THE TRANSITIONAL Monday 29 January 2007 Assembly Business Committee Business Private Members’ Business Assembly Business The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Additional Debating Time (Muckamore Abbey Hospital) and Mr O’Dowd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that, last Monday in this Chamber, Dr Paisley placed a request with you for a debate on Muckamore Abbey Hospital and that Barry McElduff placed a request for a debate on collusion? Can you further confirm that a debate on collusion was blocked by both unionist parties at the Business Committee meeting? Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr O’Dowd. You are quite right; both debates were requested last Monday morning, and I subsequently took the two motions to the Business Committee. The Committee debated the motions, and the agreement at the end of the meeting was that the motion on Muckamore Abbey Hospital would be debated but that the motion on the Police Ombudsman’s report would not. That was the decision of the Business Committee. Mr Paisley Jnr: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you willing to confirm that Sinn Féin was unable to convince the Business Committee of the merits of having a debate on its proposed motion, and that the motion that was chosen for debate today was chosen because people were able to convince the Business Committee of its merits? Madam Speaker: It is not for me to say what the parties debated in the Business Committee or what their decisions were. All I can say is that I believe that at the end of a thorough debate, it was clear that the two unionist parties did not want the motion to go forward and that the rest of the parties did. Mr O’Dowd: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the fact that Sinn Féin was unable to convince the unionist parties to debate collusion not say much more about the DUP than it does about Sinn Féin? Madam Speaker: As I said to Mr Paisley, that is not a matter for me or for the House; it is a matter for the Business Committee. I hope that we will get through the business today as agreed. Thank you. Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On several occasions, I have raised with you the matter of Members’ security in this Chamber. This is the last meeting of this particular Assembly, but will Members be notified of what investigations have been made and will they be given exact information so that they can know where we now stand with regard to security in this Assembly? Madam Speaker: Thank you, Dr Paisley, for your continued interest in the matter of House security. The review of security is now at an advanced stage. The Commission looked at the draft report last week. As I have said before, I intend to make a statement on the review when it has been completed. In addition, the Commission has agreed that parties will be fully briefed on its outcome at that time. Unfortunately, the report was not ready for today, but you will agree with me, I am sure, that the procedure is correct in that we need to be absolutely sure that the review is comprehensive and efficient. With regard to current procedures, they are as we have agreed. I explained to the House on 27 November 2006 that we have a party of PSNI officers here to help the Doorkeepers with security. As far as I am aware, it has been adequately dealt with up to now. Mr Paisley Jnr: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that today is the last day of the Assembly, is it in order that we congratulate the members of the PSNI who have provided the service as a stopgap? The PSNI — and, indeed, the House — faced an incredibly awful threat, and we are delighted that the police have been able to step in. We should congratulate the PSNI unanimously. Madam Speaker: Thank you very much for that point of order, Mr Paisley. It is not for me to do that without discussion at the Business Committee, but I am sure that individual parties and Members will be able to do it in a personal way. Mr O’Dowd: Further to Dr Paisley’s original point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not somewhat ironic that the DUP wishes to speak about the security of Members in the House but is not prepared to have a debate about the security and well-being of the general public? Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr O’Dowd, for that point of order. As I have said, Dr Paisley has been asking me about the review of security for several weeks, and quite rightly I have answered him. The decision that was taken at the Business Committee was obviously not the one that you would have wanted, but nevertheless that was the decision and that is democracy at this stage. New Assembly Member: Ms Dawn Purvis Madam Speaker: I should like to announce to the Assembly that I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Ms Dawn Purvis has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the East Belfast constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from the death of Mr David Ervine. I now invite Ms Purvis to take her seat by signing the Roll of Membership. The following Member signed the Roll of Membership: Purvis, Dawn Unionist Madam Speaker: I am satisfied that the Member has signed the Roll and has confirmed her designation. Ms Dawn Purvis has now taken her seat. Report on Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges and Water Reform Madam Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for each of today’s debates, the Member proposing each motion having 15 minutes to propose, with 15 minutes for the winding-up speech, and all other Members who wish to speak having a maximum of 10 minutes. The Chairperson of the Committee on the Programme for Government (Mr Molloy): I beg to move That this Assembly takes note of the Report from the Committee on the Programme for Government on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges and Water Reform, and calls on the Secretary of State and / or the incoming Executive to take action to implement the recommendations in the Report. I propose this motion not as a member of the Committee but as one of the two Chairpersons appointed to the Committee to enable it to conduct its business. On 24 November 2006, following a direction from the Secretary of State, the Assembly’s Business Committee established the Committee on the Programme for Government to consider priorities for the new Executive and make preparations for restoration. The report under consideration is the work of the Subgroup on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges; and Water Reform — three separate and substantive issues. The high level of consensus and common cause evident from this report and those of the economic issues subgroup is testimony to the high level of agreement between all the parties. It is not a lowest-common-denominator report; it reflects the collective and determined wishes of all the parties to see a new economic vision realised for Northern Ireland. The Committee on the Programme for Government, which shares this consensus, ordered that the report should be printed and debated in the Assembly. I acknowledge the efforts of the members of the four main parties who served on the subgroup, and I hope that as many of them as possible will participate in today’s debate. I thank all the staff who worked long hours over the holiday period and beyond to produce the report on time. As with the other subgroups, this report was undertaken according to a tight timescale. The subgroup invited written submissions from several organisations and took oral evidence from key organisations in relation to each topic. I will highlight some of the main findings on each of the three subjects. The 2007 comprehensive spending review is an in-depth examination of Government spending priorities to establish long-term aims and objectives for each Department and to set firm and fixed spending plans for a three-year period starting in April 2008. Northern Ireland’s share of the public expenditure allocations arising from the comprehensive spending review will be determined under the Barnett formula. The outcome of the comprehensive spending review is, therefore, particularly important for Northern Ireland and will determine, to a large extent, the resources available to a restored Executive to spend on devolved responsibilities. The allocation from the comprehensive spending review makes up 90% of the total Northern Ireland budget. The other two main sources of funding for Northern Ireland are the regional rates collected from businesses and households, which contribute about 6% of the total, and the borrowing for capital investment under the reinvestment and reform initiative, which makes up 2%. The comprehensive spending review process began in July 2005, and the outcome will not be known until the Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland are announced in July of this year. All the indications are that the comprehensive spending review period will be challenging for Northern Ireland and that the slower economic growth rate in the UK will place increased pressure on budgets here. The Department of Finance and Personnel told the subgroup that any additional funding from the comprehensive spending review, together with additions from the Chancellor’s package, will be required simply to meet pay and price inflation. The financial outlook suggests that the prospect of the Executive meeting economic challenges, closing the permanent wealth and productivity gaps and catching up with the growing Irish economy, which increasingly leaves us behind, is limited. 10.45 am The report recognises the economic constraints that the new Executive will face as a result of the comprehensive spending review and concludes that to make resources available for additional spending on priority areas identified by the restored Executive will depend on factors such as more efficient provision of existing services; better use of resources through the disposal of surplus assets; the reduction of annual underspend; increased local revenue efforts; and renegotiation of the Chancellor’s package. Some organisations have been critical of the amount of publicly available information for the comprehensive spending review process and of the limited extent of local engagement with the community and the voluntary sector. The report concludes that a major priority for the restored Executive must be to prepare for the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, due in summer 2007, and to develop draft Priorities and Budget proposals through a transparent process of consultation. The scope for additional spending on priority areas depends to an unacceptable degree on the release of resources through efficiencies. The report notes the efficiency targets set by the Secretary of State and supports the ongoing work by Departments on value-for-money reviews and developing efficiency plans. Efficiency savings of approximately £770 million must be achieved by 2010, and the restored Executive should continue to drive for greater efficiency. However, the report warns that such efficiencies must not be achieved at the expense of cuts in vital front-line services. On the better use of existing resources, I wish to make a couple of points that others will elaborate on. First, on the disposal of surplus assets, the Department of Finance and Personnel has a target of £1 billion for asset sales over three years and is working with the other Departments to identify those assets. The report cautions that that must be achieved in a joined-up manner, with proper regard for the impact on services and the resource implications of new investment decisions. In its evidence, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) complained that, too often in the past, departmental spending cuts happened without proper resource allocation to voluntary sector organisations to make the delivery of services more efficient. My second point is about the problem of underspend, particularly in relation to capital investment. The report highlights that in 2005-06 there was a massive underspend in the capital budget of just over £227 million — more than 18% of the total. At the same time, the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report identified that the Department of Finance and Personnel had borrowed £411 million under the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI). That wasteful use of public resources must be tackled by Members. Needless loans taken under the RRI incur interest that must be paid for through increased rate bills. The report identifies several issues that should feature as priorities in a draft Programme for Government. These include investment for economic growth, investment in skills and training, improvement on internal and external transport links and further improvements in the planning process that deals with the financial implications of the review of public administration. The report also identifies the need to take account of equality provisions and the anti-poverty strategy when a draft Programme for Government is developed. The subgroup concurred with many of the recommendations made by the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland on future investment priorities and supports the investment areas highlighted by that subgroup in its report on an alternative economic package. The subgroup was conscious of the importance of rates to the Northern Ireland budget and of the revenue from industrial and domestic rates. The burden of rates must be shared in a fair and open manner. The ability of householders to pay should be considered, and adequate relief must be provided for those over pension age or on low incomes. The report recognises the importance of a strong manufacturing base in Northern Ireland and the impact that the removal of industrial derating could have on that sector. The report, therefore, calls on the Secretary of State to freeze industrial rates at 25% for a further year, until a planned major review has been carried out. The report looks at the range of assistance that is available to help domestic householders with their rates bills. It welcomes the further £4 million committed to enhanced relief for pensioners following the discussions by the political parties at St Andrews. The report calls for more study of such issues as transitional relief and discounts for disabled people and single-person households, and it supports the policy of providing assistance for student householders. However, it is concerned that the proposed system will benefit landlords rather than students, and it calls for urgent work to be done to find a better way to deliver that assistance. The subgroup was asked to consider the capping of domestic rates. The organisations that gave evidence were divided on the issue, as were the parties represented on the subgroup. Nevertheless, there was agreement that something had to be done to help those householders on low incomes who live in high-value homes and who are faced with extremely high rates bills — the so-called asset rich and cash poor. The report recommends a detailed study of the cost and impact of introducing a cap at various levels, including consideration of other ways of helping the asset rich and cash poor. The report also highlights the serious matter of the uptake of relief schemes for vulnerable and low-income households, which applies to rates and water charges. It matters little how generous the relief schemes are if people do not claim them. The report found that up to 24,000 people who may be entitled to housing benefit — a passport benefit for help towards rates payments — are not claiming it. The report makes clear that the low uptake of passport benefits must be tackled as a priority. The third substantive issue that the subgroup was asked to address was the introduction of water charges. Members will recall that water charges were debated in the Chamber on 18 December 2006 and that the motion was passed unanimously. The report reaffirms the strong opposition of all parties to water reform and supports the principle that the provision of water services should remain permanently in the public sector. That view was reflected in the written and oral evidence to the subgroup. The report calls for the deferment of the scheme until the restored Assembly is able to consider it. Despite almost universal opposition to the scheme, the Secretary of State has steadfastly set his face against any deferment of water charges, which are to be imposed from April. The subgroup would want me to reaffirm the need for the Assembly to send a clear message to the Government that it rejects their approach. The report’s main conclusion on water reform is that if water charges are to be imposed — as now seems inevitable — the restored Executive must use the planned phasing-in period of three years to undertake a fundamental review of the whole water reform process and examine all available models and options with a view to making any necessary legislative, structural, or other changes from April 2010. The subgroup also considered the detail of the proposals and had serious concerns about many aspects of the proposals, not least openness and transparency, particularly with regard to the elderly and those who are unable to pay. Madam Speaker, I know that I am running out of time. A major concern highlighted in the executive summary of the report is the worrying and alarming — and very public — breakdown in relations and trust between the Consumer Council and the Government, in the guise of the Department for Regional Development and the Water Service. The Consumer Council is a statutory body that was set up to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers, and the extent of the frustration and obstruction felt by the council was clearly evident in its oral and written evidence to the subgroup. I am sure that Members will all agree that this is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue and must be reformed. I commend the report. Mr Shannon: I thank all the staff for their help. They certainly give us a lot of guidance and support and answered a lot of questions that we had on the issues. As a member of the Subgroup on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges and Water Reform, I listened to and read carefully the evidence presented, and considered the policy that I believe to be in the best interests of my constituents and Northern Ireland as a whole. The report and its recommendations have been well researched, and there are many worthy recommendations that must be implemented as a matter of urgency. Of the 33 recommendations made, I will highlight a select few that have been brought to my attention, especially by my constituents, which I feel must be urgently addressed. One of these is the rates review, which is the most important one, and the issue that was raised with me by the most people. It is linked to manufacturing and small business in the Province. The Federation of Small Businesses has over 6,000 members in Northern Ireland. These Members do not enjoy the rates relief that their counterparts on the mainland enjoy, never mind the further burdens that will be imposed by the new rates review. As has been stated in the review, manufacturing provides over 90,000 jobs in the Province, with a further 45,000 jobs supplementing the industry. The fact of the matter is that with no relief, and with business being judged on the size of the building as opposed to the profit size of the company — for example, a warehouse for plastic boxes will take up more space than somewhere that makes computer chips — the ability to pay huge charges is not the same. This is the reason relief for manufacturing and small businesses must be a priority. As found in the reports for the Preparation for Government Committee on economic development for Northern Ireland, businesses must be encouraged if the Province is to flourish and achieve its potential. The recommendation to freeze industrial rates at 25% is a step on the road of encouraging business growth instead of being a factor which makes companies decide to relocate to overseas destinations that do not tax the life out of businesses that set up there — they recognise that to encourage businesses is to encourage growth and development. It is a sad fact that we must learn from so-called Third World countries that small relief can bring a great deal of change. I have had many elderly constituents in my advice centre over the past few months who have genuinely been shocked and frightened at the proposed cost of the new rates bills, never mind the added burden of water rates on top of this. I have had widowed pensioners coming in to me who bought their homes 50 years ago in Newtownards for as little as £7,000, according to them and according to a study carried out by the University of Ulster. One pensioner in particular paid off the mortgage when she retired and now lives alone in the house since her husband passed away. She is managing on her state pension of around £80 per week. One morning she got a letter from the Valuation and Lands Agency saying that her property has now been valued at £200,000 and that she will have to pay a rates bill of over £2,500 per year. The maths do not work out. This is why charities such as Age Concern have campaigned and lobbied for a rates relief enhancement, not only for pensioners as a right, but also a further enhancement for those living alone, recognising that they are under more financial pressure than those living together. To expect them to pay based on the size and area of their home is not a possibility, and the subsequent recommendation that resources be made available is essential. Our elderly are already living in a poverty trap in the Province, and to thrust them further down this trail cannot be accepted. The Assembly must ensure that something is done sooner rather than later. The same must be highlighted for other vulnerable people in our society — the disabled, those in low-income homes and students. Although there is a duty to ensure that the best possible service is provided, this cannot be done at the expense of someone choosing between heating and paying a rates bill for services that they alone could not possibly be generating. This is also the reason that the recommendation for a single-person’s discount is valid, as such people do not generate the same amount of service provision, or water and sewerage use, as the six-person household next door. 11.00 am Much publicity has been given to the fact that there will be relief for low-income families in receipt of housing benefit and other benefits. However, it is estimated that over 200,000 households in the Province are entitled to housing benefit but do not claim it. It follows that those households will be unaware that relief is available for rates and water bills. The Government have found that too many people who should not have to pay the full amount are in fact paying the full amount, to the detriment of their families. An addendum was added to the report concerning the valuation of homes with agricultural clauses attached. Rates are charged in accordance the with valuation of houses; yet the position is not that simple. Consider the case of a house in the countryside, worth £300,000 but saddled with an agricultural clause. Due to the planning condition that accompanies that clause, while the valuation is calculated at £300,000, the market value of that house is half that. My party tried to highlight such cases in Committee. I have looked into that matter and taken advice on it. I consulted three estate agents in my constituency, and they confirm that a house with an agricultural clause and a planning condition attached has a market price only 50% of its valuation. Only two organisations in Northern Ireland — one a building society, the other a bank — are prepared to lend on the strength of such houses. That must be promptly addressed. The Government maintain that the 20% discount due to all farmers’ dwellings in the countryside is sufficient. However, houses with agricultural clauses should be in a class of their own. I do not wish to be trite. Those homes should be considered on their own merits. Application of a 20% discount means that a £300,000 house will be valued at £240,000, yet, as I pointed out earlier, the real value of such a house is £150,000. Dwellings with agricultural clauses and planning permission restrictions have lost value as a result of legislation; yet for the purposes of rating they are valued at a much higher figure. Why should salt be rubbed in the wound by charging at the higher value for rating? It is neither right nor fair. That must be addressed, as the Committee recommends. In the Province house prices rise by £1,000 per month, yet incomes do not rise at the same rate. A house worth £200,000 five years ago is now worth vastly more. Northern Ireland is second only to London in terms of rising property prices, and that makes the case for rates to be capped — as they are in Scotland, England and Wales. A great many house buyers in the Province, especially first-time buyers, are aware of the problems of trying to buy at such very high values. I read in the newspaper yesterday that the Halifax Building Society has predicted that, this year, more people than ever before will take a chance with their mortgage payments, as a result of the rises in domestic and water rates. They will either be only just able to meet their mortgage payments, or they will find themselves in financial difficulties. It is atrocious that in Northern Ireland the cap on rates is set at £500,000, while wages are 20% lower than on the mainland. I could highlight other issues, but I will leave them to other Members. The report’s recommendations provide sufficient reasons for action either by the Secretary of State or by the Assembly. I make one other point in support of the worried and groaning middle classes. To buy their houses, they have gone out on a limb; they are now contemplating rising water, domestic and mortgage rates. Members must take a stand on their behalf. People used to be faced with terrorism by the gun; now they face terrorism by taxation. Members must ensure that the necessary reform comes at an affordable price and that there is greater focus on efficiency than on throwing people’s hard-earned money like bread on the water. I support the Committee’s recommendations. Mr Cree: I support the report and congratulate the staff who carried out such extensive work in such a short time. The report falls into three parts; I would like to highlight a few points on water reform. Water charging is something that concerns everyone and, from the outset, the water reform unit and the Water Service have been generally unhelpful in providing the necessary information about what was planned with respect to water charges. This weekend Members will have read further revelations about what is happening with Northern Ireland Water, the new company set up to drive the whole issue forward. The subgroup was firmly of the opinion that the whole process of water reform should be referred back to the devolved Assembly for consideration — that is the most important thing. This is the only issue that has united all the political parties; they are all totally opposed to the introduction of water charges. When the industry was privatised across the water, it received a green dowry to update the water and sewerage services. That has yet to happen here. After the comprehensive spending review there was a figure of £50 million dedicated to Northern Ireland, but that money was put into the general pot and not ring-fenced for water charges. Now we face the consequences of 30 years of Government underinvestment in these services and we have been asked to pay to bring them up to standard. We believe that there are better ways to modernise water and sewerage services and other models that would be more acceptable than one based on the rateable value of property. That makes no sense whatsoever. There are many concerns about the details. The subgroup was concerned about the powers of the regulator. That is an issue that needs to be underscored: “the Regulator must be given full authority and enforcement powers from 1 April 2007, on all matters including issues relating to the setting of charges and the disposal of land or assets.” Mr Molloy has already referred to the assets and the 130-odd properties that are surplus to requirements. That would be a good dowry for any private company, and it needs to be controlled. There is also the issue of the operation of the company. Members know that the capital value of the company has been written down from the Water Service’s £5·4 billion to £1 billion — there is no particular reason for that. We know that the rate of return has been agreed at 5·8%, which is above what is obtained on the market generally. There is no reason for the £1 billion figure; simple arithmetic suggests that if we reduce it to £500 million there would be half that amount in savings to those who use the water. We also believe that the 5·8% figure should be reduced to something more realistic — 3·5% has been suggested. The bad-debt provision in this new company is another major concern for anyone involved in business. We know that the figure has been set at 5% and that the figures across the water are many times greater than that. Companies have been operating across the water for some time, and one in four cases coming before the courts are for the non-payment of water charges. There is a red alert on the debt provision for companies. At the end of the day, those who are going to pay the charges are going to pay for the inefficiencies in the company. The most important factor in deciding the value of the company was how it would do its business. The subgroup pushed for a long time to have sight of a business plan. The strategic business plan is now at a fairly advanced stage, but the Department and the Minister have refused to make it available. We are told that it is commercially sensitive. I do not see how a Department and a Government-owned company can be commercially sensitive. That is the main building block of Northern Ireland Water. We are heading towards the implementation of water charges from 1 April, and we do not know whether that company will be successful. Remember that the safety net for inefficiencies and additional costs is the poor consumer. The Consumer Council did not get full co-operation from the water reform unit — the first time that that has happened — and that was a major concern for many members of the subgroup. Northern Ireland Water should have a duty to consult the Consumer Council on all matters that may impact on consumers, including the assessment of policies, which should be subjected to an equality impact assessment. Mr Molloy referred to the vulnerable in society. We have the assurance of a limited affordability tariff for those claiming benefits. However, we have no guarantee that that will continue after 2010. We need an assurance that that will happen and that it will be funded by HM Treasury. Unfortunately, it looks increasingly likely that we will not be able to do anything by 1 April. The three-year phasing-in period anticipated by the Government is inadequate. The subgroup and the Committee on the Programme for Government have agreed that the phasing-in period should be extended from three years to five. I would like to see the first year water charges capped until a new Assembly can take the matter forward logically and soundly. Ms Ritchie: I thank the Chairmen of the Committee for their assistance, kindness and courtesy over the five- to six-week period, and also the staff for their endurance, assistance, support and guidance. The report should be commended to the Assembly for the work and in-depth research that have gone into three substantial subjects. The comprehensive spending review, the Programme for Government, rates charges and water reform are fundamental priority issues that will provide strategic directions for a future Executive to build and work on. The SDLP believes that for such work to continue and be built on there is a compelling political imperative to restore the political institutions so that the areas and priorities identified in the report can become the bedrock on which a future Executive builds policies and develops, grows and nurtures them for the betterment of everybody who lives here. The SDLP wants to take Northern Ireland, as an integral part of the island, in a slightly different direction from that steered by the current direct-rule Administration. Mr Kennedy: No, thank you. Ms Ritchie: The SDLP wants to ensure the equitable delivery of services that conform to good equality standards, and to make those services accessible to all, whether one lives in an urban or a rural community. I am sure — despite the catcalls from across the Chamber — that everybody believes in setting those standards and wants the best for their constituents. The SDLP wants to ensure that the fruits of a future restored Executive are enjoyed by all, irrespective of where one lives. We must strive to eradicate regional disparities and uphold the principle of equality for all at every opportunity. 11.15 am We must ensure that a more robust package from the Chancellor, together with North/South funds, will create the necessary mechanisms to fund the major infrastructure improvements that we have so earnestly sought and that all investment opportunities are investigated and developed. We must rebuild the economy and ensure that young people are equipped with the educational qualifications, skills and training that will enable them to remain here, avoid the brain drain and make their contribution to the development of this place. Those are the principles on which we must build our future. Urgent political progress is required, which will hopefully be achieved by the end of March. To appreciate fully the real extent of the work of the Committee for the Programme for Government and the nature of the submissions and evidence taken, we must consider the recommendations of its report, some of which are highly technically complicated. First, in relation to the comprehensive spending review, my party supports the recommendations of the subgroup on economic issues. The Committee on the Programme for Government must present the Chancellor with a robust set of counter-proposals. I regret that we have not been given the opportunity to do so prior to tonight’s deadline. I hope that that opportunity will arise following the elections on 7 March. One of the first priorities of a restored Executive must be to engage in the preparation of the comprehensive spending review by the summer of this year and the urgent development of the draft priorities and Budget documents for consultation. Various issues have been identified as spending priorities, including the need to expand the private-sector economy by attracting more foreign investment and supporting local businesses. Skills and training should be a priority for future investment, as should internal and external transport links and investment in public transport. The comprehensive spending review should be part of a strategic approach to tackling poverty on a holistic basis. Direct parallels can be drawn with the previous reports published by the Subgroup on Economic Challenges; however, our economy’s problems have been defined in this document. Urgent solutions must be applied, requiring political impetus and support from a restored Executive to ensure that they are carried through and that all investment opportunities are developed. The report of the Committee on the Programme for Government also dealt with the two contentious issues of rate charges and water reform. The SDLP believe that rates should be based on the ability to pay. We agree with the Committee that the proposed water reform agenda must be deferred. In the debate in this Assembly on 18 December, all parties declared their opposition to the imposition of water charges. However, the Secretary of State stubbornly refused to listen to the wishes of the Assembly. So much for the British direct-rule Administration that refused to listen to the people of Northern Ireland. They have sent the clear message that only the restoration of our own political destiny will allow us to take control. The SDLP supports the report’s recommendations, which press the Government to defer the water reforms until they can be considered by a devolved Administration. We must remember that rating reform and water reform are being used by the direct-rule Administration as mechanisms for the collection of money from the local population in order to invest in the upgrading of a weak infrastructure, which was allowed to crumble over many years. In a very punitive way, working families and people on low incomes are being forced to pay for the deficits of previous direct-rule Administrations that failed to live up to the requirements of the people. That is a serious matter, because it impacts on many people throughout Northern Ireland. If water charges are introduced without the Assembly being restored, the role of the regulator must be visibly strengthened, the capital valuation of the Government-owned company (Go-co) must be reduced from £1 billion to £500 million and the required rate of return must be lowered from 5·8% to 3·5%. The subgroup did a considerable amount of work and took a great deal of oral and written evidence — in fact, it heard an entire day of evidence on water reform alone. The subgroup was extremely concerned about the breakdown of the relationship between the Consumer Council and the Government. However, that was the Government’s fault, because they obdurately refused to provide the Consumer Council with detailed information for fear of strengthening its wish to protect the consumer. The Government have no interest in the consumer, and parties must challenge that. To ensure that the report’s recommendations are implemented and that the views of political parties are heard, each party must subscribe fully to the principles of power sharing and policing. That requires the full implementation of power sharing and support for policing, and the restoration of the Executive by 26 March 2007. Restoration would create a pathway that would enable the Assembly later this year to develop further our economy, our infrastructure, and our education, skills and training programme. It would also ensure that investment opportunities, not only on the island of Ireland and in Great Britain but further afield in the global economy, were fully explored for the benefit of all. To do so would create a better life for all the people who live here and for future generations, and it is within the parties’ grasp today. Let us seize that opportunity to lead the people to a better future. Mr Neeson: I received the 582-page report at 9.45 am — that is unacceptable. By the same token, Peter Hain decided to exclude the Alliance Party from the subgroup. If he believes that the political drivelling between the DUP and Sinn Féin is the way forward, I must tell him that a sectarian, political carve-up is not the way forward. Despite receiving the report so late, I intend to make a few comments on its contents. Several MLAs went to Downing Street to receive the Chancellor’s response on the so-called peace dividend. The main peace dividend is based on the £1 billion sale of public-sector assets. To base any economy on the sale of public-sector assets is not the way in which to progress. Recommendation 5 in the report states: “The sub-group notes the progress in relation to Efficiency Development Plans and the need to achieve efficiency savings of around £770m by 2010/11 for investment in frontline services and recommends that a restored Executive engages in early consultation on the full range and implications of these plans.” I accept that. I also agree with recommendation 6, which states: “The sub-group recommends that continuing the drive for greater efficiency must be a priority for a restored Executive but that such efficiencies must not be achieved at the cost of cuts to vital frontline services.” If restoration happens, one of the first decisions for an Executive to take will be to reduce the artificially created 10 Departments to a more acceptable and efficient number. I suggest, as the Secretary of State has suggested, that we return to the six-Department set-up. We have had a radical review of public administration and local government; the same must now happen to central Government. I agree with Francie Molloy that, when it comes to rates charges, the interests of vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly and the less well off, must be looked after. That should be a priority. I spoke in the debate on water reform. I repeat that what is happening at the moment is privatisation of the Water Service through the back door. What is being proposed is not a utility tax but a property tax. That must be a priority. It has been interesting to listen to various Members this morning. Six months ago they were all saying that there was no way that we were going to have water charges. Everyone that I have listened to this morning seems to have done a U-turn and accepted the whole prospect of water charges being forced upon the people of Northern Ireland this year. That is a convenient way for them to avoid having to make the decision that should have been made by a devolved Government. We all know that certain parties did not want to take on the responsibility of deciding on water charges. It seems that most of the political parties represented here this morning have accepted the principle. In relation to the priorities that have been identified, there is no doubt that health must be given the necessary resources. This afternoon’s debate on Muckamore Abbey Hospital will show the serious shortcomings of the Health Service. I commend the work of the Committee in relation to the Bain Report and recognise that if education is to move forward, there must be some form of compromise. That was identified in last week’s debate. The economic subgroup met during the summer of last year. One of the big issues that came up time after time was the shortage of skills in the workforce. It must be a priority of a restored Executive to develop the skills that are necessary in a twenty-first century economy. One of the things that the subgroup recognised was that the emergence of the Celtic tiger was based on the development of skills. I welcome that. Infrastructure is a vital issue in relation not only to the economy, but to the development of society in Northern Ireland as a whole. One thing that can be said about the period of devolution is that it was the Assembly that took the decision to develop the rail infrastructure and purchase new rolling stock. That would not have happened if we had not had devolution. It is desperately important that we see the restoration of devolution. As for the other priorities, the reduction in EU funding is going to have a major impact on public spending. When we had Objective 1 status, we wasted the opportunity. The Republic of Ireland also had Objective 1 status and used that to develop its infrastructure. In many ways we are now playing catch-up in the development of infrastructure, and that is why I welcome last week’s decision by the Irish Government to provide funds for improving North/South infrastructure. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Wells] in the Chair) 11.30 am The final priority is to recognise the pressures on social housing. The Housing Executive no longer builds new houses; that is left to housing associations. This must become a priority to be urgently addressed, given the growing population in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that I have had so little time to go through the report and do it the justice that it deserves. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the staff who worked along with Committee members to produce this substantial report in a very short time. Mr Weir: I join with others in thanking the staff and the many witnesses who gave oral and written evidence. As other Members have said, the report does not stand in isolation. It should be read in conjunction with the economic issues report. Some Members, including Mr Neeson, did not have very long to read the report, but I should like to correct one point that he made: he accused parties — and I am speaking particularly for my party — of not being opposed to water charges. We have been consistently opposed to water charges, and I suspect that a number of the other parties also take that view. Had Mr Neeson taken time to read the terms of reference of the report, he would have seen that, because we were dealing with three issues in such a short time, our scope was very limited, particularly with regard to water reform. We were to consider the arrangements for water reform as set out in the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, the strategic business plan, the governance of the Go-co, the issue of licence, and the billing and collection of water charges. Whether or not the Committee supported water charges was not within its terms of reference, and it is unfortunate that Mr Neeson did not realise that. The recommendations that we made on that topic were restricted to those areas. Mr P Robinson: Would it be worth pointing out to the Member from the Alliance Party that the Democratic Unionist Party — not alone on the Committee — believed that the Alliance Party should have had membership? Miracles can happen. It could get enough Members elected to enable it to be represented in a future Executive. It should have had membership, and the Committee asked the Secretary of State to reconsider that. Mr Weir: Obviously the Secretary of State hardened his heart against that. Unfortunately, he did not share our level of optimism about the Alliance Party. A wide range of issues was put to the Committee, and there were three themes: the comprehensive spending review, the rates issue, and water charges. I will deal briefly with each in turn. The comprehensive spending review, as was indicated by a number of people who gave evidence, showed the voodoo economics of the Chancellor’s statement. The so-called massive bonus that was supposed to be coming to Northern Ireland — the £50 billion that was trailed when the parties met — when analysed, amounted to almost nothing. The Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI) said that when economic pressures such as inflation and others are taken into account, the money announced by the Chancellor will, at best, only enable us to stand still. Our party has a grave worry that unless the Government put a proper economic package in place, any new institutions will be strangled at birth. The DUP has said consistently that not only is a proper economic package a requirement — among other requirements, including full support for policing and justice — but that the issue must be properly resolved if we are to have a firm foundation for a way forward for Northern Ireland. The welcome that we have given to value-for-money studies has been mentioned. The reviews that are to be put in place to identify and deliver efficiency savings are to be welcomed. However, as another Member indicated, a question mark must be put over those efficiency savings. Some £770 million of efficiency savings will supposedly be achieved, but efficiency savings must not become a code word for the removal of front-line services. During a meeting of the subgroup, it arose that discussions on proposals to reduce the number of pension credit advisers throughout Northern Ireland are taking place. That will be presented as an efficiency saving, but it will impact on front-line services by reducing the level of advice available to pensioners. That, in turn, will lead to fewer pensioners taking up benefits. We must send out a strong warning that the introduction of the most efficient system to Northern Ireland should not come about at the expense of front-line services. Moreover, unless the Government provide proper investment to restructure the economy in the way in which we all want, movement must be made towards more reliance on the private sector. That will require a certain level of initial investment. An innovation fund was identified, and the subgroup accepted that it was important that we focus on skills and training. However, if the Government are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is initially, we will not be able to rely more on the private sector. As Members have stated, we must get away from the ridiculous situation of massive departmental underspend. Reference was made to the amount that Departments have for resources and, in particular, to the failure to spend on capital investment. In the past year, we have borrowed £411 million under the reinvestment and reform initiative, yet there has been a capital underspend of £227 million. To pay interest on a borrowed amount as high as £411 million while not spending £227 million is absolute nonsense. There must be a major examination of the impact of that underspend. A freeze must be put on the end to industrial derating — the manufacturing base cannot be attacked further. There must be joined-up thinking on the subject. We are constantly lectured on the need for the Northern Ireland economy to be restructured, and we accept that, but the private sector needs to grow substantially. That cannot happen, however, if manufacturing jobs here are attacked. Clear evidence exists that if industrial derating is phased out, rather than developed, the 90,000 manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland, as well as the 45,000 jobs that depend on manufacturing, will be under threat. Capital is much more fluid than it used to be, and therefore it is relatively easy for businesses simply to leave Northern Ireland and go elsewhere. As such, it is vital that the manufacturing base be protected. The subgroup was also struck by the manufacturing sector’s acceptance of the need to invest in skills and training. The manufacturing sector proposed that there be a 5% compulsory surcharge on industrial rates, provided it is part of an overall freeze. That money would be ring-fenced to promote skills and training. The subgroup welcomed that very helpful suggestion. The issue of a rates cap divided the subgroup, but my party and one other party indicated that it would be utterly inappropriate if people in Northern Ireland were to end up paying more rates than the richest person with the largest property in any other part of the United Kingdom. The appropriate level of rates cap must be examined to ensure that it properly protects people. Furthermore, at whatever level that cap is set, we must take a greater degree of cognisance of those people who fall below it. We must ensure that the proposed rates hikes are not simply imposed at the level that has been suggested. I welcome the subgroup’s support for a longer phasing-in period for such people. The announcement of rate relief for pensioners is also welcome, although that should go much further. Members have highlighted the lack of clarity on the issue of water reform. The Consumer Council indicated that there are between 20% and 50% of gross inefficiencies in the system. Surely the Government should tackle those before considering any water reform. We might find that, were those inefficiencies properly tackled, a large amount of the necessary capital for investment would be raised. The subgroup expressed concern in the report at the circumscribed powers of the regulator, and that matter must be tackled. Finally, the report indicated the level of bad debt that is expected, even in the absence of an organised campaign to urge people not to pay water charges. There is concern that the additional whammy of the burden of others’ bad debt will be placed on those who do their best to pay their rates bills. The report covers a range of issues, and I commend it to the House. Mr O’Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. All the political parties on the subgroup have gone over the report. I attended the last three meetings of the subgroup, and I found its work on several factors productive and interesting. The co-operative manner in which it worked has resulted in the report that we now discuss. I shall be brief, a LeasCheann Comhairle, because the subgroup covered the issues in detail, and most of those issues have also been dealt with today. However, I have a few points to make. On the economic package that has been discussed with the British Exchequer, it has been agreed that the British Government have failed to produce any new moneys for a peace dividend or for a new start for a Government in this part of Ireland. That continues to be a priority for all political parties. The subgroup’s example of a united voice could — and should — be of benefit. Sinn Féin is concerned that “efficiency savings” is a code for cuts, and cuts made for no other reason than to save money. Every Department must be run efficiently — no one can argue with that. Whether civil servant or politician, there is a duty to ensure that public money is spent efficiently. However, there are deep concerns that the efficiencies mentioned in the CSR are in order to make financial savings rather than to ensure an efficient public service. Recommendation 10 states that the CSR should be: “part of a strategic approach to tackle poverty on the basis of objective need as envisaged in the new Anti-Poverty Strategy.” That is important to Sinn Féin. A real opportunity for joined-up thinking and government exists. The CSR can be integral to tackling poverty through the anti-poverty strategy, and it would be a loss if that did not happen. Sinn Féin supports the report’s recommendations on industrial derating. An incoming Executive must review the matter, and measures must be introduced to ensure that manufacturing operates on a level playing field. Sinn Féin cannot support domestic capping, and that is outlined in the report. It is not fair and transparent that those who live in the more expensive properties should pay less in rates and be subsidised by those on lower incomes. 11.45 am Some people who own and live in their properties need assistance. That situation has been referred to as being property rich and income poor. However, Sinn Féin cannot agree with a blanket cap. Despite the comments of some Members from the Alliance Party, the political parties agreed that the Government’s plans to introduce water charging are not the way forward. Although members of the subgroup had a tight remit within which to work, and although there were varying views on how to move forward on water charging, local political parties do not favour the process that direct-rule Ministers outlined. As a result, several possible ways forward are suggested in the report, and any incoming Executive will need to examine them. However, the report is valuable only if its recommendations are implemented. All the political parties that were involved in producing the report did good work. They managed to reach agreement on the majority of the issues that are discussed in the report. Of course, there was some disagreement: we all come to politics with different views, but difference is not always a bad thing. However, we need an Executive if the report’s recommendations are to be implemented. I am sure that all the political parties that are in the Chamber agree that the last thing that we want is for the report to lie on a desk somewhere gathering dust for another two, five or 10 years or for a political lifetime. If that happens, the opportunity that we have been given will have been wasted. Therefore I hope that, in the coming months, we have an Executive and an Assembly that can implement the recommendations that the four main political parties set out. The Committee showed one thing: we can work together and reach agreement on socio-economic issues for the betterment of all. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is Ms Dawn Purvis. As she is making her maiden speech, this will be the first occasion on which the Assembly will have heard from her. I am sure that Members are by now aware that the convention is that such speeches are heard without interruption. Ms Purvis: It is an honour and a privilege to serve as a Member for East Belfast. However, it would be remiss of me to not refer to the previous holder of that seat, David Ervine. As you know, he was an Assembly Member from 1998 until his death. He spoke in many debates, and I am sure that a lot of banter went on between him and his colleagues. Many of the motions to which he spoke concerned those in our community who are underprivileged, vulnerable and disadvantaged. The tributes that poured in after his death came from many of those socially excluded groups. However, David was about much more than that. He was a man who took great risks for peace; I remember that on several occasions he was called a traitor, a Lundy and a sell-out merchant. However, that did not deter him from pursuing his vision of creating a better society for all our citizens. One particular occasion springs to mind: 14 September 1997 in Block B in Castle Buildings. The usual calls of Lundy and traitor were heard, but on that day, political parties both encouraged and showed courage to break the ground, walk the walk and fight, argue and debate for their corners. Many of us would not be sitting in the Chamber today had those courageous steps not been taken. Many tributes have been paid to David Ervine over the past couple of weeks, particularly from his colleagues and from East Belfast Members. I feel that I should quote one such tribute, which said that David Ervine was: “an able, energetic and committed representative eager to improve the lives of his constituents”. That is a fitting tribute to a dedicated east Belfast man who broke the ground on which others walk. However, East Belfast is a changing constituency. While there is plenty, there is poverty among that plenty. There is an inner city, which is becoming marginalised and apathetic, with demographic changes and declining industries. It is a time of massive change. In such times, as we have seen over the past 10 years, people feel insecure and vulnerable, and it is up to community leaders and politicians, in particular, to manage that change. Managing change is about empowering people and encouraging communities to embrace all that is positive in that change. There are new investments, new developments and new jobs, but there is an increasingly marginalised community that does not have access to them. We need increasing investment in education and skills to empower people to gain that access. As an Assembly Member for East Belfast, I am duty bound to improve the quality of people’s lives. I will continue to provide a service, as David did, to the constituents in East Belfast, especially as regards housing. We have a depleted social housing stock, and people cannot access the adequate housing that they need; year after year we have increasing numbers of people presenting themselves as homeless; and we have those who cannot afford to buy their own homes, and those who are living in the private rental sector. All of those issues need to be considered. There is also the matter of welfare benefits. Some Members referred to passport benefits with respect to water rates and domestic rates. As long as there are thousands of people who cannot access those benefits, there is a need for help and advice to be given. As long as there is poverty, and as long as there is inequality in education, health and gender, it will be my duty to articulate the needs of the working and workless classes in East Belfast. I am delighted that we have a Programme for Government — it is through that programme that people in impoverished areas and those in the voluntary and community sectors can see the policies that the Government intend to implement. However, although words are good, we need action plans. Anti-poverty strategies are fantastic, but we need action plans. We need to be able to measure them to ensure that they reach those who are most in need. I appeal to all our political leaders, who have it in their gift to give us accountable democracy, to do just that. It is something that we all crave. There have been debates on the Programme for Government and on implementation, but I appeal to those people because we are tantalisingly close to giving our society what it needs — peace and stability. I appeal to everyone to hold their nerve and to leave us a legacy, and to remember those who have gone before. The Chairperson of the Subgroup on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges and Water Reform (Dr Birnie): I am very pleased to be winding up the debate. It has all moved a little bit faster than had been anticipated. There were three parts to the remit of the subgroup, and they are reflected in the report: the comprehensive spending review, rates reform, and the water supply and sewerage industry. As Mr Neeson pointed out, the report is lengthy, running to around 580 pages. It is worth reminding ourselves of the terms of reference. The subgroup was to look at a number of things: major pressures on spending, efficiency possibilities, and investment needs during the comprehensive spending review period. Additionally, we were to consider any financial or economic package coming from the Treasury. We were assisted on that point by the work of one of the other subgroups, which concentrated largely on the subject. You will see cross-references between our report and the report coming from that subgroup. Ms Purvis referred to some of the social priorities that might be included in such a financial package, as did other Members during this morning’s debate. The subgroup rapidly ran into the limitations of the timetable within which the CSR is being developed for Northern Ireland. It was too early to identify departmental priorities in detail. In addition, one of the witnesses, Mr Victor Hewitt, Director of ERINI pointed out the “paucity of paper” on the process in Northern Ireland. This created further difficulties for the work of the subgroup. Sean Neeson has already referred to the importance of efficiency savings. The subgroup was very impressed by evidence from witnesses of the dangers of these and of the past reality that efficiency savings gained in practice were simply cuts in front-line spending. In a sense, considering CSR is like gazing into a crystal ball. We were looking at various public-spending scenarios for the next three to four years. Subgroup members were struck and concerned by one such scenario. Even if — and this may be optimistic — the final settlement through the Barnett formula and the CSR is that spending over the next three years in Northern Ireland grows at 3·5% nominally every year, all of that and more could be swallowed up and more by cost pressures. That would put even more pressure on gaining efficiency savings and making as much as possible through the sale of assets. Certainly, the bottom line emerging from the subgroup’s consideration was that whereas the previous CSR period, 2004 to the present, saw growth in public spending of the order of 3% in Northern Ireland in real terms — that is, over and above the RPI (retail price index) inflation rate — that will not happen this time. Northern Ireland will be doing well to get 1% above RPI every year. That creates great stringency on what can be done in terms of identifying departmental spending priorities. Mr Weir referred to that point. Therefore, if the terms of reference implied that the subgroup had to draft the Budget for Northern Ireland and the priorities to go into the Programme for Government, which will appear in December 2007, it did not carry them out. Of course, that was an almost impossible task to complete in a handful of meetings. It is left to a future Assembly to identify some means of judging the merits of the levels of spending within and between the 10 Northern Ireland Departments. It is worth pointing out that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) takes up roughly 45% of the £8 billion or so of block grant for public expenditure. Theoretically, if the level of health spending continued to grow at the rate at which it grew in some recent years — namely 7% to 10% nominal growth per annum — Northern Ireland would eventually get to the ludicrous and absurd position at which almost 100% of the Northern Ireland block grant was being spent on health and nothing was being spent on schools, roads, industrial development or the environment. That is not to deny the great need for health spending that will be the subject of debate later today. That illustrates some of the fundamental dilemmas with which, it is to be hoped, a future Executive and Assembly will get to struggle. 12.00 noon The second area of the subgroup’s remit was the reform of domestic and industrial rates. The subgroup’s terms of reference refer to its considering possible caps on domestic and industrial rates and how best to increase relief for low-income groups, especially pensioners. The issue of a possible cap is twofold: whether to impose a cap and, if so, at what level. Following the so-called St Andrews Agreement, the official line from Government seems to be that they might favour a cap on the rateable value of each house set at £500,000. The highest rate currently being paid in Great Britain — £2,950 — is for a band H house in the Sedgefield area, interestingly enough. That is, I believe, the Prime Minister’s constituency. However, some members of the subgroup were impressed by witness arguments that Northern Ireland is not the same as England, Scotland and Wales. Some witnesses maintained that, compared to many GB regions, Northern Ireland’s citizens have lower levels of disposable income and, in many cases, experience higher costs of living. The subgroup considered a possible extension of the proposed relief for people with disabilities. Members looked favourably on the possibility of using some proportion, perhaps the highest category, of disability living allowance (DLA) recipients. We were obviously aware that the number of DLA recipients in Northern Ireland — 171,000 — is considerable, but one quarter are in the highest band. After the St Andrews Agreement proposals, the subgroup considered also the findings of the Government’s pensioner rates relief working group, which reported just before Christmas. The subgroup was struck by the fact that, to some degree, that group had worked backwards from a somewhat arbitrary sum of money — £4 million — to determine the maximum possible increase in the allowance figure that could be made to provide pensioners with domestic rates relief. With respect to the industrial rates, the subgroup noted that if the rating level on manufacturing were to increase from 25% to 35% in the financial year 2007-08, the increase in revenue received by Government would be £7·9 million. Of course, we now see that, as the rate has been frozen at 30%, that will not happen. That example gives Members some feel for the possible cost implications of various proposals in that area. The subgroup was struck by the argument that whereas, in the past, the Government may have claimed that revenue of up to £80 million could be raised by introducing rating in the manufacturing sector, that would not happen, because companies would adjust either by moving their production entirely out of Northern Ireland if they had the capability, scale and multinational ability to do so, or if they were stuck, as it were, in a Northern Ireland location, by downsizing the physical scale of their factories and plant facilities. By implication, they would not, therefore, have to pay the full £80 million. The Government have been over-optimistic in that projection. Indeed, it was striking also that the Department had made little allowance for the fact that manufacturing employment and scale of production could be reduced because of the impact of industrial rating on its cost competitiveness. As Jim Shannon said earlier, the subgroup was struck by the argument that the use of rateable value — by implication, floor space — may not have been a particularly fair way to assess the rating liability of various manufacturing enterprises. The third matter that the subgroup considered was water reform. Peter Weir referred to the subgroup’s terms of reference. The subgroup had to examine The Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and consider matters such as the strategic business plan, the governance and licensing of the Go-co, billing and the collection of water charges. As has already been mentioned during the debate, there is, to some degree, a hierarchy of responses in the subgroup’s report. We all implicitly agreed that, ideally, water charging should be stopped — full stop. If, however, that does not happen, the second line of response, the default position, is to defer any action until a new Executive is in place and can give careful consideration to the matter. If that is not possible, our report considers how the system currently proposed — if, regrettably, there is charging — could be improved. As other Members have said, we were greatly hindered by the lack of available information. We did not see any draft business plan for Northern Ireland Water Ltd. We were told that such a draft might be available in April, but we shall wait and see. Leslie Cree referred to that lack of information during his speech. I am tempted to say that we were annoyed by the drip feed of such information — this subject has plenty of scope for appalling puns. Mr Neeson referred to the possibility that the current policy simply represents privatisation through the back door. I am sure that many Members regard that as more than a possibility. We were concerned by the rate-of-return figure of 5.8% compared to 5.1% for England. That figure seems to be higher here, but some evidence from the Department for Regional Development suggests that, when one takes into account tax differences in some way that is pretty much incomprehensible to most of us, there is actually equality in the real rate of return. That is another matter that bears careful investigation. It is not clear, as Leslie Cree mentioned, why the figure of £1 billion was selected as the asset value of Northern Ireland Water Ltd. The subgroup endorsed the Consumer Council’s assertion that it is more important to get water reform right than to get it done. We are concerned that, if things go ahead as planned, by 2009-10 — which will represent the end of the tying of charges to England and Wales levels — water consumers and bill payers will be very much tied to whether adequate improvements in efficiency have been made and what has happened to the bad-debt problem, as Peter Weir said. In conclusion, I again thank the subgroup staff for their massive and admirable efforts at a difficult time of year. I thank my colleague Mr McNarry, who took the Chair on two occasions. There was an impressive level of consensus in the subgroup, as John O’Dowd said. Four parties were represented, but I appreciate the argument of Sean Neeson that it could have been five. There were some differences among the parties, but I stress that the report’s proposals are carefully thought out and can inform any future Executive. I support the motion. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly takes note of the Report from the Committee on the Programme for Government on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges and Water Reform, and calls on the Secretary of State and / or the incoming Executive to take action to implement the recommendations in the Report. Mr Deputy Speaker: Owing to the debate ending somewhat earlier than expected, I shall allow a few moments for those Members who wish to leave to do so and for arriving Members to take their seats. North/South Co-Operation Mr Deputy Speaker: Two amendments to the motion have been selected and published on the Marshalled List; the amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on that list. When the debate has concluded, I shall put the Question on amendment No 1; if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall. If amendment No 1 is not made, I shall put the Question on amendment No 2. I hope that that is clear. Dr Farren: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises the increasing significance of North-South co-operation in a range of sectors such as health, agriculture, education, research and development, and on a range of infrastructure projects such as roads and public transport, energy and tourism; and calls for an intensification of such co-operation to maximise the mutual benefit to the people of the whole island. I am pleased to have the opportunity to move the motion on all-Ireland co-operation, especially since today is the last chance that I shall have to contribute to debates in the Chamber. As a Southerner — or at least a Southerner for the first 30 years of my life; I am not terribly sure how to classify myself now — who received a warm, perhaps sometimes too warm, welcome wherever I went in Northern Ireland, I have always been anxious for relationships throughout our island to develop in a mutually harmonious and beneficial way. In recent years, particularly since the Good Friday Agreement, the pace of the intensification of North/South co-operation has pleased me. We now speak of an all-island economy in a mutually beneficial, not threatening, way, and there is evidence of that in certain investments and initiatives. Mr Campbell: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the Member said: “We now speak of an all-island economy”. Whom does he mean by “we”? Dr Farren: Members can define “we” for themselves. However, many Members on Mr Campbell’s side of the Chamber — perhaps not all Members — are willing to react positively to certain proposals and initiatives. Those Members could be included in the “we” to whom I have referred. As I was saying, there is evidence of the intensification of North/South co-operation in certain investments and initiatives: the upgrading of the Belfast to Dublin road is almost complete; a single energy market for the entire island will be in place before the end of the year; an integrated North/South gas supply has been created; there is an increasing number of cross-border hospital service contracts; joint research and development projects are being conducted by the island’s universities; the South has invested in City of Derry Airport; and there have been many smaller, but nonetheless significant, North/South initiatives by voluntary and community groups in both parts of the country. All those initiatives highlight what can be described as the “normalisation” of practical co-operation with mutually beneficial outcomes. 12.15 pm Indeed, such is the success of the North/South co-operation in recent years that there is no longer a question over its capacity to deliver economic and social benefits to both sides of the border. Rather, we are now recognising the current scale of North/South co-operation to be only a fraction of its full potential. Achieving the full potential of the Good Friday Agreement in that respect has been hindered by suspension, and I trust that the days of suspension are rapidly drawing to a close. That is why the SDLP has been determined to ensure that all-Ireland initiatives should not be a hostage to political stalemate. Furthermore, it is why, in the years since suspension, my party developed its ‘North South Makes Sense’ campaign, which is aimed at putting a clear focus on the opportunities that lie in joint initiatives across the entire island. As we approach devolution, we want North/South co-operation to rise to an even greater level of development, and we want it to be achieved under the auspices of restored political institutions. That is why we particularly, and very warmly, welcome the proposals for enhanced North/South co-operation contained in the Irish Government’s new national development plan, which was published last week. The plan invites the Assembly and its Executive to engage with their Southern counterparts in realising the potential in those proposals. However, the national development plan is not a set of proposals offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; instead, it is a set of proposals to be negotiated and jointly developed. The plan contains proposals for significant Irish Government investment in North/South projects and initiatives for mutual benefit, which must be agreed with a restored Northern Ireland Executive and which will cover the period from 2007 to 2013. The proposed package includes two quite innovative elements: first, joint investment in new strategic projects to benefit North and South; secondly, to open access to existing development funding on an all-island basis. A further element is the introduction of new agreed joint-funding measures with the Northern Ireland Executive following restoration. The strategic projects and services highlighted in the Irish Government’s national development plan encompass such familiar matters as roads; rail; energy; tourism; health; education; telecommunications and so on. However, it is the scale and comprehensiveness of the proposed investments, and the opportunity for an agreed approach to developing and implementing the projects, that are most significant. In other words, it is an approach that should mark the end of back-to-back planning. The second proposal to open up all-island funding opportunities is one that the SDLP has long urged. That proposal is modelled on the European Union example of funding that transcends political boundaries. The purposes envisaged for the proposed all-island funds could be in the following areas: education; skills; science and innovation; regional development; tourism development; poverty; social inclusion and community infrastructure. Those funds would address the long-term challenges that the Irish and British Governments, as well as most Members in this House, agree must be faced in the modern global economy. Such funds would be awarded on a competitive basis, thereby rewarding innovation and collaboration and ensuring that funds are allocated to the best projects. This is the very first time that all-island economic and social dimensions have been so prominently represented in an Irish Government national development plan. The proposals represent a massive opportunity to boost the economy and develop services, taking account of the needs and resources of the whole island. I trust that our restored Executive and Assembly will lose no time in entering negotiations in order to ensure that those proposals are realised. There can only be a resounding yes to, for example, an integrated road network North and South, as well as east and west, that links Dublin, Belfast, Derry, Letterkenny, Sligo, Armagh and back to Newry; a resounding yes to the further development of all-island business opportunities under the auspices of InterTradeIreland, a North/South body that has already provided support for over 4,000 enterprises North and South; a resounding yes to enhanced developments of hospital, health and emergency services for communities along the border as well as on an all-island basis; a resounding yes to greater North/South investment in research and development in our universities and other centres of research in order to assist economic development in both parts of the country; and a resounding yes to additional funds being made available through the North/South Ministerial Council for projects intended to assist innovation, to help border communities and to promote all-island reconciliation initiatives. We can do more together, in order to get more together. Our economies, North and South, face common challenges, so it makes sense to find common solutions. That is what the North/South agenda is, and must be, all about. Beyond the political and practical case for broad-based North/South co-operation there is growing acknowledgement of its importance in building trust and good relations between our communities in the North and across the island. The head of Co-operation Ireland — one of the organisations with the most experience in the area of North/South co-operation — has said that the promotion of effective North/South co-operation is an integral part of building peace on the island of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement not only created a framework for political co-operation and partnership in Northern Ireland, but widened and extended the basis for co-operation and partnership to the whole island of Ireland and included a new framework for policy development with partners in a new British-Irish relationship. I am conscious of the concerns and apprehensions that underlie the two amendments. Those concerns and apprehensions are unwarranted and do not need to be highlighted. There is an opportunity for debate on east-west issues; it was open to the Members opposite to table a motion on that subject. If they had done so, they might have found a positive response to some of their proposals from this side of the Chamber. However, this motion is about the significance of, and the potential for, North/South development. As we develop the potential of the island as a whole, we must do so in the full knowledge that we are part of a global village in which we must play our proper role. We must be forward-looking in that respect. For far too long our tendencies, particularly here in the North, have been to look inward and to ignore the wider world and its opportunities and challenges, except, I suppose, whenever funds were dangled before us. Tá seans iontach againn anois comhoibriú agus comhinfheistíocht ar son cómhaitheas ár ndaoine uilig a chur chun cinn. Sin an ghuí a fhágaim agaibh. We have a wonderful opportunity to promote co-operation through a programme of joint investments and initiatives to the mutual benefit of all our people. Ní neart go cur le chéile. Our strength will grow the more we co-operate. The SDLP believes that in taking the opportunities, and in facing the challenges posed by co-operation on an all-island basis, we shall be even better able to face those in the wider world. I beg to move the motion. Lord Morrow: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “recognises” and insert “the potential of North-South co-operation in a range of sectors; and calls upon Government to ensure that such co-operation is based upon practical, economic considerations, not politics; and, that in entering into any co-operative arrangements, the interests of the people of Northern Ireland are the primary consideration; and further notes that the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 ensures that all North-South structures will be fully accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly.” I want to say at the outset that it is quite understandable that, down the years, unionists have eyed cross-border co-operation with suspicion. So far today, we have not heard anything that makes us any less suspicious. In fact, the remarks in the opening speech make us even more suspicious, and our suspicions are well founded. However, our suspicions may be down to the legacy of living with terror and the ever-present threat that bombers and gunmen are trying to force us out of our homes and our heritage. They try to take away the places where people were born and live. That might have something to do with it. Those suspicions may also be down to the fact that, over the past 35 years — indeed, from the inception of the state of Northern Ireland — the Irish Republic has allowed its territory to be a safe haven for wanted terrorists. That might have something to do with it. Those suspicions may also be because unionists view the Irish Republic as being hostile to their existence. As a unionist, I believe that that has a lot to do with it. Through the years, when this country was under the cosh of a Sinn Féin/IRA onslaught, we did not get much support or sympathy from the Irish Republic. Any co-operation that existed between the security forces involved the lowest common denominator rather than the highest. All those reasons account for the apprehension, fear and terror that existed in unionism, in particular among those living along the border who were driven from their homes. Of course, Northern Ireland has much to gain from good relations with the Irish Republic, if they are on a pragmatic and appropriate basis. We are happy to work with, and alongside, our colleagues in the Irish Republic where it is to our mutual benefit and interest. The work carried out by the elected representatives on behalf of the constituents on both sides of the border is often similar. I suspect that the bread-and-butter issues are similar North and South: roads, housing, hospitals and good schooling. There is potential, with the future of Northern Ireland secure and all parties working in the interests of Northern Ireland, for a more relaxed, wholehearted co-operation. Such co-operation is possible in a stable environment in which unionists would not be looking over their shoulders, as they have had to do for the past 40 years. However, for that to occur, there must be a responsibility on nationalists not to politicise, or seek to politicise, for narrow party advantage, any sensible low-level co-operation that may go on. Undoubtedly, on account of our small population, there are matters for which it is not possible for us in Northern Ireland to have all the answers — likewise, for the relatively small population in the Irish Republic. I note with interest what the Northern Ireland Office Minister of State, Mr Hanson, said in the House of Commons on 21 November, during the debate on the St Andrews legislation. He said: “The hon. Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that, by virtue of the arrangements put in place by the Bill, details relating to the North/South Ministerial Council or any matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland will require Executive approval. I can confirm that such matters will be referred to under the ministerial code that applied until suspension, and will require Executive agreement. Under the arrangements provided for in the Bill, decisions taken without Executive agreement would not be legitimate and would be open to legal challenge.” Nothing could be clearer than that, and I note that the SDLP leader, in remarks made later that evening, criticised the Government for allowing the DUP to hollow out the provisions of the 1998 Belfast Agreement to such an extent. 12.30 pm I want to comment on Tourism Ireland Ltd, one of the cross-border bodies that was established under the Belfast Agreement. If there were no argument against cross-border bodies, Tourism Ireland would certainly provide one. It spends £40 million a year, one third of which comes from Northern Ireland, yet it has a history of failing to promote routes to Northern Ireland and failing to promote the distinctiveness of Northern Ireland’s tourism product. Reading the Tourism Ireland brochures and website and watching its advertisements in the years since its establishment, one could be forgiven for concluding that the only access point to this island is Dublin. As far as Tourism Ireland is concerned, Dublin is the only access point to Ireland. Tourism Ireland may need a little tourism experience itself. That view is borne out by the figures: the number of tourists coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland was down in 2006, but, in the same period, the figures for the Republic of Ireland were up by 10%. Mr Shannon: Does the Member accept there is east-west tourism potential? Some 250,000 people travel to Larne and Belfast from Scotland every year. Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for making that salient and sound point. Market research that Tourism Ireland conducted also reveals that almost 50% of people in Great Britain view its marketing campaigns as relating only to the Republic of Ireland. Surveys also indicate that Northern Ireland is seen as having less to offer than the Republic of Ireland. Initially, the brief that was given to Tourism Ireland was to “bridge the gap” in tourism between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was subsequently changed to: “helping Northern Ireland achieve its tourism potential”, whatever that means. Tourism in Northern Ireland contributes approximately 2% of its GDP. In the Republic of Ireland the figure is 9%, and in Wales the equivalent figure is 11%. Northern Ireland lags far behind. In such circumstances, it might be expected that the priority would be given to spending on, promoting and developing the underperforming and underdeveloped region. Is that the case? Alas, it is not. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) An analysis of the promotional photographs on the Tourism Ireland website reveals that, although it provides 33% of Tourism Ireland’s funding, Northern Ireland has only 23% of the promotional photographs on the website. Indeed, some of those photographs are stretching the point. How does Tourism Ireland promote Fermanagh, for example? The website simply shows a photograph of a swan. Superb stuff. Furthermore, there is a photograph of the Lammas Fair, but it could be a photograph of any fair in Ireland, or, indeed, the world. That is Tourism Ireland’s way of promoting Northern Ireland. One may wonder why Tourism Ireland has the responsibility for leading promotion in the rest of the United Kingdom. The originators of Tourism Ireland allow Great Britain to be regarded as an overseas market — brilliant. At one sweep, Tourism Ireland was allowed to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. Tourism Ireland was effectively given charge of what, up until then, was Northern Ireland’s best market, yet, in 2006, it managed to reduce the number of tourists coming here from Great Britain. If we look at the specifics of the tourism promotion of Northern Ireland, there are some surprising results. For example, in the 2007 holiday planner from Tourism Ireland — its key promotional document for the year — the events and festivals section does not list the North West 200, which is one of the biggest events in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is not mentioned. Only 11 of the 40 events listed are in Northern Ireland, and guess what one of them is — the West Belfast Festival. It is listed, yet it hardly needs to be said that the Twelfth of July and Maiden City festivals are never mentioned. It is as if they do not exist — that is the impartiality of Tourism Ireland in operation. Northern Ireland needs to be sure that its tourism product is locally resourced and being promoted in a manner that will ensure that the current economic inequalities are addressed. All this highlights further the importance of North/South structures having been made wholly accountable to this Assembly. In such circumstances, none of us from any background should have anything to fear from straightforward relations — that are not politically driven — with those in the Irish Republic. Mr McClarty: First of all, I pay tribute to the SDLP Member for North Antrim, Dr Farren. I understand that he may have made his final contribution to the House, and I wish him all the very best on his retirement from public life. I beg to move amendment No 2: Insert after the first “of” “East-West and”; and leave out all after “benefit” and insert “to the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.” We have no problem with North/South co-operation on matters that are of mutual benefit to the citizens of both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and there are obvious fields in which that co-operation can take place. However, the political history of the island of Ireland means that unionists will inevitably, and understandably, be wary that measures, which are sold as being of mutual benefit, are in fact part of a wider political agenda designed to threaten the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and its place in the United Kingdom. We do not deny that co-operation has brought, or could bring, benefits, but these are likely to have been, or will be, small — not about even 1% of the GDP and probably much less. People may talk of promoting more cross-border trade. There is already more cross-border trade per head of population than there is between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The extent of all-island trading is not unusual when compared with trade levels, for example, between Norway, Sweden and Denmark. There is already an extensive Northern Ireland-Republic market in company takeovers. Many Northern Ireland business names have been bought by Southern concerns. By and large, we accept this as the working of the corporate market, although we would like to see more Northern Ireland companies make acquisitions south of the border. Rhetoric favouring all-island solutions is often based on misconceptions about Northern Ireland’s economy. It is not an economic basket case; it has the UK’s highest rates of GDP, manufacturing output and employment growth since 1990. It has a big subvention from the Treasury, but so do many UK regions, for example, much of Wales — perhaps the Secretary of State should take note of that. Transfers occur normally within a national single monetary and economic union, so it is less than clear what the Secretary of State means when he says that we should become less dependent. Sometimes the issues involved are not really all-island issues but are more appropriately relevant to the British Isles as a whole or to Europe — for example, mobile-phone roaming charges, as raised by the Ulster Unionist MEP Jim Nicholson in the European Parliament, or a single European electricity market, as recently proposed by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. We must be realistic that often the Republic of Ireland is not our ally but our competitor. For example, it has tax advantages, such as more favourable corporation tax, vehicle fuel excise duty and the lower rate of value added tax (VAT) on tourism. Some commentators point to the European Union (EU) as a model that Northern Ireland and the Republic should copy. The comparison is not relevant; in reality other European countries, for example, France, Germany and Italy, have managed their border regions without the institutional apparatus, such as the implementation bodies, which exists in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What about the European single currency, the euro? It looks less and less likely that the UK will join this arrangement, which in so many of the continental economies has proved more of a straitjacket than a boost to trade. Even the Republic has problems with the imposition of policy directives from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. It seems likely, as Milton Friedman argued in 2001, that the Republic of Ireland’s membership of the single European currency club was always more about politics than sound economics. Since 1993, trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic has grown by leaps and bounds — as much as 10% annually, in many years. The existence of two currencies on the island has hardly been an insuperable problem. Members should note that the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada has not required the two North American economies to adopt a single currency or, indeed, cross-border bodies. Secretary of State Peter Hain may have taken up the all-island economic agenda in recent speeches, but is that not about politics rather than a sound business case? The Government’s economic policy documents are instructive: in February 2005 the ‘Economic Vision for Northern Ireland’, a sort of economic strategy document, devoted only a few sentences to the subject of cross-border co-operation. Similarly, the Republic’s recent enterprise strategy, ‘Ahead of the Curve, Ireland’s Place in the Global Economy’, hardly mentions Northern Ireland. When it comes to hard, competitive business reality, cross-border froth does not figure much. Dr Farren: Will the Member give way? Mr McClarty: No, I am sorry. I have limited time, and I have already thanked you for making your last speech. [Laughter.] It is to be hoped that a more mature and responsible relationship will emerge from the political advances that have been made over the past decade, with the end of the terror campaign that sought to push this Province and its people out of the Union and into a united Ireland against their will. The defeat of the IRA’s campaign provides us with an opportunity to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland has a stake in this Province and its future. That future will clearly be within the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is the fifth largest economy on the planet. It is a multicultural society, the destination of choice for many thousands of immigrants seeking a better life for themselves and their families. At a time when so many people appear desperate to enter the United Kingdom, by fair means or foul, we would have to be crazy to voluntarily cut our ties with the British mainland. Britain is where Northern Ireland does much of its trade. Many citizens work for companies that are based on the UK mainland, and many of our young people attend universities in Great Britain and go on to play a crucial role in the life of the nation. The development of the Republic of Ireland’s economy is a recent phenomenon. For most of the twentieth century, the Republic’s economy limped along in a depressed state, and it was only saved from horrendous levels of unemployment by the fact that hundreds of thousands of its citizens were able to travel to Great Britain to seek a better life. The presence of large and thriving expatriate communities in cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow is testament to how well those emigrants did. The Republic of Ireland has had great cause to be grateful for its east-west links throughout the twentieth century. Northern Ireland is no different. We wish the Irish Republic well. It is our neighbour. It is to be hoped that as this century progresses, links in areas such as trade and tourism will be developed that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland. However, care must also be taken to ensure that relations continue to be maintained and developed with fellow British citizens in the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland endured a 30-year campaign of terror that sought to break that link, and they suffered grievously, as did many fellow citizens on the mainland. That link could not be broken in times of strife. It will, undoubtedly, be strengthened in times of peace. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to echo the sentiments directed towards Seán Farren. Go n-éirí an t-ádh leat, a Sheáin, agus le do theaghlach go léir. Rachaidh athaontú na hÉireann go mór chun leasa gach duine ar an oileán seo. Ar fud phróiseas na síochána, thug Sinn Féin tacaíocht i dtólamh do chur chuige uile-oileáin do réimsí tabhachtacha polasaí, lena n-áirítear an eacnamaíocht, an tsláinte, an t-oideachas, an fhostaíocht, an talmhaíocht agus turasóireacht. Gabh mo leithscéal. Irish unification would greatly benefit all the people on the island of Ireland. Throughout the peace process, Sinn Féin has consistently urged an island-wide approach in key policy areas such as the economy, health, education, employment, agriculture and tourism. Sinn Féin has given practical expression to that through the work of its Ministers in the Executive, the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and the Assembly, and its representation in Leinster House and the European Parliament. Sinn Féin representatives have continuously pressed the need to sustain and develop the all-Ireland approach enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. 12.45 pm Since partition, social and economic development has been characterised by a back-to-back approach, which has resulted in poor service delivery and economic underdevelopment, particularly in places in the border counties and west of the Bann where the artificial border has impacted on normal socio-economic development. A common development plan is required for Ireland and, considering that the new National Development Plan is set to run until 2013, it is vital that the plan approaches expansion and growth on an all-island basis. In order to achieve an all-Ireland economy, we must work towards tax harmonisation. A single VAT system and the abolishment of excise would greatly simplify businesses trading on the island and bring about taxes that are fairer to workers. We should be encouraging small-business and worker development. Relatively simple measures, such as standardising bank holidays, would address an anomaly that has a negative impact on those who live, work, or go to school on both sides of the border. Without a single currency and tax regime and with the lack of joined-up infrastructure, we are left with the same old uncompetitive banking and retail sectors. The banking sector, North and South, is under investigation for its lack of genuine competition. There is also the need for the establishment of an all-Ireland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and an all-island electricity network, which must be nuclear free and committed to renewable energy, as was agreed by the all-party Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment in the previous Assembly. Sinn Féin has been to the fore in lobbying the Irish and British Governments to ensure that people in the border region have access to health services at the nearest geographical location, regardless of which side of the border they live. That is why substantial funding is required for an upgrade of, among others, Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry city, and the issue of the out-of-hours services on both sides of the border must be resolved. Sinn Féin welcomes the two pilot projects; however, they must be extended. One of Sinn Féin’s key goals is to build a strong, stable, all-Ireland economy in which everyone will have a dignified and productive working life, a fair income and a good quality of life — an economy characterised by the positive redistribution of its resources to eradicate poverty and social exclusion. A small island with a population of just over five million people cannot develop successful economic strategies on the basis of economic division. The devastating economic consequences of partition are most obvious in border counties, but the impact is broader because the North has been excluded from the economic advances of the Twenty-six Counties. The only way to truly transform the economy in the North of Ireland is to set it in the context of an island-wide strategy for development and regeneration. To succeed, any economic development strategy must, at a minimum, remove the barriers to North/South business development and trade and to cross-border working mobility. Equality and human rights must be at the heart of that. Sinn Féin is committed to the elimination of poverty and deprivation on the island of Ireland, and we feel that a meaningful approach to eliminating poverty will have to adopt a human rights approach and draw all sectors of Irish society closer together. Had the whole island been able to benefit from the extremely high growth rates experienced in the Twenty-six Counties during the period of the Celtic tiger economy, all-Ireland economic growth and development would have far exceeded current levels of gross national product (GNP) in the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties. Sinn Féin has been arguing for some time that our best interests would be served in putting forward a united, all-Ireland voice in Europe, particularly on fishing and agriculture. I have spoken to fishing industry personnel in places such as Kilkeel and Ardglass, and I know that those industries in the North of Ireland have been damaged because they have been tied to British fishing and agriculture. The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and the Irish Farmers’ Union (IFU) have recognised the potential of working together to challenge the way in which the EU nitrates directive is being implemented, and Sinn Féin has consistently argued that getting the best out of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform is dependent on developing a coherent single approach on the island of Ireland. If we are to ensure better and more effective representation for our fishing and agriculture industries, all of the political parties — including the DUP — should challenge their own politically motivated short-sightedness and begin to examine the potential of creating a single united agenda for our fishing and agriculture communities. I welcome last week’s historic announcement of a National Development Plan by the Irish Government, which is expected to provide €1 billion for strategic projects in the North as well as cross-border links. This is the first time that the national plan has included the Six Counties, and the spending of €1 billion is part of the peace dividend. We hope that it is only a small part. Of course, it is equally important that we have in place a new power-sharing Executive to administer this funding, which is badly needed to improve road infrastructure throughout the North of Ireland and, indeed, in my own constituency of South Down. Part of the package is to be spent on improving links between south Down and north Louth. Sinn Féin has been to the fore in lobbying for a link bridge to be built at Narrow Water, near Warrenpoint. When the project was dead in the water, parties like the SDLP were divided on whether to support it or not and John Fee came out against it, Sinn Féin was united behind the need for a bridge. Sinn Féin kept its eye on the prize. Arthur Morgan TD raised it in Leinster House, Sinn Féin co-ordinated meetings between Louth County Council and Newry and Mourne District Council, Sinn Féin organised meetings with INTERREG, the European Union’s Programme — Dr Farren: Will the Member give way? Ms Ruane: No, I will not. I will continue, because I have very little time. Sinn Féin worked with the Roads Services on both sides of the border. This type of flagship development is essential if we are to develop a co-operative approach to both trade and tourism. Mr Kennedy: Will the Member give way? Ms Ruane: No. I said that I would not. A bridge would open up tourism from Newgrange to the Mournes. We need to capitalise on the visitors who are visiting Newgrange and ensure that their visit to Ireland includes a visit to Counties Down and Armagh as well. If this were any other country in the world, there would be a bridge there now. There is a need to continue to fight for this project. Investment in Warrenpoint harbour has the potential to create jobs and ensure that the town’s docks are one of the main gateways for trade in and out of the northern half of the country. Its expansion should be a key consideration and part of any development plan. Funding is also needed to develop agriculture and fishery in the Carlingford Lough area, as it is vital that opportunities are in place so that the hard-pressed fishing industry has an opportunity to diversify. A ring road is needed around Newry city. The good roads should not stop at the border as they do at the moment. I welcome the proposed development of the Belfast to Dublin line and argue that an integrated rail network that is able to serve the other areas of the northern half of the country must accompany this. Daisy Hill Hospital is ideally placed to serve the cross-border community, and its services, if expanded and enhanced, would ensure greater access to services for a significant population in Down, Armagh and Louth. The National Development Plan has the potential to act as a catalyst for economic regeneration and is yet another good reason why it is important that we have a fully functioning, power-sharing Executive in place after the 7 March elections. Enhanced North/South co-operation must be seen as a prerequisite for all-Ireland strategic development plans in health and social services, education and training, public transport, the environment, agriculture and fisheries, road safety, the arts and culture, tourism and the Irish language. Maurice Morrow needs to learn that suspicions do not build economies. Hard work and strategic thinking do. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr McCarthy: There is no question that recent economic progress in the Republic and political progress in Northern Ireland have allowed more meaningful cross-border co-operation than ever before. Long may that continue. The Alliance Party has a proud record on cross-border issues. We have frequently been the only non-nationalist party to participate in forums, consultations and boards that promote co-operation for mutual benefit — from promotion of an all-island energy market to participation in the proposals to reform the Seanad Éireann. There is also little question that cross-border initiatives can, and should, go beyond the issues dealt with by cross-border bodies. Energy, tourism and aspects of transport bring with them a natural cross-border dimension. We must find better ways to co-operate in those areas. However, Members should be cautious on two counts. The system by which the Northern Ireland Assembly dealt with cross-border matters was cumbersome, to say the least. It stalled moves towards beneficial co-operation. Like so much else, political cross-border co-operation was limited by the institutionalised sectarianism under which the Assembly operated. Northern Ireland was represented in the North/South Ministerial Council by two Ministers who spent much of the time arguing with each other, rather than in providing a united front to secure the best outcome for Northern Ireland and for the island as a whole. Dr Farren: Will the Member give way? Mr McCarthy: Seán, you are having difficulty with others. I will give way. Let us hear what you have to say. Dr Farren: I will reply to what Mr McCarthy has just said, since I was the Minister responsible, and I attended almost 60 meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council, some in the company of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Sir Reg Empey. I cannot recall a single meeting that we spent arguing with each other. If we argued at all, we argued together against our Southern counterparts. Mr McCarthy: That is not the information that I have received. I can only accept what the Member says as a former Minister. Mrs Hanna: Will the Member give way again? Mr McCarthy: I will, Carmel. Do you want to take over? Mrs Hanna: In my short time as a Minister, I too attended some of those meetings, and I cannot recall any contention at them. Lord Morrow: Will the Member give way again? Mr McCarthy: All right, Maurice. Lord Morrow: I can also say, as a |