Northern Ireland Assembly, 28 June 2010

332 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I proceed to today’s business, I have a number of announcements to make. I have received a letter from David Simpson notifying me that he will resign as a Member of the Assembly with effect from Thursday 1 July. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer. I have also received the resignations of Mr Stephen Moutray as a member of the Assembly Commission and of Mr Peter Weir as Chairperson of the Audit Committee and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. The resignations take effect from today, and, therefore, a vacancy exists on the Commission. A motion in relation to that will come before the House later today.

I also inform Members that the nominating officer of the Democratic Unionist Party, the Rt Hon Peter Robinson, has nominated Mr Stephen Moutray as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development with effect from Wednesday 23 June. Mr Moutray has accepted the appointment. In addition, the nominating officer of the SDLP, Ms Margaret Ritchie, has nominated Mr Declan O’Loan as Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure with effect from Friday 25 June, to replace Mr Pat Ramsey and Mr P J Bradley, the current holders of the positions. Mr O’Loan has accepted both appointments.

I am satisfied that all correspondence meets the requirements of Standing Orders. Therefore, I confirm Mr Stephen Moutray as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development with effect from Wednesday 23 June and Mr Declan O’Loan as Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure with effect from Friday 25 June.

Public Petitions

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr George Robinson has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I wish to present to the Assembly a public petition in relation to the 40% front line cuts that are being planned from 1 July 2010 to the vital out-of-hours GP service in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area and specifically in relation to Limavady borough. The petition contains the names of 5,868 residents from throughout the Limavady borough. The signatures were collected in a two-week period, and their number reflects the deep concerns of the Limavady population about the planned reductions to the service. As a public representative, I have been urging the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to rethink the planned 40% front line cuts. I do so in the knowledge that I have cross-community support for the retention of such a vital service in its present form. Mr Speaker, I present the petition to you in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Mr G Robinson moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and I will send a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Tommy Gallagher has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

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

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to present this public petition to the Assembly on behalf of probably the most vulnerable group in society: children with severe learning difficulties. The petition has been signed mainly by people from the Western and Southern Health and Social Care Trust areas, but it also includes the signatures of people from all over Northern Ireland who contacted me to ask for the scheme to be reinstated, even at this late stage. The petition contains at least 2,000 signatures and, on behalf of the people who signed it, particularly the families who are affected by the decision, I present the petition to you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Gallagher moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education, and I will send a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Education.

Executive Committee Business

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(4) be suspended for 28 June 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(4) be suspended for 28 June 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As the motion has been agreed, today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm, if required.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that she wishes to make a statement.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, on a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in tourism sectoral format. The meeting was held in Armagh on 16 June 2010. The junior Minister Mr Gerry Kelly and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. The Irish Government were represented by Mary Hanafin TD, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Kelly, and I make it on behalf of us both.

The Council received updates from the chairperson of Tourism Ireland, Mr Hugh Friel, and its chief executive, Mr Niall Gibbons, on the impact of the continuing difficult global conditions on the tourism industry. The Council also received reports on market campaigns, including the £18 million summer marketing campaign, and on the outlook for the rest of the year.

The Council approved Tourism Ireland’s 2010 business plan and noted its plans to return to growth in visitor numbers during 2010 by focusing on best prospect markets and spreading the value message in tactical marketing campaigns. The Council noted the progress that Tourism Ireland has made to date in drafting its corporate plan for 2011-13 and the key marketing themes during the lifetime of the plan, including the Titanic centenary anniversary, the diaspora, the 1911 census centenary and the London Olympics.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement, but I am a little surprised by its sparseness and lack of detail. I seek the Minister’s reassurance that that is not indicative of any attempt to diminish in any way the nature of North/South ministerial contact. However, the statement included an important point on the impact of the continuing difficult global conditions on the tourism industry. The chief executive of Tourism Ireland indicated ways and means to deal with that. Will the Minister expand on the chief executive’s report on how to deal with difficult global conditions?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Chairman for his comments. The statement reflects the topics that were discussed at the NSMC. The reason why there is not more detail is that I wanted to respond to questions rather than regurgitating the statement’s contents, which is often what happens in the House. I am happy to go into detail about any discussions at the meeting.

There was a discussion with the chairperson and the chief executive of Tourism Ireland about the difficulties that we face in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland because of a downward trend and the fact that more people are holidaying within the confines of their own jurisdiction. As I have said in the House previously, that is partly due to a refocusing on marketing investment in Great Britain, which is Northern Ireland’s biggest tourism market, Germany and North America to generate the best short-term returns. At present, the trend is for people not to book holidays until the very last moment. We are trying to ensure that, when people are considering last-minute holidays, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of their mind. To that end, an £18 million marketing strategy has begun, with Tourism Ireland concentrating on those three markets and examining different ways to get people to consider Northern Ireland. There are people called “silver surfers”, and we are trying to encourage such older people to consider Northern Ireland as a possible holiday destination. I hear laughter from Members sitting behind me, who may not be over 66 years of age but may count themselves as silver surfers.

We are also considering value golf breaks and trying to position ourselves in that market — and why not after what Graeme McDowell did for us in America last week? I was in America last week on a trade mission, and the focus on Northern Ireland was tremendous because of Graeme McDowell’s win last Sunday in the US Open. People were congratulating me simply because I was from Northern Ireland. That market has tremendous potential. Tourism Ireland is examining that potential and seeking ways in which to benefit from it.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I also congratulate her on her efforts in promoting business in America. She is very photogenic; there are lots of photographs, and we were able to keep track of her the whole week. I am not a silver surfer, but I still have a little bit of silver hair left along the sides if not on top of my head.

I want to ask the Minister about visitor numbers. This morning, I spoke to Brian Ambrose, the manager of George Best Belfast City Airport, who told me that his numbers are up by some 8% from last year. That is good news. The Minister would accept that the past year has been difficult for overseas visitor numbers, and there has probably been a general fall in numbers because of the volcanic ash. What steps is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment taking to address the general fall in worldwide tourism because of the volcanic ash and the economic downturn? It is important that we have a process in place to address that.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member raised a number of issues. Tourist numbers have been a mixed bag. The number of people visiting from the Republic of Ireland is up year on year. In fact, the most recent figures that I saw showed that the number went up by about 39% last year. Indeed, when I was coming back from San Francisco last week, I noticed that a record number of tourists — around 9·3 million — visited Belfast last year. That is marvellous, and we want to see more of that. However, there has been an overall downward trend. As the Member said, that is down to a number of reasons, including the global downturn and the uncertainty that the volcanic ash caused.

As I said, Tourism Ireland is involved in a heavy marketing campaign in Great Britain, Germany and North America. In addition to that, I am hoping to meet the Minister for Regional Development in the near future to discuss the volcanic ash issue to see whether we can do more in readiness in case that becomes a problem again in the summer. We are looking for ways to deal with the immediate problems. However, it is also important to look to long-term strategies.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister give us a breakdown of the amount of money that will be spent on that marketing campaign, particularly in Britain? Now that England is out of the World Cup, we are looking for quick wins. Therefore, will we get more return from our money with more people from England holidaying here?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I wondered which Member would be the first to mention England’s demise in the World Cup; full points to Mr Maskey.

I do not have a breakdown of the figures for the amount that will be spent on marketing in GB, North America and Germany. However, GB is our main tourist market, and I know that when I speak to the chief executive of Tourism Ireland he will tell me that, because of that, he concentrates heavily on it not only because of the direct flight access but because of the strong ferry links. We are seeing more and more emphasis on car touring, for example. It is important that we look at all the ways in which we can get visitors to come to Northern Ireland. People have been telling me how much they have enjoyed staying at home in Northern Ireland over the past two to three weeks because of the good weather. However, we also want to see more people coming into Northern Ireland to enjoy what is going on.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The question that I was going to ask has been fairly well answered. Recently, I have had two or three complaints from Americans who are on holiday in Northern Ireland. They said that, although they love the country and the people, there have been one or two times when they felt that the personal skills of the people helping them have been poor. Will the Minister tell the House whether we will be instigating a campaign, through Tourism Ireland, to improve how we look after tourists?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Howard Hastings, who is the current chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, takes a particular interest in that area. In fact, he has met the Minister for Employment and Learning to talk to him about skills in the hospitality sector. The Member is absolutely right: there is no point in our having a product if we cannot deliver it in a meaningful way in Northern Ireland.

I know of some good exemplars in the hospitality sector, not least those in my constituency. For example, staff at the Lough Erne golf resort are skilled up to deal people when they arrive. I hope that more skills and training can be put into the hospitality sector. Sometimes people are a bit sniffy, if I can put it like that, about that sector in so far as they look at it as the poor relation. However, I have always said that, if we are to make tourism an economic driver in Northern Ireland, we need to work at every single level. I welcome the work that the Department for Employment and Learning has been doing to grow skills in the tourism sector.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am somewhat jealous of the Minister’s visit to San Francisco last week. A number of years ago, I worked out of San Francisco for a while on behalf of the then Department of Economic Development.

I am pleased that the Minister raised the issue of the Titanic centenary. Will she describe to the House the importance not only of the Titanic signature project but of other signature projects in the development of tourism? Will she explain how those projects are falling into line with the development of tourism?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. We were in San Francisco primarily on a trade and investment mission. However, we also took the opportunity to hold a Tourism Ireland reception to which all those connected with the tourism sector were invited. At that reception, we had an excellent presentation on the five signature projects that are moving forward, which was the basis on which I made my speech to the reception.

In respect of the Titanic centenary, at the end of September we will be taking part in a new Titanic exhibition in Grand Central station in New York. That will be a very exciting event, because millions of people — I do not have the exact figures in front of me — pass through that station every day. Therefore, the event will give us recognition for the fact that the Titanic was made in Belfast, as opposed to any of the other places that may try to take ownership.

In Northern Ireland, 2012 will be a hugely significant year for tourism, not least because of the Titanic projects. Also, the new visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway will then be finished. We are waiting to hear about Londonderry’s bid for the city of culture, which falls in with the Walled City signature project. Also, let us not forget that investment is still going on apace in the St Patrick/Christian heritage and Mournes signature projects. Having started at different levels, I am pleased to say that all signature projects are now moving ahead and coming along nicely. I am delighted that I can use that offering to sell Northern Ireland when we go to places such as San Francisco.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her statement. What is Tourism Ireland doing to increase the number of tourists that come to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

GB has always been our strongest market for tourists coming to Northern Ireland, not least because of the connection between friends and family. I see that as something that will continue. Unfortunately, however, last year saw a significant drop in numbers because of the downturn and the fact that people were staying in GB rather than coming across to Northern Ireland. Tourism Ireland’s £18 million marketing campaign, which concentrates on GB, Germany and North America, will help put Northern Ireland as a proposition at the top of people’s lists when they are deciding where to go on holiday. I commend Tourism Ireland for the work that it is doing on that marketing campaign and hope that it can make Northern Ireland stand out as it needs to.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Will Tourism Ireland look directly at marketing Ulster-Scots heritage and culture, particularly over the next couple of weeks during which the Orange festivals will be bringing hundreds of thousands of tourists into Northern Ireland? Will Tourism Ireland be specifically targeting the southern states of the United States of America, where there is significant Ulster-Scots ancestry, through direct promotion and online promotion? I ask that as a junior silver surfer.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Everybody wants to be a silver surfer today.

In relation to the Ulster-Scot campaign or, as it is sometimes known in North America, Irish Scots, Tourism Ireland has carried out direct mailing to people with Scots-Irish names. It found that to be very successful and hopes to build on that in its North American campaigns. Tourism Ireland has a strapline for the Giant’s Causeway:

“Some People Call This the Eighth Wonder of the World. Your Ancestors Called it Home”.

That is a very nice way of getting people interested in Northern Ireland from a historical context.

Also in relation to the historical context, at the NSMC we had a discussion on the 1911 census, the diaspora and trying to get more people to look at their genealogical roots in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I hope that people will take that up. Television programmes such as ‘Who Do You think You Are?’ will encourage people to look into their background, and we hope that tourism in Northern Ireland will benefit from that.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her statement. However, she has perhaps been listening to too much television coverage of the US Open in that she pronounced Mr Graeme McDowell’s name as “Mr McDow-ell”. On the north coast, it is pronounced “McDo’ell”.

I take her point that golf and other sports could add tremendously to the tourism product of Northern Ireland. Therefore, would the Minister work with her colleague the Minister for Regional Development to ensure that the road signage into Portrush indicates clearly that it is the home of US Open champion Graeme McDowell?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Perhaps that is a question for the Minister for Regional Development, who is sitting opposite. I very much welcome the Member’s correction. Obviously, those of us from west of the Bann need correction from time to time on Ulster-Scots pronunciation.

Whether he was a McDow-ell or a McDo’ell, last week I was incredibly proud of him when I was in the United States of America. It was almost a precursor to my arrival in California in that the Northern Ireland Minister for tourism arrived just as Graeme McDowell won the US Open. It was a tremendous occasion for us. I wrote to him — obviously, pronunciation does not come into it when writing to someone, so I am happy enough about that — to tell him that we are so proud of him and because he has put Portrush and north Antrim on the map. I met representatives of Royal Portrush Golf Club before his tremendous victory, and I hope to meet them again to see whether there is more that we can do about golf tourism.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Maybe some golf lessons.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Maybe some golf lessons. We continue to discuss signage. We also continue to discuss the need for golf resorts and golf courses. I recently met my colleague the Minister of the Environment about that because, if we are putting Northern Ireland onto the world golf stage, we need to have the product and to be able to attract those who wish to come and visit the home of the winner of the US Open.

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

As the Minister is on the issue of Graeme McDowell and golf, would it be possible to extend DETI’s budget to include golf lessons for the Minister so that the next time she goes to the States we could pass her off as Graeme McDowell’s cousin? That would be a major marketing ploy.

I compliment the Minister because whatever she is doing, she is doing it right. I switched on RTÉ the other day, and a panel of hoteliers and tourism people were screaming blue murder that Tourism Ireland was putting all its efforts into supporting the North and doing nothing for Munster. So, obviously something is working.

On a serious note, does the Minister agree that any serious or significant growth in our tourism depends on decent gateways? New gateways really mean airlines and new air routes. The Continental Airlines route that we have to Newark and New Jersey has been extremely successful and was well worth the investment that DETI made some years ago. Can we do a deal with someone to perhaps establish a route into Toronto? If we could get it as far as even Nova Scotia, that would be three quarters of the way, and then we could get connections from Nova Scotia. There are strong Titanic connections in Nova Scotia that we could work on.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to ask his question.

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

If we cannot at least get one route to Canada established, could we look at one to Atlanta, the Deep South and the Scots-Irish areas or however we choose to describe them? Ulster Scots is only at home; in the US, they are Scots-Irish. There are a number of opportunities, and we can talk all we like, but, at the end of the day, unless there is an airline —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I must encourage the Member to get to his question.

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

Unless there is a flight, they will not be able to come.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is absolutely correct about that. First, I welcome his support for an increase in DETI’s budget. I will be collecting Members’ views on that in the near future.

We have been in contact with Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport about increasing the number of direct flights into Northern Ireland. The Member is absolutely right: it really adds a string to our bow that, when I go to New York, I can talk about the direct connectivity into Northern Ireland through the Newark flight. That has been a tremendous route and a great success for Continental Airlines.

When I was at the Tourism Ireland reception in San Francisco, we were again talking about connectivity, and we noted that there are no flights into the island of Ireland from the west coast of America. That is a real disappointment. People have to go to Chicago and link in to Dublin, or go to New York and then link in to Northern Ireland or link in through London Heathrow. However, we are at an advanced stage of speaking to a Canadian airline about trying to get a flight back into Belfast; it was really disappointing when those two airlines pulled out of Belfast International.

If flights to Canada were reinstated, we would reap the benefit from the increase in tourist numbers. That would, of course, enable people to travel from Northern Ireland to Canada, and we would benefit from tourists making the journey in the opposite direction.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I suspect that she has answered most of my question through her thorough responses to Members. The Minister is aware of the importance of tourism to the constituency of North Antrim. What has Tourism Ireland done specifically to promote Northern Ireland and all that North Antrim has to offer? What has it done to promote North Antrim’s links to the west of Scotland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In the North Antrim constituency, the Member is fortunate to have the Giant’s Causeway, which is the principal tourist attraction in Northern Ireland. The Giant’s Causeway remains a key selling point for Tourism Ireland when it promotes Northern Ireland.

As I said when talking about golf tourism, we now have a window of opportunity. I will not attempt to pronounce his surname; I will call him Graeme from now on, rather than offend him through mispronunciation. His success provides a small window of opportunity for selling golf tourism in Northern Ireland. Golf is an important part of what North Antrim has to offer.

Golf also features in my answer to the Member’s final point on links with the west of Scotland. The Scottish tourism proposition focuses on golf. We could benefit by creating connectivity between the golf markets in North Antrim and Scotland.

Executive Committee Business

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That the Roads (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (NIA 6/09) — do now pass.

I do not intend to address the provisions in detail. Instead, I draw attention to the main purposes of the Bill, which are to introduce arrangements for a permit scheme to control certain works on roads and the authorisation by local councils of certain special events on roads.

The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 18 January 2010 and completed its Committee Stage on 26 May 2010. I am glad to say that I was able to accept and take forward two suggested amendments at Consideration Stage.

I take the opportunity to thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Regional Development for their scrutiny of the Bill and for helping to ensure its smooth passage. In addition, I thank Members for their positive contributions to debates on the Bill through its Assembly stages. I commend the Bill to the House.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Final Stage of the Roads (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

I wish to express the Committee’s thanks to the witnesses who provided evidence to the Committee and to the Minister and the Department’s Bill team for their co-operation and assistance during the passage of the Bill, particularly at Committee Stage. The Committee also wishes to thank the team from the Assembly Bill Office and the Committee staff for their work in producing the Bill report of Committee Stage. I also thank other Committee members for the effort and commitment that they brought to the pre-legislative stage and to Committee Stage.

The issue before us is whether the Assembly is content to endorse the Roads (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. As Members are aware from previous debates, the main provisions are for permit schemes to control certain works on roads and the prohibition or restriction of the use of roads in connection with special events. There are two minor elements to the Bill on the holding of inquiries under the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and on giving effect to the reform of the Lord Chancellor’s Office.

The Committee welcomed the opportunity to take forward the Committee Stage. During clause-by-clause scrutiny, the Committee considered the evidence received and agreed all the clauses. The Committee suggested, and the Minister agreed to, amendments to clause 3 and schedule 1. The amendment to clause 3 sought to ensure that a resolution of the Assembly would be needed to approve regulations that introduce new criminal offences or increase the penalty for an existing offence in relation to permit schemes for carrying out certain works on roads. I welcome the fact that that amendment was made to the Bill.

The second amendment to the Bill relates, as I said, to schedule 1. In the Bill as introduced, schedule 1 referred to the closure of roads for special events. The Committee was pleased that the making of a film was included in the arrangements for road closures for special events. However, having considered submissions on behalf of the film industry in Northern Ireland, the Committee sought clear confirmation that the term “filming” would include the making of television programmes and commercials. I welcome the fact that the amendment to the Bill does that.

During the Committee’s deliberations on the Bill, a number of main areas of concern were raised. Those are detailed in the report, and include the cost of issuing permits for works on roads; the need for co-operation and co-ordination when planning works on roads; the need for a notice period before works on roads commence; compensation for promoters in the event of emergency works; the impact of works on peak-time traffic flows; the impact of permit schemes on the extension of the gas and other utility networks; the delegated powers of the Bill; the definition of the term “film”; and the definition of special events.

Amendments were sought and made to the Bill in relation to its delegated powers and to the definition of the term “film”. In addition to those amendments, the Committee made recommendations about co-operation and co-ordination of planned works on roads, and a review of the permit scheme after three years in order to ascertain whether the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 will require amendment to address the concerns of the Committee and those who gave evidence.

The first recommendation relating to planned works on roads arose from concerns raised by Committee members and a number of stakeholder organisations, as I mentioned. Those concerns centred around the need for those planning to carry out works on roads, particularly utility companies, to co-operate with one other in an attempt to co-ordinate works, thus reducing disruption to road users and the overall costs incurred, and avoiding the weakening of the roads structure that can arise as a result of multiple road openings.

The Committee accepts that a duty is included in the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 for those planning to carry out works on roads to co-ordinate, but members were of the view that more needs to be done to improve that situation. Concerns about road openings by utility companies have been rehearsed on numerous occasions. The Public Accounts Committee reported on the issue in February 2009, and that report made recommendations for improvement.

In its report, the Regional Development Committee recommended that progress to date on the implementation of the findings of the Public Accounts Committee report should inform the development of the Department for Regional Development’s guidance on the permit scheme, and should form the basis of ongoing monitoring of the operation of the permit scheme.

The second recommendation of the report relates to the need to review the permit scheme. The Committee would not wish to see the scheme introduced without a clear undertaking to periodically review its effectiveness. For that reason, the Committee has recommended that the first review of the scheme take place three years after its coming into operation. The review, as recommended by the Committee, should aim to ascertain whether the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 requires amendment.

The Committee will periodically monitor the outworkings of the permit scheme and will work with the Department to ensure that any issues or concerns that may arise are addressed. I am happy to advise that the Committee for Regional Development commends the Roads (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to the House, and recommends that it now pass.

Billy Leonard (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As Members and many others will be aware, roadworks can cause a lot of public conversation and give rise to many phone calls. The thrust of the Bill is appropriate, and the permit scheme is a worthwhile addition to the system. Reviewing the scheme to see whether it improves the situation is important. We now have the enabling legislation, but the practicalities of that and how it will be rolled out will also be important.

As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee pointed out, the review scheme has been recommended. The core concept of the Bill is acceptable. As I have previously stated, it represents common sense, and we will see how it rolls out. The provision for the Assembly to approve new criminal offences was the application of common sense, and I think it appropriate that that was included, as was the amendment on the definition of the term “film”. That once again shows the advantage of the Committee structure in which stakeholders can bring forward their concerns and work can be done at that level.

The Bill is a common sense bit of work. We will see how it is implemented and how the reviews take their course, and then see whether any of the provisions need to be revisited. We support the Bill.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the Bill and looks forward to seeing it rolled out.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee and the other Members who spoke in support of the Bill. The comments from the Deputy Chairperson will certainly be taken on board. I look forward to continued engagement with Committee and Members as my officials and I consult on proposals for the implementation of the permit scheme provisions in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Roads (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [NIA 6/09] do now pass.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The next matter on the Order Paper is a motion to appoint a Member to fill the vacancy on the Assembly Commission. As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That, in accordance with Standing Order 79(4), Mr Peter Weir be appointed to fill a vacancy on the Assembly Commission. — [Lord Browne.]

Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The next motion is on Statutory Committee membership. As with other similar motions, this, too, will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Mr Jonathan Bell replace Mr Trevor Clarke as a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning; that Mr Paul Frew replace Mr Stephen Moutray as a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment; and that Mr Paul Givan be appointed as a member of the Justice Committee. — [Lord Browne.]

Private Members’ Business

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to introduce the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill [NIA 33/09], which is a Bill to provide for the benefit of personnel and veterans of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown and their families.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to instigate a review into the performance of the Regional Autistic Spectrum Disorder Network Group, including consideration of its appointment processes, independence, accountability, transparency, operating structures and competency.

The motion calls for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to conduct a review of the performance and appointments procedure used to establish the regional group set up to promote the aims and needs of those suffering from autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), and to oversee the implementation of an action plan published in June 2009.

In 2007, the Minister announced a review of autistic services. He appointed Lord Maginnis of Drumglass to chair that review, which, at the time, was acknowledged as the best way forward to address the unmet rights and needs of those with ASD and their carers. In 2008, an all-party Assembly group on autism was formed, headed by the Member for Newry and Armagh Dominic Bradley, to attempt to inform Members about autism issues. Both groups got to work, but, unfortunately, their conclusions completely differed. Although both agreed on the need for an ASD strategy, they disagreed on the need for legislation, which was to become a running debate and sore in the House.

The Health Committee held two lengthy and detailed debates. On 17 September 2009, the all-party group chairperson, Dominic Bradley and Arlene Cassidy from Autism NI were present as witnesses. The second discussion was held on 1 October 2009, with four witnesses present: Dr Maura Briscoe from the Health Department; Dr Michael McBride, the Chief Medical Officer; Mr Kieran McShane from the Health and Social Care Board; and Dr Stephen Bergin from the Public Health Agency.

I have read the minutes of the debate, and it would be polite to say that it was healthy and long. In reality, the debate was very heated. Much of it surrounded whether there was a need for legislation, which Lord Maginnis had ruled out, much to the frustration and anger of some. The area of particular focus that is relevant to this debate was to do with the appointment of the Regional Autistic Spectrum Disorder Network Group, which was announced with the strategic plan in June 2009. The group was appointed in April 2009 and was made up of representatives of service users, carers, the general public, voluntary and community organisations and statutory organisations, including the education and library boards, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), health and social care trusts, heath boards and the Public Health Agency. Dr Stephen Bergin from the Public Health Agency is the chairperson.

There is also a reference group, which is chaired by Lord Maginnis, who was responsible for the review of autism services and treatment. The reference group is responsible for representing stakeholders’ views. Unfortunately, that is where the controversy lies. At the Committee meeting on 1 October 2009, the witnesses were questioned at length on appointments to the reference group and on how it carries out its work. Dr Maura Briscoe from the Department repeatedly referred questions to Lord Maginnis, stating that only he could answer questions about appointments to the group. She also stated that Lord Maginnis had been identified by the Department to assist Dr Stephen Bergin, the chairperson of the regional network group, as an advocate for parents, carers and service users.

Given the current debate about whether legislation should be introduced in respect of autism services, I question that appointment. The individual in question takes a very definite stance on the subject, and that alienates him from a large number of ASD sufferers. It seems that the Department was keen to take a view disagreeable to many carers and organisations that represent those who suffer from, or care for people with, autism. Therefore, one must ask whether there was an ulterior motive to the appointments to the reference group that represents parents, carers and service users. This issue is not about party politics. Some may want to use that ploy to deflect attention from the real issue. It is about how autism sufferers and the groups that represent them can be best served and represented. Furthermore, it is not about raising up old debates about whether there should be legislation. We are talking about accountability, which is getting to the core of what democracy and transparency are. How best can we serve and represent the people at the heart of the issue?

Appointments to any public body are usually done through a rigorous and detailed process to ensure that the best people for the job are intact and that the board or group represents a diversity of views and opinions. Do the appointments to that board comply with those credentials that are associated with public appointments? That is why the motion calls on the Minister to initiate a review into the practice of the group and the appointments process that was used. How does the reference group interact with all its stakeholders? Is it representative? Is it doing its job? Those are all legitimate questions.

Autism NI claims that a number of freedom of information requests have been refused. Those requests refer to data that are held about the autism review. Autism NI also claims that the parent and carers representatives on the reference group were hand-picked by the chairperson to provide a positive response on behalf of the Department. Those are very serious accusations. In the best interests of public transparency, I commend the motion to the House.

Speaking as an individual who has represented ASD groups in the past in a former capacity and who has contact with those who suffer from the condition, I know that people who have children with ASD are concerned that they are not being represented properly by those reviews. It is a genuinely held belief that their views will not be represented properly. That is why we are calling for a review of the process and how it represents the groups and carers who suffer the consequences of the problem.

I know that, medically, ASD is very difficult to quantify. It is not a mental disease, and it is not a physical disease; it lies somewhere in between. As a result, it is very hard to diagnose, and it is extremely difficult to provide treatment for it and to aid the parents. However, the parents are the ones who are left with the legacy and left to deal with the problem. Currently, they feel alienated from the process, so I commend the motion to the House.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I apologise for being late and missing the proposer’s comments. He may have already covered some of the issues that I will refer to.

Autism is a social and communication disability that is unique for many reasons. Quite often, it is confused as being a mental impairment, but it is obviously not. In previous debates in the House, we have raised the point that autism is a social and communication disability that is excluded from equality protection under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). Therefore, it falls short of recognition for benefit assessment unless there is a recognised co-morbid assessment or qualifying condition, such as a learning disability or mental illness.

It is widely recognised that autism has been historically underfunded and under-provided for across the Six Counties. However, it should be noted that Sinn Féin welcomes all positive developments in autism services over recent years. We have had the publication of the action plan by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the associated budgetary allocations to back that up. That is something that we welcome.

Members will have received a briefing paper from PAL, which is the parents’ autism lobby. From reading that document, it is clear that parents and carers do not have any faith in the newly established Regional Autistic Spectrum Disorder Network Group. The group feels that the model may appear to be more suited to consultation than action. It says that it is difficult to see how the model can result in a cohesive plan. It raises other points about the size and nature of the newly established network. Many parents have described it as a moving feast, with the goalposts constantly changing and many targets that were set out in the original document not being met. Parents participating with the network are already reporting consultation fatigue and feel that they are not seeing the outcomes that they wish to see.

Another issue of concern is the tie-in from other Departments in the network. If the Minister reads the transcript of this debate, perhaps he will give us more details on the level of cross-departmental work taking place. For example, what level of staff is involved from each Department, and what is their commitment in working hours?

Sinn Féin has always made it clear that it recognises the need for a cross-departmental holistic approach to autism. In order to plan for the future and for support, we need a strategic plan, which is an essential part of moving forward. It is recognised that that is inherently difficult, as ASD is a lifelong condition that needs appropriate responses at various life stages and settings.

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

There is a lot of disparity between the parents’ and carers’ groups and the Department on the issue. We want to get it right, and we want parents and carers to be at the heart of these decisions. It is widely recognised that, for many years, the Department let down people with autism, and those support groups were the backbone for each other in providing much-needed support. Sinn Féin will support the motion, as it believes that any review and improvements that can be taken forward should be welcomed.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I declare an interest in that my grandson is severely autistic, and I am the chairperson of the board of governors of a special school in which many autistic children are being taught and helped.

I am disappointed that the debate is taking place today. First, it has been brought to my attention that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety made it known to the Business Committee some time ago that he would not be available to respond to any debate today as he had prearranged business. However, the DUP insisted on bringing the motion to the Floor of the House regardless.

Secondly, this is an unnecessary and counter­productive motion. The facts are plain and simple: this Minister of Health has done and is doing more to develop services for people and families affected by autism than any Minister in this or the previous Assembly. The Regional Autistic Spectrum Disorder Network Group plays a key role in the Minister’s strategy to develop services for people affected by autism. It is delivering on the ground and, therefore, the motion has questionable intentions.

No one in the Chamber would suggest that there is not a need to improve services for people affected by autism in Northern Ireland. Therefore, on coming into office, the Minister of Health initiated an independent review of ASD services chaired by Lord Maginnis. As an outcome of the review, the Minister launched an ASD action plan to drive improvements in the service for the benefit of all those affected. The Minister has invested £1·5 million in autism services to date, and I have been informed that further investment is on the way. That is delivering.

A major achievement in the action plan was the establishment of the regional ASD network group. The aim of that multidisciplinary, multi-agency regional group is to provide a regional perspective on the development of autism services and to oversee the action plan. The need to understand the different complexities across Northern Ireland is crucial to successful solutions, and I congratulate the group on its work to date.

The regional ASD network group is chaired by Dr Stephen Bergin, a psychiatrist with multiple medical degrees, who has vast experience in the field of autism. I find the motion extremely discourteous to Dr Bergin and his team. It illustrates an arrogance from the Benches that puts political point-scoring ahead of professional integrity, delivery and the people whom they claim to represent.

The work of the network group has been open and transparent, and one of its aims has been to communicate with service users such as parents, carers and the voluntary sector; and I can verify that through my own family experience. To facilitate that aim, the group held a series of meetings across Northern Ireland, and the regional ASD network has been supported by the regional ASD reference group, chaired by Lord Maginnis, to provide valuable experience and advice from parents, carers and individuals affected by ASD, as well as voluntary and community sector representatives. The group is open and transparent and has the interest of people affected by autism at its heart.

I fear that the motion is more about personal attacks, rather than any desire to improve the services for people with autism. That is a great disappointment.

The group is doing a marvellous job to help parents, children and teachers. I see that when I look at my grandson and the children in the school of which I am chairman of the board of governors. I see the work that is being done with those children and their families to ease their suffering. However, we must remember that it will take time for that work to reach right across Northern Ireland.

Cross-departmental working was mentioned during the debate today, and the Minister for Employment and Learning has ensured that young teachers are now compelled to complete a module in autism communication. From that point of view, I am disappointed that the motion has been brought to the Floor of the House today.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to address some of the issues raised during the debate today, rather than some of the personalities who raised those issues.

In 2007, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety appointed the chairperson of the independent review of autism services, who, in turn, appointed a review steering group. At that time, the chairperson recorded his determination for the review to be completed speedily so that money would be provided quickly to new services rather than being spent on administration, and many welcomed that approach.

The members of that steering group were mainly drawn from the public health sector in Northern Ireland, England and the South of Ireland, and the terms of reference of the review included the requirement to investigate the role of legislation in providing for autism services. However, the final report of the review group, which was issued in May 2008, unfortunately contained no analysis of the usefulness of legislation but simply stated that it was not required.

A number of other issues arose from the report. The first is whether the chairperson of the review should not have been appointed through the public appointment process, based on transparent and agreed criteria. As that was not the case, we must also ask whether the review can be defined as independent, given that all the review group members were vetted by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and that a senior departmental official was installed for support. Many people also want to know why the review group was not more inclusive of the voluntary and education sectors in the North of Ireland, and why no members where from the social care sector. ASD is a lifelong condition and does involve diagnosis and diagnosis alone. I also want to know why the review group did not adhere to the terms of reference and why it did not produce an analysis regarding legislation. It came to the conclusion that legislation was not required. In fact, some members of the review group, including the chairperson, began from the premise that legislation was not required. One got the impression that nothing would convince him to the contrary.

Can the review group be considered to be independent? It appears not to be, since it is exempt from acceding to FOI requests. Many people wonder whether the process was the quickest way to effect change, given that it began in 2007 and that we are now in 2010 without major change having taken place.

In September 2008, the Department launched its consultation on the action plan for autism, and it ended in December 2008 with over 400 responses. In June 2009, the Minister launched the implementation action plan for autism and appointed a project manager. A budget of £2·2 million was promised over three years. There are many issues —

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, I will.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Given that the debate is on the important subject of vulnerable young people and adults, it is vital that all-party support on autism emerges from the Chamber.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I could not agree with him more.

My time is running out, so I cannot address all the issues, but suffice it to say that there clearly seems to be a breakdown in communication between the review group and the voluntary sector. The Minister must take heed of the points that are being raised on all sides of the House and address the issue. As my colleague said, it is imperative that we all speak with one voice. That clearly is not the current state of affairs.

In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to listen to what has been said in the debate and to address the issues that have been raised. If he does that, we will be able to have a unified approach that will benefit the people who matter most — the children and adults who live with the condition of autism throughout their lives.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Alliance Party is totally committed to providing only the best services to the people in the community who are affected by autistic spectrum disorder. I serve as a member on the all-party Assembly group on autism, which is based at Stormont under the chairmanship of Dominic Bradley. I am also committed to the introduction of an autism Bill for Northern Ireland. People who have been listening to the debate could be forgiven for being confused, because many groups, networks, and so on, appear to have been established. I have no doubt that all of them are trying to improve the lot for people who are affected by autism, but it seems that those groups are scattered. If something more central existed, we might reach an earlier and better conclusion.

The motion calls on the Health Minister to review the performance of the RASD network. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not present to give the Assembly an indication of the progress or otherwise of the work of that network.

As I understand, Minister McGimpsey set up the RASD network to improve services for people of all ages who are affected by autism. The network is multidisciplinary and multiagency, and it provides a regional perspective to the development of autism services and will oversee the implementation of the Minister’s action plan for 2008-09 to 2010-11. Membership of the network comprises service users, carers, the Public Health Agency, education and library boards and health trusts. As has been said, the chairman of the network, Dr Bergin, stressed the need for partnership working in all areas, and, to that end, yet another reference group, which was chaired by Lord Maginnis, was set up to engage with stakeholders, to represent the views of the carers and service users and to advise the network.

We all support the network’s aims, which include: redesign to improve autism care; performance improvement; training and awareness; communication and information; and effective engagement of partnership working. At this juncture, we must ask how successful or otherwise the RASD network has been to date. Again, had the Minister been in attendance today, that question may have been answered.

It is estimated that around 16,000 people in Northern Ireland are affected by autism, and, for whatever reason, we continue to have up to 200 new cases every year. We all know families in our constituencies who have to face the future with a loved one who is affected by autism. It is incumbent on us all as Assembly Members and legislators to play our part to, if possible, find the cause of autism and to provide good services for everyone to ensure that their lives are as fulfilling as possible and to give good support to families and carers.

I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland has an autism Act through which everyone enjoys their entitlement and does not have to shout and fight for this, that and the other. Through legislation, that can be granted. If supporting the motion brings forward better facilities in the near future for everyone living with autism, I can go along with that.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I support the motion, which calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to instigate a review into the performance of the Regional Autism Spectrum Disorder Network Group, including consideration of its appointments process, independence, accountability, transparency, operating structures and competency.

Autism is a disorder of neural development that is characterised by impaired social interaction and communication and by restrictive and repetitive behaviour. Autism is a member of the autism spectrum along with Asperger’s syndrome and pervasive development disorder - not otherwise specified. The regional ASD network group was established as part of the ASD strategy action plans for 2008-2011. Membership of the group and subgroups is made up of representatives from service users, carers, general public volunteers, community organisations and statutory organisations, including the education and library boards, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, health and social care trusts, health and social care boards and the Public Health Agency.

There is also a reference group, which is chaired by Lord Maginnis, that is tasked with engaging with parents, carers and service users to ensure that their feedback on development services is captured. The Health Minister officially launched the reference group on 10 March 2010. It is unclear how the group was constructed, what it is doing, what it has achieved and how it is run and for what purpose. Those groups were set up as a response to the needs of people who suffer from ASD and their carers after a review, which was chaired by Lord Maginnis, was conducted into autism services.

The ASD action plan is organised around several themes: service redesign to improve ASD care; performance improvement; training and raising awareness; communication and information; and effective engagement and partnership working. Groups that represent ASD sufferers and carers have lobbied for a long time for better care and treatment, because ASD is not necessarily a mental or physical condition, and it can be hard to diagnose. The action plan was to form part of the strategy to combat the problems that sufferers have been experiencing, especially discrimination. There has been much debate about the Minister of Health’s response. It seems that proposals put forward by the all-party Assembly group on autism, which recommended legislation in conjunction with a cross-departmental strategy, have been largely ignored. We should not put the care and treatment of those suffering from ASD at risk. We should provide the best possible treatment and care.

I am concerned about the make-up of the regional group, and that is why I support the motion. All government appointments should be accountable and the process transparent to ensure that fairness and equality are adhered to, as well as ensuring that we get the best people for the job. I commend the motion to the House and urge Members to support it.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make some brief comments on the following points: the bringing forward of the motion; the difficulties that are experienced by the autistic community; the reference group; the real issue, which was raised by Jonathan Craig; the £2 million of funding, which has been referred to; what is happening in the west; and the experience of the parent of an autistic child, to whom I spoke at the weekend.

With respect to Rev Coulter, I understand why he is disappointed that the motion has been brought forward. However, I do not see anything to fear from it, because it merely calls for the review of a body that has been set up under the auspices of the Department of Health. I do not sit on the all-party Assembly group on autism, but I am a member of the Health Committee. However, having listened to the parent who spoke to me at the weekend and to others, it appears that difficulties remain. In my view, not only do difficulties remain, but tensions are obvious.

With reference to accountability, we received a briefing note from the Parents’ Autism Lobby — I am not saying whether it is accurate or not — that outlines the situation that some groups find themselves in, and that is why it is important that we look at it. That is my view, and it has been expressed by the Deputy Chairperson and by others in their contributions. The note stated that the chairperson of RASDNG invited voluntary sector parent representative groups to submit proposals for the structure of RASDNG and recruitment of its membership, but that that was thrown out, without explanation, by Lord Maginnis. That may not be accurate, but if that is the feeling of some of the groups that lobby on this very serious and sensitive issue, it needs to be looked at.

With reference to what Rev Coulter said, a review or some way of looking at the issue would be valuable because, as Jonathan Craig said —

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Member agree that one of the best places for that group to talk about needs and to challenge it about its work would be the Health Committee?

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I hear two party colleagues to my right saying that there would be no difficulty with that. One of those colleagues is the Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee, and we accept that point.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

No; I know that you are my party colleague, but I have a few points that I want to make. I will let you speak if there is time at the end.

Jonathan Craig commented on the real issue. I want to refer to a parent who spoke with me at the weekend. I have quoted her previously in the Chamber and in the Health Committee. She is exceptionally active and informed on a range of issues, and she is very keen that her child should develop and progress to their full potential.

Certainly, however, there were gaps in her awareness of what is in place as regards advice, support, meetings and legislation. I did my best to inform her. Therefore, I am thinking in particular about that parent and that family, who have experienced difficulties and barriers, and, indeed, the child who must also face such barriers. If gaps in awareness exist, we must seek to address them.

I want to make a couple of points about funding. Other Members mentioned the fact that there is funding and a range of resource provision to deal with autism. I believe that it is £2·02 million. The question has been asked whether that money has gone into the system and been spent and, indeed, where it currently sits. I believe that the new commissioning structures can address those issues.

I will conclude by saying that there were positive aspects to what that parent said, particularly on the situation in the west and the Western Education and Library Board. Again, that has been my experience. Positive steps have been taken to engage with carers, parents and the young people who have autism.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I could not have timed my arrival to the Chamber better, Mr Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. The reasons behind it must be made clear at the outset. Children with autism are not receiving the care that they need. I will not take the opportunity to browbeat the Minister. I will try to make constructive comments; that is the best way. People with autism need special attention, and it is important that we consider their needs. This morning, one newspaper stated that there will be some £400,000 of cutbacks in that area during the next financial year. The Assembly cannot let that go by without comment.

I am an elected representative, and I base my comments on what I have been told by the people, the mothers and the children, whom I represent. I am familiar with the care of one autistic boy. His parents do everything for him: they wash and dress him; they cook for and feed him; they bathe him and take him to the toilet; and they amuse, hug, kiss and love him. They do all those things. He depends on his parents for his every need. When he is at school, they wash, iron, clean and shop. They try to find time to work to pay the bills as well as looking after their child. They love their son with all that they have. Sadly, however, love is not enough to get their family through the sheer exhaustion and the emotional and mental strain.

It is up to the community and to Members, as elected representatives, to step up to the plate and to help that boy and his parents. We can do so by supporting them and offering them the best help that society can provide to ensure that they do not reach the point of no return. Many parents have reached that point, which concerns me.

Earlier, I mentioned the budget. In the past, it was £660,000 a year, but it will cut to some £250,000 a year. For 300 children in Northern Ireland, those figures simply do not add up. There are now too many ways to demonstrate how families that have a child with autism are being let down. One glaring example is that of respite care for families because, under the current system, there are simply not enough places available. It is estimated that one in every 100 children has some degree of autism.

The meanin’ o’ thon bes at mair nor yin ootae ivry 100 parents hes the added hannlin o’ leukin efter a wean at bes needfu’ o’ mair care an’ attention. Adae wi’ hoo bad the disablement bes, thon care can bae oniething fae hefts wi’ a wheen o’ extra hours o’ hamewaark tae haein’ tae dae ivrything fer the wean fer the hale o’ his ir hir lif’, at bes apt tae bae es lang an’ es healthtfu’ es onie ither boadie’s term o’ lif’.

That means that more than one in every 100 parents has the additional stress of caring for a child who needs extra care and attention. Depending on the severity of a child’s disability, that care can range from having to help with a few extra hours of homework to having to do everything for the child for his or her entire lifespan, which is likely to be as long and as healthy as that of anyone else.

I know one family that has an autistic son and two young daughters. The mother gave up her job to care for her son as best she could. She applied for respite care to enable her to take a break and spend time with her other children. She was put on an emergency waiting list, yet, goodness me, it is now two years later, and she has still not had a weekend off. That is probably replicated for hundred and hundreds of people across the Province. For three hours a week, a trained professional provides care for the woman’s son to allow her to spend time with her daughters. However, that is the sum total of the relief that she gets, and she must pay for that herself.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Member agree that part of what the reference group is doing is looking at the postcode lottery? Mrs McGill spoke about problems in the Western Trust. The focus must be on how to best level out those resources to make sure that we use them and that everyone gets their fair shout.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for that intervention. I wholeheartedly agree with his constructive comments. We must look at the situation that we are now in and try to budget to ensure that people get the help that they need.

The lady sought help from Home-Start and other groups, but, at the end of the day, some of those volunteers are not trained to deal with her troubled son. All those problems have an impact, too. Autism is a severely misunderstood condition. Only trained professionals with patience and understanding know how to deal with autistic children. That is the crux of the matter. Because of the unpredictable nature of the disability, even those who are trained can find the work a strain.

The Minister has made provision for a long-term plan in the form of the Regional Autistic Spectrum Disorder Network Group, and John McCallister referred to that. But what has changed? There has been a cut in funding. I see other Departments trying to play their part. For example, DRD allowed for the cut in the price of a SmartPass for children with learning difficulties. That is one example of what can be done. DFP offers a rates reduction for those with disabilities. At the same time, through the group, we need to make the changes that are necessary and that can make a difference.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. The number of children with autism is rising. We sense the effect that that is having on society and on individuals. The families are not asking for much; they are asking for no more than they are entitled to. That is the key. We are being asked to give those families only what they need and what we can provide, which is support.

I support the motion, and I congratulate the Members who brought it to the Chamber. I ask the Minister to give us the opportunity to support those who need help.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I declare an interest as a member of the Assembly’s all-party group on autism. I pay tribute to Lord Maginnis for the work that he has done. As other Members have said, this is a complex area. We in Northern Ireland are fortunate to have had someone like Lord Maginnis, who has a personal interest in the matter as well, and the assistance of the team that my colleague Rev Coulter mentioned, to address the complicated issues that we all want to see being addressed.

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

The Member said that Lord Maginnis has a very personal interest in autism, and I do not disagree with him on that. However, does the Member consider that having a very personal interest is enough of a qualification to lead such a high-powered review as Lord Maginnis was charged with leading?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I mentioned that Lord Maginnis had a personal interest in autism, but that was not the only qualification that led to his getting appointed to head the review. He has long been an advocate for better services, and he has deeply held and passionate views about the issue. The Member accompanied Lord Maginnis and me on a trip to the USA to look at the issues around autism and autism legislation there. Lord Maginnis has a background of many years of interest far beyond the personal interest. He has a huge interest in the issue, and a huge passion for it.

We must also take into account the fact that, when someone chairs a review, they bring together a group of superbly qualified people. We are fortunate to have an internationally recognised group of this calibre to lead on autism for us. The group is tightly focused, which is all to the good.

Mr McCarthy said that the group was a multidisciplinary and multi-agency team and that that was what was needed. I agree with him. That is what is needed, and that is what we have got. We should be working towards that and ensuring that the strategy is delivered. We do not want to have a postcode lottery and a system in which something works well in one trust area but not as well in the Western Trust, for instance. That is what the group is and should be about.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not dispute what has been said about the expertise of the group. The chairman has had a long interest in the subject. Does the Member agree that core to all that are the people who suffer from ASD, their parents and carers? Given some of the strong views held by the chairman and some of those in the group, a lack of trust has, unfortunately, developed between them. That raises the question about whether they were the right people to carry this matter forward, because the whole thing will fail if there is no interface between the carers and the sufferers.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The chairman of the group, Lord Maginnis, has robust views. He is not afraid to talk to anyone and will not shy away from talking to Mr Craig or any other Member of the House in sharing those views and his passion on this issue that we want to move forward. The difference lies in getting a tightly focused group to lead on the issue. Members of the Assembly and members of the Health Committee can bring the group to Parliament Buildings at any time to review its work and to hear what progress it has made. That is how this should be conducted. It should not be a review of a review.

In his intervention, Mr Craig talked about the experts. Does he accept that they are experts? Is he making a personal attack on Lord Maginnis? Does he believe, as I do, that Lord Maginnis is eminently qualified to chair the group? If the Member wants to get up to say that he supports Lord Maginnis and his work, I will be happy to give way.

Would anyone have thought three years ago that we would have made as much progress as we have in getting a strategy in place and in getting funding, for instance? I take issue with Mr Shannon’s comments. If he asks an Assembly question, he will find out that autism funding has not been cut — even in the very tight financial constraints under which we find ourselves. I recognise the expertise of the group.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

We should not throw away this excellent opportunity to support the group in what it does. We should keep it under scrutiny at the Health Committee and make sure that it is delivering, but we should take advantage of having an internationally recognised group.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The motion is important, but it should not be used as a vehicle for further examination of the need for legislation, and it should not be used for political point scoring. Parents of autistic children lead a stressful life. A physical disability is obvious to all, but the autistic child brings many more challenges, because his or her symptoms are not as outwardly obvious. The child carries a silent inability to make measured decisions and often finds it hard to communicate with others at the most basic levels. That can often lead to misunderstanding. It is bound to create a worry for parents that will span their entire lives. Those parents need representation, legislation and support from all bodies, including the Assembly.

Autism is not classified in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Therefore, bringing pressure to bear where we can to secure the appropriate legislation that will offer some protection and rights to parents, children and young adults should be a major priority for the House. Whatever happens in the House today, I sincerely hope that there can be formal agreement that this issue needs to be got right, and that the concerns of the parents’ autism lobby are listened to and given due consideration.

I want to make my opinion clear: the words used here today need to be measured and considered in securing a review of the Regional Autism Spectrum Disorder Network Group, especially those aspects that are causing concern. I am keen not to withdraw any benefit that that group has achieved to date, and I commend it for that work. However, there must be co-operation, clear and concise pathways to achievement and due consideration between all Departments whose remit it is to provide for autism. It is important to remember that there is a cross-departmental responsibility for the delivery of autism services. That responsibility does not lie solely at the door of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Clearly, there has been a breakdown in communication between the RASDN group and major elements in the voluntary sector. Personalities seem to have got in the way of progress, to the disadvantage of those with autism. That cannot be said to be helpful by any means. I regret that the Health Minister is not here to listen to the points that have been made and to respond to them by beginning a review of the work of the RASDN group. Again, however, we need to remember that one Minister is not solely responsible.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

First, I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. It is obvious that, no matter about the differing viewpoints, there is unanimity of concern about autism issues.

I intend to raise a few issues, after which I will mention some of the points that were raised by Members. As my colleague the Member for Lagan Valley Jonathan Craig said when proposing the motion, the issue is not about party politics, but about transparency, accountability and, most importantly, the people at the heart of the debate: those who suffer from autism.

There are approximately 20,000 people with autism in Northern Ireland. The disorder is not represented in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995’s definition of a disability. It has been said that further legislation could affect and change that situation. Many autism sufferers do not receive the support that they need, which means that many children and adults with autism are unable to reach their full potential. By support I mean the parents, carers and service users who are central to the issues of care and treatment and who experience the services that they require to have their needs met.

If there is nothing to hide, what should be done is exactly what the motion demands: to initiate a review of the set-up and performance of the Regional Autism Spectrum Disorder Network Group. As my colleague said when proposing the motion, all public appointments are made through a rigorous and transparent process. Were the appointments to the group made using the same rigorous process required for any other public appointment? Is the group representative of carers, service users, parents and charities that represent ASD sufferers, as many believe it is supposed to be? Those are key questions that need to be answered in order to build confidence in how the group fulfils its aims and objectives.

The parents’ autism lobby participated in the early development of the Regional Autism Spectrum Disorder Network Group and co-operated with the Health Department in the preparation of a proposal to facilitate the selection of parent and user members for the RASDN group by an independent body, NICVA. PAL presented all political parties with comprehensive documentation to support its allegation that the proposal was accepted by the project manager, Dr Stephen Bergin, but that that decision and all the work that was done over the summer of 2009 was not accepted.

The RASDN group was set up in accordance with the action plan that was published by the Department in June 2009. It focuses on lifting the barriers that ASD sufferers and their carers encounter. Other Members also referred to those barriers. Concerns about that group and its performance are, therefore, central to helping sufferers and their carers. The Assembly is responsible for holding the Government and Ministers to account to ensure that they take correct decisions that make a difference, rather than brushing issues under the carpet.

The motion is not intended to give rise to old debates about legislation for autism, although that issue raised its head once or twice. The motion aims to ensure that the decision taken to set up those groups and the implementation of the action plan are producing results. The Assembly, as reflected through the all-party group that was set up to look into the issues facing people with ASD, is committed to delivering for sufferers and their carers.

Once again, I raise the issue of transparency and the difficulties that PAL faces in securing information through freedom of information requests. Why is that information being withheld when it is of interest to the public and stakeholders? Is there something to hide? I do not suggest for one second that there is, but if there is nothing to hide, any such requests should be granted. I urge the Minister and the group to speak to PAL and to involve it in paving the way forward for a better system and service for ASD sufferers and their families.

As there were no contentious issues or expressions of opposition to the motion, I will not deal in too much detail with the contributions of other Members. Michelle O’Neill suggested that parents have no faith in the group and do not see the outcomes of its consultations. She stressed the importance of carers being at the heart of decisions.

Dr Coulter expressed his disappointment at what he felt was an unnecessary and counterproductive motion. I do not necessarily agree with him. It has been a good debate, and those who participated had the opportunity to express their concerns. Those concerns may not always reflect what the Member wants to hear, but the debate provides a good opportunity for other Members to raise issues. The aim was not to attack the Minister or any individual Member, but to encourage co-operation with the group. That is important, and if that is the message that emerges from the debate, it is something on which we can all agree.

Dominic Bradley was one of a few Members to refer to the transparency of the public appointment. He took the opportunity to refer to legislation, on which the debate is ongoing. He reiterated the need for everyone to speak with one voice today.

Kieran McCarthy asked how successful the RASDN group was, and he spoke about the need for that information to be made available. He looked forward to an autism Act being introduced in Northern Ireland to deal with all the issues.

Claire McGill suggested that Members from the Minister’s party should not have anything to fear. That is an important point, because the motion requests only transparency and a review, and there should be nothing to fear from that. The Hansard report will reflect the comments that she made about a particular constituent.

Jim Shannon referred to the financial cutbacks. He emphasised the importance of keeping the focus on autism and ensuring that no funding is removed from that area. He also spoke about a family in his constituency and said that the Assembly must step up to the plate.

John McCallister referred to Lord Maginnis’s passion for and background in helping those with autism, which has been a personal interest of his for many years. I do not think that anyone could question that, and the motion is certainly not a personal attack on him. Mr McCallister also said that the Regional Autism Spectrum Disorder Network Group should be left to carry out its work.

Mary Bradley pointed out that the debate should not be about political point scoring and that personalities should not get in the way of the issue. It is certainly not helpful when that happens.

I thank all the Members who spoke in the debate, which has been good. Members expressed their support for those with autism, and now I urge them to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to instigate a review into the performance of the Regional Autistic Spectrum Disorder Network Group, including consideration of its appointment processes, independence, accountability, transparency, operating structures and competency.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes to propose and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have seven minutes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Programme for Government delivery reports up to 31 March 2009 and 30 September 2009.

I want to make some brief remarks on the main findings arising from the first Programme for Government delivery report to 31 March 2009 and the second delivery report to 30 September 2009. Both reports provide monitoring data on the progress of Programme for Government implementation, and they are valuable sources of information on the prospects for delivery of individual Programme for Government targets and commitments. As the documents are substantial sources of monitoring information in their own right, I will endeavour to summarise their contents and main findings, including the overall progress of Programme for Government implementation and significant areas of concern. I will conclude with a few reflections on the implications of those findings for the implementation of the current Programme for Government.

I do not wish to oversimplify the information that the reports contain when I say that their aim is to provide information on the overall progress of the Programme for Government over the respective reporting periods. In so doing, they provide useful analysis on programme implementation, in particular on the progress likely or otherwise towards the achievement of targets across each of the five priorities that make up the Programme for Government. They also help to identify areas of concern where the rate of progress of implementation is unlikely to lead to the achievement of the outcome or where there are significant doubts that it will do so. The parameters of these business models can differ. Therefore, Members will wish to note the definitions of this particular model.

The colour-coded rating system used ranges from red to green. The target is coloured red in cases where there is a risk to delivery. The target is coloured amber where there is a lack of robust information or where progress has been slow. Targets that have been achieved or are broadly on course to be achieved within the planned time frame are coloured green or amber-green.

I will first examine the progress that has been made to date against the key goals and commitments. There are five priorities, and 38 out of 66 indicators, which represent some 58%, have been met or are broadly on track with significant confidence about the prospects of getting close to the targeted outcome. In priority one, which deals with growing a dynamic, innovative economy, we have achieved what I believe to be encouraging outcomes, with nine out of the 17 key goals and commitments — some 53% — on track for achievement. That covers areas such as decisions on large-scale investment planning proposals within six months, increasing the number of PhD research students at local universities by 2010, delivering widespread broadband access for businesses by 2011, and supporting and increasing by 90,000 the number of adult learners achieving a qualification in literacy, numeracy and ICT skills by 2015.

Priority 2, which is promoting tolerance, inclusion, health and well-being, reports that 12 of the 17 key goals and commitments, or 71%, are broadly on track for achievement. That includes areas such as extending the concessionary fares scheme during 2008 to provide free public transport to everyone aged 60 and over, the introduction of the employment and support allowance in 2008, a carers advisory service to meet the needs of people with disabilities, and, by 2013, helping people with chronic illnesses to live more active lives and reducing unplanned hospital admissions for such patients by 50%.

Priority 3 is to protect and enhance our environment. Progress has remained steady since June 2009, with five of the 11 key goals and commitments, or 45%, assessed either as being completed or on track for completion. Areas of progress include ensuring that 12% of our electricity is generated from indigenous renewable sources by 2010, enabling up to 4,700 farmers to comply with the nitrates directive by 2009, and delivering a new sewerage project for central Belfast by 2010.

In priority 4, which is to invest to build our infrastructure, there are no red flags, and eight of the 11 key goals and commitments, or 73%, are reported as either green or amber-green. Those include establishing an international telecommunications link from the north-west directly to North America and Europe by 2009, progress on plans to extend dual carriageways on the east-west and north-west corridors, and the planning, development and commencement of work on the first rapid-transit line in greater Belfast by 2011.

Finally, priority 5 is to deliver modern high-quality public services. Progress in that area has been slower than anticipated, with four out of 10 indicators reported as either green or amber-green. Those include providing a network of one-stop shops to improve access to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s services by 2011, the introduction of a single telephone number contact point for public services in Northern Ireland on a phased basis from December 2008, delivering 5% efficiency savings on administration costs each year for the next three years for all Departments, delivering 3% efficiency savings on Departments’ resource budgets, and using the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU) to drive higher levels of savings.

Of the 23 individual public service agreements (PSAs) in the September 2009 document, approximately 64% of the 331 PSA indicators are either on course to be met or have already been achieved. Given the economic climate, that is very positive and broadly what we would expect halfway through the comprehensive spending review (CSR) period.

The Programme for Government is being implemented against a significantly more challenging economic context than anyone could have anticipated when it was first drawn up and endorsed by the Assembly. The economic downturn means that we may have to wait much longer than anticipated to make the gains and progress for which we had planned three years ago.

Looking more closely at programme performance, we see that there are areas of concern. Of the 331 PSA targets to be achieved by September 2009, it is possible to identify 40 targets, or 12%, rated as red; 78 targets, or 24%, rated as amber; and 37 targets rated as either completed or closed. Compared with the March 2009 delivery report, those figures represent a deterioration against performance, most clearly with regard to an increase in those delivery targets classified as being in the red category. Given the exceptional economic changes, those trends are not unexpected.

One strength of the Programme for Government monitoring system is its ability to identify strategic areas of concern through those policy areas and actions with multiple red or amber ratings. Where those occur, the target areas are recommended for review meetings at ministerial and official level. On the basis of the March 2009 delivery report, five review meetings were held, which covered promoting the study of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the STEM subjects; greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable development; tourism; regeneration; and productivity growth. The review process has usefully allowed Ministers and the head of the Civil Service to discuss the underlying issues behind progress to date in the nominated areas. It has also enabled us to examine the actions already being taken to remedy slippage in targets, and to identify additional action that could be taken to improve the rate of progress.

The September 2009 delivery report highlighted three areas for additional review: supporting rural businesses, promoting health and addressing health inequalities, and child poverty and victims. Meetings to discuss those will take place as soon as possible. The monitoring system has helped to identify and highlight issues such as the failure by September 2009 to show any reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle, the risk that the target set for the reduction in the suicide rate will not be met, and the limited progress on targeting relating to smoking, drug use, physical environment and obesity, including the persistent problem of the differential in health outcomes in disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland.

I assure Members that, in considering the findings of those detailed reports, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) and the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) will be following up with relevant Departments to see what remedial actions can be taken to address those matters. The delivery reports should be of considerable interest to Assembly Members, particularly Assembly Committees, and to external stakeholder groups, as well as, of course, the general public.

I believe that we have a robust monitoring system for the Programme for Government that provides us with a working mechanism to track progress, identify problem areas and consider appropriate measures to address issues of concern. Where there is a lack of suitable data on progress towards targets, we will make every effort, in tandem with the relevant Departments, to see how such deficiencies can be addressed. Where there is slippage or unnecessary delay in programme implementation, we will work together across government to find appropriate solutions.

In reflecting on the implementation of the Programme for Government and how far we have come, it must be recognised that there is no room for complacency, especially in light of the current economic context. It is reassuring to find that Programme for Government priorities remain valid. That makes it all the more important that we continue to display leadership and purpose in delivering on its commitments. The Programme for Government has always been recognised as ambitious. What is at stake is the future of our economy and society. The successful implementation of the Programme for Government can be transformational. It is a means towards delivering the Executive’s aim of a peaceful, fair and prosperous society.

The details that I have set out are neither a result nor an outcome; they are a progress report. The purpose of such a report is to help us to focus on what needs to be achieved, and to show where extra effort or resources are needed. It represents a challenge to all of us to raise our game and to better our performance.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I thank the First Minister for his contribution.

The OFMDFM Committee received copies of the Programme for Government delivery reports last Monday. We were briefed by departmental officials at our meeting last Wednesday. The reports are key documents in assessing the performance of Departments and the Executive against agreed priorities and targets. The reports up to September 2009 serve as a mid-term report on the Executive’s performance in relation to those priorities and indicators. They show that, between March and September 2009 there was further deterioration in the delivery of the Programme for Government and the five priorities listed by the First Minister. Broadly speaking, 38 of the 66 indicators — nearly 58% — have been met or are on track.

The First Minister brought us through those priorities and gave a very honest assessment of progress or the lack of it. In relation to the 23 public service agreements, 213 out of 331 indicators — 64% — are either on course to be met or have been achieved already.

The Committee was advised by officials that the March delivery report identified five areas that gave cause for concern, which were identified by the First Minister as: regeneration; STEM subjects; greenhouse gasses; sustainable development; and tourism and productivity. Following the September report, a further three areas were added, namely: child poverty and victims; the development of rural businesses; and addressing health inequalities.

My Committee’s prime concern relates to the number of concerns about the Department’s performance against child poverty indicators and, specifically, the indicator for the elimination of severe child poverty. In the Committee’s well-received report on child poverty, we strongly commended the Executive for adopting its target of working towards the elimination of severe child poverty and we recommended that the Executive should establish a baseline and a system of measurement for that severe child poverty target. We are now two years down the line, and the Committee is concerned that there is still no agreed definition of what constitutes severe child poverty. Some Committee members are worried that a system of measurement will be put in place that would make it easier to achieve the target without meaningful actions being taken. We are aware that a balance must be struck.

Members raised concern at delays in the regeneration of the Department’s strategic development sites. For example, the regeneration of Ebrington Barracks has moved from being on target in March 2009 to an amber rating in September 2009. Members are also concerned at the delays in the victims’ and survivors’ service.

Members are concerned at the cost of producing the delivery reports, and the Committee awaits additional information from the Department on the costs associated with that. We also await further information on how best to measure, and so minimise, slippage in the number of Executive Bills introduced to the Assembly. That indicator has also changed from green to amber.

The Committee understands that the period from March 2009 has been particularly difficult and challenging due to the economic downturn and worldwide recession. Nevertheless, the Executive and Departments need to use this mid-term report to consider their priorities and targets for the rest of the Programme for Government period.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the latest Programme for Government delivery report. The aim of the report, as stated, is to provide a full summary of progress against targets and commitments made in the Programme for Government as of 30 December 2009, halfway through the cycle. Constant monitoring and tracking of our commitments and actions are essential if we are to change the patterns of the past. The Executive’s decision to implement such a delivery report is a positive one; however, I am sure Members will share my concern that many targets and commitments in the Programme for Government remain unfulfilled.

I am a member of the Committee for OFMDFM, and, as the Chairperson stated, we were briefed on Wednesday that 58% of the key goals and commitments are rated either green or amber/green; meaning that they have been completed or are almost complete. That was welcome news; however, it is slightly down on the previous report. It means that 42% — almost half — of our targets are unlikely to be met or may not be met.

Of course, the Programme for Government was written before the economic collapse, and there is no doubt that the prevailing economic conditions have greatly hindered our ability to achieve what we all signed up to. However, I firmly believe that we can and should be doing much more. When reading the delivery report, I think it is important to remember that we are not just talking about statistics or words on a page; we are talking about people’s lives.

Some targets that have been flagged up as red demonstrate the glaring deprivation and inequalities that still exist in our society. For example, we are failing to work towards the elimination of severe child poverty by 2012, and we are failing to facilitate a 50% reduction in the life expectancy differential between the most disadvantaged areas and the North’s average. We are also failing to reduce the suicide rate by the 15% target. I do not think that any of us will depart from the view that that simply is not good enough.

It is unacceptable simply to blame the recession. The fact is that if all parties in the Chamber were prepared to display the necessary political will to embrace new and innovative measures, as stated in the Programme for Government, then we could achieve much more. Take the commitment to establish a library authority and an education and skills authority; that is another goal flagged as red in the report. That was an opportunity to streamline services, reduce bureaucracy and generate additional resources for front line services, but because of political foot-dragging, that opportunity will possibly be lost.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member add the provision of equality of treatment for the educational sectors to that list, particularly to the transferors who are responsible for the education of 95% of Protestant children in controlled schools?

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I am my party’s equality and human rights spokesperson, and I think that the Member knows that I have fought and argued for money to be allocated on the basis of objective need for everyone here in the North. Perhaps he does not listen to the contributions that I make in the Chamber.

Similarly, the RPA offered savings of £400 million. I know that the Member is probably getting a bit touchy —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

No; I will give way in a minute.

The Member is getting touchy because the examples that I am going to give are examples that his party has prevented progress on. For instance, as I was saying, the RPA offered savings of £400 million: that is the amount of money that will be taken off the Budget, through what has been taken off recently and what we have previously lost over time. However, for political reasons, the DUP sought to protect the 26-local-council system, their councillors and their expenses. That is untenable. We know what is being said about the Minister, Eddie Poots: we have had gerrymandering and now we have “Eddie-mandering”. He is protecting his council seat.

Despite that, I welcome the fact that child poverty and health inequality have been included in the new areas identified for review along with the public service agreement (PSA) 4 indicators relating to supporting rural businesses, as the First Minister mentioned. The review should be conducted urgently and appropriate actions identified to redress these failings.

I also welcome the fact that review meetings have taken place to examine the underlying reasons behind the slippage identified in the previous Programme for Government report.

I am particularly interested to see to the joint Department of Education and Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) strategy to promote the uptake of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. That is an area which, we are told time and time again, is vital to economic recovery and future prosperity here and yet we still lag way behind our own targets. Therefore, I look forward greatly to the DEL and the Department of Education action plan. People will not be surprised to hear me say that I will also be interested to see how the Magee development plan — given its emphasis on science, technology, engineering and maths — will fit into that action plan.

As I said, constant monitoring of our own performance is absolutely essential, but, where failings have been disclosed, swift corrective action must also be identified and implemented. I confirm that we support the motion and I welcome being given the opportunity to address the Chamber.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

As we look through both delivery reports that are being discussed, we see that PSAs 10 and 19 in particular contain the targets for the Department of Education. I note that, with one exception, all the education targets had the status on 30th September 2009 of amber/green or green, which denote that they are on course to be achieved within the target time frame or they have been achieved.

However, when I examined the individual targets and the actions in PSAs 10 and 19, I severely doubt whether much of the targets will be achieved or implemented by April 2011. I will give Members some examples: the draft early-years strategy was launched for public consultation on Friday past, and the Committee had written to the Minister of Education to say that key issues were not addressed and that the strategy, as presented, lacked clear proposals on the way forward. Furthermore, PSA 10 included the implementation of a special educational needs review. The Committee for Education and many organisations that represent children who are disabled have set out in detail their serious concerns about the draft SEN strategy. We await the outcome of the consultation. I also note that, under PSA 10, the revised literacy and numeracy strategy is to be implemented; however, the draft strategy has yet to be published. Those targets should be reclassified as red, since there is at least a risk that they will not be delivered within the timescale as set out in this Programme for Government.

However, those are not the only education targets in the delivery reports that are at risk of not being delivered. PSA 19 includes the implementation of a revised policy on alternative education provision. The Committee awaits the draft policy, which the Department originally planned to launch for consultation in March 2009. Likewise, a new community relations strategy is awaited. Under PSA 2, an important target is to increase the uptake of STEM subjects, and the Committee continues to seek Department of Education progress on the implementation of the STEM review. Indeed, at its meeting this Wednesday, the Committee hopes to hear more on that matter from departmental officials.

When I look at education targets in these reports, I see many which will not be delivered. The final one that I will highlight concerns:

“Building projects to be advanced at over 100 schools over the period to 2011”.

The House will hear more on that from the Minister of Education tomorrow. However, last week, the Committee got sight of the Minister’s intended statement, and it now knows that those targets will not be met. I must emphasise that the failure to advance much of this, such as the policy reviews, has nothing to do with the economic downturn or the cuts in the education budget that impacted from 1 April this year. I assure the House that the Committee will continue to press the Minister and her Department on their lack of progress on all those targets.

In the moments that are left to me, I shall return to the comments that the Member for Foyle made. She referred to ESA and to the failure to meet that particular Executive objective. It is abundantly clear to us all that Members on the opposite side of the House interpret and spell the term “equality” differently to Members on this side. If we are to move to a shared future, it can be only on the basis of respect for the elements of our community that make up Northern Ireland. That is particularly the case in education. The Member lectured the rest of us for not listening, but if she pays attention, she will understand the arguments on the delivery of equality. With respect to swift action —

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Does the Member accept that, under section 75(1), the equality of opportunity that we will be working towards by ensuring that the policies and programmes that we put in place to promote that opportunity is absolutely necessary in law? The aims of section 75(2), which deal with a shared future, are desirable, but they do not carry the same weight as those of section 75(1), which are necessary.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member explain why a certain section of the education world is exempt from the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 when it comes to equality? If the Member believes that there should be equality of opportunity, when it comes to having access to a job in any particular sector of the education world, surely no impediment should be placed on any individual seeking employment. Perhaps the Member should take that issue up with the sector that holds tenaciously to an exemption from the 1998 Order.

The Member referred to swift action. Will she ask the Minister of Education to take action, let alone swift action? We have waited years for the early years strategy, which is not fit for purpose, to go out to public consultation. We have waited for a numeracy and literacy strategy and for a special educational needs strategy. We have waited for all those policies, but all that we have seen is what happened in the House last week, which was the non-appearance of the Education Minister who is unprepared or unwilling to deliver on any of those things.

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

This is an important debate for the Assembly, and even though the Chamber is fairly thinly populated, it is more important than one might think. There is nothing more important for us than the Programme for Government, the content of that programme and the evaluation of performance against that content.

I am disappointed that we have received only a halfway report on performance against Programme for Government targets. We are now fully three quarters of the way through this mandate. The report is dated March 2010, but we are debating it at the end of June. Moreover, the report covers progress only up to September 2009. Therefore, the report is very out of date, and the Assembly deserves better.

Before turning to the subject of the report, I offer a health warning about such reports. In the Finance Committee, we have considerable experience of similar reports. At least there, each target had considerable commentary or explanation that often reflected considerably on how we read the report. In fact, the Committee frequently disputed the red/amber/green (RAG) status adjudications. Indeed, there were discrepancies between reports that the Department of Finance and Personnel provided and those that OFMDFM provided. I hope that those differences have been resolved.

We were concerned that many targets were worded so vaguely and so easily that it would be hard not to deliver on them. Therefore, there is a question mark over how we present the Programme for Government and how we then evaluate it. Nonetheless, the delivery report concludes overall that, since the previous report was produced, there has been:

“further deterioration in the PfG delivery position.”

I see that, in five of the 23 core PSAs, half or more of the targets are rated as either red or amber. That should give us concern. Of course, all of the PSAs are important, but we should be particularly concerned when we read the titles of those in which there is particular failure: PSA 4 is supporting rural businesses; PSA 5 is tourism; PSA 6 is children and family; PSA 8 is promoting health and addressing health inequalities; and PSA 12 is housing, urban regeneration and community development.

Three PSAs are selected for particular review. I note that, oddly, just two of those five PSAs and a further one, PSA 7, which is child poverty and victims, are selected. There may be some explanation as to why that choice of those three for review was made. Paragraph 4.7 of the report, which is the section on equality and good relations, states that:

“The full range of programmes set out by departments should not be seen in isolation. They are very much part of a wider programme across government”.

In that case, the programme addresses the specifics of equality and good relations. However, the issue could probably be written larger. We certainly cannot see any individual target or PSA in isolation.

The whole report, looked at more broadly, raises the question of the extent to which our Assembly is really achieving. Workplace 2010, which is a major programme to sell and lease back the Civil Service estate and refurbish it to modern standards of working, is described as “closed”. It most certainly should not be a closed issue. We have not seen a revised target and delivery against that.

On a broader front, there are several issues on which the Assembly is explicitly not delivering. I do not highlight them simply to point-score or debunk, but merely to say that we need to do better. In relation to growing the economy, we are only now, three years into our mandate, working towards creating our own strategy for doing that. The reform and modernisation of local government has ground to a halt. We have a stasis over the transfer process in schools and on the formation of the education and skills authority. The Maze stadium died a death. The whole issue of the decentralisation of public sector jobs has not been delivered on. That chimes with the public view that the Assembly is not delivering fully for the people who elected us. I call for a political consensus around the task that we have to deliver in what will be an even more difficult environment, as the First Minister indicated, than the one in which this programme is being delivered. The future is going to be even more difficult, and all the greater need, therefore, for real political action.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member called to speak will be Dr Stephen Farry.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Justice

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Justice what action he has taken to date to ensure proper scrutiny of his budget. (AQO 1481/10)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On a monthly basis, I meet with my director of justice delivery to review the Department’s finances. Departmental officials also undertake detailed monitoring and scrutiny of budgets. In line with other Northern Ireland Departments, my Department has recently completed the June in-year monitoring process, the findings of which have been presented to the Committee for Justice. The Department is also progressing the planning for its 2010 budget. Although all public finances will be under review, it will be important for me to work with Executive colleagues to ensure that the Department of Justice is not adversely affected. It will also be important for the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Treasury to ensure that the financial settlement agreement made with the previous Prime Minister is fully implemented.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The original budget for his Department was ring-fenced when negotiated. The Minister has also engaged early on the issue of legal aid, and I welcome and support that. What other early justice finance priorities does the Minister want to see addressed?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McLaughlin for his question. Subsequent questions will be asked later today on legal aid. Therefore, I do not want to develop that issue too much at this point, as I risk offending other Members by answering their questions in advance. I do want to take up the point Mr McLaughlin made on the concept of ring-fencing, because there is a widespread assumption that that represents a form of protection for the Department of Justice budget. However, if cuts are made to the relevant budgets in England, those cuts will apply to Northern Ireland through the Barnett formula, and ring-fencing could be detrimental to the Department’s budget. That will raise particular difficulties for the Assembly in the light of the financial package agreed with the then Prime Minister and the difficulties the Department and its agencies currently face.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he assure the House that his budget can be adapted to meet different priorities throughout any given year? Priorities can change and the focus may move from burglaries to traffic accidents or antisocial behaviour.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Shannon for his question. However, the issues that he highlighted are operational issues. It is the sole responsibility of the Chief Constable to decide on how he and his managers manage their resources to deal with problems identified through consultation with district policing partnerships (DPPs) and in accordance with their overall plan. As far as the overall departmental budget is concerned, it would be relatively difficult to transfer budgets from one agency to another during the course of a year unless there were particular pressing problems.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister tell the House what protocols are in place to assist him in accessing the national Reserve, so that exceptional security pressures could be met?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McNarry for his question. The protocol was the agreement between the then Prime Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in the letter that set out the availability of resources as a prelude to the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Assembly. If there were any requests for additional funding from the national Reserve, a case would have to be made by the Chief Constable to the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance and Personnel for onward transmission to the Treasury. An additional £37 million was granted this year at the request of the Chief Constable, and I am determined that any further requests with robust business cases will be supported for transmission by the Department. Indeed, discussion is currently ongoing in relation to some additional funding.

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

I thank the Minister for his replies. Will he confirm whether a business case has been completed for the rebuilding of Magilligan prison, which is in urgent need of replacement? Will he assure the House that the funds needed to rebuild that prison are available?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Maginness for that question. The simple answer is that the business case has not been finally completed for the replacement of Magilligan prison. It is clear that there is a pressing need to deal with the substandard accommodation at Magilligan and to provide a fit-for-purpose prison to replace it. The full details of that will have to be seen in accordance with the business case, and, in the light of the Chancellor’s Budget last week, it would be a foolish Minister who predicted exactly when resources would become available.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I should have said that question 5 has been withdrawn.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Justice to outline plans for filling the vacant governor’s post at Maghaberry prison. (AQO 1482/10)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McKay for his question. The governor’s post at Maghaberry is an important role in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Maghaberry is a complex and challenging environment, and one that requires clear leadership and resilience. As Members will know, the post is being filled on a temporary basis for some months. The Prison Service will shortly launch an open competition for high-calibre candidates with experience of working in prisons at senior level. I want to ensure that we have the best candidates to fill the post substantively. That process should be completed by the autumn and, in the meantime, I have taken steps to refresh the management team. A new interim governor and deputy from the Northern Ireland Prison Service have taken up post at Maghaberry today. I pay tribute to the hard work of the existing governor and his deputy, who have been managing the prison in the interim.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree that the new governor at Maghaberry will have a number of challenges ahead. Does the Minister agree that the new governor, when he takes his post, should prioritise the many long-term difficulties and problems at Maghaberry, including those at Roe House? Will he ensure that a proper management structure is in place that does not simply act at the behest of the POA?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McKay for that question. Clearly, a range of serious issues are to be addressed at Maghaberry, not just the issues at Roe House, which he identified. When I announced the review of the Prison Service to the House last week, I said that it would focus initially on Maghaberry, because, as our biggest and most complex prison, it has a number of issues that need to be addressed.

The Member referred to the role of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA). Reports, including the Pearson report, highlight issues that need to be addressed to do with employment issues. It is also right that staff should have access to a trade union to represent their position on employment issues, and it is important that trade unions, particularly in areas as sensitive as trade unions, take a mature and responsible approach. I will certainly encourage management and the POA to work together to deliver the outcomes that public expect to achieve a modern, efficient Prison Service that operates within budget and which provides for the needs of society.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister ensure that at the top of the priority list for the new governor, once appointed permanently, will be the welfare of staff who work in the prison and who face horrendous challenges, particularly at Roe House? Will he ensure that the staff will be the priority in attempting to ensure a stable environment in the prison?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for that point. It is not possible to identify a single priority for the new governor at Maghaberry; it is clear that a range of issues must be addressed, and a significant issue is the threat that prison officers face from some of the prisoners who are accommodated in Roe House and from some of the people with whom they are associated outside. It is utterly reprehensible that members of prison staff have had their names featured on certain websites where allegations and threats are made against them. That should not be tolerated anywhere in society.

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

Does the Minister agree that the new governor will have to have the necessary resources to be able to effect fundamental reform in Maghaberry? Does the Minister believe that the Prison Officers’ Association will approach the need for reform with an open and constructive attitude?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am sure that the Member does not wish me to indulge in speculation about the future actions of a group of employees.

However, it is absolutely clear that there has been positive change in sections of the Prison Service; that change has been managed by individuals who are members of the POA. Therefore, I do not accept that the POA is, in every respect, a block to progress. It is also clear that major changes are needed in the Prison Service as we seek to provide a much more rehabilitative regime than exists in any of our prisons to ensure better protection for society. I have no doubt that prison officers and others who are associated with the Prison Service will all be required to play their part in carrying out that aim.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s comprehensive answers. However, does he not realise that any slippage in dealing with issues in Maghaberry prison will have a serious knock-on effect for the rest of society?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member makes an entirely valid point. No one could be unaware of the urgent need to address a range of issues in the Prison Service. That is why, when I took up this post, I made that one of my key priorities; moreover, it is why I am seeking an early and speedy report from the review group that looks initially at Maghaberry. We cannot allow the current situation to persist; we must ensure that the prison is fit for purpose and provides for the needs of society in every respect. There is no doubt that difficulties in the prison can affect the wider community, particularly at this time of year.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the Minister of Justice what plans he has to ensure that effective legal representation remains available to people who cannot afford their own legal services. (AQO 1483/10)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Boylan for his question. I am committed to the principle of providing access to justice for people who cannot afford their own legal services. That commitment includes, of course, ensuring that people have effective legal representation when they need it.

The legal aid system has served the people of Northern Ireland well and provides more than 100, 000 acts of assistance with legal problems every year. The devolution funding settlement that was announced by Gordon Brown on 21 October 2009 provides an annual budget of almost £80 million for publicly funded legal services in Northern Ireland. That budget will allow Northern Ireland to spend more per head of population on legal services than any other part of the United Kingdom or Ireland.

My officials in the Courts and Tribunals Service are taking forward a comprehensive programme of legal aid reform. I am satisfied that that reform can be implemented in a manner that will ensure that access to justice is maintained, including access to effective representation for those in need of help who cannot afford to pay for legal aid themselves. Devolution now provides the opportunity to decide how best to help people secure access to justice in Northern Ireland. That is why I intend to undertake a fundamental review of public legal services. This is a real opportunity to reinvent the way in which legal services are provided to the public and to put it on a sustainable basis for the future. I am confident that Members will wish to work with me to achieve that.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I think the Minister for his answer. Although, like many Members, I will agree that all public moneys need to be properly managed and should ensure value for money, does the Minister recognise that it is important that those who require legal representation are not penalised for the possible excesses of others?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree. That is why I am determined to continue to provide adequate resources for legal aid. However, we also need to ensure that adequate levels of resources do not apply excessive levels in the face of the financial restrictions that we all now work under.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Perhaps I picked the Minister up wrong, but I want him to clarify something. Did he say that legal aid serves the people well or serves the legal profession well? Does the Minister not accept that we do not need a long inquiry into the reform of legal aid? Will he apply his resources to ensure that reform happens swiftly and that we do not run into another expensive inquiry that we can ill afford?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Lord Morrow for that question. I said that the public legal aid services have served the people of Northern Ireland well, because I believe that that is the case. However, there is no doubt that, in recent years, its costs have been significant. The issue was addressed in the agreement between the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister late last year.

I am prepared to proceed extremely speedily to deal with the basic reforms to legal aid, which the House has heard about on a number of occasions. However, we need to consider the fundamental purpose behind legal aid to ensure that we have a system of public legal services to help people to solve their problems and not necessarily simply to provide advocacy in courts. I want a system that puts greater emphasis on solving problems outside court and provides a wider choice in the type of legal help that is available to those in need. That will be a more fundamental reform than the basic changes that we are making at present. It will take more time to work through, but I do not believe that it will be an expensive process.

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

When the Minister introduces reforms, will he work with the legal profession to devise a new civil legal aid system to deal with money damages cases, so that the system will ensure adequate access for legal aid and will also, effectively, be capable of paying for itself?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome Mr Gallagher’s suggestion that such matters could pay for themselves. That would be a major step forward. I accept his fundamental point, and my officials are working with representatives of both branches of the legal profession in seeking to make the necessary reforms. We need to consider the issue of civil legal aid, as well as criminal legal aid, where the bulk of the concentration has been up to now. We will continue to do that with a view to ensuring that the entire legal system is fit for purpose.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

4. asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the findings of the Saville report. (AQO 1484/10)

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

8. asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the Saville report. (AQO 1488/10)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McCartney and Mr McCrea for their questions. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 10 together. Although Lord Saville’s report on Bloody Sunday contains no direct implications for the Department of Justice, I believe that it is comprehensive, provides the opportunity to put the truth on the record and, at the same time, help to heal the wounds suffered by the families over the past 38 years.

The report undoubtedly raises questions about how Northern Ireland deals with its past and how we can move forward as a society. Although those issues are primarily for the Northern Ireland Office and OFMDFM to consider, I will ensure that the Department of Justice plays its part in contributing to the promotion of reconciliation and of a shared future. I hope and expect that the crucial roles played by the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police Ombudsman are recognised and supported by the NIO, which retains the strategic lead on issues arising from the past.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Minister, can I clarify whether you meant to say question 8 or question 10? I was told that it was question 8.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was supposed to be question 8.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he seek a report from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on its assessment of the Saville report? Does he intend to make a statement to the Assembly on the findings of the Saville report at some time in the future?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McCartney for those two points. I will not seek a report from the Public Prosecution Service, because the responsibility for dealing with the outcome of the Saville report lies squarely with the Public Prosecution Service and not with the Department of Justice. It is not my role as Minister to seek a report from the PPS in any respect. Therefore, I will leave that point to be followed through by the relevant authorities. There may also be involvement from the PSNI in respect of how that is dealt with.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister agree that the dignified response to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House of Commons, coupled with the measured tones of many commentators and sections of the community, might form the basis of some way to deal with the past? Will he seek to build on that opportunity so that we can move the Province forward?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

That is a valid point. The dignity that we saw in response to the publication of the Saville report from the families, the people of Derry, the Prime Minister and the entire House of Commons is a measure of how much we have moved forward in this society in recent years and how much people were able to do.

Clearly, wider lessons need to be learned. We cannot have a Saville-type inquiry for all the tragedies of the past. The fundamental matter of dealing with the past must be done collectively by the Executive. Although the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have lead policy responsibility for the victims and survivors of the Troubles, I believe that it is incumbent on all Ministers to co-operate to deal with the past and to seek to create a shared future. We will all have to address the legacy of the past in our own areas of responsibility. Certainly, the Department of Justice will play its part.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

When will the final costings for the Saville report be made available to the public?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that that is entirely a question for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s comments about healing wounds. There has been a wound at the heart of Derry city, which has been hurt. However, that hurt can now ease.

Does the Minister welcome the British Prime Minister’s statement that the 14 murders in Derry were “unjustified and unjustifiable”? I am aware that the Minister met the families when he was in the role of shadow Minister, but will he meet again the families of those who lost their lives and those who were injured on Bloody Sunday once, as Raymond McCartney rightly said, he has made his own assessment of Saville’s findings?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree entirely with the Prime Minister’s assessment of Saville. I do not need to add any words to his assessment. As Mr Ramsey stated correctly, in February 2010, I, as an individual and as a party leader, met the majority of the families of those who died. At that time and, indeed, when the report was published, I indicated that if the families wished to meet me again, I would be happy to meet them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

6. asked the Minister of Justice what discussions he, or his officials, have had with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety regarding the provision of health care to prisoners. (AQO 1486/10)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Clarke for his question. I will meet with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in early July 2010 to discuss a range of health issues that affect prisoners. Healthcare provision is discussed regularly at meetings of the joint prison partnership board. That is a multiagency and multidisciplinary board that meets bimonthly to agree strategic operational priorities and to review primary and secondary healthcare services to prisoners throughout the prison estate.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that prisoners with mental health needs are being failed by the current system? Furthermore, does he agree that there is a duty on the Prison Service and the Health Service to meet those prisoners’ medical needs?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. There is no doubt that healthcare facilities in the Prison Service have improved since responsibility for them was handed over to the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. There is also no doubt that work still needs to be done, particularly in connection to mental health, which the Member highlighted.

It is generally accepted that significant work needs to be done in that area, given the number of prisoners who have mental health problems or personality disorders. All prisoners who are assessed as having a mental illness are referred to the mental health team for assessment and treatment. The new reach and outreach facilities that are proposed for Maghaberry will go some way towards helping prisoners with mental health needs and vulnerabilities. However, the problem exists at all three prison establishments. I am grateful to the South Eastern Trust for its continuing efforts to reform and modernise services for all prisoners with mental health problems.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that there is also a need to look at the health and safety of our prison officers, particularly in the light of some of the conditions that they face? Will he ensure that his Department gives the same respect to prison officers’ health and safety as is given to that of people in every other service in the public sector?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Bell for his question. Certainly, as their employer, the Prison Service owes a duty of care to prison officers. However, I am not sure that it is entirely equivalent to that which is owed to prisoners, who have no opportunity to access healthcare facilities in the community. At the same time, there is no doubt that much needs to be done to ensure that a duty of care is provided to prison officers, given the difficulties that some of them face.

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

Recently, the Minister promised to review the Prison Service completely. Given that probably 70% of prisoners experience mental health problems and other personality disorders, does he not believe that it is time for a comprehensive review of how stakeholders and other interested parties view the entire issue? Will he promise the House that those 70% of prisoners will have the rights that they deserve?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The simple answer is that the review of the Prison Service will include all aspects of the management of prisons, including healthcare. Given my background, I am entirely conscious of the difficulties in the mental health field; the number of prisoners who have, as Mr Dallat said, psychiatric problems and personality disorders; and the real need to ensure that services are improved.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the ‘Wrong Kind of Victim?’ report by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group. (AQO 1487/10)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the positive and helpful report. Human trafficking is nothing less than modern-day slavery, and it is vital that we continue to raise public awareness of the suffering caused by those who seek to profit from the exploitation of the vulnerable. My officials participated in the background research leading to the report’s publication on 16 June, and I will consider carefully the recommendations that fall within my remit.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The report contains pointed criticisms of how the agency treated victims and how the perpetrators remain free. I believe that no charges were levied. What steps are being taken to increase the number of prosecutions while providing more support for the victims?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Hilditch has highlighted a serious issue. I understand that just two people have been charged with the offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation and that the cases are currently proceeding through the courts. Although the Chief Constable has assured me that the police are doing all that they can in that area, as we all know, in order to bring charges and obtain convictions, the police need evidence and witnesses who are willing to testify in court. Unfortunately, many of the women who are recovered choose not to testify. Once rescued, many simply decide to go home to their families while, in other cases, witnesses have disappeared. There is certainly no disinclination on the part of the relevant agencies to take prosecutions forward, but there is a real difficulty in getting the necessary witness evidence.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

One of the report’s criticisms is that victims of human trafficking are prosecuted while the real criminals continue to profit. Can the Minister tell me whether those arrested in recent cannabis raids in Northern Ireland are being prosecuted as criminals or treated as potential victims of crime?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that my colleague has caught me out on that one, but I will ensure that I write to her about the matter.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Can the Minister provide the House with an evaluation of the support package that is provided to victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland? Can he also give us an indication as to whether his Department will continue to finance that package, which I believe runs out in September?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Kinahan for those rather easier questions. As he correctly says, the pilot scheme runs out in September. It was recently evaluated, and, although the evaluation identified areas in which improvements could be made, the overall conclusion was that we had met the standards set out in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. For example, a victim who has been through the pilot scheme supported that assertion. Not only was she satisfied with the care that she received, but she has been successfully reintegrated into society and is living in independent accommodation and serving the community as a volunteer. I hope to put in place a more permanent scheme after the pilot runs out on 30 September.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

9. asked the Minister of Justice to outline his policy on youth justice. (AQO 1489/10)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The reality in this society is that most children do not offend. For the small number who do offend, we have proportionate, progressive and restorative arrangements that aim to reduce the risk of further offending and help to reconnect children with their families and communities. The Department subscribes to the policy of custody as a last resort but recognises that it is sometimes required to protect the public. In that regard, we are, in conjunction with key partners, making significant progress in reviewing custodial arrangements for young offenders under the age of 18.

With the Youth Justice Agency in the lead, the review aims to use the skills and expertise that exist in the agency and the Prison Service to deliver better-focused outcomes for young people in custody, to support reintegration and to reduce reoffending. Some of the outcomes of that valuable work have already been implemented, and it has the potential to deliver further significant improvements to our juvenile custody services. I hope to be able to announce the outcome of the review in the near future.

Agriculture and Rural Development

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we begin questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, I inform the House that question 10 has been withdrawn.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps her Department is taking to investigate and address the factors that led to the £60 million European Commission fine. (AQO 1495/10)

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps her Department is taking to ensure that there is no recurrence of the maladministration that resulted in the recent European Commission fine. (AQO 1499/10)

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when the improvements in her Department’s mapping systems will be implemented. (AQO 1501/10)

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

12. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on discussions with the European Commission in relation to the £60 million disallowance imposed after the audit of subsidy payments. (AQO 1506/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1, 5, 7 and 12 together. I recognise that my Assembly colleagues are aware of the background to the issue, and I thank them for their ongoing support. I can now advise the House that, in line with Commission protocols, the Agricultural Funds Committee was consulted on 18 June on the disallowance relating to the first audit in 2006, and a formal decision by the Commission is expected in July. I stress that my Department has been proactive on a number of fronts in taking steps to address the issues and ensuring that there is no recurrence of the factors that led to the disallowance.

We have constantly challenged the Commission’s view on the level and proportionality of the disallowance. We provided the Commission with evidence that the actual risk to the fund is much less than the 5% proposed. We have taken the 2006 and 2008 audits to the conciliation body, and we are taking legal advice as to whether to challenge the 2006 audit through the European Court of Justice. I also discussed that with the Attorney General. I have spoken to Mariann Fischer Boel, and my colleagues in the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development have raised our position with Commission representatives. I raised the issue at my meeting with the new EU Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Cioloş on 23 June.

From 2006, we have actively encouraged farmers to tell us of changes to their maps, and we have reviewed our inspection procedures. In 2007, we introduced orthophotography, and from 2008, we have used GPS equipment to measure fields. We have also taken action to recover moneys in all cases where we have found that land has been incorrectly claimed.

Although we still firmly believe that the level of disallowance proposed is much higher than any risk to the fund, and we continue to challenge that, we accept that, if we do not resolve the situation to the Commission’s satisfaction, we will continue to face some level of ongoing disallowance. As the potential for single farm payments on ineligible areas is one of the auditors’ main concerns, we have commissioned a project to systematically review and, where necessary, amend every field in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) system. That will ensure that all ineligible areas are identified and removed. We will also have to consider the impact of the removal of those areas on entitlements and previous payments.

The pilot project is under way. That is necessary to allow us to set and to test the criteria to be used in the main project. We aim to begin the main project in the autumn and to complete it by the end of next year. New maps will be issued to farmers early in 2012. We believe that that will satisfy the Commission’s concern and should significantly reduce the risk of further disallowance.

The second phase will deal with some other mapping issues, which are of less concern to the Commission and, therefore, much less likely to attract a disallowance. That process will be completed by the end of next year.

While we continue to challenge the Commission’s proposal regarding disallowance, we are working to satisfy its concerns and to ensure that our approach meets its requirements. My Department and I are committed to resolving the issue and to reducing the amount of disallowance being paid.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister has taken almost four minutes to answer my question. She will know that I have challenged her on this question on a number of occasions. Considering the volume of questions coming behind me, does the Minister not think that it is past the time when she should have brought a statement to the House explaining the situation fully? That would give all Members the opportunity to challenge the reasons given as to why this has happened. Sixty million pounds is a huge amount of money to go out of Northern Ireland.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must come to his question.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does she think that it is worthwhile to come to the House with a full statement and give us the opportunity to challenge it?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I did not think that I needed to come to the House with a statement. My main concern is about working towards resolving the issues. There has been very good support from Assembly colleagues, especially those in the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I believed that there was a significant level of understanding in the House, which did not suggest that there was a need for a statement.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

Can the Minister apprise the House whether the £60 million disallowance is the end of the matter and whether, following a review of the 2009 scheme year, no further disallowances can or will be forthcoming? Has she had any discussions with the EU Commission to ensure that, if there are to be further disallowances, they will not be of the same level?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will be keen to ensure that the work that we are doing now will mitigate further disallowances, but there have been a number of audits, and we must look at the challenges that have been exposed by those audits and ensure that we have systems in place. That means working with farmers, and I am pleased to report that 16% of farmers came in this springtime to get their maps checked after years of us asking them to do so. We want to work with farmers to ensure that their information is up to date.

We are also working closely with Land and Property Services (LPS), an agency of the Department of Finance and Personnel, because we need to have the maps and the correct mapping facilities in order to mitigate future disallowances. I raised that matter with Dacian Cioloş last week, and I have asked him for a further meeting to discuss it. We will bring the matter to every level necessary, but given that the European Court of Auditors sets the level of disallowance, we want it to be reviewed downwards.

We have also looked at what has happened in other member states, and I can assure the House that we are not the only offenders, nor are we the worst, cold comfort though that is. We are working with everyone that we can, and that includes taking the proper legal advice to determine how we can challenge the disallowance through the courts. Everything that can be done is being done, but there may still be some level of disallowance if the European Commission continues on its current route, and I am doing my absolute utmost to mitigate that.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister is always most disarming in the way that she presents a case. Although we support her and her Department, there is an issue behind her soothing words. We are struggling to find £60,000 to keep the I CAN centre in Ballynahinch open, yet we seem to have mislaid £60 million. The numbers are huge. I wonder whether the Minister can explain where that £60 million is going to come from. Has she discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and can she give us some comfort that that money will be available?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will try not to be too disarming, Basil; you would not like to see me when I am grumpy.

Of course, I have raised the issue and have had discussions about it with the Finance Minister, and I have been working for some time to resolve it. In my initial discussions with my Department, there was no indication that the disallowance level would be as high as it was, and that came as something of a shock to us. However, because of the difficulties in rolling out the scheme, we recognised that there could be some potential for disallowance down the line. As a precautionary measure, my Department had been putting money aside and rolling it up with a fund in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to enable us to meet the disallowance with money that was available for that purpose.

We did not expect to get hit with a disallowance figure of 5%. We are still working on conciliation, through the legal route, to try to have the disallowance amount reduced. However, I assure the House categorically that £60 million did not go astray; someone decided that the level of risk to the EU fund was of that magnitude. No one claimed that money. It is not money that was fraudulently claimed. I assure the House that there has been no wrongdoing on anyone’s part.

The EU believes that the level should be set at 5%, but we believe that that figure should be much smaller. Because of the single farm payment, all our schemes are rolled up, and that 5% hits the whole amount. As I said, some of our neighbours have been hit far worse, but other European member states are also affected. I had a good conversation about the issue last week with Jim Nicholson, and we talked about where that money goes. It is like having an overdraft at the bank: the European Commission does not send us that money. That is how it is able to deduct the disallowance off the overall amount. I assure the House categorically that £60 million has not gone astray.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister has given a startling reply today, because four of the 15 questions that are down for oral answer relate to this issue. Yet, it was not important enough for her to feel that she should come to the House with a statement about a £60 million fine.

We recognise the fact that there has been no error in her Department in relation to the £60 million. However, it must be a severe embarrassment to her and to her Department that she should be landed with a £60 million fine. Will she now reconsider her position in light of what has been said today, come to the House with a statement and bring her departmental officials with her?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will absolutely, categorically not be reviewing my position. I do not believe that anybody would have —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You should be embarrassed.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am not embarrassed. I absolutely refute the Member’s allegations. I have been working very hard on the issue, along with my officials, to mitigate it. I said today that the issue has hit other member states much harder than it has hit us; it is affecting every member state. We are putting a system in place to ensure that future mitigation does not happen. We are working on our maps and orthophotography and making sure that there is a system in place that is robust enough to mitigate any future disallowance. The difficulty is that Europe can pick a figure and impose it on us. We are seeking legal advice on the issue and taking it to the very highest level.

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

Does the Minister agree that many of the so-called false claims that led, in part, to the fine came about as a result of inaccuracies on the original maps provided by DARD, or is it the opinion of the Minister that the original maps were 100% accurate?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The original maps were not 100% accurate. We are working with LPS to ensure that that accuracy is built into the system. The orthophotographs that LPS is using are created from high-quality aerial images, and distortions caused by the earth’s surface and aircraft movement are removed from them. The result is a scale-accurate image, offering a detailed bird’s-eye view of the landscape. That was not available to us when the problem started, which is partly why we are playing catch-up.

We have over 742,000 fields, and we do not have the resources to cover the cost of ground-survey mapping on every single field in the North of Ireland. We had to find a system that worked and that gave an accurate assessment of what was on the ground so that that could be used. Six, seven or eight years ago, we did not have the technology to produce those maps, but we are putting that system in place now.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the range of projects funded through the regional food programme in the last financial year and for her assessment of the importance of this programme. (AQO 1496/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. DARD administers the regional food programme, which aims to promote quality regional food. Under the programme, assistance is available to develop and expand profitable and sustainable markets by encouraging better co-operation and communication between all sectors of the food industry. The Member may be aware of the slow food movement and the fuchsia brand emanating from west Cork. Those are perfect examples of where that approach has succeeded, and our programme aspires to mirror those ventures.

There were three tranches of funding through the regional food programme in the past financial year, with letters of offer totalling £424,800. Some 28 separate programmes received letters of offer, including projects from each of the five categories available in the programme. Those categories are regional fairs; information programmes; award ceremonies; seminars or workshops; and market intelligence. Each project had to meet the aim of the programme to promote quality regional food and to increase its consumption domestically and further afield.

The programme has supported a wide range of initiatives, which have not only promoted local quality produce but have led to greater collaboration across the entire local agrifood sector. Examples of some of the successful projects that were delivered include the Armagh Bramley apple blossom fair at Loughgall; the Magherafelt Christmas speciality food market; Derry City Council’s participation at national food exhibitions; the national sausage week awards; the ‘Taste of Ulster’ — some of Ulster — ‘Guide’; the food pavilion at the Balmoral Show; and the inaugural great Belfast food week. I attended several of those events and saw for myself the value and importance of connecting our producers with consumers and allowing our local produce to be clearly exhibited to local people and tourists alike.

The regional food programme was initially established as part of the implementation of the ‘Fit for Market’ report, which was published by the food strategy group in November 2004. With a remit to promote local produce, it is the primary vehicle used by my Department to assist our agrifood industry in its endeavours to showcase the quality food that is available here.

I am fully committed to supporting local producers in that way. Feedback and evaluations from the funded project promoters show the need for and value gained by the programme, and many of them highlighted the economic and social benefits for the agrifood industry. A full list of the funded projects can be found through the regional food programme link on the DARD website.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as ucht a freagra.

I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know that I have a preference for a nine-county fry, as distinct from a Six County fry. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister provide some commentary on the renaissance of Atlantic food authenticity and economic links (RAFAEL) project? I know from the feedback that I have received in County Tyrone that that project has gone down particularly well there. I would, therefore, like to think that that it is being rolled out further. What strengths does the Minister attribute to that project?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The RAFAEL project in the west specifically relates to public sector procurement of local food. My Department and project partners contributed to the success of that INTERREG-funded project, which aimed to encourage local authentic food producers to develop new markets, such as the public sector. Under EU legislation, the procurement of locally produced food by public sector bodies cannot be restricted to specific locations or suppliers. The challenge, therefore, was and is to work with suppliers to help them to compete more successfully.

The main focus of the local RAFAEL project, which was centred in the north-west, was to encourage and support local food producers and processors to develop and to compete successfully for business in the public sector, specifically in hospitals and schools, which need high-quality food for the most vulnerable. Many of the producers who became involved in that project now supply the health and education authorities.

Since the end of the RAFAEL project, my Department has continued to run awareness workshops in conjunction with our partners from that project to highlight when food procurement projects are being released and how the tender process is conducted. That work is ongoing. I fully support the promotion and purchase of local food, and my Department supports a number of actions to underpin that.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Turn over the page.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I will finish there, Danny. However, any time that you have a supplementary question, feel free to jump in, son.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am pleased that Mr McElduff prefers a nine-county fry, as opposed to a 26- or 32-county fry. At least we are making progress with him.

The regional food programme encourages the consumption of locally produced food. However, what action has the Minister taken to protect Northern Ireland milk and dairy products in the Republic of Ireland, where there is a campaign against them?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That is a fairly tenuous link, but I will answer the Member’s question. I met my Southern counterpart, Brendan Smith, to discuss the issue, and I raised it with the Food Standards Agency and others, such as Bord Bia. Work is continuing to ensure that those markets are available to our producers.

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

The regional food programme is now closed to applications. Therefore, would the Minister consider it beneficial to the local food industry to introduce a promotional programme that would continue to deliver the aims of the regional programme?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The budgetary pressures that all Departments face dictate that all work areas must be scrutinised to assess their importance and relevance to the industry. Evaluations and feedback from the stakeholders who utilise the programme will be taken into consideration when taking funding decisions about the future of the programme. However, I am pleased to inform the Member that the regional food programme will continue in 2010-11. From the first tranche of applications, several projects have received letters of offer to assist them in the delivery of their food promotion projects.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I wish to ask the Minister about the impact on programmes in this and subsequent financial years should another European Commission fine be imposed. The Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee made a very —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am sorry, Mr Bell. We have moved on to a different question about the regional food programme.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

My supplementary question is on the same subject, because it relates to programmes in this financial year. If we are fined again —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We have moved on from the question on fines to one about the regional food programme.

Question No 3 has been withdrawn.

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

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her assessment of the possibility that Northern Ireland could become self-sufficient in supplying the timber required for housing, and other purposes, and whether she has any plans to expand the forestry sector. (AQO 1498/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With the substantial increase in forest cover, as identified in the forest strategy, there is the potential for us to become self-sufficient in a range of timber and timber products. Around 400,000 cubic metres of timber and timber products are consumed each year in the North, with sawmills producing around 320,000 cubic metres of timber and timber products annually. However, as the Member will know, timber is an internationally traded product and those marketing it will seek best value. As a result, over half the timber processed in the North is sold to Southern markets or to Britain. What remains for home production means that we are approximately 16% self-sufficient in construction timber, 34% self-sufficient in pallet and packaging timber and fully self-sufficient in fencing products.

Our forestry strategy confirmed that the Forest Service will continue to maintain the supply of timber from forests and that annual timber production from the Department’s forests has expanded from 300,000 cubic metres of round wood in 2000 to the current level of 400,000 cubic metres. The forest strategy also identified a long-term aim of doubling the area of woodland in the North so that people can benefit from economic development through timber production and enjoy the recreational and environmental benefits. Our Programme for Government (PFG) target seeks to create 1,650 hectares of new woodland by March 2011. A doubling of woodland cover will provide us, in time, with more timber for processing and added value, and has the potential to make us self-sufficient in a range of timber and timber products. However, the extent to which that happens will depend on how much of our processed timber reaches export markets.

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

I thank the Minister for her very extensive answer. She talked about bulk. However, has any real assessment been made of how much money could be saved? My second point partly pertains to that. Will the Minister investigate whether, by some mechanism, land could be put into forestry without the single farm payment being lost? My understanding is that one of the biggest obstacles to planting trees is the loss of the single farm payment. Therefore, could an alternative subsidy be found, even if that were only for two or three years, as a bridge to carry people through and wean them off the single farm payment?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am very aware of stakeholders’ frustration and the challenges surrounding the important issue of the definition of the word “farmer”. The present definition, for the purposes of the farm woodland premium scheme, which is almost the equivalent of what the Member is talking about, has eluded us. The current definition in the rural development programme is that a farmer is someone who derives at least 25% of their income from farming, taking account of all the land that they farm. However, for forestry, the rate is 15%, and that creates difficulties. I raised that issue with the new commissioner last week, and I hope to discuss it with him at a future meeting. I understand where the Member is coming from and we are trying to resolve the issue.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

Before the Minister sets her Department a high target such as self-sufficiency in timber, will she review the much less extensive targets that she made in the Programme for Government? Given that DARD is unlikely to meet many PFG targets on the development of forestry, does she accept that any decision to extend the forestry sector must be taken in conjunction with an analysis of how the sector has functioned to date?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Between April 2008 and March 2010, the first two years of the PFG period, 502 hectares of new woodland have been created by farmers and landowners under the woodland grants scheme, which, I accept, is much less than the 1,100 hectares planned for this stage of the PFG target period. In November 2009, to encourage more famers and landowners to create woodland, I announced an increase in grant rates of up to 30%. Since then, there has been a significant increase in applications, although it is too early to predict whether that interest will translate into new woodland. Therefore, applications are coming through, but, at this stage, I am not sure how many of those will be successful given the 15% figure that was raised by the Member who spoke previously.

However, it is good that there is renewed interest in woodland creation, and continued promotion of forestry schemes, together with the work of the Forest Service, will, I hope, put us back on course to meet the Programme for Government woodland target. However, achieving that will be very challenging.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline how the Forestry Bill will help to increase forest cover?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hope that the Bill will continue to allow us to provide grant assistance to those creating woodland. In addition, the Bill explicitly includes environmental, biodiversity and climate change mitigation measures in the definition of forestry. That, with the recognition in the Bill of the social benefits of woodlands, such as recreation, health and well-being, provides clear indication for all those in government and in local government, as well as private landowners, of the benefits of creating woodland. The new Bill will also help us to protect woodland through a requirement for those planning to fell trees to apply for felling licences.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 5 has been grouped.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she can provide an assurance that the appointment of a supermarket ombudsman will not lead to an increase in the retail price of food products in our local supermarkets. (AQO 1500/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The appointment of a supermarket ombudsman and retail pricing are reserved matters and, therefore, not in my remit. However, I agree with the concept of fair pricing and welcome the new British Government’s acceptance in principle of the need for an ombudsman.

The aim of the ombudsman would be to strike the right balance between farmers getting a fair deal and the aspirations of consumers. That is a good aim, with mutual benefits for all in the supply chain, and would not necessarily lead to an increase in retail prices. Although there may be additional costs associated with the establishment and operation of an ombudsman, it does not follow necessarily that that will result in an increase in the retail price of food products.

It is envisaged that the main costs will be driven largely by the number of complaints brought against a retailer. There is a tangible incentive now for supermarkets to focus on minimising the number of complaints that they receive. My hope is that the benefits to the agriculture industry of the future appointment of an ombudsman will not lead to any increase in retail prices.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Supermarkets are always keen to retain their profits. What steps does the Minister have in place to prevent that?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, retail pricing is a reserved matter, and not in my remit. However, I accept the concept of fair pricing and consider that I have a role to encourage and facilitate a mutual understanding of the challenges facing each part of the food chain. I have had very interesting conversations to that end over recent years. As part of that process, I visited retailers, producers and food processors to encourage discussion of the challenges facing each part of the food chain, particularly the economic pressures on producers. All partners in the supply chain have an important role, and all need to share in the profits.

Gerry McHugh (Independent, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I agree with the Minister about her fair deal proposal for farmers and retailers on prices. In fairness, much is to do with profit at retailer level rather than across the board. Will there be fairness across the board in future years if the loss of 87 jobs at a place such as Foyle Meats is caused by the fact that retailers will not pay proper prices to farmers who are at the start of the food chain? If that continues, we will not have a local industry.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Fair pricing is very important. Everyone in the supply chain needs to get a share of the profits, and I will continue to work to that end.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. She spoke about sharing profit. Does she agree that it is vital that some form of regulation is involved to protect farmers? For too long they have suffered, and the profit share has not been equal throughout the sector. Will the Minister agree that that needs to be addressed, and, owing to the fact that farm size and structure are different in Northern Ireland compared with other parts of the country, what discussions has she had with the new coalition Government to make sure that representations are made?