House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2004 - 05
Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates

Oral Answers to Questions




 
Column Number: 1
 

Northern Ireland Grand Committee

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen:

†Mr. David Amess, †Mr. Peter Pike

Barnes, Mr. Harry (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab)
†Beggs, Mr. Roy (East Antrim) (UUP)
Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)
†Burnside, David (South Antrim) (UUP)
†Campbell, Mr. Gregory (East Londonderry) (DUP)
†Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
†Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)
†Dodds, Mr. Nigel (Belfast, North) (DUP)
†Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
†Ellman, Mrs. Louise (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Field, Mr. Mark (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
†Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab)
†Hermon, Lady (North Down) (UUP)
Hume, Mr. John (Foyle) (SDLP)
†Hunter, Mr. Andrew (Basingstoke) (DUP)
Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab)
Jackson, Helen (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab)
†Joyce, Mr. Eric (Falkirk, West) (Lab)
†Lidington, Mr. David (Aylesbury) (Con)
†Luff, Mr. Peter (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con)
Luke, Mr. Iain (Dundee, East) (Lab)
†McCabe, Mr. Stephen (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
McGrady, Mr. Eddie (South Down) (SDLP)
Mackay, Mr. Andrew (Bracknell) (Con)
McNamara, Mr. Kevin (Hull, North) (Lab)
McWalter, Mr. Tony (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab/Co-op)
Mallon, Mr. Seamus (Newry and Armagh) (SDLP)
Mates, Mr. Michael (East Hampshire) (Con)
O’Brien, Mr. Bill (Normanton) (Lab)
†Öpik, Lembit (Montgomeryshire) (LD)
†Paisley, Rev. Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
†Pound, Mr. Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)
†Robinson, Mrs. Iris (Strangford) (DUP)
Robinson, Mr. Peter (Belfast, East) (DUP)
†Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast, South) (UUP)
†Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd, West) (Lab)
†Trimble, Mr. David (Upper Bann) (UUP)
Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 109(4):Gardiner, Mr. Barry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland)
Pearson, Mr. Ian (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland)


 
Column Number: 3
 

Tuesday 8 March 2005

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

The Secretary of State was asked—

Treatment of Cancer Project

2.30 pm

1.   Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): If he will make a statement on Northern Ireland’s role in the European Union treatment of cancer project.[219823]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): There have been various EU cancer research projects to improve cancer treatment, such as the clinical oncology network for quality in European standards of treatment; education, science and quality assurance in radiotherapy; and translating molecular knowledge into breast cancer management. However, I am not aware of a specific programme entitled “the EU treatment of cancer project”, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Although clinicians and researchers in Northern Ireland keep abreast of EU research outcomes, Northern Ireland’s cancer research is, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, more actively linked with the United States, through the All-Ireland Cancer Consortium, and the National Cancer Institute in America.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that answer, but it may be that there are those within the cancer community who use that term. It has been noted that those who were leading in the past have, in the last few months, been reducing their treatment and their commitment because of lack of finance. As a result, they are not leading in the European context, which they did before. Is the Minister in any way concerned that those who had this leading role—which, as he admits, involved links with the United States, Dublin and others—are not getting the finance they need to continue?

Mr. Gardiner: I am certainly interested by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The EU has recognised that there are significant differences in research performance between the US and the EU, largely because of what is seen as the fragmentation of European efforts and poor co-ordination between the various networks of excellence in different member states. The EU is considering how to adopt a more co-operative and collective approach to that.

On funding and the prioritisation of cancer, the hon. Gentleman will know that Northern Ireland’s cancer services are a high priority and that, since the
 
Column Number: 4
 
Government came to power, capital funding of £73 million has been allocated for cancer services—mainly for the development of the cancer centre—and revenue of £28 million on a recurrent basis has been allocated over the same period.

Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): The Minister will know that few of the recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence apply to Northern Ireland. What progress has been made in extending any of the relevant NICE guidelines in relation to cancer treatment?

Mr. Gardiner: I am unable to assist the hon. Lady on that specific point, but I am happy to investigate further and write to her about it. I can tell her that the Northern Ireland Cancer Network was established to promote further the equitable provision of high-quality, patient-focused cancer services and that NICaN will help to identify the support requirements of multi-professional, multi-disciplinary teamworking, which is recognised as the most appropriate method for the delivery of cancer care. I will certainly investigate the other aspect of her question.

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): On the important issue of cancer, will the Minister tell us the position in relation to the public consultation that is under way on the possible ban on smoking in public places and the impact that introducing such a ban could have in terms of cost savings for cancer treatment in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that is of great and wide public interest. He will know that the Government are considering closely how it would be best to put such a ban in place, and if, indeed, it is the right way of going about things. I will certainly ensure that he is brought up to date with the latest thinking by letter.

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Can we have an assurance from the Minister that he is in no way complacent about what is happening in regard to this matter and that he will be doing his utmost to try to help to resolve the cruel situation that is arising as a result of it in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gardiner: I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking not only from my own perspective, but from that of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who is the Minister with responsibility for those matters. I know that the whole ministerial team takes this matter completely seriously. Cancer is a tragic disease that affects so many people, and it is absolutely right that the Government should treat it as one of our highest health care priorities. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): The Minister will not be aware of this, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) recently met one of Northern Ireland’s leading cancer specialists, Professor Roy Spence. One
 
Column Number: 5
 
of the proposals that specialists such as Professor Spence are making is a ban on smoking in public places in Northern Ireland. Is it not time we introduced such a ban?

Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my remarks to his colleague, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), on this subject. Clearly, the amount of smoke in public places has an effect on public health, and it is absolutely right for the Department to investigate this matter in the way that it is. The matter is actively under Government consideration.

Civic Forum

2.   Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): If he will make a statement on the costs of the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [219824]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The cost of the Civic Forum since suspension in October 2002 until now amounts to some £176,000.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Although he has clarified the fact that the Civic Forum has cost £176,000 since it was set up, will he say whether it has made a worthwhile contribution since it came into operation? If it has, what has that contribution been?

Mr. Pearson: I tell the hon. Lady that, in effect, with the suspension of devolution, the Civic Forum was suspended. There has been no financial cost with regard to the Civic Forum and it has not been in existence since 2003–04. As such, it cannot be expected to have achieved a great deal.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): Can the Minister go a little further in explaining the figure of £176,000 for this non-functioning body? Will he say what he may be prepared to do with regard to other non-departmental bodies that are spending substantial sums and delivering very little?

Mr. Pearson: Perhaps I should go into a little more detail on the £176,000. I assure hon. Members that, after suspension, action was promptly taken to minimise any ongoing expenses arising from the Civic Forum. It was hoped that the suspension would be very short term, and for that reason the Civic Forum’s accommodation was retained and not released for alternative uses until the 2003–04 financial year. Similarly, staff were quickly redeployed, but not formally transferred until 2003–04. However, having a Civic Forum comprising 60 representatives from the business, trade union, voluntary and other sectors is potentially a useful consultative mechanism on social, economic and cultural issues. When devolution is restored, it will be up to hon. Members to decide whether they want a Civic Forum restored in the way it was originally envisaged.


 
Column Number: 6
 

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of other organisations. He was not specific, so it is difficult to give precise answers, but in relation to the costs of the Assembly, I want to reassure him that we have taken prompt action to minimise running costs and have looked to redeploy staff where sensible, as one would expect any Government who are committed to the prudent use of public finances to do.

David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): Does the Minister not agree that the best Civic Forum for the people of Northern Ireland and their sectoral interests is represented by people having the courage to go forward to stand in a local government election, a Westminster election or an Assembly election and seek a mandate from the public, rather than having another quango with representatives from non-democratically elected groups? We do not need a Civic Forum in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that we need democratically elected government from Westminster, local government and a local Assembly?

Mr. Pearson: I can agree that we want democratically elected local government, democratically elected Members of Parliament, a democratically elected Assembly and the restoration of trust and confidence, which will enable a fully functioning Assembly and Executive. If, in such a climate, local politicians saw merit in having an advisory body on social, economic and cultural affairs, that would be purely a matter for devolution. The Civic Forum was introduced under devolved arrangements and it will be under devolution that the future of the Civic Forum is determined.

Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab): With all due respect to the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), could it not be argued that in the absence of democratic politics during a period of direct rule, a body such as the Civic Forum might fill some of the gap—if people were to treat it seriously and use it as a vehicle for the discussion that they are currently not able to have on the conventional political stage?

Mr. Pearson: My experience in Northern Ireland is that one is never short of people wanting to give an opinion and rarely short of advice. We have the Economic Development Forum, comprising a range of stakeholders from business, trade unions and the voluntary sector, which is performing a very useful role. The Civic Forum could pursue a wider role that might be linked to the EDF, but there is no legislative mechanism by which to restore the Civic Forum. That is best left to local politicians when the Assembly is restored.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): The Minister referred to the absence of democratic forums in Northern Ireland. Does he not agree that that gap could be plugged to a certain, minor extent if this Committee were to meet in Northern Ireland? If it were to do so, that would facilitate the attendance of the Social Democratic and Labour party.


 
Column Number: 7
 

Mr. Pearson: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. That is a point he has made on a number of occasions, and I do not think the Government have anything further to add.

Planning Service (Sprucefield)

3.   Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): When he expects a decision to be taken by the Planning Service on the major retail development incorporating the new John Lewis store at Sprucefield. [219825]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): The Planning Service is assessing responses to a further round of public consultation on additional information supplied by the applicant. The consultation period has just finished. The proposal raises particularly complex planning policy issues that will need to be fully assessed along with other material considerations, and I am afraid that it is not possible at this stage to be precise about when a decision might be made. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Planning Service will make every effort to ensure that the application is brought forward for a ministerial decision as quickly as possible.

Mr. Donaldson: I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware of the strategic importance of the application in terms of retail development at Sprucefield. The site is in the Belfast-Dublin corridor, and John Lewis has made it clear that it is considering no other location in Northern Ireland but that it will perhaps have to look south of the border if the application is rejected. Would it not be a tragedy for Northern Ireland to lose such a large retail development on the north-south corridor? It would be in no one’s interest if it were to go south, and the sooner we have a positive decision the better.

Mr. Gardiner: I recognise that there is considerable political support for the proposal because of the capital investment and potential job creation it would bring. Lisburn city council has indicated strong support for it. I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that the matter is under close consideration. He will perhaps be aware of 49 objections to the proposal that have been submitted, due to its likely impact on Belfast, Lisburn and other centres. However, he is right to point out the centrality of the planning decision to the economic future of Northern Ireland, which is why it has to be got right.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): I endorse what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said. The Minister will be aware that it took six years to get planning permission for the segment of Sprucefield that John Lewis is thinking of developing, and that grossly inordinate delays are endemic in the Planning Service. Those delays not only represent a threat to the development of Northern Ireland, because of the competition issues that the hon.
 
Column Number: 8
 
Member for Lagan Valley raised, but mean that consumers in Northern Ireland are deprived of services that might otherwise be available.

In addition to considering the staffing of the Planning Service, is it not time to take a serious look at planning procedures to reduce the number of delays? I know that additional resources have been put into staffing, but the procedures need to be considered. They remind me of a comment that someone made the other day—they have been consulted to death, but never listened to. That is part of the problem with the Planning Service. Is it not time for reform?

Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some complex planning issues are raised by the proposal. There were calls for a quick decision on the application. However, an addendum to the environmental statement covering retail impact, traffic and the impact on telecommunications equipment was received only on 31 January 2005. Relevant bodies and third parties had to be notified and invited to comment, which they had to do by 3 March. Consultation on that further nexus of issues submitted by the applicant has concluded.

I hope that following that, the planning authority will be able to make a swift decision. I acknowledge the considerable work that the members of staff of the Planning Service have put into the planning application. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope for a swift conclusion.

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Will the Minister explain to us why there was such a rush and why so much pressure was put on the various political parties to get the decision made? He tells us that we are a long way from a decision. I was at a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), when he was putting pressure on everyone, saying “Get this done, get this done, get this done.” Now the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), seems to be hiding behind the fact that there is still a lot to do, and it seems that there is no immediate hurry.

Mr. Gardiner: I hate to be accused of hiding behind anything, so I will be open with the hon. Gentleman. In this case, I did not say that a decision is a long way off. I said that a further body of evidence has been submitted by the applicant since the end of January 2005. The process is clear. Once that body of evidence had been submitted, it was only right and proper that it should be consulted on and that the public should have the opportunity to see it, reflect on it and pass comments. That process concluded five days ago. I again express my hope that the Planning Service will be able to move to a swift decision. I would not want to be long-fingering the matter.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): I would not want to long-finger it either. Does the Minister recognise that the delay is largely due to the ineptitude of the planning department? It claims that at times it does not have enough staff to police its decisions. In cases of houses and homes that would historically have
 
Column Number: 9
 
been demolished, is it not time that it cleaned up its act? Should not the applicant have been told at the beginning of the process to submit all that is required? Road services, and others, should have been consulted long ago.

Mr. Gardiner: I simply point out the conflict between the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the understaffing of the organisation and the comments of the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that additional staff had been taken on to prepare for the application. There is consensus in the Grand Committee that the matter should be concluded with all possible speed. Nobody would suggest that the planning process should not be followed in rigorous detail. It is far too important for that. It should, of course, be followed. However, we all agree that all possible speed should now be made in reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): Like many other major planning applications in Northern Ireland, this one has dragged on for years. Is it not time for the Planning Service to provide a checklist to applicants so that all the information can be submitted with the initial application, thereby avoiding unnecessary time spent on demands for further information to meet Planning Service requirements?

Mr. Gardiner: I am happy to make available to the hon. Gentleman details of the sort of checklist that is prepared for applicants by the Planning Service. Again, he will appreciate that it is appropriate for different requirements to be put on to the checklist, depending on the sort of application that is being made. In this case, it is for retail use, but an application could be for a housing development or, in some situations, simply for a small domestic addition.

There has been considerable discussion between officers in the Planning Service and the applicant to ensure that as much information as possible was presented at the appropriate time, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, even if full information is provided in the first instance, conflicting information may be brought to bear from somebody who is against the application. That individual will present evidence, and it is only proper that it should be responded to in turn. That may have happened in this case when additional material was introduced on 31 January.

I hope that that goes some way to explaining why the process is fairly protracted when an application is as complicated as this one. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives, by correspondence, details of what the Planning Service requires on an initial application.

Assets Recovery Agency

4.   David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): What assets of the (a) Provisional IRA, (b) Real IRA, (c) Continuity IRA, (d) Official IRA, (e) Irish National Liberation Army, (f) Ulster Defence Association and
 
Column Number: 10
 
(g) Ulster Volunteer Force have been seized or frozen by the Assets Recovery Agency since its formation.[219826]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The Assets Recovery Agency is not a prosecuting authority and does not hold information on individual affiliation. However, of cases perceived to be from the loyalist community, there are currently assets to the value of £350,000 under interim receiving orders, and £1.25 million has been agreed for recovery. Of cases perceived to be from the republican community, assets to the value of £173,332 have been frozen, and £225,000 has been agreed for recovery.

David Burnside: Minister, that really is not good enough. If ever there were a description of the tip of an iceberg, that is it. Widespread criminality is contaminating Northern Ireland and southern Irish society. When the vast criminal empire of Slab Murphy in south Armagh is estimated in the crime rich list as £40 million, the Minister is not even touching the problem with £350,000, £173,000 and £225,000. Does he agree that those figures are pathetic for a Government who claim to be tough on crime and the causes of crime? The Asset Recovery Agency and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are not even touching the criminality of people who are not fighting for Ireland, and certainly are not fighting for God and Ulster, but just filling their pockets and living off their communities.

Mr. Pearson: Where I can agree with the hon. Gentleman is that it is clear that much more needs to be done in respect of effective policing and civil recovery through the Assets Recovery Agency. Where I have to disagree with him is on the performance of the agency to date. As he is aware, it has not been in existence for very long. Some cases take a long time to come to fruition because they involve the courts, but there has been a steady stream of successes in the pipeline since the agency’s inception. The agency is adequately resourced for the task that it needs to perform and we will see continuing successes in coming months.

We are in this for the long haul. I do not expect organised criminality to disappear from Northern Ireland overnight. Many of the criminals are very sophisticated, and they have very sophisticated ways of hiding their money. The forensic work that must be done by an organisation such as the ARA requires time as well as resources, but I have no doubt that the agency is focused on the job in Northern Ireland, just as it is in the rest of the UK.

Several hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: Order. I appeal to the Committee for short questions and short answers.

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): Can the Minister give us an unqualified assurance that no political limits are being imposed on investigations and prosecutions by the Assets Recovery Agency or
 
Column Number: 11
 
any other enforcement agency in Northern Ireland, and that they are able to pursue the evidence wherever it leads and, importantly, to whomever it may lead?

Mr. Pearson: Yes.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): As one who served on the Standing Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, I share some of the disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). At the time, we were certainly led to expect more, but the sums that the Minister mentioned are still sufficient to cause concern. What impact does the idea that paramilitary organisations are raising that kind of money have on the Government’s thinking about extending to Northern Ireland the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, or those parts of it that deal with the funding of political parties?

 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 9 March 2005