Northern Ireland Assembly, 9 March 2009

263 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Matters Of The Day

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party — and, indeed, from the leaders of all the main parties — seeking leave to make a statement on a matter that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I will call the Rt Hon Peter Robinson to speak first on the subject, and I will then call the leaders of each of the other parties in order. There will be no opportunity for interventions, questions or for a vote on the matter, and I will take no points of order until this issue is dealt with. In addition, because of the serious nature of events over the weekend, there will be no time limit on the speeches of party leaders.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

A dark shadow hangs over our proceedings today. On Saturday evening, while in the rest of Northern Ireland people were getting on with their lives, evil men, claiming to represent the Real IRA, brutally murdered two young men and tried to kill many others. In doing so, they threw down a challenge to us all. It is a challenge to not just this Assembly and its Executive, but to those whom we collectively represent.

The two murdered soldiers were only 21 and 23 years of age. They were callously gunned down just hours before they were due to leave Northern Ireland to serve in Afghanistan. They were off duty and unarmed, and were shot as they went to collect a pizza at the gates of the Massereene Army base. Two other soldiers were injured in the horrific attack, and the same gunmen then cold-bloodedly turned their weapons on the civilian pizza delivery men.

I know that the Assembly extends its condolences to the sorrowing families, and prays that the Lord comfort them at this most tragic time. One of the injured civilians is a local man, 19-year-old Anthony Watson. The other is a young man from Poland, who came here in search of a better life. Today, we prayerfully uphold all those innocent victims of that terrorist attack. No words of ours can ease the pain and devastation that has been brought to those families. However, as First Minister, and as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, I want, on behalf of all those for whom I speak, to offer deepest sympathy for the loss that has been suffered.

There is no cause that can justify those actions. No goal will be achieved. The killers will not win.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It was a futile act and a terrible waste. The contrast between those brave soldiers and the wicked murderers could not be more stark. The soldiers who fell at the Massereene base will be remembered with honour and with pride. Their killers will live with the shame, and they and their cause will be thought of with contempt and loathing.

Today, and in the time ahead, we have a decision to make as a community. The choice is clear and will determine our future as a people. At the weekend, we saw in bold and terrible relief a glimpse of what we had left behind. It was an act intended to divide us. It was calculated as a means to raise fear and hatred, and planned to cause us to stumble. It was designed to force us to turn back.

It is certainly not a time to raise the flag of party politics. It is a time for every corner of the House, and of our community, to unite in condemnation, and to resolve that those people will never win and that we will not be diverted from the course that we have set. What we have here is far from perfect. What we have here is often difficult to operate. Many differences between our traditions remain. However, it is here in the Assembly that we will work to resolve our problems.

The events of Saturday evening were a throwback to a previous era. We must never return to such terrible days. As a people, we can defeat the murder gangs by refusing to be dragged back to the bad and bloody days of the past. In the face of the tragedy that Saturday’s events have brought, silence and disengagement are not options. If we want to rid our society of violence and division, the struggle for all of us continues every day.

We offer the Chief Constable, and those who serve with him, the support that they require and deserve in order to do their jobs and to bring the killers to justice. However, the responsibility to bring those people to justice does not fall to the PSNI alone. It is a duty that is placed on all of us. The police can be effective only with the entire community’s support and co-operation.

The continued existence of this institution will be evidence of the failure of the campaign of murder. However, this institution exists only with the consent and support of the community. Today we are being tested. However, we should remember that our future is not dependent on the evil of those who seek to destroy our society. Rather, it depends on the good that is found in those people, throughout our community, who want to build a stable, peaceful, democratic and shared society. It is a moment of truth for us all. We all have a choice to make.

On Saturday night, the challenge was issued. Today, in the House and outside of it, let the answer be loud and clear: we are not turning back.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I stand here as an unrepentant and unapologetic Irish republican. I want to see an end to British rule on this island, and I want to see the unity of orange and green. That can only be achieved by peaceful and democratic means, and Sinn Féin is wedded to that. I know that other Members are unapologetic, unrepentant unionists and that they want to see the retention of the Union, but here we are as republicans and unionists, united in an effort to make politics work, to set aside divisions and differences and, in an ongoing process, to build peace based on equality.

Many of us from all sides in the Assembly have lost loved ones and friends over decades of conflict, and we know only too well the pain and grief that accompanies such events. Some of us have been targets in the past, and some of us are still targets, so we understand grief, loss and violent bereavement. I want to extend my sympathies, and the sympathies of Sinn Féin, to the families of those who were killed and injured on Saturday night. The Assembly is united in that solidarity, and I join with the First Minister in his condolences to the bereaved families. I underpin his commitment that the Assembly is resolved to work through our difficulties. There is, as he said, no turning back.

Saturday night’s attack was a deliberate and calculated attack on the peace process. It was wrong — let there be no ambiguity about that. The perpetrators want to destroy the hard-won progress of recent years.

Tá mé fíor-chinnte gur ionsaí ar an phróiseas síochána a bhí san ionsaí sin, agus gníomh mícheart a bhí ann. Tá mé cinnte fosta, a Cheann Comhairle, nach bhfuil aon tacaíocht ón phobal ag an dream a rinne é agus nach bhfuil aon straitéis ar aghaidh ná straitéis aontaithe acu.

Let us also be very clear that those who perpetrated this attack and who, perhaps, have set their sights on other actions do not have any support in broad republicanism or nationalism. The progress made for the people of this island and the people of the North cannot be surrendered. There is a huge onus on us not only to talk or to engage in the genuine remarks that have been made about the attack but we need, by action, to make politics work. There is also an onus on the British Government and the PSNI to resist any temptation, and for others to resist any temptation, for a return to the bad practices of the past or to sideline the peace process or the political leaders. That means, in particular, that the transparency and accountability arrangements around the PSNI must be adhered to and actively promoted.

Sinn Féin does support, and Sinn Féin will support, the police in the apprehension of those involved in Saturday night’s killings. We have a responsibility to defend the peace and these institutions, and to oppose the actions of those who would attack or seek to undermine them.

I believe that all of us, collectively, have successfully constructed a political strategy and a way forward to deal with the issues that are pressing down on our people. It is not a perfect process; everyone here has difficulties with some dimension of what we have achieved. However, there is a widespread common view that there can be no excuse or justification for incidents such as the one that we have just seen.

Sinn Féin will, not just here and in the media, but in the communities that it represents, go toe to toe with those who would try to drag the people of the island, particularly the North, back into conflict. The popular will is for peaceful political change; the popular will is for democratic change. It is our responsibility to deliver for all the people whom we represent.

I appeal particularly to republicans. I reiterate my certain view — and the deputy First Minister made the same point — that there can be no ambiguity about the incident. It is time for calm and thoughtful, but decisive, leadership. The peace process was built against the odds. It will endure. That is our responsibility. We will not be deflected from peaceful pursuance of our republican and democratic objectives. However, never will we stand back from combating, contesting and resisting the people who want to bring us all back to the past that we have left behind. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

This is a day that Northern Ireland should never again have seen. The fact that the Assembly meets to condemn the murder of two soldiers and the injury of four other persons is a painful reminder of the dark years that we had hoped would never revisit society.

On Saturday 7 March 2009, evil terrorists murdered two young soldiers. To their families and to those of the people who were wounded, Members on these Benches offer their condolences and sympathies, inadequate though that is. Now, and in the days to come, I trust that the families who mourn, grieve and suffer will know that the people of Northern Ireland respect and honour the sacrifice that was made by those young men.

Those of us who are in positions of political responsibility have a solemn obligation to ensure that our words that condemn that act of terror and that express our support for the forces of law and order contain no ambiguity or equivocation. It is a matter of regret to me and my colleagues that the initial response from the honourable Member for West Belfast did not contain that clarity. Initially, there was ambiguity. Although the response has been added to in subsequent statements by others, I believe that that lack of clarity at the initial stage, nevertheless, undermines confidence that the Assembly is collectively capable of resisting the activities of the people who carried out those attacks on Saturday.

However, condemnation is not enough; there must be active support for the police and the rule of law. That means calling explicitly for all sections of the community to co-operate with the PSNI in pursuing the people who committed those murders on Saturday. For the Executive and the Assembly to be truly united in their response to Saturday’s murders, all parties must be unambiguous in their condemnation of that act of terrorism and be explicit in their co-operation with the PSNI in its determination to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Given the nature of the attack — the ruthless manner in which it was carried out — it amounted to nothing less than an execution. It did not give me or my colleagues the belief that it was carried out by mere amateurs who have little experience. I trust that the honourable Member for West Belfast and his colleagues in the republican movement will search their memories to see whether they or anyone whom they know would have knowledge of the type of people who are capable of carrying out that act. I hope that that message gets through to the wider republican movement.

Those people did not carry out that act in isolation: there had to be support, arms dumps, training, surveillance, and all the paraphernalia that goes into a terrorist attack.

This act did not happen in five minutes; it was pre-planned, deliberate, wilful and evil. Clearly, a large number of people must have knowledge of, and involvement in, that process. Therefore, it seems that in order to signify a starting point, those in the republican movement who have knowledge of who could be involved in such a process, should, without let or hindrance, pass that information to the security forces.

I know that such an approach goes against the grain that has been established over many years. However, if we are to move to the new beginning to which we all ascribe, this test — as the First Minister indicated — is an opportunity for all of us to prove that we really have moved on and that we have put the past behind us.

The Assembly is a political institution, and its purpose is to provide political leadership and direction to our society. In the aftermath of Saturday’s brutal events, it is now clearer than ever that the devolution of policing and justice at this stage would, in our view, threaten political stability and the proper operation of policing and the rule of law in Northern Ireland.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Sir Hugh Orde must receive any additional resources that he needs to pursue and prevent terrorists. However, given the stresses and strains that were evident last week, I am not convinced that the House has reached the level of maturity that is necessary to handle such sensitive matters. Given that the Executive were inactive for five of the previous 12 months and have not dealt with many basic bread-and-butter issues, such as education, the doubt that hangs over the transfer of policing and justice — a process that is, largely, shrouded in secrecy — should be brought to an end.

The First Minister and the deputy First Minister should state clearly that they do not intend to pursue the devolution of policing and justice at this stage. We need to decide collectively how we will handle that matter. What are the full implications? Is the House mature enough to handle the ensuing operational responsibilities? Can we support the Chief Constable? Do we understand and fully accept that we must progress through actions that we all support? The House must think long and hard about that matter.

We must warn about another danger. There may be elements in loyalism that see an opportunity for retaliation. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to make it clear that we strongly urge anybody who is contemplating such action to desist without delay. Retaliatory action will have no benefit. The House will agree that none of us wants to see more families at a graveside or at a hospital bed. Any elements who are contemplating retaliation should look at what the country has gone through in the past. Nobody wants to return to that situation, and such actions would propel us in that direction. The people who carried out Saturday’s act would welcome and benefit from such an approach.

In the days to come, we must reflect further on the implications of Saturday’s events. However, today, our primary thoughts and prayers are with the families of the two young soldiers who were brutally murdered and those who were injured. The solidarity shown by the people of Antrim has sent a positive message and signal to the rest of Northern Ireland, and their elected representatives in the council will, undoubtedly, express that opinion later this week. We all should follow their example. We should support them and hope and pray that the sacrifices that were made on Saturday will not be forgotten. The loss borne by the families always elicits our deepest sympathies.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I join other party leaders in, sadly, offering sincere condolences to the families of the two murdered soldiers. Those families were conscious that their sons were going to Afghanistan and, subsequently, received the awful news — which must have caused total shock and disbelief — that their sons had been killed in Northern Ireland.

We are very conscious, too, of those who were injured ― people from here and a young man from Poland who is living here with his partner and child. Our thoughts go to all those families, and to the Polish community in Northern Ireland, which makes a very positive contribution and must be in utter shock at what has happened.

There is shock right across the community, but also a very real anger, and it is right that we express that in a proper, constructive and, as far as possible, united way. Party leaders have, I believe, tried to do that this morning.

In this day and age, given all that we have agreed and the process in which we are involved, the presence of a place such as Massereene barracks is not an affront to the people of Ireland. The attack on Massereene barracks is an affront to the people of Ireland. Those who did it are steeped in the mindset and methods that gave us so much violence in the past, and the chilling language of legitimate targets and collaborators. Although they may be steeped there, they must not be allowed to plunge the rest of us back into that ugliness, and all the suffering and sterility that goes with it.

We need to be sure that those who set out to murder on Saturday night do not succeed in their goal, which is to subvert the democratic arrangements in which we are involved here and elsewhere, and to subvert the new beginning to policing and all that that is helping to underpin. We have to send out a strong and united message from the Chamber, and through all other democratic means at our disposal, that although that group may have been able to cut down two young men, it will not cut down political stability and the peace that it reinforces. It may have been able to gravely wound other young people, but it must not be able to injure the integrity of the new beginning to policing, which has helped to ensure the unity of the democratic response that we have witnessed to this atrocity.

Although the atrocity of the weekend has not in itself plumbed new depths, because of the nature of the violence and the language that was used to justify it, we have, perhaps, seen at least some new heights of political consensus and democratic determination in trying to face down those who would use that violence.

We have to send out the clear message that if anyone out there, in any quarter, has information that could be used to apprehend those responsible or to prevent further murders and atrocities by them, it is their bounden duty — as citizens, as Irish citizens, as democrats — to give that information to the police so that they can act in all our interests and on behalf of us all for the good of peace and for the name of Ireland.

We need to be clear, strong and united. Yes, there will be political differences and difficulties on issues such as devolution of justice and policing and other things, but now is not the time to be setting tests for one party or another, and trying to set party against party. Now is the time to show a determined, democratic resolve on behalf of all the people who have given us their mandate.

We have to make sure that no difficulty and no difference is exploited by those behind that atrocity, or by others who would emulate them or take it upon themselves to retaliate. We must unite in a determined way to make it very clear that they will get no profit for their agenda from what they did, and they will find no comfort from their subversion. They will not be allowed to set the agenda for here or elsewhere.

I regret ― as, I am sure, do others ― that circumstances forced the First Minister and deputy First Minister to postpone their trip to the United States, with all that that was meant to represent and to promote. I am glad that that trip is to go forward soon, and I hope that that, too, will be an expression of the determination of everyone in the Chamber to go forward to seize and shape a positive future, and not to sink back to a negative past.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On behalf of my party in the Assembly and in the wider community, I have words this morning of sympathy, condemnation and solidarity. Our first words must be of sympathy for the families of Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimka, the two young sappers who were killed on Saturday night. Those two young men were doing their duty and serving this community before they proceeded to do their duty in Afghanistan in uniform. Our sympathy goes out to their families, friends and comrades, some of whom were still in Antrim while others were already in Afghanistan, and in particular, to their two wounded comrades, who are being treated in hospital here.

We all knew the dangers that they would face when they got to Afghanistan; few of us could have thought that there was such a danger in ordering a pizza on a Saturday night in the United Kingdom. Added to that, we must have sympathy for the two local men who were earning an honest living by delivering those pizzas. One of them is from an Antrim family; the other established a home here because he wanted to better himself and his family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them, and with those in the emergency services who looked after them on Saturday night, and the staff of Antrim Area Hospital, who continue to care for them and continue to seek to preserve life today.

It is right that all of us in this place condemn this atrocity, regardless of our background or our perception of the way things are. I cannot understand how any evil minds could have thought that the murders that were carried out on Saturday night could serve any cause or could produce anything but sorrow and suffering for the families concerned.

The two soldiers who died were both at primary school when we started on the process that led to agreement on Good Friday in 1998 and to the establishment of this Assembly. Last year, 38 Engineer Regiment was honoured with the freedom of the borough of Antrim because of the work that its members had done in helping the local community. That is a measure of who they were, where they came from and what they had done for society. It was a sign of how much this community has moved on in the past decade. We must make it absolutely clear from this Chamber today that we will not allow ourselves to be dragged back; that whatever the difficulties, we will continue to ensure that the process works.

I do not believe that there was ever such a thing as a legitimate target. However, the horror of the assault on Saturday night, and the way in which it was perpetrated, not just on those who wore uniforms, but on the civilians who were serving the local community in Antrim, adds a perverted twist to any of that kind of logic. It is important that we stand here in solidarity together in order to show that politics works, and let people know that whatever death and suffering may be inflicted on society, there will be no going back on the concept of a process that is bringing people together.

It is no secret that I am not the greatest fan of the way in which the Executive have worked. However, let us be absolutely clear that we are showing the way forward, whatever faltering steps we take or whatever criticisms I may have about the detail. This Assembly is giving the way forward for the people of Northern Ireland, and it must continue to do so; even more so in the face of what we had to put up with.

I have a different take on things from the other four party leaders who have spoken because I have lived in Antrim all my adult life. I have had the honour of representing Antrim people since 1993. I now face the prospect, because of the way that we so often refer to events by place names, that when people talk about Antrim in future, they will think of Saturday night. However, that was not Antrim; Antrim was Sunday lunchtime. Antrim was the people of the town standing in simple and quiet dignity as an expression of sympathy to the soldiers who had lost their lives and to their comrades, and as an expression of solidarity as they stood together. That was the message that we should take from the weekend.

When Father Tony Devlin, who has provided huge leadership to our community, led his parishioners across the road and stood at the tape, he gave a clear statement:

“You do not act in our name.”

When people from the Church of Ireland, the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches joined them, they said: we stand together. Whatever you throw at us, we stand together. That message, which was an Antrim message yesterday, must be an Assembly message today.

I thank the First Minister and the deputy First Minister for the comments that they made and the leadership that they gave yesterday. I do not share their backgrounds, and I would not have used exactly the same words that they used, but they spoke — although separately — together for us all. We have to move that process forward. We have to ensure in this place that we make politics work. We have to show the tiny minority that politics can work. Indeed, we have to show the world — in the face of that atrocity — that politics does work.

Talking to my colleagues this morning, we recalled the dreadful deaths in Poyntzpass in March 1998 of Damien Trainor and Philip Allen. That was a terrible tragedy for those two families, and yet, somehow, they provided a catalyst to ensure that people came together and built something better. I hope and pray that the lesson of Saturday night at Massereene barracks gates is one that we can all take forward, and I pledge my colleagues and myself to that end.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

As events were taking place over the weekend for International Women’s Day, on Saturday night, two mothers lost their sons. Wives, sisters, daughters, fathers and brothers are all suffering anguish at the minute, and I send my thoughts, and those of my party, to those families and those mothers who have lost their sons and to those families that wait at the bedside of those who are injured.

The message that we send out today, from all sides of the House, is one of unity ― united in our condemnation of that terrible, despicable act, that attack on our political process, our peace process and our community. We are united in that condemnation. We are also united in our determination to ensure that all the political progress that has been made so far — however one wants to describe it — will continue. We must continue to make progress and move forward.

We are all united in our support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland in order for it to do its job. We are united in our call for assistance from all sections of the community in order that the police can arrest those responsible and take them off the streets. I make a particular appeal to the mothers, wives, daughters and sisters of those who carried out that attack. I say to them: search your hearts and your consciences, and ask yourselves what type of society you want to live in. Do you want to take us back to the dark days? Do you want to see mothers and sisters mourning at graves? Search your souls and give those people up.

Nothing should distract the police from directing their full focus on catching those criminals, because that is what they are — criminals. They are a small, criminal gang that has no mandate. They have a warped sense of struggle or cause, but they are criminals. They are kidnappers, bank robbers, fuel smugglers and launderers, extortionists and murderers — they are criminals. I appeal to those who are thinking of retaliation in any form to listen to the united response of our community and politicians. We do not want any retaliation for that attack. Do not respond to those criminals, because that is what they are. Do not give them any credibility, and do not legitimise their actions.

Help the police to bring them to court. Help the police to take them off the streets. Do not distract the police from doing their job. We are united in the House today, and we must go forward united in sending, loudly and clearly, the message that we are moving forward and will continue to move forward.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

On behalf of my party, I join Members in condemning the murder of the two soldiers on Saturday night. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those killed and injured, and I pray that the injured men make a speedy recovery.

Our priority must be to ensure that the police are given the necessary resources to enable them to bring the perpetrators of the atrocity to justice. However, we must remember that the aim of those who carried out the atrocity is to bring down the Assembly and take us backwards into a spiral of violence. Therefore, it is important that we, as the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, stand together at this time and present a united front. We must not give any comfort to the murderers. I welcome the fact that all the party leaders have united in condemning those appalling murders.

Therefore, it is important that we unite and show no divisions. It is also important that we use considered language, because disputes can give only succour to those who carried out the attack, and those people have no support or mandate to commit such atrocities. The Assembly must stand firm and provide leadership to ensure that we succeed in building a united community and are not dragged back to the violence of the past.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I wish to inform Members that the Budget Bill has received Royal Assent. The Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 became law on 6 March 2009.

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments before we move on to the next item of business.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list.

There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9, which deal with the standing of those entitled to make applications to the High Court; a discretionary power for the High Court to compel disclosure of information from someone who is not a party to proceedings; and commencement arrangements to enable the rules of court to be made quickly.

The second debate will be on amendment Nos 3, 4, 6 and 7. Those amendments deal with annuities and other periodical payments paid as a result of a declaration of presumed death, and they will reduce the requirement for insurance on the part of recipients of such payments. They further deal with amending the definition of “insurer”.

The third debate will be on amendment No 10, which deals with changing, from a discretionary power to a statutory duty, the role of the Registrar General in annotating the register where it emerges that a death certificate has been issued outside Northern Ireland.

I remind Members who are intending to speak that, during the debates on the three groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each particular group on which they wish to comment. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 5, 8 and 9. Those deal with the standing of those entitled to make applications to the High Court; a discretionary power for the High Court to compel disclosure of information; and commencement arrangements to enable the rules of court to be made quickly.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 17, at end insert

“or

(c) the applicant is a close relative of the missing person where the missing person is a victim of violence (within the meaning of section 1(4) of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999).”

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 2, line 4, leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (2)(c) and”. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

No 5: After clause 10, insert the following new clause:

“Disclosure of information

10A.—(1) Where the High Court is of the opinion that it is necessary for the purpose of disposing of proceedings under section 1 or section 5, the Court may, of its own motion or on the application of a party to the proceedings, make an order requiring any person who is not a party to the proceedings to disclose to the Court such information as the Court considers relevant to the determination of the question of whether a missing person is alive or dead as may be specified in the order.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall impose a duty to disclose information—

(a) which is permitted or required by any rule of law to be withheld on grounds of public interest immunity;

(b) which any person would be entitled to refuse to provide on grounds of legal professional privilege;

(c) if the disclosure of that information might incriminate the person disclosing the information, or his or her spouse or civil partner, of an offence.

(3) Before making an order under subsection (1), the High Court must serve notice of its intention to make the order on any person who, in the opinion of the Court, is likely to be affected by the order.

(4) The High Court may discharge or vary an order made by it under this section on an application made to the Court by any person affected by the order.

(5) Rules of court may make provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in connection with proceedings relating to orders under this section.

(6) This section binds the Crown to the full extent authorised or permitted by the constitutional laws of Northern Ireland.” — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

No 8: In clause 19, page 9, line 10, at end insert “( ) section 9(1);”. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

No 9: In clause 19, page 9, line 10, at end insert “( ) section 10A(5);”. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

In explaining amendment No 1, I will also deal with amendment Nos 2, 5, 8 and 9, which have been grouped. Amendment No 1 adds a third jurisdictional rule to clause 1. At present, the Bill provides that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a case in which either the missing person, or an applicant’s spouse or civil partner, satisfies certain domicile or habitual residence requirements. During both public consultation and scrutiny at Committee Stage, some families of the disappeared requested that my officials consider an amendment to the Bill to make explicit that the High Court will have jurisdiction to hear applications brought by family members of the disappeared, without their necessarily having to satisfy the normal domicile or habitual residence tests.

Amendment No 1, therefore, provides that the High Court will have jurisdiction to hear a case in which:

“the applicant is a close relative of the missing person where the missing person is a victim of violence (within the meaning of section 1(4) of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999.”

Reference to the statutory remit of the Independent Commission on the Location of Victims’ Remains is simply a technical way of referring to the disappeared.

Amendment No 2 is a consequential amendment to the new jurisdictional rule dealt with in amendment No 1. It ensures that the definition of “close relative” in clause 1(4) covers the reference to close relative in the new jurisdictional rule, as well as in clause 1(3).

Amendment No 5 inserts a new clause after clause 10. During the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill, I gave notice that officials were working with departmental colleagues across Great Britain and Northern Ireland and legislative counsel to draw up a new clause dealing with the disclosure of information. The new clause allows the High Court to order a person who is not a party to the proceedings to disclose relevant information to the court. In that context, the information sought must be relevant to the determination of the question of whether the person is alive or dead. The High Court will be able to exercise that power if asked to do so by a party to the proceedings, or if it considers that obtaining such information is necessary, even though no party to the proceedings has sought a disclosure order.

Subsection 2 of the new clause sets out the grounds on which information may be withheld from the court. First, the withholding of information is permitted or required on the grounds of public interest immunity. Secondly, the person holding the information is entitled to refuse to provide it on the grounds of legal professional privilege. Thirdly, information may be withheld if it might incriminate the person disclosing it, or his or her spouse or civil partner, of an offence.

Those three grounds for non-disclosure are similar to those available in proceedings under the corresponding Scottish legislation, and they are common in other civil contexts in which a court has the power to order a third party to disclose information.

Subsection 3 of the new clause provides that, before making an order, the High Court must serve notice of its intention to do so on any person who might be affected by that order. If an order is made, subsection 4 provides that a person affected by an order may apply to the High Court to have the order discharged or varied. I do not expect that the court will use the new disclosure provision often. Rather, I expect that in the majority of cases, the affidavit evidence presented by the applicant, in addition to any other supporting documentation, would provide the court with sufficient information on which to decide whether the grounds for making a declaration of presumed death, or a variation under clause 5, were satisfied.

During the Committee Stage of the Bill, there was some suggestion that certain agencies should be under an obligation or duty to disclose information held by them about a missing person to the High Court. Our view is that imposing a general duty on third parties to disclose information would be disproportionate and might well result in a large volume of information being produced that offers the High Court little or no assistance in deciding the issue that is before it.

The purpose of proceedings under the Presumption of Death Bill is not to reopen the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of any particular individual, nor to determine who may be responsible for, of have knowledge of, the disappearance. In these proceedings, the role of the High Court is to decide whether, on the evidence before it, the court ought to make the declaration of presumed death, either on the grounds that the missing person is thought to have died, or that the person has not been known to be alive for a period of at least seven years.

Amendment Nos 8 and 9 are technical amendments to clause 19 of the Bill, dealing with commencement. These amendments identify additional provisions of the Bill, which will come into operation one month after the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Amendment No 8 provides that the rule-making provisions of clause 9(1) shall come into force without the need for a formal commencement by my Department. Clause 9 of the Bill sets out the role that the Attorney General for Northern Ireland has in relation to proceedings under the Bill, and provides that the Attorney General shall receive papers and the right to intervene in proceedings and argue questions before the High Court. Clause 9(1) provides that rules of court must set out the procedure that enables the Attorney to receive notices of applications made under the Bill for a declaration of a variation order.

Amendment No 9 provides that the new rule-making provision in subsection 5 of the new disclosure clause will also come into operation one month after receipt of Royal Assent. These amendments, together with some of the other provisions of clause 19, will allow the necessary rules of court to be drafted and approved by the Supreme Court rules committee in time for the commencement of the substantive provisions of the Bill later this year.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks.

In addressing this group of amendments, I will refer briefly to the Committee Stage of the Bill and the Committee’s work in that regard. As part of its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee received written and oral evidence from the WAVE Trauma Centre, representing some of the families of the disappeared. It also received written evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The Committee also received an acknowledgement of support for the provisions of the Bill from Lisburn City Council.

A range of issues and concerns was identified by witnesses and by the Committee arising from the evidence. Those were subsequently raised with the Department of Finance and Personnel. The key issues included concerns around the scope of the jurisdictional rules that require domicile or habitual residence in this region, including whether these rules could potentially exclude consideration of the cases of some of the disappeared, and whether that would disadvantage a cohabitant of a missing person in the determination of an application.

Assurances were sought from the Department on the need to periodically review the seven-year absence requirement. Clarification was sought on the treatment of annuities and other periodical payments in relation to reducing the number of instances when insurance may be required under the legislation. Clarification was also sought on whether there will be sufficient provision to ensure privacy of proceedings and the protection of sensitive information. Careful consideration was also given to the disclosure of information and to provision of how a death may be re-registered.

At a later date in the legislative process, I shall detail the issues set out in the Committee’s report of the Bill, including the various commitments relating to policy and administrative issues that have been given by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) in addressing the Committee’s concerns.

I want to put on record the Committee’s gratitude to the WAVE Trauma Centre, the family representatives of the disappeared, and to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. All have provided valuable evidence.

I also thank the Minister and his officials for their continued co-operation, and for the good working relationship that the Department has maintained with the Committee in progressing the Bill. The Committee recognises that, in general terms, the changes that the Bill will introduce will be welcomed by the public.

In particular, the Committee believes that the Bill will assist in meeting the needs of the families of people who go missing, including the families of the disappeared.

With respect to amendment No 1, the Committee raised with DFP the concerns that were expressed in evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the WAVE Trauma Centre about the scope of the jurisdictional rules that require domicile or habitual residency in this jurisdiction. In particular, there were concerns that some of the disappeared might fall outside of the scope of the jurisdictional rules as originally drafted.

In response, departmental officials agreed to put a recommendation to the Minister concerning an additional, third, jurisdictional rule that would give the High Court the power to hear cases in which the applicant is a close relative of a victim of violence, within the meaning of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999. The Committee welcomes the Department’s willingness to provide an additional jurisdictional rule, which will help to address concerns that some of the disappeared might fall outside the scope of the jurisdictional rules.

Also with respect to clause 1, the seven-year absence requirement was subject to considerable debate, and the Committee called for it to be reviewed periodically in light of relevant international legislative developments. The Department subsequently updated the Committee on the latest assessment of the Council of Europe’s working group, which presently favours a seven-year approach. In addition, the Minister referred the Committee to the flexibility afforded by clause 12, which gives the Department the power to vary the seven-year time period in the future.

In conclusion, with respect to clause 1, the Committee is content with amendment No 1 and with the consequential amendment No 2, concerning the additional jurisdictional rule.

Amendment No 5, which provides for a new disclosure of information clause after clause 10, received careful consideration in the Committee following evidence from the WAVE Trauma Centre and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which highlighted the need for robust provision in the Bill to ensure that the High Court will be able to obtain the information necessary to dispose of applications before it.

The Department proposed a new disclosure of information clause, which would provide a discretionary power for the High Court to order someone who is not a party to proceedings to disclose information to the court. DFP provided the Committee with an initial draft clause for consideration and, subsequently, an updated version, which included a new subsection providing that before the High Court makes an order for disclosure, it shall serve notice of its intention to any person who is likely to be affected by the order.

While the Committee considered the updated version of the new clause, DFP was awaiting responses from Whitehall Departments before finalising the new document. Subsequently, on 19 January, the Department advised the Committee that it had secured the agreement of those Departments to the updated version of the clause.

Although the Committee broadly welcomed the proposed new clause, it deliberated on the inclusion of a duty to disclose information, similar to that contained in section 9 of the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977. The Committee noted that DFP cautioned that such a duty could result, as the Minister said, in the provision of large quantities of information to the court, and that that might place an unnecessary burden on the providers of information and on the court in its consideration of that information. Furthermore, given that the duty of disclosure in Scotland had not actually produced information to the Scottish courts, the Committee noted that the Department considered that a targeted, discretionary power for the High Court would be preferable.

Although the Committee carefully considered the case for including a statutory duty of disclosure on third parties holding information pertinent to the application before the court, it concluded that, on balance, the Department’s proposed approach of giving the High Court a discretionary power to order such disclosure was appropriate in the circumstances. The Committee, therefore, welcomes amendment No 5.

I support amendment Nos 1 and 2 to clause 1, amendment No 5, which provides a new disclosure of information clause after clause 10, and amendment Nos 8 and 9 with respect to clause 19, which the Committee agreed with the Department.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Given this morning’s first item of business concerning the unfortunate killings on Saturday night, which the Secretary of State referred to yesterday as an echo from the past, there is surely something poignant about the fact that we are now discussing a piece of legislation that, ostensibly, deals with the disappeared.

That is one of the most horrific crimes associated with the Troubles, as they were called. Of course, all the murders and deaths of the Troubles were horrific, unwarranted and unnecessary, but there was always a particular issue with those affected by the so-called disappeared. Some families did not have a body to bury, and that, in part, is why this legislation is before the Assembly today.

I want to speak on amendment Nos 1 and 2 in respect of the jurisdictional rule, and on amendment No 5, which will create a new clause — clause 10A. As has been said, amendment Nos 1 and 2 stem from discussions with the families of the disappeared. As the Bill stands, where a missing person or an applicant — their spouse or civil partner — satisfies certain domiciliary or habitual residency requirements — the High Court can hear the application. During the Bill’s Committee Stage, the families of the disappeared informed the Committee that that would not mean that all their cases could be heard in court.

Members must do everything in their power to make the process as easy as possible for the families of the disappeared. That must be foremost in the minds of Members as they deal with the legislation, given its particular reference to the disappeared. It has not been an easy situation for the families from day one. They did not ask to be put in the situation that they are in. The legislation is attempting to assist them in some small and technical way, and the process should not be made any more difficult than it is already.

I hope that the proposed changes, which were supported by the Committee — and which, I am sure, will be supported by the House — will make it easier for families of the disappeared to apply in those circumstances where the legislation, as drafted, would not make it simple or straightforward. To give the High Court the jurisdiction to hear cases where:

“the applicant is a close relative of the missing person where the missing person is a victim of violence”

should be helpful in that respect.

Amendment No 5 will create new clause 10A in relation to disclosure of information. That was a subject that garnered much discussion within the Committee. As has been said, the new clause will allow the High Court to order a person who is not party to the proceedings to disclose certain relevant information. However, it is worth bearing in mind that that information must be relevant to the determination of a question in respect of the case or information on whether the missing person is alive or dead.

One must remember that the purpose of amendment No 5 and the creation of clause 10A is not to reopen investigations in court. I do not think that the device will have to be used in a great number of cases, but, where it is used, it will be for a specific reason. The purpose is not to reopen investigations or to attribute some level of responsibility to anyone in respect of the horrific circumstances that created the situation.

Amendment No 5 is a proportionate and reasonable amendment. It is in line with similar Scottish legislation, which the Minister mentioned and from which so much of the Bill has been taken. I support the first group of amendments.

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

I support the principles of the Bill, as I said at the Committee Stage. It is good that such a mechanism should exist and that it will apply in ordinary cases that occur from time to time in which persons, sadly, go missing.

The Bill has particular relevance in relation to the disappeared. Mr Hamilton was right to make reference to the tragic events of the weekend in relation to that, and the Assembly has expressed its view on that.

I support the first group of amendments. The process should be opened up to any person who might have a legitimate need or desire to go to the court to seek a declaration.

I appreciate the fact that the Department listened to the view that it was possible that the existing clauses were overly restrictive and that it has accepted the amendments in relation to that matter.

I want to focus on the disclosure-of-information clause, the new clause 10A, which is created by amendment No 5. The Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977, on which this piece of legislation is based, has a clause requiring anyone with information relevant to an investigation to bring it before the court. Some respondents to the initial consultation agreed that such a clause should be included. In particular, I noted that such a view came from the judiciary and from the organisation WAVE, which represents the families of the disappeared. At the outset, my instinct also was that there ought to be full disclosure and a duty for full disclosure on anyone with knowledge pertinent to the matter being considered by the court. If there is any hint that any public body is resisting the disclosure of its information, my instinct is that it should not be permitted to do that.

That matter is particularly relevant to the issue of the disappeared, which involves deaths that have been the subject of much examination and scrutiny. Therefore, there are prima facie grounds for believing that considerable information might be held by such bodies as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Army, the security services, and the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains.

I probed that issue very considerably at the Committee, and I want to state why I am now prepared to support the weaker clause on disclosure, as presented in amendment No 5. I have listened seriously to the advice on the matter that was given by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) officials, who stated that the intention is to create as simple a mechanism as possible for the families of the disappeared. Those officials said that a general obligation on disclosure might result in a large amount of information being produced. If that were to happen, it would mean that they, with their legal representatives, would have a duty to examine and study the information that came forward and respond to it. That would produce a considerable burden, including an emotional burden, on the families of the disappeared.

I hear what is being said: that — in relation to this piece of legislation and in relation to a decision on a declaration — the task of the court is not to have a full investigation of a disappearance; its task is to decide whether a declaration of presumption of death ought to be awarded. That can be done either on the basis of there being evidence that a person has died or on the basis that a person has not been known to be alive for the period of seven years.

Having examined exactly what the judiciary said about this matter, I note that their view was not particularly detailed or specific. I hope that, as events work their way through in the future, I am not proven wrong on this matter. Even if no legal requirement exists, there remains a very strong moral burden on anyone who knows of information relevant to a matter under consideration by a court to present that to the court.

In accepting amendment No 5, I will comment further on the concerns that were expressed by the families of the disappeared, as represented by WAVE. When the legislation is passed, everyone involved in its implementation must consider the concerns of those families. It is important to note that not all the families of the disappeared want to avail themselves of this process. There are, essentially, two views about that. There are families who see the process and the obtaining of a declaration of a presumption of death to be beneficial — it might be referred to as “closure”. I am never comfortable using the word “closure” in relation to these sad circumstances, but we can understand the intention behind using it.

There are other families who take a very under­standable and different view. What they — and all families — want to achieve is to have the remains of their loved ones returned to them so that they can give them a proper Christian burial. They would not want any suggestion that because this legal process is due to them, their righteous demands for the return of remains are in any way diminished. For that reason, some families will not want to avail of this process, and that must be fully understood.

It is important that the process of obtaining such declarations through the courts should be simple and straightforward, and everything should be done by all concerned to ensure that it is so. Those families who choose to go through such a process need and deserve both practical and emotional support: they need practical assistance before the process starts and as it continues.

The issue of costs is also involved. A great wrong has been brought to those families in the first instance through the removal of their loved ones. They have lived through uncertain times in the initial days. In some cases they have hoped for the safe return of their loved one, only to have to come to terms with the fact that that loved one will never return alive, and they have then entered into the long years of waiting and hoping that the remains of that loved one will be returned. They have already carried that great burden. It is reasonable to say that the costs associated with obtaining some degree of closure should be carried at the public expense, not at the expense of those families.

Finally, I will comment on the seven-year rule. That time period is regarded internationally as the norm. However, some recent thinking suggests that, in certain cases, seven years is too long a period to show that a missing person has not been known to be alive. Other families who seek closure in relation to a likely death — for family, business and administrative reasons — feel that the seven-year rule ought to be altered. I am satisfied that the Bill, which contains the seven-year rule, but which also contains a mechanism whereby it can be altered in the future without primary legislation, is a satisfactory outcome.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I support the first group of amendments. I welcome the fact that the Bill is moving towards its Final Stage.

As regards amendment No 1, it is worth stressing that the Bill is a general piece of legislation that should be on our books to deal with a situation where a death is presumed to have occurred. We have a particular set of circumstances in Northern Ireland, relating to those people who are deemed to be the disappeared. However, it is worth stressing that the legislation is much more wide-ranging than that.

It is also worth stressing that the disappeared form a particular category of individuals, which has been defined through a British/Irish treaty and subsequent legislation in the UK Parliament and the Oireachtas, and which refers to a particular set of circumstances with a time limit. Other people may not meet the legal definition of those described as the disappeared, but, to all intents and purposes, they fall into a similar category. I have in mind the tragic case of one of my constituents, Lisa Dorrian, who disappeared from the Ards Peninsula three or four years ago. It is important that that case does not disappear from the public’s imagination and that pressure remains on those who have information to come forward to the authorities with that information and to give some sense of closure to the Dorrian family — although I accept that closure is a very loaded word, as Declan O’Loan has said.

Although that family does not necessarily come under the definition of the disappeared, it does come under the Bill’s more general provisions.

Amendment No 1 does not introduce the special category of the disappeared: that was covered under the legislation to begin with. The purpose of the amendment is much more limited. It addresses any questions about the standing of anyone taking a case — whether the victim was properly domiciled in Northern Ireland at the time of the disappearance or the person who takes the case is properly domiciled in Northern Ireland.

Amendment No 1 removes any issues in that respect and ensures that anyone related to one of the disappeared is given sufficient standing to instigate High Court proceedings in order to address the situation pertaining to their family member. In so far as the Bill is intended to deal with that problem, it is important for the Assembly to dot every i and cross every t, and I am satisfied that amendment No 1 does so.

Amendment No 5 relates to a point has already been well stressed. I began this process thinking that the best way forward would be to impose a general obligation on people to bring forward what information they had to the courts. However, having listened to arguments from the Department, and quite vigorous and lengthy debate among Committee members and officials, I am satisfied that amendment No 5 is the most effective way forward.

I will not use the language that Mr O’Loan used when describing this as a weaker version of the way forward. It is probably best to refer to it as the most effective way in which to ensure that information comes forward without creating unrealistic burdens and expectations and avoiding an almost unmanageable flow of information.

Tragically, there are situations that require the presumption of death to be invoked. Thankfully, such occasions are very few. Important as it is to have the Bill on the statute book, I hope that it will be used sparingly. I welcome the progress made today, and support the amendments in group 1.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

As has been said, it is poignant that we are discussing this important issue, which seeks to deliver practical assistance to families dealing with the loss of loved ones in harrowing and difficult circumstances. Given the events of the weekend, it is all the more important that the Assembly deals with such issues in a very considered and appropriate way.

Therefore, I am grateful to all Members who have spoken and commented on the proposals and measures in the Bill. I am also grateful to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has considered, debated and taken evidence on the Bill in considerable detail, and to every Member who has looked closely at the Bill. Their work and representations have resulted in a better Bill overall, which is what we want to have. It is good that the legislative process is shown to work, and that it can make changes for the better for those whom the Bill is intended to help.

I am grateful to the Committee Chairperson for his comments. He reprised the discussions that took place at Committee Stage. As I said, I am pleased that the measures and steps that the Department and I have taken have gone some way towards reassuring the families of the disappeared through moving amendment No 1. I am also pleased that the Committee’s report endorses the new clause on “disclosure of information”.

Mr Hamilton raised issues about amendment No 1 and on the new jurisdictional rule. He also endorsed the new disclosure clause. I welcome his support for the measures that were taken.

Mr O’Loan raised a number of issues, and I listened carefully to what he said about his initial approach and then his consideration of the matters as they went through the Committee. He mentioned the duty of disclosure and the fact that there was an opportunity to consider that issue in Committee. He knows that, during consultation, there was support for a duty of disclosure, but that there are difficulties with the Assembly being able to bind United Kingdom Departments. However, I am pleased that he is now reasonably content to accept the Department’s position on the way forward, as has been set out.

I entirely understand that some of the families of the disappeared seek only the return of the bodies. The families who wish to avail of the new procedures will be assisted as far as possible. My officials are also examining funding issues in addition to the availability of legal aid.

I am grateful for Dr Farry’s remarks, and also for his general support for the Bill and its provisions. He mentioned his constituent Lisa Dorrian and the particular circumstances of that case. I hope and pray that all of those families ultimately get what they wish for, which is to have the bodies of their loved ones returned to them so that they can have a proper burial, and also to find some degree of closure to what are very difficult and trying circumstances.

I thank everybody who took part — both today and in the Committee — for their work on this most important piece of legislation.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Amendment No 2 made: In page 2, line 4, Leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (2)(c) and”. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 3, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 4, 6 and 7. Those amendments deal with annuities and other periodical payments that are paid as a result of a declaration of presumed death, and they will reduce the requirement for insurance on the part of recipients of such payments. They further deal with amending the definition of “insurer”.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 4, line 12, after “declaration” insert

“(other than a capital sum which has been distributed by way of an annuity or other periodical payment)”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 4: In clause 7, page 4, line 42, after “sum” insert

“(other than in respect of an annuity or other periodical payment)”. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

No 6: In clause 16, page 8, line 4, at end insert

“‘insurer’ means any person who provides for the payment of benefits on the death of any person;”. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

No 7: In clause 16, page 8, leave out lines 20 to 32. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds).]

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Amendment Nos 3 and 4 seek to modify the treatment of capital sums that are paid out by insurers in clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to make sure that this Bill treats payments to insurers in the same way as they are treated under the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977. Under the Scottish Act, payments of capital sums by way of annuity or other periodical payments are excluded from the scope of the obligation on the courts to take into account the need to return capital sums to insurers when making a property variation order on foot of an order that varies the original declaration of death. The payments are also excluded from the scope of the right of insurers to require the recipient of capital insurance sums to take out indemnity insurance.

Under clauses 6 and 7 of our Bill, no special provision is made in relation to capital sums that are paid out by way of annuity or other periodical payments. The practical effect of the amendments will be that in those cases in which life insurance is paid out in periodical payments, or by way of annuity, the insurer making the payment will not be able to require the recipient to take out reinsurance to cater for the possibility that the missing person may not, in fact, be dead.

Those two technical amendments have been raised with the insurance industry, which agrees that the Northern Ireland legislation should treat those payments and repayments in the same way as they are treated under the corresponding Scottish legislation.

Amendment Nos 6 and 7 are technical amendments to replace the definition of insurer at clause 16(2) and 16(3). The current definition of insurer is unnecessarily complex and is tied to the regulatory framework for the carrying out of insurance business as set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Although legally correct, that cumbersome definition is not required for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment No 6 would insert a new single definition of insurer:

“‘insurer’ means any person who provides for the payment of benefits on the death of any person;”.

That simpler definition is modelled on the definition of insurer in the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977. Indeed, it is also to be found in the current definition at clause 16(2)(c) as a catch-all provision to cover those persons providing for the payment of benefits on the death of a person who is not included in the regulatory framework of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

To be clear, that simpler definition does not extend the scope of the Bill in any way. It is a technical, presentational amendment to make it easier for the general reader to understand the circumstances when insurance moneys or other death benefits may have to be repaid, should the missing person who has been presumed to be dead turn out to be alive.

Amendment No 7 is consequential to amendment No 6 and removes from the Bill the current definition of insurer in clause 16(2) and 16(3). I beg to move the amendments.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister set out this group of amend­ments in significant detail, so I will dwell on the Committee’s consideration of it.

I will deal first with amendment No 3, which would amend clause 6, and amendment No 4, which would amend clause 7. The Committee discussed concerns that were expressed by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about the need for clarification from the insurance industry on the likely costs of payments associated with the requirement for certain persons, including trustees or the recipient of a missing person’s life insurance money, to take out insurance to cover the costs of returning insurance money should it be subsequently established that the missing person is still alive. At that time, the Department advised the Committee that the insurance industry was unable to provide specific information on likely premium rates to be paid in those cases in which either the legislation or an insurer imposes an obligation on a person to take out insurance to cover the possibility that a missing person may not be dead.

However, information on premiums that are payable in comparable circumstances, including in respect of missing beneficiary insurance, was provided to the Committee. In addition, the Department emphasised that the courts retain the power to disapply the requirement in certain circumstances. Therefore, it is not always the case that there will be a requirement for insurance.

I confirm that the Committee welcomes the proposed amendments, which will clarify the treatment of annuities and other periodical payments and which will reduce the number of instances when insurance may be required under the legislation.

I now turn to the Committee’s consideration of amendment Nos 6 and 7, which would amend clause 16. The Department advised of its plans to provide a simpler definition of insurer that is not tied into the regulatory framework. The Committee was content with that proposal and welcomes a more streamlined approach to dealing with insurance issues.

In summary, I support amendment No 3, which would amend clause 6, and the associated amendment No 4, which would amend clause 7. On behalf of the Committee, I also support amendment No 6, which would amend clause 16, along with the consequential amendment No 7.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful to the Chairperson of the Committee for his comments, and I have nothing further to add to previous remarks.

Amendment No 3 agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the third group of amendments. There is only one amendment for debate. Amendment No 10 deals with changing, from a discretionary power to a statutory duty, the role of the Registrar General in annotating the register, where it emerges that a death certificate has been issued outside Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move amendment No 10: In page 11, line 18, at end insert

“( ) Where it appears to the Registrar General that the death of a missing person, being a person to whom an entry in the Register of Presumed Deaths relates, has been registered in the register of deaths or recorded in any register kept or maintained under the law of a country or territory outside Northern Ireland corresponding in nature to the register of deaths, the Registrar General must mark or annotate the relevant entry in the Register of Presumed Deaths accordingly.”

The amendment will impose a duty on the Registrar General for Northern Ireland to mark or annotate an entry in the register of presumed deaths in certain circumstances. Paragraph 4(2) of schedule 1 to the Bill already allows the Registrar General to mark or annotate, or to cancel the marking or annotation of, any entry in the register of presumed deaths.

We intend the power to provide the Registrar General with a wide discretion to annotate an entry in such circumstances as he sees fit. Therefore, if the Registrar General became aware that a missing person was still alive, even though no revocation order had been obtained from the High Court, he would be able to mark the entry so that any further certified copies obtained of the entry would indicate that the missing person had been reported to be alive.

At Committee Stage, some of the families of the disappeared gave evidence to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, stating that, where the remains of any of the disappeared have been located subsequent to a finding of presumed death, the entry in the register of presumed deaths should be cancelled, or at least annotated in some way. My officials explained to the Committee that, given that an entry in the register of presumed deaths is made on foot of a High Court order, it is necessary to obtain a variation order from the High Court before any entry can be cancelled.

In order to go some way to meeting the concerns of the families of the disappeared, we have decided to spell out the circumstances in which the Registrar General shall be under a duty to mark or annotate an entry in the register of presumed deaths. I am sure that other families of missing persons who are presumed dead will also welcome that measure.

The duty will arise where the Registrar General becomes aware that the death of a missing person has been recorded in the register of deaths that he keeps in Northern Ireland or in any register of deaths that is kept or maintained under the law of a country or territory outside Northern Ireland. That covers other registers of death in the rest of United Kingdom and those of other countries such as the Irish Republic and France, where bodies of the disappeared are believed to have been buried. Amendment No 10 is a small, technical amendment to the schedule 1 provisions, which deal with the register of presumed deaths.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Committee discussed the concerns that the WAVE Trauma Centre raised about how a death may be re-registered if the body of one of the disappeared is located, and the death has already been included in the register of presumed deaths.

In response to those concerns, the Committee proposed to the Department of Finance and Personnel that the discretionary power of the Registrar General to annotate an entry in the register be amended to a statutory duty in cases in which he becomes aware that a missing person’s death has been registered outside Northern Ireland. Amendment No 10, which the Minister tabled, responds positively to the Committee’s proposition.

The Committee believes that the amendment could help to allay some of the concerns that witnesses raised, and address the need to facilitate the updating of records subsequent to the recovery of remains and the issuing of a death certificate. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I support amendment No 10.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Once again, I am grateful for the Chairperson’s remarks and for the Committee’s support.

Amendment No 10 agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Presumption of Death Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Private Members’ Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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 in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Social Development to withdraw her plans to revise services at Social Security Offices as recommended under the Strategic Business Review, following a similar decision being taken in England.

At the outset, I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families of the soldiers who were so brutally murdered in Antrim on Saturday night, and I wish all those who were injured a complete and speedy recovery.

I am honoured to propose this important motion. I want to pay tribute to the staff in our social security offices, who provide a personal service — daily and under severe pressure — to help customers and local communities in need of their expertise to claim benefit. I commend those staff for their daily efforts and loyal service.

I am pleased that the Minister is in the Chamber for this very important debate and hope that she will appreciate that the motion is not a personal attack on her. Today’s debate is about tackling a growing problem in Northern Ireland — how we deal with the growing number of people who are becoming unemployed.

It is not an opportunity for political point-scoring, because the issue is much too serious. The motion simply enables the Assembly to debate this important issue. Its wording was carefully thought out. It does not call for the Minister to abandon the process of service provision but asks her to withdraw the proposals.

That terminology is a carefully measured response to the growing need for local office services in the Social Security Agency (SSA). I hope that the Minister will appreciate that the motion seeks to address an immediate and urgent need. I understand that no local office will be closed but that services that are available in local offices will be severely curtailed due to the proposed establishment of 16 benefit-processing centres that will each deal with only one benefit and to which the public will not have access. I find that unacceptable.

The additional pressure put on local office staff means that maintaining and strengthening the service that those offices provide is an essential response to the rise in unemployment. Devolution was intended to provide local solutions to local problems, and that is one local solution that is required urgently and that can be delivered. The strategic business review proposals will see many offices being reduced to counter service only. Counter staff will be fewer in number, warm telephone lines will be provided, for which I understand that calls will be limited to 10 minutes, or a computer-based claim process will be implemented. That contradicts the findings of the PricewaterhouseCoopers survey that showed that the majority of SSA customers consider face-to-face interviews with staff as the only way that they can resolve their problems. I note that that survey was commissioned by the management of the SSA, but the findings have obviously made no impact on its thinking.

Why will every office not be equipped with a telephony service? Why is the great reliance on the telephony service being used to promote the strategic business review recommendations? In truth, the two are like chalk and cheese. At a time when we need to process more claims, that is neither a practical nor an advisable route to follow. It is my belief that the current proposals hinge on a wing and a prayer and are based on the hope that footfall in each local office will drop considerably due to the introduction of untried telephony and new IT systems. To base a discussion on such a hope is acceptable, but to put forward proposals on that basis is ludicrous.

Staff in our local offices face a backlog of cases that grows daily. Revision of the services that local offices provide, as suggested in ‘Delivering a Better Service for Customers’, will only impede staff and will, in fact, reduce that service. Part of the pressure on the local office staff goes back to the 2004 Fit for Purpose initiative, which resulted in the loss of 674 posts in the Social Security Agency. Given that local office staff are barely able to cope at present, how will they cope with a further reduction in staff numbers? The answer is simple: they will be unable to cope.

The Minister should examine the course of action followed by the Department for Work and Pensions in GB, which has suspended a planned efficiency drive and has recruited the additional staff that are needed to deal with the increasing backlog. The people of Northern Ireland — the local office staff — deserve the same recognition.

At present, many offices are working with a claims-processing backlog of up to five weeks, and staff are working on Saturdays to try to reduce it. The strategic business review proposals will serve only to compound the backlog and demoralise staff. Only by reinforcing and enhancing the staff provision in every local office — as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)has done in England — can the Department look properly after those who have lost their jobs. Such people are sometimes in great distress and are often in urgent need of money. The present staff are doing their job while being overwhelmed by a backlog of work. We must ensure that staff in local offices will not suffer burnout due to the additional workload.

I also have grave concern for those who claim benefit and have literacy or numeracy problems. A telephone or computer system may result in claimants not receiving the full benefit to which they are entitled, or they may perhaps be entirely put off claiming the benefits that they need. We must also be concerned about older people, who may not be computer-literate and who find face-to-face interviews the only way to resolve their problems. Such vulnerable people desperately need to see someone in person to guide them through the process of claiming the benefit. The strategic business review proposals will result in people having to wait for the member of staff who is dealing with their benefit to make an appointment for them to be seen. In the worst-case scenario, that could take weeks. At present, people can see someone with specialist knowledge of their particular benefit in the local office after a short wait. What will people do for money if they have to wait weeks to see an adviser? I am sure that all Members can see the drawbacks in the proposed changes.

It is my firm belief that these proposals will result in confusion for claimants while heaping intense additional pressure on the SSA staff in local offices who at present are barely coping. That is not acceptable.

I know that the recruitment of 150 new staff is under way. That is a welcome move, and I congratulate the Minister for implementing that. However, the current proposals will lead to a reduction of approximately 200 staff, and I calculate that that leaves an overall reduction of 50 staff. I find that unacceptable.

At meetings that I have had with staff and union representatives it has become obvious that, as they stand, the proposals will put some people in the position in which they will be unable to continue working because of care duties. Some people have told me that if they have to relocate, they may no longer be able to work for the SSA — and I emphasise the word “may” — rather, they will become one of its customers. One member of staff informed me that if they were relocated they would have to leave home at about 6.00 am, and would not return home until around 8.00 pm, because they depend on public transport. That is a totally unacceptable state of affairs when it comes to the work/life balance, and one which almost guarantees burnout.

I believe that the proposals are in direct contravention of the Bain Report, which proposed the decentralisation of jobs. I ask the Assembly to recognise that now is the time to push aside the proposals that are in the strategic business review. I ask the Minister to indicate that she is in agreement with the motion and with halting the implementation of the proposals due to the negative impact that they will have. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that although the consultation exercise has been interesting, due to the change in economic circumstances, any service provision must be placed in a new context. I ask all Members to support the very important motion.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh míle maith agat. I support the motion. In his foreword to the strategic business review into how services are provided within local offices, the chief executive of the Social Security Agency stated that the purpose of the review is:

“to ensure the future delivery of high quality services for customers.”

At least he got one thing right; the provision of a quality service to the customer is paramount. The customer is the most important person in all this and deserves the best service available.

Although Sinn Féin welcomes the consultation, the party is very concerned at the level of upheaval that will no doubt be caused if the proposed changes are implemented, particularly given the huge economic downturn that we are experiencing throughout the island of Ireland. In the current economic climate such a dramatic overhaul would lead to further disarray and confusion for an already hard hit public.

Sinn Féin believes that the current proposals will serve only to further deteriorate the service that is in place, and will not lead to a better service for customers or to enhanced benefit take-up. I think that the current approach undermines any commitment by the Minister for Social Development to protect the most vulnerable sections of the community and those employed in the Social Security Agency.

In the strategic business review, all front line service proposals put forward are predicated on what happens in England, where 80% of claims are dealt with by phone. I challenge the assumption that front line services will not be affected by the proposed changes. There are many people claiming benefit who need face to face contact in their claim. The strategic business review does not take into account the views and concerns of those vulnerable people who need the reassurance and support that face to face contact can provide. The Minister has to take into account the unique nature of benefit provision and uptake.

A major point is that the social security staff and the unions have yet to endorse the proposals. I have met extensively with social security staff in the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) who feel that their concerns are being ignored and undermined, almost to the point of arrogance. Staff morale in local offices is already very low and nothing has been done to constructively address that.

Under the proposed efficiency savings it is likely that up to 200 jobs will be phased out by 2011. However, the Minister and the Social Security Agency chiefs continue to state that there will be no job losses. I simply do not believe that to be the case. The Social Security Agency is making much of the enhanced telephony service which will deal with the projected number of claims. However, unless some miracle occurs, that will not be fit for purpose. Staff will be asked to travel much longer distances with the added problems of sorting out childcare and accessing transport. Once again, Social Security Agency executives are downplaying those real concerns.

On 27 October 2008, the introduction of employment support allowance added to the confusion, and is already proving to be problematical.

The Committee for Social Development has called on the Minister to scrap the strategic business review, and, indeed, some Committee members from her own party expressed misgivings about it. Perhaps that was playing to the electorate. The strategic business review continues apace. That makes one wonder who is pulling the strings — the Social Security Agency executives, who appear to be leading the charge, or the Minister, who is ultimately responsible. The proposals can only compound failures that are already inherent in the system, and duty and commitment to the customer must remain paramount. I call on the Minister to think again. Go raibh míle maith agat.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

The Committee has considered the Social Security Agency’s strategic business review at a number of meetings. In order to better understand the issues in contention, the Committee heard from the Social Security Agency, NIPSA and a number of other advice providers. The Committee has considered the advice that all of those witnesses have provided. To further inform their understanding, Committee members visited a jobs and benefits office and the Belfast benefit delivery centre. Members made a point of speaking to operational staff in order to get a feeling about the proposed changes from those who would be directly affected.

As has been said, the strategic business review proposes a degree of rationalisation of back-office activities and their relocation to a number of offices in Northern Ireland. That will mean that some Social Security Agency staff will be obliged to change their place of work. In addition, a number of staff are to be redeployed outside the jobs and benefits office network. The Social Security Agency has also set out plans for the enhanced use of telephone appointments and for appointments for its front-office activities.

The Committee viewed all of the proposals with great concern, for a number of reasons. First, as has been said, the economic downturn has put considerable strain on the jobs and benefits office system. The last thing that the Committee wants to see is those who have lost their jobs experience difficulty or delay in accessing the benefits to which they are entitled. For that reason alone, the Committee agreed that, in the current economic climate, the strategic business review was ill-timed and should be set aside. The Committee welcomed the Minister’s announcement relating to additional recruitment for the Social Security Agency, but it remains concerned about the timing of the review.

Secondly, the Committee was concerned about the impact of the review on members of staff of the Social Security Agency. Those individuals do an important job in providing care, which requires training. The Committee was advised that many of the staff members had childcare or other caring responsibilities and consequently made use of family-friendly working arrangements. The proposal to relocate the place of work of those staff members long distances from their homes could make continued employment untenable. The Committee was particularly concerned that that aspect of the proposals could have a disproportionate effect on working mothers and women with other caring responsibilities. The Committee, therefore, strongly urged the Minister to review that aspect of the proposals.

Thirdly, the Committee considered the enhanced use of telephony for social security claimants. To inform our review of that, the Committee took evidence from independent advice providers, who highlighted concerns to do with how a telephony-based system would deal with vulnerable people with, for instance, learning difficulties or those for whom English was not their first language. Committee members were impressed by the measures that have been adopted by Social Security Agency at its Belfast benefit delivery centre to manage vulnerable and other claimants. Nonetheless, the Committee takes the view that face-to-face contact is an essential part of the jobs and benefits office service and that that, with challenging customer service standards, must be maintained.

The Committee has made its views clear on the strategic business review of the Social Security Agency. Recently, the agency appeared to indicate that it wants the Committee to consider mitigating measures that it intends to adopt in response to the Committee’s criticisms. The Committee has indicated its unanimous opposition to the strategic business review, but it will, of course, hear the agency’s proposals and make its view known on those in due course.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The Ulster Unionist Party has no objection to the strategic business review of the Social Security Agency. However, it has grave concerns about the wisdom of seeking to implement major reforms when there is rising unemployment, the onset of recession and chaos in the world’s financial systems with little prospect of a swift recovery.

The key aim of any benefit system is to provide the best possible service to the public and to ensure that people who are entitled to benefits receive them. During the past 12 months, there has been a dramatic increase in unemployment. I declare an interest, because the situation in Mid Ulster is particularly worrying. Official figures that were released in January indicate that the Magherafelt District Council and Cookstown District Council areas are among the worst-affected local authority areas in the United Kingdom for percentage increases in the number of people who claim unemployment benefit.

Indeed, no fewer than six Northern Ireland council areas were placed in the 10 worst-affected areas in the entire United Kingdom. Although, as a representative for Mid Ulster, I am, obviously, concerned that Cookstown and Magherafelt are ranked as the worst two council areas in the region, I am mindful that Dungannon, Banbridge, Ballymoney and Limavady also appear in the top 10. Those figures should bring home to all Members the seriousness of the current situation throughout Northern Ireland.

The severity of the situation is confirmed by data that shows that unemployment in Northern Ireland rose by 12,200 between January 2008 and December 2008 to a total of 35,900. There is fear that unemployment figures could eventually rise to 50,000.

Mid Ulster has been hit badly by the decline in the construction industry, particularly as it affects small building firms. Those losses are in addition to the decline in traditional employment sectors, such as the agrifood industry and the textile industry in particular, which has been in a state of crisis for the past decade.

With that in mind, the Assembly must question the wisdom of seeking to implement major reform at a time when the claimant count increases daily. Staff in benefits offices have had a difficult enough time keeping up with their workload and the large influx of new claimants. The Assembly must also be concerned about the untried and untested nature of some of the proposals, including those for a new telephony system and the increased use of customer access phones.

Although those innovations have been worked out, sufficient doubts have been raised to warrant further consultation. I am also worried about how the strategic business review worked out in Great Britain, where 492 job centres have closed since 2002, and one has closed every week since January 2008. In the current economic climate, that is a huge gamble and is not one that I believe that Northern Ireland should take.

I support the motion.

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

I am happy to have the chance to say a few words on the motion, which I oppose. Many Members have made claims about the review, some of which might cause concern among the general public. A few points must be made clear. I am sure that the Minister will go into them in more detail when she speaks to the motion later in the debate.

As regards changes, the situation in England is not the same as the situation in Northern Ireland. The review is not about job cuts or office closures: it is about improving the Social Security Agency. The current system is around 40 years old, and a change is long overdue.

Let us be clear about the review of the Social Security Agency: the proposals are still the subject of public consultation; there are no plans to close public offices; large numbers of staff will not have to change offices; people will not have to travel long distances to their place of work; and there are no plans to shed large numbers of jobs.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

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

No, you are all right.

No one will lose their jobs. In fact, it will be necessary to hire more staff, and 150 extra staff will be brought in to cope with rising unemployment during the credit crunch. The Minister is committed to providing the best possible service to people who use the Social Security Agency.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member give way?

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

There is plenty of room for Members to speak.

People are entitled to, and deserve no less than, a top-class service, particularly now when they need it most and when many people are being made unemployed because of the credit crunch. This review will help to ensure that the Minister delivers the best possible service, not only now but in the future. The review is concerned not with cuts, but with improvements. I oppose the motion.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Alliance Party supports the motion.

I understand that as a result of the comprehensive spending review and other budgetary requirements, DSD is under enormous pressure to make efficiency savings. Furthermore, I understand the rationale behind DSD’s attempt to change the balance of service delivery to telephony and appointment-based systems in social security offices. Moreover, I understand the concerns that were expressed by Members who spoke previously about the loss of face-to-face appointments and the proposed telephony services, which might disadvantage many groups in our community.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I will ask my colleague the question that I wanted to ask the Member who spoke previously, who has now left the Chamber. Does she agree that people find it difficult enough to go into those offices to be questioned, but that it is even more humiliating, almost, to have to stand and queue to ask questions through a telephone system?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute in which to speak.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I agree with my colleague.

It is, perhaps, worth noting that the Committee visited the Belfast benefit delivery centre, which employs 800 staff and provides centralised benefit processing for approximately 177,000 customers in several London districts on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. Given Northern Ireland’s small population, if it were to follow the same system as in Great Britain, it would require one or two processing centres, rather than the 18 that are proposed.

However, I have a major problem with the timing of the proposed changes that will arise from the review. Given the severe economic downturn, an unprecedented number of people will be registering as unemployed and seeking benefits. Is October the right time to make such fundamental changes to our system, given that it is very likely that we will still be in a deep recession?

I have a reservation, too, about the relocation of offices, with back offices to be centralised in 18 centres on 16 sites.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member who spoke previously on behalf of the SDLP said that staff will not have to travel great distances. That may be so. However, some people depend on public transport. For instance, in my constituency, although Coleraine to Magherafelt is not a great distance, making that journey by public transport would add three hours to a person’s day.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Absolutely; I will mention that matter, too.

Of the 1,050 staff, 850 will be moved from their current offices, and 200 may be redeployed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That is a major upheaval for many people.

All MLAs have received correspondence from their constituents expressing concerns. Someone in Bangor wrote to me to say that a move of office from Bangor to Downpatrick would involve a journey by car in excess of one hour each way. That is obviously worse if the person has to travel by public transport, as there is no public-transport route between Bangor and Downpatrick. That would involve hours of journey time each way.

DSD officials say that it is reasonable to expect staff to travel an extra 30 miles to a new location and that there will be a compensation payment for extra travel. At peak times, surely travelling 30 miles would take one, two, or even more, hours each way. Is it reasonable to expect staff to do that?

People choose to work near their homes for various reasons, mostly to care for family or relatives. That is of particular relevance to female staff. People also prefer a work/life balance, and that should be taken into consideration. I am very concerned that staff who can find jobs elsewhere will leave their current positions in social security offices. Those are very experienced staff, and if many of them leave, it will be a great loss at a time when they are most needed to cope with increased demands, due to the higher level of unemployment as a result of the economic downturn.

I call on the Minister to suspend the proposal, to review the timing and to roll it out at a future date, when the climate is right.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support and welcome the motion, particularly because, as the Minister will be aware, it is a very big issue in my area of Strabane. I know that the Minister has met with the MP for the area on the matter. I would not go so far as to say that there was a meeting of minds about the way forward, but, as I understand it, the Minister made the point that it is difficult for her to do anything when the consultation is ongoing. I can understand that, but having said that, this is a good opportunity for me and others to make the case for our own areas — I will repeat some of the points made by my colleagues.

The front-office staff in Strabane will, as I understand, be reduced from around 43 to 10. There is rising unemployment, on top of an already existing situation in the area, where the jobs profile and employment situation is so poor. It was only last week that I saw on one of the media outlets — probably the BBC —reference to the exact situation. If I remember the figures correctly, there are 1,400 people on the register seeking jobs, but there are only 20 jobs available in Strabane. That is a very big issue.

I hope that the Minister is listening; I believe that she does listen on many occasions. However, we must in some way make the jump between listening and understanding the situation and actually putting something in place. I appeal to the Minister to look at the issue again, particularly in the case of Strabane, where, as I have said, the jobs profile is poor.

Mr McClarty, Ms Lo and other Members mentioned travel arrangements. The question:

“What is the longest distance staff will be expected to travel and will staff receive travelling expenses?”

was raised in the consultation document. The answer was:

“There is no definitive distance however the Agency will seek to ensure that staff who move do so within reasonable daily travel, in line with the mobility requirements that presently exist.”

That is not reassuring. At the weekend, I spoke to someone who may well be put in that position, and who was not convinced, on asking those questions, that the answers were available about excess travel and that people will get whatever it is that they are entitled to receive.

When I spoke to someone about this issue at the weekend, I was told that staff were processing claims in the Strabane office from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm on Saturday and Sunday of last weekend, and over three recent weekends. The management of the situation must be looked into. People say that I talk too much about Strabane, but there is a particular issue here. The Minister knows the place well, and I appeal to her to have another look, particularly at what is happening in Strabane. I have heard from people there that that is necessary. Go raibh maith agat.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I endorse this motion along with my colleagues, having given consideration to the public’s opinion and the staff who are affected by the implementation of the review. As can be seen in all the current information that is presented by the Department for Social Development, the review relates to outdated information on unemployment figures and does not truly reflect the requirements of the current economic situation.

Unemployment figures have risen sharply to 38,400 at the end of January — an increase of 2,200 in that month. It seems unrealistic to act on outdated information and to hope or expect the same proposed improvement to the delivery of our benefits system that would have primarily been anticipated by the review. If the Minister decides to implement the review, I can only see it as a disadvantage to the most vulnerable people in society. Surely those are the individuals whom we should protect the most. If we are trying to encourage the uptake of benefits by way of the review, we must concentrate on the availability of resources to address the current increase in unemployment.

How can the Minister assure the Assembly that the most vulnerable, including elderly people and adults with learning difficulties, will not be isolated by replacing human contact with call-handling systems? That will surely not assist the most disadvantaged. The Minister appears to be ignoring the Bain Report’s recommendations on the decentralisation of public-sector jobs, by rotating approximately 40 to 50 posts from Coleraine to Magherafelt.

Mr McClarty has already made the point about how such a rotation of jobs will affect my constituency. If relocated, the staff in Coleraine benefits office will be given the normal allowance associated with re-employment, which would mean leaving Coleraine by Ulsterbus at 7.30 am and arriving in Magherafelt at 8.26 am. At the end of the working day, those staff would have to leave Magherafelt at 5.35 pm, arrive in Antrim at 6.23 pm, and then take another bus at 6.29 pm, eventually arriving back in Coleraine at 7.30 pm. Does the Minister feel that that is a reasonable request to make of public servants? Does she realise the negative effect that such arrangements might have on their family lives, and, in turn, on their performance in work? That knock-on effect could result in an increase in sickness levels.

Prior to the review, the assumption was that the Social Security Agency would retain parity with the Department for Work and Pensions on the issues of social security policy, legislation, benefits, and, where possible, IT systems. Has consideration been given to that? Why has the Minister not acted in the same manner as her counterparts on the mainland and suspended this exercise? I support the motion.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I support the motion and call on the Minister for Social Development to withdraw her plans to revise services at social security offices as recommended by the strategic business review following a similar decision in England.

The outworkings of the strategic business review will have a significant detrimental effect on my constituency of Upper Bann. Income support processing will be centralised in Newry, with staff from Banbridge, Lurgan, Armagh, Dungannon and Portadown having little or no choice but to move there from October 2009. Jobseeker’s allowance processing staff will have no option but to relocate to Dungannon. All processing staff in the Banbridge and Lurgan offices will be forced to move out of their current premises.

Those proposals represent serious upheaval for those who, day in and day out, do a sterling job in administering social security benefits. Throughout this entire process staff have been treated with contempt. The Department for Social Development’s strategic business review team merely brushed aside the questions that staff at the Banbridge social security office asked. In this day and age, that is not on.

The Minister has assured staff across Northern Ireland that there will be no pay-offs. However, one point that is missed out is that she chooses selectively to ignore the fact that there exists the potential for mass resignations. Recently, the Minister brought on board 150 new staff, 12 of whom were sent to the south district. I find it deliberate and outrageous that not one of those 12 new staff was sent to Banbridge.

In addition, staff concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed changes in the telephone, Internet and appointments system have been ignored. Along with that, it is the customers — the public — who want face-to-face consultations to continue. Major concerns also exist about back-office staff in the Banbridge, Lurgan and Portadown offices. The south district has been designated as the pilot area for the strategic business review. That means that if there are teething problems and hiccups — which is most likely — it will be the staff and customers of the south district who will suffer.

I support the motion, and I call on the Minister — for whom I have the greatest respect and regard — to see the folly of the proposals and to withdraw them as a matter of urgency. Mr Burns said that the social security system is 40 years old. However, it is working, and, in this day and age of unemployment, it is doing a good job.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion. The current economic climate is one in which we see more and more workers flooding to social security offices, among them construction, manufacturing and public-sector workers, and many others. The proposed changes will cause a lot of confusion, upheaval and stress to staff and members of the public. I represent a large rural constituency in North Antrim, and like many other Members, I have been inundated with letters, telephone calls and emails from Social Security Agency staff. They do not want those changes, and they do not see any need for them given the ever-growing queues of the unemployed at their offices.

As my party colleague Claire McGill and the Member for East Derry Mr McClarty outlined, the proposals will have a large impact on rural workers and families, some of whom are already in great financial difficulties. The Minister needs to take that into account. As Mr McQuillan outlined, face-to-face communication is much better than any other form of communication. That should be blatantly obvious to us as elected representatives, because for people who are already vulnerable and disadvantaged, the telephone is a very poor means of communication when dealing with complicated issues such as benefits and claims. Face-to-face contact should continue to be available for those who require it.

The Minister needs to listen to the workers, to the unemployed and, above all, to every other political party in the Assembly and immediately withdraw her proposals. Go raibh maith agat.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I am surprised by Mr Burns’s remarks: since 22 January 2009, he has clearly had a road to Damsacus experience. On that date, Mr Burns and his colleague Alban Maginness agreed with other members of the Committee to write to the Minister asking her to withdraw her proposals to implement the review. Those sentiments were echoed publicly by other members of the Minister’s party.

Nevertheless, this debate comes at a time when the world is facing possibly the worst financial crisis in living memory. We received news today that the unemployment total will be worse than feared and that the economy is expected to decrease in the face of less investment. It is expected that there will be 3·2 million people unemployed in the UK by the second half of 2009. Between October 2008 and December 2008, that figure was 1·97 million — the worst figure since 1997.

The Federal Reserve has said that it does not expect to see any improvement in the US economy until late 2009 and possibly early 2010. That is the outlook despite the huge investment by the previous Administration and the new Administration. The US economy shrunk by 6·3% in the final three months of 2008; such hardship is being seen in countries all over the world, and we are all intrinsically tied into the peaks and troughs of the US economy.

Today, we are debating the delivery service that assists those hardest hit by the catastrophic circumstances of recent times. The DUP prides itself on the need to streamline and make efficiency savings, and I would generally support what the Minister and the Department are trying to achieve in this instance. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the current climate makes those changes neither palatable nor appropriate.

It cannot be disputed that the delivery of a high-quality and efficient public service is a key theme of the Programme for Government or that the key objective of the strategic business review is to secure the delivery of an efficient, modern and more accessible service in the longer term. In the current economic climate, people in the private sector are critical of those in the public sector and the perception of there being a job for life. We should be careful that we are not seen as providing a firewall for the public sector when the private sector is being hit so hard. Similarly, we cannot be seen to sit on our hands and do nothing.

The problem is that the strategic business review was undertaken at a time of relative economic prosperity — it was certainly not undertaken with knowledge of the storm that was on the horizon.

We have seen a phenomenal increase in demand for SSA services in recent months, which will only increase for the foreseeable future. We need to deliver an efficient, modern and more accessible service in the longer term, but we cannot leave a service in the short and medium term that is not fit to cope with current demands.

I could naively say from a constituency viewpoint that the strategic business review will be good for my constituency because of job increases in Ards from the revised services. The Minister could also say that with respect to Downpatrick. Those jobs are merely located in the constituency and are not necessarily for people from the borough, never mind the wider constituency.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member agree that the luxury of having public-sector jobs in a constituency is something that the people of East Antrim find very difficult to accept, since we have the lowest number of public-sector jobs of all the 18 constituencies?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I agree with the Member.

The increased number of jobs in Ards creates knock-on benefits for the local business community because of spending by the workforce, which is very welcome. That aside, a number of concerns have been raised by Members today on the proposed restructuring: for the sake of brevity, I will not repeat those concerns. A loss of between 200 and 500 posts is expected in addition to the 674 jobs that have been lost as a result of the “fit for purpose” initiative in 2004.

There will be a severe reduction in the current service provision because direct face-to-face contact will no longer be available. The new telephone systems that are being installed are untried, which may lead to additional, unnecessary frustration and anxiety. DWP has suspended its efficiency drive in the rest of the UK because of the increased uptake in benefits.

Given the additional demand on services and the cost of implementing the Minister’s plans to revise services at social security offices, she should consider whether that should now happen. I ask the Minister to review her plans in the light of current circumstances and to make a determination based on what is happening today, rather than on what was happening when the strategic business review was undertaken. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. As Question Time will commence at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Mr Allan Bresland.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Regional Development

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his Department’s policy on the positioning of new street lights in Housing Executive areas. (AQO 2226/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Roads Service has one common policy for the provision of street lighting in all housing areas. In all urban areas, roads, footways, footpaths, and car parks maintained by Roads Service will generally be lit. However, light will not normally be provided where footpaths provide only rear access to properties or an alternative route to an already lighted road or footpath.

The Member wrote to me recently about the provision of street lighting to back entries to counter antisocial behaviour. While I wholly sympathise with any residents who are experiencing incidences of antisocial behaviour from unlit back entries, issues regarding antisocial behaviour are for the PSNI to address.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Can the Minister explain why, when the Housing Executive, the North Down District Policing Partnership and the PSNI have all written to Roads Service complaining about the removal of street lighting from Rathgael estate, that has not been taken into account when removing those lights?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We are installing new street lighting in the Rathgael area as part of a programme to replace columns that have reached the end of their useful life. As I indicated, Roads Service policy is to provide lighting on roads, footpaths, and along the frontage of properties. Roads Service does not normally provide lighting to back entries, as to do so would increase costs and energy-consumption levels which cannot be sustained. That policy has been followed in providing the new street lighting system in the Rathgael area.

Roads Service has a policy not to light alternative routes where a route to a house is already lit. There may be an issue with back entries — and, as I have said, I sympathise with that — but there are thousands of back entries all across the North. To start lighting all of those areas would have substantial implications for Roads Service and the street lighting budget. Where there are issues particularly associated with antisocial behaviour, there are others who need to be involved in addressing them.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister look into increasing the wattage in the street lighting in all housing areas? I am particularly speaking about the Foyle area.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We are always looking at ways to improve the street lighting system. The normal lifespan of a street light is around 25 or 30 years. When Roads Service considers the implementation of a new system, it will aim to use the best technology available. There are also issues of light pollution, and people will often raise that issue from an environmental perspective.

There are also issues associated with energy costs. We know from the last six or nine months how energy costs can impact on any of our budgets. Those issues have to be kept in the balance. Wherever technology will allow us to provide the best possible lighting systems, we will do that, but we have to bear in mind the implications of energy costs and light pollution.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does his Department have a system for regular consultation with community safety partnerships and the PSNI on issues such as street lighting?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not sure if there is a system per se, but where there is a request for Roads Service to attend any of those multi-agency meetings to address such issues, I expect it to come along and play its part. It has a policy in how it provides street lighting, as I have outlined. When it comes to replacing old street lighting, the new policy will be adhered to: for example, there may be a replacement of certain lighting in certain parts of housing areas. If multi-agency groups are getting together to tackle issues around lighting and around housing developments, I expect that Roads Service should play its part.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development how many roadworks were not completed on schedule in 2008. (AQO 2227/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service’s business plan targeted five major roadworks schemes for completion in 2007-08. Four of those schemes were completed on schedule. The one scheme that was not completed on schedule was the £2·4 million Frederick Street Link in Newtownards. The overall development and construction timetable for that particular scheme proved extremely challenging, but I am pleased to say that the scheme was opened to traffic in November 2008.

In any given year, construction on road schemes can be delayed, or postponed, due to problems with, for example, acquiring necessary lands or due to contractual difficulties. However, it is normal practice for Roads Service to bring forward alternative schemes in order to achieve its programmed in-year spend.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What steps has he introduced to ensure that his Department can monitor and evaluate the progress of contracts? Furthermore, in light of the inadequate roads’ maintenance budget, what is his Department’s, or, indeed, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s, assessment of the cost of poor roads’ maintenance to local businesses in Northern Ireland?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In fairness, the Roads Service — and the Department for Regional Development (DRD) in general — has a good record, which the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) would acknowledge, in spending its capital budget. In cases in which land acquisition or contractual problems arise, Roads Service usually has several other schemes in the pipeline, ready to be brought forward in order to ensure that the budget is spent.

The Member will be aware — it is no secret — that the money allocated to Roads Service for the three-year Budget period is insufficient to meet the cost of structural maintenance. Normally, Roads Service is able to top up funding in the in-year monitoring rounds. However, this year, given the focus, and, in one sense, the success, of the Executive in spending their Budget, there have been negative implications for Roads Service. All Departments have been tight about spending their budgets, so there has been little money available in the monitoring rounds, and therefore, Roads Service has not benefited as much as it would normally expect to from money returned from other Departments in the latter half of the year.

I acknowledge that there is a difficulty with the structural-maintenance budget. In future Budget rounds — I have discussed this with Roads Service — rather than depending on the previous system of being allocated most of what is required and then having that topped-up in year, we must be much more assertive when bidding for overall structural-maintenance requirements. Given the way in which the Executive are approaching their spending programme, which is a good thing, it appears that little money will be surrendered in year, and that will have negative implications for Roads Service. Obviously, if the roads are not up to the required standard, there will be implications for the economy throughout the North, so, when possible, we will continue to bid for money in order to improve the roads. Nevertheless, that requires money.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister is absolutely right; the new Frederick Street roadway in Newtownards has made a tremendous difference, and the traffic flow is much more settled than in the past. In addition, we have had the Castlebawn development, which was at least 90% funded by developers. Where does the next stage of the Comber bypass feature in the Minister’s future roads’ scheme? Is there a timescale for that work? The last stage took some 35 years, so —

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

The Member should stick to his question.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

This time, we hope that the Comber bypass will appear in a much shorter time — perhaps, given the Minister’s statement, in the next five years.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In recent months, I had the pleasure of visiting the Castlebawn development, which has resulted in a substantial degree of progress in and around Newtownards. I am not sure of the exact time frame for the Comber-bypass scheme, although I sincerely hope that it will not take another 35 years. Nevertheless, I will obtain an up-to-date time frame for the scheme and forward it to the Member.

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

Bearing in mind what the Minister said about the Road’s Service inadequate budget, is its budget adequate enough to maintain footpaths and roads in a safe condition. I am particularly concerned about some areas in south Belfast, where there are high numbers of frail, but independent, people who want to get out, but they are falling regularly on the uneven slabs. When will the criteria for resurfacing be reviewed to take account of the levels of older people in areas?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Obviously, safety is the number one concern in respect of roads, footpaths and any other part of the infrastructure for which Roads Service is responsible. If a particular problem is identified, I would expect Roads Service to seriously consider it. I shall not decry my inadequate budget, saying that it is everybody else’s fault. Every Department suffers from having less money than it might wish to have.

That becomes more evident at this time of the year, because the roads take a substantial pounding during the winter. Roads Service is used to getting some of the monitoring-round money that becomes available at this time of the year, but that has not happened this year. That is having an impact, but I do not want to make a great song and dance about my budgetary woes.

If there are problems in relation to locations in south Belfast, I will be glad to take details from the Member and ensure that Roads Service looks at them.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am delighted that the Minister has recognised the progress that we have been making around Newtownards, but I want to know when the funding for the peninsula area will be available. Not so long ago, funding was available for Main Street in Greyabbey and High Street in Portaferry. Those two roads are a disgrace. Can the Minister inform the residents and representatives of those areas when those two roads — and that is only two — will be tackled?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I knew that it would be a challenge to get away from talking about roads in the Ards Peninsula without hearing from Mr Shannon or Mr McCarthy. I do not have information to hand on the two schemes that Mr McCarthy mentioned. I will ask for that information and get it to the Member as soon as I can.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development what financial commitment he has made to the upgrading of the A32, given its importance as a key transport corridor between Omagh and the new acute hospital in Enniskillen. (AQO 2228/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The investment delivery plan for roads, published in April 2008, included a package of realignment and widening improvements on the A32 between Omagh and Enniskillen at an estimated cost of £10 million. That was supplemented by additional funding of £5 million from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to carry out road improvements to facilitate blue-light services on that important road that will serve the new acute hospital in Enniskillen.

Improvements to the A32 at Mossfield and Thornhill have been carried out, and a further scheme at Mullaghbane is under construction. Consultants are preparing road-improvement schemes at Esker Bog between Dromore and Irvinestown, and at Sidaire between Irvinestown and Enniskillen. Roads Service anticipates that those schemes will be delivered prior to the opening of the new acute hospital.

Consultants are also preparing further schemes along that road at locations between Omagh and Dromore, between Dromore and Irvinestown, and between Irvinestown and Enniskillen. However, Roads Service anticipates that due to the statutory procedures that have to be followed, those schemes will not be delivered until after the opening of the new acute hospital.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Following the Health Minister’s recent decision to remove all acute services from the Tyrone County Hospital, can the Minister inform the House what meetings the Health Minister has had with him and his Department to highlight the need for the A32 to be upgraded as a matter of urgency, given that it is the key transport corridor from Omagh to Enniskillen and the road that will be used to get all critically-ill patients to the new hospital in Enniskillen?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The importance of the road — particularly given the location of the hospital — has been acknowledged by the fact that the Department of Health has made available to Roads Service £5 million for road improvement schemes between Omagh and Enniskillen.

I have been corresponding with Minister McGimpsey about the A32, and I assure the Member that I will continue to keep Minister McGimpsey informed of progress and of any significant changes to the timescale for implementing road improvements on the A32. That correspondence is ongoing. The Department of Health’s interest in the issue is reflected in the contribution that it has made to the road improvement.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My colleague Tom Buchanan anticipated my supplementary question. That is an indication of how closely we work in West Tyrone.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development what steps he plans to take to ensure that rail travellers departing from Derry/Londonderry on the first train can connect with the Dublin Enterprise without undue delay. (AQO 2229/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Timetable changes are operational matters, which are the responsibility of NITHCo and Translink. In December 2008, Translink cancelled the 5.35 am train from Derry. Translink informed me that only one or two people use the 5.35 am train each week to connect with the 8.00 am Enterprise service to Dublin. Translink anticipates that the 6.35 am train will attract a higher number of passengers wishing to travel from Derry to Belfast, thus making the service more viable.

Translink also informed me of the alternatives for people leaving Derry early in the morning with a view to travelling to Dublin. The Goldline Express service 212 leaves Foyle Street in Derry every 15 minutes from 5.30 am; the 5.30 am and 5.45 am departures arrive in Belfast at 7.20 am and 7.35 am and provide connection opportunities with the 8.00 am Enterprise.

Alternatively, Ulsterbus operates a 24/7 direct coach service between Derry and Dublin — service number 274 — with early morning departures at 12.45 am, 4.15 am and 6.15 am, and arrival times in Dublin at 4.10 am, 8.15 am and 10.15 am respectively.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister will be aware of the ongoing campaign and lobby to have a cross-border railway connection between Donegal and the north-west. Will the Minister outline any detailed discussions that he has had with his counterpart in the Irish Government and indicate whether — at the risk of using a cliché — there is any light at the end of the tunnel?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am very aware of the lobby for railway provision in the north-west, on both the Derry side and the Donegal side of the border. The Member will be aware that the Northern Corridor Railways Group is conducting a study that my Department has funded. We have discussed the matter with the Minister for Transport at meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Member will also be aware of the substantial budget issues, particularly in the South, which will affect our ability to make progress on the issue.

I have had the opportunity to meet people not only from councils on the northern side, but from Donegal County Council also, to discuss their ideas in relation to the issue. I have encouraged them to develop their ideas and will continue to do so, so that when the economic situation improves, hopefully they will have advanced some plans and designs and will be able to make a substantial case for railway improvement in the north-west. I accept the argument that the north-west is the last remaining part of Ireland without a significant service, a problem that cuts across the western counties in this region and Sligo and Donegal as well. I am sympathetic to that case, and I advise those involved in pursuing it to continue to do so.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister may be aware that recently the chief executive of Craigavon Borough Council requested a meeting with the chief executive of Translink, Mrs Catherine Mason, in relation to the proposed rebuilding of Portadown railway station and the difficulties at the Lurgan crossing on the Belfast to Dublin line. Given that the chief executive of Translink has refused to meet Craigavon Borough Council to discuss those important issues, will the Minister give an undertaking to use his influence to try to correct that situation?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I was not aware that the chief executive had refused the request for a meeting; I do not know the reasons for that and I am happy to take the matter up with her. I have had the opportunity to visit Lurgan and look at the railway crossing there, and I am aware of the difficulties that the train service coming through Lurgan poses to traffic progression in the town. Recently, I visited the new facility in south Belfast, where there is a very high-tech operation of all the crossings and signalling right along the railway network, and I raised the issue of Lurgan and asked about the ability to make progress with the length of time that the barriers have to come down and stop traffic while the train comes through. Obviously, safety is a priority consideration for Translink in its operation of all such services. I was not aware of the issue between Craigavon Borough Council and the chief executive of Translink; I am happy to take that matter up with Mrs Mason and to talk to Craigavon Borough Council myself.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Further to his answer to Pat Ramsey’s question, will the Minister take this opportunity to outline what proposals he has for increased rail provision on the Derry line and how he intends to address that issue?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member, like other Members, will be aware that I lifted the investment ban in relation to the Derry line when I came into office. Work on that line is ongoing in the areas of Ballymena and Ballymoney. There is a planned investment on the line between Coleraine and Derry at an estimated cost of £70 million, which will create a passing loop. The intention is to speed up the train service between Belfast and Derry and allow commuters to arrive in Derry before 9.00 am for the first time in many years. Therefore, improvements along that line are planned.

There is also an intention to buy a new batch of trains that will be entered into the system. Two additional trains will be deployed on the Derry line, to enable increased services and capacity on that line. Therefore, there are a number of capital projects happening, all of which will lead to improved frequency and an improved service on the Belfast to Derry line.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

What action is the Minister taking to enhance the viability of both the Londonderry and Larne lines? Does he accept that the journey times between Belfast and Londonderry, and the quality and age of the rolling stock on the Larne line, are detrimental to the potential of both to offer the public a sustainable alternative transport option?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I outlined in my previous response, substantial capital has been invested in the Belfast/Derry line to improve the passing loop; and track relaying is ongoing. Substantial investment in the Belfast/Derry line is ongoing, and has been planned for the next few years, which will improve the service. I referred to the purchase of a new batch of trains. Members — particularly from East Antrim — have consistently raised with me the issue of the quality of the train service on the Larne line. As I told them previously, that new batch of trains will allow us to improve the quality of the rolling stock on the Larne line, which will lead to an increase in passenger numbers.

The Member will be pleased to know that passenger numbers have increased steadily and are substantially up on previous years. The service is improving, but there is still a long way to go. However, we will be investing capital in the railway system and in trying to improve services further as we acquire the finances.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development what discussions he has held with Translink in relation to the upcoming review of the passenger charter. (AQO 2230/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Translink passengers’ charter was reviewed in 2007, and the latest version was launched on 8 September 2008 at the official opening of the new bus station in Lisburn, which I attended. The passengers’ charter is not due to be reviewed again until 2011. My officials will be in discussion with Translink and the Consumer Council closer to that time.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Minister agree that for passengers at bus stops along a route the current charter is highly unsatisfactory given that it only requires buses to begin and end their journeys on time, and that the times for the stops in between are a rough estimate?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I compliment the Member and his fellow Member on their dress choice today. They are almost all in uniform.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

We never wore a uniform.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

He is more of an irregular. [Interruption.]

As regards the passengers’ charter, a similar standard applies in Britain and Ireland: it is an attempt to try and improve services. I refer back to my answer to the previous question; the number of people using public transport has been increasing steadily. Satisfaction rates with the service provided, punctuality and fares are at levels where the passengers’ charter estimates they should be, and if there are ways to improve on those, I am happy to do so.

The Department talks to the Consumer Council about the targets in the passengers’ charter, and the results that come from that, which quite vociferously represent the interests of consumers across the region to ensure that they get the best services possible. I do not doubt that there are issues that people can challenge and say that improvements can be made. Improvements can always be made to any service. However, the charter is comparable to charters and standards set elsewhere. Standards and targets are being met, and the number of people using public transport is increasing.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, what role does the Minister play in the review of the passengers charter? Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, Translink undertakes periodic reviews of the charter, and my Department is involved in that. However, it is important from a consumer protection point of view that the Consumer Council is involved in the review of the passengers’ charger. Standards can always be improved, and efforts should be made to continuously improve standards. The targets set in the passengers’ charter, and the level of achievement of those targets, measure comparably with other areas, and the number of people using public transport is increasing.

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

A passengers’ charter would certainly benefit passengers in rural areas. Does the Minister agree that free travel for senior citizens in rural areas is somewhat of a misnomer, given that the rural services lack connectivity with major road and rail services and their timetables?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

If the Member has specific issues in relation to South Down where there is no connectivity, I would be happy to hear from him and see where Translink can improve.

I have not been made aware of any issues, and, as rural dweller, I appreciate that there are issues around public-transport provision, which we must always strive to improve. To that end, additional community-travel schemes have been introduced in rural areas. However, if there are specific timetabling concerns, resulting in a lack of connectivity, I am happy to hear from the Member and to raise those matters with Translink.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the impact on traffic volumes that shoppers from the Republic of Ireland will have, in Newry, Enniskillen and Derry/Londonderry. (AQO 2231/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Members will be aware of the influx of traffic that shoppers from the South have caused in recent months. The effect of that extra traffic is felt most strongly in Newry, while the major junctions of Gaol Square, Henry Street and the Wellington Road throughpass in Enniskillen have been experiencing increased traffic congestion.

However, there has been no significant effect on traffic volumes in Derry, over and above that normally experienced, and it is not envisaged that that will change. My Department does not have precise details of the increase in traffic volumes owing to the influx of shoppers from the South, but an estimated rise of 30% to 40% in Newry’s traffic volumes since December appears reasonable. Although it is expected that shoppers from the South will continue to travel to the North in search of savings, the economic climate will dictate the strength and duration of their interest.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Where improvements can be made to alleviate town-centre traffic difficulties, will the Minister state that his Department will consider them, even if only as a temporary measure — by direction signage or whatever — in order to take pressure away from town centres?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I agree absolutely with the Member. In a sense, it is a good problem to have. Being a border dweller, I am aware of times when traffic volumes moved in the other direction in search of bargains. The current favourable rates mean that traffic volumes are increasing in towns on the Northern side of the border.

I am happy to work with people to provide, as the Member suggests, temporary solutions where they are required. In the run-up to the Christmas shopping period in Newry, I sat down with traders and with representatives from the council, PSNI, Roads Service and Housing Executive — it had property that was subsequently used as a temporary car park — and we were able to come up with a range of measures. Although those measures did not completely do away with the traffic issues, they alleviated them in some small regard. For example, providing better signage at the Newry bypass made people aware that there was more than one entrance to the town, and meant that not everyone tried to use the Dublin Road.

Where that is the case in other towns, a multi-agency approach to even temporary measures is advisable, because pieces of land that are awaiting development or that will lie unused for a couple can often be used as makeshift car parks. It just so happens that I represent the Newry area, so I was able to meet people to discuss the issues, but a local-level approach to get together Roads Service, the Housing Executive, the council, PSNI and traders to consider solutions can be very effective in the short term.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister update the House on the likely completion date for the new dual-carriageway bypass for Newry?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As some­­one who travels past it every day, I can assure the Member that work is progressing quite well. The completion date is the end of next year — winter 2010. I am not sure whether any sections of the road will be opened before then. I have asked that question of Roads Service, and I am waiting for an answer. If there is a further interim update, I will provide it to the Member.

However, work is progressing well. No significant delays have been experienced, and the anticipated completion date remains the winter of next year.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the Minister aware that Amey Lagan Ferrovial intends to close, from 7.00 pm on Friday 20 March until 6.00 am on Monday 23 March, the Forkhill Road at the Cloghogue roundabout during the construction of the new dual carriageway? During that weekend, confirmation will be taking place in the local church. Will the Minister assure the House that, whatever closure is necessary, the local community’s views will be taken into account, and that a time of least inconvenience will be chosen?

I further ask the Minister to ensure that traffic is managed in such a way as to avoid long tailbacks, such as we had at Christmas, from Newry’s Dublin Road to the part of the new motorway that is open.

Will the Minister work with the Department for Social Development (DSD) to ameliorate the impact of the A1 dual carriageway on neighbourhood-renewal areas bordering the new road? Go raibh míle maith agat. [Interruption.]

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

I assure the Members to my left that I am more than able to do this job.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am aware of the proposed closure of Forkhill Road at the Cloghogue roundabout. No road closure occurs without some inconvenience, but the Member is quite right: there should be liaison and discussions with the local community to try to minimise that inconvenience as best we can.

From discussions that I have had with the chairperson of the local liaison group — who co-ordinates meetings among the council, Roads Service, the contractor and the local community — I am aware that an evening is planned to provide information to the local community and to take suggestions. Where road closures are planned, every effort should be made to ensure that the inevitable inconvenience will be minimised. If traffic-management issues arise from closures, they should be managed as sensibly as possible in order to alleviate any possible traffic congestion.

Agriculture and Rural Development

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, as of 20 February 2009, how many farmers are still to receive single farm payments. (AQO 2246/09)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

To date, my Department has paid out £230·7 million to 36,123 farmers, which is 93·2% of farmers who claimed single farm payments in 2008. About 6·8% of claims — or 2,631 — have not been finalised for a variety of reasons, including queries on the claims; the need to complete the processing of on-farm inspection reports; challenges by others of the right to claim the land, including duplicated fields; the need to await probates; or because farmers have not provided bank-account details to allow payments to be made by electronic transfer.

Not all of the remaining claims will be due a payment. That is because of ineligibility or the application of penalties under scheme rules. I am pleased that the Department has again improved its payment performance this year, and it will seek to improve that further.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

In some cases, inspections of farms did not take place until December 2008. In fact, by that time, most payments were due to be made. Will the Minister explain why inspections were held back until so late in the year?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, there are a number of on-farm inspections. Obviously, we must take a line from the European Commission as to how many inspections we carry out and when we do them. However, we must deal with a situation where people have been pulled in to do other work, such as carrying out inspections for the farm nutrient management scheme, in order to pay that money as quickly as possible.

We are trying to manage resources as best we can. We try to ensure that we perform all inspections on time, and we try to ensure that farmers who are waiting for inspections are not disadvantaged regarding payment.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Minister for her initial reply. Since the inception of the scheme, how much single farm payment money has been unspent for various reasons and has been returned to the European Union?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not have that figure with me today, but I am happy to provide it in writing.

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

Does the Minister agree that the map-checking facility that is offered on a first-come, first-served basis could disadvantage some landowners who may not be able to use it in time?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are very keen to ensure that as many applicants as possible are paid as early as possible — whether they are inspection cases or not. My Department is taking steps that will enable it to complete its eligibility inspections earlier this year.

Within the past two weeks, I issued an open invitation to farmers to come into our offices to check their maps with the help of aerial photography. Farmers who ensure that their maps are accurate and up to date — and who ensure that they do not claim on ineligible land — are more likely to have clear inspections, so we need the farmers to meet us halfway on the issue. Farmers and the Department have to work together to make further improvements. However, there is scope for farmers to come into our offices, check their maps and ensure that they are giving us the right information.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

When will the rest of the farmers receive their 2008 payments?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Although I cannot specify when individual cases will be cleared for payment, my Department has made more payments in 2008 at an earlier stage than it did in 2007, and it will continue to make payments as quickly as possible. We exceeded our February targets by completing 92·8% of payments by the end of February, and our target for the end of March 2009 is to complete 95% of claims. Some of the outstanding claims might not receive a payment because of ineligibility or the application of penalties under scheme rules.

Another difficulty is that about 250 farmers have not supplied us with bank details for the purposes of electronic transfer. To help farmers who do not have a bank account to receive their payments, I secured the facility whereby payments can be paid into a credit union, provided that the credit union operates a bank account. Therefore, if those 250 farmers could find a way to get their details to us, we could pay them and take their names off the list.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made on the environmental aspects of the rural development programme. (AQO 2247/09)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The environmental aspects of the rural development programme are delivered through measure 2.2 of the agrienvironment programme. Last June, I launched two key elements of the measure — the new countryside management scheme and the new organic farming scheme. Both schemes opened last year, and as a result, about 1,300 countryside management scheme applications and 40 organic farming scheme applications are being processed.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

As regards grants for woodland areas, the Programme for Government sets ambitious targets for the creation of new woodlands throughout Northern Ireland. As I understand it, at present, only one third of the targets has been achieved. What action is the Minister taking to improve that situation and to deliver on the Programme for Government?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is right: the targets for the expansion of woodland are ambitious. We are exploring a number of issues to help us to achieve those targets. The answer is very long and detailed, and if the Minister is content, I would be happy to supply it in writing.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am not a Minister. [Laughter.]

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Sorry, I meant Member — you never know; someday, Kieran. [Laughter.]

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

I am sure that Mr McCarthy would not object to that.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can I ask the Minister how many applications were received to each scheme?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am pleased to say that there was a high degree of interest in both schemes. We received about 4,500 applications to the new countryside management scheme, and 102 applications to the organic farming scheme.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Given that there have been various indications of timescales over the past 16 months, when will money be delivered to projects under axis 3 of the rural development programme?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We have had to prioritise applications and consider where they are from. Some 1,300 applications have been designated and are being progressed at the moment. I hope, in the next few weeks, to make an announcement on when those applications will start under the countryside management scheme, and when we will be able to pay out. We are looking carefully at budgets, and we want to able to pay that money as soon as we can.

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

Question 3 has been withdrawn; Mr McGlone is not in his place to ask question 4; and question 5 has been withdrawn. I call Mr Jim Shannon to ask question 6.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Question 6 was one of the questions that was grouped alongside questions 4 and 7, so with the permission of the Deputy Speaker, I will answer all those questions together, as they are all on the same issue.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how many applications for farm modernisation grants have been received and accepted, and how much funding has been set aside for the scheme. (AQO 2251/09)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what official clearance the European Union gave her Department to proceed with the farm modernisation scheme on a first-come, first-served basis. (AQO 2252/09)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As regards whether the Department sought EU clearance on how it proceeded with applications under the farm modernisation scheme, EU rules associated with implementing rural development programmes do not oblige the Department to seek clearance from the European Commission on either selection criteria or operational matters. Consequently, the Department did not seek clearance from the Commission for its system for receiving applications on the basis of first come, first served. The Department is obliged to consult the rural development programme’s monitoring committee on the scheme selection criteria, and it has done so.

Turning to operational issues, I praise the staff concerned for their huge efforts in receipting the applications. Within four hours of the programme opening, more than 5,000 applications had been received and receipted, indicating that the systems in place were well resourced and that staff were effectively trained to deal with the uptake. Although I did not have any personal contact with my the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) offices in relation to the farm modernisation programme before 17 February 2009, I had asked my officials to assure me that all endeavours had been made to ensure that staff were well trained and confident enough to undertake the exercise, and that was certainly borne out by performance on the day.

By close of business on 6 March, more than 9,000 applications had been received, and a total of £15·25 million has been set aside over the lifetime of the farm modernisation programme.

Finally, where do we go from here? My officials have been working closely with the European Commission and will continue to do so until the issue is resolved.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for that response. However, it is clear from the publicity surrounding the issue that many people are unhappy that they were unable to attend the offices to qualify for the money. For that reason, what steps does the Minister intend to take to assist those people who were unable to attend because of work and other commitments? Furthermore, is there any intention to review the criteria for all those people who wish to be considered for grants? The grant amounts to £5,000, which is not a lot, but it enables many farmers to modernise their machinery and deal with other issues on their farm. However, there are concerns about the fact that they were unable to attend, and there are also concerns about the criteria.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The issue has been well aired in the media in the past few weeks, and as Members know, I had some concerns about people queuing overnight and what that would look like. I was very keen that farmers did not feel the need to queue. We brought in a number of measures to help people who were unable to queue because they were working or had poor mobility problems. Therefore, each person who queued was allowed to bring three forms to the office that morning, and that enabled them to help out other people. Everyone has friends or neighbours who could have taken the form in for them. Therefore, we tried to look at ways in which we could help the people to whom the Member is referring. A postal application system was also in place to help people with poor mobility problems.

We fully intend to review all the issues for the second and third tranches. Indeed, on the morning of 17 February, I said that I would review the farm modernisation programme and how it would proceed on the next tranche.

I heard a lovely story from a farmer in my area, who said that he did not realise that people were queuing, until his neighbour, who is Catholic, phoned him to tell him that people were queuing outside the office in Thomas Street in Dungannon. His neighbour asked him whether he was going to submit a form, and he said that he could not get to the office because he had something else on, so the Catholic farmer joined the queue. Then, at around midnight, he swapped places with his Protestant neighbour. Therefore, between them and another farmer, they took turns in the queue and submitted their three forms.

That story is enough to warm the cockles of your heart, and it shows how people co-operated with one another in order to submit their forms, and how those three farmers who could not queue all night worked together and submitted their forms. Therefore, we have heard some very good stories, but we want to review the process to ensure that the best system is in place.

We were supposed to open the programme in October 2008, but we put it off until February 2009, with a view to trying to get a better scheme in place. With the best will in the world, that better system did not materialise. Nevertheless, we want to review the system to ensure that the second and third tranches are done in a different way. However, we are dealing with a scheme that is highly popular and vastly oversubscribed. If we had £30 million, we would want to invest it in the programme, because there is a clear indication that even in these difficult economic times, farmers are willing to put their money into the rural economy.

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

Surely that qualifies for a cross-community grant alone, Minister. [Laughter.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Question 7.

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

Should the Member not be asking a supplementary question?

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

The Member’s question was grouped, so I call him for a supplementary question.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I want clarification on why we did not have the scheme cleared by Brussels in the first instance. It is all right to say that we did not need to do that, but, ultimately, our problem is that Brussels has stated that it has real issues with what happened. Will the Minister clear the money so that it can go to farmers without the support of Brussels, as her answer to the initial question seemed to indicate? If not, what assurances has she received that we will be able to proceed with the scheme as it has been set out?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We worked closely with Brussels in the run-up to the scheme. After the misunderstanding on 17 February, I sought legal advice on whether our scheme met EU legislative requirements. That advice stated that our interpretation of the EU regulation is a reasonable one. In other words, the scheme meets the requirements of the EU legislation.

However, I am mindful of the issues involved with a protracted legal discussion with the European Commission, and I wish to avoid such a situation if possible. My officials continue to work with the Commission; I am hopeful that the issues can be resolved and that we can apply the scheme as planned.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Thank you. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to postal applications in an earlier response. Will she give us a breakdown of the number of postal applications that were made as opposed to those that were received under the counter — sorry, over the counter? [Laughter.]

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. To my knowledge, no applications were received under the counter. [Laughter.] At the close of business on 6 March, we had almost 3,000 postal applications out of a total of 9,000 applications. Therefore, the ratio of over-the-counter applications to postal applications was about 2:1.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was intrigued by the Minister’s wee story about what happened in Dungannon. I could tell her a few stories about what happened on that night and morning, but they are not repeatable here.

Did the Minister or the Department have any indication prior to the farm modernisation programme going live that the application process may not be acceptable or approved by the European authorities?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In February 2008, there was correspon­dence with all member states about the need to include selection criteria in rural development schemes in order to ensure that operational objectives and priorities are met. In October 2008, the Department consulted the rural development programme monitoring committee about the selection criteria for the farm modernisation programme in accordance with EU rules. The European Commission did not offer any comments on the criteria throughout that process, and, subsequently, we thought that our scheme was fully compliant.

Up until lunchtime on 17 February, we were working with Commission officials to explain our selection process and to provide whatever reassurances they sought; we were certainly not aware that they had issues. I said on 17 February that the situation was a misunderstanding, and, ultimately, I think that it will be recognised to have been a misunderstanding.

I presume that parliamentary privilege applies to questions for oral answer, so I would be pleased to hear the Member’s stories if he wishes to share them with me.

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

Is the Minister saying that Michael Mann — Mariann Fischer Boel’s European Commission spokesman on agriculture and rural development — is wrong?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The question was whether our scheme was legal or illegal. I do not believe that Michael Mann said that the scheme was illegal, but that is how it was portrayed by the media. I assure the Member that the scheme is not illegal; no moneys have been paid out under the scheme, and, therefore, there is no question of disallowance.

The Commission maintained that additional selection criteria are needed to ensure that we meet the operational objectives and priorities of the measures. We consider that we have a selection process in place that meets those needs, hence the difference of opinion or the misunderstanding that arose. I believe that those issues can be resolved.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made on the rural life aspects of the rural development programme. (AQO 2253/09)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I interpret the Member’s question as a reference to the axis 3 quality of life measures, which will invest £100 million into rural areas over the course of the new rural development programme. I am pleased to report that very substantial progress has been made in putting in place administrative structures for the implementation of the axis.

The assessment of the strategy was completed on 15 January 2009, and all the joint council committees were informed of their full allocations on 19 January 2009. Already, one area has opened calls for applications, and interest has been high. At last count, over 370 applications for the first two measures were received. Three other areas have asked for expressions of interest, and I am pleased to report again that interest has been high. The remaining cluster areas are at an advanced stage and will also shortly open for expressions of interest.

Availability of credit is important to the rural economy and the agricultural industry, and I intend to have an early meeting with the major local banks to impress upon them the concerns of the rural community and to seek to gain an understanding of how they are responding to concerns.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her response. Last year, a large number of applicants were turned down for the countryside management scheme. What plans has the Minister to reopen the scheme and, if she does so, will she publish the criteria well in advance?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Countryside management is a phased-in scheme. We cannot take everyone who applies in the first year. This year, we hope to be able to process about 1,300 applications. Those who have already applied have no need to reapply; we will phase those applications in over the lifetime of the countryside management scheme. We wanted to ensure that we obtained best value for money and maximised the impact of the scheme, so we looked at areas that had a definition such as Ramsar, Geopark, area of special scientific interest (ASSI) or area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) in order to maximise the environmental impact of the countryside management scheme.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she tell us the timescale for money to be allocated to that scheme?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Interest is high in the scheme. One local action group has already received 374 applications.

At present, each joint council committee is the administrative and lead financial actor for its respective local action group and has been provided with a draft of the contract that my Department wishes to enter into for implementation of axis 3. We will move as fast as possible. Once a joint council committee has signed its contract, it can begin to issue letters of offer.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister inform the House whether all application processes have been cleared by the European Union authorities for rural development programme measures?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Under the ‘Improving the Quality of Life in Rural Areas and Diversification of the Rural Economy’ axis, we wanted to ensure a bottom-up approach. There are seven clusters that identify the needs of their own areas, and they do the work on the ground. The best people to know what the money should be spent on are people from those areas. We work with the local action groups and the joint council committees in a community effort to ensure that the money goes into the cluster areas for tourism, economic creation, village renewal or whatever purpose. They will tell us where the money will best be spent.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

9. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what assessment she has made of the positive aspects of farm diversification. (AQO 2254/09)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Under the 2001-06 rural development programme, apart from the farm diversification challenge, there was no specific farm diversification measure. However, many farmers availed themselves of funding and training opportunities to turn skills and business ideas into income-generating activities and businesses that supplemented the farm income. In the course of the programme, substantial support was drawn down by the farm diversification project and various relevant training measures through both the LEADER+ and Building Sustainable Prosperity programmes.

The Peace II programme invested over £6 million in farm diversification. Under measure 5.6b of that programme, a further €3 million was invested in agriculture and rural development co-operation of a cross-border diversification nature. In the course of my work, I have seen many diversification businesses: I have seen everything from tourism activities, such as paintball and fun farms, to micro businesses manufacturing waste-paper compacters, components for buses and hurley sticks. I am greatly impressed by the innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship of the farming community, whether that is through the establishment of a small tourist activity business that enhances the Irish tourist offering, or through the establishment of a small engineering business that targets a niche market.

Therefore, under measure 3.1 of axis 3 of the new RDP, I have set aside a budget of £20 million — [Interruption.]

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

Order. The Minister cannot be heard.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Therefore, under measure 3.1 of axis 3 of the new RDP, I have set aside a budget of £20 million, specifically for farm diversification projects. That will provide additional income and help families to stay in farming. The £20 million budget set aside for farm diversification is almost equal to the £21 million total budget for the previous LEADER+ programme.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can farm families apply for assistance under any other axis 3 measure?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes; in addition to the £20 million available under the farm diversification measure, farm family members who wish to pursue projects off-farm can, within axis 3, apply for assistance under micro business development and tourism. That will help to maximise opportunities for farmers and farm family members, and give them access to a further budget of £32 million. It is hoped that that can contribute toward the job creation target associated with that funding of 600 new jobs.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Farm diversification schemes are becoming increasingly important to enable farmers to remain close to their stock. As a result of reduced farm incomes, they have been forced to go wider afield. Will the Minister confirm what actions she has taken, involving other Departments, to assist a greater level of success for farm diversification schemes?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The key policy plank of my time as Minister is the bringing forward of a rural White Paper. I hope that that will be the vehicle and the mechanism through which we will engage all other Departments to help us in improving the quality of life for rural dwellers. Such issues will impact upon farm diversification. The Member is right; we need to see other Departments working with us to ensure the success and sustainability of those small businesses.

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

10. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what assessment she has made of the consequences facing flock owners when the double tagging identification of sheep is introduced. (AQO 2255/09)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Due to our specific circumstances — not least, the unique trade in sheep to and from the South — I believe that moving to double tagging, in line with the system in place in Britain, would not be in the best interests of the local sheep industry. For that reason, I believe that the most productive and cost-effective option for us is to move directly to the electronic identification (EID) of sheep. Under European legislation, that has to be introduced throughout the European Union by the end of the year.

In 2008, I went to Brussels, where I had meetings with Commissioner Fischer Boel and Commissioner Vassiliou on the identification and movement of sheep. The Commissioners recognised the unique position of the North, and supported my approach in moving directly to EID.

I understand that many flock keepers are concerned at the effect that electronic identification will have. There certainly will be challenges for the industry in achieving a successful introduction of the system. However, it is worth noting that for many flock keepers, electronic identification of sheep could be as simple as applying electronic tags and continuing to record information manually.

Under EU legislation, keepers have the choice of whether they wish to record information electronically. I do not expect keepers with a small number of sheep to buy and use electronic readers. We have had successful EU negotiations that secured several transitional arrangements. Those have reduced the burden of electronic identification on keepers, in particular, by phasing in individual recording requirements between 2010 and 2012, and lessening the future record-keeping burden on sheep born before the end of the year.

My officials will continue to work closely with the authorities in the South, in Britain, and with the industry here, to design the most appropriate system for us. I am keen to reduce the burden on keepers as far as possible, while realising the opportunities that electronic identification presents.

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

Given that the double tagging of cattle has caused so many ongoing problems, which the Minister’s Department is still trying to iron out, can she say whether, when she referred to the industry, she meant one or both of the unions? Has she met any representatives of the farming community other than the unions?

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

Minister, please give a quick response.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Obviously, I discuss such issues with the unions, but the Member is right to raise that point — I do not limit such discussions to the unions. Other organisations such as the National Sheep Association have been helpful in developing our proposals.

The Member talked about double tagging of cattle. I was keen not to go down the route of double tagging sheep. In January 2008, double tagging was introduced in England, Scotland and Wales. I felt that we would ultimately have to introduce electronic identification and that our keepers would otherwise have had to get used to two systems in a short period of time, so I tried to ensure that trade was kept on the island of Ireland and that no burden or barrier was placed on our keepers. I do engage directly with sheep farmers to get the best mechanism possible.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what support his Department has given to the Northern Ireland Office in the preparation of legislation to address spectator behaviour issues. (AQO 2266/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Responsibility for the preparation of legislation to address spectator behaviour issues is a reserved matter and, therefore, rests with the Northern Ireland Office. Following representations by my predecessor, Edwin Poots MLA, the Northern Ireland Office agreed to work with the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to produce an agreed package of proposals. My Department’s officials have since assisted the NIO in that process, and a range of proposals has been agreed. I recently met the Criminal Justice Minister, Paul Goggins MP, and I asked him to publish those proposals for consultation as soon as possible.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that. Can the Minister outline some of the offences that he believes should be introduced? Should those offences include pitch invasions, such as those that we witnessed on Boxing Day 2008?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. He mentioned one of the types of offence that could be included. I shall keep that in context, however, by pointing out that sporting involvement and events in Northern Ireland are, by and large, family-friendly leisure pursuits. The type of disgraceful and unfortunate scenes that took place over the Christmas holidays and to which the honourable Member referred are very irregular and seldom witnessed. However, they do occur on a few occasions.

The legislation could well address: unauthorised pitch incursions; offensive chanting; missile throwing; the bringing of bottles, flares and fireworks into grounds; restrictions on the carrying or drinking of alcohol on special public transport, either on the way to or from designated matches; ticket touting; and a football-banning-order regime in Northern Ireland.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister recognise the fact that the behaviour of spectators at GAA matches is and always has been exemplary?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It is the players who are the problem.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Does he believe that other sports could look at how they could learn from that example?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I notice that a number of Members referred from sedentary positions to the behaviour of players not being up to mark in comparison with spectators. In some sports, players set a good example for spectators, but, from some of the sedentary comments, it appears that the opposite is the case on a small number of occasions. A small number of GAA players could take lessons and take their lead from the behaviour of spectators at the games, which the honourable Member outlined.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister outline which teams’ spectators are most associated statistically with public-order offences? Can he outline the work that the Department has done with those teams and their spectators’ groups to end such behaviour?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question, which, as regards analysing those spectators who may have more work to do, is almost impossible to answer. Several clubs have looked at ways to ensure that their grounds are more prepared for spectator safety in order to try to foster a more family-friendly atmosphere, which, in turn, leads to even less likelihood of problems either at or inside grounds, or leaving them.

I am not aware, therefore, of the statistics on those clubs that may have more work to do which the honourable Member has asked me to outline. However, I am certainly interested in obtaining any information that is required in order to take whatever steps need to be taken to assist those clubs to develop further their policies.

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

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of the contribution made by the local Irish League football clubs to their local communities. (AQO 2268/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Irish League football clubs make a significant contribution to local communities in many towns and cities in Northern Ireland. Irish League football has a long tradition of being played and supported by people from all sections of the community. In addition, clubs have contributed to community relations programmes and the development of grassroots football programmes, the aim of which is to encourage more young people in local communities, including those who are under-represented in sport, to play and become involved in football.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he outline the evidence that exists about the contribution of Irish League clubs to local communities? Does he agree that youth academies are of great benefit, not only in maximising clubs’ potential, but also in encouraging young people into the sporting arena?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

There is certainly plenty of evidence of the long tradition of participation by clubs in community-based football initiatives, including ‘Football for All’ and the Irish Football Association’s (IFA) grassroots youth strategy. The Member referred to youth academies; I am sure that he was alluding to a recent visit that he and I made to Mourneview Park, the home of Glenavon Football Club, where there is a youth academy that is —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

We are talking about football. [Laughter.]

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will resist the temptation to respond to that and look forward to the semi-final of a certain competition that is coming up shortly.

To get back to the more serious matters of the moment; Glenavon Football Club runs a football academy in which 120 to 130 young people are involved at various levels. It is an excellent example. I am aware that other academies are run by Crusaders, Coleraine, Cliftonville, Glentoran and Linfield, to name but a few. I may, unfortunately, have overlooked some others.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister agree that all sporting organisations make valuable contributions to their local communities, particularly those that rely mainly, if not exclusively, on voluntary support and input?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, I agree that they do to a greater or lesser degree.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier answers. As Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, will he join me in congratulating Waringstown Primary School on its fine achievement of being named junior school choir of the year for a second time? The fact that my brother is the school’s principal is, of course, not related at all.

I also ask the Minister to publicly acknowledge the huge contribution that is made by Irish League soccer clubs such as Linfield — and, indeed, the Irish Football Association — in their efforts to encourage soccer at grassroots level and community involvement.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I never cease to marvel at the ingenuity with which some Members manage to raise issues. Although important and relevant, I am sure, their significance or connection to the original question totally escapes me. However, I am sure that tremendous work has been done at Waringstown Primary School, and I commend everyone who contributed to that.

The Member asked about the IFA and clubs such as Linfield. In the past 10 or 15 years, a range of clubs have, undoubtedly, taken considerable steps that have been beneficial and have facilitated considerable improvements to not just the clubs but to the communities in which they are based. The 10% or 11% increase in attendances at Irish League football matches is indicative of the good work that is being done by a range of clubs. I hope that such work continues, and my Department will, of course, do all that it can to enable all clubs to make their sport even more widely available to communities that should be supporting those sports.

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

I am sure, Mr Kennedy, that your brother will be well pleased that you raised that important issue.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline the future plans of the National Museums in relation to the presentation and display of the schooner ‘Result’. (AQO 2269/09)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Result is a three-masted, top-sailed schooner — which is not easy to say — that was built by Paul Rodgers and Company in Carrickfergus in 1893. The ship is important because of her design, her provenance as one of the last surviving nineteenth-century Irish-built merchant vessels, and, of course, her period.

In 1999, the National Historic Ships Committee designated the Result as being of pre-eminent significance and part of the UK’s core collection of historic vessels. National Museums Northern Ireland recognises the position of the Result, and is committed to not only developing and preserving maritime collections but also to making them accessible to the widest range of audiences. In that context, National Museums intends to develop a 10-year capital strategy that will include options for the display of maritime and industrial history collections. The Result is currently protected under a purpose-built weatherproof awning.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. As he probably knows, I am no longer on the board of the National Museums of Northern Ireland. However, I am a member of the National Historic Ships Committee.

The Result was brought back to Northern Ireland in 1970, and I always hoped that she would be fully restored. I am glad to say that she has joined SS Nomadic and HMS Caroline on the core collection of national historic ships. Will the Minister assure me that he will respond positively to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure’s report, which stated that there was a need to develop a policy for maritime heritage in Northern Ireland?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Northern Ireland’s maritime history is, undoubtedly, magnificent, and the Member has a long-held interest in the Result and other issues. As he knows, I have discussed how to implement a museums policy with the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, and I am currently considering the best way to do so. I know that a strategy has been outlined as one of the best ways to proceed. I will examine that matter with the issues that the Member and others have drawn to my attention firmly in mind as to how we best proceed.

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

I call Mr Jonathan Ross to ask a supplementary question.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not quite Jonathan Ross, Mr Deputy Speaker — just Alastair will do it. [Laughter.] I will, in any case, resist courting controversy in my comments.

In his initial answer, the Minister spoke about the 10-year capital-development strategy for maritime and industrial collections. Will he inform the House whether he has any plans to include anything else in that? I am speaking specifically about the Nomadic and the Titanic collections.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will respond to Alastair Ross, Mr Deputy Speaker. He referred to other areas in the collection, as did the previous Member to speak. I will obviously have to look at any necessary business cases and at the availability of capital expenditure being approved by both my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The 10-year capital-development strategy to which I referred will focus on the maritime and industrial history collections that are held by national museums, but it will also be mindful of related and complementary objects that are held elsewhere. Of course, I cannot give a commitment at this stage, given the resource implications, but suffice it to say that I want to be very helpful to what is a significant and important part of our maritime history and background.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I am grateful to the Minister for his responses so far and for the probing questions. It is quite clear that what is being identified is a missing link, which is perhaps influenced by resources and the availability of funding, as the Minister said.

Given the maritime history of Belfast, will the Minister consider the incorporation of a spectacular, stand-alone maritime museum that includes not only the Titanic, but the wider history of shipbuilding in Belfast and other small shipbuilders from 1663 to the present?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, my Department will look at any issues, and he raised a particular one. I would have to see what the resource implication would be for that proposal, but the answer in principle is that, yes, I am prepared to look at it.

We need to build for the future. This August the fantastic display of the Tall Ships will be coming to Northern Ireland, and that will be an example of the past, of history and of a global scene coming to Northern Ireland. It will be an opportunity for us to project on an international scale the maritime history that we have here. The honourable Member made a suggestion that I am happy to follow up.