch. All those issues now come together. We must introduce a Bill that will protect the farmer as well as the sensitive sites, and that will take on board good farming practices. We are entering into an arrangement that will work, and, provided there is goodwill, it will survive.

The Minister must take all the issues on board. For example, he must address matters such as the farmers who do not want to have people tramping over their land. However, if there is a will, there is a way to address the issues, and I wish him success.

I remember clearly the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, because it was one of the pieces of legislation that took a long time to pass through the Assembly that sat between 1982 and 1986, and it attracted an almost record number of submissions.

A main point of that legislation was the issue of areas of special scientific interest. The law has come full circle, because, 16 or 17 years later, we are examining proposals to strengthen the protection of such areas. There is much to be welcomed in the Minister's statement.

In many respects, the Assembly passes some types of legislation because it has no choice. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 covers England, Scotland and Wales and has greatly strengthened sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) legislation. We must introduce similar legislation in this part of the United Kingdom in the interests of parity.

There is also the matter of European legislation. We are signatories to many international conventions, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and European Directives on special areas of conservation and special protection areas for birds. There is a panoply of legislation and European Conventions. As part of the European Community, we are duty-bound to implement legislation that will protect such areas whether we like it or not.

As the Minister stated, the European Community is concerned that the United Kingdom is not doing all that it can to conserve habitats. A European Union policy, Nature Europa, obliges member states to designate areas representative of nature conservation among the top European sites. The Irish Republic and, to a lesser extent, Northern Ireland are a fair bit behind in meeting their obligations under that policy. It is in that context that the Minister finds himself having to amend and update legislation on ASSIs.

As a civilised, western industrialised nation, we would be hypocritical were we to criticise the Indians of the rainforests or the tribes of Africa for destroying their habitats and important wildlife areas if we have not put our own house in order. The main mechanism that we have to protect our environment is ASSI designation, which is important for nature conservation. That is particularly relevant because we do not have national parks as in Canada or the United States. That being the case, it is incumbent upon us not only to designate all the areas that meet the standard but also to ensure that they are adequately protected. The proposals go a long way to achieve that, particularly in dealing with third-party damage. In my constituency of South Down, ASSIs have been damaged not by the owner or occupier but by fly-tippers who damage sites without the consent of the landowner.

A point that has been overlooked in the Minister's statement and which deserves a fair hearing is the MOSS proposals. They propose grant aid for farmers and other landowners to assist them in the management of ASSIs. That is positive, because we all know farmers' desperate situation. Their incomes are at an all time low, and anything that provides more money for them is to be welcomed. It will change people's perception of ASSIs. Instead of regarding ASSIs as negative and restrictive, farmers could see them as an opportunity to reach management agreements with the Department to work together with the Environment and Heritage Service to manage these important areas and to bring in much needed income. Some farmers would rather have the positive income that MOSS provides than lose perhaps £15 for every sheep they produce.

Mr McCarthy, Dr Birnie and other Members must remember that ASSIs cover only 6% of Northern Ireland. Even when all the sites have been designated, they will probably still cover less than 10%. Therefore 90% of the Province could be farmed in the normal way without any restriction.

It is worth having the special designation, but it is more important to have the funding to reach the agreements. I hope that sufficient finances are made available to the Department of the Environment so that the agreements can become widespread and positive. His constituents might even plead with Mr McCarthy to have their land designated as areas of special scientific interest so that they can avail of the funding.

Strangford Lough is in the constituencies of Strangford and South Down. There was much opposition to designating Strangford Lough as an ASSI. However, there has been little mention of it in the past three or four years, as landowners have realised that it is not the bogeyman that they assumed - it is positive. We owe it to future generations to preserve the 6% or 8% of the best of our nature conservation habitats in Northern Ireland so that they can enjoy these wonderful areas.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt): I thank Mr Wells for his beautiful words of help for me. He was not in the Chamber when I said that I look for assistance because I have the cold. I shudder to think what assistance he would have given me if he had heard me ask. Nonetheless, he spoke some wonderful words of support for what I am trying to do.

I thank all Members for their contributions and for their interest. Mr McCarthy and Mr Savage gave the farming point of view. We heard from Mr Shannon, and Jim Wells made a genuine point about the opportunity to protect our habitat. I will respond to some of the comments made. The departmental officials will scrutinise Hansard, and any of the detailed questions that have not been answered will be addressed in due course.

I thank Rev Dr William McCrea for his comments. The legislation requires updating. I entirely agree that it would be wrong to pretend that there are no problems - this very debate has shown that there are. I note the letter he mentioned from 39 landowners. The Member welcomed, as Mr Savage did, the strengthening of the relationship between the Department, in administrating ASSIs, and the farming and landowning community.

I will answer three of Rev Dr William McCrea's points. He mentioned powers of refusal. The Department will have entry powers and power to refuse consent for operations that would damage special features of ASSIs. The Department will also issue management notices that will address neglect. That may be viewed as a stick, but it satisfactorily complies with human rights legislation.

The Bill provides for an appeal mechanism for the various aspects where the Department has authority. We must ensure that the powers are not abused, but we, as the public sector custodian, must also have the appeal mechanism and be seen to be using it correctly.

Rev Dr William McCrea mentioned management notices. We want a theme of agreement and partnership. We want to exhaust all possibilities in trying to seek agreement between those who must work the land and those who want to designate an ASSI. The safeguard of the right of appeal remains available if we do not get it quite right.

The Member also mentioned that the maximum level of fines in some cases in the Bill is £20,000. However, as the Member has said before, fines in other Bills have been higher. There is now a parallel. Where a maximum fine was £5,000, it has been brought up to £20,000. A fine of £30,000, which would reflect inflation, has been suggested. We are conscious of that and have been negotiating on it. I also remind the House that that is the figure in the lower court.

As projected under another Bill that the Environment Committee and the Department are considering, there are unlimited fines in the higher court. That will take care of the fines aspect, but I take the Member's points about the £20,000 fine versus the £5,000 and the £30,000 fine, which features in another Bill.

We want fines to be an appropriate deterrent. Like the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, we believe that the current fine is an inappropriate deterrent. That answers Mrs Carson's point about increasing fines.

Mr Byrne mentioned the negative impact on the farming community. He mentioned the deer park at Newtownstewart. I do not want to address that specific area now, so my officials will address it directly with the Member. I have often said that the farming element is important. Mr Savage said that he is a farmer. I said that I come from a farming background. I empathise with farming and farmers. There are farmers in my family and in my constituency. Therefore, I try to empathise and understand the points raised by the farming community.

We do not want to place unnecessary burdens on the farming community. Many of the 5,000 people who own the 200 ASSIs are from the farming community, and we need their co-operation. The vast majority of owners work well with us - there are exceptions, but we try to deal with them. Mr Wells said that not enough attention had been paid to the management of sensitive sites. Again, I thank him for raising that point. I see from Mr Wells's facial expression that he is concerned by the fact that I am commending him again.

It might be in the papers.

It might well be in the papers. However, it must be noted that I am commending him for commending me.

That is even worse.

That is true.

We will offer payments in return for managing land, and for the purpose of conservation. Thus we hope to give landowners the satisfaction they need. The Bill will provide for the compensation, through management agreements, of landowners who are unable to continue certain activities.

We do not want another management scheme - that is provided for in existing legislation. We would prefer to have an agreement, but, if we cannot do so, we will use management notices, which could be viewed as "the stick". We prefer to work in partnership, and it is essential that we do so.

Mr Shannon urged caution and sought assurance that nothing would take place until there had been further discussion. We recognise that we must work in partnership with those who manage the ASSIs.

Mr Molloy mentioned sand deposits and farm diversification, which we must examine to see how they can fit in with ASSIs. If land were not part of an ASSI, what would the farming community do with it? In economic terms, what would be the opportunity cost? What would be lost if land were designated as an ASSI? That opportunity cost needs to be considered when making decisions about compensation. Mr Molloy warned that decisions should not be imposed on the farming community. I have tried to convey the message that we do not wish to impose from the top. I disagree with Mr McCarthy's remark that the Department failed dismally to consult with farmers and landowners.

Yes, dismally.

Two full consultations were carried out, and we tried to reflect their outcome in the Bill. The Bill will go to the Committee Stage, which will involve further consultation and deliberation, before it comes back to the Assembly. We will try to consult and work in partnership with those who will be affected by the Bill.

I apologise for not catching all of Mr McCarthy's point about resource implications. We have sufficient resources to start the implementation work set out in the new legislation, partly because of the recruitment of additional staff, as provided for through the spending review of the Budget 2000-01. Of course, when resources are not available, I will bid for additional resources to ensure the fullest implementation of the work. However, to place a bid is not to guarantee its success. I can but hope, and shall wait to see how the spending rounds go.

The final contributors, Mr Savage and Mr Wells, encapsulated what I had already said. At the beginning of my winding-up remarks, I mentioned tension. Mr Savage spoke of partnership, saying that telling farmers what to do would not work. Both parties must work together. No one tells the farmers in my family what to do; instead, they should be asked to work together to get things done.

Mr Wells spoke of the "panoply of European Union legislation and conventions". It is our bounden duty - like it or not - to implement those. European Union Directives to protect the environment cannot be disregarded, otherwise we face infraction proceedings. The Bill takes account of the legal imperative, of European Union desires, and the need for partnership with the community in creating areas of special scientific interest. The Bill will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that it will be fair to all the interests involved, to those who seek further measures to safeguard the natural heritage, to what EU Directives require of us, and to the owners and occupiers of the land, who continue to use it in a sustainable manner. I hope that it will be fair to the community as a whole, whether land-users or users of those areas of special scientific interest that need protection.

I commend the Bill's Second Stage and look forward to the comments of the Committee for the Environment.

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

TOP

Company Directors' Disqualification Bill: 
Consideration Stage

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Company Directors' Disqualification Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

State Pension Credit Bill: 
Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the State Pension Credit Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

Social Security Bill: Final Stage

The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds):

I beg to move

I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill and the speed with which the deliberations took place.

Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations

Before I ask Ms Hanna to move the motion, I remind Members that a draft Statutory Rule that is subject to approval by resolution requires the approval of the Assembly before it can be made by the Department.

Mr Speaker, these two regulations are closely linked. With your permission I propose to move them at the same time.

I am content for you to do that.

I beg to move

I express my appreciation to Dr Birnie and the Committee for Employment and Learning for considering the Regulations so promptly. I regret the short time available to the Committee, but, once policy had been settled as to how best transpose European Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work in the UK, my officials had little time to process the Northern Ireland draft Regulations.

The fixed-term Regulations will implement European Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work. They will also prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees. Most statutory employment rights already protect employees on fixed-term contracts. Part-time workers, however, enjoy additional protection from being less favourably treated than comparable full-time workers.

The new fixed-term Regulations have been designed to give similar rights to fixed-term employees by ensuring that, because of the nature of their contracts, they are not treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees, unless that treatment can be objectively justified. In short, the Regulations' key aims are to prevent discrimination against fixed-term employees and to place a limit on the use of successive fixed-term contracts to prevent abuses arising from their use. Fixed-term employees will be able to compare their conditions with those of employees who are not on fixed-term contracts and are employed by the same employer to do the same, or broadly the same, work.

I realise that there may be occasions when employers may have objective reasons for treating a fixed-term employee differently from a similar permanent employee, and the Regulations provide for that. In particular, they state that different treatment is objectively justified, providing the fixed-term employee's overall package of conditions is not less favourable than those of a comparable permanent employee. Employers will not, therefore, be prevented from giving a fixed-term employee a higher salary to compensate for their not having other benefits, such as access to a pension scheme.

A core aim of the EC Directive is that member states take measures to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts. The Regulations aim to achieve that by limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts to four years, unless the use of further fixed-term contracts is justified on objective grounds. For the purposes of that area of the Regulations, service accumulated from 10 July 2002 will count towards the four-year limit.

There is no limit on the duration of the first fixed-term contract.

Order. I fear I must interrupt the Minister in full flow, but Standing Orders do require me to interrupt at 2.30 pm for Question Time. After Questions to the Assembly Commission, which come after Questions to the Ministers, the House will, return to the debate on the two Statutory Rules as requested by the Minister. Other Members who wish to speak may do so, speaking on either or both. The Question will then be put on each Statutory Rule in turn.

Oral Answers to Questions

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

I wish to advise the House that questions 1, 2, and 5 in the names of Mr Gibson, Mr Fee and Mr John Kelly have been withdrawn and will receive written answers. Question 8, in the name of Mr McGrady, has also been withdrawn.

TOP

3.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail how the numbers working in its Department compare with the numbers in (i) the Prime Minister's office and (ii) the Taoiseach's office.

(AQO 154/02)

The Deputy First Minister (Mr Durkan): We welcome the opportunity to clarify the distinction between a private office and a Department. Thirty-one staff are employed in our joint private office, including our private secretaries, special advisers and administrative support as well as a team that handles the large volume of correspondence that we receive.

Our Department has a wide range of functions that have been conferred on it by statute or that have been added by the Assembly from time to time. The Department's responsibilities go far beyond those of the Prime Minister's office or that of the Taoiseach. Our Department has a unique role and remit, covering equality and community relations policies and programmes, economic policy and European matters. It also supports the Executive as a whole and, indeed, supports and facilitates the work of the full range of Departments and Ministers. That is clearly shown in relation to the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the work of the Executive secretariat, the Economic Policy Unit and the Executive information service.

On 2 September, 417 staff were in post in the Department. Some 383 are directly engaged in the Department's work, and the remainder are posted to those independent bodies for which the Department is responsible for providing staffing support, such as the Planning Appeals Commission and the International Fund for Ireland. A more detailed summary has been placed in the Assembly Library.

It would appear from the Deputy First Minister's answer - and I invite him to agree - that the number of staff employed means that the people of Northern Ireland are getting value for money. The staff are targeted, deal effectively and efficiently with their work and are by no means disproportionate to the needs of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre has called for more resources for the Department. Would the Deputy First Minister like to comment on that?

The Member is correct that the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre has made the point on several occasions that insufficient resources are being committed to the OFMDFM. He has made that point in relation to e-government and European policy matters. Indeed, the Committee of the Centre observed in a report that more staff and financial resources are necessary.

We must also remember that some people who work in OFMDFM are working on, for example, the review of public administration. Many of those people have been brought in from elsewhere in the public service and will be on our payroll only for the duration of that review.

People misunderstand the comparisons made about OFMDFM, the Taoiseach's office and Downing Street. A fair comparison might be made between the central co-ordination functions of OFMDFM and the Cabinet Office, which has a staff of more than 2,000. The Equality Unit and a range of other services have to be provided for somewhere in the Government, and the Assembly agreed that they would be assigned to OFMDFM.

Would OFMDFM's responsibility for functions beyond central co-ordination be better sited elsewhere, leaving a leaner, slimmer Department to discharge its primary all-important function of co-ordinating Government?

The composition of Departments and the distribution of their functions are determined by the Assembly, having been proposed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. When departmental functions are reviewed, it is conceivable that some responsibilities that are currently in the remit of OFMDFM could be reassigned to other Departments. However, some OFMDFM functions support the Executive as well as the work of Departments and their impact on other bodies such as the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. The Executive are working not only to support the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister but to facilitate the work of all Ministers and Departments. Some units lend themselves naturally to central office, such as OFMDFM's role in providing Executive support, while units that deal with other Government work or specialist areas could be considered for reassignment. However, those units and functions will not disappear: many existed before the creation of OFMDFM; some, such as the Equality Unit, are new and required new resources and commitments. Many Members have pointed out that such areas require more finance and additional personnel.

Members will be surprised by the Deputy First Minister's defence of the £13·2 million spent on the creation of jobs for David Trimble's cronies and on UUP election failures.

Is the Deputy First Minister aware of panic in the OFMDFM as staff frantically search through the jobs columns of newspapers at the prospect of being out of work by 18 January 2003, as the First Minister yet again gets tough on the IRA? Or have OFMDFM's employees taken the same cynical view as the rest of the population with regard to another deadline - yet again given before an election - which is never carried through? That deadline will go the same way as the deadlines given before the Assembly elections, the local council elections and the Westminster elections.

The staff of OFMDFM and the relevant pay and rations bill, involves many civil servants. The Member refers to a budget of £13 million and suggests that it is connected to cronies of either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. That suggestion is entirely misplaced. The majority of jobs in OFMDFM existed before the establishment of that Department; it was a matter of which Department those jobs would be located in. The setting up of the Executive, new structures and equality responsibilities meant that new jobs had to be created, which had to be assigned somewhere. There is an argument for a dedicated Equality Unit, which would require many staff. The issue should be treated fairly. Today in OFMDFM people were reading the excellent newspaper coverage of the fantastic success of the Derry minor team and the Armagh senior team rather than panicking and searching frantically for new jobs.

So they do not believe David Trimble either.

Order.

TOP

4.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it has met with the Chairman of the Policing Board to discuss the location of the police training college, and if it intends to support the Policing Board recommendation to locate the college at the site of HMP Maze.

(AQO 125/02)

TOP

9.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what discussions it has had with the Chairman of the Policing Board.

(AQO 159/02)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 4 and 9 together. There have been several informal discussions between Ministers and the chairman of the Policing Board on the location of the police training college. We are aware of the board's interest in the Maze site. However, our use of that site is subject to the terms of our agreement with the Treasury, which cover all the sites to be transferred to the Executive, free of charge, under our reinvestment and reform initiative. Those terms include an undertaking on our part to plan the development of each site strategically, with a view to maximising the benefit of the economic and social regeneration of local communities. To this end, members of the reinvestment and reform initiative project board have recently visited all the sites, and we look forward to receiving their advice. In the specific case of the important site at the Maze, we must also take into account proposals for the development of the adjacent Ministry of Defence site at Long Kesh. As far as I am aware, there have been no discussions with the chairman of the Policing Board on any other matter.

The First Minister deliberately failed to answer the part of the question that interests most people. Does he support the proposal to locate a new police training college at the Maze site? That is critical, given that his party unanimously endorsed that position at a Policing Board meeting. Is it the case that, at a meeting over the summer months with the chairman of the Policing Board, he suggested that the Maze site was worth £1 million per acre and that, as a result, he could not justify giving that land to the board? Does he now stand as the impediment to progress in the creation of a first-class, twenty-first century training college for police officers in Northern Ireland? Will he now commit himself to locating a police college at that site?

I am afraid that, yet again, Junior is misinformed. I have had no meeting with the chairman of the Policing Board. There was a telephone conversation. I did not make the comment that he attributed to me. I do not know who may have said it, but I certainly did not, and I do not know where that invention came from.

I refer the Member to my original answer. The Maze site was transferred to us free of charge. If the Member thinks about that for a moment, he will realise the enormous problems we would face if we subsequently transferred to the Northern Ireland Office property that was given to us free and for a purpose. Clear conditions are attached to the use of the property. We would experience considerable difficulties with the Treasury if we departed from them.

There is a further factor to be considered. The total area, including not only the Maze site, but the Ministry of Defence property, amounts to more than 300 acres. The site is centrally located at a strategic point in Northern Ireland. It is clearly irresponsible to deal with this in a piecemeal manner without considering how to maximise the benefit in the broader sense, not only financially, but socially, for Northern Ireland as a whole. I would have thought that the Member's colleague in the Department for Regional Development would want to reconsider strategic plans in view of the significance of this site rather than fritter the opportunity away. Of course we want to see a first-class police college there, but the Member should be more responsible and not propose to squander significant assets in such a way.

Order.

The First Minister made a very convincing argument for placing the police college at the Maze site. It is strategically placed, in a central location, and there is an abundance of land. Those are all good reasons to support locating a police college there. Is Mr Trimble saying that he is opposed to setting up a police college on a central site? People want more police officers on the streets, and his office is holding back better policing by delaying the opportunity to develop a police college.

The reason for the delay in establishing a new police college, one of the few proposals in the Patten Report that we favoured, is the Treasury's failure to provide the appropriate finance. That is a reserved matter for the Northern Ireland Office. I support plans for a first-class police college, but its provision is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and the Policing Board. Many sites in Northern Ireland could be considered. Mr Poots might wish to seek the views of his constituents in the Maze area.

The First Minister must find it at least ironic, and at worst contradictory, to answer a question on a site for a new police training college two days after he threatened the Police (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001, to which his party Colleagues on the Policing Board contributed. Is the Policing Board seeking to use the Maze Prison site, the Ministry of Defence site, or both?

I am sure that Ms Lewsley is very glad that on Saturday we managed to save the agreement, to give it another chance to succeed and to prevent it from collapsing, which it otherwise would have done. We need to put that in context.

In response to Ms Lewsley's question, we have only the Policing Board's press release to go on. The board stated that the new police training college could be located on the Maze site, and it made reference to "the extensive site at the former prison". No reference was made to the adjacent Ministry of Defence site at Long Kesh. Any use of part of the Maze site would have to take account of the whole area. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has not made a decision on the matter because it is unable to do so. However, we have asked the reform and reinvestment initiative project board for its advice, and we think that the matter should be considered strategically.

Question 6, in the name of Mr McNamee, has been withdrawn. Questions 1 and 5 were fully withdrawn and will not receive written answers.

TOP

7.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail its European Policy Co-Ordination Unit's (EPCU) efforts to ensure that the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland are taken into account in the formulation of the Republic of Ireland's EU policy.

(AQO 137/02)

In December 2001, the North/South Ministerial Council agreed that a working group should be set up to consider the arrangements to give effect to paragraph 17 of strand two of the agreement. Three meetings of the working group, which on the Northern Ireland side were led by the EPCU, have now taken place, and the North/South Ministerial Council has endorsed a progress report. That commits each sector to consider at its next ministerial meeting whether any EU issues require attention, and an assessment will be given at the next plenary meeting.

Future deliberations of the working group will consider how the views of the Council can be reflected appropriately at relevant EU meetings. Provision is also made in the common chapter for joint initiatives, and responsibility for promoting and monitoring that work falls to the Special EU Programmes Body, which will produce a progress report next year.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it would be in the best interests of the people of the Six Counties of Ireland were treated as a single economic unit of a wider European Union? Can he confirm or deny whether the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has met, or intends to meet, Mr Dick Roche TD, Minister of State for European Affairs.

The North/South Ministerial Council has been examining EU issues in its plenary sessions. In addition, the different sectoral bodies will consider any EU issues that arise. Those matters will be the subject of a further report to the North/South Ministerial Council. Further meetings, involving a variety of Ministers, possibly the First Minister and me, may arise from that. I hope that Mr McElduff appreciates that I am reluctant to get involved in meetings outside the North/ South Ministerial Council in circumstances in which a threat or question mark may be placed on the Council format.

We best serve the entire community's interests by maintaining the type of democratic arrangements that we have here, by pursuing our opportunities for North/South and east-west co-operation on a whole range of policy matters and by addressing those EU policy issues that concern us on that sort of co-operative basis. We hope to continue to work in that way and to work for positive development in the EU itself, which the Member may not favour so strongly.

Further to the Deputy First Minister's answer, does he agree that all parties in the Executive committed themselves to implementing all parts of the agreement, including the North/South Ministerial Council, which is a vital part of the agreement? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it would be illegal not to nominate? Can he confirm how he plans to handle the nomination of Ministers to future meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council?

In the 'Declaration of Support' all the parties involved committed themselves to the full operation of all the arrangements under the agreement. Those arrangements include the North/South Ministerial Council. There are other institutional arrangements - the Assembly, the Executive and the British-Irish Council. There are also other arrangements established under the agreement, such as the Policing Board. I recognise that the agreement committed me, and my party, to all those arrangements. As Deputy First Minister, I continue to discharge those commitments in full.

A schedule of meetings for the North/South Ministerial Council exists. I will play my part in providing nominations for those North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Should there not be nominations for those meetings, we know that that has been a matter of legal consideration previously, and we are also aware of the judgement in that case.

TOP

10.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail any recent discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on the subject of community relations.

(AQO 147/02)

At a meeting on 13 August involving Minister Haughey, Minister Leslie and Des Browne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Mr Browne outlined progress on his initiative on interface violence. That has involved a series of meetings with political parties and other key interests. Subsequently, on 12 September, Mr Browne issued a press release summarising progress on those meetings.

Does the First Minister agree that the actions of paramilitaries, both Loyalist and Republican, are fomenting community conflicts and have undermined efforts to improve community relations in both interface areas and the wider community? Has he highlighted to the Northern Ireland Office the adverse effects that paramilitary actions have had on community relations and on public confidence in the democratic process?

There appears to be significant evidence to indicate that community division, particularly in interface areas, is now greater than it has been at any point in the last quarter of a century. The deterioration of the position, which is contrary to what one would have expected subsequent to the agreement, is wholly attributable to the actions of Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries at those interfaces. There is no doubt that the conflict that we have seen at interfaces during the summer has had a dramatic impact on community confidence; that is true to such an extent that as a result of the behaviour of paramilitaries, the future is not good, and these institutions are at risk.

I am sure that the Member listened with me in disgust to Mitchel McLaughlin this morning crying crocodile tears over the threat to the institutions when it is his colleagues and their nocturnal activities who pose the greatest threat.

And you who sit in government with them.

You too.

Order.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>