Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 October 2007

359 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members will have noted that the interim Clerk and Chief Executive to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Carol Devon, has taken up her post and is in the Chamber. I am sure that Members will join me in wishing Mrs Devon every success in her new role at the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last Tuesday’s sitting, you accepted a point of order from Mr Peter Robinson, who was sitting on the Front Bench as Minister of Finance and Personnel. I and at least one other Member sought to challenge whether Mr Robinson’s point of order should have been accepted. You ruled us out of order and did not allow us to make the point that the blue book — ‘The Northern Ireland Assembly Companion’ — clearly addresses the matter of points of order during ministerial statements or questions. The blue book quotes a ruling by a previous Speaker on 3 July 2000:

“I have already ruled that points of order will be taken after ministerial statements and questions.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 5, p373, col 2].

That ruling was changed by the ruling that you made last Tuesday, Mr Speaker. I note that last Tuesday’s Hansard report includes your ruling that it was appropriate to take a point of order after a statement, but not during questions.

Mr Speaker, I have read the blue book; I have noted that it refers to a ruling of a previous Speaker on 3 July 2000; and I have looked up that ruling, which is clear:

“I have already ruled that points of order will be taken after ministerial statements and questions. [Interruption]

No, the ruling is that points of order will be taken at the end.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 5, p373, col 2].

That clearly meant that points of order would be taken only after questions on the statement had been concluded. Will you enlighten us on the basis of the new ruling?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I say to the Member, and I said it here last Tuesday, that the Speaker will decide which points of order he will take and when he will take them. I have made it absolutely clear that the Speaker’s advice on all matters in the House is final. I decided — and explained after the issue was raised again — when I would take a point of order. I made it absolutely clear that I would take the point of order after, not during, the ministerial statement or after questions on the ministerial statement.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, do you accept that the previous ruling was that a point of order would be taken only after the questions that followed a statement and that it clearly meant at the end of that process?

There is a further issue in that the point of order that was raised was not a point of order: no Standing Order was cited. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. I will not answer any more questions on this particular — [Interruption.]

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I made it absolutely clear last week. When the point of point of order was made, I adjourned the sitting for 20 minutes. Everybody in the House would have agreed with adjourning the sitting on the very serious point of order that was raised on a number of legal issues. I felt that it was my duty, as Speaker, to protect this House, and I believe that it has been protected as regards that particular point of order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have further questions to ask on that matter. When the sitting resumed, you sought to relay to the House the views of the head of the Civil Service. Those views very much had the effect of influencing what some Members may have thought about the statement that had been made. Will you tell the House whether the head of the Civil Service contacted you during that break in proceedings or whether you contacted him? Has a precedent been set that you, as Speaker, will relay advice to the House on behalf of the Civil Service?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am going to move on to the next item of business; I am not prepared to answer any other points of order on this issue. Last Tuesday was a difficult time in the House. I sought to protect the House, which I believe I have done, and to calm people down, which I think also happened. Those were my only interests. When Mr Robinson raised the point of order, my interest was in making absolutely clear that this House was protected legally. I believe that it was, and I ruled accordingly when I returned to the House. Therefore, I am taking no further points of order on this particular issue, and I am going to move on to the next item of business.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

On a different point of order.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is the point of order on a different matter?

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Yes. At the end of the debate on 16 October on the future of the conflict transformation initiative, the First Minister asked, in relation to the rulings of previous Speakers:

“Does there come a time to say “Amen” to those rulings and bury them?” — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 8, p394, col 1].

At that time, Mr Speaker, you said:

“I am very happy to report back to the House on that point of order.” — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 8, p394, col 1].

When do you intend to report back to the House on that matter, given that, to my knowledge, there has never been on the Floor of either this Assembly or any previous Assembly such a fundamental challenge to the good conduct of business than when a First Minister says that it is time to “bury” previous rulings?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member well knows from his own experience that many procedures in Parliaments and Assemblies are based on previous decisions from the Speaker. He also knows that Speakers, Members and staff are guided by such procedures until they are superseded by further decisions. I am going to leave those particular points of order where they are and move on the next item of business.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On a point of order.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is your point of order on a separate issue?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Yes. On 11 September 2007, under Standing Order 18, you ruled:

“I intend to call members of the Executive to ask questions following a statement from a ministerial colleague only in special circum­stances. I may still call them as private Members”. — [Official Report, Vol 23, No 6, p255, col 1].

On 16 October, in response to the Minister for Social Development’s statement on the conflict transformation initiative, you called Mr Peter Robinson — it was certainly in unusual circumstances, and Mr Robinson was seated on his party’s Back Benches. However, the line of questioning that he adopted related to advice that was available only to Ministers. He referred to the Departmental Solicitor’s Office and the Executive secretary. I ask you to consider whether it may be necessary to amplify your ruling for Ministers’ benefit in future, or perhaps you should advise Ministers to keep their arguments to the Executive table.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

On the afternoon of Tuesday 16 October, it was made absolutely clear that Mr Robinson was speaking as a private Member, which is why he sat on the Back Benches. I have continually said that I cannot control what Members say in the Chamber. It was made clear that Mr Robinson was speaking not as a Minister or on behalf of the Executive but as a private Member, which is why he sat on the Back Benches.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I entirely accept that you called Mr Robinson as a private Member. However, his line of questioning was that of one Minister to another Minister. Will you consider whether your ruling was complied with adequately?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I cannot be privy to the information that any private Member may have on any issue. When Mr Robinson spoke, I was not privy to what he might say. The difficulty is that, on many occasions in the House, neither I, as Speaker, nor the Deputy Speakers know what Members may say or do. In procedural terms, I am satisfied that on the afternoon of 16 October, Mr Robinson spoke as a private Member.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, when you resumed proceedings after the suspension, you told the House that you had spoken to Nigel Hamilton, the head of the Civil Service, who had some concerns. You also said that you had spoken to:

“other members of the Executive, who also expressed some serious concerns about the matter and about the Minister’s statement.” — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 8, p389.]

I understand that that included the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Robinson. Surely the points that he raised, supposedly as a Back Bencher or an ordinary Member, were exactly the same points that he raised as a member of the Executive.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That is not at all correct. I made it absolutely clear that I had spoken to my officials and to a number of people; the protection of the House was uppermost in my mind, and I had to be absolutely clear that the House was being protected. The legal advice was that no procedures had been broken and that the ministerial statement, and questions from Members, could continue.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With due respect, Mr Speaker, that still does not answer my question on whether the points that were raised by Mr Robinson as a private Member were the same points that he raised when he spoke to you during the suspension of proceedings as a member of the Executive, and he did speak to you during the suspension as a member of the Executive

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

What Members say to me in my office will not be discussed in the House. All Members, on all sides of the House, would respect that.

I am not taking any further points of order on the issue.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am taking no further points of order on this issue.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement regarding the Executive’s response to the Independent Water Review Panel’s ‘Strand One Report’.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. Before I make my statement, I offer my condolences, and the condolences of the House, to the Quinn family in Cullyhanna on the tragic death of their son Paul. I unreservedly condemn what was a brutal murder, and I call on anyone who can provide any assistance to the investigation into that criminal act to make that information available to either an Garda Síochána or the PSNI.

I wish to make a statement on the review of water and sewerage services and, in particular, the Independent Water Review Panel’s strand-one report. On 11 June, I announced the terms of reference for a review of water and sewerage services, following the Executive’s decision not to impose direct rule water charges in 2007-08 and to conduct an independent review of those services. The terms of reference set out a two-strand approach. The first strand, to be reported on in the autumn, concerned the costs and funding of water and sewerage services. The second strand of the review, covering the structures and governance necessary to deliver water and sewerage services, will be reported on in December.

Following receipt of the independent panel’s strand-one report on 1 October, I consulted the Committee for Regional Development and the other statutory partners, and briefed trade union representatives. I am grateful to all those to whom I spoke for their constructive comments and for the speed with which they made written contributions. I must pay particular tribute to the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and members of the Regional Development Committee for their constructive approach.

The report and the comments of the consultees were discussed by a subcommittee established by the Executive to oversee the process. The subcommittee, comprising the Finance and Personnel, Employment and Learning, and Social Development Ministers and me, met on 15 October. A further discussion involving the full Executive took place on 18 October.

Before turning to what has been decided, I must also pay tribute to Paddy Hillyard, who has chaired the independent panel with great commitment and integrity. He has been admirably supported by Joan Whiteside, Charles Coulthard and Professor John Fitzgerald. Through the collective application of their knowledge and experience, they have produced a report that offers us an opportunity to reform our water and sewerage services in a better way than that proposed by direct rule Ministers. The panel has taken great care in its work, and the report bears careful reading.

I particularly want to draw attention to Paddy Hillyard’s foreword. Referring to the floods that caused so much hardship in June, he concludes:

“we need to reduce our carbon footprint and develop sustainable ways of delivering clean water and disposing of our sewerage. As a society, we will have to pay more in the short term to achieve these objectives: but we must do so for the sake of future generations.”

That is an important message that we must not and cannot duck. We were elected because our people had had enough of being governed from a distance. We were elected because people had confidence in our ability to take hard decisions on their behalf. Now that we have been elected, we must repay that trust by having the courage and commitment to make those hard choices.

Turning to the report, the Executive have welcomed the finding that ratepayers have paid a substantial annual contribution towards the cost of water and sewerage services. The panel found no evidence that the change in the rules in 1998 that removed the direct link between the regional rate and water and sewerage services was ever properly explained to the public. That vindicates the position that all the local parties took during direct rule.

The Executive have accepted the recommendation that, from 2008-09, there should be full recognition that domestic regional rates revenue makes a contribution to the funding of water and sewerage services. The panel has estimated that amount, based on an uplift of the 1998 position to today’s prices, at around £109 million. That equates to an average household contribution of around £160. That figure is consistent with the Finance Minister’s own projections of what domestic ratepayers are contributing to the funding of water and sewerage services. In 2008-09, that will be the only household contribution to those services, the balance being paid from the Northern Ireland block grant. That represents the Executive’s commitment to tackling the inequity of double charging.

The review report notes, however, that the revenue from the regional rate does not cover the full costs of water services. To deal with that, the report proposes that consumers should make an increased contribution to cover the costs of water and sewerage services. The report makes the case that, without the uplift of what people currently contribute, other public services will be deprived of funding. The Executive have recognised that and agreed that, from 2009-10, there will need to be additional contributions from householders. The panel has suggested that these additional contributions should come into effect in full for domestic households from 2009-10. We have concluded instead that they should be phased in, with domestic households paying two thirds of their full liability in 2009-10 and the full liability the following year. However, the amount due to be collected from domestic households will be reduced by the amount of the contribution that households already make via the rates: £109 million, or an average of £160 per rates bill. That means that there will be no double payment.

The Executive have noted the proposal that a single bill should be issued to consumers, with rates and water and sewerage charges separately identified. Further analysis by the Regional Development and Finance Departments will be necessary in order to determine how that might be done and to assess the implications for existing billing arrangements and contracts.

The Executive have also noted the panel’s recom­mendations on the way in which payments for services should be made in the future, but have reserved their final decision until the panel has completed the second strand of its report. The panel will have more to say in its second report on the detail of affordability arrange­ments for vulnerable groups. All that has been agreed now is that additional contributions from households will be necessary from 2009-10, but that there will be robust arrangements to protect the vulnerable in society from hardship and water poverty.

The proposals put forward by the direct rule Admin­istration entailed the extension of water charges to all non-domestic customers, the phasing out of the current domestic allowance and the introduction of sewerage charges for all non-domestic customers. For 2008-09, that would have entailed charges of two thirds of the full level. However, the Executive recognise the challenges and difficulties faced by the non-domestic sector and have decided to phase in the new charges more slowly at 50% of the full charge in 2008-09 and 100% in 2009-10.

The Executive will also endeavour to reduce the burden on consumers, both domestic and non-domestic, through delivering efficiencies and by attracting further revenue sources.

In conclusion, the Executive have been committed to not privatising water and sewerage services and to tackling the injustice of double taxation. On behalf of the Executive, I am happy to reiterate that commitment today and to confirm that it is from that standpoint that we have considered the report of the independent panel. The position that I outline today, on behalf of the Executive, provides a firm basis for delivering a better deal for all water customers than that proposed by the direct rule Administration. There is, however, a great deal of work to be done by the Executive, the independent panel, the Committee for Regional Development and all the stakeholders. With goodwill and commitment from all parties, I am confident that we will achieve our goal of better services at an affordable cost. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Committee has written to the Depart­ment to say that, in its scrutiny of the report, it finds that there is insufficient information in the review for the Committee to be able to form a view on it. Until the Committee sees the second report of the panel in December 2007, no final decision can be taken by it.

For the Minister to announce today the introduction of water charges without any debate in the Assembly is absolutely ridiculous. It is a new tax, and there is no indication of the basis on which the tax will be charged or of how much will be collected by those charges. There is no doubt that tens of thousands of those people on the lowest incomes will be worse off and will face water poverty. That is what has been announced today.

Will the Minister give a guarantee to the House that individuals who at the moment are free from any charges through the regional rate will not be any worse off when water charges are introduced?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Chairperson for his question. I must note that the Committee welcomed the report as an important first step in dealing with the issues, particularly those that he outlined with regard to the vulnerable and the less well off. It is, of course, open to the Chairperson and to any other Member if they wish to debate the issue and bring a motion to the Floor of the House. If the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee were to do so, it would be particularly relevant. I am quite happy to debate any such motion.

I am obliged, under the programme that was outlined and agreed with the Committee and other stakeholders, to make a statement to the House following the Executive’s decision on the budgetary implications of the panel’s first report. The Chairperson knows well that the members of the panel — particularly the chairman, Paddy Hillyard — are people with great experience in dealing with issues of water poverty, who know how the imposition of the direct rule proposals would have affected the most vulnerable in our society. They have undertaken, as part of the second strand of their report, to focus on affordability issues and on how such propositions might be mitigated to ensure that those who are least able to pay do not suffer. I fully expect the panel to bring forward very robust propositions, and I expect the Executive to concur with them.

The direct rule proposals, as we have said from the outset, were unfair and unjust and would have imposed a double taxation on people. This Executive set the panel a job to do and have endorsed its key recommendations. I believe that we are tackling the injustices of privatisation and double charging, and we will ensure that those who are least able to pay are protected in whatever measures are recommended in the second report.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Is the Minister aware that a motion has been put forward in the name of the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development to debate this very important issue? It would have been preferable had that debate been held before his statement on the decision. Will the Minister accept that some of what he has told the Assembly today is predicated on a very stretching efficiency target of 40% having been set for Northern Ireland Water? Has he taken into account, in the figures that he gave us today, that that is an extremely difficult target, which it may not be possible to meet?

Furthermore, the major item of the review panel’s report was that future payments should be based on the capital valuation of the individual’s property. Will the Minister accept that that proposal will cause enormous problems to those who are asset rich but income poor and that it will simply repeat the earlier problems when it was proposed that rating should also be based on capital valuation? With regard to the review panel’s second report, will he assure the House that adequate protection is built into any proposal for an affordability tariff to ensure that those who are unable to pay do not bear an unfair brunt of this new tax?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question, and I note that a motion for debate has been put forward. The method for rolling out the process was discussed with the Committee for Regional Development, and I outlined my intention to make a statement following the Executive’s decision. At that stage, there was no mention of a debate; however, I am happy to come to the House and debate the issues with members of the Committee.

The targets concerning efficiencies are demanding. One implication of the Executive’s decision to roll out progressively the possible domestic contribution gives an additional year to reach some of those targets. Therefore, there may be scope for discussing them with the water company.

On many occasions, I have heard Mr Wells’s points on those who are asset rich and income poor, and there is a debate on basing contributions on the capital valuation of houses. As part of the second phase, the panel has undertaken a particularly focused exercise in relation to affordability and will look in particular at how its proposals will impact on those least able to make a contribution. There will be an opportunity for the Committee, and any other party or individual Member, to discuss those propositions with the panel. I expect the panel to bring forward robust propositions in December, and those will be debated by the Executive and by the House.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo chuid buíochas a thabhairt don Aire do a ráiteas agus ár gcuid buíochas don Roinn don chuid oibre atá déanta aici. I thank the Minister for his statement and put on record Sinn Féin’s appreciation of the review panel’s work. It is an important and positive first step in the rolling back of the proposals of direct rule Ministers. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that the misuse of the regional rate will never happen again? Furthermore, I ask him to reassure the House that the implementation of the report will herald the end of paying twice for water and an end to water poverty?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. The Executive’s statement, when they had agreed the panel’s terms of reference, was very clear. One of the issues that had poisoned the direct rule propositions on water were — if Members will pardon the pun — suspicions about the privatisation of water and sewerage services. Moreover, people felt that the contribution historically made by households through the regional rate was not recognised in what they were being asked to contribute for water and sewerage services and that their having to pay twice was deeply unjust.

The review panel’s report and the decisions taken by all the Ministers in the Executive address those concerns. The issue of privatisation was dealt with from the outset, and all the parties expressed manifesto commitments to tackling the injustice of a double taxation for water. That issue has been addressed, will continue to be addressed and will not reappear on the agenda.

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

I too welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly his undertaking to support the Committee’s tabling a motion for a take-note debate and its seeking an assurance that he will be influenced by the outcome of that debate.

I note that the Minister has not referred to metering. Does that mean that he agrees with the panel that, although metering is an environmental issue, it would increase the cost of water considerably but have no real benefit for those who can least afford to pay?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his comments and for his welcome of the panel’s report.

I firmly believe that metering will have to be debated publicly over the next few weeks and months. It will certainly have to be discussed in the lead-up to the publication of the second phase of the panel’s reports. There are issues to discuss: for example, some people assume that capital value is an unfair means by which an assessment can be made, and that metering is fairer. Metering was very much part of the direct rule propositions, but I suppose that it must have got lost among them.

Several parties, including the Member’s and my own, had concerns about metering. It is assumed that it will lead to greater water conservation and reduced water charges. All those assumptions can be challenged. I look forward to talking about the matter over the coming weeks and months, and perhaps the take-note debate that the Member mentioned would be a useful place to start such discussions. I have asked other stakeholders to discuss metering in the few weeks and months that lead up to the publication of the panel’s second-phase report.

A debate on the matter is necessary given that several challengeable assumptions were made about metering, such as what it can contribute to the environment, the reduction to bills for water and sewerage services that it will cause, and its tendency towards encouraging water conservation. All those assumptions can be challenged, and I look forward to that take-note debate.

The Executive have not taken a view on that position. However, they can — and I expect that they will — do so when the second phase of the panel’s report is published in December.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his statement. However, it is premature, given that the Assembly has not had the opportunity to debate the outcome of the report. However, I am at least grateful that the Minister was able to clarify that we have a situation in which a Minister is speaking on behalf of the Executive.

Does the Minister not agree that any charge that is linked to the value of property is, by definition, a regressive form of taxation? Does he further agree that, even with affordability adjustments, vulnerable groups and those who are on fixed incomes, and whose house prices are rising, will be hit? Will he comment on how the proposals meet the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive, which is aimed at encouraging the conservation of natural resources?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The reason for my statement on the review is that the Executive’s discussions on the Budget have meant that they had to make several key decisions; Members will know that such key budgetary decisions must be made this week. Therefore, there was real pressure on the Department. We announced at the start of the process that there would be a two-phase review, one of which would deal with the clear financial implications of the panel’s recommendations.

As a result, we had to make decisions this week on how we would proceed with paying for water and sewerage services over the next few years. Therefore, the time frame for discussing the matter was constrained. We acknowledged that at the outset, and that is the reason that we held discussions with the Committee for Regional Development, in particular. Obviously, the parties that are represented on the Executive speak for the majority of Assembly Members, although I appreciate that they do not do so for those on whose behalf Mrs Long is speaking. Therefore, the time frame in which we could have held meetings was constrained. However, such constraint was necessary, given that decisions had to be made.

The Member mentioned bigger issues such as capital values and metering. We will now have the opportunity to debate those in the House. The panel made it clear that the second phase of the report will examine very closely affordability and how an increased contribution from domestic consumers towards water and sewerage services can be mitigated in order that the worst off do not suffer as a result of the charges. As I said, the panel comprises people who have a broad range of experience — particularly the chairperson — on matters that relate to water poverty. I am confident that the panel, in engagement with the parties that have an interest in the matter and with all the other stake­holders, will draw up robust affordability propositions that the Executive can consider and that the Assembly can decide on.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

Given that many thousands of senior citizens throughout Northern Ireland have indicated that they wish to have water meters installed in their homes, will the Minister give an assurance that that option will still be available to those people who are over the age of 60 who wish to avail themselves of it?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That option is enshrined in current legislation, and it is to that legislation that the water company operates. Until the Executive decide otherwise and introduce their own legislation, that will remain the case. The Executive must decide whether they wish to pursue a different objective for pensioners, and it would be up to the House to agree any new legislation.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and the review panel for its strand-one report. Can the Minister assure us that the panel will have adequate resources to complete strand two, given that the original consultants had £7 million with which to carry out their review?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The panel has been allocated a sufficient budget in order to carry out its work, and I appreciate the fact that the panel was allocated that budget. Great credit is due to the panel: we gave it an onerous task, which it got down to very quickly. Panel members applied themselves, with great integrity, to their work.

A budget was set aside that we considered sufficient. The fact that the panel has yet to eat significantly into that budget shows that it has sufficient resources to carry out the remainder of its task.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister feel that to levy water rates based on the value of a property alone is a fair system? Does it take into account people’s ability to pay?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, but I did not hear the Member’s question. If he repeats it, I shall answer it.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister feel that to levy water rates based on the value of a property alone is a fair system? Does it take into account people’s ability to pay?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The panel looked very hard at the issue and considered payments based on that system to be fairest. The Executive had to make a number of decisions about the panel’s budget and about how that would roll out over the next number of years. The Executive have not concluded the discussion on the issue that the Member has raised. They will discuss the matter further with the panel and with other interested parties.

Naomi Long is still in the Chamber; I thought that she had left. Mr Speaker, I neglected to deal with a point that she raised about the EU Water Framework Directive. Article 9 of the directive says that pricing policies should promote a sustainable use of water. The panel’s proposals will enable us to achieve that aim.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

In the light of his saying that he does not want a double taxation, does the Minister accept that households that have a private well and a septic tank would be paying for a service that they do not receive? I refer particularly to farming families. Considering that they will be paying a standing charge for the use of a water meter anyway, will the Minister guarantee that such families, and their businesses, will be allowed to pay using a meter after he removes their domestic allowance?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member may be straying into areas that will be dealt with in the strand-two report. Suffice it to say that we wanted the fairest proposition for all customers, both domestic and non-domestic. The Executive were very keen for some of the savings that have been identified in the panel’s report to be spread between domestic and non-domestic customers. We are looking at ways in which to reduce the burden right across the board.

Therefore, some of the affordability issues that the Member has raised into the specifics of non-domestic use must be looked at, because we do not want to ignore one section of our community, in particular the farming sector. We are straying into what will be considered in the strand-two report, but I look forward to hearing the Member’s views when that analysis kicks off.

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

I notice that, in his statement, the Minister accepts the panel’s figure of £109 million already being built into the rates to cover water charges. That figure equates to £160 for each household. Those calculations go back to a time when an hypothecated figure for water was included in our rates.

A lot has happened in the meantime, including an increase of as much as 19% in one year in the regional rate. Will the Minister ensure that there is independent analysis of that figure before he commits to it? It may well be that a greater figure ought to be built into the calculation.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I consider the panel to be independent assessors. The figure it came up with concurs with that proposed by the Department of Finance and Personnel, as regards expressing the 1998 figure in today’s values. Therefore, I assume that it is accurate. The fact that the panel, which is independent and outside Government, came up with the same figure gives us confidence in it. That is not just my analysis. Last Thursday, the Executive agreed that that is the figure that will be considered as part of the contribution.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister assure the House that moneys gained from the sale of surplus assets already identified will be reinvested in the water infrastructure?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Assets should be disposed of in order to maximise benefits to customers. We will ask the regulator to undertake a review of the assets of the water company. I note that the Committee for Regional Development, on which the Member sits, observed that it is not in anyone’s interest to indulge in a fire sale. Nonetheless, it is important that surplus assets are disposed of properly and that the resulting money is reinvested in public services.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I have problems regarding the levels of water wastage through system deficiencies. Will the Minister give an assurance that every effort will be made to deal with that problem?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The water company needs to address water wastage. When talking about water metering and the volume of water that households use, some Members observed that there was a primary respons­ibility on the water company to ensure that wastage was addressed. The company has set out a programme to achieve that and is on course for substantial improvement. However, we will need to keep an eye on that. I have no doubt that the panel will examine the issue closely during the second phase of its assessment. The Department is keen to ensure that the water company lives up to the expectations of the public, the Assembly and the Department and that it will address the issues seriously.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has referred to article 9 of the EU Water Framework Directive. Will he explain how basing charges for water on house values will encourage conservation? I do not see how it will. Has he received written confirmation from the European Commission that it is willing to accept basing charges for water on house values? In my opinion, it is a breach of the European directive.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department has its own analysis of the EU Water Framework Directive, which is that it is not necessarily in breach of any European directive. Further discussions about what may come from Europe on that matter are ongoing.

The Member assumes that the only way of conserving water is through a metered system. There are contrary views: there are other ways to conserve water and encourage the conservation of water. It is appropriate that, in the coming weeks and months, we have a debate about what people presume to be the benefits of metering — water conservation, lower bills and contribution to the environment — as opposed to other measures, which may also encourage water conservation.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and join him in paying tribute to the work of the panel. My party was the only one to make a submission to the panel and to meet with it.

I return to the point raised by my colleague Declan O’Loan. The Minister’s statement says that the amount estimated from the regional rate to contribute to water and sewerage services is around £109 million, which equates to a household contribution of £160, and is based on an uplift of the 1998 position to today’s prices. I ask the Minister and the Executive to address the fact that the increases of 7% in three successive years, introduced by direct rule Ministers in the late 1990s, were justified entirely on the basis of increasing water costs. The 19% increase last year was justified in similar terms. There is, therefore, reason to question that figure.

Can the Minister assure the House that the measures that will be taken on affordability will not be temporary? Under direct rule, the indication was that the Treasury would do away with the affordability tariff after a few years. Similarly, although the Minister has given the right assurances on privatisation, is he aware of Treasury plans to pursue and press for subsequent privatisation? What assurances can he give the House on that?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I will repeat my previous response: the panel is independent. It approached its review from outside the Department. It was important, when it was established, for the panel to be given independence from Government in order to allow it to carry out the necessary scrutiny. It employed economists to assist in its analysis, which concurs with the figure that the Department of Finance and Personnel provided.

Robust work must be done on the affordability tariff. The panel contained people who have a strong knowledge of water poverty and how it can affect the most vulnerable in society. The Assembly has a duty to protect those vulnerable people. It must ensure that people can make increased contributions in order to meet the necessary investment in water services. People have accepted the panel’s assertion that if the money were to be taken from the Budget, that would have severe implications across all Departments. Therefore, the proposition is that those services must be paid for through increased contributions. The Assembly has a duty to ensure that that does not adversely affect those who can least afford it.

The Department had to make a clear statement on privatisation even before the panel had started its work, because part of that work was to bring a degree of public confidence to the discussions that had not previously been present. The panel members are people of integrity, and it is a great credit to them that they have managed to achieve a degree of public confidence in how they are dealing with the issue. As long as I am the Minster for Regional Development, it is my intention, and that of the Executive as long as they are in position, that privatisation will not, and never will be, back on the agenda. I expect that that will continue to be the position and that any attempt by the British Treasury to revisit the exercise will be resisted accordingly.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the fact that there will be no separate water charges. However, I am concerned about the figures for 2008-09. It appears that there may be a black hole in the figures and that additional revenue can be raised only through a large increase in the regional rate. That is unacceptable. Rates are aggressive, and no account is taken of ability to pay. The burden falls heaviest on pensioners and people who are on fixed incomes. Therefore, can the Minster assure the House that there will not be any increase in the regional rate to meet any shortfall, and that any shortfall would not be met through cuts in other services?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member has asked a question that strikes me as being rather contradictory. If a shortfall is not picked up by the customer or by the Department, where does he expect it to be picked up? He cannot take both sides of the argument at the same time. He has asked that I ensure that neither the public nor Departments have to pay for the shortfall. Does he expect Santa Claus to come along and pay for it in the interim?

If Members want to approach the debate rationally, they must be honest and up front. How can a service not be paid for either by Departments or through the proposition that the shortfall be met by the block grant for 2008-09? That has implications for Departments, and how could it not? Therefore, we must be up front and honest, which I have tried to be in the debate, about the difficult choices that are to be faced and must be taken. Those who try to play both sides of the argument at the same time will be exposed as not having a sensible argument for the way forward.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Minster has rightly said that there will be robust arrangements to protect the vulnerable in our society from hardship and water poverty. Can he guide the House on what those robust arrangements might be? I accept that Santa Claus will not pay for any shortfall. However, last night, a letter was posted through my door from Mr Howard McKeown, who is a retired civil servant. It is an impassioned and pleading letter, in which Mr McKeown says that he will be forced to leave his home because of water charges and rates.

I return to the point that, while there are those at the bottom end of our society economically, who are in hardship and who need to be protected, equally there are those on the other side of the coin who may be asset-rich — living in a highly rated house — but living on meagre pensions, like that man on his Civil Service pension. Are we going to ask him to leave his home as those charges build up? It is a challenge for the Assembly to try to keep our society stable and — whatever way the charges are introduced, whatever way water is paid for — to ensure that people do not have to lose their homes. What answer can I give to Mr McKeown as I sit down this afternoon, or tomorrow, to write him a letter?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Far be it from me to compose the Member’s letters for him. Perhaps the central point in my statement — and I am surprised that it has not been picked up before — was that affordability tariffs will, of course, have to be considered in a robust fashion. That is part of the second phase. The report recognises, and the Executive recognise, that there was a historic contribution being made from the rates towards water and sewerage services. That contribution has been recognised and accepted. That means that, when that contribution goes towards water and sewerage services, the rates bill will fall by the measure of that contribution. I presume that when people have read the report, they will recognise that as a central factor. The fact that the Executive have taken that decision is very welcome.

I heard other people talking on the radio — including some people who are sitting in the Chamber today — about the propositions in the report, and they had got the sums completely the wrong way round. The rates will be reduced by the contribution that has been made over the years towards water and sewerage services. I fully accept what the Member has said: we have a responsibility for ensuring that, as we struggle to finance necessary investment in water and sewerage services — and all the other programmes that the Executive must try to find money for — that does not impinge in a negative fashion on those who are least able to afford to pay. That is a challenge for us all. It will pose a challenge to us throughout the Budget discussions and the second phase of the panel’s work. Nevertheless, it is a challenge that we are well capable of meeting, because people here have a genuine concern about those who are least able to pay in our society. We have a duty to protect them.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Further to the answer given to my colleague Mr Wilson, I remind the Minister that the financial situation inherited by the Administration made no provision for water charges within the rates — on the contrary, there were to be separate water charges. Therefore, there is a financial black hole that has to be addressed. Will the Minister be straight with the public of Northern Ireland and tell them that the only way in which those costs can be met is by a subsequent rise in the regional rate or a cut in public services? Otherwise, the sums simply do not add up.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is interesting that Dr Farry talks about the sums adding up. He is the person whom I heard on BBC radio getting the sums completely and utterly wrong. He talked about £160 being added to the regional rate bill, rather than recognising that £160 would be taken off the average regional rate bill. He is not in any position to lecture us about the sums. When he was on ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’ pontificating on the matter, I was tempted to ring in myself. However, I was obliged not to comment publicly on the report until the Executive had dealt with it. I was tempted to ask Dr Farry to go back and read the report properly, and to do his sums properly.

The central feature of the issue is that there is a recognition that people paid for water — that they made a contribution towards water — out of the regional rate bill. That will be accepted and recognised. If that is moved towards a contribution to water, the regional rate bill will fall accordingly.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

On 22 May, I commissioned a review of the problems that were encountered as a result of the recruitment process for junior doctors into speciality training. Many of you are familiar with the well-publicised difficulties that centred on the use of the national online recruitment process, the medical training application service (MTAS). That process was heavily criticised across the UK as it was felt to exclude highly qualified candidates from successful appointment. In addition, there were widespread concerns that the new process would lead to hundreds of junior doctors’ being unemployed and that, as a result, hospitals would be thrown into crisis.

Further, it was predicted that hundreds of doctors would be permanently locked out of speciality training and left in limbo.

As a result of those concerns, I took urgent action to address the problems locally. The first step was the abandonment of the MTAS process. We then secured consultant commitment to extending the local interviews process to complete recruitment as a matter of urgency. Later, I will detail how those concerns have been fully addressed.

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

On 22 May, I made a commitment to a full exam­ination of all the difficulties arising from the recruitment process. I set up a review and asked Professor Randall Hayes of Queen’s University to chair the review group, to look at the difficulties and to chart a way forward. The review group drew its membership from across the Health Service, the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Department, thereby reflecting a wide range of backgrounds and expertise. In keeping with my comm­itment to report back to the Assembly before the end of October 2007, I have today placed in the Assembly Library copies of the Review of Recruitment into Speciality Training in Northern Ireland 2007.

As Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I wanted to be assured that patient care had not suffered because of the deficiencies in this process; that our Health Service continued to operate safely and effectively at the traditional junior doctor start date of 1 August; and that a way forward for 2008 would be determined involving a recruitment process that enjoyed widespread confidence throughout the service and, locally, from the medical profession. I also asked Professor Hayes to examine the wider concerns that arose from the recruitment process, the perceived inflexibilities of the new training programmes and the effectiveness of medical workforce planning. I was also keen that he took account of developments elsewhere in the UK, including the Independent Review of Modernising Medical Careers, which is currently being carried out by Sir John Tooke.

The review team was set a challenging timescale. It met and took evidence from all key stakeholders over the summer months. Professor Hayes met Sir John Tooke, who, on 8 October, published the interim findings of his review of modernising medical careers. I want to express my gratitude to Professor Hayes for his leadership, to the review team for their commitment to completing this review in a short time, and to those who gave of their time and expertise in contributing to the work of the review.

The report contains 29 separate recommendations under the following headings: recruitment, speciality training and medical workforce planning. I want to outline today the main findings and the actions that I will take. First, the review found no evidence of any detrimental impact on patient care. Nearly 700 junior doctors with the necessary skills and expertise to provide high-quality treatment and care were recruited and in post by 1 August 2007.

Secondly, there was no significant unemployment of junior doctors. On 1 August, only 22 doctors had not secured posts. That figure has now fallen to six, and arrangements have been made to allow those six doctors to remain in post pending further recruitment rounds. Thirdly, Professor Hayes’s review addressed the inflexibility in the process that could result in highly qualified doctors being locked out of the process.

Nevertheless, significant flaws in the process have been identified. They relate mainly to the online recruitment system, the application form and the shortlisting process used this year. The evidence that the review took from junior doctors detailed difficulties around the lack of robustness of the computer system, which was prone to crashing. Also mentioned was insufficient training to familiarise doctors with a radically different process, and the fact that shortlisting did not take enough account of individual experiences.

In addressing those matters, 18 of the review’s recommendations cover the recruitment process, setting out advice in regard to person specifications, application forms, interviews and communication. I will supply a little more detail on those recommendations. There will be a local recruitment process for 2008. Junior doctors will complete a different style of application form that will allow them an opportunity to have all their experience taken into account. The person specifications, which caused so many problems in relation to inflexibility and concerns over permanent lockout from the process, will be revised to remove limits to previous experience, and they will be speciality specific.

Junior doctors will not apply through a national computer system. Applications will be submitted to the local deanery — the Northern Ireland Medical & Dental Training Agency. There will be local longlisting and shortlisting of candidates. The interview process that was used in 2007 was well received by all junior doctors, and by the consultants who conducted the interviews. That process will continue for 2008. The concerns that junior doctors had this year, should, therefore, not be repeated in 2008. They will be allowed to demonstrate experience and how they strive for excellence. Those important areas will be taken into account in the shortlisting process.

There has been widespread agreement among junior doctors and training committees that the recruitment process in Northern Ireland should remain synchronised with the national timetable. Having listened to the profession, I concur that we should remain part of the national network in relation to timescales. Recruitment for general practice will continue to follow a separate process, but I want the timing of offers of training places to coincide with those for speciality training in line with Professor Hayes’s recommendation. The number of offers to general practice doctors awaiting alternative offers caused difficulties this year. Undue pressure was brought to bear, which is something that I want to avoid next year.

All of these changes will be communicated to junior doctors by the Northern Ireland Medical & Dental Training Agency. The agency has been examining the feasibility of a local online application service to support the recruitment process. As I told the Assembly in May 2007, I want to be assured that any such service would truly support the process before agreeing to its use, but I am content that such an option should be explored.

Professor Hayes has made it clear that his recomm­endations on speciality training have to be viewed in the wider context, and for very good reasons. We must not do anything locally that disadvantages our young doctors with regard to recognition of their training and qualifications and, as a consequence, jeopardises their future prospects for consultant and GP principal appointments. As a result, the review’s recommendations on specialist training are for the longer term, for 2009 and beyond, and are very much dependent on the outcome of Sir John Tooke’s recommendations.

As I said, Sir John’s interim findings were published at the beginning of last week and are out for consultation until 20 November 2007. His proposals for speciality training involve the fundamental restructuring of postgraduate medical training to allow greater flexibility. My Department will respond to that consultation, drawing on Professor Randal Hayes’s work. However, I assure those who secured a place on a training programme in 2007 that that commitment will be honoured.

Many of the recommendations on medical workforce planning are already in train. Since August 2007, for example, the number of doctors in GP training prog­rammes has increased by 20%. As a result, the intake to GP training has risen to 65. Again this year, recognising the growing number of women in the medical workforce, flexible training opportunities will be doubled to 15 to begin to meet the growing demand for part-time working among doctors in training. Although that is a relatively small increase, it should be seen as the latest step in an ongoing approach.

A further critical element in this process is the provision of careers advice that is objective, meaningful and of relevance to young doctors at a critical stage in their career. My Department has provided funds to the Northern Ireland Medical & Dental Training Agency to develop its career advisory role. The agency recently advertised a post dedicated to that role, in line with Professor Hayes’s recommendations. I want to see the agency work with the university to extend that role into the undergraduate years in a meaningful way.

In summary, the review has identified that there was no evidence of a detriment to patient and client care caused by the recruitment process used this year. There is no evidence of significant unemployment of junior doctors.

There were significant flaws in the recruitment process for speciality, run-through training. A way forward for 2008 allows experience to be taken into account, prevents doctors from being locked out of training, and introduces more flexibility to the process. Proposals will be introduced with the aim of restoring the confidence of the service in speciality recruitment.

A great deal of work is to be done as a result of the review. I have set out, in broad terms, the approach that the Department will adopt for this year. The Department will put in place a process to implement in detail all the local review recommendations. Further work will be necessary for 2009 and beyond. Sir John Tooke’s interim report points to fundamental changes to speciality recruitment that were identified by Professor Hayes. My Department will work closely with other UK countries over the coming months to ensure that a process is developed that meets the needs of the service and allows junior doctors to compete fairly and flexibly. We all want to be cared for by doctors who are trained to the highest standards and who are experts in their area of practice. The profession can provide that service if the right people are recruited into the right speciality. I am determined that the professionalism and dedication that is shown by doctors locally is not let down by a poor recruitment process.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the problems that have been encountered. It is good that the review of the speciality training for junior doctors is underway and that there has been no detrimental impact on patient care.

I also welcome the fact that 700 junior doctors were recruited by 1 April 2007. Can the Minister confirm whether salaries paid to doctors who are being trained under the new MMC (Modernising Medical Careers) scheme are less than those that have been paid in previous years?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am not aware whether the salaries are lower; I did not expect that question. Although I can check specifics, I am not aware that junior doctors are suffering as a result of being paid lower salaries than they would have been in previous years.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister on his statement. All parties had been lobbying on the matter, and I am glad that he has taken all the issues on board. Will the Minister give a commitment to honour the places of people who have secured a place on a speciality training programme in 2007?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I can give Mrs O’Neill exactly that commitment: those training places will all be honoured in full.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and for honouring his commitment to report to the House by the end of October. Does he agree that the experiences of a great number of junior doctors were stressful? Will he indicate the timescale of the process for the next year, bearing in mind that the Tooke Review has just been published.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I understand the stress that junior doctors experienced during the early part of this year. However, as I said, the Department adopted a local solution to a local problem and dealt with the situation. No junior doctors were unemployed, and there was no chaos in the hospitals.

The recruitment process opens in January 2008 with local interviews, which will be completed by the middle of April. Job offers will be issued shortly after that. That is the anticipated timeframe, and I expect that the Department will meet it.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I also thank the Minister for his statement and for bringing the matter back to the Assembly. Given that he has talked frequently about the local situation, will a system be introduced that has been tailored to the Northern Ireland service?

The Minister has made it clear that the process will not be exclusive to Northern Ireland. Will he elaborate on that, and will balance between supply and demand be ensured?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Overwhelmingly, the advice received during the course of the review was that the process in Northern Ireland must be synchronised with, and be part of, a national process. It is a local solution to a local problem, but it is also an integral part of the general recruitment pool. As I understand it, Professor Tooke’s review will indicate the way forward for England, Scotland and Wales, and my Department will carefully examine the outcome. Professor Hayes has had meetings with Professor Tooke. Randal Hayes’s recommendations are close to some of those of Professor Tooke.

Mrs Hanna asked me about supply and demand, and, as I indicated in my statement, there has been an increase to 686 in the number of GP training posts this year. That increase reflects the need for additional GPS and for planning for medical careers. Among that number, any decrease in training places for certain specialities is balanced by an increase in training for other specialities. Overall, the number of available training places has increased

Kieran Deeny (Independent, West Tyrone)

I thank and commend the Minister for dealing with the problem so quickly and professionally. As a doctor, I had two major concerns: my primary concern was patient care, and, secondly, I was concerned about the loss of young doctors from Northern Ireland.

The Minister stated that the Northern Ireland Medical & Dental Training Agency will communicate all changes to junior doctors. When will that happen? I suggest that it should be as soon as possible, so that Northern Ireland does not lose its highly skilled and qualified professionals.

Almost 60 GPs work in the Western Health and Social Services Board area. Bearing in mind that many of our medical graduates are female, I suggest that the number of GP training places be further increased, perhaps to 100 eventually.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As I indicated in my statement, there are an additional 15 GP training places this year, and the Department will carefully consider any future requirement. Now that the review is complete and I have reported to the House, I am now in a position to begin communication with junior doctors, and I will do so as soon as possible. A number of the recommendations can be communicated almost straightaway, and that will be done through the local deanery.

There is no evidence that the process will be the cause of any detriment to patient care. The Department was able to move quickly enough to ensure that hospitals were able to recruit their complement of junior doctors on 1 August, as normal.

The training of doctors in specialities is a competitive process. Since the process began, local doctors have chosen to leave Northern Ireland to complete their training. That happens as a matter of course, and there is no guarantee that an individual who starts his or her undergraduate training in Northern Ireland will finish it here. Of the posts filled on 1 August, three quarters were filled by local doctors and one quarter by non-local doctors, by which I mean doctors from other EU countries and further afield. Last year, 87 international medical graduates were in the system, and I record the Department’s gratitude for their work in supporting the Health Service.

Doctors who were born in Northern Ireland can be found working in hospitals almost all over the world, and that has always been the case, because it is a matter of individual preference. It is crucial to have flexibility in the system, so that doctors can return to Northern Ireland if they so wish.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the recruitment of junior doctors, and I apologise for missing the first part of it. This issue greatly concerned members of the Health Committee earlier this year, and we raised it with the Minister many times. The Minister acknowledged that there were flaws in the process for recruitment in speciality medical training. Those flaws caused months of untold anxiety for many junior doctors throughout Northern Ireland. However, I welcome the assurance from the review that there was no evidence of any detrimental impact on patient care. I am pleased to learn that major changes will made in time for next year’s recruitment process and, in particular, that a different style of application process will be used that will give greater weight to previous experience.

The Minister has confirmed to Dr Deeny that there is much work to be done, and that the full implementation of the review recommendations will be carried out without delay. However, I wish to seek further assurance that we will not be faced with a similar situation in the future.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Much of last year’s problems related to the MTAS recruitment process, which was an online application form that was accessed through a computer system that was prone to crashing. There is no anticipation that we will go back to that system. We will follow the same steps for 2008 that we took in 2007 when we abandoned MTAS: local interviews, longlisting, shortlisting and curriculum vitaes will play a part. Therefore, experience will be given its appropriate weight. I do not anticipate that the position will be similar in May 2008 to what it was in May 2006. In fact, as I stated in an earlier answer, I expect that offers will be issued at the end of April 2008.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank and commend the Minister for his robust response, and I look forward to the same robustness when we consider the Agenda for Change policy. Will the Minister outline whether the Department has made any attempts to encourage speciality training? I am thinking specifically of areas where there are gaps; for example, in the field of reconstructive surgery for breast cancer survivors and burns victims, and in the provision of mental-health care. Go raibh maith agat.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

That is a matter of preference and of competition. Some courses are oversubscribed; for example, cardiology is consistently the number-one speciality to which young doctors apply. Regrettably, near the bottom of the list are accident and emergency, and paediatrics — which has much to do with child-protection legislation. There are disincentives in some specialities, and that is where we meet shortages in areas such as mental health. We have discussed that matter on a number of occasions and, therefore, we are well aware of the shortages of doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and nurses in the mental-health sector. That remains a major problem. I shall keep this matter under constant review so that we can try to find ways of solving the problem.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has broadly answered my question, but will he give us further information on how many junior doctors leave these shores every year? Does he believe that the new measures will help to reduce the numbers of those who leave?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I do not have figures for the number of junior doctors who leave our shores each year. Some students apply to the School of Medicine at Queen’s University Belfast.

The Department is also aware of the large number of students who apply to other universities; for example, at one stage 10 of the University of Dundee’s rugby team were medical undergraduates from Northern Ireland. There are certain universities that our youngsters are inclined to apply to. I do not have a specific figure, but there is a brain drain. I am happy to write to the Member on the issue of junior doctors’ going abroad. It is something that has been traditional and par for the course in medical training; it has happened for generations.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement. He will be aware of representations that I made on the matter locally. Can the Minister assure me that the recruitment process for junior doctors will be admin­istered locally to meet the specific needs of the local hospitals involved?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Yes, I can. Mr Elliott will recall that, on a number of occasions, I have said that this is a local solution to a local problem. Three quarters of the junior doctors that the Department is recruiting are from Northern Ireland. I bear that very much in mind.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome both the Minister’s statement and the work of the review group and Professor Hayes. The report honestly reflects the causes of the problem and provides welcome assurances that its effects did not lead to significant unemployment for our young doctors or damage to patient care.

Although the Minister is trying to ensure that there will be a new system in place that fits local needs, it will also need to fit the national framework. Achieving those two purposes might lead to some tension or difficulty in implementation, so I would appreciate any assurances that he can provide.

Similarly, as well as trying to synchronise the local scheme with the national framework, the Minister is saying that he wants to ensure that recruitment for general practice is synchronised with speciality training. What steps can he take to ensure that that happens?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Last year, offers for GP speciality were sent to those who may have also been waiting for other specialities and were then left wondering if they would receive any other offers. It is important that all offers be synchronised so that junior doctors can weigh up exactly what they are being offered and what their potential is.

There must be interchange in the national system, because we do not want our junior doctors — when they are qualified and trained — being excluded from employment and professional qualifications simply because they were trained here as opposed to in Scotland, Wales or England. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that our new system fits the national one. Our problem is primarily in how the recruitment took place and the effects of that, which we can sort out. In their discussions, Professor Hayes and Sir John Tooke shared a number of ideas on recommendations. The Department will look at changes to speciality training and how those changes should be implemented. Those changes must be universal, and we cannot exclude ourselves from them.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I also thank the Minister for his statement and for taking this issue seriously. Immediately after taking office, the Minister met a number of us, and junior doctors, and ensured that we now have at least the makings of a local solution to our local problem. I declare my interest as a parent of two junior doctors in training who both — I am happy to say — secured full training posts in this year’s round. I welcome the Minister’s statement that those training posts will be honoured. I would, however, like to tease out what is not currently in the statement.

The Minister has given us full details of the unemployment of junior doctors, but I am concerned about the underemployment. Will the Minister provide details of how many people are currently only in single-year, short-term, unrecognised posts, because they are the casualties who could be forgotten?

In the context of the Minister’s reference to Professor Hayes’s recommendation about the inflexibility in the process, which could result in highly qualified doctors being locked out, will he tell us a little bit more about how those who have had difficulties this year will be able to regain training posts in future years?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

One of the stipulations of the Hayes Review was that if doctors missed out on training posts for one year, they would not be precluded from applying for the speciality of their choice when they reapplied at the end of the year, thereby ensuring that experience would not count against them.

The position is different when a doctor misses a speciality, but there are other posts available that need to be filled over the next number of months — that happens continually. I cannot give Mr Ford a definitive answer, or numbers, on the underemployment of doctors. I can write to the Member on that, although I am assured that the problem is getting cover for patients, not underemployment of doctors.

Executive Committee Business

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg leave to introduce to the Assembly a Bill [NIA 6/07] to repeal article 64(8) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I beg to move

That the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/347) be approved.

I am seeking the approval of the Assembly for regulations relating to child support, which were laid before the Assembly on 27 July 2007. It may be helpful if I begin with an explanation of why the confirmatory procedure, which is the strongest form of Assembly control over regulations, is being used.

The long-standing principle, whereby Northern Ireland makes corresponding legislation to that for Great Britain in relation to child support, includes bringing regulations into operation on the same date here as in Great Britain. The Great Britain regulations to which those regulations correspond were approved by Parliament shortly before they were made by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure. It is not possible for the Assembly to approve the Northern Ireland regulations before they are made and match the operative date. The use of the confirmatory procedure ensures that the regulations are made and come into operation, but must be approved by the Assembly within six months of the operative date, otherwise they fall.

The regulations correspond to regulations for Great Britain that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made following their approval by the House on Lords on 26 June and the House of Commons on 5 July.

The making of child support regulation packages is a fairly regular process to ensure that legislation is kept up to date, transparent and in step with wider Government legislation. In this package of regulations, we are updating and amending child support legislation to bring it into line with changes that have been made to other Government legislation. The amendments are largely technical and make a number of amendments to various sets of regulations that govern child support.

The regulations cover two issues: first, they change the way in which the Child Support Agency calculates the net earnings of a self-employed non-resident parent; and, secondly, they increase the time allowed for a non-resident parent who lives abroad to make an appeal and increase the notice period that the agency must give such a non-resident parent before commencing certain enforcement proceedings.

The changes to self-employed income became necessary following a House of Lords judgement. The Lords ruled that the meaning in legislation of taxable profits, which provide the basis for calculating such earnings, was ambiguous. The Law Lords ruled that the agency’s interpretation of taxable profits was incorrect. We have, therefore, taken this opportunity to clarify what we mean, by providing a definition of taxable profits, which corresponds to that used by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and to change the information that the agency used to calculate self-employed earnings. The result is that self-employed earnings as assessed by the agency, will now more closely match those of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

The second change is to increase the time allowed for a non-resident parent who lives abroad to appeal a deduction-from-earnings order. The agency can obtain a deduction-from-earnings order should a non-resident parent not co-operate with the payment of child maintenance. That allows the payment of maintenance to be taken directly from the non-resident parent’s earnings. Before the amendment to the legislation, a non-resident parent could appeal a deduction-from-earnings order within 28 days. That period applied to all non-resident parents, both those living in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and those living abroad. The amendment extends the period in which to appeal to 56 days for non-resident parents living abroad, in recognition of the fact that it may be more difficult to make repres­entations or bring an appeal within the same time frame as UK residents can.

I brought the regulations to the Committee for Social Development, which considered them at its meeting on 13 September 2007 and recommended that they be approved by the Assembly.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Committee for Social Development considered The Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 on 13 September 2007. The regulations are a parity measure and amend various pieces of legislation on child support maintenance payments. They update and amend child support legislation to bring it into line with changes that had been made to other pieces of Government legislation, but specifically they amend the definition of taxable profits and extend the period in which appeals against certain orders are permitted.

At its meeting on 13 September, the Committee agreed to recommend that the regulations be confirmed by the Assembly.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister has confirmed that she intends to wind up the existing Child Support Agency and deliver the new arrangements directly through the Department for Social Development. Can she confirm that none of the new arrangements will be privatised and that they will continue to be administered by civil servants? How effective does the Minister consider that the new scheme will be, in light of the fact that we have been told that up to 40% of social security staff may lose their jobs?

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I presume that there will be no further comments about those orders. Therefore, I thank Members for their contributions to the discussions about the regulations.

The Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 make small but important changes to the current child support scheme. Protecting and safeguarding children is pivotal and crucial and, above all, is the attempt to deal with child poverty by ensuring that those responsible for the maintenance of those children are addressed and live up to expectations.

The Member for Newry and Armagh Mr Brady raised a significant issue relating to the future delivery of child support in Northern Ireland. I decided that staff should be brought into the mainstream of the Civil Service, in the Department for Social Development, thereby safeguarding their needs and ensuring that they remain part of the Civil Service.

Regarding the other aspects of his comments, I have concluded that the existing Northern Ireland Child Support Agency should be wound up and that the delivery of its services should be brought under the direct control of my Department. In reaching that decision, I took account of the different scale of service that is provided here, as well as the need to maintain a focus on improving services to clients.

On the matter of jobs, the size of the new child support organisation in the Department has not yet been determined. However, I will investigate and explore that issue and will, undoubtedly, address the Committee about it. Meanwhile, I have been conscious of the need to protect the jobs in a large part of my organisation by ensuring that staff were brought into the Civil Service. That decision reflects the recommendations that were made in 2006 in Sir David Henshaw’s report, ‘Recovering child support: routes to responsibility’. In this case, I felt that the requirement to put such a decision to a non-departmental public body was not justified.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/347) be approved.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill dealing with the use of information, which are contained in clause 39 of, and paragraphs 4 to 6 of Schedule 6 to, that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons.

The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 June 2007 and contains measures to take forward several proposals that were set out in the Government’s White Paper, ‘A new system of child maintenance’. The aim is to tackle child poverty by ensuring that more parents take responsibility for paying for their children and, consequently, that more children benefit.

Among other things, the Bill proposes the establish­ment of a new non-departmental public body — the child maintenance and enforcement commission — to promote parental responsibility and choice about how maintenance payments are arranged and, when arrange­ments break down, to improve the calculation, collection and enforcement of child maintenance. The comm­ission’s remit will not extend to Northern Ireland. However, in order to function effectively, it will be necessary for the commission to exchange information with its counterpart in Northern Ireland to ensure that non-resident parents who move between Great Britain and Northern Ireland can be held to account if they are seen to evade their responsibilities.

There is provision for the two-way exchange of information held by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Department for Social Development and the Department for Employment and Learning, relating to social security, child support, war pensions and employment and training. New provisions are needed to ensure the continuing flow of that information when the child support function moves from the Department for Work and Pensions to the commission.

The Minister for Employment and Learning, the Member for East Belfast Sir Reg Empey, has indicated to me that he is content that information held by his Department relating to employment and training may be shared with the proposed child maintenance and enforcement commission.

As the subject is a transferred matter under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, approval for the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill must be sought from the Executive Committee, the Committee for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Executive Committee and the Committee for Social Development considered the matter and gave their approval on 13 September.

The Assembly must now consider the principle of extending to Northern Ireland the provisions in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill that deal with the two-way exchange of information. The exchange of information will benefit families in Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the two child support organisations will be able to work together to ensure that maintenance flows to the greatest possible number of children throughout Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I hope that Members will agree with me and support the motion.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister wrote to the Committee for Social Development on 19 August to notify members of the Westminster Government’s intention to legislate on a provision, included in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, which would extend to Northern Ireland. The Bill will establish a new child maintenance and enforcement commission. Although that commission will not operate in Northern Ireland, as the Minister has said, it will take over the child support function currently carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions.

At present, there is provision for the two-way exchange of information held by the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Social Development and the Department for Employment and Learning. That information covers social security, child support, war pensions and employment and training.

The provision in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill that extends to Northern Ireland is purely technical; it will simply enable the present arrangements for the exchange of information to continue between the Department for Social Development and the new commission. It will allow non-resident parents who move between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue to be held to account if they are found to be evading their financial obligations.

The Committee for Social Development considered the matter at its meeting on 13 September 2007 and agreed to support the inclusion of the provision in the Bill.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister accept that the words “child main­tenance” are much more relevant than “child support”? The Child Support Agency was an abysmal failure and did little to support those whom it was originally set up to help?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for bringing the legislation to the Assembly. Will she assure the House that the transition of the Child Support Agency into the Department will benefit from full consultation with staff and the Committee?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s statement about the legislation, and I wish to ask several questions. I am sure that she shared my great concerns about the Child Support Agency, not least the fact that every time one tried to contact that office, one spoke to a different person. It seemed as though there was a game of musical chairs going on there.

During 2004-05, there were more than 9,000 applications for child maintenance, but just short of 2,500 calculations were completed. During 2005-06, there were, again, approximately 9,000 applications, but just short of 3,000 calculations were completed. Last year, there were 8,800 applications, but only 3,000 of those were cleared. Will the Minister assure Members that the new organisation will do a better job than the Child Support Agency has done in the past?

I have been receiving, as I am sure other Members have, a lot of correspondence on staffing issues. Will the Minister assure Members that — after the transfer of responsibility and the move of office — those who presently work in the Child Support Agency will be given other oppor­tunities in the Civil Service in the Province? Is the Minister hoping to address the staffing issue through natural wastage? A lot of people want to stay in the Civil Service and want to be involved in that work. Members need an assurance that those issues are being considered.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. The question that I wished to ask has already been answered.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank Members for their contributions, and I also thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development for his support and that of his Committee.

Micky Brady, Anna Lo and Jim Shannon have raised several issues. The purpose of the motion and the legislation is to ensure that child poverty is tackled; that people live up to their commitments in respect of child maintenance; and that every action is taken to ensure that that happens. Therefore, whether it is called support or maintenance, the important issue is that maintenance is paid, that maintenance is pursued, and that the people who deserve it actually receive it.

In response to Ms Lo’s question, I want to ensure that Northern Ireland has the best possible system for delivering child maintenance/support, and, above all, that we have the best possible delivery to ensure that child poverty is tackled — that is the most significant issue.

As I said earlier, I have concluded that the existing Northern Ireland Child Support Agency should be wound up, and that relevant service delivery should be brought under the control of my Department. In reaching that decision, I took account of the different scale of the service that is provided in Northern Ireland, and the need to maintain the focus on improving the service to clients.

Members will recall that, in GB, Sir David Henshaw was appointed to undertake a review into the operation and delivery of child support because of the very reasons that Jim Shannon referred to — the delays and the difficulties in the system in getting payments to children and to their respective parents. I wanted to be able to correct that, but I also wanted to reflect the Northern Ireland situation. That is why I decided, some weeks ago, to bring the Child Support Agency within the remit of the Department for Social Development.

Mr Shannon raised significant issues about employ­ment. As I said earlier, the size of the new child support agency organisation has not yet been determined. Therefore, I am not in a position to assess the impact on staffing levels. I will come back to the Committee for Social Development, and to respective Members who have raised queries about that particular issue.

I intend to introduce a Bill that will reform the present child support system, create a simple system that enables and encourages parents to make their own arrangements, but delivers firmly and more effectively for parents who need help in arranging maintenance.

There will be a consultation process on that Bill. As Minister, I want to do the best that I can to ensure that issues of child maintenance are addressed, that those who need to deliver that maintenance — namely, the absent fathers — do so, and that I have the staff and the capacity to do that.

Whatever happens, we must improve the system and dilute the causes of past criticism. We must deliver the payment to those who most need it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill dealing with the use of information, which are contained in clause 39 of, and paragraphs 4 to 6 of Schedule 6 to, that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons.

Private Members’ Business

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been received and has been published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for a winding-up speech.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly opposes the introduction of the proposed guidelines on the termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland; believes that the guidelines are flawed; and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to abandon any attempt to make abortion more widely available in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate, but I very much regret that I, as Chairman of the Health Committee, was not informed of the Ulster Unionist Party amendment as a matter of courtesy.

In our deliberations, it is essential that we recognise Lord Justice Nicholson’s recent judgement, which endorsed the existing legislative position in Northern Ireland. He suggested that guidance be produced, and he stated:

“This judgment is written in the hope that the department will seek to reduce the number of women and girls going away to seek an abortion and to encourage those seeking an abortion in Northern Ireland to make a different choice. It must surely be the concern of all right-thinking persons in the United Kingdom that the number of abortions which are carried out is so high.”

I also wish to point out that, before this afternoon’s debate, my colleague Jeffrey Donaldson and I received a petition in support of our motion containing approx­imately 120,000 signatures. That petition started in early January in shopping malls, and so forth. I have no doubt that, had there been more time and more people available to collect signatures, there would have been a considerably greater number of signatures in support of the motion.

Owing to the recent postcard campaign in support of the motion, my mailbag has never been so heavy. I congratulate those who were responsible for that campaign, the sentiment of which we should all recognise. We must commit ourselves to changing the situation for the better. In order to see the number of abortions genuinely fall, a holistic approach is required, right across our society. Abortion is an issue on which I have strong Christian convictions. The sanctity of life is my overriding concern.

Better statistical records must be maintained on abortions. The current lack of information was criticised by Lord Justice Nicholson. Health workers admit that abortions occur solely on account of foetal abnormalities, but that is illegal under Northern Ireland law. No wonder some are suspicious that detailed records are purposely not being kept in order to conceal what is actually going on.

I urge that better records be kept on the physical and psychological complications that arise from abortions. I have been informed that, during a presentation given by Dr Harith Lamki in 2000, he stated that post-mortems are conducted after all abortions that are carried out for reasons of foetal abnormality.

I would like to discover the location of those records. As Chairperson of the Health Committee, I propose that the Committee seeks the records for those post mortems that have been carried out on foetuses. Dr Lamki from the Royal Victoria Hospital should appear before the Health Committee and give it some explanation about those records, which are being kept in secret.

Important child-protection issues are raised when under 14s seek abortions. There should be no secret abortions. Compared to all other rights and consider­ations, the confidentiality of young teenagers seems to have become paramount. Health professionals must fulfil their legal obligations towards the under 14s. Immature children should not be solely responsible for decisions that they may not have the competence or experience to make.

I am also informed that under paragraph 2.13 of the draft guidelines, which mentions forced abortions, in the cases of children who do not really want abortions, health professionals have the overriding right to insist that those children have abortions. It will cause all of us a great deal of concern to know that parents are not to be included in such decisions.

We must ensure that the Health Service gives strong protection to conscientious objectors who do not want to have any part in assisting with abortions either on grounds of faith or otherwise. That term is used on the mainland; however, it is important to flag up that such people should not be forced to carry out abortions.

Abortion hurts women. It hurts their minds, hearts, bodies, and relationships with other people. I emphasise that there are no maternal deaths in this jurisdiction due to not having an abortion. There are no unsafe abortions in Northern Ireland. There is no medical condition that requires direct abortion.

If we are really concerned about the experience and quality of life of women in Northern Ireland, we will do everything that we can to reduce the number of abortions that occur.

As I said earlier, I am committed to the sanctity of life, and I am determined to prioritise women’s health. That is why I care deeply about abortion. Some people suggest that abortion offers a solution — I simply cannot agree. In truth, abortion does not bring solutions; it brings only pain, heartache, and loss. We can say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but many women come to my surgery carrying guilt that, generally speaking, they will carry to their graves.

Abortion is bad for babies, women, families, and society. Women face potential safety issues as a result of having an abortion. The number of deaths is very small, but damage, or infection, to the uterus or fallopian tubes may occur and may lead to infertility. Menstrual difficulties can also result. Women may suffer significant emotional trauma. There is also some evidence that having an abortion may increase a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, although the results of studies on that are not consistent.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal was criticised for publishing data outlining the psychological side effects of abortion. In an editorial, the journal was forced to state:

“we cannot toss out data any time we don’t like their implications”.

An opinion piece by Breda O’Brien in ‘The Irish Times’ on Saturday reflected on last Wednesday’s ‘Dispatches’ programme on Channel 4, which screened graphic images of abortions and their aftermath. A surgeon of a Marie Stopes International clinic, who carried out late-term abortions, was interviewed for the programme. Even at the relatively early stage of 12 to 13 weeks, foetuses had to be dismembered.

The surgeon admitted that he did not go into the details of what is involved when women have the procedure, because it is too upsetting.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Is my honourable friend and the House aware that a petition of more than 100,000 signatures opposing the guidelines was presented to the Assembly this morning? If Members wish to see those signatures from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, they are in the Rotunda, stacked in boxes. Does the honourable Member agree that it is clear that there is overwhelming public opposition to the draft guidelines and that the Assembly should take that fact into account?

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for that point. I totally concur with him that a vast number of people signed the petition. Earlier in my speech, I referred to the 120,000 signatures that had been collected and which were presented to the Assembly this morning.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member referred to Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’. Does she agree that, if the guidelines were introduced in Northern Ireland, in one part of a hospital, doctors would be aborting children — dismembering legs and arms — while in another part of the same hospital, doctors in an intensive care unit would be trying to bring children back to life?

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

The Member must have read my speech, because I was about to refer to that issue. The contradiction is so sad; on the one hand, there are doctors who are fighting for the life of a child who has arrived prematurely —

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

Will the Member please bring her remarks to a close?

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

On the other hand, there are doctors who are dragging a foetus out of a woman’s body. If that foetus had lived, it would probably have been a very healthy child.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert

“calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, following consultation with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to bring forward guidelines on the lawful termination of pregnancy, as defined by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, and the Bourne Judgment case law, and in accordance with the ruling of the Courts.”

As we debate the motion and the amendment, I am sure that all sides of the House, including the proposers of the motion, will share my view that the difficult, painful and divisive issue of abortion should not be deployed for partisan political ends. I also trust that all Members who speak today willingly accept that, whatever debate we might have at some stage on the Abortion Act 1967, today is not the day for that debate. That is because, without the devolution of policing and justice powers, the House, under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, does not have the authority to change or overturn the existing legal position on abortion in this part of the United Kingdom. The amendment clearly restates and reaffirms the existing legal position.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Is the Member aware that the Secretary of State, in response to a question that I tabled in the House of Commons, stated clearly that Parliament would not legislate on abortion without having regard to the views of the Assembly? Does he accept that today is an opportunity to put down a clear marker on the issue?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I thank the Rt Hon Member for his intervention. My answer is yes, which will become clear later in my speech.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Member also accept that the majority of people in Northern Ireland — from all faiths and none — would baulk if any Government or legislative assembly insisted on softening the 1967 Act?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the honourable Member’s comment. My speech will clarify that the UUP amendment is about obeying rather than softening the law.

Under the provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 and the Bourne judgement of 1939, abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland except where it is necessary to save the life of the mother or where continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk of serious injury to her physical or mental health.

The amendment explicitly states that any guidelines issued by the Department of Health with regard to the lawful termination of pregnancy must be entirely consistent with that legal framework as it stands.

The vote in this House in June 2000 demonstrated that there is no indication that the Northern Ireland Assembly is minded to change the existing law on abortion. What is more, in another place, Her Majesty’s Government have stated that it is not their intention to seek to bypass this House on the matter. As recently as July 2007, Her Majesty’s Government declared:

“The Government have no plans to amend the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. We believe the best forum for discussion of these questions is the Northern Ireland Assembly, once it has assumed responsibility for the criminal law.”

That is the settled position in law. “Law” — that is the word that is, or should be, central in today’s debate. In October 2004, the courts instructed the Department to issue appropriate guidance on the lawful termination of pregnancy. That positive duty is mentioned nowhere in the motion that has been proposed by Mr Donaldson and Mrs Robinson. Members will rightly be concerned that Ministers are subject to the rule of law. None of us, I assume, wishes Ministers to exercise arbitrary power or to dismiss the courts as an inconvenience.

Whatever the merit of the motion’s commitment to the existing legal position in respect of abortion, it has overlooked the fact that the Minister is not — and should not be — free to ignore the rulings of the courts. In his judgment, Lord Justice Nicholson stated that:

“In this case the court is only concerned with the … department’s responsibilities in regard to abortion under the legal framework established by Parliament … The outcome of this appeal does not entitle anyone to claim that as a result the law should be liberalized.”

The purpose of the guidelines that the Minister and his Department have been instructed by the courts to issue cannot and should not undermine the legal framework established by Parliament; that is, the existing legal position.

Let me make it absolutely clear, as the proposer of the amendment, that I do not support the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland, nor do I support abortion on demand.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Does the Member agree that, although the concerns that were expressed by the proposer of the motion are shared by many in this Chamber, if we wish to have a formal debate on the specific matter of the Abortion Act 1967, it would be better to have it under that title, rather than debating around the guidelines for the current situation?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I agree, and I thank the honourable Member for that useful intervention.

The amendment calls on the Minister to work with the Health Committee in bringing forth the guidelines. It will be obvious to Members that one of the proposers of the motion is also the Chairperson of the Health Committee. Of course, I also am a member of the Health Committee. I am sure that, under her robust chairmanship, the Committee will seek to ensure that all the concerns of this House on the guidelines are addressed. As she rightly said, she will be guided by Christian values that are of course shared by others on that Committee.

The amendment has nothing to do with, in the words of the court, liberalising the law in Northern Ireland with regard to abortion. I would not be supporting or speaking for such an amendment. This amendment is about the rule of law. The guidelines issued by the Department must be consistent with the law on abortion as it stands. The Minister and the Department are not free to arbitrarily ignore the court’s instruction to issue guidelines.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can the Member clarify for the House whether he believes that the proposed guidelines, as published, are consistent with the legal provisions that his amendment mentions?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The proposed guidelines will come before the Health Committee, and that is where they will be subjected to serious scrutiny. At the moment they are only draft guidelines.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am trying to understand why the Member opposes the motion. The motion simply opposes the introduction of the “proposed guidelines” — he has just used that phrase. It does not prohibit the Minister from bringing forward other guidelines and taking those to the Health Committee. It says that the guidelines, as proposed, are unacceptable and that any attempt to make abortion more widely available is unacceptable. As I understand it, the honourable Member accepts both points, but I need to be clear: does he see the current guidelines as flawed? Does he oppose their introduction? If so, why can he not support the motion?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The Minister and his Department have no option but to bring forward guidelines that are within the law. As Lord Justice Nicholson said, it is not about liberalising the law. If the Member reads the judgment that I quoted, it will be clear to him that this is not about liberalising the law on abortion. I do not support liberalising the law on abortion.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I had better.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the honourable Member realise that an amendment has been proposed in the House of Commons by a Liberal MP, almost as we speak, to extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland? Whereas my party’s motion will send a clear message to Westminster that that is not acceptable, his amendment, if passed, will send it a very woolly motion that will mean nothing.

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

Time is up. I am sorry.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin supports both the amendment and the motion.

It is hardly surprising that ethics and morality are at the heart of the debate. The guidelines that are the subject of the debate have yet to be tabled or discussed at the Health Committee.

The Assembly’s debate on abortion in 2000 was primarily about the Abortion Act 1967. At that time, my colleague Mary Nelis remarked that we need an:

“honest and reasoned debate on what is a tragic dilemma for women.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 5, p221, col 2].

I concur with that.

The draft or proposed guidelines are a direct result of the Family Planning Association’s application for judicial review, which obliged the Department of Health to produce a set of guidelines which will protect staff. The guidelines are not about the extension of the British Abortion Act 1967. The Family Planning Association initiated the judicial review process because there were too many inconsistencies in the provision of abortion in the North of Ireland. Those inconsistencies resulted in many years of confusion about legal protection for professionals who might be asked to participate in an abortion which could be deemed illegal, and who might then be open to prosecution. The draft or proposed guidelines will address those issues, which, for many years, it has been easier and more comfortable to ignore.

The purpose of any guidelines must be to outline the law relating to the termination of pregnancy in the North. Sinn Féin is not in favour of abortion. It is against the extension of the British Abortion Act 1967 to the North of Ireland. We believe that all possible education and support services should be put in place to protect crisis pregnancies. Sinn Féin does not support any attempt to make abortion more widely available; however, it accepts that health professionals working in that field need to have clear guidance. My party has been consistent in its approach. When the abortion issue was discussed in the last Assembly, Sinn Féin placed on record its firm opposition to the extension to the North of the British Abortion Act 1967. Sinn Féin believes that this complex matter should be referred to the Health Committee.

Irish society has a responsibility to address the fact that between 5,000 and 10,000 women travel from every part of Ireland to Britain for abortions each year.

Sinn Féin’s view is that the way to tackle crisis pregnancies and abortions is through comprehensive sex education, full access to affordable childcare and comprehensive support services that include financial support for single parents.

My party opposes the attitudes and forces in society that pressure women to have abortions. Equally, my party opposes those who criminalise women who make that tough decision. In cases of rape, incest, sexual abuse or when a women’s life or health is in grave danger, Sinn Féin accepts that the final decision must rest with the woman.

My party supports the principle that there should not be any attempt to make abortion more widely available in the North. Guidelines should be discussed by the Health Committee in the first instance, a discussion that should be based on information and be within the parameters of current legislation. That position has guided my party’s attitude to the debate. Therefore, Sinn Féin will support the amendment and, indeed, the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I support the motion. At the outset, I want to pass on my colleague Dominic Bradley’s apologies to the House. He had hoped to be present to speak on the motion.

As a party that was born out of the civil rights movement, the SDLP believes that the right to life is the most basic right of all. That includes the right to life of the unborn. My party has been consistently opposed to the taking of life, whether it be the life of Paul Quinn, who was so brutally murdered in Monaghan at the weekend; life that was lost during the civil conflict that society has endured for the past four decades; or life that is taken by the state through capital punishment. It is for that reason that the SDLP opposes abortion, upholds the right to life of the foetus and opposes the extension of the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland.

The Assembly must approach the matter of unwanted pregnancy with the utmost compassion and support for the pregnant woman. Fortunately, the stigma of illegitimacy has almost been banished from society. However, much more support must be provided for mothers and the family unit. I pay tribute to the care and compassion that has been shown by the statutory agencies, as well as voluntary agencies such as CURA and LIFE Ireland.

As the SDLP’s health spokesperson, I responded to the Department’s draft guidance on the termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland that was issued in January 2007. I registered my concerns about the implications of the proposed new guidelines, particularly their non-specific nature, because I believe that they could lead to a relaxation of the restrictions on abortion in Northern Ireland. The Court of Appeal ruling in October 2004 ordered the Department to draw up the guidance on which abortions can be carried out under the law, on the foot of a challenge by the Family Planning Association. The court’s judgement did not indicate that the law should be liberalised in any way, yet the draft guidance appears to do just that.

If the draft guidance is implemented, it will have significant moral, ethical and resource implications for the Health Service. At present, abortion is only permitted in Northern Ireland if the mother’s life is in danger or if there is a serious long-term threat to her mental and physical health. Otherwise, abortion can be deemed a criminal act. Some case law has held that abortion is not always prohibited. Clear and concise guidelines are absolutely essential in order to end the current uncertainty. The draft guidelines are ambiguous and open to various interpretations. Terms such as “quality of life” and “serious adverse harm” are not defined. Interpretations will vary from one medical professional to another.

Not only do doctors need strong guidance, but the pregnant woman also needs as much information as possible on the support that is available to her during and after her pregnancy. If the woman’s doctor considers that her condition warrants an abortion, she must understand clearly the reasons for that and what exactly the doctor proposes. The terminology is vague and uncertain. There is concern that the statistics that are provided by the Department have been underestimated. Closer monitoring and information gathering is needed in order to ensure that much more accurate data is available.

Finally, I express my concern that the draft guidance was not placed on the central consultation register for Northern Ireland Departments, nor publicly circulated, given the controversial nature of the issue.

I ask the Minister to ensure: that the draft guidance is re-drafted for clarity and to remove ambiguity; that there is much wider consultation, not just to the Health Committee, as stated in the amendment; and that there is no relaxation in the interpretation of the law.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

First, I wish to state that I am speaking in a personal capacity. The Alliance Party regards abortion as a matter of conscience for individual Members, who each hold their own views. I oppose the motion and support the amendment. As a former social worker and community worker, I have supported women and families who were faced with the stress and consequences of unplanned pregnancies, which are a reality in our society.

In 2005, 1,164 women from Northern Ireland travelled to England to have an abortion. Many others went to other parts of Europe for abortions. The Abortion Act 1967 does not extend to Northern Ireland. Abortion is only legal under certain circumstances — something which has caused confusion and ambiguities in Northern Ireland. There is confusion in communities — particularly among those people who come from other parts of the UK, or other countries — about what is and is not permitted under the law.

Depending on where one lives, there are inconsist­encies throughout Northern Ireland about where abortion services may or may not be available. In addition, some health staff may have conscientious objections to abortion and may be unsure about their employment rights if they refuse to participate in performing a termination.

As we have heard, the Department issued draft guidelines to clarify the legal position and give guidance to health professionals on service provision following the Court of Appeal decision, which was instigated by the Family Planning Association. I have read through those guidelines, which were produced by a working group comprising representatives from a range of professional and specialist backgrounds. I welcome the guidelines. The Department has also received many responses from the public and from interested parties.

The guidelines are not about extending the provision of abortion to Northern Ireland or about bringing the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland. Lord Justice Nicholson made it clear that his ruling did not mean that the law should be liberalised. The guidelines provide clearer directions to health professionals on procedures and practice and, ultimately, will improve the quality of service to women who are often confused when facing such a situation in their lives.

Of course, there are criticisms from the voluntary sector about gaps on many issues such as informed consent, referrals, information-giving and so on. The draft guidelines are a good basis on which to formulate guidance. The Department and the Health Committee should consider carefully the views from the consult­ation and should take into account all of the relevant suggestions that could be incorporated into the final guidelines.

Abortion is an emotive issue. The motion to oppose the introduction of the proposed guidelines is an attempt to whip up emotions and sabotage the aim of the Department and the Law Courts, which is to provide health workers with a better understanding of the principles of the law and guidance for better practice for all. It is important that we are clear that the House is not debating whether abortion should be legalised in Northern Ireland.

It is essential that the scrutiny of the draft guidelines be left to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Committee can call for evidence from relevant bodies, and thus ensure that it is well informed to make a sound judgement on the guidelines.

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

Order. Members will be aware that Question Time will begin at 2.30 pm. I therefore ask Members to take their ease until then. The debate will resume at the end of Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

First Minister and deputy First Minister

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail what engagements have been carried out by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in the past seven days. (AQO 580/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On Monday 15 October, the First Minister and I met a group of senior diplomats from around the world who were on a one-day visit to Belfast. We also met Lord Ashdown and his team on the strategic review of parading.

On Tuesday 16 October, the First Minister and I hosted a lunch for the US ambassadors to Ireland and Britain and a group of senior business people as part of the preparation for the Executive’s investment confer­ence, due to be held in May 2008. The First Minister also hosted a meeting of leading church representatives to facilitate a discussion on the proposed charities Bill.

On Wednesday 17 October, we jointly met a number of representatives to discuss the Maze/Long Kesh regeneration. That was followed by a meeting with the Commissioner for Public Appointments and attendance at a lunch hosted by the Speaker to mark the visit of the President of Croatia. We also held a private meeting with the Croatian President and his delegation.

On Thursday 18 October, the First Minister was involved in the launch at Parliament Buildings of the ‘Northern Corridor — Railway Renaissance’ report by the Northern Corridor Railways Group. As scheduled, we chaired a meeting of the Executive Committee.

On Friday 19 October, we both carried out a range of non-ministerial engagements, including constituency business. In addition to those engagements, we dealt with a significant number of departmental policy and Executive papers, Assembly Questions and other matters relating to our ministerial roles.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, arís a Cheann Comhairle. Will the deputy First Minister provide some detail about the meeting with the US ambassadors Tuttle and Foley?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Last Tuesday, the First Minister and I hosted a very successful lunch for the representatives of 17 blue-chip US companies, accomp­anied by Bob Tuttle, the US ambassador to the UK and Tom Foley, the US ambassador to Ireland. Together with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, we had the opportunity to brief them on the exciting economic opportunities here, and to encourage them to consider investing. The visit was initiated by President Bush’s special envoy, Paula Dobriansky, as part of her very effective focus in securing support for the planned investment conference here next May. We believe that the conference will mark a massive step forward in helping to grow a dynamic and innovative economy, which is one of the key priorities in our draft Programme for Government. We look forward to debating the draft programme in the House later this week.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the deputy First Minister join me in condemning without any equivocation the brutal murder of Mr Paul Quinn from Cullyhanna at the weekend? Given his own role as a major figure in the republican movement, will the deputy First Minister publicly use his position of influence to ensure that the individuals responsible for this murder are identified and dealt with by the lawful authorities in both jurisdictions, irrespective of their background or political leanings?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have no problem whatsoever in agreeing with everything that the Member has said. This was a dastardly murder, carried out by criminals in my opinion, and I speak with the full authority of the House when I say that we all send our sympathy to that poor man’s family. It was disgraceful, and I appeal to anyone who has any information, no matter who they are, to give that information both to the Garda Síochána and to the Police Service here in the North; that is the only course that is open to them. These activities are absolutely disgusting and have no place whatsoever in a civilised society.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I call Mr Ford, I say again to Members on all sides of the House that supplementary questions must relate to the original question.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I associate myself and my colleagues with Mr Kennedy’s remarks.

Given that the deputy First Minister and his colleagues have not found time between June and last week’s Executive meeting to discuss the conflict transformation initiative, will the deputy First Minister now give a commitment to the House that the Executive will collectively ensure that funding of that initiative is brought to an end and that the wish of the great majority of people is carried through?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That issue has been marked more by fiction than by fact. I speak on behalf of everyone on the Executive when I say that I am absolutely opposed to any funding whatsoever going to the UDA, whether it decommissions its weapons or not. The funding that was introduced by Peter Hain was irregular; it was wrong, and it should never have been introduced. The decision that was made by the Minister for Social Development was absolutely correct.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to give an assessment of the ‘Challenge of Change’ cross-border anti-racism initiative. (AQO 581/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On behalf of the First Minister and myself, I had the pleasure of launching the Challenge of Change initiative on 3 October. I reiterate my congratulations to Newry and Mourne District Council and Louth County Council on securing significant European funding for that important work. Both areas, in common with many other areas here and in the South, have seen unprecedented growth in the diversity of their population over recent years. That offers enormous economic, social and cultural benefits. However, it also brings substantial challenges, in particular to ensure that all who choose to come and live here have the opportunity to participate fully in our society. Our public services face a particular challenge: if we do not promote racial equality in how we deliver services, we will risk promoting racial inequality. It is essential that everyone has access to opportunities and similar life chances. At the local level, the challenges must be met and the benefits of our increasing diversity must be secured. Office of the First and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) commends the initiative of both councils in establishing the Challenge of Change project. We are confident that it will yield benefits for service users locally and important lessons for us all.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can the deputy First Minister give an update on when the Peace III operational programme funding will become available?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am pleased that we have secured a third special EU peace programme. Including matched funding, Peace III will be worth €330 million from 2007 to 2013. That is a shared allocation between the Executive and the Irish Government. The Peace III budget is smaller than those of previous EU peace programmes. Following enlargement, the EU has faced significant challenges of political and economic transformation in many of the new member states. To have secured funding for a third EU peace programme in those circumstances represents a significant achieve­ment. The draft Peace III operational programme has been submitted to the European Commission for approval. We look forward to agreement with the European Commission on the new programme so that it can open for applications later this year.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Will the deputy First Minister agree that change in diversity will come only when the lead parties in the Assembly stop pursuing their linguistic agendas ahead of the economic agendas?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is a mighty responsibility, not only on the two larger parties but on all of the parties in the Assembly, to show leadership in the community. All parties must recognise that newcomers are arriving on our shores, North and South, and that that represents major challenges. To use the question to open up another debate on another argument — I presume about the Irish language — is a bit of a liberty and a mistake. Ensuring that people are treated with fairness and equality is the responsibility not only of the two larger parties but all of the parties in the Assembly. I am delighted to say that all of the parties in the Assembly, and many local government agencies, are now working hard to ensure that people who come here are not only welcomed, but given the essential support that they deserve.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Can the Minister assure me that the anti-racism initiative will be part of a local strategy to promote racial equality, especially in hotspots, where racism must be proactively challenged?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree. The initiative that Newry and Mourne District Council and Louth Local Authorities took demonstrates that local authorities and people in different parts of the country are facing up to the huge challenges before us. There has been a recent increase in racist attacks, and we have a huge responsibility to do everything in our power to ensure that we defend the rights of people who come here, many of whom feel isolated, lonely and vulnerable.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what plans it has to promote Northern Ireland in the United States of America and in Europe. (AQO 503/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Promotion in the United States and Europe is a high priority for OFMDFM. The bureau in Washington promotes several priority sectors to key audiences in the United States, including politicians, businesspeople, academics, research institutions and cultural organisations. We are also engaged in several major initiatives to encourage investment and visits from the United States.

Invest NI and the bureau are working with the US State Department and US businesses to bring over several economic missions in the next few months. We will travel to Washington, DC, and other major US cities to plan an economic conference for early 2008. OFMDFM will work with Minister Dodds and meet chief executives of major US corporations to promote the investment message.

The First Minister and I hope to travel to Brussels before Christmas to hear, at first hand, about the progress made by the European Commission Task Force, the establishment of which the Commission’s President Barroso announced on 1 May 2007. Our planned visit follows on from a series of visits by Ministers over the past six months: several Executive colleagues, including both junior Ministers and I, have visited Brussels and met senior politicians and officials on departmental business. Such a level of personal engagement is important in keeping the North in the minds of our European partners. It demonstrates to those in the European institutions, in addition to potential investors, tourists and regional and industrial partners, that we are open for business.

I commend the work of the Executive’s Brussels office, which supports Ministers and officials when they visit the city. To ensure that the North’s interests are taken into account as policies are developed, it also assists Departments in their monitoring of policy and legislative proposals that are working their way through the institutions. The office works with other regional offices to promote a positive image, most recently by participating, with other regional offices, in the European open-day event that promoted Europe’s regions and cities. The office also makes its facilities, expertise and advice available to local government and civil society representatives to assist them in their dealings with the European institutions.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his detailed response that outlined the situations in the United States and Europe. Does the Minister agree that there is tremendous goodwill in the USA and Europe towards the people of Northern Ireland and the Assembly? Does he agree that it is time to promote Northern Ireland and to encourage businesses to set up here and create employment, which would benefit everyone? Will stronger trade links be established between businesses in Northern Ireland and those in USA and Europe?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I recently visited the United States at the same time as Ministers Poots and Empey. There, the phenomenal interest in the political developments over recent months is obvious. A tremendous sense of goodwill and support emanates from everyone that we meet on our visits to the United States. In all probability, the most important economic-investment conference ever to be held here will take place in about May 2008. In the lead-up to that conference, further economic missions will come over from the United States. That demonstrates that people in the United States have a huge interest in the situation here and are seriously considering investing in this part of the world.

There is a limited window of opportunity because the presidential election campaign kicks off, big time, early in 2008. Therefore, the period between now and May 2008 is critical. We must take advantage of that opportunity, but we are being well supported. The visit by Ambassador Tuttle and Ambassador Foley and the level of interest being shown by Paula Dobriansky at the State Department clearly show that there is enormous goodwill for all the work that we are doing. If the economic investment conference is successful, and if we secure more highly paid, quality jobs for our young people, that will have a massive effect on the battle that we are fighting to ensure that the economic prospects for all our people are improved.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that, in promoting any part of Ireland, a key target group is those of Irish descent, and that that is particularly true in the United States? Will the deputy First Minister provide an update of any discussions that he has had with the Dublin Government in relation to the promotion of the island? As a representative of a constituency that has been starved of foreign inward investment for many years, does he see any role —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Supplementary questions should relate to the original question. I have to rule that supplementary question out of order. It does not, in any way, relate to the original question.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I will try to stay on the subject. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the fundamental purpose of our Washington office differs from that of the European office, in that it is primarily geared towards attracting new business and inward investment to Northern Ireland? To that end, does he believe that the office should, therefore, be business led rather than managed by the Civil Service?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The experiences of recent years were a result of the circumstances of the time. However, we now find ourselves in a wholly new situation as a result of restoration of the institutions. As I said in an earlier answer, there is huge interest in the United States and in Irish America. Many Irish-American companies have shown tremendous interest. Much of the work that has been done by the Irish Government has assisted our efforts to generate interest in attempts to bring about an approach whereby everywhere on the island will benefit, but, particularly here in the North, because we have had such uneven development in recent times.

There are big questions for us to answer in respect of the Washington bureau, and how we take its work forward. There will be a change in the leadership of the bureau in the next few weeks. On 1 November, Norman Houston takes up his position as director of the bureau. The challenges that lie ahead must take into account the points that Mr McCallister has just made.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail what arrangements have been made for the North/South Ministerial Council to meet in ‘institutional format’; and the issues that will be under discussion at that meeting. (AQO 579/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

At its plenary meeting on 17 July 2007, the North/South Ministerial Council agreed to hold a meeting in institutional format in October 2007. The North/South Ministerial Council secretariat is currently finalising arrangements for that meeting. We will give the Executive and the Assembly details of the date, agenda and ministerial attendance for the meeting when those have been finalised and agreed. Following the meeting, a report will be made to the Executive and to the Assembly.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the deputy First Minister update the House on the establishment of the review of areas of North/South co-operation and of the all-Ireland implementation bodies? Furthermore, will he provide details of the two advisers from the Executive who will be appointed to that review?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The review will be undertaken by a review group, which will report to the North/South Ministerial Council. The review group includes senior officials from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the North/South Ministerial Council secretariat. The review group will include an advisory panel of four expert advisers, two of whom will be nominated by the Executive and two of whom will be nominated by the Irish Government.

The two expert advisers appointed by the Executive are Peter King and Sean Oliver.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Can the deputy First Minister confirm that the mode of operation of the North/South Ministerial Council remains unchanged from the protocol of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 and the British-Irish Agreement of 2 December 1999, including meetings in the institutional format?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The North/South Ministerial Council is what it is.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Would it be possible for Ministers representing both Administrations, meeting in the institutional format, to discuss the possibility of a new study of the obstacles to mobility to take account of new issues that are arising — particularly in, but not confined to, border areas — including access to and eligibility for services, as well as the question of residential requirements that are imposed on different services? That is a matter that must be looked at in the round if politicians are to find sensible answers for service providers and service users.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have no doubt that that issue, among a range of others, will be discussed. There is no doubt that many people on both sides of the border face huge difficulties and obstacles to mobility. There are some very human stories — none of which I will relate to the House today — of people experiencing massive difficulties as a result of the obstacles. There is a willingness on all sides, which was shown at the last meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in Armagh, to discuss those matters with a view to resolving them.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the next steps it will take in tackling racism and sectarianism. (AQO 582/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I have consistently committed ourselves and the Executive to the elimination of sectarianism and racism. Hate crime, in any form, is unacceptable. Recent PSNI statistics show a mixed picture: although there has been a decrease in sectarian crimes and incidents, the number of racial crimes rose from 746 to 861, which is an increase of 15%. Racial incidents also rose from 936 to 1,047, which is a 12% increase. The issues that sectarian and racist attacks raise — as well as the broader issue of racial equality — concern all sections of society. No community can be complacent about this wickedness.

While criminal justice matters are not transferred, we are committed to working closely with the police service and criminal justice agencies to tackle sectarian and racist attacks. Over the next few months, we will bring forward detailed proposals for a programme of cohesion and integration — designed to build on some of the excellent work being done, particularly by district councils — to address the challenges that local communities face. The core of those proposals will be action to tackle racism and sectarianism. The Department intends to bring the proposals for discussion to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Assembly in the next few months.

In the meantime, the Department will continue its extensive work with councils, and other key organ­isations, to support the excellent work to address sectarianism and racism and build good relations in many local communities.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sure that the deputy First Minister will agree that, following a racist attack on a family in Enniskillen, it is important that the local community should actively show its opposition to those who carry out such foolish attacks. What information is given to migrants when they come to this part of Ireland, given that they are often inarticulate — due to language difficulties — and, often, badly represented?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Attacks on anyone — particularly newcomers to our shores, many of whom feel isolated and lonely — must be utterly condemned by everyone, whether they occur in Enniskillen or anywhere else.

The Government is committed to protecting the rights of all workers. It is not in anyone’s interests for new arrivals to be paid less than the going rate or have to put up with overcrowding in substandard and unsafe accommodation. It is clearly not in the interests of the migrant workers themselves nor those of the vast majority of the population.

OFMDFM has funded a number of welcome packs to address the information needs of new arrivals. We have also been pleased to have provided the funding, along with the Human Rights Commission, to produce a series of migrant worker rights guides. We have distributed thousands of copies, as well as making them available on the Internet. The guides are for workers from the EU/EEA member states, the so-called accession states, and for those outside the EU who arrive under work-permit and sector-based scheme arrangements. They provide comprehensive information on social security, housing, employment, health, immigration and other rights to help newcomers exercise their rights.

The Law Centre and Human Rights Commission are to be congratulated on their work in producing the booklets, and we are pleased to have facilitated the extensive consultation between the authors and Government Departments to ensure the accuracy of the information. We will continue to fulfil that role, as the guides are updated periodically.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Last week, departmental officials briefed the Committee about the proposed good relations priority in the Department. They said that no assurance could be given that that priority would be based on the shared future policy, but that the emphasis would be on tolerance. In light of this, will the Minister take the opportunity to reassure Members that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are fully aware of progress in community relations thinking since the 1970s? Will he also reassure us that they will shortly, and jointly, look at active promotion of community relations through less passive priorities, such as engagement in education, and that they remain committed to the promotion of a shared future?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I, and our colleagues in the Executive, are consistently, through the responsibilities of our Departments, interested to ensure that we tackle the many grave issues relating to people who are being subjected to racial attacks and sectarianism. Obviously we want to move forward together.

By coming together in this Government, along with other parties, we recognise our responsibility to move forward in a shared way. We all know, and understand, that there are huge challenges — so these issues are a work in progress. During the course of our deliberations we will acquaint the Committee with those issues, and we will continually update our approach and attitude on how to tackle those very serious issues that have been identified.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Is the deputy First Minister aware that in 2002 the University of Ulster produced research that indicated that one in three children aged from seven to 12 have received some form of sectarian threat, and if he has the run of himself, will he indicate whether that situation has become worse, better or stayed the same? Will he indicate if he is minded to do something about that himself, or will he bring the matter back to his Executive colleagues?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are all very conscious of our terrible past, and the need to ensure, as we move forward, that we do not make the same mistakes that were made then. The restoration of these institutions on 8 May, alongside the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council clearly signals that all of us connected with politics in the north of Ireland want to move forward together.

The leadership shown by all of the Members in this Assembly sets a good example to many people, but we are a society emerging from a very bitter conflict, and we have a duty and a responsibility, as we move forward, to show leadership at political level. I have no doubt that if we continue with that work, we will undermine the negative thoughts and agendas that are on the minds of some people and children within our society, albeit that they are in the minority.

As we all move forward, we much watch our language and lead by example.

Environment

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of drivers who have lost their licence as a result of drink-driving and driving while under the influence of drugs in 2005, 2006 and 2007. (AQO 576/08)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

For each of the calendar years 2005 and 2006, and for 2007 to date, the numbers of drivers who have lost their licences as a result of drink-driving or while driving under the influence of drugs has been 1,528 in 2005, 1,423 in 2006, and 970 to 30 September this year.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Has the Minister considered introducing a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving and driving while under the influence of drugs? Will she share with the Assembly any other measures that she has to help in the detection of those offences?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is probably aware that the limit in Northern Ireland is the same as that in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, at 80 mg of alcohol for each 100 ml of blood. Most other European Union countries have a limit of 50 mg for each 100 ml of blood, and some countries have a limit as low as 20 mg for each 100 ml of blood. I am in favour of lowering the limit, and the Department is looking at that possibility. Exceeding the limit in Northern Ireland is punishable by a mandatory driving disqualification of at least one year, plus a fine of up to £5,000, and a possible maximum prison sentence of six months.

I am wary of saying this with the Minister of Finance and Personnel sitting beside me, but the Member will know that the Department has quite a considerable advertising budget. The Department will continue to look at the effectiveness of that advertising. We believe it to be effective, but it is a matter for our road safety strategy review, which is ongoing.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I call Mr Kennedy for a supplementary question, I remind him that his supplementary must relate to the original question.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Speaker, I am greatly cautioned by what you have said. I welcome the Minister’s reply. On the issue of road safety, to which I believe my question is linked, will the Minister undertake to consult with her ministerial colleague, the Minister for Regional Development, with a view to identifying accident black spots on the Province’s roads, and take specific action, where possible, to address any shortcomings in road surfacing and design in order to reduce accident risk?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I warned the Member, and he is almost challenging the ruling from the Chair. The Member was allowed to get away with it on the first occasion, but he will not get away with it on what is the third occasion.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department has ongoing engagement with both DRD and the Police Service of Northern Ireland on what can be done to lessen the number of accidents on our roads. There is no such thing as bad roads causing deaths. Deaths are caused by other factors; although roads may be a contributing factor, they are not the only factor.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Does the Minister agree that one of the frustrating problems surrounding convictions for serious offences such as drink-driving is that a ban in this jurisdiction does not have any effect across the border, and vice versa? Will the Minister provide an update on work to harmonise penalties across the island? Will she provide any dates for the introduction of legislation to that effect?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In February 2006, the then United Kingdom Minister of State for Transport, Dr Stephen Ladyman, and his then Irish counterpart, Martin Cullen, announced that the United Kingdom and Ireland intended to co-operate as soon as possible on the mutual recognition of driver disqualification.

In July 2006, the UK Cabinet Domestic Affairs Committee gave clearance, subject to discussions among officials on funding requirements for the courts, for proposals to proceed on the mutual recognition of driver disqualifications between the United Kingdom and Ireland. There was public consultation on the matter from 13 February 2007 to 8 May 2007, and all responses were positive. As a result, subordinate legislation is required in Northern Ireland and GB. Officials in the United Kingdom and Ireland are working closely together in order to initiate the mutual recognition of driver disqualifications as soon as is practicable. It is my hope that that will happen soon.

Unfortunately, the matter of penalty points is more complex. The question of whether it is possible to speed up the project was raised with me most recently at the North/South Ministerial Council. I am hopeful that we can push ahead and that the issue of driver disqualifications will be dealt with in the near future.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the Minister of the Environ­ment, further to her recent comments following the publication of the Atomic Energy Authority Technology figures on Northern Ireland greenhouse gas emissions, what steps she is taking to ensure that the methodology and data sources used to measure emissions are accurate. (AQO 573/08)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is referring to my comments about the recent publication, ‘Greenhouse Gas Inventories for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: 1990–2005’, which was compiled by Atomic Energy Authority Technology, now known as AEA Technology. That report indicated that total greenhouse gas emissions were down by 6% in 2005 and that carbon dioxide emissions were down by 4% on 1990 levels. Previous publications indicated that figures for Northern Ireland were above the base year levels.

As the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations bring forward the draft climate change Bill, with its UK target of a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emission by 2050, Members are aware of the increasing significance that is attached to emission calculations. It is important, therefore, that there is a consistent and credible understanding of Northern Ireland’s true position. Hence, my officials have initiated work with AEA Technology in order to examine the major data sources and the methods that are applied to calculate Northern Ireland’s emissions across the energy, business, industry, domestic and agriculture sectors. That will provide for improved accuracy and an understanding of emission trends. It is also intended that that work will provide a methodology to estimate future levels of emissions relative to targets, and I hope that that work should be completed in March 2008.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Linked to my original question about atomic energy and the need for proper questioning, the Windscale pile issue, the Republic’s Health Research Board’s figures that indicate that no environmental factors were at play in a cluster of Down’s syndrome births and tackling the incidence of cancer in County Louth that was found to be normal by the National Cancer Registry in Ireland, will the Minister indicate whether she thinks it is safe for Ireland, Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom to consider atomic energy as a viable source of energy?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Once again, the Member’s supple­mentary question relates in no way to the original question. The Member’s question concerns health. Members — on all sides of the House — must link supplementary questions to the original question, and that supplementary question certainly did not do that. We will move on.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What is the Minister’s Department doing to ensure year-on-year decreases in carbon dioxide and other emissions?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That question applies across the entire Government. In May 2006, OFMDFM published ‘First Steps Towards Sustainability: A Sustainable Develop­ment Strategy for Northern Ireland’, and a supporting implementation plan was published in November 2006. That strategy’s key objective is to reduce emissions, principally by promoting energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, including biofuels in transport. Therefore, many Departments have a role to play in reducing emissions.

As Members would expect, my Department is making significant progress, particularly with the draft climate change Bill, consultation on the carbon reduction commitment and the promotion of the EU emissions trading scheme. The Department is also leading the way in getting its own house in order by improving the recycling of office waste from 32% in 2004 to 71% in 2006 and by reducing travel. Despite a 4% overall increase in staff numbers, the DOE has reduced the number of flights taken by its staff by 22% on the previous year — something of which the staff can be justifiably proud.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What, in the Minister’s opinion, are the most significant sources of emissions in Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Carbon dioxide emissions in Northern Ireland are mostly caused by power stations, transport and residential combustion. Those sectors accounted for approximately 85% of carbon dioxide emissions and just over 60% of the total emissions in 2005.

Agriculture is still a significant source of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, and has contributed to over 20% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment what plans she has to prevent mature garden trees being destroyed at weekends, particularly by property developers. (AQO 555/08)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I acknowledge that when mature garden trees are cut down, local residents would like to see intervention by an official from my Department, in the belief that that will immediately stop tree felling. However, it is not an offence to cut down a tree unless it is covered by a tree preservation order or is within a conservation area.

A provisional tree preservation order can be made relatively quickly, although it must be recognised that it still takes time to make such an order, particularly over a weekend. It is not possible to provide immediate, on-the-spot protection because various officers are required to check records to see whether the trees are protected, and, if not, to assess the condition of the trees and to draw up the appropriate documentation and maps required for a provisional tree preservation order.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer and for correspondence that I have received recently from her. Given that tree felling is now literally clearing the way for the submission of planning applications, as opposed to construction, is it not worth looking at new legislation to allow intervention in order to make a timely assessment of the value of the trees before any further felling is undertaken? Many developers feel that they have complete free rein to clear sites at weekends and on bank holidays.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I said that a provisional tree preservation order could be made relatively quickly. Indeed, the law was changed some three years ago to allow that to take place. Also at that time, the legislation did away with clauses that allowed those who might be affected by a tree preservation order to claim compensation.

I appreciate residents’ concerns about the issue. I spoke to divisional officers who told me that they get about two weekend call-outs a year. Although there is no dedicated emergency team, I understand that in the Member’s constituency, emergency calls are usually fielded by the divisional planning office, and officers try to go out and deal with such issues.

The number of incidents of tree felling at weekends is, therefore, relatively small and does not warrant the level of resources that would be required to set up a dedicated, on-call, 24-hour team. I have been told that it takes four different members of staff, believe it or not, to make a tree preservation order, and therein lies part of my resource difficulties.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister outline what she will do to improve the Environment and Heritage Service’s enforcement rates, following the publication of the recent Criminal Justice Inspectorate report?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Enforcement is taken forward not by the Environment and Heritage Service, but by the Planning Service. I welcome the recent Criminal Justice Inspectorate report, which gives us an opportunity to examine areas that it has signposted. It would be wrong of me to refer to that before my Department has had a chance to take into account what it says in detail on that issue.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

The protection of trees in Northern Ireland is an important issue. Will the Minister explain to the House how a tree preservation order is made?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There are two ways of making a tree preservation order. Under article 65 of The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, the Department may give notice of intention to make a tree preservation order to the owner and occupiers of the land, who have 28 days from the date of the notice in which to comment.

The order does not take effect until it has been confirmed by the Department. Alternatively — and this is the power that came in three years ago under article 65A — the Department may make a provisional tree preservation order that takes immediate effect on the date specified, providing protection for the trees. A tree preservation order with immediate provisional effect must be confirmed — rather like spot listing — within six months of the date of the order, otherwise the protection afforded to the trees expires.

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

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline what steps have been taken to ensure that large-scale, and in particular, out-of-town retail development, does not impact negatively on town centres and neighbouring smaller towns and villages. (AQO 594/08)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Retail policy in Northern Ireland is presently contained in a number of documents, including the ‘Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025’; ‘Planning Policy Statement 5, Retailing and Town Centres’; ‘Draft Planning Policy Statement 5, Retailing, Town Centres and Commercial Leisure Developments’; and the development plans for the area to which the planning applications relate.

During July 2006, a revised draft of PPS 5 was published for consultation. The revised policy proposed in the draft strengthens the existing policy that tests what will control out-of-town retail development. Comments on the draft are presently being considered. Publication of the final policy is subject to the outcome of a judicial review hearing that is scheduled for the end of November 2007.

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

I welcome the Minister’s response. The Minister is aware that up to 50% of towns and villages in Britain have been left without a single shop, post office or bank. When will the Minister bring forward planning proposals that will offer fair and decent protection for independent and small retailers, who are still the heartbeat of rural communities, towns and villages?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Department of the Environment believes that what the Member outlined is being provided through PPS 5 and the consultation process that is ongoing. There are approximately 75 applications for out-of-centre or out-of-town retail developments.

The Department has recently spoken to people in Banbridge and Lisburn regarding out-of-town develop­ment. Those people believe that it is helping the town and city involved, and they think that both Banbridge and Lisburn are doing well. Although I take on board what the Member has said, it is not always the case in particular towns.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I noted the Minister’s answer to the previous question. Will the Minister undertake to take steps to establish a comprehensive and reliable footfall figure for all town centres and out-of-town shopping centres across the Province so that an accurate assessment of the impact of out-of-town shopping centres can be made?