With regard to the Peace II programme, the Rural Community Network, in partnership with Irish Rural Link, was successful in its application to deliver the measure. Those organisations will establish the cross-border network, which is expected to be operational in December 2002 and January 2003. Applications will be accepted then.

When will the cross-border community development measure of Peace II be operational?

I have answered that question in my answer to the previous one, which was about the same issue.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the progress of the important meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council.

I have particular interest in the convergence and harmonisation of animal health policies, of which there are many, on both sides of the border, so that there is an all-Ireland system. The steering group on animal health was to produce an animal health policy by 31 September. Is that still on course?

What was the pay increase for chief executive officers? What are their salaries now?

It is hoped that the steering group will finalise the all-island animal health strategy by the end of the year. The differences between North and South are outlined in the matrix. There are differences of approach in dealing with brucellosis and tuberculosis. I will take account of the consultation on the review of brucellosis and tuberculosis and of the policy in the South.

Northern Ireland differs in its approach to sheep identification. I am considering bringing forward proposals on that issue later in the year.

In the South, measures are being introduced to mirror the action taken to control Aujeszky's disease in Northern Ireland.

Salaries for chief executive officers differ from job to job and are a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Further to Mr McHugh's question, how soon does the Minister expect full co-ordination of brucellosis and TB health measures, North and South, given the major problems that they create for both farming economies?

With regard to the plant health risk assessment panel, has the Minister taken any note of the grave concerns in Northern Ireland about the introduction of genetically modified organisms, given that some testing is ongoing in the South? Will she do anything to ensure that Northern Ireland can maintain its current green image and remain GM-free?

There is no question of introducing GM organisms into Northern Ireland. The Executive have not taken a position on that. I can only give my party's position, which is very much opposed to the introduction of GM organisms into Northern Ireland. The Executive have not yet discussed the matter, but I do not imagine that there will be much enthusiasm for it.

To answer the Member's first question, I hope that the final common strategy will be agreed by the end of this year. The working groups have been considering all the areas involved. Did the Member ask for any other details?

What is the timetable for action rather than strategy?

My policy review on brucellosis and TB is currently out to consultation. There are points of difference between here and the Republic - the capping of compensation payments, for instance. Those are quite controversial issues. When I get the result of the consultation, I will consider it carefully and discuss it with the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Assembly before making a final decision. Given that disease does not recognise the border, I want to work towards having similar, converging policies, North and South. There are implications for both sides if there are different policies.

In view of the current political climate, would the collapse or suspension of the institutions have implications for the work in hand in the North/South Ministerial Council, especially on the negotiations preceding the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (CAP)?

I would be extremely concerned if the institutions were to collapse, and the agriculture industry would have particular reason for concern. The Member asked about the mid-term review of the CAP. It is no secret that Northern Ireland and - I was going to say UK, but - English interests have very different priorities. The UK Minister will have different views, and a Minister appointed through direct rule to represent Northern Ireland will, of course, take the UK Minister's line. To put it mildly, that would not be helpful to us in the run-up to those negotiations, especially considering the dynamic that has been introduced through the North/South Ministerial Council, whose agreed priorities have been endorsed by the Assembly and in the South. Again, those priorities are not similar to those expressed by the UK Minister.

A return to direct rule would rob Northern Ireland of the important opportunity to have its own voice in negotiations and to articulate the priorities for the industry here. That is not a political point; rather it is one that indicates the practical reality that the farming community will face.

TOP

Water Quality and Planning

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on water quality and planning.

I am putting the following remarks on the public record for at least two reasons. First, the construction industry, potential householders and other sectors need clarity and certainty. Secondly, this is a matter of genuine and general public interest to elected representatives and their constituents.

Downpatrick provided an early example of an unfolding problem, and Members may recall the debate in the Assembly. At that time we sought, and achieved, a solution to the difficulties experienced in the Downpatrick area. As I did not want that situation to be constantly repeated across Northern Ireland, thus giving rise to continued uncertainty, I implemented the following approach to address the wider issues across Northern Ireland: to analyse the problem, thus providing a context for developing a solution and, in the meantime, holding applications recommended for refusal by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS); to consider what we should do, how we should do it and to set a clear timetable for achieving an outcome; to provide a mechanism to evaluate and review progress regularly in striving to meet that timescale; and, having agreed the way forward, to inform the House and the public fully and promptly.

Members are well aware that Northern Ireland's sewerage infrastructure falls well below modern standards. As the environmental regulator, I have worked with Mr Peter Robinson, because the operation of the sewerage system is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. The Department for Regional Development also has a clear duty through its Water Service to comply with EU and domestic water-quality standards.

Members are also aware that the Department of the Environment's Planning Service has been holding - I emphasise not refusing - some applications in some areas as a result of concerns expressed by the Environment and Heritage Service about the environmental compliance and pollution implications of further development pending urgent consideration of the way forward by both my Department and the Department for Regional Development.

I take this opportunity to do two things. First, I would like to explain why it was necessary to hold some applications. Secondly, I would like to explain the agreed way forward. I have already referred to deficiencies in the sewerage infrastructure. It has been recognised that they are not the fault of this devolved Administration; rather they reflect the decades of underinvestment before the matters became a local responsibility. As environmental regulator, I am concerned about those deficiencies. Peter Robinson and the Department for Regional Development, as operators of the system, are also concerned.

The deficiencies exist within an increasingly stringent legal and environmental framework. In particular, the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive introduces increasingly demanding standards for sewage treatment and effluent discharges to our watercourses. Domestic environmental standards are also tougher. The Assembly will recall the Public Accounts Committee report on river pollution that called on my Department, and the Environment and Heritage Service in particular, to take a much more rigorous approach to environmental regulation, not least in respect of discharges from waste water treatment works. The law is now much less tolerant of pollution than it was before, and that trend is continuing.

To illustrate the point, I will use two important indicators that are monitored by the Environment and Heritage Service in its role as environmental regulator. First, compliance of sewage treatment works with EU standards fell from 53% in 2000 to 35% in 2001. Secondly, compliance with domestic standards fell from 81% in 2000 to 57% in 2001. That compares with 95% compliance in England and Wales for at least the past five years.

It is important to note that the situation reflects the increased stringency of the regulatory standards and not an overall deterioration in the system's performance. This forms the background against which the Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service operate.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that my Department has a statutory duty to promote the conservation and cleanliness of Northern Ireland's water resources and waterways. In that context, and in the light of the significant reduction in Water Service compliance with EU and domestic standards, the Environment and Heritage Service expressed concern about the implications of further development with regard to environmental compliance and pollution risks in 56 locations across Northern Ireland. The concerns identified by the Environment and Heritage Service were sufficiently serious to raise complex and far-reaching legal, environmental, operational and resource issues. Those issues touched on the functions of the Department for Regional Development's Water Service as well as those of the Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service and Planning Service.

Initial legal advice emphasised the need for a precautionary approach, taking account of both European and domestic law, and for careful consideration of the issues. The Planning Service therefore decided to hold - again, I emphasise "hold" and not "refuse" - planning applications for developments that the Environment and Heritage Service had recommended for refusal pending detailed examination of the issues.

That examination has proved more complex and has taken longer than we wished. It has, undoubtedly, been a source of real difficulty and concern for the construction industry as well as for actual and potential householders. I have met with representatives of the industry several times, and the Quarry Producers Association, and have apprised them of our deliberations. I have kept the Executive and the Committee for the Environment fully apprised, and I have met several delegations regarding the issue.

Needless to say, the linked issues required the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development, Peter Robinson and myself to work closely together, as well as consideration by the Executive as a whole. The essence of that work has been a location-by-location examination of the compliance problems and the work needed to resolve them together with a comparison of the projects and priorities in the Water Service capital works programme. The aim was to determine whether the necessary improvement work is programmed and over what period. I am grateful to Peter Robinson and his staff for their efforts in undertaking the work.

I am glad that that co-operation has allowed us to develop a pragmatic approach, designed to balance the need for physical development with the need to protect the environment. It is important to emphasise that balance - or compromise, if you like - is at the heart of the issues I am reporting to the Assembly today. The approach that we, as Executive Ministers, have adopted reflects an acknowledgement that an absolute constraint on development in those areas with a significant degree of non-compliance with environmental standards until such time as the deficiencies in the sewerage infrastructure can be corrected would have a crippling effect on physical development across Northern Ireland. Such an approach, despite the high level of environmental protection it would have afforded, would have carried a high price in respect of constraints in economic growth and social progress.

I shall now turn to the agreed way forward and address four aspects of the issue. First, there are the environmental considerations. The joint Environment and Heritage Service/Water Service examination of the 56 locations identified 14 areas where the environmental impact is low. Remedial works in the current Water Service capital works programme should be completed within three years at five of those locations, and within five years at a further seven locations. No remedial works are planned for the remaining two areas. However, because of the low environmental impact, the Environment and Heritage Service will not object to the granting of planning permission. The Planning Service will complete the processing of the affected applications and will issue decisions. Where the decision is to approve the application, development may normally begin immediately.

In the remaining 42 locations, where the environmental impact is medium or high, remedial works are scheduled for completion within three years at 23 locations and within five years at a further 19 locations. In those cases, the Environment and Heritage Service will alert the Planning Service to the environmental issues, but will not object to the granting of planning permission. Moreover, in those cases the Planning Service will complete the processing of affected applications, issue decisions and, if approved, work may normally begin immediately. A complete list of the 56 locations, together with an environmental comment, will be available at the following web site: www.ehsni.gov.uk.

I emphasise that, in the context of development control, the Environment and Heritage Service provides advice; it does not direct the Planning Service. The Planning Service will, as it must, determine each planning application on its merits, taking into account all relevant factors, including the Environment and Heritage Service's advice.

The result of that approach is that those planning applications that have been held on a precautionary basis pending an examination of the issues, and future planning applications in all 56 locations, will be processed to decision. Although I appreciate that that will be welcome news to the construction industry and more generally, I also acknowledge that it means that developments will continue to connect to the public sewer in areas where the current inadequacy of the sewage collection and treatment systems is having a high or medium environmental impact, and will continue to do so for some years, pending completion of the Water Service's capital works programme.

As environmental regulator, that situation does not rest comfortably with me, nor does it, I am sure, with Members. The Executive have adopted that pragmatic approach to protect people's jobs and livelihoods and to ensure that the objectives for economic growth and social progress outlined in the Programme for Government are not jeopardised.

In the first instance, our approach is based on the Water Service's commitment to deliver the capital works programme as currently planned, subject to the completion of statutory processes. In considering future funding, the Executive have not agreed any increase in the capital budget for the Department for Regional Development's Water Service. At my request, and to inform the Executive's discussion, the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Peter Robinson, provided a paper outlining the additional resources that the Water Service would need to provide interim solutions at some locations in advance of the main schemes, to settle the advance plans' start dates at other locations, and to undertake by traditional procurement some schemes currently comprising a public-private partnership/private finance initiative package. The Executive noted the paper and agreed to consider the way ahead in Water Service investment as part of the infrastructure strategy to be developed between now and the final Budget in December.

To assist their consideration, the Executive agreed to commission from Peter Robinson further details of the costs that he provided and his proposals for meeting them, including his plans for re-prioritisation and restructuring.

My officials in the Environment and Heritage Service will monitor progress carefully in the capital works programme and the continuing environmental impact of development, especially in the high-and medium-impact locations. They will work closely and at senior level with Water Service officials. My aim is to avoid any serious exacerbation of pollution in those areas. I therefore caution that, in the longer term, it may not be sustainable to continue to connect developments to non-compliant sewerage systems in which remedial works remain some way off. However, I will keep the situation under continuous review, considering the balance between environmental protection and facilitating development, and will do so in an open and transparent way, fully involving the Chamber and the industry.

Peter Robinson and I have agreed that developers should also introduce proposals to meet infrastructure deficiencies, and we will encourage them to do so. It is to be hoped that my statement provides certainty and clarity for the construction industry and actual, or potential, householders who have been affected by the problem. I am mindful that continuing to hold up planning applications could have drastic implications for house supply and house prices and could potentially destabilise the housing market, which is a vital element of the Northern Ireland economy.

Therefore, we have identified the source, level and nature of the environmental and legal risks, established a clear timetable to deal with funding issues, which is a vital element of the approach that I have outlined today, established clear monitoring and review mechanisms by way of a close and clear relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development, and sought to encourage opportunities for the construction industry to assist in the solution of those problems. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

I welcome the Minister's statement, which is much needed. The Minister has made the best of an extremely bad job in trying to make some sense of the issue.

We must comply with the stringent - the Minister's word - European legal environmental framework, which is enshrined in the EU Urban Waste Water Directive. Our almost-obsolete sewerage systems hold effluent that goes into the river system; that concerns me. Eutrophication of our rivers and lakes is a problem, and in the Lough Erne system we have not only our own system, but the problem of pollution coming from the Republic of Ireland. I ask the Minister to consider that, because it concerns me greatly. Water is abstracted from the Lough Erne system and goes into domestic water, so I hope that the Minister will consider all those standards.

I welcome the Minister's report, and I look forward to its being implemented as soon as possible.

I thank the Member for saying that I am making the best of a bad job. However, it is the usual saying: you cannot control the hand of cards that you are dealt; it is how you play that hand.

Mrs Carson mentioned eutrophication and pollution from the Republic of Ireland. Under the EU Urban Waste Water Directive, we are considering river basins and how water should be standardised. Part of that process involves cross-border work, because at least one of the basins is transnational between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. All those issues will be dealt with in due course. There is no quick fix to the problem of river pollution.

I thank the Minister for his statement, which everybody welcomes. The statement and the proposed action aim to create certainty and clarity. However, I am not certain that that will have been achieved as a result of the statement, because it is so dependent on getting a clear timetable for the Department for Regional Development to deal with the funding issues. Clarity and certainty are also dependent on the creation of monitoring and review mechanisms.

Will the Minister assure the Assembly that that timetable for funding can be reached fairly quickly to provide clarity and certainty for the public?

I thank Mr Alban Maginness for saying that everybody welcomes my statement. I am beginning to worry whether people from all sides welcome it, but I take the point.

As regards certainty and clarity, we all remember the debate about development in Downpatrick. I did some interviews then, and the word "widespread" was used. The question was asked about where the next development would take place. I said that we should put a hold on development and ascertain the depth of the planning problem. I am clarifying where the 56 problems are, their depth from an environmental perspective, and when there is likely to be a capital works programme to rectify those difficulties.

Mr Maginness said that he was unsure about the clarity of the matter. There are two financial elements. There is the capital works programme to which the Department for Regional Development agreed. It was on that basis alone that I gave the chronological listing of up to three years or up to five years. Having said that, the reinvestment and reform initiative and various other programmes are necessary, and the Executive have commissioned the Minister for Regional Development to introduce further information. I cannot answer that.

I have identified the problem from a planning point of view, brought it to the public domain and made everyone aware of the implications. I have no doubt that Members often hear about constituents' housing concerns on this. I have given the issue a space for planning development to take place, and I look to the Department for Regional Development to bring forward that additional capital programme and to discuss and agree its funding in the Executive. That will bring the certainty and the clarity that are required. We all agree that sewerage infrastructure is behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom, never mind the rest of Europe.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's statement; it is better late than never. Was he aware that sewerage infrastructure was well below standard and that the Department of the Environment was required to comply with the EC Directive in January 2001? If he was aware of that, why were planning restrictions introduced a year and a half later in May 2002?

Will the Minister give clarification on the Culmore sewage treatment works, which was given planning permission in 2001? Even if that proposal proceeds now, it will take three years to complete. The Water Service's representative stated on television some weeks ago that the money was available to proceed with the Culmore sewage treatment works. However, the Minister, Mr Robinson, contradicted that some weeks later in the Assembly. Will the Minister say when the Culmore sewage treatment works proposal will proceed and what possible restrictions developers are likely to encounter as a result of the delay? Has the Minister discussed with his counterpart in the Department for Regional Development the alternative that developers will have to resort to, in the form of modern cesspits and packaged treatment plants, which will have a far more serious environmental impact than the current discharges to water, worrying though they may be.

The Member said that my statement was "better late than never". I stress that this is an extremely complex issue because of the geographical breadth and depth of the environmental risk that the Department is taking on these sewage treatment works. I maintain that it was worth stepping back to identify the magnitude of the problem. Unless or until we quantify the problem, we will not be able to identify the proper solution.

The Member said that the sewerage infrastructure is "well below standard" and that it was supposed to comply with the European standard in January 2001. She is correct. That was the date when the European Directive raised the bar and 200 extra sewage treatment works were brought into the reckoning. That led to a lowering compliance level, and only 35% of our sewage treatment works are now in compliance. However, consider the chronology: only when the figures were brought together in March 2002 did the proportion of non-compliance become apparent. Statistics for a specific year apply only after the year has run, at which time they are analysed. It is similar with balance sheets and public accounts; the balance sheet for the year ending 2001 would not be presented until, perhaps, March, April, May or June of the following year. There is a time lapse.

In March 2002, when the magnitude of non-compliance became known, which paralleled the debate in the Assembly about Downpatrick, action kicked in to identify the problem and find a solution and a way to monitor the situation, and we had to be clear about what we were doing.

I do not plan to get into a discussion about an individual sewage treatment works, and I hope the Member understands that in relation to her third point on Culmore sewage treatment works. That is why I made sure that the information is available on the Department's web site. People can search for Culmore waste water treatment plant. It will be categorised as having a high, medium or low environmental impact. The web site will define simply each of those categories. If anyone wishes to ask me, I will explain them. The web site states when the capital works programme is meant to be completed, because only when the programme is complete will the risk of pollution be eliminated. There is clear information on the Culmore waste water treatment plant on the web site, because it was one of the 56 hot spots.

I hasten to add that there is a small complication. It has been said that there are infrastructure problems, and there are. Effluent may be entering a river, but, depending on the speed of the flow and the volume of the water, the dilution of the sewage may take place very quickly. Therefore, there may not be pollution.

As I said, the information is on the web site, but I will help the Member. I am told, and I thank those who told me, that the plant at Culmore will take up to three years to meet the standards. However, there is no significant impact on Lough Foyle at present. The problem is the sewerage system.

I have granted some licence with regard to the length of questions and answers because of the relatively small number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak.

I welcome the co-operation at ministerial level on this issue. We all realise that that was absolutely essential. The Minister spoke about having to work with the hand that he was dealt. The Minister's flush was facing a royal flush from European Directives.

The Minister referred to compliance with EU standards. What are the compliance levels in other European countries? I share Mr Alban Maginness's concerns about the timetable of infrastructure improvement that will be needed. I trust that, to achieve the timetable, we will not consider short-term fixes that would cause problems beyond the five-year period. Does the statement take immediate effect?

The Minister also stated that it is important to understand that his Department has a statutory duty to promote the conservation and cleanliness of Northern Ireland's water resources and waterways. We all understand that and support his Department's efforts to achieve its aims.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me for speaking slightly at a tangent. Will the Minister make every effort to consult with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the agriculture industry with regard to future legislation on water cleanliness, particularly in relation to the disposal and spreading of slurry? Will he ensure that a practical approach is adopted that will not further disadvantage our agriculture sector? Furthermore, will he ensure that any decisions are based on sound scientific facts and figures, and that conclusions will also follow that pattern?

I understand, as I am sure the Minister does, that, with regard to pollution, there are concerns that nitrate levels are being studied, when there is a suggestion that phosphate levels should be studied.

I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you mentioned the length of questions and answers. This matter has been exercising people's minds and, therefore, I wish to exorcise it from their minds.

Mr Hussey mentioned the statistics for other European countries. I do not have those to hand, but they will be supplied to Mr Hussey when I can obtain them. I share his concern, and I have placed that fact on the record. We want to get the matter right because of those concerns.

I cannot read the writing for the next answer, so I will move on.

Regarding the statement, it is having immediate effect.

Mr Hussey mentioned a third point. It is rare for me to be on my feet without being asked a question about agriculture. I share the Member's concern. I wish to, and do, work co-operatively with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the farming industry. He mentioned scientific fact. Policy should be based on evidence, not emotion. That applies to many issues, not just this one. I am conscious that he mentioned nitrates, phosphates and the causes of eutrophication. I am also conscious that John Gilliland, the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union, has made this point clearly to officials and to me. I will ensure that the decisions to be taken on slurry, sewage and the causes of the problems will be based on scientific evidence.

I also thank the Minister for his statement and compliment him on the high priority that he attaches to environmental issues. I want to introduce the issue of flags - not the controversial kind, but blue flags, which are critical to our tourism strategy. Given the restrictions on upgrading our sewerage system, will the Minister assure us that we can retain our blue flag beaches in the interests of tourism?

I am conscious of the debate about a certain sewage treatment works discharging effluent into a certain part of the coastline in Mr Dallat's constituency. Thus, I can understand the angle from which he comes. I wish to see the blue flag dimension maintained and enhanced here. We want to see our beaches protected and preserved, and that is all that I need to say at this juncture.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister's statement. In recognising the high price of constraints on economic growth and social progress, the Minister has agreed that the risk of pollution is not a comfortable one. Will he assure the House that any planning application will be adhered to, that the environmental risks will be considered and that no short cuts will be taken by the construction industry?

I am sorry; I missed a key part. Mr Murphy asked me to ensure what?

Perhaps you could clarify, Mr Murphy.

Will he ensure that no short cuts are taken by the construction industry?

I missed the words "no short cuts". I also thank Mr Murphy for his commendation. I am getting worried about this approval.

Mr Murphy pointed out an environmental aspect that we all recognise exists. I will ensure that no short cuts are taken. I have made it very clear that one of the four key elements is to monitor and review. It is no good identifying a problem or trying to find a solution unless there is monitoring to ensure that that solution is answering the problem, a normal and natural business practice.

We have also established a close relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, akin to what happens in Britain where the environmental regulator and the Department work together. I am, or I represent, the environmental regulator, and I assure Mr Murphy that no short cuts will be tolerated in this context. We all recognise the difficulties, and we are all trying to move forward, mindful of the poor level of infrastructure we have for sewage works in Northern Ireland.

In the Ministers press release this morning, he stated that this is a problem that he and his Department inherited due to underinvestment in former years. I note that he said that many planning applications are on hold. Is that because the sewage treatment works are not up to scratch and cannot cope? When will all the plants in rural areas be able to cope and be brought up to an acceptable standard?

Farmers in the Lough Neagh area have had difficulty getting onto their land due to the wet weather during the past year. Will steps be taken to lower the water level?

The sewage treatment works are performing as they have been. The proportion of non-compliance has been increased by the EU Directive raising the standard and the fact that some sewage treatment works were brought into the reckoning during our assessment. Some may not be up to standard. Sewage discharge can lead to pollution, depending on whether it dilutes quickly in the river.

However, there is a problem, and we have tried to identify it and to find a way forward. We have tried to make the problem and the solution known in the public domain. That will require careful monitoring. It is also an integral part of the process. The situation will be monitored, and those sewage treatment works that are not up to standard will be brought up to standard fairly quickly - the number of years is estimated. We wait to see what further capital provision comes through the various strategic investment initiatives that are planned over the coming weeks with the Department for Regional Development. I have given the lead from a planning point of view, and I look to the Department for Regional Development to play its part.

The water level in Lough Neagh is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I am conscious of the other aspect of pollution referred to by Mr Hussey.

The construction industry, planners and developers have been waiting for this news for a long time. I also welcome the Minister's response to Mr Hussey that it would take effect immediately. That will be good news for those who may be in the process of laying off workers, and it is good news for the construction industry as a whole.

I thank Mrs Courtney for her comments.

TOP

Employment Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. There are five groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn, as indicated in my grouping list. I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the five groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each particular group on which they wish to comment. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the question on each will be put without further debate. The questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate - amendment No 1, with which it will be convenient to debate amendment No 2.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 21, line 32, after "Act" insert

No 2: In clause 8, page 24, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert -

Amendments No 1 and No 2 cover clause 4 and clause 8 respectively. I have tabled the amendments in order to clarify the Bill's powers to make Regulations. Clause 4 inserts provisions on statutory adoption pay into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. It provides my Department with the power to make Regulations on statutory adoption pay. However, statutory adoption pay may have effects on social security benefits such as incapacity benefit. Therefore, the Department for Social Development also needs powers to make Regulations in that area. Amendment No 1 confers that necessary power on the Department for Social Development.

Clause 8 inserts provisions about decisions and appeals on statutory paternity and adoption pay into the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The Department for Social Development normally makes Regulations under that Order. However, it is right that the power to make Regulations about entitlement to statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay should be vested in my Department, which has the policy responsibility for those matters. Amendment No 2 confers that power on my Department. The amendments ensure that the Regulation-making powers in question are conferred on the appropriate Department. The amendments are purely technical in nature, and I seek the Assembly's approval of them.

Both amendments are of a technical nature. They are necessary to provide enabling powers to the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department for Social Development. I urge the House to support them.

Amendment No 2 made: In clause 8, page 24, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert -

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Members should note that amendments No 3, No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 are interdependent. If amendment No 3 is not made, I shall not call the remaining amendments.

I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 28, line 14, after "child" insert "or disabled dependant".

No 4: In page 28, line 24, after "child" insert "or disabled dependant". - [Ms McWilliams.]

No 5: In page 28, line 27, after "Article" insert

No 6: In page 28, line 29, leave out the words from "or" to the end. - [Ms McWilliams.]

No 7: In page 28, line 39, leave out from beginning to "child" in the second place it occurs and insert

Amendments No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 are consequential to amendment No 3. The lead amendment arises from our concern about parents with disabled children, and the eligibility of those disabled dependants beyond the age of 18 years.

The Employment Bill does not make it clear if the right to flexible working will be extended to parents with disabled children who are 18 years or older. There are 7,000 children under the age of 18 with disabilities in Northern Ireland. The statistics for those over 18 years were queried, but there may be approximately 14,000 adults with some kind of disability between the ages of 18 and 44. However, how many of their parents are working and would benefit from access to flexible working? In practice, some but not all might benefit from that. As the Bill stands, the parents of disabled children who depend on them beyond the age of 18 are not entitled to the provisions of the Bill.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>