Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 June 2010

301 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have been notified by the nominating officer of the SDLP, Ms Margaret Ritchie, that Mr Declan O’Loan has been replaced as Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure with effect from 28 May 2010. Ms Ritchie has nominated Mr Pat Ramsey as Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr P J Bradley as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. Mr Pat Ramsey and Mr P J Bradley have accepted the appointments. I am satisfied that the correspondence meets the requirements of Standing Orders, and I therefore confirm that Mr Pat Ramsey is Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and that Mr P J Bradley is Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure with effect from Friday 28 May 2010.

Matters of the Day

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Raymond McCartney has sought leave to make a statement on a matter that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I will call Mr McCartney to speak for up to three minutes on the subject; I will then call representatives of each of the other parties, as agreed with the Whips. Those Members will each have up to three minutes in which to speak on the matter. There will be no opportunities for interventions, questions or for a vote on the matter. I will not take any points of order until the item of business is concluded. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom ar dtús thar ceann Shinn Féin ár gcomhbhrón a dhéanamh le teaghlaigh na ndaoine sin a maraíodh agus a gortaíodh inné.

I express Sinn Féin’s sympathy to those murdered and injured by Israeli paratroopers on the freedom flotilla yesterday and our solidarity with the Irish people being held in custody by the Israeli Government. We condemn the assault on the flotilla, which was bringing humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. We echo the call from the United Nations to have a prompt and impartial inquiry. In those circumstances, and because of the Israeli record, the inquiry must have an international dimension to underwrite and guarantee its impartiality. Now is the time for immediate action, and the United Nations should take the lead in that. I also echo the call made by my party colleague Aengus Ó Snodaigh for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador from Dublin.

The modus operandi and location of the attack by the Israelis in international waters shows a total disregard of all acceptable standards of international rule of law and for any diplomatic or humanitarian efforts to break the siege imposed on the people of Gaza. Since the total destruction of Gaza through bombing last year, the infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and homes, has not been rebuilt. Indeed, the Israelis have imposed such sanctions on the people of Gaza that not a single consignment of the necessary building materials for the restructure and reconstruction of Gaza has been allowed in.

That is the context in which human rights and peace activists and people of international repute have taken to land, convoys and, in the latest attempt, to the seas to make the beleaguered people of Gaza understand that they have international support to ensure that the conditions that they live under will finally be broken. That is the context in which the Israelis stormed the ships in international waters. That is why many people are standing in protest right across the world and why many countries are calling their Israeli ambassadors to their Governments to ensure that, for once, Israel will start to listen to international opinion. That is why we welcome the intervention of the United Nations. We wish that it was stronger, but we accept that there is a need for an impartial inquiry and that that inquiry should have an international dimension.

I hope that everyone in the House will understand the humanitarian aspects of the issue and that the Assembly sends a strong message that Israel’s record on the violation of rights of the Palestinian people, when held up to scrutiny, is a matter of disrepute.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I reinforce my party’s solidarity with the state of Israel. That state has been under systematic terrorist attack since its conception. The Member opposite does not realise the shame that some Israeli children have to go to schools that are three minutes away from an air raid shelter because they will have to dash into those shelters on several occasions through the day.

I am disappointed that the House did not make a statement about the Katyusha rockets that were used to murder Jewish Israeli children. There was no statement in the House, no message of support and no condemnation of Hamas, who wish to drive the Jews into the sea. Nothing was mentioned in the House about the attack and murder of innocent Israeli children on their way to school. There was no statement and no condemnation from this House: the hypocrisy is rank.

Sadly, the circumstances are that members of Hamas still believe it is correct to drive the Jews into the sea. There still exists the Nazi mentality to slaughter all Jews and take away the state of Israel. That will never happen. There are those who are determined to inflict pain and injury on the innocents of Israel. Israel provided a way forward whereby any humanitarian could enter the country, as could aid. That aid would be searched, dealt with appropriately from there and delivered. However, those circumstances had to be avoided. Why? The reality, whether we wish to face up to it or not, is that there are those who are still determined to smuggle guns, bombs, Katyusha rockets and everything else to attack the state of Israel, to murder Israeli schoolchildren and to attempt to destroy a sovereign state.

The people who are criticising Israel for humanitarian issues are the same people who were quite happy to take a single mother of 10 children and strip, torture, murder and leave her lying at the side of a road. Those people are telling us about humanitarian aid, but, with respect —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I know that the Member wishes to raise a point of order. However, it is absolutely clear that points of order cannot be taken during the debate. I remind the whole House to try, as far as possible, to stick to the original debate.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The way forward is to follow the guidelines that were set down for the provision of humanitarian aid. With respect, we will not take lectures on humanitarian support from those who have been prepared to shoot off-duty police officers as well as those off sick or on disability pensions. Israel will not be driven into the sea. Attempting to destroy the state of Israel is like pushing water up a hill. If the international guidelines are followed, humanitarian aid can come in. As a Christian, I deprecate any loss of life, but I wish to make it absolutely clear that the state of Israel has a right to defend itself against attack and will do so.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is up.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I join with other Members in expressing regret at yesterday’s loss of life. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I welcome the United Nations’ call for an impartial inquiry. However, the shape that such an inquiry will take remains to be seen. Yesterday’s incident highlights the underlying need to find a solution to the complex issues at stake in the Middle East. The American Administration and other Governments, including the British Government, are keen to see progress on that and long-term security for the Israeli state and some kind of acceptable state for the Palestinian people.

Given our experience of terrorism and how it was dealt with in Northern Ireland, I think that a section of the unionist population have more than a sneaking regard for the manner in which the Israeli Government defends Israel and puts its security considerations above all others. However, international obligations must be met and accepted. All of us regret yesterday’s loss of life.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

SDLP representatives have stood up against violence, be it from state or paramilitary sources, for 40 years. It is a matter of regret for us that we must do that not once but twice today. We must stand up against the use of violence, irrespective of which side it is from.

We should all stand in solidarity with the ordinary civilians who live in fear on both sides of the border between Palestine and Israel, with those who live in fear of attack from Hamas or the Israel Defense Forces, and with those who live under permanent arrest and are prisoners in their own land. We must remember that we are discussing this tragedy this morning because Irish and British men and women are now prisoners and are at the fate of the Israeli state, which has a questionable record of human rights, after being seized in international waters that were outside the boundaries of that state.

I would like a twofold message to be sent from this region this morning. First, it is dangerous and improper to try to superimpose our own conflict on someone else’s. Each conflict has a circumstance that we need to understand, and we should never assume that we understand it totally. The second message that we need to send out today is that, as difficult, awkward, painful and long as it may be, a security response is never a solution to a human crisis.

We say that not from experience but in the desperate hope that, in the weeks and months ahead, there will be a UN investigation and that it will have credibility and standing. We hope that the people of both Israel and Palestine will be able to sit down around a table to find harmony in their discord, find negotiated settlement, respect each other’s right to exist and each other’s borders and come and visit us in peace some day.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party is happy to stand in solidarity with others in condemning the loss of life in this incident. It is important to recognise that it is a breach of international law. The international community does not recognise Israel’s control over Gaza or the West Bank. The clear view of the international community, as first expressed in UN Security Council Resolution 242, is that those have been occupied territories since 1967. Any blockade of Gaza is, therefore, a breach of international law. Even if a blockade were legal, the loss of life is a clear indication of a disproportionate use of force. Everyone around the world needs to reflect on that.

Bearing in mind that the Israeli-Palestinian question has been one of the most polarising issues for the international community and, indeed, as we have seen this morning, the House, the fact that, so far, there has been a unity of purpose from the UN Security Council is telling as regards the balance of right and wrong in this case. That said, in the wider context, it is important that we acknowledge that the situation is far from black and white. There are flaws on both sides, and wrongs have been committed on both sides. There is an appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza, in particular, but also in the West Bank. We must also acknowledge that there have been ongoing attacks from Hamas against the Israeli population including civilians, which have led to Israel feeling the need to make an overly security-focused response.

I respect Israel’s right to exist as a state and recognise that Israel feels very isolated and alone internationally. However, it is important that we help Israel to acknowledge that the only sustainable way forward lies in negotiating a two-state solution with the Palestinian people. We must also put pressure on the Palestinians to formally recognise Israel’s right to exist as a state. We hope that, through a negotiated peace that follows the lessons of Northern Ireland, we will see peace in the Middle East.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

I join colleagues in extending sympathy to all the innocent civilians who have been killed in recent days. Given the divisive and exclusive peace process that we have come through and, indeed, continue to come through, it is important that the House does not take sides in what is clearly a very complex and difficult situation. Instead, we must support both sides of the conflict in the Middle East in trying to come to a peaceful solution for all the people.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Alban Maginness has sought leave to make a statement on a matter that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I will call Mr Alban Maginness to speak for up to three minutes on the subject. I will then call representatives of each of the other political parties, as agreed with the Whips. Those Members will also have three minutes to speak. There will be no opportunity for interventions, questions or a vote, and I will not take any points of order until the item of business has been concluded.

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

I rise to speak about the death of Mr Moffett on the Shankill Road. His murder was an act of terrible violence, perpetrated in public in a manner that, sadly, bears all the hallmarks of a paramilitary organisation. I hope that all Members condemn that murder. All reasonable people should do so, and I hope that lessons are learnt from that terrible reminder of our ghastly past.

Questions arise because it has been suggested, or alleged, that Mr Moffett was a member of the UVF. It has also been suggested that his murder was carried out by the UVF or by people associated with it. If that is the case, serious questions must be put to the UVF: is it still a paramilitary organisation actively involved in violence? Or is it no longer extant as a paramilitary organisation and was the murder carried out by elements that purport to represent that organisation? I hope that, in due course, the Minister of Justice will make a report to the House and that he can outline clearly and in detail the circumstances of the murder and answer some of the questions that I have just posed, because it is necessary that those questions be answered to give the public confidence.

The people of the greater Shankill Road area have worked hard to redevelop their community, not just physically, but also —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is up.

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

Let me conclude by saying that one supports that work and hopes that true peace will reign on the Shankill Road and that its people will be able to continue the rebuilding process.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I join with all who expressed sympathy to the family of Bobby Moffett, who was callously and brutally gunned down, in broad daylight, on the Shankill Road on Friday afternoon. It was an appalling and heinous crime, carried out in full view of passers-by and shoppers.

I spoke to people on the Shankill Road on Friday and yesterday in the greater Shankill area at a big event at which many hundreds of people were present. There is a sense of deep shock, horror and tension at that killing. People believed that they had seen the last of such events, and I earnestly trust and hope that people will co-operate with the police and security forces to bring those responsible for that terrible crime to justice.

The killers have no support or cover whatsoever from people in the Shankill area. People there do not want to see that kind of event and they want to see justice done. As the mother of Bobby Moffett said so eloquently, she wants no retaliation and justice done. Let us all join in ensuring that justice is done.

Wider questions have been raised. There is a lot of speculation and rumour. It is vital that the truth be brought out. No stone should be left unturned in the pursuit of truth and justice, and I urge the police to come forward and tell the public what is known about the weapons involved. They should be quite open, as should all the other authorities, about what lies behind the attack, who was involved and all the rest of it. Such facts must be exposed to the light of public opinion and truth.

My main plea to the House is made on behalf of the overwhelming number of people whom I and my colleagues represent on the Shankill Road, and it is for no further acts of violence or retaliation, for people to remain calm, for justice to be done and for those who carried out the act to be brought before the courts to be tried and convicted. Everybody should play their part in achieving that.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is important that I start by extending my party’s sympathy to the entire Moffett family. I commend the bravery of individuals close to the scene on Friday afternoon who chased away the attackers and the courage of the medics who tried to save Mr Moffett’s life in the moments before his death.

The shooting shocked us all. I first heard of Mr Moffett’s death in a phone call from a journalist on Friday afternoon. We thought that such incidents were a thing of the past and that the future could be much more positive for areas such as the Shankill Road and other parts of west Belfast. I do not want to speculate on who murdered Bobby Moffett or why he was killed. That is something for the PSNI to establish in its investigation, and I echo Nigel Dodds’s call for information and statements. That needs to happen as soon as possible.

The murderers were not thinking of the Shankill Road or its community, and they could all too easily start a feud, which, experience has shown us, often starts with the killing of one person. I certainly do not want to see that happen in that part of Belfast. It is important that we all work hard and collectively to ensure that that does not happen. However, over many years under direct rule Ministers, communities in the Shankill Road and other parts of west Belfast have not received investment. That is the reason for some of the problems in areas such as the Shankill.

The office of the West Belfast MP, Gerry Adams, worked closely with a number of community organisations in the Shankill. My own office has worked on successful joint initiatives. We must all work collectively to ensure greater investment in areas of most need and of deprivation and to highlight issues of concern there.

My party offers its sympathies to the entire Moffett family. We hope that they get over their grief, although it will take a long time. There is also a wider picture for the Shankill Road. We hope that the community there gets over the killing as well and add our call to those for no retaliation.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I begin by taking the opportunity, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, to unreservedly condemn the murder of Bobby Moffett last week and to extend our sympathy to Mrs Moffett and her family. I also take the opportunity to say that anyone who has any information about the murder should give that information to the police.

As my colleague Mr Dodds has said, people on the Shankill are saddened and shocked by the brutality of Bobby Moffett’s murder.

The Shankill has seen many atrocities over the years, and the one last week ranks among them.

There are wider questions, which my colleague Alban Maginness raised, but those are for the future. As politicians, we are all working together to try to bring incidents like that to an end. The killing of Bobby Moffett serves no purpose. That community has gone through enormous traumas over the past number of years because of internal strife. We thought we had seen the last of that, but clearly not.

Anyone who has any information whatsoever needs to turn that over to the proper authorities so that the people who are responsible for the callous murder last week are brought to justice.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party joins others in condemning the killing of Bobby Moffett. Clearly, it was a very brutal murder in broad daylight, and it shocked the community. Indeed, it is a killing that creates fear in the community and raises questions about the potential implications of what it all means. It is important that there is not a rush to judgement about what happened and that we remain open-minded regarding motives for the killing. It is also important that people co-operate with the police to ensure that the killers are brought to justice.

I recognise the enormous leaps forward that have been made by loyalist organisations in recent years, particularly in recent months, in relation to the clear renunciation of violence and the decommissioning acts that have occurred. It is also important that we recognise and clearly state that our understanding and expectation of a ceasefire is that it is all-embracing in respect of the end of violence. There certainly can be no quarter or allowance given for any notion of so-called internal housekeeping or for feuds to occur under the radar. In the past, mixed signals were given — quite wrongly — by some of our leaders, and it is only in more recent years that a more clear and unambiguous message has been given about ending all forms of violence. That message needs to be restated today and stressed further.

We have to have a clear understanding of the rule of law in Northern Ireland. There cannot be any situation in which some killings are regarded as aberrations to be swept under the carpet. Every killing raises questions about how we respond as a society. Over coming days, it is important that loyalist representatives reassure the wider community of their continued commitment to ensuring that there is no return to violence and that they are fully on the path towards working in a manner consistent with democratic and human rights principles for a better society, not just for their communities but for all of us in Northern Ireland.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

On behalf of the Progressive Unionist Party, I express my condemnation of the horrific killing of Bobby Moffett on the Shankill Road last Friday. I extend my sympathy to the Moffett family for what they are going through currently and to the people of the Shankill and the greater Shankill who witnessed the event last Friday. I trust that they will receive the help and support that they need.

Those responsible for the horrific murder of Bobby Moffett last Friday are not interested in democracy or politics delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. Well, the vast majority of the people of the Shankill and the vast majority of our community are interested, and we, in this Chamber, are responsible for making politics work. I appeal to the public to assist the police in bringing those responsible to justice.

If media speculation about who is responsible is found to be correct, there are potentially serious consequences for the peace process; therefore I further ask that the Minister of Justice give his assessment to the House as soon as possible.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker, with your permission I shall make a statement that I am issuing Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21) on sustainable development in the countryside, which was agreed by the Executive on 27 May 2010. In addition, I am withdrawing draft PPS 21 and its accompanying ministerial statement, which were issued on 25 November 2008 by the previous Minister of the Environment. The publication of PPS 21 ends uncertainty about development in the countryside and provides the planning policy context for deciding planning applications in rural areas. Furthermore, the planning policy will be accorded substantial weight in the determination of any relevant planning application received after 16 March 2006.

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

PPS 21 has been refined, improved and clarified. In finalising it, the Executive subcommittee on the review of rural planning policy considered the response to the public consultation on draft PPS 21 and the report of the independent working group on non-farming rural dwellers. The subcommittee also took account of what the Planning Service learned from implementing draft PPS 21 and of decisions made by the Planning Appeals Commission.

In organising the public consultation, my officials went to great lengths to ensure that as many people as possible had the chance to learn about and comment on draft PPS 21. In support of the consultation, my Department organised 16 information days across Northern Ireland, which attracted more than 2,500 people, including rural dwellers, farmers, developers and public representatives. My officials spoke to most of those people individually. They also made representations to district councils, non-governmental organisations, the Housing Council, the Royal Society of Ulster Architects, the Royal Town Planning Institute, rural network groups and the Ulster Farmers’ Union.

We received 320 responses to the consultation, more than half of which were from private individuals. Almost everyone who responded to the consultation generally supported the draft PPS 21 policies, and we have carried all those policies forward into the final version, strengthening them as necessary to take account of points that were raised.

Draft PPS 21 provided for grouped development outside settlement limits; grouped development in dispersed rural communities; groups of affordable or social housing; and infilling gaps in ribbons of development. By defining a ribbon as a minimum of three rather than six buildings, which has been the practice to date, the final version of PPS 21 introduces further opportunities.

More significantly, I won Executive support for the new policy to provide for the rounding-off or consolidation of development clusters, namely, existing clusters of at least four buildings that have developed around focal points, such as a church or at a crossroads. It makes good sense to allow new dwellings to be built at those clusters as long as they round off and consolidate the existing cluster and do not intrude into the surrounding countryside.

With respect to dwellings on farms, consultation respondents told us that it may not always be possible or practicable to build a new dwelling in close proximity to existing farm buildings. Therefore, I revised the policy to allow for an alternative site to be used where it can be demonstrated that there are health and safety issues or that the applicant has genuine plans for business expansion.

Since respondents asked us to provide definitions and clarifications, the final version of PPS 21 defines terms such as “curtilage”, “active farm” and “a substantial and built-up frontage”. The policy makes it clear that non-listed vernacular buildings should be retained if they make a:

“contribution to the heritage, appearance or character of the locality”.

In addition, PPS 21 makes it explicit that a building that is retained as part of a replacement development will not be eligible for replacement again. Such amendments will make PPS 21 easier to use and should help applicants to make better applications. Furthermore, it will help planners to make better and faster decisions. As with any new policy, senior management will advise staff to ensure a consistent approach across divisions.

I will turn now to the issue of non-farming rural dwellers. During the review of rural planning policy, some stakeholders suggested that residence or employment in an area or even family connections should entitle people to planning permission for dwellings. Others called for a test to identify people who really needed to live in the countryside. The Executive subcommittee considered those ideas carefully, and I can appreciate why some favoured such an approach. However, policies that rely on kinship or residency are unlikely to constitute proper discharge of the equality and good relations obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They may also be contrary to European law. Difficulties in deriving lawful and objective criteria for such policies mean they are unlikely to constitute proper planning considerations. However, in view of the interest in the issue of non-farming rural dwellers, it was recognised that more work needed to be done. The Executive therefore agreed that an independent working group, with clear terms of reference, should be set up to bring forward options. In doing that, the group was required to take account of domestic and European legislation; relevant policy across the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and the outcome of the consultation on draft PPS 21.

The group comprised experts from the fields of planning, the environment, rural development and the law, and it was chaired by Jim Mackinnon, the chief planner for the Scottish Government. Work began in February 2009, and in September Mr Mackinnon presented conclusions to the Executive subcommittee on the review of rural planning policy. The group’s report was then published on the Planning Service’s website.

The independent working group reached a number of conclusions. I am not going to list them all, but I will draw some of them to Members’ attention. The group concluded that:

“Planning policy should not create a special category for the non-farming rural dweller. Planning decisions for single houses should not be determined on the basis of kinship, connection or occupation”.

That reflects our approach to PPS 21. Almost all of its policies are relevant to non-farming rural dwellers. Those include policies that allow for the reuse or replacement of existing buildings; for new development in dispersed rural communities and in ribbons or clusters of development; and for social or affordable housing. All of those can benefit the entire community.

That does not mean that there is nothing more to be done: quite the reverse. The independent working group encouraged us to look beyond PPS 21 to the wider planning framework and to consider rural development. It said:

“The RDS, while recognising the diversity of rural Northern Ireland, needs to support and manage positive change through a planning framework that recognises the local dimension … The aspirations of local communities need to be at the heart of any future approach and should be an important consideration in preparing development plans”.

The local dimension will be strengthened when we devolve development plan and development management functions to local councils. Those crucial areas of decision-making will then be under local democratic control, exercised within a planning framework set out in the regional development strategy and planning policy statements.

The Minister for Regional Development is already reviewing the regional development strategy. He has agreed that the revised version will recognise the diversity of rural areas. That will allow planning authorities to take rural diversity and local circumstances into account in drawing up their development plans.

With regard to rural development, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is leading the formulation of an Executive rural White Paper, which aims to identify measures that the Executive can take to address the needs of rural communities and to help ensure the sustainability of rural areas.

All of that has moved us forward. However, there is more to be done. That is why I have invited the Ministers on the Executive subcommittee to continue to work with me on the issue of non-farming rural dwellers. We will bring forward an addendum to PPS 21 to further address the issue. It is not an easy subject, and we will not produce the addendum in a month or even in six months. We will think carefully, and we will be transparent in our work. Our policy proposals will be subject to public consultation and to debate in the House.

When Sammy Wilson published draft PPS 21, he said that, because of the complex issues involved, it would be reviewed two years after it was published in final form. I am happy to reiterate that commitment. I have already asked the Planning Service to monitor the number of rural applications and subsequent approvals and refusals to establish what changes, if any, occur as a result of the implementation of the new policy.

When draft PPS 21 was published, the Planning Service held more than 2,000 applications that had been deferred because they were likely to be refused under draft PPS 14. All those applications were reassessed under draft PPS 21, and 585 were approved. Taking account of cases that remain deferred and further applications that were deferred refusals under draft PPS 21, there are now more than 2,500 deferred cases. Those cases will be reconsidered in the context of PPS 21, which I am publishing today. The Planning Service will do that over the next six months.

PPS 21 has had a long gestation. It is the product of much hard work by many people over a long time. I want to place on record my gratitude to my predecessors, Arlene Foster and Sammy Wilson, and to all the Ministers in the Executive subcommittee who worked together to develop the policy. I also want to highlight the vital contribution of the many stakeholder groups and members of the public who took the time to participate in seminars, visit information days, respond to the consultation or write to the Department with their views. I thank them all.

In developing PPS 21, the Department has done what it promised: it has balanced the need to protect the countryside from unnecessary or inappropriate development while supporting rural communities. The Department has developed a policy that is right for Northern Ireland. The policy demonstrates that devolution can deliver tangible benefits for local people. Under direct rule, a blanket ban was placed on development in the countryside, and the Executive and the Assembly, which are accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, have developed a policy that is a major step forward for rural planning and for the development of rural communities. I commend it to the House.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for the Environment, I welcome the Minister’s statement on PPS 21. There is likely to be a resurgence of rural planning applications as a result of the new proposals. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister whether he intends to revisit his decision to redeploy 271 planning officials or whether he can guarantee that the realigned Planning Service will meet the demands of the finalised version of PPS 21.

As an MLA for Newry and Armagh, I believe that the new proposals will create further opportunities. However, the Minister has recognised that there is a gap in the policy and, whether a category of non-farming rural dwellers is created or not, that gap must be addressed. When will the Minister reconvene the ministerial subcommittee to consider that issue? Will the Minister also confirm when a new rural design guide will be published?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is a problem with the finances of the Planning Service, which dropped by 45% in the past four years because money was not brought in through planning applications. Unless there is a change in government policy my hands are tied. I am meeting the trade unions later today, and I am prepared to consider the potential for short-term working to prevent the need to disperse jobs through other areas of the Civil Service. I am also prepared to be innovative and inventive in seeking solutions if others are prepared to do the same.

Some years ago, there were 22,000 live planning applications at all times in the system. Today there are 11,000, including 2,500 deferred planning applications for PPS 21, which have been in abeyance and have had no work done to them since they were deferred at council level. That figure includes other planning applications that are not being moved forward by applicants for various reasons. Therefore, after today, we will have 9,500 live applications in the system. That represents some 10 applications for every person employed in the Planning Service or some 20 applications for every planning officer. We need to take that into account. The Planning Service is not on its knees and will not be on its knees after the review of the number of people whom it employs.

We received an independent working group report on the issue of non-farming rural dwellers. I went beyond its recommendations to try to accommodate non-farming rural dwellers, perhaps living in clusters, and to develop new ideas on clusters and so forth. Therefore, we sought to help in the best way possible. More work needs to be done, and an Executive subcommittee will be set up as soon as it is convenient for all Ministers involved to reconvene. It will not be held back on my account. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department for Regional Development have a lead role in the development of the policy on non-farming rural dwellers, and I intend to work closely with them.

The issue of rural design and a new design guide featured strongly in the public consultation, and that aspect of policy remains largely unchanged. However, clarification has been added to emphasise the need for careful site selection and to encourage applicants to submit design concept statements with their applications. The policy seeks to promote good design for all building in the countryside and allows for contemporary proposals. Work has begun to update the current design guide for rural Northern Ireland, and consultants have been appointed. The work will consider the design of new dwellings and schemes for the refurbishment of existing properties. It will take account of traditional and contemporary design and use of materials, and I will issue a draft for consultation in autumn 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I call the next Member, I inform the House that there is a great deal of interest in this subject. Approximately 16 names are listed, and, therefore, I ask Members to be brief.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he confirm that all applications that are currently in the system will be dealt with under the new planning policy statement? Furthermore, he highlighted the rounding-off of clusters of development for consolidation as a significant issue: has there been any assessment of the opportunities that that will create or the number of developments that it will affect?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We expect it to affect a considerable number of potential development areas across Northern Ireland. Small clusters already exist at churches, schools and crossroads, and we intend to fill those out or finish off the cluster, as opposed to extending. It will create considerable opportunities for people to build further sustainable developments in the countryside that will not result in the bungalow blight that people say exists in places such as Donegal. In effect, it will complete construction that has already taken place at sites.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister clarify what exactly is meant by “consolidation”? How many houses can be expected in a location, given that they fall outside area plans: one, two, 10 or more? In addition, given that those houses are unlikely to be linked to a sewerage system, how will we ensure that overly extensive development on such sites does not create drainage or sewerage problems?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When people are working on sewerage systems and there is the potential for substantial damage to our river systems, they must carry out mitigating procedures. People’s homes do not have to be linked to a sewerage system, and they can have their own systems, which could deal with sewage much more effectively. If required, reed beds and so on can be used to wholly mitigate damage from septic tanks.

Mr Beggs asked about the number of houses, and it is better to be non-specific. We are talking about the rounding-off and completion of clusters. In areas where houses are dotted around a crossroads, church or school, gaps will be filled rather than clusters being extended. That may mean building two houses or six houses. It depends on the site, but it is better to be non-specific, because the policy is about filling gaps. In some areas, a dozen houses may already be on the site, and there may be room for a further 12. That remains to be seen, and each application will be dealt with as it is presented to us.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement, which covered a number of issues. I particularly welcome the slight change that has been made to the policy on the location of farm dwellings, as well as the concept of clustering and the new definition of infill, which will be subject to Planning Service interpretation. However, we await the outcome on that.

I wish to raise the issue of non-farming rural dwellers. From what I have heard today, it appears that the concept of what used to be known as a stand-alone single house in the countryside has almost disappeared from policy, with the exception of farm dwellings that meet health and safety criteria. As a rural dweller who understands the needs of rural communities, I ask the Minister what assurances he can give that that issue will be prioritised in the Executive subcommittee. Is there a conceivable time frame for the Executive subcommittee to come up with proposals to deal with non-farming families so that the Committee can work to determine the subcommittee’s views? That is not clear from the statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee will recognise that there cannot be a housing free-for-all in the countryside. PPS 14 introduced a blanket ban, which was wholly unsuitable for sustaining rural communities. Draft PPS 21 helped considerably, and PPS 21 will help further. Most of the proposed CTYs deal with non-farming rural dwellers. They deal with clusters around crossroads and churches, with infilling and with people in households who experience ill health. A considerable number of applications from non-farming rural dwellers are covered in PPS 21.

We recognise that there is a demand, but no one has yet got their head around the question of how to meet that demand without creating a free-for-all. I am prepared to work further with my Executive colleagues on seeking a means of doing that without creating bungalow blight, which could damage the natural environment as well as damaging the environment in other ways.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement. We have waited a long time for the decision, and I welcome the fact that a locally elected Minister made it, rather than an arrogant cross-channel Minister who had no knowledge —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Ask a question, please.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

— a Minister who had no knowledge of the Northern Irish people, particularly of rural people who wish to build in the countryside. Will the Minister assure the House that, as was mentioned earlier, all future rural housing will be designed to be in keeping with our beautiful countryside? The Minister said that PPS 21 refers to buildings making a:

“contribution to the heritage, appearance or character of the locality”.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Can we have a question, please?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Can the Minister assure the House that all new houses will be in keeping with our beautiful countryside?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I refer the Member to my response to the Committee Chairperson. I said that consultation would take place on a rural design guide in autumn 2010. The policy allows for contemporary dwellings on occasion. Indeed, a constituent of mine recently built a barn and attached it to an old building. His family will live in that as their home, and it is similar to the old Dutch barns. There is room for people to have novel ideas that are still appropriate for the countryside.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement this morning. Will he inform the House of the concerns that the public raised with him during the consultation or the stakeholder events? How has he addressed those concerns in bringing forward his final statement this morning?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A considerable number of concerns were raised, one of which related to farmers who had to build right beside their property. I do not want to move away from the concept of clusters, because if that happens, there will be dwellings dotted all around our landscape. Therefore, we have created the opportunity for cases to be made to move away from larger farms, in particular, which have a lot of machinery and tanks for the storage of slurry and other materials, and beside which people do not want to have to rear their children. A case can also be made for farmers who wish to expand, because the area of expansion may be the only suitable place for a dwelling within that cluster development. That issue was pressed home to us on a regular basis.

The issue of non-farming rural dwellers was also raised quite a lot, and we have sought to address that by improving the opportunities for infill dwellings by infilling the existing clusters around crossroads, churches, schools and other such opportunity sites. Those are a couple of the areas that were raised fairly regularly.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the progress made on PPS 21, but I echo what other Members have said about non-farming rural dwellers. Some progress has been made in that area, but it is clear that a lot more needs to be done to help non-farming rural dwellers and to ensure the sustainability of rural communities. I suggest that there are opportunities for the reuse of old or derelict buildings. It is clear that there are inconsistencies in the implementation of that part of the policy across different districts. How will the Minister maximise the potential of those sites and ensure that there is consistency across all planning sectors?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Policy CTY 4 deals with the reuse of existing non-residential buildings. It states:

“Planning permission will be granted to proposals for the sympathetic conversion, with adaptation if necessary, of a suitable non-residential building for a variety of alternative uses, including use as a single dwelling, where this would secure its upkeep and retention.”

The section contains a list of criteria that the proposals will be required to meet. One, which must be met and which, perhaps, will help to deal with some of the issues raised is that it must be proven:

“access and other necessary services are available or can be provided without significant adverse impact on the environment, the character of the locality or road safety.”

Furthermore, access to the public road must not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic. Therefore, there are grounds for reusing existing non-residential buildings, and that area is well covered in CTY 4.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his long-awaited statement to the House. Will he detail the major differences between draft PPS 21 and the final version of PPS 21, particularly in respect of access to sites, because I know that that was one issue that was raised previously?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will go through it as quickly as possible. CTY 2A has been introduced for a new dwelling, which rounds off or fills in a gap in existing clusters of buildings around a church, hall, community centre or crossroads. Policy CTY10, which deals with dwellings and farms, has been amended to allow consideration of alternative sites for a new dwelling on a farm away from existing buildings where there are health and safety grounds or verifiable plans to expand the farm business. Changes to the policy for replacement dwellings make clear that buildings that were previously used as dwellings could be eligible for replacement, and that includes abandoned dwellings. PPS 21 also provides clarification on terminology to enhance consistency of interpretation and to avoid uncertainty.

In finalising PPS 21, account has been taken of responses to the public consultation, operational planning experience, decisions arising from appeals to the PAC, and the independent working group report. All the changes make for a clearer policy document, which provides for consistency of interpretation across the planning divisions and facilitates a sustainable approach to development in the countryside.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for the progress in bringing the document forward. CTY10, which relates to dwellings on farms, mentions visual links or clusters. The Minister will be aware of my concerns in that regard, but I note his flexibility in saying that, in certain circumstances, it may not be possible to move away from that cluster. The Planning Service can often use that as a negative opportunity to not allow that to happen. Can the Minister assure me that Planning Service staff will be instructed to utilise that where possible and necessary, and not to use it against farmers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The policy is there to assist people who have genuine needs. It is not there to be abused, either by people who are applying for planning permission or by people who are making judgements on whether planning permission should be granted. Where people have a real issue, concern or difficulty, we want a rational, practical, common sense approach to identifying the solution to that difficulty. If people are entitled to sites on their farms, let us look at how we can accommodate them.

Hopefully, most applications will be accommodated within a cluster, but we can also assist people who wish to move away from a cluster. However, the policy will not assist them in setting a house on top of a hill totally unrelated to anything else. We will not allow people to use excuses to try to get sites that are wholly incongruous in the countryside.

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

Although there is not really any progress for non-farm dwellers, I welcome the Minister’s intention to do some more work on the issue, and I urge that that work be done as quickly as possible. The Minister has clarified the criteria for new on-farm dwellings. Will existing farm dwellings that are replaced in the future be subject to the criteria for new on-farm dwellings?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I refute the claim that very little or nothing has been done for non-farming rural dwellers. I have said a number of times this morning that there will probably be thousands of applications in future years that will involve non-farming rural dwellers. I accept that further work is required, but no one, including the independent working group, has come forward with positive proposals for me to take that forward. If the Member has ideas that will not create the bungalow blight that exists not far from his home, just across the border in Donegal, and will not lead to a similar situation in Northern Ireland, I will be very interested in hearing about them.

There are a number of opportunities for replacement dwellings on farms, but there have been some issues since draft PPS 21 came out, so let me be clear about this. We were looking at buildings being substantially intact, so if there was a lot of rubble, people would not get permission for replacement dwellings. However, if buildings have walls, chimney breasts, and so forth, there is no reason why people would not get permission, even if those buildings do not have roofs and some parts of their walls have fallen into disrepair. Of course, if considerable parts of a building’s walls have fallen into disrepair, it is a different story.

What is the point of having all those redundant buildings, which blight the landscape, scattered around the countryside? Let us replace them with buildings that are designed appropriately for the countryside, which people can live in and use. That will help to revitalise villages and towns across rural areas and to create opportunities for young people who live in those areas to get a start in life.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement and his advancement of the situation, but I still have reservations about how the policy will be implemented, particularly with regard to infill and ribbon development. In the past, planners often used ribbon development as a reason against an application. Are there any means to ensure that policy is consistent across different areas, particularly with regard to clusters of buildings and infill sites? At present, planning officers insist that need has to be identified for infill sites even though there is a clear opportunity for them in rural areas.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Previously, a ribbon of development was generally regarded to be nine or 10 houses. Under draft PPS 21, that number was reduced to six. We have reduced it to three. I have represented many constituents at site meetings where planning officers have said that a gap was important. Basically, they were stating planning policy. However, it was not an important gap. If there are two houses, a gap and then another house, that gap does not contribute anything to the countryside.

We want development to be such that, by filling in gaps, the natural environment is not damaged through the dotting of houses around the countryside. Infill dwellings are a practical response to deal with a common and prevalent issue. As one goes around the countryside, one sees many opportunities where there are three or four houses with one space between them, and the space serves no purpose. There is absolutely no good reason why that space cannot be used for the development of a home, which will normally be for a non-farming rural dweller in the countryside.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his continued good government in that area. Given that the Department’s workload may increase as a result of the development of replacement dwellings, crossroads and churches, will technical planners, whose expertise we do not wish to lose, be redeployed?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Our response thus far has been related to workload. That will continue to be the case. Therefore, if workload increases, we will keep more planning officers. It is as simple as that. I have no desire to lose planning officers. If we have the opportunity to retain a greater number of planning officers than is proposed, I will be delighted to do that.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I, too, welcome the detailed statement, at long last, which completes an important part of the Assembly’s rural planning policy. I welcome offset in the countryside. It is very important. Will the Minister provide guidance notes for officials so that there is no misinterpretation of what he and the Assembly mean by the new policy? Those guidance notes should adequately and accurately explain to a planning officer that the same law applies equally whether he or she deals with a case in Ballinamallard or Broughshane. Will there also be guidance notes to clarify that a building that is to be knocked down and replaced is not required to have any merit in order for a planning officer to give planning approval? Finally, can the Minister clarify for the House whether he expects some 2,000 cases that are regarded as backlog to be cleared within the six-month period? I welcome his statement, which is a great advancement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Replacement dwellings are just that — replacement dwellings. Existing non-residential buildings are for reuse, not replacement; that is an important difference. In reusing existing non-residential buildings, certain things will be looked for: that the building is a permanent construction; that the reuse or conversion would maintain or enhance the form, character and architectural features, design and setting of the building and not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the locality; that any new extensions are sympathetic to the scale, massing and architectural style and finishes of the existing building; and there are other considerations.

All those policies have been set out with justification and amplification for my planning officers to consider. For example, on the reuse of buildings, “Justification and Amplification” states:

“Due to changing patterns of rural life there are a range of older buildings in the countryside, including some that have been listed, that are no longer needed for their original purpose. These can include former school houses, churches and older traditional barns and outbuildings. The reuse and sympathetic conversion of these types of buildings can represent a sustainable approach to development in the countryside and for certain buildings may be the key to their preservation.”

That is clear policy for planning officers to work to. Such buildings can be reused if appropriate for that purpose.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I look forward to seeing much that is in it being put into effect. He said that the local dimension will be strengthened when we devolve development planning and management functions to local councils. However, with the RPA looking a bit nervous as to how it is going to go — if it is going to go at all — and given the fact that the Minister spoke about clusters, part of the problem in Antrim is that there is no area plan. Therefore all the towns and villages, and, in some cases, hamlets, are full. That puts a great deal of pressure on those areas and on the clusters and then on to infill. Will the Minister give us a fixed date for when area plans will be finished and put the necessary resources in place so that Antrim can have an area plan and everyone has a base to work from?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Planning policy statement 21 deals with rural dwellings. The clusters that it deals with will normally relate to dispersed rural communities and will not, therefore, be affected by an area plan. An area plan identifies the towns, cities, villages, and hamlets. The planning policy statement goes beyond that to areas that are not covered by area plans. Therefore, the planning policy will not rely on area plans for its movement.

I am supportive of the RPA moving on with 11 councils. However, if we do not move forward with 11 councils, I also support the planning function going to the 26 councils. There are no reasons to prevent the Planning Service being moved to the 26 councils as a shared service, with local authorities being responsible for planning decisions. If we do not move forward on the 11 councils, I will certainly recommend that we move planning policy to the 26 councils in the intervening years.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. There are some improvements to draft PPS 21. In two paragraphs of his statement, the Minister referred to the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Will the Minister enlighten us about timescales for a rural White Paper and a new revised version of the regional development strategy? Were those two paragraphs necessary to get the deputy First Minister over the line to allow PPS 21 to be published? How will rural businesses be progressed?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Member’s questions. I did not think that she was going to ask any because she talked during most of my statement. However, perhaps she is in listening mode now.

I will leave the deputy First Minister and his party to speak for themselves. We have a policy that can be moved forward. There is a considerable amount of work to be done with the independent working group and the non-farming rural dwellers, and I do not underestimate what DARD and DRD can bring to the table in dealing with that issue.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Some parts of my question have been answered. I welcome the Minister’s statement. I have no doubt that, had he been permitted to do so, he would have brought it to the House much earlier. However, now that it is here, it is most welcome.

Some questions on ribbon development, gap sites and clustering have already been asked. Does the Minister consider that the policy will clear all the ambiguity that surrounds infill sites in particular? That is one area that seems to create considerable problems, and it generates much debate in my council. Furthermore, is there still an insistence that any replacement dwelling must stick strictly to the footprint of the property that it replaces?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If the Member is looking for absolute consistency in planning, he may as well look for the perfect Christian. I do not think that either exists. Planning is not engineering or science. It is very much in the eye of the individual. What one person sees in one way, someone else may see differently. In that sense, planning is a bit like beauty.

As regards ribbon development and infilling, the change in policy facilitates up to two dwellings and, where appropriate, economic development, including light industry, in a gap site. That change was brought in under draft PPS 21. Historically, planning policy has resisted anything that would increase ribbon development. We are not talking about the extension of an existing ribbon of development, but about infilling, which creates opportunity. The small gap in a substantially built-up frontage has been reduced to a small gap in a fairly small built-up frontage, in that the policy can now apply to three dwellings or more. If there is space for two dwellings between three dwellings, the solution is fairly clear.

If planning officers argue against that, it will create a difficulty. We want to hear about situations in which planning officers do not interpret policy correctly. The policy is clear, and planning officers should apply it consistently and clearly across all divisions and councils in Northern Ireland. There should be no regional difference in the way in which the policy is applied.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. However, I am disappointed that it includes further relaxations on development. In fact, the statement drives a coach and horses through rural planning policy and is a charter for developers and speculators. My question relates to the application of PPS 21 to the lands around urban areas that were previously part of the undeveloped green belt. Does the Minister agree that the application of draft PPS 21 to those areas led to a significant increase in planning approvals and is leading to greater urban sprawl? Will the Minister examine the impact of that and reconsider the way in which PPS 21 could be implemented in those areas?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Patently, the Member is talking nonsense. My Department is creating sustainable communities in rural areas. The Member may wish to create some great divide in Northern Ireland, whereby a person would not be allowed to build in an area should he or she happen to have been born there or farm there, or if it so happens that the land has infill opportunities or redundant buildings that could be used. He does not want any of that to happen in the greater Belfast area but thinks that it can happen in the rest of Northern Ireland.

I want a consistent policy across Northern Ireland. Section 75 was supposed to bring about equality. However, the Member wants to wipe out section 75 and wipe out equality. I will not go there. There will be a consistent approach to planning across Northern Ireland. It is not about destroying communities. There are significant opportunities for buildings in the countryside to be planned in ways that are wholly complementary to the environment and for the use of wind-generated energy and ground source heat pumps. I ask the Member to think outside the box instead of having a knee-jerk reaction.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

What a change today’s approach from a locally elected and responsive Minister is from the direct rule interventions on PPS 14.

In his statement, the Minister said that alternative sites can be used where there are health and safety issues. Perhaps he can tell us whether that is health and safety issues or health and/or safety issues. It is important to get clarification on that.

I may have missed it, but I do not see any mention in the statement of single dwellings for farmers. In the past, they had to be built close to farm buildings such as barns. Is it now possible for farmers to build single dwellings away from their farms but close to other clusters of buildings? Wearing my other hat as a member of Ards Borough Council, I know that there is often a gap in the middle of clusters of farm buildings built in the shape of the letter C. Will there be an opportunity for farmers to build dwellings away from farm buildings?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It was the famous Lord Rooker who introduced the blanket ban, something which was not well received by this community. Over the weekend, he was giving advice on RPA. However, I will not be taking advice from Lord Rooker, who is not even an elected Member. I have a mandate to do what I am doing in the House, and my party has a mandate to do what it is doing in Northern Ireland. We will not take lectures from some Lord who did not do a particularly good job when he was here.

Through the farm policy, we are looking at ways and means of allowing farmers to develop dwellings away from clusters of farm buildings where that is reasonable. We would prefer farmers to develop beside clusters of buildings, and, in a lot of cases, that will be a suitable outcome that most people will be prepared and quite happy to accept. However, that is not always appropriate. For example, a dwelling close to the filtration and ventilation systems designed to remove ammonia and other materials from a large number of chicken houses is probably not the best location in which to raise a family.

There will be opportunities to move dwellings away from clusters of farm buildings. We are certainly open to looking at how best we can utilise the development opportunities that are required by families in such a way that is consistent with a policy that does not allow for the dispersal of houses across our countryside.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

It is great that the Minister is looking for opportunities. However, the interpretation of PPS 21 needs to be uniform across Northern Ireland, and the Minister has indicated that he is looking into that. What provision has he made for students, who have just finished training college and have only recently taken ownership of farms, to build new dwellings?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The policy is quite clear. Where there is an existing farm, the farmer gets a dwelling. A farmer can get another dwelling after 10 years. If there is no existing farm and a farmer has only recently got a farm identification number, that person will have to wait six years.

In any event, there should be a cluster of buildings: it is difficult to farm without buildings. If the student who has just left college does not have any farm buildings, the first thing that he or she should do is put some farm buildings in place.

In such a situation, a student could be accommodated. Another way to do so would be to use the policy relating to caravans or mobile buildings. Permission could be granted for the temporary use of caravans or mobile buildings. However, such buildings are mobile and are for temporary use: they will not be there for 20 or 30 years. Therefore, permissions would be granted for a period of time and might be able to accommodate people who are in the circumstances that Mr Armstrong described.

Executive Committee Business

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to introduce the Energy Bill [NIA 23/09], which is a Bill to make further provision in connection with the regulation of the gas and electricity industries.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

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

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill [NIA 19/09] be agreed.

There are a number of matters on the content of the Bill that I want to address, and in my winding-up speech, I will respond to the issues raised in the debate. I want to make some preliminary remarks about how I and the Department see this piece of legislation.

The Bill is the first piece of exclusively Department for Social Development (DSD) legislation that I will bring through the House in my tenure as Minister. I am mindful of some of the conversations that occurred at last week’s Social Development Committee meeting, when members touched upon a number of aspects of the Bill, as they will do, no doubt, during in this debate. I want to reassure the House that I come to the Bill with fresh eyes and an open door. There is a need to get issues around licensing right, and there is a need to get a proper balance between all the relevant and related issues regarding how licensed premises are conducted.

I want to provide that reassurance, and I will be listening very attentively during the debate to identify areas where Members think that there are particular points of pressure and areas where they believe that the Bill requires further consideration.

Regardless of the final shape of this piece of legislation, whether that is in this mandate or in subsequent mandates, the House will have to return to the issues of licensed premises, the control of alcohol and related matters. Some of the issues that may be touched on in the debate that are not in the Bill may be of interest to the House in subsequent times and subsequent mandates. So, although the Bill is a substantial piece of legislation, it is the beginning rather than the end of a phase.

I want to reassure the House that my predecessor Margaret Ritchie and the Department carefully considered how to address some matters on licensing legislation. Minister Margaret Ritchie had three options. The first option was to do nothing. Given the issues that revolve around licensed premises and the issues of concern and acute anxiety in the community, it was quite clear that the do-nothing option was no option at all. My predecessor Margaret Ritchie rightly cautioned herself against adopting that approach.

The second option was for the Assembly to adopt a much more interventionist approach to the conduct of the courts and the police to ensure that there was more consistent application of relevant powers across the range of powers when it came to licensed premises, and, in particular, the abuse in any shape or form of licensed premises. I have an understanding of that type of intervention, even though on this occasion the Department chose to support another option. On a different matter, I long argued that there is a need for a sentencing guidelines council in the North, whereby there would be input into the thinking of the judiciary on the appropriate penalties for various matters. Therefore, I have some personal interest in and sympathy with the principle of giving further guidance to, for example, the courts and other relevant authorities.

In the round, however, and having taken account of all the arguments about licensed premises, Margaret Ritchie and the Department decided that the right intervention at this stage was to upgrade and toughen the law where appropriate and create flexibility where necessary. That is the sense of the Bill that I commend to the House. The Bill has new enforcement powers and creates flexibility in club accounting and, as Members will be aware, flexibility in certain matters concerning clubs.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the way in which the Minister has tried to set out the general principle of the Bill. However, has he yet had an opportunity to consider the additional pressures that clause 9(3) will have on the Police Service of Northern Ireland? That clause will extend the opening days of clubs for special occasions from 52 days to 120 days. That seems to have been slipped in towards the end of discussions and will put additional pressures on the Police Service, which would potentially have to provide cover and could end up being quite considerably stretched across the whole country. Is the Minister, being new to the issue and looking at the Bill with fresh eyes, open to suggestions on how to be more accommodating of the needs of all social and policing services in Northern Ireland, so that we do not have what almost amounts to a licensing free-for-all across the country?

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

I thank the Member for that early intervention to put me through my paces. I have three responses to the Member’s concern.

First, I will not deny that although various organisations are happy with parts of the Bill, they are unhappy with other parts. Those organisations include the Police Service, which clearly has a particular input into and influence on those matters. I will not deny that the police are not completely on board with one or two matters in the legislation as it is drafted. However, the police have had a particular input into the content of the Bill. That was for many reasons, one of which was to reduce the pressure on police time.

For example, the Bill introduces flexibility to accounting practices, whereby there are fewer obligations on clubs to serve the police with relevant documentation, including annual and audited accounts. That initiative was taken by the Department in response to an application by the police for recognition of the fact that, given how clubs in some places in Northern Ireland have evolved over the past 20 years, practice has improved and accounting flexibility could, therefore, be introduced. A consequence of that would be a lesser burden on the police and clubs, and that is healthy.

I understand what the Member is saying about the provision for 120 days. That will excite some comment during the debate, once it fully engages. As I said, I am going to listen very attentively to that. However, the police will have some influence on the clubs’ management of the increase in authorisations from 52 to 120. Although I will listen to what the Member says, I am not going to make any commitments at this stage, nor am I in a position to reassure the Member fully on the matter. I will reflect on his comments as the Bill moves into its Committee and Consideration Stages.

I will make one simple point before moving on to the body of the Bill. We are not dealing with a small part of the Northern Ireland economy or a small part of community life in the North. As I understand it, there are around 600 clubs in Northern Ireland. From their experience in the various constituencies, all Members will be able to affirm that clubs are a very important part of the fabric of community and social life in all our communities. Although we must ensure that we legislate wisely and prudently, we must also recognise that, in considering the Bill, we should not deny or diminish the management, role and contribution of clubs to social, recreational and community activities in our society, and we should remember that they are controlled places for the sale of alcohol. That is especially the case when we compare today’s situation with that that might have prevailed 20 or 30 years ago; however, that will not detain us much today.

There are Members of the Assembly who are members of one or more of those 600 clubs, and they will, therefore, know intimately how well clubs can be managed and how positive their contribution can be to community welfare and to the proper management of the sale and consumption of alcohol. I should set the Bill in that context. That said, the law on liquor licensing in clubs in Northern Ireland has remained largely unchanged since 1997, when, because of particular concerns at that time, there was a need for some intervention — indeed, sometimes direct intervention — in the management of clubs and licensed premises. Despite the changes in the social and economic landscape and in expectations during that time, there has been no review of that legislation. As a result, the law needs to be examined with a view to bringing it up to date and to determining whether and how it should be reformed and updated to reflect developments in that period, good and bad.

England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have conducted reviews of their liquor laws to modernise them and to make them fit for purpose in today’s society. I will comment in my reply on some of the developments, especially in the Republic of Ireland and Scotland, that may be examples of best practice and that, in the fullness of time, may inform how the Assembly and the Department take things forward.

What is the broad aim of the legislation? Alcohol, when consumed responsibly, is a commodity that many people enjoy. However, as Members are well aware, the misuse of alcohol in society contributes to ill health and crime. As the Minister responsible for liquor licensing, I hope that the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill will make a positive contribution to tackling some of those problems. I need only to refer Members to schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill, which outline the penalties that can be imposed on clubs and all other licensed premises for a wide range of offences. For example, the accumulation of penalty points — 10 points in a three-year period — can lead to the suspension of a licence for a period of a week to three months. That demonstrates how, by penalty, we can make a positive contribution to tackling some of the problems that are associated with alcohol and licensed premises.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I do not disagree with the Minister. However, in issuing penalty points and closing premises, the Minister will be aware that, in some areas — I am sure that he has come across it in his constituency — there have been instances in which a senior policeman who is particularly against the sale of alcohol can have an adverse impact on clubs. The Minister will know that, in west Belfast, many clubs have complained about that. Would it be not better to tag on a review after a period to ensure that those penalties are working properly? There are occasions when the results of a review may be needed to see whether steps are effective.

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

An overzealous approach can be adopted in any walk of life, including by the police. We sometimes adopt that approach in our political lives and can get on the wrong side of issues, but my view is that the police have been critical in ensuring the creation of better standards, monitoring and enforcement, especially considering the way in which clubs were run years ago. Although overzealous actions may be taken on a small number of occasions, the police have made a positive contribution, bearing in mind the profile of clubs and how their management is conducted. I do not want anything that I say to take away from that.

As I indicated, I do not think that this will be the first time that the House will deal with issues around liquor licensing. It is likely that it will be dealt with in subsequent mandates. The issue will be a feature of the life of this and future Assemblies because of public concerns around the issue, the need to learn from best practice in other jurisdictions, the need to fine-tune our licensing laws to legislate better for the issues; and the need for joined-up action, not least between the Department for Social Development and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I am not committing to a review per se, but those matters will be kept under review. We need to do that as representatives of communities that suffer from the abuse of alcohol.

Guidance will be laid down in respect of police powers on the closure of premises. I checked this morning that that guidance will be drawn up in consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department for Social Development, and the police. The guidance will detail how the new powers will be deployed and, crucially, how the power to close particular licensed premises in or around which there is public disorder will work. The second clause brings that into force. I have no doubt that that guidance will be shared with the Committee for Social Development for its information when the time is right.

One of the main objectives of the Bill was to bring forward policy proposals to create an effective legislative tool to tackle the problems of underage access to alcohol, ill health, crime, disorder, domestic violence caused by alcohol abuse, and illegal access to alcohol. I am confident and hopeful that the Bill will help to address those issues. It is evident that stricter enforcement measures are needed if we are to seriously address those problems.

We must also recognise that a new situation is facing clubs in the current economic climate. They are finding it difficult to maintain their community services and contributions. I am happy to accept the PSNI’s view that the financial mismanagement that used to exist in some clubs is no longer evident. In my constituency, there were examples of clubs about which there were questions in respect of financial mismanagement. I remember making the case publicly and privately that that matter should have been dealt with 20 or more years ago.

I am satisfied, as are the police, that the financial management of clubs has now evolved to the point at which, although there needs to be consistent financial regulation, some of the burdens can be eased. That is why the Bill creates a more flexible accounts system for registered clubs and provides for an increase in the number of occasions when clubs may keep their bar open until 1.00 am. I am sure that Members will mention that in their contributions. However, as with the current legislation, later opening will be subject to PSNI authorisation. I made that very point in response to Mr Paisley earlier.

I turn now to some of the Bill’s key features. The Bill provides for two new closure powers to allow courts to close licensed premises and registered clubs in a district to protect public safety if disorder is occurring or imminent. That is the broad power whereby the police can apply to the Magistrate’s Court. However, there is also a new closure power to allow a senior police officer to immediately close premises for up to 24 hours in the first instance if it is adjudged that actual disorder is continuing. Mr McCann touched on that point.

As a consequence, the rarely used power to close premises or reduce opening hours to preserve public order will be repealed. That power has been transferred to the Department of Justice, having been formerly held by the Secretary of State. I understand that that power was used only once. As I indicated, it has been agreed between officials that, prior to the provisions’ coming into effect, the Department of Justice will issue guidance to the PSNI on how it expects the power to be carried out in practice. If it is worked through properly, that approach will assist senior police officers in interpreting and applying the law consistently across Northern Ireland. It will also reassure us and the public that the use of that power will be properly judged.

The Bill will enable a court, following conviction, to endorse penalty points on a liquor licence or a club’s certificate of registration. The court will have some discretion for less serious breaches of the law, but the endorsement of penalty points on the licence or certificate will be mandatory for more serious breaches, such as underage sales. I refer Members to schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill, which outline three categories of breach. Level five fines are for those breaches that will lead to a mandatory endorsement of penalty points on the licence or certificate. A licence or certificate will be suspended for a minimum of one week and a maximum of three months on the accumulation of 10 penalty points in any three-year period. That system has worked well for road traffic offences, and I believe that it can act as a deterrent for any licensee or club that is tempted to disobey a law.

The Bill will also introduce a statutory proof-of-age scheme specifying acceptable proof-of-age documents for the purposes of licensing and registered clubs law. Those documents will include a passport, photo card, driving licence and Northern Ireland electoral card. The Department will be able to make regulations specifying other proof-of-age cards if necessary. Premises will be required to display notices prescribing offences for the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 and the purchase of alcohol by or for the under 18s. The notice will also refer to documents prescribed for the purposes of proving age. The size and content of the notice will be specified in regulations, and an offence of failing to display the signage will be created.

For a whole lot of reasons, we think that a statutory proof-of-age scheme is the way to go at this stage, even if there is not to be a statutory proof-of-age document. That statutory scheme will outline what proof-of-age documents might include, will ask for signage that requires them to be produced and will ensure that clubs and licensed premises show due diligence to ensure that that happens.

As has been said, the Bill will create a more flexible accounting system for registered clubs. That system will recognise the differing auditing requirements for small, medium and large clubs, will reduce the level of penalty for certain offences and will introduce guidance on a system of control for accounts, cash holdings and receipts. The PSNI has acknowledged that the financial mismanagement that existed in some clubs in the past is no longer in evidence, and it has asked for that to be reflected in more flexible arrangements. Although the Bill will maintain the requirement for clubs to keep proper accounts, revised regulations and guidance will provide the more detailed provision that sets out the manner in which those accounts must be prepared and audited.

I am aware of the valuable contribution that our clubs make to sporting, social and other recreational activities in the communities in which they are situated. Therefore, I have decided to increase for registered clubs the annual number of special occasion authorisations, which you and I call late bars, from 52 to 120. Later opening for clubs will continue to be subject to PSNI approval. The increase will help clubs to maintain their viability by better meeting members’ expectations by enabling them to continue to provide various activities for the communities. There is also a minor change to the Bill that will clarify that a liquor licence may be granted to a limited-liability partnership.

I am mindful of the time. As I indicated when I began speaking, the Bill is part of a wider, ongoing programme, which I hope will lead us to a more balanced relationship with alcohol. I am aware of growing concern not just in Northern Ireland but in Britain and the Republic of Ireland about the availability of cheap alcohol and the impact of that on society. I am also conscious that the licensed hospitality trade makes a valuable contribution to our economy, not least through tourism. Last week, I met with my officials who have been researching those wider issues. I am working closely with officials in other Departments and jurisdictions — crucially, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland — to devise how we might promote and protect in the future.

For the present, the provisions in the Bill will strengthen the current law. I ask Members to note my commitment to ensure that licensing law continues to tackle the issues of alcohol misuse and underage drinking. I look forward to hearing the various contributions from Members in order to find out whether there are ways in which the Bill can be strengthened or issues that we should scope out for the future.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately on the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the first Member to speak will be the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development.

The sitting was suspended at 12.26 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I declare an interest as a member of Comber Rec football club. The Committee for Social Development has considered the reform of liquor licensing and the registration of clubs at several meetings over the past years. Of all the issues that the Committee has considered, the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill has provoked probably the widest range of opinions from members and stakeholders. I will begin by summarising the views of Committee members.

First, no one can dispute that the misuse of alcohol is a significant and serious social problem. On the one hand, there are often tragic individual family stories of alcoholism that all of us will have heard from our own constituencies and lives; on the other, the curse of binge drinking and the associated antisocial behaviour plagues many of our town and city centres, particularly at weekends and following major events. I anticipate that many members of the Committee will ably refer to those issues by setting out the consequences of alcohol abuse and discussing aspects of the Bill that are intended to provide better controls and stronger regulation. Secondly, many Members recognise that well-managed and properly regulated licensed premises — whether clubs, pubs or hotels — represent an important local industry that plays a key role in promoting tourism, often underpins a local community and probably enhances the development of the so-called evening economy and the revitalisation of our town and city centres.

It is intended that the Bill should strike a good balance between all those issues: on the one side, the regulation of alcohol sales and the protection of consumers and communities; on the other, the alignment of opportunity between the various types of licensed premises and the enhancement of services to members of registered clubs. If initial stakeholder responses are representative, the Bill may become one of the most eagerly debated that the Committee for Social Development has scrutinised in the current mandate.

I will comment briefly on some of the Bill’s clauses. The Bill introduces new closure provisions that will allow senior police officers to close licensed premises in which disorder is occurring. Similar powers are in use in England and Wales, where, it is understood, they are rarely used for individual premises. In fact, I understand that, in 2006-07, only 44 such orders were used, and there are 123,000 licensed premises across England and Wales. Although generally welcoming the provisions, the Committee will wish to review how closure powers may be used in respect of street disorder that is thought to have originated in specific licensed premises. The Committee hopes that the Department of Justice guidance to police on the use of that power will be available for scrutiny and will address the issue.

The Committee generally welcomes the inclusion in the Bill of provision for a penalty points system for licensed premises, covering offences such as underage sales and unauthorised opening. The Social Development Committee may call on informed stakeholders, including our colleagues in the Justice Committee, to share their views on, for example, the discretion that courts will have in imposing penalty points.

The Committee also welcomes the statutory proof of age scheme, which is designed to curb underage alcohol sales. Underage drinking is a major social and antisocial behaviour issue, and measures to address the problem have been welcomed by all members. Again, the Social Development Committee may call on informed stakeholders to comment on, for example, the use of certain types of identification, including electoral ID cards and testing regimes for the proof of age scheme.

The Bill includes proposals to increase the number of late licences that the PSNI can grant to registered clubs from 52 a year to 120. The intention of the Bill, as the Minister said, is to strike a balance between the regulation of alcohol sales and the opportunity for registered clubs to facilitate their members through more late openings. The Committee noted with disappointment that the Department was unable to indicate the existing uptake of late licences by registered clubs. Therefore, it is difficult to gauge the benefit of the change for clubs or the impact on the communities that live in close proximity to them. To date, the Committee has given limited consideration to how best the proposed liberalisation of late opening should be managed. Members may seek clarity on the timetable for related noise abatement legislation or may choose to explore the use or amendment of the Bill’s new penalty points system in that regard.

It is clear to all Members that the abuse of alcohol is an important matter. It has ramifications far beyond licensed premises, affecting many aspects of society in Northern Ireland. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Department’s ongoing review of related matters. The Committee is pleased that the Bill is only the first part of the Department’s review of alcohol abuse and licensing. The Committee understands that the Department’s related considerations are to extend to the possible establishment of forums which will feed back community concerns to licensees; the possibility of minimum alcohol pricing, particularly for off-sales; and options for restrictions on alcohol marketing. As the resolution of those issues may depend on legislation and legal challenges in other jurisdictions, I think that the Committee is probably content, at least for now, for those issues to be subject to legislation at a later date.

Before I conclude, I will make a couple of points from a personal and party perspective on the Bill. The Minister touched on some relevant questions. It is worth seeking further clarification on those questions from him at a later juncture in the debate. My queries relate to three broad areas. The first is the closure provision in clause 1 and clause 5, to which I made reference in my remarks as the Chairperson of the Committee. Notwithstanding the comments made by the Minister about guidance issued to the police, it is important that that guidance be absolutely crystal clear, because I can see both sides of how it may work out.

If a fight originates in a street that is not too far away from a licensed bar or club, it could certainly be in the interests of our society for the police to use the power to close the licensed premises for a period of time. However, there could be difficulties in respect of where a police officer draws a cordon around licensed premises. What is an acceptable distance away from the front door of licensed premises? Indeed, causation is an issue in itself. There may be instances in which two individuals get into a fight in a bar and both have been on the premises for a long time and have partaken of quite a substantial amount of alcohol. Equally, however, people could come from other premises and start a fight, perhaps after consuming a limited amount of alcohol, comparatively speaking, in that bar compared to where they were previously. Is that bar then punished for that situation, even though it has perhaps only contributed a small amount, relatively speaking, to the partaking of alcohol by those individuals?

There is also a flipside where it could be positive. Earlier, Mr Paisley talked about the difficulties that the police may have. It was interesting that the Minister said that the police are not happy with every aspect of the Bill. I hazard a guess that this is one clause that they are not happy with. Police resources, as we all know, are stretched. Sometimes, they find it difficult to do the job that we all expect them to do at weekends in policing the problems that sometimes emanate from licensed premises. However, there could also be a situation in which an overzealous officer, in the circumstances that I mentioned before, closes down premises because that makes it easier to manage policing in that particular town, village or city centre.

Therefore, when drawing up the guidance, we must ensure that it is as tight as it can be. Circumstances cannot be allowed to develop in which, for example, a fight takes place 500 m from the door of licensed premises and a police officer assumes that it is linked to those premises. Although the premises might have nothing to do with the fight, the officer could use the powers in clauses 1 and 5 to close them down, albeit temporarily. Regardless of whether the licensed premises are subsequently exonerated, that closure reflects badly on them. As we all know, gaining a bad reputation can be the undoing of a bar or club. Therefore, when issuing guidance, we must be extremely careful that the police are clear about when and where they can and should use those powers. Although the principle in the clauses is well merited, that matter requires careful consideration.

Secondly, the uptake of late licences by registered clubs is relevant. No doubt, there will be debate in Committee about how the figure of 120 late licences a year for “special occasions” was settled on. I understand that registered clubs wish the figure to be closer to 300 and believe they should have greater parity with bars and hotels. I stress to the Minister that the Committee’s deliberations would be greatly assisted by having some idea of the current uptake of the 52-day allowance. I asked the bar manager of the club in which I declared an interest whether we utilised the existing 52-day allowance, and he said that we got nowhere near to it. Many clubs do not use even the 52-day allowance. They are not busting through seeking a 53-, 54- or 55-day allowance, and they certainly do not seek an increase to 120 days. Therefore, in co-operation with the police, it would be useful to find out how many registered clubs use the maximum number of late licences that are available to them. That information would show whether 120 late licences a year is a reasonable figure. In briefing papers to the Committee, the increase was described as modest, but such an increase would be in excess of 100%, which I would not describe as modest. We must, therefore, find out on what statistical basis that would be justified and whether a majority of clubs already uses the maximum available number of late licences. We would then be able to justify a particular increase.

Thirdly, clauses 2 and 6 relate to penalty points. Northern Ireland will be the only jurisdiction in the UK to have such an innovative scheme. That is welcome, and it is good that we are pioneers. The Minister is right that that type of system has been shown to work for other offences, and it might be effective in dealing with troublesome licensed premises. However, I wonder whether some of the punishments are severe enough. If, over a three-year period, licensed premises were to accumulate 10 or more points for continually selling alcohol to minors, for example, would a punishment of enforced closure for not less than one week and not more than three months be sufficient? No one would think that the lower end of that scale would be sufficient punishment, whereas the higher end might be enough to put premises out of business, although many people in the locality might agree with such an outcome. However, most of us would subscribe to the view that someone who is caught selling alcohol to minors so often over a three-year period should have his or her licence taken away but the premises should not be shut, even for three months. Therefore, when drafting punishments for licensees who accumulate sufficient penalty points, we must be as firm as possible.

Last week, at the Committee for Social Development, I made a point about the Bill’s wider social policy. The Bill appears to contain a glaring contradiction. In making that point, I am not trying to take the moral high ground. Those who know me know that I do not do that. However, it is fairly obvious that there is a contradiction in the Bill. The Bill has been presented by the Department and the Minister with the key objective of managing alcohol in our society and addressing the growing levels of alcohol abuse, yet there is to be an increase in the number of late licences for premises that sell alcohol. We all share the noble objective of dealing with and clamping down on the misuse and excessive consumption of alcohol in our society, and the Bill contains some good measures directed at licensed premises to help to deal with that problem. Nevertheless, there is an increase in the number of nights that a whole raft of premises can sell alcohol. Therefore, there is a contradiction in the Bill, and it could have been better dealt with had we been facing a more complete Bill. I am not levelling any criticism. I know that there is an ongoing review and that work is under way on other aspects that could be included in a future Bill, something which the Minister talked about earlier. However, I, other members and, more importantly, those in society might have been more comfortable had the Bill addressed the other problems that society has with alcohol.

I do not want to come across as an advocate for any one of the measures that I referred to earlier: minimum pricing; community forums in which people can address their concerns directly with licensees; the use of marked bags for off-licence sales to deal with the proxy buying of alcohol on behalf of minors; and certain marketing restrictions. We all know about those problems. I saw evidence of one at the weekend: in advance of the World Cup, a major supermarket was selling boxes of beer at massively reduced rates. Boxes of 12 were being sold for the equivalent of, I think, 50p or 60p a bottle. Helpfully, the supermarket was restricting purchases to six boxes per person, and, therefore, one could walk out with only 72 bottles at a time.

We all know that the real problem with excessive alcohol consumption in Northern Ireland is not necessarily in our pubs, hotels or registered clubs, although there are problems associated with all of those, and, hopefully, the Bill will deal some of them. The real societal problem is the mass consumption of alcohol in the home. I would have been more comfortable if the Bill had started to address some of those issues now. I appreciate that we may deal with them in the future, but it would have been more helpful if they could have been dealt with now.

If the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were here and we were to ask him about the major drains on his resources, he would probably say that one was alcohol abuse. Anyone with any understanding of what goes on in the Health Service in Northern Ireland knows that resources are used up in dealing with people’s alcohol consumption; for example, in accident and emergency departments at the weekend or in inpatient services. I and others would have been more comfortable with the contradiction in the Bill had those issues been addressed.

We will never deal with alcohol consumption entirely to our satisfaction, but the real nub of the issue that we have to deal with is excessive drinking at home — the preloading that people do before they go out — that causes some of the problems that the Bill is, in parts, trying to sort out. I look forward to any progress that is made on that in the future and to any assurance that the Minister can offer the House today that those issues will be dealt with.

I do not know how all of those issues can be addressed. Scotland is trying to advance minimum pricing, although that is subject to some legal wrangling. We do not know what is legal, what is possible or what is likely to yield success. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland needs to address seriously the alcohol abuse that is so prevalent in our society.

Overall, I support the Bill’s Second Stage. As Chairman of the Committee, I look forward to seeing all those issues being teased out a little more during Committee Stage, in conjunction with other Committees and important stakeholders who have a keen interest in the Bill. Subject to the reservations that I set out personally and on behalf of the Committee, the Committee for Social Development welcomes the principles embodied in the Bill.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I welcome the input from the Minister and the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development. The Chairperson touched on a number of the issues that I wanted to cover. I declare an interest as a member of several social establishments in the city of Belfast.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

[Interruption.]

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sue is probably also a member of those clubs.

I support the passage of the Bill. However, like the Chairperson of the Committee, I think that the Bill could have been extended to include a number of the issues that he raised. Dealing with people’s serious drinking habits can be done only by examining the problems created by off-licences, dial-a-drink, marketing in supermarkets and the labelling of bags. If we are to tackle that problem, those four key issues must be dealt with sooner or later.

Over the past number of years, clubs have been placed at a disadvantage to other drinking establishments, such as pubs, because they are limited in the number of late nights they can open. That, in itself, has caused problems, and many clubs have faced closure as a result. Pubs and clubs employ a huge number of people in the North, and many charities survive on huge donations from licensed clubs. Therefore, we must try to find a happy medium through the Bill, and the provision for 120 late night openings will probably allow that to be reached. Those who run clubs would like that limit to be extended, while those who run pubs want it reduced.

I asked the Minister this morning about the additional powers of closure that the police will be given and the penalty point system that will be introduced. Although the Committee supports any move to ensure that badly run licensed premises are dealt with, we must consider the issue of overzealous policemen who do not like alcohol using those powers against pubs or clubs. Indeed, that point was touched on by the Minister and the Chairperson of the Committee.

One of the major problems that we face is the fact that supermarkets sell tins of beer and bottles of alcopops more cheaply than tins of Coke or lemonade, and we must deal with that. We must also consider that the drinking habits of young people have changed and that most young people now go out late at night. We must cater for the needs of that generation without penalising the industry.

The Committee supports the passage of the Bill, and I look forward to discussing it with the witnesses who will appear before the Committee. We need innovative ideas to tackle the widespread misuse of alcohol, without putting senseless limits on how people enjoy themselves.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on advancing the Bill to its Second Stage. The Bill is an amended version of the draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, and I believe that the Minister has improved on the direct rule version.

Credit is due to Margaret Ritchie for helping clubs to compete in these tough economic times while removing some of the overly liberalising clauses. However, does the new Minister think that the correct balance has been struck, especially in the area of exceptional permitted hours, which could give clubs the opportunity to open their premises to cover sporting events in other parts of the world and to be better able to meet demand?

I strongly recommend the introduction of a penalty point scheme for offences. However, I have concerns that, until we make it possible to remove a licence entirely for continual and repeated offences, regulation in that area will always be weak and out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom.

I also welcome the fact that senior police officers will have the power to decide on closure orders. That will greatly speed up the process and reduce the likelihood or duration of social disorder. I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken advice from the Police Service of Northern Ireland on closure orders and has made it necessary for the relevant licensing authority to consider the conditions of a licence if premises have been closed for public disorder reasons.

Antisocial behaviour fuelled by alcohol is a serious problem in Northern Ireland. It can blight people’s lives and put considerable pressure on the already stretched resources and personnel of the police and health services. Steps to reduce alcohol-related antisocial behaviour are, therefore, to be welcomed, and it is correct that the clubs that potentially fuel such disorder should have their licence conditions reviewed after any closure.

I acknowledge and welcome the measures to counter underage drinking and alcohol abuse. Defining what ID is deemed acceptable and making it compulsory to display a list of such acceptable forms of ID will help clubs to meet their statutory requirements and discourage young people who try to break the law.

It is undeniable that the vast majority of clubs are well run and offer a great service to our local communities and economies. In these difficult financial times, they will undoubtedly struggle to deliver those services. An increase in the number of occasions on which registered clubs can open to 1.00 am will enable them to compete more effectively with other licensed premises. That must be welcomed.

I look forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail in Committee. However, I ask the Minister whether he expects the Bill to be enacted before licences are renewed, which I understand will happen in September. At this stage, I am content to support the Bill.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Mrs Mary Bradley.

The debate stood suspended.

Agriculture and Rural Development

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I advise Members that question 7 has been withdrawn.

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

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the total sum of agricultural fines imposed in the last three years on farmers for breaches related to various EU support schemes. (AQO 1314/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have taken my Assembly colleague’s question to refer to the financial penalties imposed for the single farm payment, less-favoured area compensatory allowances and the agri-environment schemes in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

As Members will know, the rules that govern the administration of all those schemes are set out in EU legislation. The legislation sets out the penalties that are to be applied if scheme rules are not met, and neither I nor my Department has any discretion in their application. Indeed, in recent EU audits, my Department has been criticised for being too lenient in its application of certain penalties.

The total value of the financial reductions that were applied to single farm payment applications are £796,669 for those that were received by the closing date for the scheme in 2009, £418,540 in 2008 and £591,728 in 2007. The current total value of financial reductions that have been applied for the 2009 claim year for the less-favoured area compensatory allowance is £150,350. In 2008, the figure was £152,367, and in 2007, it was £202,130. The current total value of financial reductions made for agri-environment schemes in 2009 is £224,417, while £138,810 of penalties was applied in 2008 and £161,852 was applied in 2007. In general, that money is not drawn down in the Department’s claim from the EU. Therefore, if those penalties are applied, we do not receive the payment.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When it was learned that Scottish farmers were penalised for minor non-compliance and for making slight errors in completing their application forms, representatives from the Scottish Executive immediately requested a meeting with the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development to discuss the situation. What efforts has the Minister made to date to assist local farmers who have been penalised excessively for similar trivial offences?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have had a number of meetings with the EU Commissioner on the issue, and given that the scheme was in its first year and people were not sure how to apply for it, I asked the Commissioner to rescind the penalties that had been applied on the duplicate fields issue. I have worked hard to try to ensure that the EU takes a more flexible approach to the matter, but, unfortunately, the EU has not taken that approach, and EU audits have found my Department to be too lenient in applying penalties. I recognise the difficulties that are caused to farmers, and I have done everything that I can to try to mitigate that. However, EU rules are what they are, and it is difficult to change them.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Many Members, including the Minister, will be aware of farmers ticking wrong boxes inadvertently or filling out application forms incorrectly and then being heavily penalised. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the system includes flexibility and compassion for people who, inadvertently, make mistakes in applications for single farm payments or other funding available in the agriculture system?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Unfortunately, there is no flexibility, and I have been through long hours not only with my officials but with officials in Brussels to find out what can be done to help farmers. I recognise and understand the pain, annoyance and financial consequences of those penalties. The difficulty is that the EU rules are what they are; the EU will not give us any flexibility. We would like to apply compassion but trying to do so can be difficult. I accept that genuine mistakes are made and that flexibility is not given. I urge people to use the Department’s resources, including the rural advisers in the DARD Direct offices, to seek advice on how to fill out forms. Obviously, officials cannot fill out forms for people, but they can give advice on what to do to try to mitigate difficulties down the line.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Can the Minister estimate the proportion of those fines that was imposed as a direct result of minor genuine mistakes that were made by farmers when they were filling in their application forms? Financial penalties are often unnecessary. What flexibility is there in the system to deal with those things?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, there is very little flexibility in the system. I do not know whether I am able to extrapolate the information that the Member has asked for, given that he has asked for the percentage of fines that were imposed as a result of mistakes on forms. We run a number of schemes: the single farm payment scheme, the less-favoured area scheme, and the countryside management scheme. It would take a disproportionate sum to extrapolate those figures, but I assure the Member that officials are doing everything that they can to work within the rules so that further EU audits do not come down heavily on us.

As Members are aware, we are facing a disallowance because of a difference of interpretation between the Department and the EU, and we have to pay the cost of that. There is a fine line to tread between the flexibility that Members would like me to give and staying within the EU Commission’s rules and following its interpretation so as to prevent the imposition of disallowances in the future.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when tranche 2 of the farm modernisation scheme will be launched. (AQO 1315/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I previously indicated that that tranche of the farm modernisation programme should target the disadvantaged by focusing on farm businesses in less-favoured areas, where the need for modernisation is great. Sustaining agricultural activity in those areas will be difficult without targeted support of various kinds. Farmers from severely disadvantaged areas and disadvantaged areas who are successful in applying to the programme will be able to use the funding awarded to help them to become or to remain competitive while working in a very challenging environment.

DARD officials have carried out an equality screening exercise on the proposed selection criteria for tranche 2, and a number of responses were received during the public consultation, which closed on 12 May. Those are being analysed, as I want to consider the issues raised by consultees before proceeding with the arrangements for tranche 2. I hope that I will be in a position to launch it at an early date.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

That is all very good, but I would like to hear more detail. Will the Minister address the serious concerns of the farming industry, which have been conveyed through the Ulster Farmers’ Union, regarding tranche 2 proposals?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, I am giving all the consultees serious consideration. I am looking at what has come back, and I will be making known my deliberations on that shortly.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Did the results of the tranche 1 section 75 questionnaires show inequality in the beneficiaries of farm modernisation programme funding?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Under tranche 1, 2,536 equality monitoring questionnaires were issued between May and September 2009. Of those, 432, or approximately 17%, have been returned. Beneficiaries are encouraged to return their questionnaires to NISRA, and the return of those forms is on a voluntary basis. Analysis of the questionnaires received shows that there was a 78% uptake by the Protestant community and a 20% uptake by the Catholic community.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Minister bring the issue back to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development before making any announcement on it? What money will be available for the second tranche? What can individuals expect to get, if they are successful?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There were three questions asked. Overall, the amount for tranche 2 is £7 million, and we have revised the maximum figure downwards from £5,000 per farm business in tranche 1 to £4,000 in tranche 2. That revision was based on the responses that we received and the fact that people asked that the money be spread out further among recipients. Therefore, £4,000 per farm business is available. I imagine that I will be back with the Committee fairly soon. I am looking forward to getting back in and having a discussion with the Committee about a number of challenges that we are facing, and I have no doubt that this issue will come up.

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

Eleven weeks ago, on 8 March to be precise, the Assembly directed the Minister to enter renewed negotiations with the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association, with a view to bringing forward fair and practical criteria for the implementation of tranche 2. Will the Minister give the Assembly an insight into the deliberations that went on during her post-8 March negotiations with the unions?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is right to point out that the motion that day was around fair criteria, and I believe that I have proposed fair criteria for tranche 2. I also believe that I have responded to that motion.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her assessment of the impact on the agricultural industry of the new A5 from Aughnacloy to Londonderry. (AQO 1316/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development to ensure that the impact of any road scheme is properly assessed. The Minister for Regional Development has advised that Roads Service is assessing the impact that the proposed A5 dual carriageway will have on farmers along the preferred route on a case-by-case basis, and an agronomist has been employed to assist in that process. Where practicable, the impacts will be mitigated as part of the scheme development. The Department of Finance and Personnel’s Land and Property Services (LPS) will then take account of the final impact as part of the overall compensation package. My main concern in the process is that the impact on individual farm businesses is minimised where possible and properly compensated for when it cannot be mitigated against. It is also important to bear in mind that the Executive approved the scheme.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened to what the Minister has said. I am sure that she understands that in excess of 100,000 hectares of agricultural land will be vested as a result of the line that has been adopted for the new A5. Does she accept that that need not be the case if the A5 were constructed along the present line? Does she also accept that there is no need for the section from Aughnacloy to Ballygawley?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Having travelled on that road many times, I do not agree with the Member that the road is not needed. I feel that the A5 scheme will have a major impact on the farm businesses that are significantly affected, but they will receive compensation for their losses. I believe that the wider economic and social benefits of the scheme will vastly outweigh any impact.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister confirm whether she has met the Minister for Regional Development or any of the landowners along that route to discuss the impact that the road will have on the farmers? If she has not, will she do so in the near future?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not been invited to attend a meeting, but I have spoken informally to some landowners who approached me. I have spoken to the Minister for Regional Development about a number of road schemes, including the proposed road to Derry that goes through Randalstown, and I met a number of concerned farmers there. I am not opposed to meeting the affected farmers but, to date, I have not received an invitation to do so.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

What help can be given to farmers to ensure that the impact on affected farms is minimised?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

When there is clarity on how individual businesses will be affected, my Department will offer business development advice, and it will ensure that any impact on the single farm payment or agrienvironment scheme is addressed. I appreciate that the uncertainty surrounding such a scheme can create anxiety, and farmers who are worried about its effect on their livelihood, their family or their health will be advised to seek assistance from Rural Support. My Department provides funding to Rural Support to help farmers and their families to deal with such difficult situations.

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

This being an important North/South route, we want to see delays kept to a minimum, but does the Minister appreciate that, as has happened elsewhere in Northern Ireland when there have been contentious issues with Roads Service, farmers in such situations are often faced with a legal team from the Department for Regional Development that is in a position to make a very strong case, causing the farmers to feel disadvantaged? Has the Minister had any discussions with farmers or, indeed, their representatives about the possibility of an advisory service to act on their behalf in those circumstances?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I believe that I answered that question in a previous response. However, I can assure the Member that Land and Property Services has issued a guide called ‘Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: A Guide to Compensation for Agricultural Owners and Occupiers’. The guide is available to download from the LPS website. I commend it to the Member.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how many vets are currently employed by her Department. (AQO 1317/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department employs 160 permanent vets. They are employed to carry out work in a number of veterinary-specific programmes, such as the control of brucellosis, tuberculosis, epizootic and other diseases, and in animal welfare, animal control and veterinary public health.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. In light of current financial pressures on the Executive and her Department in particular, what consideration has she given to changing the balance of work between departmental vets and private veterinary practitioners?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Department already contracts private veterinary practitioners to carry out TB herd tests, for example. At this stage, I am not minded to shift that balance. It is important that a number of departmental vets are there to do a job. Therefore, I do not seek to reduce their number at present.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Minister for her answer, which I want to probe a little further. Does she accept that private veterinary practitioners make a significant contribution to Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry and although the Public Accounts Committee’s 2009 report, ‘The Control of Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland’ indicated that failure to eradicate TB was due to poor testing by private vets, it is not their fault that real progress was not made?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is aware that that report was not of my making. I assure Members that private vets carry out an important and valuable service to the community, and DARD appreciates and values their work very much. Therefore, it is a good arrangement. We do not know when it will be necessary to step up veterinary control. From that point of view, it useful for departmental vets to be backed up by private veterinary practitioners when an issue must be tackled and more resources are needed. It is a good relationship. There is a good balance. I do not envisage the Department privatising further veterinary work, but private vets provide an important service to the community.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. How many vets in each grade does DARD employ?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Department employs a Chief Veterinary Officer, two deputy chief veterinary officers, five senior principal veterinary officers, 126 veterinary officers, and 26 testing veterinary officers. Therefore, there are eight officers in senior positions and around 150 staff at veterinary officer grade.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her assessment of the impact of EC Regulation 1342/2008 on fishermen. (AQO 1318/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

EC regulation 1342/2008 established a long-term plan for the recovery of cod stocks. The regulation imposes rules for the setting of total allowable catches (TAC) and fishing effort according to the state of the cod stock in a particular sea area.

In the Irish Sea, where cod still shows little sign of recovery, the regulation means that there will be cuts in the cod TAC of 25% each year until the stock comes back up to a minimum spawning stock by a massive 6,000 tons. The regulation also imposes an annual reduction in fishing effort of 25% for vessels that use fishing gear that contributes significantly to cod mortality. That includes white fish and nephrops vessels that use conventional fishing gear. The regulation is challenging as it removes spare fishing effort from the system. However, effort can be given back to a fleet if it shows that it is adopting measures to reduce its cod catch.

To help us to develop cod conservation measures that are adapted to our needs, an effort-management group, which involves the industry, scientists and officials, has been established to develop local measures that will reduce cod catch and earn enough effort to allow vessels to take up their quotas. For 2010, most nephrops vessels have adopted a range of measures aimed at reducing cod catch to below 5%. Most white fish vessels have been able to buy back 15% effort through the adoption of the large-mesh eliminator trawl, which reduces the amount of juvenile and small fish caught.

In conclusion, nephrops vessels that have a low cod by-catch will have sufficient time to catch their quotas. However, white fish vessels that target cod face year-on-year cuts in cod quota and fishing time, and may, therefore, find it difficult to survive.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer, even though it is a bleak answer for the fishing industry. Does she agree with me that there is an inherent contradiction when it comes to the fundamental right of fishermen to engage unhindered in their work, and does she agree with the renewed efforts of our MEPs to try to have the situation reviewed, as it will lead to the decimation of what little fleet is left in Northern Ireland?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The regulation aims to protect cod stocks and to allow them to recover. If there are no fish, there will be no fishermen. Therefore, some restrictions are needed in the short to medium term to ensure that there are fish and fishermen long into the future. I work closely with the MEPs on this and other issues, and look forward to maintaining the good working relationship that we have.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Has the Minister met the new Fisheries Commissioner yet?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not yet met Mrs Damanaki. I have asked for a meeting with her, which has been scheduled for 26 June. I also invited the Commissioner to visit us, and she has indicated that that may be possible later this year or early in 2011.

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

Under Council regulation 13/24, the member state must report to the European Commission on a number of fishing issues. Will the Minister give an indication of her input to the March and April reports, including the assessment given by Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation and the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation, as well as individual fishermen, regarding conservation measures about scientific evidence provided to the European Union by the British Government?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Obviously, my officials work closely with officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the fishing industry. By the fishing industry, I obviously mean the producers’ organisations, but also the processors, because they are heavily dependent on the amount of fish landed in our ports. It is an all-year-round area of work. We work closely with the industry and that helps us to prepare for December, but we do not leave all our negotiations until December. We have ongoing meetings during the year with the Commission and its officials, and with officials from DEFRA and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what financial assistance her Department can give to small food processing businesses. (AQO 1319/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Under axis 1 of the rural development programme, capital support of up to £500,000 may be available to micro-, small-, medium- and intermediate-sized food processing companies through the processing and marketing grant scheme, and resource funding of up to £150,000 may be available to help market and develop food products under the marketing and development grant scheme. Both schemes have been temporarily closed since March 2010 because of budget availability.

In the context of the current difficult financial position, my Department is making a bid in the June monitoring round for additional funding for the processing and marketing grant scheme and, if successful, we will be able to consider funding new projects.

Under axis 3 of the rural development programme, financial assistance of up to £50,000 may be available through the farm diversification or business support and development measures for food processing projects.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that the food export business in Northern Ireland is one of the few industries that is holding its own in this tough economic time. Many of those who are spending lots of money on business plans will be disappointed to hear that there is no money left for those schemes. Does the Minister agree with me that perhaps she should be looking at her budget and the possibility of investing in that type of activity because it is one of those areas that can be positive for local businesses?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course I accept that it can be positive, but we have to look at all areas of work. Obviously, although it is great to be in a position to help companies with their exports, there are other government agencies that can do likewise. I am thinking specifically of Invest NI. We have to help the primary producers in the first instance, and that is where a lot of our focus has to go. I agree that the agrifood sector is valuable and worthwhile, and one that needs to continue to be supported. However, in the present difficult economic climate, we cannot always give that guarantee.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister share with the House details of any discussions that have taken place between the fishing industry and the EU authorities regarding the 2010 EU Fisheries Council?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member is asking a supplementary question to the previous question. We have moved on to question 6.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I call Mr Patsy McGlone.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Ross asked about financial assistance, and that is extremely important for small food processing businesses. Will the Minister indicate how much financial support has been provided to that sector in the past 12 months?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am just checking to see whether I have the exact figure. We have contractual obligations to the existing processing and marketing grant (PMG) project promoters. There was a significant underspend, and, as a result, the 2011 budget has to cover the additional pressure. The current applicants have applied for a total of £3·45 million and are at different stages in the application process. Overall, a total of £21·5 million could be committed to food processing companies under PMG, until 31 December 2013, from both EU and national funding, with spend permitted until the end of 2015. To date, under the current scheme, we have made £6·45 million available to 20 projects.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My question has been answered.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the application for protected geographical indication for the Comber potato. (AQO 1321/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am pleased to be able to confirm that the application to register new season Comber potatoes as a protected geographical indicator (PGI) was submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 21 April 2010.

I welcome that development and the support that was provided to get to that stage by Ards Borough Council. Subject to a final consultation exercise that ends on 4 June 2010, DEFRA will submit the application to the European Commission for approval. If approved, the PGI will give growers in the designated area improved marketing opportunities for new season Comber spuds.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her confirmation of that good news. Comber potatoes and Armagh Bramley apples are prototypes for Northern Ireland producers who seek EU recognition. Given the wealth of great food produce that exists in Northern Ireland, what will the Minister’s Department do, once those applications are successful, to encourage even more applications from Northern Ireland food producers?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My officials have been working with the Fruit Industry Federation and the Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative Society to assist them in developing applications to register Armagh Bramley apples and Lough Neagh eels, respectively. Both applications have undergone the required consultation process and have been submitted to the European Commission in the past 12 months. I welcome applications on behalf of other food types, so that we can put them through that process, because it adds something to our food product.

Just at the mention of Comber spuds, I can feel a stone going on me already, because they would be served with butter and scallions.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank my council colleague for bringing such an important subject to the Floor of the Assembly. Has the Minister ever had the pleasure of eating a Comber spud? Will she continue to promote the Comber spud wherever she goes? [Laughter.]

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that it is clear to see by looking at me that I have eaten plenty of spuds.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Comber spuds?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes. I have eaten Comber potatoes — a handful of scallions and a wee taste of butter and you are landed. Thank God I have had my lunch.

We do not take enough time to promote the benefits of local produce, unless people are looking for them. The quality of some of the produce in our supermarkets that is imported from other places is nowhere near the same. Members can help to promote the benefits of local produce such as potatoes, strawberries or apples, and we should do so collectively.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I inform Members that question 7 has been withdrawn.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of the job-creating potential of the creative industries. (AQO 1328/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Prosperous economies are characterised by a strong creative sector and, across the world, the creative industries are recognised for their potential for growth and job creation. Approximately two million people in the United Kingdom are employed in the creative sector, and the creative industries in the UK contributed a greater proportion of GDP than in any other nation. Most recent estimates indicate that, in Northern Ireland, some 36,000 people are employed in the creative industries or creative occupations, which represents approximately 4·6% of the workforce.

In recent years, significant success has been achieved in attracting major film and television productions to Northern Ireland. The growing and vibrant local sector also includes the many individuals and small businesses working in digital media. Northern Ireland creative talent has the potential to develop the region as a world leader for film locations and to develop the lucrative post-production and digital content markets.

The creative industries can help lead economic recovery and job creation in Northern Ireland. My Department will continue to work with Invest NI and other key stakeholders to grow the creative industries sector and increase its ability to compete and succeed on the world stage.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that very factual and clear assessment of how the creative industries are performing in Northern Ireland. However, at this time, when public sector jobs are under severe threat, will he make an urgent assessment of how many jobs it may be possible for his departmental budget to sustain with the potential for creating further jobs in the creative sector?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The key areas of support are provided through organisations such as NI Screen and the creative industries innovation fund. I anticipate that we will work to continue that support for the creative industries in some way. However, that is very much dependent on budgetary constraints. If my budget is cut in the way that it was previously, there might not be the resources. However, I hope that there will be opportunities to provide funding through the continuation of the innovation fund. We, along with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), and Invest NI, will continue to support NI Screen.

At the heart of the Member’s question is the fact that the creative industries are an area of potential growth and potential job creation that we would be foolish to miss out on.

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

Will the Minister update the House on the strategic action plan for the creative industries and the associated development fund? Job creation is important. However, what other parameters will the Minister use to assess the success or otherwise of the strategic action plan?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I accept the Member’s question. However, it is about growing the sector, in which job creation is a key issue. The Programme for Government target was to grow the creative industries by up to 15%. The baseline for that goal is gross value added (GVA) data from the Northern Ireland annual business inquiry, and the provisional 2008 data were made available in December 2009. However, it is only recently that detailed data on the level of the creative industries have become available.

Recent research may provide some estimation of Northern Ireland’s progress. A report by Oxford Economics on behalf of the Arts Council noted the impact of the recession and downturn on the local and global economy. The report estimated that the GVA of creative industries in Northern Ireland will grow by 6·7% between 2007 and 2011, which suggests attainment of the goal of growing the sector. It added that full 15% growth will be reached by 2014.

Back in 2008, we launched the strategic action plan for the creative industries, which was developed with other Departments’ agencies and sectoral development bodies. Work on that is progressing apace.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the Minister’s answer and the wisdom of further investment in those sectors, will he consider growing the participation of the social economy sector in the creative industries so that communities can be regenerated and areas of disadvantage and need can benefit?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

There is nothing to preclude social economy businesses from participating in the creative industries.

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

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how much his Department has spent on restocking the lakes and rivers under its control in each of the last three years. (AQO 1329/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

In the last three years, the Department has spent the following amounts on restocking the public angling estate: £218,603 in 2007-08, £194,381 in 2008-09 and £294,103 in 2009-2010.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he had any recent meetings with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency about the restocking of polluted rivers? I ask him to do everything that he can to lobby the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Justice to ensure that repeat polluters are severely dealt with by the law.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I agree that pollution of rivers is a particular problem. I have not had any meetings recently with the Environment Agency about restocking and supporting fishing activity in the rivers, but I am aware of the ongoing problems in a number of rivers. For example, after a recent fish kill, DCAL restocked the Ballymartin tributary river to the Sixmilewater with 1,000 trout. We are conscious of the impact of pollution on a number of the rivers. The Member’s question may be better directed at the Minister responsible for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Minister touched on the question that I want to ask, which is about the pollution in the Sixmilewater over the past couple of years. Will he outline any other programmes that have been undertaken in the Sixmilewater? What other stocking measures have taken place there in the past three years?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Using Peace I and Peace II EU funding, DCAL has funded the Antrim and District Angling Association, Ballynure Angling Club and Doagh angling club for rehabilitation work, which includes a fish pass at Barbour’s weir. As I said, we restocked the stretch from the Ballymartin tributary river to the Sixmilewater with 1,000 trout. DCAL is also working with Ballynure Angling Club and Antrim Angling Association under the salmonid enhancement programme to remove brood stocks to Bushmills Salmon Station for restocking purposes.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response on the restocking of lakes and rivers. Will he assure the House that disabled anglers will be provided with proper access so that they enjoy the benefits that others do?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am not sure about the connection between the Member’s question and the restocking of the rivers. However, the point is well made: we should endeavour to do all that we can to help those with disabilities to access fishing stands. That is taken into account by those who install fishing stands.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if all public bodies under the control of his Department have adopted the Information Commissioner’s model publication scheme, including publishing the minutes of their board meetings on their websites. (AQO 1330/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My Department and its public authorities that are listed in schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have adopted the Information Commissioner’s model publication scheme and are publishing the minutes of their board management committee meetings. Although NI Screen is not listed as a public authority, it is required to comply with the Act. It is currently redesigning its website and hopes to commence publishing its minutes shortly.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister explain why his Department was slow to implement the scheme with a number of its arm’s-length bodies, including NI Screen? As I understand it, NI Screen is one of the most recent adopters of the scheme. Maybe he will explain why it has taken so long for that to happen.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member will appreciate that there are more arm’s-length bodies associated with this Department than with any other. Sometimes, there can be a slowness in implementing all that I want to see implemented. For example, I have for some time been asking that the minutes of Foras na Gaeilge, one of my cross-border bodies, be provided on the website in English as well as in Irish so that the rest of us can read them. However, that has been slow in coming, even though the request dates to the time of my predecessor.

I use that as an example to show how bodies do not always move as quickly as may be expected. However, we are moving on with these things, every effort is being made, and I think that we are now at the point where we are compliant.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

In the interests of clarity and openness, does the Minister require that all his arm’s-length bodies publish the names of their board members and senior managers on the Department’s websites?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

All my arm’s-length bodies maintain registers of interests in respect of their board members and senior management. Declarations in respect of the register are required at board meetings, and confirmation of those declarations is sought through review of the board minutes and accountability meetings. I recently asked my officials to write to the Department’s arm’s-length bodies asking that they consider publishing those registers of interests on their websites, so that that information is not simply something within the body but is publicly accessible.

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

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to greater openness and transparency with regard to arm’s-length bodies in his Department. However, does he appreciate that sometimes those bodies have to deal with delicate and difficult matters? Take, for example, the Minister’s recent letter to the museums board about creationism and the Orange Order. Does the Minister really think that it is fair to board members to have their response to that kind of correspondence put in the public domain?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad that the Member raised that point, because it was quite clear that some malign individual decided to leak copies of a letter to the press. That matter will have to be dealt with and investigated by the institution concerned. That individual leaked not only a copy of a letter but the museum’s copy of minutes of a meeting, which apparently appeared in the ‘Sunday World’ even though those minutes have not yet been verified by anyone. It is true to say that that shows a lack of respect by that individual for the trustees of the museum and for the institution itself. I am sure, therefore, that the Member will join me in condemning such behaviour.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what measures Sport NI is taking to encourage young children and teenagers to participate in sport (i) within school; and (ii) outside school. (AQO 1331/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Sport Northern Ireland has a number of programmes and initiatives that aim directly or in part to encourage young children and teenagers to participate in sport inside and outside school. Those include an Activ8 programme, an active communities programme, leadership training in adventure sports, governing body and athlete support programmes, capital programmes to help to address sports infrastructure deficits, and surveys of timetabled PE in primary and post-primary schools.

Sport Northern Ireland also partnered DCAL in developing my new 10-year strategy for sport, ‘Sport Matters: The Northern Ireland Strategy for Sport and Physical Recreation 2009-2019’, which I launched on 13 May. Sport Matters contains targets and actions designed to encourage children and young people to participate in sport inside and outside school. As part of the delivery of Sport Matters, I have invited Sport Northern Ireland to join me at a meeting that I have arranged with the Minister of Education, Caitríona Ruane, to discuss how DCAL and the Department of Education can encourage better use of school and community sports facilities in a way that will help to encourage children and young people to participate in sport inside and outside schools. That meeting is scheduled to take place on 7 June.

Furthermore, my predecessor, Gregory Campbell MP MLA, was committed to using the power of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games to inspire children and young people to adopt healthier lifestyles through sport. Sport Northern Ireland, through its programmes and initiatives, is helping the Department to deliver that legacy and, in doing so, is helping to tackle the major issue of childhood obesity.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the news that there will be a meeting on 7 June between the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Minister of Education. Specifically, does the Minister hope to seek agreement with the Minister of Education on the use of schools’ facilities for sports and community sports?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

That issue is on the agenda; it is the purpose of the meeting. I am not saying that, to borrow the Member’s phrase, we will reach agreement. That is not the situation that we will have. We need to find mechanisms, patterns of good practice and ways of doing things, and those will develop over time. There are already examples of good practice in quite a number of schools, and we need to encourage other schools to learn from those examples. There are other issues that we will want to discuss at the meeting.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Has the Minister any indication of the number of school premises that are used outside normal hours and are funded by his Department?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not have that information to hand. I will enquire as to whether it is available. That might also need to be discussed with the Minister of Education at the meeting on 7 June.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister have a view on setting aside a set number of hours in a school for PE?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

There is an issue in relation to the activities of young people and the opportunities in the curriculum. Recommendations came forward from last year’s Education and Training Inspectorate report on children and young people’s interest in sport. That piece of evaluative work was commissioned from the inspectorate by my Department. The report’s recommendations, particularly those calling for greater collaboration between Departments, the building of links between schools and clubs and the widening of the PE curriculum, are wholly consistent with the targets and actions set out in the Sport Matters strategy.

When the inspectorate published the report last July, it specifically stated that there needed to be widespread support for Sport Matters if the recommendations were to be implemented. It is key that we encourage schools, within and outside the curriculum, to maximise opportunities. Some of those issues fall more readily within the Department of Education’s remit, and that is why we need, through Sport Matters, to have a cross-departmental group to work on them. Perhaps the Member should direct her question to the Minister of Education.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of the benefits for the entire Ulster-Scots population, including in the border regions, of funding provided by his Department for Ulster-Scots language and heritage. (AQO 1332/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The benefits to the Ulster-Scots community of the funding provided for Ulster-Scots language and heritage projects are that it helps to grow an awareness of the Ulster-Scots community and to maintain and to develop the language and cultural traditions of that community in Northern Ireland and the border counties. It also helps to recognise the influence of the cultural traditions of the Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland, the border counties and, indeed, the rest of the world.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that. Will he outline how he will ensure that the Ulster-Scots cultural and heritage tradition in Northern Ireland can be maintained and protected as other cultures in Northern Ireland are?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My Department allocates significant funding through its arm’s-length bodies to help Northern Ireland’s communities enjoy and celebrate their culture and heritage, be it through the arts, sport, languages or, indeed, museums. If we are to build a shared and better future in Northern Ireland, it is essential that everyone’s culture, heritage and beliefs are recognised and respected as part of our society and our shared heritage. Publicly funded bodies, such as schools and museums, have an important part to play. They need to ensure that everyone’s culture, traditions and beliefs are treated with respect and are presented in an inclusive way that does not exclude and marginalise them.

One of the Members opposite referred earlier to a letter that I sent recently to the trustees of the Ulster Museum. The context of the letter was to ensure recognition of the importance of building a shared future, a commitment to good relations and recognition of the responsibility for human rights and equality of all arm’s-length bodies. It is essential that the Ulster-Scots story is not airbrushed from the storyline of our museums as though that community did not exist. The same is true of the Orange tradition that I also mentioned in the letter. It is important that all traditions are included. For the record, at my meeting with the trustees, I mentioned not only the Orange Order but the Ancient Order of Hibernians, of which I am unlikely to become a member.

Billy Leonard (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister accept and confirm that the Dublin Administration have been relatively positive towards the Ulster-Scots culture, thereby providing a good example of inclusivity in Ireland that others could follow?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have had several cordial meetings with the responsible Minister from the Irish Republic. We have a common understanding of the way forward for Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency. I am encouraged by the meeting of minds on that matter.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am still reflecting on my interesting private conversation with the Minister in the Library earlier today. We talked about the visit of Roy Rogers and his horse, Trigger, to Northern Ireland many years ago. With that in mind —

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Was it not Tonto?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

No, it was Trigger. The Alliance Party is split on that matter.

Will the Minister detail his plans for the non-linguistic elements of the Ulster-Scots heritage, specifically his medium- and long-term plans for the development of Ulster-Scots music?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am encouraged that the Member takes such an inclusive view of culture. It was an interesting conversation about Roy Rogers. Perhaps there was some discussion on whether Kieran McCarthy appeared in the film.

Pursuant to the St Andrews Agreement, we are developing a strategy for the Ulster-Scots language and culture alongside that for the Irish language, and music is bound to be a significant element. I encourage the Member to be patient, because the strategy will appear shortly, and it may reassure him. Music and dance are tremendously popular. The Ulster-Scots Agency has allocated money to tuition in schools through the peripatetic teachers’ scheme and to community-based training in music and dance. Those are immensely popular schemes.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister provide an assurance that the review —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Question number 6.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Roy Rogers has a lot to answer for.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his Department’s assessment of the Foras na Gaeilge review of its core-funded organisations. (AQO 1333/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

In April 2008, the board of Foras na Gaeilge commenced an external review of its 19 core-funded Irish language voluntary organisations. The sponsor Departments and the North/South Ministerial Council agreed with the terms of reference for the review, which included achieving significant benefits through attaining value for money and the effective delivery of Foras na Gaeilge’s statutory obligations.

The review report was presented to the board of Foras na Gaeilge on 21 May 2010 and to the North/South Ministerial Council on 26 May 2010, when Ministers decided that officials from both sponsor Departments should work with Foras na Gaeilge to agree the detail of the review’s proposals and a timescale for its implementation by the end of June 2010.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

It is now time for your supplementary question, Mr Molloy.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I apologise; I was engrossed in conversation.

Will the Minister assure us that the review will not have an adverse affect on the jobs in the 19 core-funded organisations that are located the length and breadth of Ireland?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am disappointed that my answers have not been significantly intriguing and interesting to hold Mr Molloy’s attention.

The purpose of the review was to ensure maximum value for money and money for areas where it will have maximum effect. The process is at an early stage and must be given an opportunity. Everyone will be encouraged if we avoid duplication and ensure better spend and value for money. Foras na Gaeilge has much work to do on implementing its decisions, but we need to wait a little while to see how that works in practice.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What are the main recommendations of Foras na Gaeilge’s review of its core-funded bodies?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The funding model proposed in the review will be based on a portfolio of schemes that will be advertised for the entire Irish language sector rather than for a particular number of organisations. A statutory amendment will be introduced in Dublin to allow the distribution of the entire fund based on open competition and the best applications. Foras na Gaeilge will prepare one central strategy for the fund, which will be reviewed annually, based on the achievement of targets. It is proposed that Foras na Gaeilge will develop schemes under the following categories: local radio; the arts; education; family support; community support; youth advocacy; and research. Sponsor Departments are now working with Foras na Gaeilge to agree an implementation plan by the end of June.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra, ach ba mhaith liom an cheist seo a chur air: an gcinnteoidh sé go gclúdófar na cúinsí uile go léir faoin athbhreithniú ar eagraíochtaí croí-mhaoinithe?

Will the Minister ensure that the differing circumstances that apply to organisations here will be taken into consideration in any changes to core-funded organisations’ funding?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It is not intended to administer two separate portfolios: one for Northern Ireland and one for the Irish Republic. Therefore, organisations based in Northern Ireland will have to compete with organisations in the Republic for funding. Foras na Gaeilge and the two sponsor Departments will give due consideration to organisations based in Northern Ireland as the implementation plan is developed. In my previous supplementary answer, I set out the areas of activity on which there will be particular focus. Interim funding for the core-funded organisations has been agreed until the end of the December, and I do not believe that additional protection is required.