The Minister has acknowledged the damage caused by the prolonged period of wet weather, particularly to dairy farmers' land. Will she agree to the introduction of a reseeding scheme to improve the quality of grazing land for next year?

The allocation of any grant, including a reseeding grant, depends on EU state aid approval. I have seen the fields, and I am aware of the problem, but we must go through that mechanism.

TOP

5.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail any discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in Britain or the Republic of Ireland about the possible introduction of a Northern Ireland tagging scheme.

(AQO 175/02)

The European Union determines the legislative requirements for tagging cattle and sheep. The cattle-tagging provisions have been in place for many years, and the tags must include letters that identify the member state of origin. European Union proposals on sheep identification are to be brought forward shortly. Pigs are not required to be tagged, although they must have an identifying mark or tattoo before leaving their premises of birth.

My officials have raised with the European Commission the possibility of having letters that identify the region of origin included in the cattle-tagging arrangements. Hitherto, the Commission has not accepted that. I will continue to seek that provision for cattle, and for sheep if necessary, and to seek support from ministerial colleagues in Britain and the Republic of Ireland as appropriate.

Why has the Minister not made a stronger case for tagging beef from Northern Ireland? That case should be pushed more strongly than it has been. Beef from Northern Ireland is tagged as British, and it should be tagged as having come from Northern Ireland. That would be of great benefit to the farming community. Why is the Minister not pushing for that in Europe?

I am a little confused, because beef is not tagged - cattle are. Is the Member referring to cattle tagging?

Yes.

I shall, with the support of my ministerial colleagues in Britain and the Republic, seek to secure the European Commission's agreement to have letters that identify the region of origin included in the ear tag. Indeed, I have already raised that. However, the introduction of a single ear tag for Northern Ireland is unlikely, as EU rules require the inclusion of letters in a tag to identify the member state of origin, which in our case is the UK. That is the rule in the European Commission; it allows only the member state to identify cattle. Marketing issues can be dealt with through the method of beef labelling that is eventually chosen, though we must abide by certain rules in that respect also. That is the current position. I have raised the issue, but I am reluctant to say that I have the power to change the European Commission's rules as easily as all that.

Question 7 was grouped, and we should move to Question 8. However, Mr Gibson is not in his place.

TOP

9.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement about the regulations that allow the import of weaning cattle from the Republic of Ireland, cattle subsequently labelled as "Quality British Beef", and the timescales involved in this practice.

(AQO 168/02)

TOP

12.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement on the European Commission's decision to relax the date-based export scheme rules for Northern Ireland.

(AQO 156/02)

Beef cattle that are born in the Republic of Ireland cannot be labelled as "Quality British Beef". Under EC beef-labelling rules, only beef derived from animals that are born, reared and slaughtered in the UK may be labelled as British.

Does the Minister have any plans to introduce a marketing label device, which will admit weaned cattle imported from the Irish Republic? It was tradition, prior to the establishment of this Assembly, for farmers to buy store cattle from the Irish Republic for fattening. Those cattle came up as weanlings at around six months of age. Would it be possible for such cattle to be labelled for marketing purposes as British beef?

That is a marketing and a commercial issue, and not one for the Minister to address. I am aware of the problem, and I discussed it with the industry. Beef labelling must state where the animal was sourced, slaughtered, and so on. It is a commercial issue as to whether such beef is regarded as British or Irish beef.

Following the French relaxation of the ban on beef from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will the Minister make representations to the French Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs to see if we can get orders in France?

The Member asked if I would be making representations to whom?

Will the Minister make representations to the French Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs or the relevant Department?

I hope that the French market will now be available. We expect, on foot of the decision taken by the French food standards agency, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA), that the French Government will move very quickly to remove the ban. The indications are that that will be the case. I expect that we will then be in a position to export beef to France under the new date-based export scheme (DBES) rules. I will do all in my power as Minister to encourage support for Northern Irish beef in the French market - within the rules of competition, of course. My officials have been in discussion with some of the meat factories, which are anxious to begin exporting, especially to France, as there is a market for our beef there. That is good news for the farmers.

Bearing in mind the Minister's answer to question 9, and noting my own question 12, what percentage of cattle, slaughtered for human consumption, is eligible for the date-based export system, and what steps are the Department taking to improve the percentage of eligible animals?

Finally, does the Minister expect to see an increase in beef and sheep-meat prices to farmers, given that export processors should now enjoy a wider range of markets?

I will take the last part of the Member's question first - yes, I hope to see an increase in prices for the farmers because of wider markets.

In relation to the number of cattle eligible for the date-based export scheme, about 50% or 60% of cattle in a typical month are export eligible under the scheme. Many more cattle would be eligible if notification of animal births and movements were made on time by herd keepers. I am committed to ensuring that the EU rules of cattle identification and traceability are fully implemented. To that effect, I am phasing in additional control measures, including individual animal and herd restrictions for cattle identification and movement irregularities, as required by EU Regulations. Better compliance with animal identification and movement rules should, in turn, increase the date-based export scheme eligibility in the future.

Mr John Kelly, Mr Hilditch, and Mr Conor Murphy are not in their places, so we will move to question 16.

TOP

16.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a statement on the series of delays which have occurred in the delivery of the vision report action plan.

(AQO 166/02)

I note that none of those Members are from Armagh, so there is no excuse for their being absent today.

I consulted widely on the vision group report, after its publication in October 2001. In March 2002, I announced 11 measures, addressing 30 of the vision group's recommendations, which could be implemented without additional resources. My original intention was to release the full vision group action plan at the end of June 2002. However, I decided to delay its publication until November 2002, so that account could be taken of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. I emphasise that the delay in announcing the vision group action plan will not cause any delay in the implementation of the recommendations. In addition to allowing me to make adjustments in response to the mid-term review, the delay will enable me to bring all my proposals together in one announcement, which, among other things, will deal with my response to the food body working group.

Minister, your time is up.

TOP

Assembly Commission

Mrs Eileen Bell will respond on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Mr Paisley Jnr is not in his place, so we will move to question 2.

TOP

2.

asked the Assembly Commission if it has any plans to publish a public information leaflet on the workings of the Assembly.

(AQO 128/02)

The Assembly Commission has agreed a wide-ranging information strategy that addresses not only the information needs of the Assembly but the needs of the public for information about the Assembly and its business. The strategy is in the public domain by way of the Assembly web site. The strategy recognises the need to produce and present information in ways that best meet the needs of different groups, such as schools, special interest groups, academics, Departments and the public in general.

In order to implement the information strategy, the Executive Information Office has recently recruited two education officers to develop an information and education programme about the Assembly and its work. As part of that programme, a series of public information leaflets dealing with various aspects of the Assembly's work will be produced. Proposals for the design and content of the first of those leaflets will be put to the Assembly Commission for approval in the next few weeks.

I am pleased to hear that, finally, something is being done. I hold in my hand the Scottish Parliament's information leaflets, which have been available to the public for many years. They contain everything from information on the devolved Parliament and guidance for witnesses giving evidence to Committees, to how to approach MSPs. It is an excellent educational information brochure. Given the value of the work being done by our colleagues across the water, I am disappointed that the Assembly Commission did not make it a priority to get information to the public sooner.

Why has it taken so long to produce an information strategy? Will leaflets of the same type and quality as the Scottish Parliament's be available at least before the end of the year? Will the Assembly Commission consider setting aside a budget for educational and/or information tools for younger primary schoolchildren who, after a tour of the Building, leave totally empty-handed? That is not the case in some local councils, where children who visit leave with pencils or rubbers. Will the Commission agree to set aside a budget for such a valuable educational tool for everyone, and especially for young people?

On a personal level, I agree with everything that the Member has said. The Assembly Commission has been considering all aspects of information strategies for young people and the public in general. Education officers will consider some of the aspects relating to young people that you mentioned. We have decided to implement the simple strategy of giving children a pencil. Plans are in the melting pot at present, but we will inform the Assembly of our work as it progresses.

I agree that the Scottish pack is a good idea. I have given the Assembly Commission samples of it, because it hopes to produce a similar pack. Members' points will be noted in Hansard and taken on board as part of the discussion exercise.

Will that happen before Christmas?

The Commission has discussed the matter, but I cannot give the Member a timetable.

TOP

3.

asked the Assembly Commission whether it has any plans to review press access arrangements to Parliament Buildings.

(AQO 127/02)

Before devolution, a press liaison group was established to discuss matters of mutual interest, including media access and facilities in Parliament Buildings. A press lobby system to facilitate access was proposed, but the press did not find that proposal appropriate.

Earlier this year, after a meeting between media representatives and the Assembly Commission, it was agreed that the Commission would consider proposals to enhance press access in the Buildings. It was agreed that media representatives would reconsider the proposal to establish a press lobby and then offer its views to the Commission. To date, that has not happened.

A key consideration of the Commission is the facilitation of Assembly business and the provision of a safe working environment for Members, staff and the visiting public. The Commission values the role of the press in promoting a better understanding of the Assembly and its Committees, and would welcome proposals for improving press access.

I was disappointed at the press fallout after the Queen's visit and other occasions. The Assembly has managed to make an enemy rather than a friend of the press. Media facilities and access do not appear to be a problem in other devolved institutions. I cannot understand why the liaison committee never met; perhaps it could be re-established urgently. I ask the Commission to take the issue seriously, so that the apparent lack of communication as regards press access during the Queen's visit does not arise again. The same approach should apply to press access during visits by other dignitaries, and to the provision of information that we wish the press to report. The Assembly seems to have fallen foul in that regard, and the press seem to end up reporting negatively on it.

I agree; however, the Commission and the press have met to discuss proposals many times. We are considering their proposals for access and better information, and I hope that they are considering ours. The press conference arena in the basement of the Building is rarely used. The Head of Security, the Speaker, and other Members who deal with the press met representatives, and the Commission also met the Chairpersons' Liaison Group. I hope that proposals will result from those meetings.

I take on board the Member's comments; however, the Commission has already tried the approach that she suggested. I hope that the Assembly will be able to establish a better relationship and better communication with the press. The Commission shares the Members hope that the problems that arose in the past do not happen again.

TOP

Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations

I remind Members that the Minister has grouped the motions on the draft Fixed Term Employees Regulations and the Part-Time Workers Regulations for debate. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Minister to do the winding-up speech and put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Minister to move the second motion before putting the question without further debate. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

I shall continue where I left off.

I am aware that fixed-term contracts are used in sectors ranging from higher education to the hospitality industry. In some instances, sectors or organisations may wish to tailor the mechanism limiting the use of successive fixed-term contracts to suit their needs better. Therefore the Regulations provide for employers and employees to increase or decrease the four-year limit or to agree a different way in order to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts by collective or workforce agreements. Those agreements could, for example, specify allowable reasons for renewing fixed-term contracts beyond the statutory limit.

It is important that the law does not permit fixed-term employees to be treated less favourably than permanent employees. Therefore these Regulations also amend provisions in certain parts of some Orders, which, unless amended, would allow some or all fixed-term employees to be treated less favourably than permanent employees. For example, the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 permits fixed-term employees to waive their right to redundancy payments. The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 will remove that redundancy waiver.

The modest costs associated with these Regulations are more than offset by the advantages that they bring in fairness and the ending of the potential for discrimination. The regulatory impact assessment commissioned by my Department estimated costs to the private sector of about £1 million to £4 million. The Regulations will create an even playing field for employers of fixed-term contract employees. However, it is right that fixed-term employees should be treated no less favourably than permanent employees.

I now turn to the two amendments to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. These Regulations make it unlawful for employers to treat part-timers less favourably than comparable full-timers in their terms and conditions of employment unless different treatment can be justified objectively.

Under the present Part-Time Workers Regulations, part-time workers must compare themselves to full-timers employed under a similar contract. The amendment will allow part-time workers to compare themselves with full-time staff on both permanent and fixed-term contracts. That will ensure that part-time workers on fixed-term contracts are not treated less favourably than permanent workers.

The second amendment also aims at bringing the Part-Time Workers Regulations into line with the Fixed Term Employees Regulations. At present, if an industrial tribunal upholds a complaint from a part-time worker about equal access to an occupational pension scheme, the remedy awarded may not exceed a limit of two years' worth of employer contributions. That reflects the House of Lords ruling in February 2001 in the case of Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others. The amendment Regulations remove that restriction.

Compliance costs are estimated to be low. Those employers who treat their part-time workers equally to their full-time staff will experience no direct costs. The days where most of the labour force worked nine to five in a job for life are past. It is widely recognised that a more flexible approach is not only good for employees, but it can also enhance competitiveness. In this context, it is particularly important to protect the rights of the growing numbers on fixed-term and part-time contracts. Fixed-term and part-time work allows people to participate in the labour market who, perhaps due to family or other commitments, may not wish to accept permanent or full-time employment.

For their part, employers should see the benefits of greater loyalty and commitment among their fixed-term and part-time staff. Overall, the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 contribute to improving employment rights in the workforce, and I commend both sets of Regulations to the Assembly.

I appreciate the Minister's comments about the late delivery to the Committee of the Statutory Rule relating to part-time workers. As Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support both sets of Regulations.

With reference to the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, the Committee considered the pre-draft Statutory Rule at its meeting on 9 May 2002 and had no objections to the policy implications of the proposed legislation at that stage. The Committee noted that the equality impact assessment on the proposed Regulations indicated that there would be no adverse impact on any of the section 75 groups. The Minister referred to the regulatory impact assessment, and the Committee noted that it estimated a net cost to employers ranging from £1·5 million to £7·6 million, with about half of that falling on the public sector. It was expected that very little cost would fall on small businesses.

The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its most recent meeting on Thursday 19 September and supported its key objectives, especially the prevention of discrimination against fixed-term employees.

On behalf of the Committee, I urge support for the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 286/2002). These Regulations amend the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 (SR 219/2000) and are due to come into force on 1 October. As with the previous Statutory Rule, the original date for implementation was 1 July 2002, but the Department of Trade and Industry in London requested that further time be given to the UK to implement the EU Directive on fixed-term work.

The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its meeting on 19 September 2002 and supported the key objectives outlined by the Minister. The first is to maintain consistency with the EU Directive on fixed-term work, and the second is to comply with the judgment made by the House of Lords in the Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. Given that the amendments have been taken as part of an European Directive, and the fact that many women have to take part-time or fixed-term work due to family commitments, I am glad to see that the prevention of less favourable treatment has been taken on board by the Minister. Could we not do more, above and beyond what the EU suggests, to make working conditions for part-time and fixed-term workers even more favourable to the needs of working parents?

I also welcome the introduction of the Statutory Rules. As Michelle Gildernew said, they originated from European Directives. The people concerned were once commonly known as atypical workers, but the days when we had the typical worker from nine to five on a permanent contract are long gone. Many employees now have atypical working patterns, so the more inclusive our legislation, the better, especially with regard to the prevention of less favourable treatment.

I remember when part-time workers began to secure some rights along the same lines as full-time workers. The first thing that employers did was make their part-time workers redundant, since, they said, they could not implement the Regulation without considerable cost to themselves. Clearly, equality issues were involved. I know of some dispute involving Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster. In particular, the University of Ulster's fixed-term employees think that they will lose their jobs before the legislation comes into force.

When the legislation comes into force, what will happen to the employer of a person who has been working for four years on a fixed-term contract - I believe that that is the term in the legislation - if he or she decides to replace them? What are the employee's rights if he or she wishes to take that employer to court or to a tribunal because of unfair dismissal? Those of us who are familiar with labour relations know that many part-time workers did not benefit from previous legislation; they simply lost their jobs as a consequence.

Today's workforce is an increasingly diverse entity. I firmly believe that such enhanced flexibility brings considerable benefits to employers and workers alike. It is therefore important that those who wish to work on fixed-term or part-time contracts are not discouraged from doing so by the threat of less favourable treatment. I welcome the remarks of the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning and his acceptance of reassurances.

We are dealing with specific issues in the legislation, but Members are probably aware that an employment status review is under way. I hope that issues outside the legislation will be taken up through that. That probably does not answer the specific question regarding Queen's University, but I do not think I could answer that now, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so here. However, I shall most certainly do so in writing.

The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 will protect the rights of the increasing number of individuals on fixed-term, or part-time, contracts who might otherwise suffer detrimental work habits compared with their permanent or full-time colleagues. Such workers have an important role to play in helping to meet organisations' needs for more flexible labour solutions which contribute to the creation of high-performance workplaces.

TOP

Planning (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Rev Dr William McCrea):

I beg to move

The Committee for the Environment formally began its scrutiny of the Planning (Amendment) Bill on 25 June 2002. Members will know that it is the Committee's practice to seek the views of all key stakeholders, as well as those of groups most likely to be affected by any legislation.

This is an important piece of legislation. Consequently, the Committee has canvassed the views of all 26 councils and 17 other bodies, such as the Construction Employers Federation, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Woodland Trust. Seventeen responses have been received to date. As expected, some have raised interesting and valid concerns, and these were passed to the Department for comment. Over the past weeks, the Committee has received presentations from departmental officials responding to those points, and that process is ongoing.

During the Second Stage of the Bill, some Members spoke of the need for third-party appeals. The Committee has already obtained a commitment from the Minister that his Department will commence a full public consultation on the way forward for third-party appeals by Christmas of this year. The Committee is concerned about the Planning (Amendment) Bill in relation to third-party appeals.

Although full details will be provided in the Committee's report on the Bill, Members will be pleased to learn that the Committee has persuaded the Minister to take other important issues forward. Two of those require the Secretary of State's approval; namely, increasing the maximum fine from £20,000 to £30,000, and introducing a new offence of commencing development before planning permission is given. Those are significant steps forward and highlight the Committee's hard work on the Bill.

There are more issues for the Committee to explore that will require due and proper deliberation. Consequently, the Committee has considered it necessary to ask the Assembly for an extension. As always, it is the Committee's hope that its work will be completed by an earlier date.

TOP

Local Air Quality Management Bill: 
Committee Stage (Period Extension)

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Rev Dr William McCrea):

I beg to move

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will explain to the House why the extension is being sought. The Committee for the Environment began its formal scrutiny of the Bill on 18 June 2002. Members who have read the Bill will appreciate that it is complex, of a technical nature and requires close scrutiny.

The Committee heard presentations from and held discussions with departmental officials. This included a structured clause-by-clause presentation of the Bill on 20 June 2002. The Committee has also canvassed the views of all district councils together with 12 other interested bodies, such as the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, and the Royal Town Planning Institute. To date, seven responses have been received and, as expected, they have raised some pertinent and legitimate concerns which have been submitted to the Department for its comment and consideration.

It was also agreed that the Department would consult with key stakeholders to ascertain their views on the terms of the Bill. That consultation has taken longer than expected, and the Department has indicated that it will shortly be in a position to come back before the Committee on this Bill. It should prove to be a valuable exercise for all concerned, and it will require due and proper deliberation by the Committee. Consequently, the Committee has considered it appropriate to ask the Assembly to grant this extension of time.

TOP

Energy Inquiry Report

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his full and comprehensive response to the Committee. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Armagh team on its fine victory yesterday; perhaps the Chamber is so empty because Members are all down celebrating in the county.

The Committee wishes to see energy remain at the top of the political agenda, so it decided to stimulate a further debate on the energy report and the issues contained in it rather than deal with them by correspondence alone. We hoped that that would afford other Members the opportunity to contribute to this area of public policy. The Committee is looking forward to having a closer look at some of the relevant issues when considering the energy Bill later in the session.

As there are 45 recommendations, I do not have enough time to deal with each one and the Minister's response to them. I will concentrate on two issues which Committee members feel strongly about. I was pleased that many of the Committee's most important recommendations were accepted by the Department: recommendation 3 on consumer protection; recommendation 4 on cross-subsidies; recommendation 14 on Coolkeeragh; and recommendation 40 on postalisation of costs. However, I remain disappointed that Departments were not prepared to think outside the box in some cases. Some responses were negative and lacked imagination, and I will deal with them later.

The Committee made three recommendations regarding the eradication of fuel poverty. It has been said in previous debates, but it is worth repeating, that it is a scandal that 170,000 homes in the North are considered to be fuel poor. The Executive must make every effort to deal with the problem. The Committee recommended that the Government match, pound for pound, the money raised through the energy efficiency levy - £600,000 per year. If such funds cannot be directly obtained from the Treasury, they should be found from the Executive funds. That would reduce the time taken to eradicate fuel poverty from 10 to five years.

Some £600,000 is a small price to pay. The knock-on benefits to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's budget, for example, would be enormous, as it would reduce the cases of illnesses related to fuel poverty such as flu and chest infections and other chest-related illnesses by a huge amount. It would be money well spent.

The Committee was pleased to note that the Minister for Social Development is committed to producing a fuel poverty strategy, and we look forward to examining his proposals. The Committee was also pleased to note that the regulator is introducing plans that will make the energy efficiency levy process more accountable and transparent so that the public can see exactly how and where the funds are being spent.

On the question of renewable energy, the Committee is encouraged with the progress on developing the potential offshore wind farm off the north coast. I agree with the Minister that that development will be crucial if renewable energy targets are to be met. I hope that the Minister will agree that the misinformation being used against the development is extremely unhelpful and that it only serves to breed fear and confusion. The Committee is disappointed that the Minister could not agree with our target of having 15% of electricity from a range of renewable sources by 2010 but has instead opted for 10%. I accept that the majority of respondents to his consultation exercise agreed that 10% was appropriate, but the Committee believes that a target of 15% will encourage greater imagination in research and development of the necessary technologies. That target is challenging, but it is achievable if we put our minds to it. The Committee made various recommendations that sought to encourage greater demand for green electricity. We are deeply disappointed that the Departments responsible for dealing with those recommendations could not be more positive in their responses.

In recommendation 27, for example, the Committee stated that local area development plans should include provision for the location and development of renewable energy sources. The response that we received may have been technically correct, but it did not attempt to address the real issues, which are about helping to plan ahead for the development and use of renewable energy sources.

Recommendation 28 called for the planning and building control bodies to be proactive in the encouragement of low-energy buildings and renewable energy. The response saying that current strategies and legislation do not cover this point is simply not good enough. If the Executive want to take their obligations under the Kyoto protocol seriously, they need to demonstrate joined-up thinking on the encouragement, stimulation and development of renewable energy sources and technologies. It is unacceptable that Departments appear to be unsupportive of one another on the matter.

The Committee is pleased that the Minister and his Department are trying to develop the renewable energy industry in response to recommendations 34, 35, 36 and 37.

The Committee intends to keep plugging away at the issues raised in the energy inquiry report. I am glad that the report will help to stimulate public debate, and I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to look afresh at points raised today.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Neeson): I welcome the Minister's response to the Committee. The energy inquiry was an in-depth investigation that lasted longer than the Committee anticipated. The Committee will soon consider the draft energy Bill, which is very detailed. I assure the Minister that the Committee will approach the task with the same interest that it took in the original investigation.

The major issue is the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Assembly must consider long-term contracts. The Committee recently met Jamie Delargy and Sir George Quigley to discuss bonds financing as a possible means of buying out the contracts. Only two weeks ago, I met senior officials from Northern Ireland Electricity to discuss their proposals. The Committee has not decided how it will proceed with the matter. It will examine those, and other, proposals. It must focus on its aim, which is to lower the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the fact that the natural gas pipeline will go ahead, not only because it will benefit the north-west, but because of its benefit to the South/North pipeline. I sincerely hope that natural gas will benefit domestic consumers as much as businesses and that it will create a level playing field for all consumers in Northern Ireland.

I am still dismayed that people inside and outside the Assembly are trying to impede the project's development. One of the first all-party delegations that met in the Assembly dealt with the provision of natural gas to the north-west. Every party was represented before we even had devolution. Natural gas has widespread support across the political boundaries. I am delighted that the projected commissioning date of autumn 2004 has been agreed for Coolkeeragh power station, which will be one of the main beneficiaries of the pipeline to the north-west.

We must not put all our eggs in the one basket. We must remember that the new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station at Ballylumford will be commissioned soon. I, and local representatives, will visit that power station in a week or so.

Combined cycle gas turbine will also power Coolkeeragh, so we must be careful not to put all our eggs in one basket. The future energy uses at Kilroot must be different from natural gas. If Kilroot goes ahead with phase two of the power station, it could use gas, but there must be some diversification.

The Committee took considerable interest in the development of renewable energy, and we welcome the Department's commitment to it. However, I agree with the Chairperson that the larger target of 15% by 2010 is preferable.

It was remiss of me to leave out postalisation when talking about the natural gas pipeline. It is important that all consumers pay the same price for natural gas, regardless of where they live in Northern Ireland. The Committee has a major challenge ahead in dealing with the energy Bill, but we will approach it with the same determination with which we approached the original report.

As a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I am well aware of the challenges facing consumers and businesses with regard to the higher cost and lower availability of energy resources in Northern Ireland. I commend the energy inquiry report to the Minister; its numerous recommendations can provide a cheaper, greener service for energy consumers, and they suggest means for transforming waste into energy.

When the industry was privatised in 1992, long-term contracts were introduced that will continue until 2012; these have benefited only stakeholders at the expense of consumers. The report recognises the failings in the energy sector and seeks to improve consumers' lot - the ordinary men and women for whom energy is a basic need.

The report recognises the need to make consumer protection a priority when determining arrangements in the energy sector. That is why we suggest that the General Consumer Council be given stronger powers to represent consumers' rights to cheaper, diverse sources of energy.

Some 170,000 householders in Northern Ireland are classed fuel poor. I welcome initiatives, such as the warm homes scheme, which seek to redress people's difficulties in affording energy. The report's recommendation to increase the energy efficiency levy to £5 per customer is one way of eradicating fuel poverty, and the Minister should consider that more closely.

Increasing the efficient use of energy is one way of reducing cost to the consumer. Efficient appliances are vital, as they use energy sources with more care. However, the report also suggests ways in which the price per unit of electricity and other costs can be reduced. It is unacceptable that a 306% rise in output per generation worker has translated into only a 15% productivity gain to consumers. It is unacceptable that consumers are expected to fund long-term contracts while shareholders make large profits at their expense.

The importance of the environment in any future energy strategy is recognised in the report. I suggest that alternative sources of energy should receive assistance through Government funding. The report mentions the recently established biogas scheme in Fivemiletown. I am in favour of such schemes that convert waste products, particularly farm waste, into useful sources of energy. There is great potential for locating biogas digesters throughout Northern Ireland to reduce waste storage difficulties and to provide power for local schools and communities. The Minister will recall that I have written to him on this, and I hope that he will fully consider it.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>