Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 June 2007

379 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the temperatures that we are experiencing today, is there any leeway in the convention of the Assembly that would enable you to relax the dress code to allow Members to take off their jackets?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I realise that it is very warm outside, and that it could get even warmer in the Chamber. Therefore, as the day progresses, I will monitor the situation.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you in a position to report to Members on a security matter that I raised in the House about three weeks ago?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The police investigation into that matter is ongoing. As soon as that investigation is over, I shall make a further statement to the House.

Executive Committee Business

Ministerial Statements

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

There will be three ministerial statements today: one from the Minister of Finance and Personnel; one from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development; and one from the Minister for Regional Development. After each statement, in accordance with Standing Order 18(4), Members will be called to put questions on the statement to the Minister. I remind Members that that means questions on the statements. Members must not make statements.

I remind Members that we have a full day’s business ahead of us. Therefore, I will have to judge the time that can be allowed for questions. I also remind Members that interventions and points of order should not be made during either the ministerial statements or the questions that follow them.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

This statement refers to the further review of the domestic rating system, which I announced during a debate in the Assembly on Tuesday 15 May 2007. That debate considered the new system that was introduced by direct rule Ministers in April this year.

Today, I am publishing the review’s terms of reference, which have been agreed by the Executive. I have provided Members with copies of the terms of reference and this statement, and a copy of the terms of reference has been placed in the Assembly Library. I have also written to the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

The terms of reference reflect my intention to examine a wide range of options for change in the short and longer terms and to do so in a focused and accelerated fashion, rather than engage in yet another process of prolonged analysis and review. Over the past few years, the domestic rating system has already been the subject of a lengthy review. In the first instance, we need a process that can deliver changes by next April.

I am also launching a 12-week consultation exercise, which will run until the end of August. The purpose of the consultation will be to seek views on what improvements can be made to the recently introduced system, within the terms of existing primary legislation, in time for next year’s rates bills. That is my immediate priority.

Obviously, nothing we do will impact on ratepayers this year, but we would be failing in our responsibility as political leaders if we did not introduce changes that sought to make a real difference for householders next year. That is why the consultation period must close at the end of August to allow us sufficient time to implement the necessary changes.

My officials will now begin to examine the options for change that could be delivered by next April — these are set out in the terms of reference. In the longer term, there may be other improvements that we can make beyond next year that would require new primary legislation. At this stage, nothing has been ruled in or out. I am genuinely open to considering all options and new ideas.

I want to focus on the evidence and hear the views of all interested parties, including ratepayers, about the impact that the new system is having and, critically, how we can ensure that help is provided in the best and most effective way possible. I, therefore, urge Members to encourage people to respond to the consultation, as it is only through engagement with, and listening to, those who are directly affected by the rating system that we will achieve a satisfactory outcome to the review.

As I said during the debate on 15 May 2007, there is no point in pretending that easy answers are queuing up to be adopted. Difficult choices will have to be made, particularly when it comes to the consideration of possible alternatives to the existing system. That is the second strand to the review that I have commissioned, which broadens its scope well beyond that of the review that led to the introduction of the capital value system in April 2007.

For example, a local income tax has been mentioned frequently as a possible alternative; it would produce a completely different set of winners and losers than those under the current system. Although the review is open to the examination of all options, I would be surprised if proposals such as a local income tax or a poll tax emerged as the favoured way forward.

Even the less radical option of providing new, or extending existing, reliefs to particular groups must be considered in the knowledge that they will shift the burden onto other ratepayers or reduce the amount available to fund public services. Finding a balance between the different interests, and reaching a consensus, will, therefore, be crucial. Any analysis or further insight that people can share with us on those issues, during the consultation process, will be very much welcomed.

I know that the Committee for Finance and Personnel will take a keen interest in the review, and my officials and I will facilitate the important role that the Committee will want to play in the process. When the consultation process has ended, I shall share the responses with the Committee, and I intend to report back to the Committee on my intentions before I finalise any proposals. I expect to be in a position to bring the proposals to the Executive and to the Assembly in the early autumn of 2007.

None of us will want to consider the outcome of the review in isolation. The conclusions from the review on water charging, which the Minister for Regional Development will detail later, will be extremely relevant. I anticipate that ratepayers’ anxiety will have some correlation with the magnitude of their overall household bills.

My Executive colleagues and I are fully aware that the review of the rating system is a key challenge facing us in what are still early days for the Assembly. Each of our parties made commitments to the people of Northern Ireland on these matters, and each of us will want to make good our promises. The public will be watching and expecting action from us, and rightly so.

The terms of reference set out how we plan to progress the matter. Now the hard work begins, and I am confident that the approach that we have published today will help us to achieve our overall objective of securing a fairer deal for householders in Northern Ireland.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for Finance and Personnel for his statement and his acknowledgement that the first strand of the review must be taken forward quickly to ensure that the changes are in place for April 2008. I also welcome the Minister’s assurance in a letter to me, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, that:

“as a point of principle nothing has been ruled out, or in”.

The Minister has put on record his desire to work closely with the Committee for Finance and Personnel. That work will happen immediately on the range of issues under consideration as part of the review, and later when he provides the Committee with the consultation report as soon as possible after the consultation period has ended. The timetable set out in the terms of reference, on pages 8 and 9 specifically, indicates that the consultation will run to the end of August 2007, with a target date for the development and presentation of the first- and second-strand recommendations in mid-September. That does not give the Committee much time for input after the summer recess.

Can the Minister assure the Committee that it will be given an adequate opportunity for input after the consultation concludes and before the recommend­ations on the first strand and the second strand are finalised? Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I know that the Committee shares my objective to complete the review as quickly as possible, and I can understand Committee members’ concerns, and the concerns of the wider public, at the 12-week consultation period. The choice is not easy for any of us. Some people may be concerned about the brevity of the consultation period, but I suspect that those people would be even more concerned if changes were not made in time for the issuing of new bills. We are somewhat constrained by having to get the changes through in sufficient time for them to be implemented in the new bills.

I will, however, be happy to speak to the Chairperson about how we might be more flexible about the Committee’s deliberations on the issue. There are some elements of the Department’s further work and the Committee’s continued work that can be done in parallel.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Minister’s decision to hold a review is very welcome, and I am sure that members of the public will be very keen to have an input.

The Minister will be aware that in some constituencies, particularly those with coastal communities, there is huge concern about the number of second homes, apartments and holiday homes that are springing up all over the place and depriving local communities of an opportunity to have adequate housing. Will the review enable the Minister to have another look at how second homes and holiday homes are rated? Is it possible that the rates on such properties could be increased?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The review is capable of considering any proposals put forward by members of the public or, indeed, by Members of the Assembly, so the points made by the Member for South Down can genuinely be submitted and considered as part of the review process. I am aware of the concerns and the problem that exists, not just in his constituency but also elsewhere, and it is one of the issues that we can look at.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Mr Fred Cobain.

Moving on, I call Mr Burnside.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. One of the options that he referred to was a local income tax, although I appreciate that he said that he would be surprised if a proposal such as that for a local income tax or poll tax, with all the connotations that that has, were to be the way forward. Will the Minister clarify, at this early stage of his career, whether it is as a matter of principle or of pragmatic politics that he is not in favour of a local income tax to deal with the particular problem of charging for water? Is he ruling it out generally as Minister of Finance in the new Administration, or does he see the Executive proposing that we might have wide-ranging tax-raising powers? Scotland appears to be moving along that road.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member for South Antrim refers to Scotland: the Scots, of course, have those powers but have declined to use them. That might say something about the popularity of such a course. My belief is that we would have to increase income tax by about seven pence in order to fund a system that is currently funded by the rates. I have heard views expressed, principally by the Alliance Party and the Member from the Green Party, in favour of it, but I have not heard a lot of support for it elsewhere. It would require changes to the legislation at Westminster, of course, so it goes beyond anything that can be done immediately. I suspect that, if the debate that we had a week or more ago is anything to go by, it is unlikely that that idea will get much support from the bulk of Members in this Assembly.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and, in general terms, commend the content of it. However, I want to ask how the strands are to be dealt with in parallel.

The first strand relates to the options for change in April 2008, and I am glad that the Minister will be considering the equitable distribution of the rate burden and the issues of transparency and the public acceptability of the system. It is quite right that the issue of how we pay for water be included there as well.

The second strand relates to longer-term options for more fundamental review, ranging from more substantive changes to the present system, possibly requiring legislation, to the consideration of a local income tax — a poll tax — and blue-sky thinking on anything at all. Nothing has been ruled in, and nothing has been ruled out.

My question is whether two such different strands can be pursued simultaneously. Can strand two be completed in the narrow time frame that has been indicated? Indeed, can it be done at all in a review that is described as not being a full-blown consultation? I am concerned about confusion among members of the public about this consultation with the two strands running in parallel. Might not the two strands be conducted in sequence, rather than in parallel, and strand two —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Do I detect a question?

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I fully respect the House; I thought that I was clearly asking the Minister whether the details of second strand might be reconsidered.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is not rocket science. We will allow people to submit their views as to how change should be made. We will then consider those suggestions and decide whether any changes can be made under existing primary legislation. We will also examine those proposals in the timescale that is required to allow us to be able to introduce change by April 2008.

The consultation may reveal that it is worth following through on some issues. If so, we will have more consultation time, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel may want to spend more time considering those matters. However, we should not do anything that restricts the types of proposals that people suggest. We will identify what can be done under existing primary legislation, and we will move more speedily on the issues that can be altered without the need to change that legislation.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister tell the House how much ratepayers in Northern Ireland contributed to the funding of water and sewerage services before the link between water and rates was broken?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will be careful with my answer: the Member was part of my party’s headquarters policy team that worked on identifying the figure that he requests.

I believe that, in 1998, ratepayers each contributed £127 to water services. Depending on which indices Members choose to use, that amount can be upgraded to approximately £160 at today’s prices. However, it must be stated that contributions to water services were not precisely hypothecated in 1998; therefore the figure of £160 is a virtual hypothecation. In order that people should not be asked to pay twice, several parties in the Chamber proposed ways in which to identify the amount that has already been paid. We can consider those proposals.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Ms Jennifer McCann to ask a question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Minister has already answered my question.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for introducing this comprehensive review. It is good to see that the Executive are now making major announcements in the Chamber.

Will the review consider different options for replacing the district rate and the regional rate, given that one funds local government and the other funds central government?

The Minister also stated that new analysis is not necessary. However, does he recognise that the previous Assembly’s review of the matter was flawed and that we must take into account the Lyons Review in England, the Burt Review in Scotland and the systems that some European Union countries, the United States and Canada, for example, have in place?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Executive have taken a conscious decision to respect the Assembly’s role by bringing issues to it in the first instance. Although that has grated a little with the press, it is the right thing to do in order to give the Assembly the respect that it is due.

I know that the Member favours the introduction of a local income tax. However, that can be designed to either include or exclude the district rate. Speaking as one who, until now at least, has been a district councillor, I think that the fact that councillors must stand over their expenditure makes them consciously accountable to the ratepayer. If that link is broken, there are real dangers that people will spend without having to consider from where their money will come. That concerns me.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

My question concerns capital rates on farmhouses, and particularly the unfair legislation on the rating of such properties. Is the Minister aware that an agricultural occupancy clause can halve the value on the open market of a farmhouse property that might otherwise be worth £300,000? Various estate agents have confirmed those market prices; it is not something that has come all of a sudden. In light of that, will the Minister consider increasing the level of reduction in capital value that applies to homes that are subject to agricultural occupancy clauses and restrictions?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am aware of that issue. Clearly, occupancy clauses have some impact on one’s ability to sell a house and, therefore, on the value of that house. All of these matters can be considered during the period of consultation, and thereafter. I am happy to discuss that matter with my colleague if he wishes to make further representations.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that any proposal to introduce a local income tax would create huge dangers? In particular, there would be a disincentive to work and a disincentive for those who are economically inactive to go back to work. That could adversely affect the Northern Ireland economy. Will the Minister ensure that his Department examines such considerations?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will. It is clear that if one were to substantially increase income tax, there would be employment consequences. We are aware of that, and I suspect that it is one of the reasons why not everyone in the Assembly favours such a way forward.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I join other Members in welcoming the Minister’s statement and his commitment to a well-focused review. I share some of the concerns about possible confusion during the autumn between the outworkings of this review and the Budget, which we will then be considering. We must do what we can to minimise confusion during that period.

The Minister indicated that there are options that the review must consider that he does not necessarily favour. That is in the nature of review exercises; we will not choose to misrepresent that in the way that other parties misrepresented some of us in the past when, as part of reviews, we had to consider options that we did not favour.

I note that both the Minister and the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel see the rating review and the issue of water charges as inter­linked. That is an acknowledgement that some of us have been attacked for making in the past.

I turn to some of the specific options for the review. Will the Minister consider an affordability tariff, such as was proposed for water charges, as one of the ways of safeguarding pensioners from having any more than a small fixed percentage of their income taken in rates? Will he also consider the appointment of an independent revenue regulator to oversee all of these matters in the future?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The ratepayers do have a regulator: I am the regulator in this matter. The Member is really talking about circuit-breakers, which ensure that no more than a certain percentage of the disposable income of a household can be taken in rates. That matter can rightly be considered as part of the consultation. However, as I understand it, such measures would probably require new primary legislation and, therefore, might fall within the second phase of the review, rather than the first phase. However, that does not mean that there are not steps that can be taken to reduce the impact of rates, particularly on senior citizens. The bottom line is as we have always stated it: we wish to ensure some correlation with the ability of people to pay rates. That is a key issue for us.

I am certainly not one of those who would have attacked the Member for drawing a relationship between rates and water charging. My party’s manifesto recognised the relationship between the two and the need to reduce one so as to allow people to cope with the other.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he assure the House that the review will consider all options — particularly local taxation, which has been a Sinn Féin policy for a number of years — because many people feel that the present rates system is an unfair way of collecting taxes, and it does not deal with affordability and people’s ability to pay. Rural disparity is another important issue. Will the Minister ensure that there is consultation with the rural community on whatever rating system is introduced?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Regardless of what system is introduced, some people will feel that it is unfair on them, and they will consider that another system would have been more suited to their circumstances. The Department is seeking to ensure that the current capital value system is fair and reflective of people’s ability to pay. I understand the Member’s view on income tax, but it has the consequences that have been mentioned by the two representatives of the Ulster Unionist Party who have spoken — David Burnside and Roy Beggs. It would have an impact on employment issues, and one must recognise that it would mean a significant increase of roughly seven pence in the pound. I am not sure that that is something for which the electorate would thank us, and the Scottish Executive have not been prepared to implement it. If the Executive decided to introduce a local income tax, I suspect that some people would resist the recommended increase, and we would find ourselves without the resources needed to fund important elements of services. The Executive have a hard decision to make.

We will do whatever is required to achieve additional funding. I will exclude nothing from the review, and I have made it clear that we will look at all proposals that are put before us. Ultimately, the Executive want a system that will fairly distribute the amount of funding achieved and, particularly, take into account people’s ability to pay.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. However, does he recognise that the Lyons Review in England and the Burt Review in Scotland found considerable support for a local income tax. Can he further assure the House that whatever formula he comes up with, it will be much more transparent than that which exists?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I endorse the latter part of the Member’s contribution. The system must be transparent, and I know that the Minister for Regional Development wants the same for water charging. People need to understand what they are paying for and why they are paying for it. The Lyons Review may have found that the payment of a local income tax was a good idea, but it did not recommend its implementation.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given the housing shortage in Northern Ireland and considering that speculators — due to rapidly increasing capital house values — are buying houses to hold rather than to let, will the Minister assure the House that the review will consider the imposition of rates or, at least, part rates on empty homes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am sure that the Committee for Social Development may want to make representation on that, because it has a relationship to the housing problem, and the Minister for Social Development has spoken publicly about that over the past weeks. My Department’s review will look at rating, and it will look at the issue that Sammy Wilson has raised. I am willing to listen to his views, to those of the Committee for Social Development and, particularly, to any views that the Minster would like to express.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I welcome the review, and I am particularly happy that nothing has been excluded — as requested in the motion tabled in my name on 15 May 2007. The most sensible approach would be the 12 weeks’ review. In the longer term, however, will the Minister consider appointing an independent person outside of the Department to look at funding and conduct a review along the lines of the Lyons Review or the Burt Review? People may have preconceived ideas about the results of an internal review.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I cannot give that assurance. The domestic rating system has been reviewed to death. The issues are well known to us, and we have many reports on them to consider, including the Lyons Review. There has been plenty of analysis, and we have come to the stage where we must take decisions. That is why I have decided on a more focused consultation period, and a more focused review.

Of course, we could reconsider all the issues. However, we have enough data available to us to be able to take decisions, and, ultimately, it will not be a review team that will have to face the electorate, it will be the people in this Chamber. We must take decisions, ensure that they are right, and that they are decisions that we can stand before the electorate and recommend.

There are hundreds and hundreds of pages of data and recommendations available to us. I would not exclude the submission of any consultation response that included copious notes from the Lyons Review and others to argue the case. There is nothing to be gained by having a further review, which will simply retread already well-trodden ground.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for conducting the review, which I welcome. The terms of reference include the hope that the review will be concluded by early autumn. Given that we are moving into the holiday season, that the consultation process will take place between now and August may present difficulties. That puts an onus on all of us to ensure that people get the opportunity for full consultation.

In many cases, the relief for students has been controversial. Could the Minister allay the fears that tax relief for students, which is designed to allow more people to go to university, will not be able to be manipulated by landlords for their own interests?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Department will consider any evidence that can be established for this year to examine whether, in the first instance, relief for students has been taken up or whether landlords have siphoned off that money from students. We will want to learn lessons as a result of that.

I recognise that 12 weeks is a short period of time, but few people have 12-week holidays. The Committees have, perhaps, the most difficult task because their work coincides with the Assembly recess, rather than holidays, and Assembly Members will be doing other work during that period. That is why I told the Chairman, Mr Mitchel McLaughlin, that I wanted to find a way for the Department of Finance and Personnel to be flexible with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and allow some of our work to go in parallel.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his timely statement. Will the Minister ensure that the cost of administering a new tax is examined and discussed carefully to ensure that we are not overburdened by taxes and the cost of implementing new proposals?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes, that will be an issue. A short time ago, I had a stakeholders gathering, and we considered the possibilities of either means-tested or non-means-tested systems. There is an argument that, when determining who should get the benefit of the relief, there would be fewer administration costs for a non-means-tested system. We will consider all those issues because, ultimately, we want a system that is transparent, easily understood, and as efficient as possible.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister guarantee that the review includes new and imaginative measures to ensure that those who have adapted their homes to accommodate a disability get rate relief?

Will the Minister also ensure that people have easy access to whatever relief is put in place? Many people who have adapted their homes for disabled family members are not aware of the form of relief that is currently in place, and those who are aware of it find it difficult to access.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member for Upper Bann makes a very strong point, and not only about the number of people accessing the available reliefs for homes that have been adapted for disabled occupants. Right across the board, people who should be claiming reliefs are not doing so. We have, if one likes, a marketing job to do to ensure that people who are entitled to relief do take that up.

It would be outrageous if account were not taken of the fact that adaptations to homes with disabled occupants had to be made. They should not be penalised for being disabled and for having to make changes to their homes. We want to ensure that they are not penalised.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the use of voluntary modulation to part-fund the 2007-13 rural development programme. As some Members are aware, on taking office I committed to undertaking a review of voluntary modulation and the rates that the then Minister with responsibility for agriculture and rural development, David Cairns, announced in March this year.

I will announce the outcome of that review today. However, before I do so, let me provide Members with a little background. Modulation — the redirection of a proportion of farmers’ direct single farm payments towards the funding of rural development measures — is not new. It has been around for many years now and is seen by Europe as a crucial part of funding for rural development.

Modulation will contribute to the funding of our new rural development programme, which has been developed with stakeholders over the past year and was submitted formally to the European Commission for approval in January 2007. The programme, which is an integral part of the Department’s rural strategy, will put more than £500 million into the agriculture industry and wider rural development over the next seven years. It will improve the competitiveness of the farming sector, improve the land, environment and countryside and improve diversification and quality of life in rural areas.

A substantial part of the programme will be delivered locally through local action groups, and a significant proportion of its funding will go directly to the farming sector — much more than just the modulated funds. That money will be used to improve training, to disseminate best practice, to modernise farms, to support those in less-favoured areas, to increase forestry potential and to support environmental improvements and land management. More than 75% of the total programme funding will go directly to support the farming sector. I emphasis that that is three quarters of the entire programme funding.

Importantly, the programme will also support the rest of the rural community through a suite of measures designed to improve the quality of life in rural areas. The programme contains measures to create business, to increase tourism potential, to regenerate villages and towns, to provide basic services for the rural community and to maintain and enhance our cultural and natural heritage. Those measures will help bring much-needed investment to rural areas and strengthen the very fabric of rural life. As promised, I have carried out a thorough review of the modulation rates that David Cairns announced. I have looked closely at the figures that underpin his decision, at where the funding is being targeted and at how that fits into my Department’s broader rural development agenda.

I have held meetings with representatives of all rural stakeholders to hear at first hand their views on modulation and their rural development priorities. Those meetings have been extremely helpful to me in arriving at my decision. I have also sought the views of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and I am grateful to colleagues for providing their views quickly.

Following those consultations and my review, I am announcing today that I intend to reduce the 7% to10% rates of voluntary modulation announced by David Cairns. The following rates of voluntary modulation will therefore apply — in 2007 it will be 4·5%; in 2008 it will be 6%; in 2009 it will be 7%; in 2010 it will be 8%; in 2011 it will be 9%; and in 2012 it will also be 9%.

I promised that I would use the flexibility in the legislation to set our own rates. I have done that and stress that these rates of voluntary modulation compare favourably to the rates that were recently set for Scotland and England.

In addition, I am today announcing that I will be increasing, for the period, the level of funding available for the wider rural regeneration measures in the programme from £85 million to £100 million. Additional support for these measures is vital if vibrant and thriving rural communities are to continue to be built throughout this region. I am also keen that the farming community and farming families actively engage in those measures — they are open to all rural dwellers. All parts of the rural community need to pull together to maximise the benefits of the programme. The rest of the programme — both the measures and targets — will remain unchanged.

Owing to the ongoing comprehensive spending review, I am not in a position today to confirm the amount of Government funding that will be available for the programme. However, I am hopeful that the amount of Government funds in the programme will be at least equal to the level of EU and modulation funds. Over the coming months, I will be working with the Minister of Finance and Personnel to finalise the amount of national funds that will be available.

Those changes have been possible because the spending plans for the programme have been closely re-examined to ensure that the figures are as close as possible to the expected actual cost of each measure. Account has also been taken of the strict EU “use it or lose it” rules for spending modulated funds and the likely spending pattern of measures that are project-based or demand-driven. I am happier now that the revised financial plan for the programme more closely resembles that which is likely to be spent over the period. This review has therefore given me some additional flexibility to make the changes that I have announced without significantly affecting the shape or scope of the programme.

The changes that I have announced will have a positive impact for all rural stakeholders. Members of the farming sector will benefit from lower rates of voluntary modulation than those proposed by David Cairns — and they will, of course, directly receive the bulk of funding from the programme. Environmental stakeholders will be reassured that plans for the same level of expansion of agri-environment programmes will continue. The wider rural community will witness much-needed additional funds allocated to those measures that benefit all rural dwellers.

I conclude by thanking all of those who have contributed to my review. I am very grateful to stakeholders and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development for their willingness to engage at short notice and for their important contributions. I am sure that a sound basis now exisits on which to move forward with our rural-development programme. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

The Minister wrote to my Committee on 22 May 2007. The Committee urgently made it known that it was its view that the rate should not rise above the current level of 4·5%. When the result of her review is considered, my Committee will be very disappointed with the Minister’s statement.

It is easy for others to speak about — and even spend — the money that is coming from someone else’s pocket. Can the Minister confirm that her statement lacks any financial facts and figures? Because neither she nor anyone else in the Department knows the final level of national funding available to support rural development, the figures have no real justification?

Will the Minister explain why farmers should remain confident in the financial competence of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development given that, just a couple of months ago, it appears to have over-estimated the required funding for the rural development programme? Furthermore will the Minister state that the rural development programme contains measures to create business, increase tourist potential, regenerate villages and towns, provide basic services for rural communities and maintain and enhance cultural and natural heritage?

Will the Minister explain why farmers must pay for measures that are clearly the responsibility of Invest Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department for Social Development, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure? Why should farmers have to pay for investment when that funding should come from those Departments?

The Minister said that she had Mariann Fischer Boel’s ear. I wonder did she use that ear to access additional funds to reduce the already significant burden on farmers?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There was quite a lot in that for one question. I first met with the Committee on 5 June. I reiterate that I had hoped to meet with its members before then, and I have attempted to meet with Dr McCrea so that we could discuss the issue earlier. However, that was not possible.

By 12 June, the European Commission must be notified of the voluntary modulation rates that are to be applied here. Therefore, I did not have time for an in-depth consultation process and, regretfully, had to seek the Committee’s views early. I am grateful to the Committee for responding so promptly and, as I said, I discussed the issue with its members on 5 June. Dr McCrea is correct to say that the Department has been unable to give the full detail that he has requested. However, that information will be forthcoming when the figures become available.

As an overview, I can tell Members that axis 1: improving the competiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector will receive £44·7 million; axis 2: improving the environment and the countryside will receive £389·5 million; and axis 3: the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy will receive £100 million and a technical assistance grant to a maximum of £8·7 million. That comes to a total projected spend of £542·9 million. Those seeking further detail will find it on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s website.

Dr McCrea referred to the Department for Social Development, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and others. I agree with him that it is not just up to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to spend in these areas, and I welcome the Committee’s support and help to encourage other Departments to work with us to improve the lot of rural communities. I concur fully with the Chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I would love to see the Department for Social Develop­­ment, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the other Departments taking more of an interest. I am sure that we will create a productive relationship in ensuring that that happens.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement on such an important issue for the rural community. The statement refers to many measures that have the potential to benefit that community. One of those is the provision of childcare in the rural community, which would allow farmers and farmers’ wives to attain jobs in their local areas, which is not the case at the minute. That is a very big issue, and I am glad that the potential exists to redress it.

Does the Minister agree that the wise use of voluntary modulation and other funds could generate off-farm jobs for farming families and address the vital issue of that money going back into farming families? Diversification is key. Previous moneys have been used to fund diversification on farms, but, in future, diversification should be encouraged on a larger scale, rather than the produce going, as it sometimes does, to local big businesses.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

During the consultation process, departmental officials listened to many agricultural stakeholders, particularly from the bigger unions, such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association and others. I am minded that the rural development programme brings tangible benefits for the farming sector.

Much of the rural development programme is targeted at farmers. It includes a farm modernisation measure; training for the farming sector; marketing and processing grants; farm diversification grants; less-favoured area payments; and, importantly, expanded agrienvironment and forestry schemes.

I was trying to factor into the consultation what I was hearing from the farming community and to access money that could be used by that community specifically.

During the past few weeks, I have been lobbied by various agencies for money for other programmes. I have been clear on the issue: to receive £20,000 through the rural development programme means much to small businesses. Larger businesses or sectors would view the same amount as chicken feed. The Department wants to target those people who would receive maximum benefit from the programme. I am minded to consider smaller rural communities and smaller diversification projects, and to ensure that the money is best spent by distributing it widely, thereby making a difference to the lives of more people.

I thank the Member for the question. I am mindful that much of this money will go back to farmers and farming families.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I declare an interest: I am a farmer and receive the single farm payment. I wish I could welcome the Minister’s announcement, but I cannot do so at this stage. That will also be the case with many in the farming industry.

Does the Minister believe that her announcement will be broadly welcomed by the agriculture and farming industry? I do not believe that that will be the case. To follow on from Dr McCrea’s point: has the Minister held any discussions with other Departments about funding the rural development programme so that the farming industry will not have to meet the entire cost of the programme? She may say that she has not had time to hold discussions; however, if she does have time to do so in the future and receives money from other Departments, will she give a commitment today to reduce voluntary modulation in the farming industry?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I cannot pre-empt what people, including the farmers’ unions, will say. However, when the farming sector reads my announcement, it will see that, rather than sticking to the rates set by David Cairns, which would have been the easiest thing to do, I have reviewed voluntary modulation — as I said I would — and have tried to reduce the impact on farmers.

More than £500 million will go into the rural development programme, and not all that money will come from farmers. A reduced amount of money will be taken, rather than the level already decided, and the Department will be able to draw down other funding measures to bulk up the amount required. The Department wishes to give farmers money through agrienvironment schemes, which will have an impact.

Unfortunately, the European Commission requires a decision tomorrow. The rates are set, at least until the common agricultural policy health check. It would have been great if there had been a bottomless pit of money so that I could have avoided going down this route. I would have loved that to be the case. However, I have tried to take away some of the pain involved.

A diverse range of people told me that I should not go down the voluntary modulation route, or that I should stick to the rate set by David Cairns, because it was not only the farming sector with which I had to consult but the agrienvironment and rural development sectors. Much was involved.

I tried to make the issue as painless as possible. I tried to ensure that this year’s rate remains at 4·5% and that the overall rate does not move into double figures, which I was asked to do during the consultation.

I am not in a position to avoid going down this route. However, I have tried to make it as painless as possible for the farming sector. Farmers can bid for the money, and three quarters of the entire programme funds will go back to farmers.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Like the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I am disappointed that confiscation of money from the farming community will almost double — from 4·5% to 9% — over the next five years. That is not acceptable.

Such an increase was not expected by the farmers of Northern Ireland and is, I would go so far as to say, even more surprising for having been announced by a local Minister. We had thought that the era had passed when direct rule Ministers would impose such penalties on the farming community.

The Minister’s statement claimed that:

“the farming sector will benefit from reduced rates of voluntary modulation”.

Will the Minister explain how doubling the rate of voluntary modulation from 4·5% to 9% can be described as a benefit for the farming community? That baffles me.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My script contained the word “reduced”, but I changed that because it was incorrect. What I actually said — and I will repeat my position for Mr Bradley’s benefit if he was not listening the first time — was that:

“the farming sector will benefit from lower rates of voluntary modulation than those proposed by David Cairns — and they will … directly receive the bulk of funding from the programme.”

The Member said that it is unfortunate that a local Minister has gone down this route; if we had stuck with direct rule, the rates would have been higher. I have done my best to try to lower the rates that were set by my predecessor. I have already said — and I do not want to keep repeating myself — that I wish that I had not had to do this, but we need to introduce some level of voluntary modulation to enable us to bring in other funding that will directly benefit the farming sector.

The rural development programme is very important, as any rural MLA will assert, and we cannot allow any slippage in spending on that programme. The measures that I have announced are the only way in which I could lever in additional funding. I did not have many options on the issue, but I took the option that was most favourable both to farmers in the rural development community and to the agrienvironment community.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. It is clear that, in the early years of the programme, farmers will benefit from the significant reduction in the rate of voluntary modulation by comparison with that which David Cairns had intended to set, but it is also clear that farmers will be very little better off at the end of the programme, when the rate of modulation will be 9% rather than 10%. Given the needs of the agriculture sector, and given the need for the environmental protection that is available through the agrienvironment schemes, what guarantee can the Minister give that the funds — she said that only 75% of the total would be returned to farmers — will be spent to the maximum benefit of the incomes of farmers, who provide the environmental goods that we need? Will she guarantee that none of the money will be siphoned off, as has happened before, for other things, such as the Forest Service?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will certainly be working on that. I am very anxious that — as I said in my statement, which is now a matter of public record — the vast majority of that money will go directly to farmers. I am sure that Mr Ford and others will hold me to account on that. It is important to me that we improve the lot of farmers.

One thing that I wanted to do right away was to improve farmers’ confidence by making them feel that they had a voice in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; someone who will not only listen to them but act on what they say. When farmers examine and re-examine what I have said, I think that they will feel that I have done my best on this. Obviously, there are many demands on budgets, but I have worked with officials to ensure that the money goes into the farming side as well as into agrienvironment schemes and diversification. As I said earlier — and will repeat if necessary — I want to see farm modernisation, and I want to see farming become more profitable. I certainly feel that there is scope within the programme to enable that to happen.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I declare an interest, as I am a farmer myself.

I believe that the Minister has failed Northern Ireland’s farmers in cutting the modulation rate to a mere one percentage point less than that proposed by the previous Minister, David Cairns. The announcement will be a shock to the local industry, which had expected support from the local Minister. Does the Minister accept that our farmers will now be at a disadvantage compared to other farmers throughout Europe?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am disappointed that William Irwin feels that way, although I can understand how a first reading could lead to that conclusion.

I have lessened the impact of the rates from this year, so instead of rising to 6%, it is now set at 4·5%, a reduction from the rate set by David Cairns. The scale increases less radically than he had intended; it was 10% for the last two years of the programme. I have reduced the rate as much as I can, while still giving the Department the spending power to do what needs to be done on modernisation, and so forth.

On the question of competitiveness with the rest of Europe, only the UK and Portugal have gone down this route. Unfortunately, that is partly for the historical reason that Britain traditionally did not draw down the money that could have benefited the rural sector, and we are now left picking up the pieces left by that policy. Portugal is the only other country that has gone down the route of voluntary modulation, and I accept that farmers here are greatly aggrieved that, for example, farmers across the border do not have to go down this route. Competitiveness is an issue. Unfortunately, much of this is down to what the Department has inherited from previous Administrations and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). I have no further flexibility on the matter.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. Will the Minister tell us how the moneys raised through voluntary mod­ulation will be used in rural development programmes?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The total amount of voluntary modulation receipts represents just over 20% of total funding for the programme. There is an EU requirement that voluntary modulation funding is used across all the axes of the programme, but the bulk of the receipts will be spend on axis 1 and axis 2. As I said earlier, three quarters of total programme funding will go directly to support the farming sector. My announcement today will ensure that the rural development programme is of greater benefit to the broad rural community. Programme funding will increase from £85 million to £100 million, so an extra £15 million has been put in. All areas of the agriculture and rural development sectors will benefit.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

There is a recurrent theme in all the questions: how will the Minister ensure that working farmers and landowners are the first to receive regeneration funding through voluntary modulation? Will the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development conduct monitoring to ensure that if there is a shortfall of working farmers, they can come into the system and be helped?

What steps will the Minister take to ensure that moneys are equally spread between the west of the Province, where I suspect that most of it will go, and the east, where that might not be the case?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am travelling to Brussels on Thursday to hold meetings with the Commission, and one of the first things that I will do is to look for early approval of the rural development programme, so that it can start to have an impact on farmers and farming families as soon as possible and to get the money back out to them.

It is ironic that Mr Shannon tells me that we should not be targeting money to the west of the Bann, given that in the Chamber, we have listened many times to speeches about the need for funding for the west of the Bann and for other areas that have been discriminated against in the past and have not received an adequate share of funding; I have spoken on that issue.

I am the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development across the Six Counties, and I will ensure that money is spent where it is needed. I have been all over the place, and I have seen great examples of rural development programmes and some of the work that has been done by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. It is ironic that the only county that I have not yet visited officially is County Fermanagh.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister lives there.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That is true, which is why I said “officially”.

There is need across the Six Counties, and I want to ensure that funding goes where it is needed. Geograph­ically, axis 1 and axis 2 are open to all, and axis 3 will be delivered locally, in the east and the west. Axis 3 will be delivered by local action groups, which will tie in with councils, so each of those areas will have a say in how that money is spent.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I declare an interest.

With regard to the announcement of the increase in funding from £85 million to £100 million, will the Minister give a commitment that she will work with her Executive colleague the Minister of the Environment to ensure that any regeneration measures accepted under that funding will be fast-tracked through the local planning system?

Will the Minister not consider the possibility of keeping this modulation at 4·5%, with other Departments making up the shortfall? We have, after all, come through a very difficult 25 years of — shall we call it — misrule.

The Minister told us what has been happening in Scotland. However, Northern Ireland is different. This is an opportunity for her Department to do something to enhance and maintain it. Earlier, a “living countryside” was mentioned, and that is the only way forward.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his contribution. Concerning his first point, I guarantee that I will work with all of my Executive colleagues to increase, and better, the lot of farmers and rural dwellers. As Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, it is part of my position to ensure that I work with all Departments to try to improve matters in rural areas. There is an immediate commitment on that.

The timings concerning voluntary modulation were unfortunate. The Assembly was up and running on 8 May, and the decision had to be taken on 12 June. There was no flexibility on that; the rates had been set and were announced on 20 March by David Cairns. All of us on the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland last year worked on the matter of a substantial peace dividend. If such a dividend arrives, I shall fight for a share for agriculture and rural development; at the moment, however, that money is not in place, and there is no choice. I had no option.

However, I was keen to lower the rates set by David Cairns, to take some of the sting from today’s announcement and to show that an attempt is being made to retain enough money to do something tangible and of benefit to the farming community and to the wider rural community.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister has had discussions with Mariann Fischer Boel, the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. What are her views on compulsory modulation?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Commissioner was here for the recent UFU open forum — I think it was in April — and said, publicly, on several occasions that she wanted an increase in compulsory modulation, perhaps raising it from 5% to 10%. We must see what proposals the Commissioner brings forward as part of her health check, and it is fully expected that modulation will feature in that. It is too early to say how much the rates will increase and from what date; however, I hope that we will, by then, be in a position to review our rates of voluntary modulation on the basis of what Commissioner Fischer Boel does.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement and her assurances that this money will be given to the farming community. Does she accept that, in the past, instead of going to the farming community, much of the money was put into other more wealthy sectors?

Will the Minister work with the Executive, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of the Environment to ensure that farmers are given planning permission for diversification?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am reminded that that was not in my response to George Savage’s questions, which had so much in them that I could not keep track of it all.

In relation to planning permission, farm diversification and what must happen in the broader rural community, I am keen to meet the Planning Service and to work with the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the need for planning permission does not hold up those who take the route of diversification and spending some of the money that might be available.

I am anxious that the money should go where it can be best used. Often, a reasonably small amount of money can make a big difference. For farmers who have a huge turnover or a large amount of land or stock, or who receive a large single farm payment, the impact will not be the same. I am keen that the impact should be felt right across the farming community and that many people should feel the benefit of these measures.

I will look at all the issues and at whatever proposals are put to the Department, but I imagine that the local action groups, using the LEADER+ methodology, particularly in axis 3, will be spending that money wisely and getting the best value for money.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the needs of the rural community are best served by the Executive’s working collectively? The Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee made the point that the Minister of Culture, Edwin Poots, the Minister of Enterprise, Nigel Dodds, and the Environment Minister, Mrs Foster, all have a role to play in this. With reference to Mr Bradley’s question, the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, also has a role to play. Does the Minister agree that all those Ministers’ working collectively will ensure a bright future for the rural economy and rural communities?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes. That is worth pointing out. It is important that rural issues should be at the heart of the Executive and that all my ministerial colleagues should deal with them, because they cannot be dealt with in isolation. I would add the Department of Health to the list, because I know that rural health is something that is close to the Member’s heart. Everyone must work towards the betterment of services and goods in rural areas.

I should like, in due course, to bring to the Assembly the consideration of a rural White Paper that would tie in all our responsibilities on how we best serve the needs of rural communities and how those cross-cutting and overlapping measures are best tackled. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should not have all the responsibility. The other Departments will have a say, and we must consider how we manage that, how we get the best value for money, and what we can do to best improve the lives of people in rural communities. I thank the Member for that question.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I should also declare an interest, as the recipient of a single farm payment —

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

A big one?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Not as big as I would like, but perhaps the Minister can do something about that.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Not today, I think.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

She will not give me any help today.

The Minister said that over 75% of the total programme funding would go directly to the farming sector. If the Minister is including in that sector the entire agrifood and processing industry, what percentage will actually go to farmers and farming families?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for the question.

The outworking of this has not been fully completed, so I am unable to give the Member the full details that he has asked for. I am aware that money needs to be put into all sorts of farm schemes, and I have mentioned farm diversification, modernisation and the agrienvironment sector. Great work is being done in countryside manage­ment to create a better environment, both for biodiversity and for the appearance of rural areas so that everyone can enjoy them. I will come back in writing with a fuller answer to the Member’s question. The details have still to be fully worked out, so I am not in a position to answer him today.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s speech. Although some farmers might be disappointed that the rate of modulation is not lower, she has managed to keep it lower than expected and lower than that previously announced by the British direct rule Minister, David Cairns. How was that achieved?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We considered how money was allocated throughout the last programme to identify where savings could be made and how modulation might be reduced. We investigated underspends in previous programmes and diverted those savings to try to reduce the rates of voluntary modulation while maintaining the spending level with a small increase in the rural development programme budget. Money was identified within the Department.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will make a statement on the review of future arrangements for water and sewerage services.

The Executive’s decision on 10 May 2007 to suspend the introduction of water charges for 2007-08 included a commitment to undertake a longer-term review of the future of water and sewerage services. It was agreed that an Executive subcommittee, comprising representatives from the four parties in the Executive, should be established to consider the terms of reference for that review. The subcommittee, comprising the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Minister for Social Development, the Minister for Employment and Learning and myself, agreed draft terms of reference and put them to the Executive at its meeting on 7 June 2007. The Executive endorsed those terms of reference, which have now been made available to Members.

Turning to the substance of the review, the agreed terms of reference propose a comprehensive review of existing arrangements for the delivery of water and sewerage services to be led by an independent panel. That panel will be served by an independent secretariat and will report to me so that I can provide regular updates to the Executive subcommittee, the full Executive when appropriate and the Committee for Regional Development.

The proposed review will have two strands. The first will focus on the fundamental issues of financing water and sewerage services and should report by autumn 2007. That will enable budgetary arrangements to be agreed. The second strand will concentrate on wider aspects of arrangements for water and sewerage and should report by December 2007. That strand will allow a longer perspective to be taken and may recommend changes that require new legislation or structural arrangements. Any recommendations will be subject to consultation.

Changes of that nature will take time to implement. In the meantime, my Department must work within existing structures to deliver water and sewerage services and do its best to make sure that those essential services are delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible.

On the scope of the review, the panel will be tasked to identify the required level of funding and set out options for examining the most appropriate way of managing, governing and delivering water and sewerage services in a situation of full public ownership. Recommendations will be made on the way forward, including governance and statutory arrangements, investment, business models and strategic plans. That is a wide-ranging remit, and it will be a challenge to meet the set timescales. However, it is important that the Executive take those key decisions as soon as possible.

There will naturally be a focus on who is appointed to conduct the review. At this stage, I can only say that I will work with my colleagues on the Executive subcommittee to agree a review panel that meets the criteria set out in the terms of reference, which are independence, expertise and knowledge of utility operations, regulation, administration and economic matters, both locally and more widely.

It is of paramount importance that the public has confidence in the conduct of the review and that the reasons for any decisions are clearly set out. The terms of reference that have been agreed by the Executive provide the best way forward to achieve that. I thank all those people who have made suggestions on the review and my colleagues on the subcommittee for their input. Go raibh maith agat.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Minister has indicated the extent of the review. Will he assure Members that he, the Executive and the Committee for Regional Development will have access to all relevant material? I refer in particular to the documents that relate to the decisions made by a previous Administration. I understand that normal protocol is that this Administration would not have access to that material, but that the previous Administration can voluntarily release that material for consideration. Will the Minister assure Members that that will happen and that the Committee for Regional Development will also have a chance to view that material?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank Mr Wells for his question. It has been stated quite clearly that the panel should have access to all the papers that it requires to do its job. There is information, as the Member quite rightly suggested, that is held by others, and it is up to them to release that voluntarily — I cannot force them to do so. However, it is our intention that the review panel will have access to all necessary information, which would also ensure that the Committee for Regional Development has the information that it requires to allow it to interact with the review panel.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an ráiteas agus a rá go bhfuil obair mhaith déanta ag an Aire.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I am delighted that the terms of reference are as comprehensive and wide-ranging as they are. Most citizens in the North — and I declare an interest as a water consumer — will be pleased with the statement of intent.

Will the Minister use this opportunity to reassure the Committee for Regional Development that, if there were anything in its letter, dated 6 June 2007, that would have impacted on the terms of reference, he would have included it?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Member for his question. There has been a public airing of the circumstances concerning the late submission of the Committee’s contribution. For the record, I wish to state that I had a meeting with the Regional Development Committee on 16 May 2007 at which I outlined the time frame within which we were working and invited the Committee, if it wished to have an input, to forward any relevant material by the end of May. The time constriction was necessary in order to have the terms of reference agreed by the Executive subcommittee for agreement by the Executive on 7 June 2007. If that deadline had been missed, the business would have been delayed by a fortnight. The review must be completed in just a few months. A delay of half a month would have shortened the time available, and time is of the essence. I was disappointed not to receive any material from the Committee by the deadline.

Nonetheless, I received a letter from the Committee on the evening of 6 June 2007, which I considered, and I responded to the Chairperson. It is my belief that the terms of reference that we have outlined are sufficiently comprehensive to incorporate any concerns that the Committee raised. The paper that was brought to the Executive was a recommendation from the subcommittee. The Executive discussed and considered that paper, and if any issue raised by the Committee for Regional Development had not already been addressed, I would have brought it to the attention of the Executive. However, I felt that the terms of reference were sufficiently broad to cover any concerns raised in the Committee’s letter, which I received on the eve of the Executive meeting.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the information about the review that he has brought before the Assembly. I am sure that the Committee looks forward to working with the Minister on the review. Will the Minister assure the House, given that a large part of the review will be conducted over the summer, that the Committee for Regional Development will be consulted fully, and can he explain precisely how the Committee will be kept in touch with the review?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank Mr Cobain for his question. I also thank him for his commitment to working construct­ively with us on the review. He will be aware that this is one of the first and most serious challenges that the Executive and the Assembly face. All of the parties elected to the Assembly made manifesto commitments to try to deal with the issue. The purpose of the review, as agreed by all the parties represented on the Executive, is to try to live up to our manifesto commitments.

I noted some of the Member’s public commentary on the subject, and I can assure him that it is a genuine and serious review. As Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, he has a key influence on all of that. I hope that he will play his part in bringing his influence to bear, so that we can all achieve the objective, which is an open and honest assessment of what is required, a clear laying out of the options in front of us and a clear and rational debate about how we proceed. I can assure him that the Committee will be consulted. As I said, I attended the Committee on 16 May 2007 and outlined to it the decision that had been taken by the Executive, which was to appoint a subcommittee to agree the terms of reference. I offered the Committee the opportunity to have input into that.

I took note of the Committee’s letter when I received it on 6 June 2007. The terms of reference — if the Member reads them — specifically sets out an ongoing role for the Executive subcommittee and an ongoing role in the review for the Committee for Regional Development, as a key stakeholder. The Committee is mentioned as a key stakeholder in those terms of reference. Other stakeholders include the utility regulator, the Consumer Council, the water company itself, and others who have an interest. I do not doubt that they will also wish to have an input to the review.

I have made it clear that the purpose of the review is to ensure public confidence. We face very serious issues regarding sewerage and water services. We must decide what needs to be invested and how we will find the finances to meet that investment. I reiterate that public confidence is a very serious issue. That is why it is incumbent on all of us who have an interest to act constructively and to try to have a rational debate on what action is required, what the way forward is, and how we will meet that challenge.

It is also important for public confidence that the Executive have stated in their agreed terms of reference that any action is taken under the terms of full public ownership. Privatisation is not on our agenda. That is important in maintaining public confidence in the way forward.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

As a member of the Committee for Regional Development, I can assure the Minister that he will have our full co-operation — given the opportunity. Will the Minister give an assurance to the Assembly that the interests of the consumer — and of those on low and fixed incomes, which are disproportionate to the runaway prices of their houses — will be represented and protected in the forthcoming review? Will he explain how that will be done?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank Mr Dallat for his comments. I know that he is a member of the Regional Development Committee and that he has alleged that there were spies of mine on that Committee to keep me updated on matters. That was his public commentary — spies at the heart of regional development. [Laughter.]

There must be a public debate. The previous public debate on this issue was contaminated by what could be considered as a lack of openness and suspicions about the intentions behind the water reform agenda. We want an open and honest discussion. We want those who represent consumers and the more vulnerable people in our society to have an input to the review. That will be the case.

The review’s terms of reference are quite broad. A chairperson and other panel members will be appointed. I expect — although a range of opinions is readily available from the previous debate — that those who wish to have an input and to make their voice heard will be facilitated. That way, we can guarantee that the debate will be one that the Assembly is in charge of, and one in which the Assembly has a say. Through the Assembly, the public will have a say. The public will receive an open explanation of the issues that we face, the choices that we must make, how we propose to proceed, and how we will do so while ensuring that the most vulnerable people in our society are protected.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My question specifically concerns the sustainability and financing of water and sewerage services. The Minister will be aware that one of the major criticisms of the previous scheme, both from Alliance and from other respondents, including the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, was that although the fundamental tenet of the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, on which water charging was predicated, was to encourage conservation of a resource, that principle was not embedded in the payment structures.

Will the Minister comment on why water conservation is not specifically mentioned in his statement or in the terms of reference for the review, and give some reassurance to the House that that matter will be fully considered within the remit of the review?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I assure the Member that water conserv­ation is an important part of the future consideration of this matter. One of the difficulties with the previous debate, which caused public hostility and suspicion, was that the issue of metering was tied up with that of charging households. Water conservation is extremely important to the immediate funding and financing of the services. Conservation is vital to the plan that was rolled out under the direct rule administration; to an assessment of that plan; to an assessment on the way in which we proceed; and to the decisions on how we proceed.

The water company must get its own house in order on conservation, as it is quite an issue for it to tackle. Targets to reduce waste have been set, and we will want to assess whether those are sufficient. The review has been given as broad a scope as possible to allow all those issues to be considered.

As the Member correctly pointed out, some specific references may not be included, but, in our view, the review is broad enough to cover all the issues about which people have concerns.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to bring about greater efficiencies in his Department so that in-house savings can be made?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member’s question moves into the realm of the comprehensive spending review and the efficiencies that the Department is required to come up with, which is not specifically part of the review of water and sewerage services. However, the Department of Finance and Personnel has set targets for all Departments, and my Department is working with that Department to meet efficiency targets with regard to water and sewerage services.

Those targets pose serious challenges, not just for my Department, but for all Departments. We know what the Department of Finance and Personnel requires of us, and we will certainly strive to meet those challenges.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister has touched on this issue, and he will be aware of the deep concerns among the general public, workers in the Water Service and the wider trade union movement that the Water Service will be privatised. Will he confirm that the terms of reference that were published today rule out the future privatisation of the Go-co? Will he confirm also that there is nothing to stop the Committee for Regional Development sitting over the summer months to monitor the review?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The business of the Committee for Regional Development is a matter for its Chairperson — I would not presume to tell the Committee how to do its business.

It was important to make a public statement on the review. In many ways, its scope is very broad, and the only directive that the Executive decided to put to the review panel is that the review should be carried out with the understanding that the service will remain in full public ownership. Any arrangements arising from the outcome of the review will ensure that the water and sewerage services remain in full public ownership. The privatisation of water and sewerage services is not part of our agenda. For that to happen, even in the current circumstances, my agreement and that of the Assembly and the Executive would be required.

As I have said, the purpose of the review is to enable us to have a clear and honest public debate on the issues, and to remove some of the suspicions that contaminated the previous debate. The Executive subcommittee, the Executive and I felt that it was important to state clearly that privatisation is not part of the agenda.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

In the event of water charges, what plans does the Minister have to minimise charges for pensioners and families on low incomes?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The affordability tariffs were built into the previous structures. To say “in the event of water charges” is almost to presume the outcome of the review. We must re-examine all the issues. The first part of the review will be a consideration of the investment requirement, and how it can be met. That is one of the big questions that must be answered by the autumn so that the budgetary arrangements that will be brought in by the Department of Finance and Personnel can be met. In many ways, that will tell us what structure we will have.

Affordability mechanisms were built into the last arrangements. If that route is taken, there will have to be an investigation to see whether those measures are sufficient. However, at the heart of the matter is the need to decide what kind of investment is required, and how it can be financed.

The Member is almost presuming the outcome of the review, and I do not want to do that. The review’s remit is open enough to allow for the consideration of all the options, and the Executive and the Assembly will consider those options in due course.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I welcome the independence of the review panel. Will the Minister set out the process by which the members of the panel will be appointed and explain how the Committee for Regional Development will be consulted on those appointments?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

At their first meeting in May, the Executive decided to appoint a subcommittee to agree the terms of reference of the review. Through the Executive subcommittee, I put it to the Executive that my Department wants to appoint a chairperson of the review panel and probably two, but possibly three, independent panel members. The Department has outlined the range of expertise that the chairperson and panel members will be required to have.

The situation very much depends on who the chairperson is. It is intended that the chairperson will be appointed first, and I propose to do that in consultation with colleagues on the Executive subcommittee. Following the appointment being agreed, the Department and I intend to work with the chairperson of the review panel to appoint other panel members, depending on the expertise that will be required.

There is no requirement to consult the Committee for Regional Development. As I stated at the Committee’s first meeting, I welcome any views. However, I have not received any suggested names for panel members from the Committee. Time is of the essence; it is hoped that the chairperson of the review panel will be appointed within 24 to 48 hours, after which the process to appoint panel members will begin. If members of the Committee wish to have an input into the appointments, rather than sitting on the Back Benches and laughing, they could perhaps drop me a note sometime.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s commitment that privatisation of the water and sewerage services is not an option. Does he agree that where such services, including the de-sludging of private septic tanks, have been privatised in other areas it has not really been a good experience? People who have requested that tanks be de-sludged have experienced lengthy delays, in spite of numerous interventions to NI Water and its customer services department.

Has the Minister any comment on proposed reductions in rates of pay, annual leave and public-holiday entitlement to Water Service employees in circumstances in which commitments were given that employees would be treated under The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 in respect of conditions of employment? Would the Minister care to clarify that?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, go raibh maith agat. The Member will know that, under current arrangements, operational matters are the responsibility of the water company. The Department wishes to review all operational, funding and finance matters, the strategic plan and the business plan — indeed, the entire operation of the water company. That will include the matters that the Member raised.

The review will be wide in scope, and all the issues to do with how the company conducts its business will be part of it. The Member should leave it there. The questions that he raised can be asked as part of the review.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

There are pressing concerns about employees’ terms and conditions that need to be addressed.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind the Member that such an intervention is not in order. However, as it was relevant, I shall permit it.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I repeat my earlier reply to the Member. Employee conditions were agreed by a previous Administration, and the water company currently operates under those conditions. My Department and I want to review all that. If, in December, the Executive decide to change those structures, that will be a longer-term process that will require legislative change through the Assembly.

I have outlined the structures under which the company currently operates. If there are difficulties in the working arrangements of those conditions, my Department will be happy to hear about them. I shall be meeting the relevant unions to discuss the future of workers under the current arrangements. However, I assure the Member that all these issues are a matter for the review. If change is required, and it is the will of the Executive and the Assembly, legislation will be introduced to alter how the company conducts its business — if, indeed, there is a company at all.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the review and thank the Minister for his statement.

What steps is the Department taking to improve the quality of the water service from the Altmore reservoir? Is the Minister aware that many areas of County Tyrone were without water over the weekend?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I suspect that that is one of your issues, Mr Deputy Speaker. Whoever said that “All politics is local”?

I have not been made aware of problems at that reservoir. The water company is responsible for operational matters. Nonetheless, as the issue has been raised in the House, I shall ensure that it is raised with the company and that the Member receives a response in writing as soon as possible.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

As an open and honest discussion is taking place, will the Minister identify clearly the amount of money that has already been paid by Northern Ireland ratepayers towards the provision of water? Will the review establish the right, if ratepayers desire it, to be charged by water metering?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The review’s terms of reference apply to some specific concerns that have been flagged up, one of which is the perceived injustice of double paying. The debate was contaminated by a number of factors, one being a suspicion of privatisation and another that people considered that they had already paid for their water through the regional rate. Those people were not aware that that money from rates had not been put into water services for some time. A broad spectrum of the general public considered it unjust, as they felt that they were being asked to pay again for water services. Many of the parties that stood for election to this institution highlighted that as a major concern among the public. The review recognises that concern, and it aims to identify what people have already paid to ensure that that sense of injustice is dealt with. It also seeks to identify spending requirements.

Under the policy operated by the direct rule Ministers, which set up the water company, there was to have been a long-term transition to widespread domestic metering; that entailed metering being available to pensioner households and metering being installed in new properties and first-time connections. Metering of water supplies in the non-domestic sectors is already common, and that practice was to have been extended. NIW (Northern Ireland Water) entered into a contract with the suppliers and were unable to implement the entire water-metering policy. The deferral of charges has implications for that, but I will raise the issue of metering with the board of NIW, and it can be considered by the review.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Private developers carry out a lot of work for the Department for Regional Development, so why has privatisation of the Water Service been ruled out? I would like to see more of that.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not sure that the Ulster Unionist Party advocates privatisation of water services. It was important that the debate on privatisation got off to the right start. There was some suspicion that the purpose behind the water reform agenda and the establishment of the water company was to invest substantial amounts of public money into a company that would eventually be privatised. That prospect rightly excited significant concern across a broad range of political views. It is important to address those concerns: whatever the investment required, water and sewerage services would be retained in public ownership. Those terms were made clear to those conducting the review.

The range of people employed for contracting in the water services is part of the ongoing arrangements, which were put in place under direct rule. All those arrangements will be considered by the review. The money was invested for the sake of the public, and the benefits that will derive from that investment will be for the public.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his firm commitment that the Water Service will remain a public service. In the future, revenue for that service must be adequate, reliable and transparent, and that can be achieved in the rates system. Members have asked questions about the independence of the panel, and the Minister has answered those questions. His statement also refers to the panel being supported by an independent secretariat. From where will that independent secretariat will be sourced, and what will be its scale and role? Will this review engage consultants?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is important to have independent panel members and to state that the review is not about privatisation.

It was also considered important to have a secretariat that was outside of the Department. Under the previous Administration, the Department for Regional Development (DRD) carried out some work on the matter.

We are currently seeking from the pool of recently retired civil servants a secretary for the secretariat. The secretariat will be provided from the centre, not by DRD, and it will be resourced for as much as will be required of it. A chairperson and two other panel members will be appointed, and we will work closely with them early on to see what resources they will require and whether outside agencies will be needed occasionally to work for them. A great deal has been put in place so far; some arrangements are ready, and other options may require outside intervention.

Many stakeholders’ views have been made clear; in fact, no debate has been more clear or stark in its terms than the discussion of the financing of water and sewerage services. Therefore although many of the necessary structures are in place, it is important for public confidence that an independent secretariat be set up. My departmental officials have been working with those in the centre to achieve the degree of independence and separation from DRD that will reassure the public that the same team is not working on the matter. However, that is not to reflect poorly on the team that worked to the previous agenda: it acted on the instructions of direct rule Ministers. However, the arrangement will give an element of detachment when the debate and all that flow from it are being reviewed.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

As a member of the Committee for Regional Development, I welcome the Minister’s assurance that he will work closely with the Committee. I look forward to regular consultation.

The review’s terms of reference refer to a consideration of the Scottish and Welsh business models. That seems to limit discussion. Will international models of best practice that exist outside these islands also be considered?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I assure the Member that that reference was given as an example. Certainly, there is no limitation to the options for consideration. I expect that the review will engage with the Committee for Regional Development, and the Member will have an opportunity to propose from around the world any model that he feels may give us better solutions.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s assurances on water privatisation. I also hope that there will be no back-door deals. Does the Minister accept that although the European Union Water Framework Directive requires each person to make a direct, identifiable contribution to the cost of delivering water and sewerage services, it does not require water services to be self-financing? Will the Minister confirm whether the review is based on the premise of having a self-financing water service?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The review is broad in scope. The Member is correct that people considered that, until recently, they had always paid for water. The review must examine how much finance is required, the rate at which it needs to be spent, and the entire scope of how water and sewerage will be financed. European Union directives are integral in driving that agenda forward and imposing any requirements that the system must meet. All of the issues that the Member outlined are up for discussion in the review process.

executive committee business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate, the proposer of the motion having 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have five minutes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill to Northern Ireland.

I tabled the motion in order to seek the agreement of the Assembly to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill, which is currently before the House of Lords. The Bill contains provisions that relate to transferred matters under the Northern Ireland Act 1998; those matters are therefore within the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill is a private Member’s Bill, which was introduced to House of Lords in November 2006 by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The Bill received a great deal of support from a number of eminent peers at its Second Reading on 25 January 2007.

In March 2007, the Minister for the Department of Constitutional Affairs in England and Wales — now the Ministry of Justice — decided that the Government would support the Bill, albeit with substantial amendments.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland sought the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill. Amendments to have this jurisdiction included in the scope of the Bill were duly tabled on 19 April 2007 and were moved at Grand Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 10 May 2007.

A forced marriage is one in which one or both parties are coerced into marriage against their will and under duress. Duress can include both physical and emotional pressure. A forced marriage is different from an arranged marriage, to which both parties have given their full and free consent. A forced marriage is often perceived as a south Asian issue but it can occur in many cultures and contexts. For example, consent to marriage is a prerequisite in Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu religions. If consent is absent, the marriage can be said to be forced.

The Bill allows for a civil remedy to be sought by the person being forced into a marriage. The remedy is called a forced marriage protection order, which is a type of court order intended to prevent someone from carrying out certain types of behaviour, such as making threats, or putting in place arrangements to take another person out of the country to be married.

The Bill seeks to allow a person being forced into a marriage to apply to a County Court, or the High Court, for a forced marriage protection order. In an emergency, it will be possible for a person to obtain an order without the respondent being given notice of the court hearing. The Bill also contains a provision to allow a relevant third party to make an application to the court on behalf of a person who is being forced into a marriage.

The Bill also contains enforcement provisions. It will be a criminal offence to disobey a forced marriage protection order without reasonable excuse.

The remedies I have described are civil family law matters, and, therefore, fall into the area of transferred matters under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As those matters are within the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is necessary to adhere to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers, the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee dated June 2000. That convention states:

“that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters except with the agreement of the devolved legislature.”

Therefore, approval for the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill has been sought from the Executive Committee, the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As the Westminster timetabling for the Bill is extremely tight, it did not prove possible to seek and obtain the necessary approvals prior to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill. The Executive Committee and the Committee for Finance and Personnel have considered the matter and have provided retrospective approval on 24 May 2007 and 30 May 2007 respectively.

The Assembly must now consider the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. As yet there is no direct evidence of forced marriage being an issue in Northern Ireland, although some Members may want to bring some personal experiences to light in the Chamber.

There is some anecdotal evidence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland that an incident in Londonderry may have involved behaviour associated with a forced marriage.

Forced marriage, like domestic violence, is often a hidden issue. I do not expect that many people will seek to use the protections contained in the Bill in the near future. However, I consider that the people of Northern Ireland should, as a matter of principle, be afforded the same protections as their counterparts in England and Wales. The protections contained in the Bill are sensible and proportionate.

It is important that Northern Ireland is proactive in affording those protections to its community. The extension of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill is a most expedient way to offer those valuable protections to any person who faces being forced into marriage in this jurisdiction. I hope that Members will concur with me and support the motion.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I welcome the opportunity to support the motion to extend the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill to the North of Ireland. Forced marriage is a human-rights abuse, which is prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At present, there are around 300 reported cases of forced marriage each year, the majority of which involve young girls. That figure is probably the tip of the iceberg.

Forced marriage occurs in many communities. It is part of a continuum of violence and abuse that is mostly experienced by women but can also affect men. Many are too afraid to report forced marriage for fear of repercussions and because of cultural and familial pressures. Forced marriage devastates the lives of many young people because it cuts short their education and career aspirations and prevents them from making a meaningful contribution to society. In extreme cases, people have been killed in so-called honour killings. The Bill seeks to protect those who are being forced into marriage under duress and without their consent. It will enable them to apply to the courts for an injunction that will prevent others from forcing them into marriage or taking them out of the country to be married abroad.

Several weeks ago, the Assembly debated domestic violence. Forced marriages should be perceived and treated as a form of domestic violence. The most effective way to deal with forced marriage and to increase victims’ protection is through better use of existing legislation, civil remedies and family courts. The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill is innovative because it introduces a new civil law that will enable victims to obtain protection orders against those who force them into marriage through harassment and coercion. The Bill explicitly states that a forced marriage is any marriage to which there is absence of full and free consent. It enables relatives and friends to appeal to the courts for protection for the victims of forced marriage. Under the Bill, courts could make orders to protect the victims and remove them from forced marriages even after they had taken place.

As victims of forced marriages are often unable to protect themselves, the Bill will enable third parties to apply to the courts on their behalf. A third party could be a concerned person, local authority or other public body. The entire process is victim led — controlled by the victim — and the victim decides whether to seek an injunction.

The Bill also contains provision for compensation or damages to be awarded for psychological or physical harm that occurs as a result of a forced marriage. Compensation will not automatically be available in all circumstances. However, in appropriate cases, the courts may award damages for anxiety, distress, injury to feeling and any other loss sustained, such as financial loss caused by the conduct of the perpetrators.

Victims will be able to apply a local County Court to obtain an injunction that will restrain parents, relatives, community members or any other party from forcing them into marriage. As the Minister mentioned, force is defined broadly to cover physical as well as psychological coercion. The Bill will also enable County Courts to hear cases of forced marriage, which, at present, can only be heard by a High Court. That would increase awareness of forced marriage throughout the legal system and the wider community.

I support the motion to extend the Bill to the North of Ireland. It will enhance victims’ access to justice because all remedies will be in one place under a specific law which makes clear that forced marriage is unlawful and a gross and unacceptable violation of human rights.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I support the proposed arrangements for the protection of people who have been forced into marriage. The legislation received widespread support in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Assembly Members have also demonstrated their support. It is important that the introduction of the legislation is not delayed, even by weeks or months.

We do not know who may get caught up in a forced marriage in the near future, so any delay in the introduction of the legislation could have consequences.

I support the principle of the motion. It is helpful for the same protections against forced marriage to apply in each region of the country, so it makes sense to introduce those protections here. The question is whether we wish to indicate retrospective approval. The legislation’s introduction may be delayed until after the summer if we do not approve it. Therefore I hope that a clear majority will indicate our approval.

The Northern Ireland legislators, when considering how the Bill would be applied here, recommended that a higher level of protection could be afforded by applying our domestic violence legislation. If anything, Northern Ireland will have enhanced protections against forced marriage. I hope that no one will need the protection that the Bill offers, but, if that protection is required, strong measures should be in place.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Committee for Finance and Personnel received a briefing on the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill on 30 May from a principal legal officer in the DFP solicitor’s office. She answered questions, and Committee members were satisfied with the legislation’s propriety.

It has been said that forced marriage is not a major problem here. However, my party leader wants to enquire as to whether the forced marriage of the DUP and Sinn Féin will fall under this legislation.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

At least we will not get divorced as quickly.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

One or two people in the community would probably be willing to seek the injunction.

To include Northern Ireland in the legislation is prudent. The context has been explained about particular ethnic groups, but it is important to stress that consent to marriage is a prerequisite in all the major world faiths. Forced marriage is a deviation from the norm.

The principal remedy is to have recourse to civil law. An injunction can be obtained to protect any person who is forced into marriage. That is bolstered by the fact that it is a criminal offence to disobey an injunction, so the legislation has teeth.

Basically, we are reading Northern Ireland into the Bill. Some small alterations are being made to local legislation, which differs from legislation — particularly domestic violence legislation — in England and Wales.

The Assembly must broaden the issue to include support for people who may be subjected to forced marriage and other forms of domestic abuse — practices that are thought to occur in particular ethnic backgrounds. If people from those backgrounds encounter such problems, they may face serious cultural pressures. On top of those pressures, ignorance of the legal system and language problems may make it difficult for them to avail themselves of the remedies that exist. In those circumstances, it is important for legislators and policymakers to consider the need for more structured support for organisations that deal with matters in that field, such as Women’s Aid.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party supports the motion and is grateful to the Minister for tabling it. We are keen to see the provisions of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill extended to Northern Ireland.

Devolution is primarily about policy innovation and about reflecting local preferences and priorities when it comes to the allocation of resources. However, when it comes to matters that reflect rights, equality and civil law, it is important to strive as far as possible to ensure that a common, consistent regime applies right across the United Kingdom.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Although the Assembly is empowered to pass its own legislation, I doubt that any such legislation would differ significantly from the Bill that is going through Westminster. The amount of work that the Assembly would have to do to repeat that exercise would be disproportionate and produce the same outcome.

The only adjustment that the Westminster Bill requires in order for it to apply to Northern Ireland is the addition of a schedule to reflect minor technical differences in criminal penalties for breaches of civil orders. Therefore, it makes sense for Northern Ireland to be governed by the same legislation as applies in England and Wales. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will legislate along similar lines.

The Bill is a private Member’s Bill introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a member of our sister party, the Liberal Democrats.

Forced marriage is not a major issue in Northern Ireland, but it may be that there is a problem under the ground that we are not yet aware of. We must be vigilant against the potential for it to become a major issue. This measure gives the Assembly a rare opportunity to be proactive in the legislative process, rather than reactive.

The Bill is aimed at combating and remedying the serious social problem whereby children and young people are forced to marry against their will. Forced marriage constitutes a serious abuse of human rights and is a form of domestic violence. The issue of domestic violence was debated in the Chamber only a few weeks ago, and a clear message was dispatched that it should be given zero tolerance. In many circumstances, forced marriage involves inhuman and degrading treatment, with punishment, coercion and even murder meted out to those who resist. A direct link exists between forced marriages and so-called honour killings.

Forced marriage is a contradiction. It is a form of sexual enslavement that sometimes amounts even to domestic slavery. As we mark the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, we should ensure that effective measures are in place to tackle this gross abuse.

As the Minister said, forced marriage is rightly condemned across and within all the affected communities. It is important to stress that the problem occurs not solely in certain British Asian communities, but in a wide range of different settings. Many of the loudest voices calling for reform are Asian. In the 1920s, Mahatma Gandhi successfully campaigned in India for a law against the marriage of children.

The Bill provides for protection orders to prevent forced marriages from occurring. As Mr O’Loan said, other remedies are required to allow victims to vacate marriages made under duress and to provide support for them. It is important that the burden of seeking protection should not rest solely with the victims, who are often deterred from seeking help, either through fear that the criminal justice system might be applied against family members or through a lack of the capacity to take out a protection order. Those points are addressed in the Bill.

Legal remedies alone will not solve the problem, but legislation is required. Extending the Westminster legislation to cover Northern Ireland is the most effective and simplest way to provide that protection. The Alliance Party supports the motion.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Mr O’Loan touched on the marriage of political parties in this Chamber. The two previous marriages, those of Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon and of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan, show that second marriages do not always work. The degree of disagreement within those marriages might have necessitated the creation of another branch of Relate. [Laughter.]

I support the motion. It is common for Members to declare an interest; I declare a lack of interest, for I am one of the few Members who are not married. I cannot, therefore, speak on the Bill from first-hand experience. However, I have promised Mr Shannon that I will indicate how much his wife welcomes the Bill.

Members may agree that taking the opportunity to speak in the Assembly on a subject of which one has no first-hand experience is not unique. I welcome the motion. We hope that the provisions of the Bill will not be used often in practice. As the Minister and other Members have said, the problem of forced marriage is not, to the best of our knowledge, widespread in Northern Ireland. It has been rare, although one case may have occurred in Londonderry.

It is to be hoped that the problems associated with forced marriages will not be imported into Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it is important that we establish our position on those matters at an early stage.

2.15 pm

The issues of process and content have already been mentioned. The Executive could have taken a doctrinaire view and said that they wanted fresh legislation because the issue fell within the competence of the Assembly. That would not have been a common sense point of view, nor would it have been one that provided the best protection.

Given the timescale in which the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill proceeded through the House of Lords, I believe that the Assembly will take the most expedient and most common sense approach by extending the legislation to Northern Ireland. To simply hold a doctrinaire view and to say that we need our own legislation on the subject would have the potential to leave vulnerable people without protection.

The Assembly has the competence to extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland; it would also have the opportunity, if it so wished, to amend the Bill, make additional provisions, or, indeed, to declare it ineffective. It is important that Northern Ireland citizens are given the fullest protection from day one.

The content of the Bill has been well covered. In particular, I welcome the provision that allows a relevant third party, by way of an ex-parte application, to apply to the courts to prevent a forced marriage. I appreciate the intent of the original legislation, but it is important, when the Department of Finance and Personnel examines the matter in greater detail, that it gives a broader definition of a relevant third party. It has already been said that social services representatives are the most appropriate people to act on behalf of children, but it may also be that the definition of a relevant third party should be drafted in a permissive manner so that the legislation does not exclude a family member, for example, from acting as a third party.

Against that, we must ensure that the application of the legislation is backed up by the appropriate evidential burden. If, for example, a family member makes an ex-parte application in order to prevent a forced marriage, we must be certain that the application is not abused by a family that opposes a marriage or that the application is not being used to frustrate the marriage of willing partners. Those issues must be examined in the medium-term.

The Bill is a sensible piece of legislation, and the route that we have taken will provide the necessary protection. It is to be hoped that Northern Ireland can avoid the scourge of forced marriage. I support the motion.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I support giving legislative consent to our sovereign Parliament at Westminster to introduce this Bill and include Northern Ireland in it. The Bill is a good piece of legislation because it will put in place protection in a proactive, rather than a reactionary, manner. All too often in this country, we legislate after something has become a problem. For example, with antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) or acceptable behaviour contracts, which have not always been successful.

There is no doubt, as several Members have said, that although the issue of forced marriage is relevant in parts of Great Britain, there is little or no evidence that people are being forced to marry against their will in Northern Ireland. However, just because it is not a particularly live issue in this part of the world, it does not mean that people from Northern Ireland should not be afforded the protections in the Bill. Therefore, I welcome the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Forced Marriages (Civil Protection) Bill.

The circumstances surrounding forced marriages are, understandably, neither simple nor straightforward. Despite the protection that the Bill provides, it is never going to be easy for someone who has been forced into a marriage to come forward and apply to a court.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Member agree that not only is it important that the partners in a marriage be protected but that the rights of children are protected? There have been some high-profile cases in the Province in which young children were kidnapped and smuggled away to different countries such as Pakistan or Morocco.

Does the Member agree that it is important that any children who are involved in such situations are also protected?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for that relevant point. That is why I welcome — as I am sure the entire House welcomes — those clauses that allow for relevant third parties, albeit that they are not exactly defined, to apply for ex parte protection orders.

I congratulate the Minister for tabling the motion, and I ask him to co-ordinate with his Executive colleagues to ensure that all Government agencies, such as social services, the Social Security Agency and the Housing Executive, are made fully aware of the Bill, the protection orders, and the responsibilities that those agencies may have in a post-protection-order period. Even if a person is brave enough to apply for an order to protect them from a forced marriage, many, if not a majority, will find it impossible to remain in their home.

Given that forced marriages can often occur with parental approval and, as Mr Shannon said, frequently involve very young children, if a protection order is granted, it is hard to see how that individual can easily, if ever, return home. They may be unwelcome, or they may run the risk of being forced into a marriage, irrespective of a court’s ruling. In such scenarios, it is essential that assistance be afforded after the protection order has been granted in the form of, for example, a new home, benefits, counselling or support.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am concluding my speech, but I will give way.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member agree that it is somewhat ironic that this Bill — which I welcome — is supported by the same Members who supported the legislation that introduced civil partnerships? That legislation gravely undermined the principles behind, and biblical foundations of, marriage.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. It was a good point, well made. I agree with him that the Bill is a good piece of legislation. I warmly support it, and I hope that the House does likewise.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel has explained, the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill is proceeding through Westminster. Although its provisions will primarily cover England and Wales, we are discussing the entirely pragmatic matter of extending the Bill’s powers on the grounds of expediency. As family law is a transferred matter, the Assembly’s consent is required to proceed. It has already been pointed out that the Executive have indicated their support for the extension.

Mr O’Loan pointed out that the Committee for Finance and Personnel received a briefing from the principal legal officer in the departmental solicitor’s office, and the Department also provided the Committee with copies of the Bill. Committee members were keenly interested in several aspects of the Bill, including how it will act as a proper deterrent to people who force others into marriage; how juveniles will be adequately protected; the application for protection orders by third parties acting on behalf of a person who is being forced into a marriage; guidance to fully explain the Bill’s definitions and clauses; and how the public will be adequately informed of the legislation.

The Committee noted that, as part of the consultation on extending the Bill to the North, groups such as the Human Rights Commission and the Commissioner for Children and Young People indicated their support. Consequently, on 30 May 2007, the Committee agreed unanimously to support the Department of Finance and Personnel in seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the extension of the provisions of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill.

The legislative effect will be the same as if the Assembly had introduced its own Bill. Of course, the Assembly can, on its own initiative, introduce any amendment that political experience or application may demonstrate is necessary. On behalf of the Committee, I indicate its support for the motion.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am conscious that the Minister has only five minutes in which to make his winding-up speech. The Minister may wish to wait until after Question Time or he may want to make it now.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If you are agreeable, Mr Speaker, I will make a fist of finishing in five minutes, but, if necessary, I can continue after Question Time.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I appreciate that, Minister.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I seriously underestimated the Assembly in judging that there might not be many contributions during the debate; I had not taken account of Members’ enthusiasm for the matter. I am pleased that we had a useful — albeit short — debate on the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill.

I welcome the support of the Chairman of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and his colleagues. He was right to state that although the motion endorses the extension of United Kingdom legislation and the protections that the Bill affords, we are entitled to make whatever amendments we wish, in the light of experience. We will continue to monitor how the Bill operates after it is enacted.

The Member for West Belfast Jennifer McCann indicated that forced marriage was a violation of human rights — I agree entirely. She mentioned the fear that is associated with reporting problems that are connected to some such marriages. She is right, and that is one reason that third parties will be able to raise matters and have them dealt with. Third parties can be family members, social services, or whoever. Their role will be further defined in the legislation as it proceeds through the House of Lords. I agree with Ms McCann about the definition of forced marriage in the Tackling Violence at Home strategy. I hope that forced marriage can be a key issue in that strategy.

The Member for East Antrim Roy Beggs rightly pointed out the consequences of delay if we were to take a different course than that which I have advocated. Any delay in providing the protections that the Bill affords would be inexcusable.

The Member for North Antrim Declan O’Loan indicated that officials had satisfied the Committee. I am glad that they did — that takes a great deal of pressure off me. He referred to the marriage of the DUP and Sinn Féin, but he seems to have forgotten that the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP were also involved in that wedding. Therefore whether he likes it or not, there are four in the bed. [Laughter.]

Mr O’Loan was referring to the domination of the DUP and Sinn Féin, which came about as a result of the free will of the people. Mr O’Loan also indicated that there must be support for persons who are subjected to the type of abuse that the legislation was intended to desist. The Member for Strangford Simon Hamilton and other Members have asked me to speak to my Executive colleagues to ensure that support.

The Member for North Down Dr Farry pointed out the benefits of having a consistent regime throughout the United Kingdom. Although I do not recommend parity in all instances, we should have no lesser standards than the rest of the United Kingdom. Dr Farry referred to forced marriages as sexual slavery, and he indicated that the legislation does not, of itself, solve that problem. I agree, but the Bill provides essential protections.

The Member for North Down Mr Weir was very brave to speak in the debate and to cut down his own options. [Laughter.]

He thought that the legislation was unlikely to be used much. However, the existence of the Bill will dissuade perpetrators and make the need for further measures less likely. The Bill is, in itself, a deterrent.

The extension of the Bill provides beneficial protection for people in our community. I therefore encourage Members to support the motion.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We shall shortly proceed to what I hope will be a painless exercise for Ministers and Members — Question Time. I would have preferred to have put the Question on the motion, but Standing Orders are clear that Question Time begins at 2.30 pm and ends at 4.00 pm. We shall return to the debate as soon as Question Time is finished.

The debate stood suspended.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Perhaps it would be useful to recap the procedure for Question Time. First to answer questions is the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Mr Gregory Campbell is first on the list. It is not necessary to remind Members who are Members of another House of the procedure, as I am sure it is unnecessary to remind Mr Campbell, but as he is first on the list it is a good opportunity to remind all Members of the procedure.

I will call Mr Campbell, and he will rise to his feet and say, “question one”. The First Minister will respond, and I will go back to Mr Campbell for a supplementary question. I will then possibly take another two supplementary questions. Please note that there will be no points of order or interventions taken during Question Time.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that east-west linkages between Northern Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom are built upon and enhanced. (AQO 62/07)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I congratulate my friend Gregory Campbell in asking me the first question. He has asked me many questions in his day, and I am sure he will ask me many more. Today is an historic day for him and for me.

The Northern Ireland Administration already has very strong links with other regions in the United Kingdom. Against that background the British-Irish Council (BIC) is playing a unique and important role in furthering, promoting and developing those links through positive, practical relationships and in providing a forum for consultation and co-operation on east-west issues.

Since it was established, the BIC has undertaken an extensive programme of work, and there have been over 190 meetings under its auspices, including eight at summit level, and 17 at ministerial level.

The Deputy First Minister and I look forward to hosting the next British–Irish Council summit shortly. It will be held in Northern Ireland for the first time, which will help to give further impetus to the work of the BIC and enhance east-west relationships.

Officials are currently seeking dates for both the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and BIC meetings — and that does not stand for biscuit!

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the First Minister for his reply. It is symbolically significant, as he has said, that the first question on the first day should be on improving links within the United Kingdom. Will he ensure that the confidence of people throughout Northern Ireland will be enhanced by taking the process we are embarked on in an east-west direction, as opposed to a North/South direction, which has taken precedence in the perceptions of many people in the past?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I give that assurance to my Friend. We must emphasise the importance of Northern Ireland in the east-west relationship. Mr Campbell can rest quietly in his bed at night knowing that the future of the Province is in good hands.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

All Members would be in favour of good relationships between the United Kingdom institutions, but the First Minister’s statement runs contrary to the sentiment that he expressed when Alex Salmond became First Minister of Scotland. I am sure that we all like Mr Salmond as a person, but he is the most Machiavellian of politicians, and has said that he will move towards a referendum to end the Act of Union. I ask the First Minister not to fall into the trap of being part of a devolved —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to get to the point of his question.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I endorse what Mr Salmond said, when he said that the Queen is the Queen of Scotland. If that brings the heckles up in the Member who has just spoken, let his heckles get up. I helped to invite Mr Salmond here, and he will be here next Monday: he will be well able to speak for himself.

Unlike the Member’s former leader who bowed the knee, we will not be bowing the knee in meetings. Those present will hear unionism at its best — something that they have not heard in the past.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the First Minister’s announcement that he and the Deputy First Minister will soon host a meeting of the British-Irish Council here. It is important that the Council establishes its own secretariat. Not only would it support the meetings that bring together people from eight Administrations throughout these islands, it would encourage and monitor bilateral and multi-lateral contact between all the member bodies, because it is a tall order to bring the eight Administrations together. If such a secretariat were established, people would see how the British-Irish Council traffic compares with the North/South Ministerial Council traffic.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am sorry that the Member did not read the DUP election manifesto, because we have already said what he has just said.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We did not convince him, because I am aware of a poster that the Member had made to put on the wall, which stated that my son and I were Ulster’s worst enemies. The people did not think that; they said goodbye to him and said yes to me. However, we intend to see that Ulster has its full place in any of these councils and that its voice will be heard loud and clear. I would welcome his support, and I hope that the voices of the people he represents will be as clearly heard.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what legislative work has been scheduled, or is due to be scheduled, by the Executive and Ministers for submission to the Assembly before the summer recess. (AQO 55/07)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Executive have given priority to considering and bringing forward legislative proposals to the Assembly. We anticipate that in the eight weeks between 8 May 2007 and the summer recess, Ministers of the Executive will have introduced five Bills in the House. That is far, far, far more legislation than the people whom he supported in the previous Executives set before the House in all their terms.

There will be legislation on welfare reform, health, libraries, the budget, and even taxis. The Finance and Personnel Minister has also sought and will obtain, in a few minutes’ time, the Assembly’s endorsement of the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the United Kingdom’s Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill. I am sure that the House will agree that that represents a positive start to the legislative programme.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the First Minister for his answer, and I congratulate him and wish him well. I have no doubt that Lord Trimble wishes him well also. [Laughter.]

Will the First Minister confirm that all answers to questions to the Office of the First Minster and the Deputy First Minister are joint responses agreed with Martin McGuinness who is a self-confessed IRA commander?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

A man in a glass house should not throw stones. In this House, we are in a process to give the people a fair Government, and we will put as much weight as possible behind ensuring that that is done.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle and fáilte romhat to the First Minister on this, the first occasion on which he has answered questions on behalf of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. He may have covered this in his answer to the previous question, but how does this Executive’s legislative programme, in the eight weeks to the summer recess, compare to that of the previous Executive?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I would simply say that we are up six, while the previous Executive are still at nil.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

As a senior citizen, the First Minister is in the enviable position of being able to continue to do the job that he loves. As part of the legislative plans for the Northern Ireland Assembly, will he introduce proposals to do away with the default retirement age so that people can continue to work in jobs that they love and at which that they are good?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We will certainly look at that issue, and I will write to my Friend about it.

Thomas Burns (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the appointment of junior Ministers. (AQO 37/07)

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the role of junior Ministers in the Executive. (AQO 34/07)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer question 3 and question 9 together. The Deputy First Minister and I appointed junior Ministers to OFMDFM on 8 May, under the authority of a determination made in December 1999, which, as it did in the previous Assembly, provided for two junior Ministers, whose functions would be to assist the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the exercise of their functions in OFMDFM.

The junior Ministers are assisting the Deputy First Minister and me in dealing with the enormous workload associated with all those functions. In addition, they have particular responsibility for liaising with the Assembly on Executive business, for co-ordination of policy for young people and children’s issues, and for older people’s issues. In order to discharge those responsibilities, they need to attend Executive meetings and to participate in them as appropriate. They are not members of the Executive, so they cannot vote on any issue for which a vote is required in Executive meetings.

The Deputy First Minister and I consider junior Ministers essential to improving relationships and communication with the House, to facilitating the business of the House and the Executive, and to taking forward the work areas that have been assigned to them.

Thomas Burns (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Does the First Minister agree with the assessment of Ian Paisley Jnr on 14 December 1999 that:

“The reason for appointing the two junior Ministers — Ministers literally without portfolio who can stick their noses into any business the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister decide — is to prevent proper Assembly scrutiny of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister”? — [Official Report, Bound Volume 4, p41, col 2].

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Deputy First Minister and I have made it clear that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is totally committed to promoting equality and human rights. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are completely opposed to any form of discrimination and harassment against any citizen. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not know whether the Member was in the House last Monday, but I remind him of what I said:

“I shall preface those responses by saying that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) is totally committed to promoting equality and human rights. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are completely opposed to any form of discrimination or harassment against any citizen, and so are all in their Office and under them.” — [Official Report, Vol 22, No 2, p295].

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. To ask the question in a different way: Ian Paisley Jnr, when referring to the appointment of junior Ministers, stated on 14 December 1999:

“It is wrong and obnoxious to have this increase in largesse for the sole purpose of feathering the nests of the First Minister’s and Deputy First Minister’s parties.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 4, p42, col 1].

Does the First Minister agree with that assessment?

[Laughter.]

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The hon Member said that he is asking the same question in another way. My answer is not in another way; it is straightforward and plain.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. Does the First Minister agree that the comments made by Ian Paisley Jnr, as reported in ‘Hot Press’ magazine, would have been indefensible if they had been made in his capacity as a junior Minister?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

My answer is the same.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Will the First Minister undertake to examine the importance of older people in society and ensure that junior Ministers consider the case for an older person’s commissioner?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I say to my Friend that we hope to do so. The Executive, the Deputy First Minister and I hope to report to the House on that matter in the near future.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what is the current position on bringing forward a single equality Bill; and what is the proposed timetable for the introduction of such a Bill to the Assembly. (AQO 6/07)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

As the Member is aware, the matter of a single equality Bill, and some of the many complex issues associated with it, was aired in the Chamber on 22 May 2007. The timetabling of any possible legislative proposals cannot be definitively commented on until we have considered the policy issues.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

Does the First Minister agree that legislative protection is absolutely vital in order to outlaw discrimination, in all its forms, of the most vulnerable people in our society? Furthermore, will the First Minister give a commitment to the House that such legislation will be introduced as soon as possible to protect the most vulnerable in our society?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

A full regularity impact assessment is an integral part of the process of developing and introducing a Bill of that sort. As we proceed, all the issues will have to be given total and careful consideration.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the First Minister agree that the implementation of a single equality Bill is vital to everyone in Northern Ireland and that the sooner that it is introduced, the sooner that any form of discrimination will be avoided?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

That is a matter for a future Assembly; it is not in order for the hon Member to say what the Assembly wants. The Assembly is entitled to have a debate on the issue, and the views of Members have a right to be heard. The Member knows what happened when a vote was recently taken in the House on that very issue.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the First Minister give an assurance to all communities in Northern Ireland that a single equality Bill will suffer no further delay and that the legislation introduced will be of the highest standards of equality? Will the First Minister also give an assurance that, further to the offensive comments made in recent weeks by junior Minister Paisley, that Mr Paisley Jnr will have no role in equality legislation in relation to the gay and lesbian community?

I am not in the position to give those assurances. The House is Sovereign; the House is Pope. [Laughter.]

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister what action it intended to take to implement the document entitled ‘A Shared Future’. (AQO 48/07)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

11. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to give an update on the implementation of ‘A Shared Future: First Triennial Action Plan 2006-2009’. (AQO 12/07)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I will answer Question 5 and Question 11 together. ‘A Shared Future’ was published on 21 March 2005, and the first triennial action plan setting out how it would be implemented was published on 21 April 2006. Our officials are currently collating details on the progress achieved during the first year. We will wish to consider how best to take forward this important agenda in the light of the progress report and the clear view of the House on 4 June, when Members unanimously agreed the amendment proposed by my hon Friend Mr Spratt the Member for Belfast South. The clearest and most tangible sign of the Executive’s commitment to ‘A Shared Future’ will be the way in which we conduct business in the House to obtain a better future for all of the people of Northern Ireland.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the First Minister for his answer and wish him and the Deputy First Minister well in their shared future together over the next four years.

Sectarianism is a cancer that eats into the very heart of our community. An anti-sectarian policy such as the one outlined in ‘A Shared Future’ should be at the very heart of government, and I hope that the First Minister can reassure the House that that will be so, and that there will be a cross-departmental approach in dealing with the scourge of sectarianism in our society.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I would like to say to the hon Member that we do not wish to exclude; he should be included. Mr Maginness said that I am included with the leader opposite. Why then will he not participate, take the same view on these matters, and come and help us? We might even do him some good, although that might be a far stretch on some of our imaginations. However, the DUP will do its best, so I invite him to come and pin his faith on an Assembly that was elected by the free votes of the people of Northern Ireland of all religions, colours and professions. The House is the place where these matters must be debated, where the ‘i’s must be dotted, the ‘t’s stroked, and we get the sort of legislation we need.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to an office that is, sadly, less joined than has been the case in the past. One of the key issues in the action plan is to conduct detailed research into the cost of segregation. Will the First Minister make a statement on the Deloitte research that his Department has had carried out? In the spirit of optimism rather than realism, perhaps, might I ask when the research will be published on behalf of his Department?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The research undertaken by Deloitte is extremely important, but how to deal with the issues in the report is even more important. The Minister of Finance cautioned against plucking a figure out of the air. The issue is much more complex than simply reducing the research to a figure, whatever that might be.

We are starting a long journey, and it will take time for us to overcome all our problems and consign them to history. Let me be clear: division is costly. It has cost us all dearly in social, economic and physical terms. The Executive, together with the House and the Committee of the Centre, will consider the cost of division and report carefully and fully. We will publish the research shortly.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the First Minister agree that as a result of legislative change that he helped put in place, for the first time, Northern Ireland has the stable, democratic and devolved Assembly that it deserves and that can tackle very important issues such as those in the document ‘A Shared Future’?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank my hon Friend for what he has said, and I trust that we will take it to our hearts and dedicate ourselves to the task that has been laid upon our shoulders.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make a statement about the date, location and items for discussion at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. (AQO 41/07)

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Ceist uimhir a sé.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is hard to answer a question when one does not know what it is. [Laughter.]I will try to do the miracle.

We are working towards the objective of holding the fifth plenary session of the North/South Ministerial Council in Armagh shortly. Officials are currently seeking dates for the meeting. Once the details have been agreed, we will inform the Executive and the Assembly.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the First Minister for his answer, but I am disappointed that the word “shortly” features in his answer rather than a specific date, time and location. Further to that, will the First Minister confirm that Members can look forward to an early convening of the agreed North/South parliamentary forum involving Members of the Assembly and those of the Oireachtas — both the Daíl and the Seanad — so that crucial areas of North/South co-operation in education and health can be taken forward?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I wonder where the hon Gentleman has been living, because there has been an election in the Irish Republic, and his party did not do too well.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We will have to wait until the Irish Republic gets a new Government, because we cannot have a Council meeting until that happens. Perhaps the Member could use his influence to hurry them up. If he does so, we will say thank you, and we will be at the Council meeting.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The First Minister will well remember how, under previous arrangements, North/South structures were unaccountable to the Assembly. Will he confirm that as a consequence of the many hard-fought gains that he secured, the North/South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies will be fully accountable to the Assembly?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am delighted to say from the Dispatch Box today that that is the way things stand, thanks to the Democratic Unionist Party. The North/South Ministerial Council is responsible to this House and we will see that it will be responsible.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to give an update on the development of the second year action plan under the racial equality strategy. (AQO 10/07)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I begin by welcoming the Member for South Belfast to her first Question Time. It is a considerable honour for the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Members to have among their number the first ethnic Chinese person to be elected to any national Government or Assembly in Europe. In that matter, Ulster again leads the way.

I would also like to highlight the fact that we very deliberately and consciously decided that our first event after devolution was to be a reception for people from minority ethnic groups and migrant workers. It was held in this Building on 9 May 2007 and was a clear signal from the Deputy First Minister and myself of our intention, and that of the Executive, to achieve racial equality and an inclusive society for our increasingly diverse community.

Mr Speaker, as you will be aware, the first year’s implementation action plan was published in late April 2006.

Work is well advanced on the second year’s implement­ation action plan. At the request of the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities and other minority ethnic representatives, we are allowing additional time before publication for discussions to take place between minority ethnic representatives and Departments about departmental contributions to the plan. We are convinced that those discussions will lead to a more strategic, focused and long-term action plan for racial equality across all Departments —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I must advise the First Minister that Question Time for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is up. I remind Members that questions on the list that have not been reached will receive a written reply as soon as possible.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I indicated at the start that I would take no points of order during Question Time. I am happy to take points of order afterwards.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she will detail (a) how many farmers have not received their Single Farm Payment in total for 2005/2006, due to the duplication of fields; (b) the total amount of money outstanding; and (c) what course of action she proposes to resolve this matter, to ensure that farmers receive their outstanding payments. (AQO 20/07)