Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 February 2011

328 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the progress that has been made against the actions set out in section 1 of the Hillsborough Castle Agreement of February 2010, entitled “Policing and Justice”.

The section begins and ends with a commentary and a number of commitments regarding the institutional aspects of the devolution of justice, before going on to state that there will be an addendum to the Programme for Government for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be drafted by the Justice Minister and brought to the Assembly for approval.

Members will recall that, in September 2010, I secured the agreement of the Executive to such an addendum and that it was accepted by the Assembly with cross-community support on 12 October 2010, which was another important milestone on the journey to effective devolution.

The addendum set out the priorities of the Department of Justice. Although it focused on the current financial year, in line with the remaining period of the Programme for Government, the addendum laid the foundation for an agenda of change that will impact well into the longer term. Although it was not possible to incorporate all the Department’s activities in 15 key goals, in broad terms those goals underpin a strategic framework for reforming and reshaping the justice system in Northern Ireland. An indication was also made in the Hillsborough Castle Agreement of actions that the agreed policies of the Department could usefully include, all of which were reflected in the addendum. It is on those that I wish to focus.

The first action listed was to build on the ongoing tribunal reform programme. Although the Department of Justice is responsible for the administration of the majority of tribunals sitting in Northern Ireland, the statutory, financial and policy responsibilities for many of those tribunals remain with other Northern Ireland Departments. The devolution of justice provides the opportunity for the DOJ to assume those responsibilities. I have now secured the support of the Justice Committee and the Executive for such a transfer, and the recent settlement of departmental budgets allows my officials, working with their counterparts in relevant Departments, to agree the appropriate transfer of resources. Although time is now undoubtedly tight to deliver this agreement and for the transfer Order to be made before dissolution, I remain committed to the creation of an administration for tribunals that is more independent and user-focused and provides value for money.

The next action highlighted in the agreement was that the Department of Justice should learn from international best practice in matters of criminal justice. The Department and those whom I have appointed to assist me as I carry forward my agenda to reshape the justice system are looking to international best practice. Examples include the youth justice review team, which has commissioned a review of the international evidence on teenagers in custody and how the transition from childhood to young adulthood is managed in that context. The proposals for an offender levy and victims of crime fund provide another example, having been informed by learning from research commissioned on international best practice across a range of jurisdictions where similar levy systems operate, including the USA, Australia, Sweden and Belgium.

The third action identified was the full provision of adequate funding and other resources for legal services to the disadvantaged in society, ensuring equality of access to justice for all. In response to that, in September 2010, I announced a fundamental review of access to justice. The review is examining, from first principles, the question of how best to secure access to justice for all, including the least well off in society, and is focusing particularly on whether there are better ways of resolving disputes, including approaches that do not require court action. The review will also examine value for money and will seek to identify opportunities for efficiencies. The review is being undertaken by Mr Jim Daniell. Although a first report was due at the end of January, Mr Daniell has agreed to a request for an extension from the professional legal bodies to allow them to submit comments. I expect his first report in March 2011 and a final report by the end of June 2011.

The fourth action identified was the establishment of a sentencing guidelines council. Public confidence in sentencing is fundamental to an effective criminal justice system, and it was with that in mind that, in October 2010, I launched a public consultation exercise on a sentencing guidelines mechanism. The consultation seeks views on how three options for a sentencing guidelines mechanism may enhance public confidence, transparency, consistency and community engagement in sentencing issues. The consultation had been due to end on 18 January 2011, and, although a good range of submissions had been received by that date, I agreed to extend the deadline to facilitate additional respondents who wished to make submissions. I will publish a report on the responses before the Assembly is dissolved, and I hope that the new Executive will make decisions on the way forward as a priority.

The next action identified in the agreement was a review of alternatives to custody. For the safety of our community we need prisons. However, if prisons are to play an effective role in safeguarding our community, they must be used effectively and only when they are the most effective response. Today, I am launching a paper reviewing community sentences. The consultation paper explores the role and scope of community sentences, drawing comparisons with national and international experience, and examines whether there is the potential to make more effective use of such disposals, including, where appropriate, as an alternative to short-term custodial sentences for lower-risk offenders. Crucially, the paper also addresses the issue of public confidence.

We need to get past the perception, or misperception, that community sentences are a soft option. They provide challenge, engagement and supervision, often across a period that is longer than that imposed on those who go to prison for short sentences. Three out of four of those who get a probation or community service order do not reoffend within a year; indeed, Northern Ireland is a leader when it comes to the effectiveness of such sentences. They provide a context in which an offender can be challenged about his or her behaviour and can undergo programmes to address underlying issues. Alongside that, they lead to offenders putting something back: community service orders result in 140,000 hours of unpaid work each year for the benefit of the community.

I want to encourage an informed debate about the role of community sentences, particularly as they have an important place in complementing custody. One aspect of that debate is how community penalties sit with short prison sentences. My colleague Dermot Ahern, until recently Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the South, recently indicated an intention to legislate to encourage greater use of community service orders as an alternative where a short prison sentence would otherwise have been imposed. No one disputes that imprisonment remains the most appropriate sentence for those who commit serious offences or pose a substantial risk of harm to society. However, community sentences have a vital place in steering offenders in the next category towards addressing their behaviour and making better decisions in the future. We need to build confidence in community solutions. I want to listen carefully to those with views on the matter before formulating robust plans for the future.

The next action identified in the agreement was adequate provision of diversionary alternatives to prosecution. The Justice Bill responds to that and includes provision for the introduction of police fixed penalties as an alternative to prosecution at court. The new penalty notices enable uncontested offences by first-time or non-habitual offenders, which often result in fine-based disposals on conviction, to be dealt with quickly and effectively without the need to engage the formal court process.

The Bill also includes provision for the introduction of prosecutor-led conditional cautions. Those cautions will target specific aspects of behaviour through the offender’s agreement to comply with rehabilitative or reparative conditions that address issues that underpin their offending behaviour. Those new measures will complement a raft of diversionary measures that are already available to police and prosecutors, including exercise of police discretion with victim consent, juvenile and adult informed warnings, juvenile and adult cautions, youth conference orders and community-based restorative justice referrals.

The next action identified was a review of the powers of the Prisoner Ombudsman, in light of experience elsewhere. I have been and remain committed to putting the powers of the Prisoner Ombudsman on a statutory basis and have taken initial steps in considering how best to achieve that. Conscious of the work undertaken by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in relation to the powers of the Assembly Ombudsman and the need to ensure that we consider all appropriate options, I have written to OFMDFM to seek its views on the wider issue of considering ombudsman services more generally. On receipt of a response, I will consider how we should proceed with the review indicated in the Hillsborough agreement, including how we best take account of experiences in other jurisdictions.

The next action identified, which is one that I prioritised immediately on my election as Minister, was a review of the conditions of detention, management and oversight of all prisons. Members will be aware that I announced such a review in June 2010. The very impressive review team that we assembled, led by Dame Anne Owers, has been engaged in that work since July. The team is nearing completion of the first stage of its review, which I hope to publish later this month. The review will be crucial in ensuring that we achieve the kind of transformation and change that is necessary for the service.

The next action identified was a comprehensive strategy for the management of offenders. Work is under way to develop such a strategy under the heading of a comprehensive reducing offending strategy. The strategy aims to reshape fundamentally our approach to tackling the factors leading people into the criminal justice system and the obstacles that hinder them from getting back out of it. It is a broad project with far-reaching links across a number of Departments. It will demonstrate, more than any other, that, if we are really serious about reducing offending and reoffending in Northern Ireland, we will need to bring an Executive-wide focus to the task. The target for the publication of the strategy is February 2012.

A comprehensive reducing offending strategy will inform the direction of the criminal justice system over the next five to ten years. My expectation is that there will be opportunities for immediate improvements, but opportunities for substantial and sustainable gains are likely to mean investing in actions in the short term to reap benefits in the medium and longer term. Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of early intervention with young children at risk of becoming involved in offending. If we can divert young people from offending, the potential benefits for them, their families and communities and, indeed, Northern Ireland as a whole are enormous.

The next action identified was consideration of a women’s prison that is fit for purpose and meets international obligations and best practice. The issue of appropriate women’s prison facilities in Northern Ireland has been on the agenda for many years, but I am determined to resolve it. A business case is under development, and it takes account of projected future accommodation need and the potential to divert women from custody through appropriate community sentencing and early intervention. Further site options are being explored, and the 2010 capital allocation to the Department of Justice provides an opportunity for greater certainty about the potential to redevelop the sections of the prison estate, including women’s facilities, that are in greatest need of investment.

Other key actions were identified in the agreement. One of those is a review of how children and young people are processed at all stages of the criminal justice system, including detention, to ensure compliance with international obligations and best practice. I announced the commencement of that review in November 2010, and the review team has been engaged in an intensive series of meetings and briefings with a wide range of stakeholders, including the judiciary, young people, departmental officials and representatives of the statutory, voluntary and community sectors. The review team will report its findings and recommendations to me in June 2011.

Another action was the development of a victims’ code of practice to set out the minimum standard of service that criminal justice agencies will be expected to provide to the victims of crime and to consider whether all or part of such a code should be placed on a statutory footing. I announced a public consultation on the new code of practice in October 2010, and that consultation closed last week. Our next step is to review the responses with the aim of launching the code in advance of the dissolution of the Assembly in late March.

The final action identified in the agreement was a miscellaneous provisions Bill. That action is, of course, being delivered in the form of the Justice Bill, of which Members will be well aware. Its provisions include new and additional alternatives to prosecution, to which I referred; the creation of new policing and community safety partnerships; sports provisions; the creation of an offender levy that will resource the new victims of crime fund; and extending special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses giving evidence.

I should also provide the Assembly with an update on one aspect of the financial settlement, which was detailed in a letter from the then Prime Minister and then reproduced in the text of the agreement. The terms included a commitment that the Executive would have access to the reserve to meet any exceptional security pressures relating to policing and justice. On the same basis, HM Treasury was prepared to make available up to an additional £37·4 million in 2010-11. The Treasury provided that £37·4 million and approximately £13 million of additional support in that year. Under that aspect of the settlement, we have made a detailed and compelling case in recent months for an additional £200 million to help to maintain the service’s need to tackle the threat from terrorism over the next four years. I am assured that that case is in the final stages of consideration at the very highest levels of government.

Operations such as the one that we saw in north Belfast last week are a stark reminder of the need to protect our community from those who are intent on death and destruction in defiance of the clearly stated will of people from every community across this island. I will continue to press for an urgent decision that will provide the confidence that our community needs at this time.

I believe that we can look back with some sense of achievement on the matters that we committed to as parties at Hillsborough on 5 February and as MLAs in this place on 12 April. I am pleased to say that I have found the justice system as a whole ready and willing to change. I wish to place on record my thanks to the many officials and stakeholders across the system who have made such a significant and positive contribution to the programme of operational delivery and strategic reform in which we are engaged, a programme that goes well beyond the work that I have detailed in this statement. I also thank the Justice Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Morrow, for its advice and assistance since devolution last year.

I have said on numerous occasions that we will be judged on how the Assembly and Executive carry out their new responsibilities for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland. I must say that, in the many and varied contexts that I find myself as Minister of Justice, the expression that I hear from our community is one of enormous goodwill and continued support for the decision that we took to devolve justice powers to the Assembly. That continued support must not be taken for granted, and I wish to stress that, although much progress has been made, the programme of work that I outlined will present the Assembly with some significant decisions and challenges in the early years of the next mandate. If the parties in the Assembly continue to work together, we will retain the goodwill, support and co-operation of our wider community. The introductory paragraph of the Hillsborough agreement described its text as:

“an affirmation of our shared belief in the importance of working together in a spirit of partnership to deliver success for the entire community.”

Let that be our guide.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for today’s statement and wish to ask him about a couple points around it.

The Minister referred to the financial settlement and, in particular, to the commitment that the Executive would have access to the reserve to meet any exceptional security pressures relating to policing and justice. He also highlighted the bid made by the Chief Constable for an additional £200 million. Does he agree with the Justice Committee that it will not be possible to agree the budget for the Department of Justice until confirmation has been received that the bid will be granted because of the severe implications for that budget should it be unsuccessful or only partially successful? Given the very tight timescale within which we must have an agreed budget in place, it is imperative that the Treasury indicate immediately that the bid will be met in full. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline the actions that are being taken by him, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Executive as a whole to ensure that the bid is successful.

The Minister mentioned a review of how children and young people are processed at all stages of the criminal justice system. Will that review address the regrettable and totally unacceptable avoidable delays that currently happen in youth cases?

Finally, will the Minister provide the date on which the interim report on the review of the conditions of detention, management and oversight of all prisons will be available and the likely timescale for the achievement of the transformation that he believes is necessary for the service? Does he think that reform is likely to take three or four years or longer to achieve, or does he envisage it taking place in a shorter period?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Lord Morrow for that series of questions. I think that he claimed there were two, but I counted three, one of which had two parts.

First, he raised the extremely important issue of the financial situation. I met the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State as recently as yesterday afternoon. The Secretary of State informed the Chief Constable and me that the matter is being processed at the highest levels of government and is near to conclusion. I think that the Secretary of State is in no doubt — I do not believe that the Ministers in the Treasury could be in any doubt — about the vital importance of that £200 million bid being granted over the next CSR period. I have pursued that action continually with the Chief Constable over recent weeks and months.

The bid has also been supported in practice by the Executive and by the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in that an additional £45 million is being granted in the CSR period from Executive resources. That is the key to showing that this Assembly and Executive are doing all that can be expected of them to unlock the additional bid. However, Lord Morrow is absolutely right: the consequences of that bid not being met in full would be extremely serious for us all.

Lord Morrow also referred to delays in the court system. That has been one of my priorities since I took office, and some progress has been made. For example, there is better working between the PSNI and the PPS than we saw a year or two ago, but there is undoubtedly much more to be done. If young people are to be taken to court, they deserve an early court hearing in order that they can be made aware of the consequences of their actions at an early stage, which is likely to aid in the rehabilitation process. There is no point in delaying a young person’s case for years because, when they get to court, they may well have forgotten what the offence was all about. The issues of youth justice and delay include the concerns that Lord Morrow raised.

Lord Morrow asked specifically for a date for the publication of the interim report on the management and oversight of prisons. I understand that we are likely to be in a position to publish the report from the Owers team before the end of this month, but that is but the first step in a multi-step process. We need to start to make reforms in the Prison Service at a very early point, on financial grounds if nothing else. It is, frankly, unlikely that those will be achieved in full before close to the end of the next CSR period. However, we need to start making some early wins to ensure that we improve the management of our prisons and make some of the financial savings required.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. He knows that we have supported the prisons review; indeed, we met the review team on a number of occasions. There are a number of reports from the Criminal Justice Inspection about corporate management and governance as well as other reports, including those from the Prisoner Ombudsman. Given that there has been a recent announcement that corporate manslaughter will be put on the statute book —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I urge the Member to come to his question.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I was just laying the context for it, a Cheann Comhairle.

As we await the outcome of the interim report, is this an appropriate time for the Minister to take steps to put the powers of the Prisoner Ombudsman on a statutory basis?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McCartney for helping me to set out the circumstances. His remarks were possibly slightly briefer than mine.

The Member asked whether this was the time for statutory powers for the Prisoner Ombudsman. I said in my statement, as on other occasions, that I am committed to statutory powers being granted. However, in the context in which the First Minister and deputy First Minister are reviewing the process for ombudsmen in general — I understand that the matter is also before the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister — there is a limit to what we can do if other matters are changing and may affect the process. I recently wrote, for the second time, to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ask them where the wider review of ombudsman powers was. I am committed, as soon as I know the wider position, to looking at how to review the powers of the Prisoner Ombudsman. Indeed, the roles of other ombudsmen who relate to the justice system need to be examined at the same time.

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

I welcome the statement this morning. The SDLP fully supports the programme that has been outlined. We welcome the progress made, although we would like it to be faster, and we support what the Minister is doing.

I agree that community sentences are not a soft option. Of those who serve such sentences, three out of four do not reoffend. Can the Minister square that with the reduction in the Probation Board’s budget, which will mean the loss of 60 jobs? That will interfere with and perhaps reduce the Probation Board’s good work on community sentences.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Maginness for his compliments and for his support during my time in office. I can say only that I, as Minister, would also like faster progress on some issues, but we all know that significant change cannot be achieved that quickly.

The Member mentioned the budget for the probation service. That seems to be slightly outwith the scope of this statement, but I will try to respond. The details of the Department’s budget are still being worked through, and there are issues that relate to exactly where different cuts will fall. Members are aware that the Department of Justice, in common with other Departments, has to bear its share of the cuts. Discussions are ongoing between the probation service and the relevant section of the Department to determine what adjustments can be made. I fully recognise the probation service’s good work, which is, as the Member highlighted, extremely successful. Indeed, it is an exemplar in these islands of work that is successful in diverting people from crime. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the service can be exempt from cuts. However, I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that money is put into the most effective front line services, regardless of which agency or, in some cases, which NGO provides them.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the progress to date on what is, ultimately, a long-term and wide-ranging programme of reform.

One of the features of the Hillsborough agreement was the considerable detail provided on the headline policies. To what extent has policy being agreed in advance helped the Minister with implementation? What wider lessons does he take from that feature of the Hillsborough agreement?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank my colleague for his supportive words. The fact that I took up office as Minister of Justice with such a firm statement of policy proposals in the Hillsborough Castle Agreement — those were expanded on and further worked through in discussions that colleagues and I had with other parties before I was elected Minister — has been of considerable benefit to the operation of the Department of Justice. That is particularly the case with the Justice Bill, which is well advanced on its journey through the Assembly, and with other aspects of the programme that I highlighted this morning.

Perhaps there is a lesson there for the entire operation of the Executive, but I suspect that I would be being even more mischievous if I were to extend the discussion much further at this stage.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister’s statement touched on the review that is taking place, and we await the detail of it. We will be looking for the balance in prisons to be turned from a focus on prisoners’ rights and privileges to one in which the staff are in control so that we could prevent incidents such as the one that occurred only last week. On that incident, will the Minister advise the House what measures are being put in place to ensure that there is a robust regime and that adequate searches can take place to prevent similar items being smuggled into prisons and inappropriate images being downloaded? What review and actions took place immediately after the incident to restrict prisoners’ access to computer facilities and equipment? Furthermore, will the Minister give details of any restrictions on the prisoner in question that have been put in place while the investigation is ongoing?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his comments. I am not sure what last week’s incident at Maghaberry has to do with my statement of progress against the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. However, I will respond briefly to the Member’s questions.

A planned, intelligence-led search uncovered a mobile phone in the prison and illegal access to the Internet by a prisoner. The incident was a good sign of the Prison Service acting proactively, and it was followed up with a full examination, not just of that computer, but of all computers to which prisoners had access, resulting in the full forensic examination of a number of them. So far, the issue that Mr Givan highlighted is the only one that has been drawn to the Prison Service’s attention. In fact, it is an example of how good work in the Prison Service has led to a problem being uncovered, so, rather than using it as an opportunity to parody the service, we should recognise it as an example of something that it got right.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Providing better access to justice was cited in the addendum to the Programme for Government and, indeed, throughout the sentiments of the Justice Bill. Will the Minister clarify how families who have attempted over many years to gain access to court inquests in order to find out the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved ones should proceed? Furthermore, will the Minister clarify the position on legal aid for families who pursue such cases?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. The access to justice review looks, of course, to the future of access rather than specifically at historical inquests. Learning how to resolve the issues of the past is a major problem for this society, and it is a matter of considerable regret to me that, despite other people being responsible for dealing with the legacy of the past, the great bulk of the work is being done by the Police Service’s Historical Enquiries Team, the Coroners Service, which is carrying out historical inquests, and, indeed, the Police Ombudsman. All those bodies relate to the Department of Justice and all are budgeted for the future not the past.

I have been seeking to ensure that there is adequate funding to deal with legacy inquests. Frankly, the issue goes way beyond the responsibilities of the Department of Justice, and I sometimes wish that, collectively, in conjunction with those in the Northern Ireland Office who also bear responsibility, we could recognise that we have a considerable need to deal with the past, which is not being addressed adequately at the moment.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the many actions that he described in it, the most important of which is the code of practice for dealing with victims. Far too often, the judicial system appears to favour perpetrators over victims. Will the Minister assure the House that the code of practice for dealing with victims will be fit for purpose and will give due credence to the hurt and pain that victims experience and that the balance will change so that victims’ rights are protected over those of perpetrators?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his complimentary remarks. I understand that, at this stage, we have had 20 responses to the consultation on the code of practice, which has just closed. Those responses have generally been positive about the proposals. It is clear that, at different stages in the criminal justice system, victims have, up to now, not felt well treated. We have good examples and examples where different agencies failed to keep victims informed about the process or provide them with proper support. I hope that the code of practice will be fully launched before the dissolution of the Assembly. It will considerably strengthen the services provided to victims by all the agencies in the criminal justice system.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement this morning. Will he provide an update on the unavoidable delays in the criminal justice system and outline what action he has taken to speed up and streamline the justice system in Northern Ireland? That action was outlined in the Hillsborough agreement and is much needed for victims.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member. Earlier, I referred briefly to the issue of speeding up the criminal justice system. I addressed that issue with the Criminal Justice Board in my second week in office, and it is now directed by the issues group that I established by bringing together people at senior level in the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the Department of Justice and in consultation with the judiciary. Good work is being done at different levels, but we still need to ensure that we get a full joining-up of the different agencies. I have been very pleased by the better relationships that I have seen between the Police Service and the Public Prosecution Service in ensuring that files are prepared and handled properly. We also have examples at county court level of work that has been done to ensure that cases are speeded up and that there is not a perpetual culture of adjournments. We also need to ensure that, as the Bill proposes, we divert less serious offenders from the justice system entirely. We hope to do so by fixed penalties and prosecutorial cautions, both of which will make an impact. However, we still require the system to act in a more joined-up way, and I am committed to continuing to drive that forward.

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

I, too, welcome the statement this morning, particularly the Minister’s update on the review of the conditions of detention management and oversight of prisoners. I note that during the period of the review, there have been serious failings in the management and oversight of prisoners. Therefore, specifically, how many prison officers have been disciplined as a result of the unintended releases from Maghaberry and from Belfast and Downpatrick courts?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that I cannot give the Member an answer to that at this point. However, I will write to him with the exact numbers.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement. I want to ask about reviews of alternatives to custody and, indeed, diversionary alternatives to prosecution. What guidelines will be issued to the Police Service and others to ensure that those measures are carried out in an appropriate and proper manner and that the public can be confident that such measures are being carried out proportionately?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for the question. The simple answer is that we need to ensure that, when we carry out the review, we see the responses and ensure that appropriate guidance is developed, not just for the Police Service but for all the relevant agencies. There is no doubt that there are significant opportunities if we develop alternatives to custody. I have already highlighted the successes of non-custodial sentences and, for example, the work being done by the Probation Service on probation orders or community service orders. However, it is clear that we need to ensure that the review brings together all the evidence and produces a package that is implemented across the entire system.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I want to ask about the £200 million. I welcome the fact that that case is nearing a conclusion to deal with the terrorist dissident threat. However, given that, in 2010-11, almost £50 million has been spent to deal with the security threat, which will total £200 million over a four-year period, and given the very expensive nature of operations, such as the one on the Antrim Road the other day, will the Minister assure the Assembly that if additional pressure comes over the next four years and a compelling case is made by the Chief Constable for additional funding over and above what is now being sought, he, along with the Finance Minister, will take that case to the Treasury?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Spratt for that supportive comment. I should make it clear that the £200 million that is being sought from the Treasury is in addition to the £45 million that has been granted from Executive funds, so it is a slight increase over the baseline of the year that is ending. However, as I will continue to do, I have made it clear that the bid for additional funding in the current CSR period is based on the current level of security threat. If there is any increase in that threat, I will support the Chief Constable in making a further robust case to the Treasury.

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

I note the Minister’s earlier answer about placing the Prisoner Ombudsman on a statutory basis, and I support that very strongly. However, I am concerned about his consideration of amalgamating that function with other ombudsman services. Will he agree that the function of the Prisoner Ombudsman is absolutely distinctive in character and, therefore, needs to be protected in a body that is absolutely separate and independent?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr O’Loan for his point. It is clear that there is a specific function to be performed, which is performed currently by the Prisoner Ombudsman. However, given the range of issues that have to be considered and the range of ombudsman-type services that exist, in the current financial circumstances, we have to look seriously at what opportunities there are for co-operation, such as shared back office services. The independence of the function must be absolute, but that does not necessarily mean that the organisation could continue in the same way, given the financial pressures that we are under.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for the frequency with which he has updated the House on what is a significant programme of reform. Given that, this morning, the House recognised the benefit of the Executive working together, how important does the Minister think it is that the Executive work together to deliver the reducing offending strategy, particularly to prevent children and young people from entering the justice system?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Again, Mr Speaker, I seem to be getting a very easy ride this morning. I thank the Member for that point. He is absolutely right on the necessity of the Executive working together. Indeed, I trust that it is not breaching confidence too far to say that, under the work that is being done in the Executive subgroup on children and young people, there have been discussions about the best way of managing the work that is being done and about who should take the lead. It seems to me that responsibility for some areas of the welfare of children at an early stage falls to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. However, there are also issues on which the Department of Justice, particularly through the Youth Justice Agency, is probably more appropriately placed to take a lead than had been the case in the Executive before the Department was established.

I am discussing those points with ministerial colleagues. My colleague’s point was exactly right: we need to ensure that there is full Executive co-ordination, co-operation and partnership working, because so many of the issues that we face are cross-cutting, and if we continue to deal with them in silos, we are in real trouble.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Michelle Gildernew, to move the Consideration Stage of the Welfare of Animals Bill.

Moved. — [The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew).]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

There are five groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. Members should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 and 19, which deal with prohibited procedures and clarify the routine procedures that will continue to be permitted in the Bill. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 5 to 10 and 20, which deal with the docking of dogs’ tails. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 3 and 4, which remove an exemption in the Bill to offences relating to photographs and videos of animals fighting. The fourth debate will be on amendment Nos 11 and 12, which deal with enforcement and clarify the meaning of an “inspector”. The fifth debate will be on amendment Nos 13 to 18 and 21, which deal with subordinate legislation, principally concerning a change in regulation-making powers from negative resolution to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Prohibited procedures)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. The group comprises amendment Nos 1 to 19. The amendments deal with prohibited procedures and clarify the routine procedures that will continue to be permitted in the Bill.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 3, line 31, leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7) and insert

“(5) This section does not apply—

(a) in relation to—

(i) any procedure carried out by a veterinary surgeon;

(ii) any procedure carried out for the diagnosis of disease;

(iii) any procedure carried out for the purposes of medical treatment of an animal;

(iv) any other procedure which is specified in regulations made by the Department;

(b) to the removal of the whole or any part of a dog’s tail (which is dealt with in section 6).

(6) Before making regulations under subsection (5), the Department must consult such persons appearing to the Department to represent relevant interests as the Department considers appropriate.”

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 19: Leave out schedule 1. — [The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew).]

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Before I speak to the first group of amendments, I take the opportunity to thank the Chairperson, his predecessor and members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development for their detailed and constructive scrutiny of the Bill. The 13 amendments that I tabled are the result of a lot of hard work and the efforts of the Office of the Legislative Counsel, our legal advisers and officials in my Department. I thank everyone involved for their efforts. In particular, I thank the many stakeholders who contributed to the Bill’s development. Their advice and contributions have been invaluable.

The amendments that I tabled will strengthen the Bill, which, in turn, will put us at the forefront in our protection of farmed and non-farmed animals. I will discuss the amendments in detail in a moment. First, I want to remind the Assembly why the Bill is before us and speak about its key benefits. The Bill is intended to replace the Welfare of Animals Act1972, which, at almost 40 years old, is no longer sufficient to deal with the animal welfare issues of today. The Bill updates and strengthens the existing powers in that Act. The Bill’s new powers will address the legislative gap between the high level of protection afforded to farmed animals compared with the somewhat limited protection given to non-farmed animals, including domestic pets and horses.

The key benefits of the Bill are as follows: a duty of care will be provided to all protected animals, including domestic pets and horses; it will be possible to take action to prevent animals from suffering, as opposed to the current position, in which action can be taken only after suffering has occurred; stronger powers will be provided to deal with animal fighting, including dog fighting; powers will be provided to regulate, through subordinate legislation, a wide range of activities involving animals, such as dog-breeding establishments; and it will increase the penalties for serious animal welfare offences.

My proposed amendments do not change those key benefits. In some instances, they strengthen them. For example, the amendment to clause 8 provides further, stronger powers to curtail animal fighting.

I turn now to the amendments to the Bill. Amendment No 1 is one of a group of two amendments, amendments Nos 1 and 19, which deal with prohibited procedures. Prohibited procedures are those that interfere with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal, such as ear cropping of dogs, devocalising of birds or dogs, and so on. Clause 5 makes it an offence to carry out a prohibited procedure on any protected animal unless it is carried out by a veterinary surgeon or is specified as being exempted from general prohibition. Normal farming practices would continue to be allowed.

Amendment No 1 provides clarification as to the routine procedures that will continue to be permitted and includes regulation-making powers to specify all permitted procedures, which would otherwise be prohibited by the powers in the Bill. The amendment was suggested by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and some stakeholders who felt that the original clause and associated schedule did not clearly set out all routine procedures, such as ear tagging of cattle and sheep and castration of lambs, which will continue to be permitted after the Bill’s enactment. The amendment will allow the Department to make subordinate legislation to specify each and every procedure that will continue to be permitted. Such legislation will be subject to consultation with stakeholders and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and it will be made by draft affirmative resolution of the Assembly.

Amendment No 19 is consequential to amendment No 1 in that schedule 1 would no longer be required, as all procedures that would continue to be permitted under the Bill would be included in subordinate legislation that is made under the amended clause 5. In addition, the first two elements that are in schedule 1 have been included in clause 5 as part of the amendment. Therefore, schedule 1 should be removed from the Bill.

I propose to amend clause 5 and to remove schedule 1 from the Bill, as agreed with the Committee. I urge Members to support amendment No 1 in this group and to facilitate the removal of schedule 1 from the Bill. When it comes to the vote on the schedule, I intend to oppose that it stands part of the Bill. I encourage Members to do the same. Those are the group 1 amendments. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I want to thank Committee members, departmental officials, all witnesses who appeared before or made representations to the Committee, the Bill Office and the Committee support team for their important contributions to the Bill.

I support the proposed amendment to clause 5 and the Minister’s opposition to schedule 1. During Committee Stage, members expressed concern as to the definition of a prohibited procedure. They indicated that they required clarity on which routine farming procedures would be permitted to be carried out. Members, therefore, proposed — I am glad to say that the Department agreed — that it would be beneficial to set out in subordinate legislation the routine procedures that would be permitted when the Bill is enacted.

The new list of procedures will, in due course, negate the need for schedule 1 to the Bill, which, we have been advised, will be opposed by the Minister, rather than the Bill being amended in order to have it removed. The Committee has not discussed that development. However, as it has the same effect as amendment No 19, I feel confident to say on the Committee’s behalf that it will support the Minister’s opposition to schedule 1.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Develop­ment supports amendment No 1 and is opposed to schedule 1’s standing part of the Bill.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest as a local councillor, as some aspects of the Bill would, ultimately, engage local councils in the protection of animal welfare. I welcome the Bill’s Consideration Stage. The Bill will give greater protection to the welfare of animals.

In the first group of amendments for debate, amendment Nos 1 and 19 jointly bring positive change. As has been indicated, the Assembly is asked to approve enabling legislation. Detailed regulation can be agreed in subordinate legislation. That will allow much greater flexibility from the Minister and the Department in meeting animals’ needs and, indeed, those of industry that is involved in that area.

In giving the Department the ability to make regulations, it is important to note that the Bill requires that the affirmative resolution procedure will be required on every aspect but one. Therefore, this is not giving power to the Department carte blanche, but is enabling it to make regulations that, ultimately, will have to be approved by the Assembly, which is entirely appropriate. Therefore, I am comfortable in supporting amendment Nos 1 and 19, which will remove schedule 1.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As I said in my opening remarks, amendment No 1 will provide clarification to animal owners and set out clearly the procedures that will continue to be permitted. The subordinate legislation will specify, as appropriate, the time frame within which the procedure can be carried out, whether an anaesthetic must be administered and whether a veterinary surgeon must undertake the procedure.

I am grateful for the Committee’s contribution on the amendments, and I call on Members to support amendment No 1 and to oppose that schedule 1 stands part of the Bill.

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Docking of dogs’ tails)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate, which relate to the docking of dogs’ tails. With amendment No 2, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 5 to 10 and amendment No 20. Members should note that amendment Nos 5 to 10 and amendment No 20 are consequential to amendment No 2.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 4, line 18, leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6) and insert

“(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the dog is a certified working dog that is not more than 5 days old.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), a dog is a certified working dog if a veterinary surgeon has certified, in accordance with regulations made by the Department, that the first and second conditions mentioned below are met.

(6) The first condition referred to in subsection (5) is that there has been produced to the veterinary surgeon such evidence as the Department may by regulations require for the purpose of showing that the dog is likely to be used for work in connection with law enforcement, lawful pest control or the lawful shooting of animals.

(7) The second condition referred to in subsection (5) is that the dog is of a breed specified in Schedule 1A for the purposes of this subsection.

(8) The Department may by regulations add to, or remove, breeds of dog from the list in Schedule 1A.

(9) It is a defence for a person accused of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) to show that that person reasonably believed that the dog was one in relation to which subsection (4) applies.

(10) A person commits an offence if—

(a) that person owns a subsection (4) dog, and

(b) fails to take reasonable steps to secure that, before the dog is 8 weeks old, it is identified as a subsection (4) dog in accordance with regulations made by the Department.

(11) A person commits an offence if that person takes a dog, or causes a dog to be taken, from a place in Northern Ireland for the purpose of having the whole or any part of its tail removed, otherwise than for the purpose of medical treatment administered by a veterinary surgeon.

(12) A person commits an offence if—

(a) that person shows a dog at an event to which that person pays a fee or members of the public are admitted on payment of a fee,

(b) the dog’s tail has been wholly or partly removed (in Northern Ireland or elsewhere), and

(c) the removal took place after the coming into operation of this section.

(13) Where a dog is shown only for the purpose of demonstrating its working ability, subsection (12) does not apply if the dog is a subsection (4) dog.

(14) It is a defence for a person accused of an offence under subsection (12) to show that that person reasonably believed—

(a) that the event was not one to which that person paid a fee or members of the public were admitted on payment of a fee;

(b) that the removal took place before the coming into operation of this section; or

(c) that the dog was one in relation to which subsection (13) applies.

(15) A person commits an offence if that person knowingly gives false information to a veterinary surgeon in connection with the giving of a certificate for the purposes of this section.

(16) The Department may by regulations make provision about the functions of inspectors in relation to—

(a) certificates for the purposes of this section, and

(b) the identification of dogs as subsection (4) dogs.

(17) Before making regulations under this section, the Department must consult such persons appearing to the Department to represent any interests concerned as the Department considers appropriate.

(18) In this section ‘subsection (4) dog’ means a dog whose tail has, after the coming into operation of this section, been wholly or partly removed without contravening subsection (1), because of the application of subsection (4).”

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 5: In clause 31, page 18, line 18, leave out “sections 6(5)” and insert “sections 6(5) and 6(10)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

No 6: In clause 31, page 18, line 24, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

No 7: In clause 32, page 18, line 31, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

No 8: In clause 33, page 20, line 17, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

No 9: In clause 36, page 21, line 36, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

No 10: In clause 41, page 25, line 3, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

No 20: After schedule 1, insert the following new schedule

“SCHEDULE 1A

DOGS SPECIFIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 6(7)

1.—(1) Spaniels of any breed or combination of breeds.

(2) Terriers of any breed or combination of breeds.

(3) Any breed commonly used for hunting, or any combination of such breeds.

(4) Any breed commonly used for pointing, or any combination of such breeds.

(5) Any breed commonly used for retrieving, or any combination of such breeds.” — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

Amendment Nos 2 and 20 relate to tail docking and amendment Nos 5 to 10 relate to the varying levels of penalties.

Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, and that of the House, I will provide clarity on how the Committee arrived at this stage. I do so in the hope that the Committee can remove the confusion surrounding clause 6 and tail docking that some Members and the wider Northern Ireland constituency may be experiencing. If Members have queries on the matter, I will be happy to note them during the debate and respond during my winding-up speech on the amendments.

Tail docking is a medical procedure to remove part of the tail. Typically, it is done by snipping off the tail with surgical scissors. It may also be done by placing a band on to the tail to cut off blood supply, causing the tail to fall off. Docking is carried out by a veterinarian between two and five days of the start of a puppy’s life. However, older puppies and dogs require general anaesthesia and must undergo the more major procedure of tail amputation.

Tail docking is controversial, and the majority of debate during Committee Stage was on that matter. Those who support tail docking consider it a routine procedure that is practical and minimally painful. On the other hand, many who disapprove describe it as a painful mutilation that is unnecessary.

When the principles of the Bill were first presented to the Committee 12 months ago, the Department indicated that it was of a mind to ban the docking of dogs’ tails. The Committee was aware of the importance of working dogs in the rural community and that tail docking was often performed on them to protect their tails from injury in the field. The Committee has been consistent in its belief that there should be an exemption in respect of working dogs on welfare grounds while acknowledging that the cosmetic docking of tails brings no welfare benefits to the dog and should, therefore, be banned. That belief was communicated to the Department on numerous occasions. However, in the interests of transparency, the Committee agreed at that stage that it wished to see strong evidence from the Department supporting the case for a total ban. It is regrettable that the Department failed, in the Committee’s view, to provide any substantive evidence supporting the total ban on tail docking.

At the first Committee Stage evidence session on 22 September 2010, despite the fact that, again, members called for an exemption for working dogs, the Department continued to state that it would seek to ban tail docking, indicating that that was based on advice, not evidence.

The Department’s precise words were:

“The advice on which we are working came from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and our vets.”

That is from the Hansard report of the Committee meeting on 22 September 2009. That is important, because it is indicative of the total reluctance of the Department to listen to alternative views, of its dismissal of all other evidence — I stress the word evidence — presented to it, and of its refusal to hear the voices of the rural community.

I will return to the advice that the Department received from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) in a moment, but I would like to mention a particular concern about the language that the RCVS and, more particularly, the Department, used during Committee Stage. That included the term “mutilation” when referring to tail docking. That is an extremely emotive term aimed at provoking public reaction and grabbing the headlines. That was, however, surpassed by the Department’s likening of the docking of a dog’s tail to “cutting off your wee finger”. Unsubstantiated, unsupported statements of that type, clearly aimed at making newspaper headlines, rather than at furthering an argument, are unnecessary and unhelpful.

I now turn to the main scientific evidence that was presented by the Department in support of the ban on docking. As previously stated, that was based on the advice received from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and on a University of Bristol report that the Department introduced as evidence during Committee Stage. The report was titled, with another flurry of emotive headlines, ‘Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain’. As evidence of the Committee’s desire to be convinced by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, members took evidence from Vets NI in March 2010 on behalf of the college, and again from Vets NI, this time supported by the RCVS, on 12 October. It is a matter of record in Hansard how the latter meeting went, and I assure Members that the first meeting was no different.

With the indulgence of the House, I will briefly summarise the arguments made during the evidence sessions. Vets NI apprised the Committee of four reasons to oppose tail docking: pain; the removal of an appendage that is used for communication; the potential for long-term side effects; and the lack of long-term benefits to the animal. When a puppy’s tail is docked before it is five days old, it is not docked under anaesthetic. We asked how the vets assessed the extent of pain to the puppy. The vets described how the dogs yelped but then stopped because they have a natural defence mechanism whereby they remain quiet so as not to reveal themselves to predators. That is in spite of the fact that dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years.

We then referred to previous evidence, submitted to the Committee and to colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, that the pain could be likened to a burn to the hand that would make one utter the word “ouch”. We then put to them the evidence given to the Scottish Parliament by a vet in favour of the ban, who stated:

“Pain is present, however minor and fleeting, and it can be measured. Pain is possibly the least powerful argument as it is so slight.”

Representatives of Vets NI confirmed that the pain was slight. They stated that the extent of the pain would be similar to receiving an injection. Finally, they said that pain was a factor, but not the major factor as far as they were concerned.

The second assertion was that a dog with a docked tail would have its communication impaired. Again, members of the Committee challenged that, suggesting that the attitude of a dog as it was approached was a more relevant form of communication. Vets NI praised the Committee for its accurate observations before conceding that the tail was only one method of communication and that, for example, half-docking a tail would not significantly affect a dog’s communication levels.

The third reason for supporting a ban was the long-term side effects of docking, which include tumours. However, under direct questioning by the Committee about the number of post-operative effects, including tumours, VetNI stated:

“There is no question that it is a small percentage”.

The representative said that he could not argue that it is a major factor.

The final reason for banning tail docking was that there is a long-term benefit to the dog. That was the core of the matter, because the Committee has argued that the exemption in the amendment was for the long-term welfare benefit of a working dog. We asked for the number of working dogs seen with tail injuries. Although they referred to the Bristol University report, which I will come to shortly, the VetNI representatives stated that, as private practitioners, they found the numbers to be low. When asked whether that might be because working dogs’ tails were docked, they could not deny that. When asked which procedure was more painful, docking the working dog before it was five days old or allowing a mature dog to endure tail damage and amputation, they stated that it would be a more painful procedure for the mature dog.

To summarise, the advice on which the Minister and her Department initially based their decision to ban the docking of dogs’ tails was negligible. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, represented by VetNI, categorically stated that pain was not a major factor, communication was not a major factor, side effects were not a major factor, and the long-term benefits to working dogs were best served through tail docking before the pup was five days old because that was significantly less painful. Those are the facts.

I will now turn to the report entitled ‘Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain’, commissioned primarily by the Welsh Assembly and carried out by the Royal Veterinary College and Bristol University. The report claimed that 500 tails would need to be docked in order to prevent damage to one tail: another emotive and disgraceful headline used by the vets and the Department to support their unsubstantiated arguments rather than relying on evidence.

It was claimed that that was the conclusion of that scientific report and concrete evidence that tail docking was wrong and should be banned. However, let us look at the evidence in the report. The evidence was based on a survey sample of 52 veterinary surgeries in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland was not sampled. The 52 surgeries were not selected to be representative of rural communities, although they were stratified to include that, but on the basis of the available practice management software.

That process originally identified 314 practices, of which 198 immediately refused to participate, without providing a reason. A further 64 did not respond to the survey. The sample size of the number of dogs was then further selected by doing a search of the word “tail”. That resulted in 138,212 dogs, of which 29 were working dogs, roughly 0·02% of the survey. I say roughly because of those, one was a racing greyhound, one a German shepherd police dog and three were herding collies, all of which are not traditionally docked.

Some 281 of the dogs sampled — 0·2% — were recorded as having tail injuries, with 30 mature dogs having had their tail amputated. From that figure of 0·2% came the conclusion that 500 dogs would need to have their tails docked to prevent damage to one tail. One has to question the impartiality of such a statement when the survey was carried out by, among others, the Royal Veterinary College, a body opposed to the docking of tails.

The survey indicated that 281 dogs from the 52 surgeries sampled suffered injury, an average of approximately five dogs per surgery. On average, 0·6% of mature dogs per surgery required amputation. There are 4,853 registered veterinary practices in England, Scotland and Wales, and approximately 155 in Northern Ireland. If we extrapolate the average figures for the total number of surgeries in England, Scotland and Wales, it would equate to 6,645 injuries to working dogs, with an average risk factor of 0·29% to working dogs. In Northern Ireland, 45 working dogs would be injured. Those figures equate to some 3,987 unnecessary amputations on working dogs in mainland UK and 13 very painful amputations on mature working dogs in Northern Ireland. Where is the long-term benefit to the dog in that? Where is its welfare considered? Where is the undeniable evidence that the Department heralded, especially when the report went as far as to identify its own weaknesses in its conclusions, which are obvious to all.

There is a more significant injury risk to working dogs. Injuries to dogs with docked tails are less frequent than to those with undocked tails. A separate survey should be carried out specifically on working dogs. There was no evidence or mind-shattering facts and figures to convince the Committee that docking the tail of a working dog for welfare reasons was wrong and should not be carried out. There was no road to Damascus conversion — nothing. The evidence was not there, the arguments were not made and the Department had no case.

The Committee called on the Department on a number of occasions to negotiate an amendment that would allow for an exemption for working dogs. That is recorded in the Hansard reports and in the minutes of proceedings. The Department would not negotiate or compromise on that so, at its meeting of 28 September 2010, the Committee took the decision to force the Department to compromise by agreeing to vote against the inclusion of clause 6. That has been misinterpreted as the Committee agreeing to the wholesale docking of dogs’ tails. I emphasise that that is not the case. The Committee does not wish, and has never wished, to support cosmetic docking of tails. There are absolutely no welfare benefits in the cosmetic docking of tails.

The decision was taken to force DARD to the table with a compromise. The official letter to the Department following the 28 September meeting states:

“The Committee consensus was that this evidence is inconclusive and, as a result, the Committee decided that Clause 6 should be removed from the Bill. The Committee would ask that the Department indicate, at the earliest possible moment, whether it intends to remove or seek to amend the clause.”

That is a matter of public record and it is a position that the Committee has consistently maintained. That position eventually brought the Minister and the Department to the table with a proposed amendment that, despite moving some distance, still fell very short of doing the right thing.

The Minister considered that there was inconclusive evidence to justify an exemption for the docking of working dogs’ tails. Put another way, there was inconclusive evidence to justify the banning of tail docking for working dogs. Nevertheless, the Minister tabled an amendment with the Committee on 16 November 2010 to allow an exemption for pure-bred spaniels and hunt point retrievers. However, that amendment did not address the policy principle of exempting working dogs that are involved in pest control. In rural areas, the main group of dogs that undertake that very valuable service are terriers. The Committee sought the inclusion of terriers, but the Department refused. For that reason, the Committee has tabled an amendment to the clause, although, interestingly, the Department has not.

The Committee has had sight of the policy principles. As I have previously indicated, the Committee is opposed to the cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails. The amendment seeks to ban that practice. The Committee also agrees with the Department’s inclusion of a ban on showing dogs with docked tails. Removing the forum where the vast majority of cosmetically docked tails are displayed seems appropriate and logical.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

No. I am not taking interventions; I have quite a bit to get through. I want to clarify a few matters. The ban on showing dogs with docked tails is in the Bill as introduced by the Department; it is not a Committee initiative, but the Committee is happy to support it. Similar legislation has been introduced in England and Wales, and although Scotland continues to allow dogs with docked tails to be shown, it has completely banned the docking of dogs’ tails. In a few years’ time, the various bans in Scotland, England and Wales will mean that dog shows will be made up of dogs that have not had their tails docked. In its correspondence to the Committee, the Kennel Club, to which many Northern Ireland dog shows are affiliated, suggested that although it was disappointed with the Committee’s decision, a total and immediate ban on showing dogs with docked tails should be introduced to provide clarity to its members.

Through amendment No 2 the Committee is also seeking to close a loophole that was identified in England and Wales, where legislation bans the showing of dogs when a member of the public is admitted on the payment of a fee or admittance charge. That provision is also in the Welfare of Animals Bill, and it has led to some shows in England and Wales dispensing with an admittance fee and charging a car parking fee instead. In order to protect against what is an obvious attempt to circumvent the spirit of the law, with amendment No 2 the Committee is seeking to create new subsection 6(12) so that a person will commit an offence if they show dogs with docked tails at shows to which a member of the public has paid a fee. That has attracted criticism from dog show organisers and dog owners, and a show newsletter in the United Kingdom suggested that it should be opposed as it closed a loophole. However, the Committee sees new subsection 6(12) as a means of reducing the incentive for the cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails while protecting dog shows.

The second area on which I want to provide clarity is when a ban would take effect, should amendment No 2 be accepted. The Committee and other Members have received correspondence on that matter from legitimately concerned owners and dog shows. It is tied up with the amendment to clause 45 and an agreement between the Committee and the Department in a different group of amendments that has yet to be debated. In summary, local government enforcement powers will not be introduced for 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is expected in April 2011. Local government will be required to enforce the subordinate legislation required for tail docking, and the earliest that the Department will bring that legislation to the Committee and the House is April 2012.

I assure Members and those who are involved in the showing of dogs that dogs that have their tails docked before the legislation is enacted in April 2012 can continue to be shown for the remainder of their natural show lives. If the amendment is accepted, the ban will affect only those dogs that have their tails docked after the legislation has received Royal Assent. I am happy to note any concerns on that issue.

I appreciate that I have taken up a considerable amount of time on the issue of tail docking, but it is important. No doubt, others will want to speak on amendment No 2 and I will, therefore, move to the other amendments in the group that deal with penalties. Amendment No 2 will also, if accepted, introduced two new offences: failing to identify a dog as an exempted breed under proposed new subsection 6(10); and the provision of false information to a veterinary surgeon about an exempted dog under proposed new subsection 6(15).

The Committee agreed that failing to identify a dog as an exempted breed was an offence that merited a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000. It also agreed that the offence of providing false information about the certification of an exempted breed to a veterinary surgeon was an extremely serious offence that required the more serious deterrent of up to two years’ imprisonment on indictment and/or and unlimited fine. An illegal breeder who docked the tails of a large number of pups and forged the certification would attract the more serious penalty, and its imposition may also allow for that breeder to be disqualified from keeping animals. However, in that instance, the dogs could be seized, and, as unfortunately happens all too frequently, the pups would have to be destroyed. That is a deterrent to the habitual offender and one that will be exercised only in the specific circumstances in which the welfare of the dog is so severely threatened as to merit such action.

Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I have reached my concluding remarks.

The Committee has stated consistently that the welfare of dogs is the priority of the Bill. The Committee, the Minister and her Department agree that the cosmetic docking of tails is wrong and should be stopped and not encouraged. The Committee is convinced that the exemption in the proposed schedule 1A protects and enhances the welfare of working dogs, and that the penalties proposed are justified. The House is faced with a straightforward decision: either allow mature working dogs to face extremely traumatic surgery on fully-developed tails by agreeing to the total ban on tail docking, or recognise the significant benefits that will result from the banning of cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails, taking into account the very well-developed welfare benefits that exemption would bring to working dogs. I genuinely hope that the House can get behind the Committee and support the second group of amendments. I commend them to the House.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I declare an interest as a member of Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council. As has been said before, councils will have enforcement and licensing roles.

I wish to speak to amendment No 2 in this group of amendments, particularly on clause 6 which relates to tail docking. As the Chairperson said, most of the time spent discussing the Bill was consumed by this issue. It is unfortunate that it was added to the legislation, especially as there was largely agreement on the other issues and on the way of dealing with them, including dog fighting, which we will come to later. However, the fact that tail docking was included in an animal welfare Bill seemed out of place.

As we said many times in Committee, if we are talking about the welfare of animals, we are talking about the welfare of all animals. There are contradictions in the Bill in that lambs’ tails and pigs’ tails can still be docked, and pigs’ teeth can be cut. Also, items such as castration and cutting horns — things that have been going on for years with the Department’s approval — can still be carried out. Nevertheless, the Department picked one aspect that was outside its role, which is the docking of dogs’ tails. If the Department was honest about the matter, it would say that this was not something that was mentioned daily on the radio or television, and that the community was not crying out for such legislation. I think that the Assembly should be trying to follow the needs of the people, and not simply creating draconian legislation that imposes fines and prison terms on the general public and, in this case, on dog owners and breeders.

We must put it into context.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Does the Member accept that the term “cosmetic tail docking” was probably created by the Department to lead the Committee to introduce the ban? Many members were contacted by various organisations whose members have breeds of dogs with docked tails. They were all passionate about how they keep their animals and would not dock tails for cosmetic purposes, other than for the welfare of the animals.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I was going to make the point that cosmetic tail docking is an emotional title that has been included to persuade people that it is being done for cosmetic purposes, such as image and looks. However, many breeders who show dogs and who also have working dogs say that it is not done for cosmetic reasons, but for the welfare of the long-term life of the dog and to prevent injury to tails in the future. The issue of cosmetic tail docking needs to be qualified further. It is clear that the main issue for dog owners and breeders is looking after their dogs. Not only do they want to protect, administer medication to and groom their dogs to perfection but they want to look after their welfare. For owners and breeders, the term “cosmetic docking” is derogatory.

I congratulate the Department for belatedly taking on board the Committee’s proposals on exemptions, which we had been discussing from the very start. It would have been more constructive had the Department considered and dealt with those proposals earlier. Consultation is also a consideration, and to some extent the Committee has to hold up its hands on that issue. The Assembly must examine the mechanisms on how to achieve full and proper consultation on all Bills, because people often hear about Bills only at a late stage. Many breeders who are involved in dog shows heard about this Bill only when it was too late for them to give evidence to the Committee. Between now and Further Consideration Stage, it is important that the Committee and the Department consult further to ensure that the voices of such people are heard. The Bill leaves one issue open about exemptions, in that there is no point consulting people if they are not listened to and their concerns are not addressed. I hope that the Department is prepared to make changes.

I welcome the fact that the Department may add or remove breeds via regulations. If at a later stage certain working breeds are identified, and reasons are given for that identification, I hope that the Department will be open to that and able to respond to the public’s needs.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Member pushed hard about exemptions, but does he believe or trust, given the Department’s position on clause 6, that if we allow the clause to go through today, the Department would not come back with further amendments to extend that to other working dogs? Does the Member not agree that it would be better to take out clause 6 and to go back to the start to look at it?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I hope that the Department has learnt something from this consultation, but that remains to be seen. I hope that it is prepared to listen to consultees and to recognise exemptions when they are identified. The Committee may have to table further amendments in the future. From the start, the Committee’s position has been to remove clause 6. “Cosmetic docking” is an emotive expression that implies that breeders are concerned only about a dog’s image. Although some dogs will now be exempt, with high credentials for such exemptions, 50% of injuries to dogs’ tails happen to pets in the home.

Over the past couple of weeks, the Committee received e-mails that were very clear on that issue. A breeder from England supports breeders here, because England lost the battle on tail docking some years ago. Although Rottweilers now have long tails, they cannot be shown because of damage to their tails. Damage is still being done, and dogs are still being injured. The welfare of animals means stopping pain. The pain felt by a dog when its tail is being docked was described to the Committee, and repeated by the Chairperson, as being like an “ouch”, as people would experience many’s the time. Unfortunately, dogs with long tails will experience many an ouch, a bark, a jump and a squeal when their tail gets caught in a door or anywhere else. Dogs’ tails can be injured when they are being transported in a trailer.

The issues around tail docking are as follows: first, it is unnecessary legislation, and there is no demand for it; and, secondly, it has to be looked at again, because we now find that, in Scotland, Wales and England, the number of injuries to dogs with undocked tails has increased dramatically in the short time since legislation was brought in there. We have to be mindful that changes may have to be made as we go along.

That brings me to the fees issue. Unfortunately, the Committee bears some blame in relation to shows and fees and the imposition of the very strict and severe offences that are linked to them. Those are unfortunate. We now have a situation where dog shows could be put out of existence in the North. The legislation says that it will be an offence for anyone to take a dog from the North of Ireland, bring it somewhere else to have its tail docked and bring it back. It does not say that the dog would create an offence if it walked across the border, got its tail docked and came back again. Are we to have a situation where the dog would be expelled because it went across the border and got its tail docked? Also, will a dog whose tail has been docked in the South of Ireland be able to take part in shows here after this legislation is passed? I can see the transfer of dog shows from North to South as a result of this legislation. It is very partitionist in that way, because it takes into account that this —

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. It is not clear from the Member’s speech whether he supports the Bill, supports the amendment or does not support any of it. Is one of the reasons why he may not support any of the legislation that it may be more partitionist?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The amendments are grouped, and the Committee had to table an amendment because it wanted some sort of exemption, even though its first choice was to throw out the legislation and the clause completely. If the clause were to be thrown out, first, there might be no exemptions and, secondly, there might be the wholesale docking that is talked about. So, the Committee was boxed into a situation where it had to meet certain criteria in order to put the amendment forward.

The arguments that I made in Committee were not all taken on board, but some were. I made the point, which the Department should recognise, that, although the legislation can make it an offence to take a dog from the North of Ireland to get its tail docked elsewhere, it does not take into account the fact that we have an artificial border in this country that is not of my making and does not have my support. We have to take into account the fact that the legislation will create problems, particularly for those involved in dog shows. It will have a big effect on dog shows in the North, and, likewise, where dog shows continue, it will affect dog breeders from the South of Ireland who show dogs in the North. They will be unable to do that when the law has changed.

Those are the issues that we have been dealing with in Committee, and they will continue to affect this legislation. If we look back on where we were with tail docking, we can see that damage to tails had not been an issue and had not come to the fore like other clear-cut issues, such as dog fighting and other abuses of dogs. We are not talking about dog fighting on this occasion but about the protection of dogs.

I return to the welfare of animals. I do not think that it is necessary to ban the docking of dogs’ tails, but neither do I see it necessary to ban the docking of the tails of pigs, lambs or other animals. Let us be realistic about what we are dealing with. The legislation is now contradictory because it says that pigs’ and lambs’ tails can be docked.

The Chairman raised an example that was cited many times by the Department, which is that 500 dogs’ tails would have to be docked in order to have one working dog. Those who breed lambs and pigs tell me that the same thing applies in any circumstance. First, the 500:1 ratio does not stand up. The main reason given for docking lambs’ tails is to stop infection.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Has the Member seen lambs or sheep that have been eaten alive by maggots because of difficulties with their tail? Does he accept that there are welfare reasons for docking lambs’ tails?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, of course. If the Member had been listening to the earlier part of the debate and had heard the views of the Committee, he would know that we recognised that. However, we also recognised that the figure that was given by the Department — that 500 dogs’ tails would have to be docked to protect one working dog — was false. I have seen lambs’ tails being docked many times, but I am saying that thousands of lambs could have their tail docked in order to prevent the infection of a smaller number of lambs.

The same thing applies to pigs. Thousands of pigs could have their tail docked in order to prevent them from being bitten, or their teeth could be cut to stop them damaging sows. That does not mean that it should not be done, but neither does it mean that a ban is necessary. There is no reason for a ban on the docking of dogs’ tails in the first place, and that is where the problem arises.

If we are talking about the welfare of animals overall, we must look at the welfare of all animals in that situation. However, the debate around the Bill became a debate about a ban on the docking of dogs’ tails, not about the welfare of animals. The Bill is about the welfare of animals, but the debate came down to an attack on dog breeders, those who were emotionally described as puppy farmers and cosmetic docking. It also became an attack on dog show promoters. A comment was made that many dog breeders damaged dogs’ tails in order to have them docked. That was a completely scurrilous remark. The breeders and those who show dogs look after their dogs better than they look after themselves sometimes. Their main aim is the welfare of their dogs; it is the first thing in their mind. To say that they might damage a dog’s tail deliberately in order to dock it is reprehensible. We need to look again at the emotional commentary that has run throughout the debate on the Bill.

The issue of the involvement of councils takes us back to the issue of consultation. Amendment No 12 deals with the exercise of functions by councils and covers licensing and enforcement as well. The role that councils would have to play under the Bill needs to be debated further, because there are issues around that. We have to look at all the functions that councils will have.

I know that the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is saying that the issue of the licensing of dogs that have had their tail docked is not relevant to this group of amendments, but it will be another thing that councils will have to administer. All the regulations that will be policed by the PSNI will also fall directly onto councils. From the start, there has been no consultation with councillors — elected members — about the Bill. There may have been some consultation with dog wardens and various other council officers, but there was none with elected members. In this Chamber, the people who run things are the elected Members, not the officers and officials or anyone else. The respect for elected members needs to continue to ensure that proper consultation takes place. It is the elected members who have to set the rates and take the abuse. We will come back to that at a further stage.

The main thing to welcome today is that the Department has belatedly accepted the amendment that deals with exemptions. There are other aspects on which further consultation is required in order to perfect the Bill and get legislation that is about the welfare and protection of animals in the future.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I support the amendments in group 2 on the basis of the wide range of written and oral evidence that was presented in Committee. It is important that I, like other Members, put on record where this proposal came from.

The Department originally proposed to ban all docking of dogs’ tails, as is the case in Scotland. However, evidence came to the Committee about the higher level of tail damage among dogs used in working situations. The Committee, therefore, tabled amendment No 2 to create an exemption whereby the tails of working dogs could continue to be docked on animal welfare grounds.

Originally, we looked at the dogs involved in lawful pest control and aspects of shooting, but it was then identified in Great Britain that law enforcement dogs, such as those that seek out drugs stored in confined spaces, could also be in danger. If dogs that have been highly trained to remove the scourge of drugs from our streets were to suffer tail damage, it could put them out of action. The Committee sought to include those dogs in its amendment.

It is important that we look at how the situation is dealt with in different areas. In Scotland, there is a total ban. In England and Wales, there is a partial ban, with an exemption for working dogs, but there has also been an attempt to ban the showing of dogs with docked tails. As others indicated, it is important to take account of what has been said. A piece in ‘Dog World’ newspaper indicates that there is a loophole in Great Britain, which the amended clause 6 would close. Instead of charging admission, show societies charge car-parking fees and thereby allow the showing of dogs that have had their tail docked illegally. Given the evidence of that loophole elsewhere, the Committee decided to try to close it. I think that that is reasonable.

If exemptions are to be created, an attempt should be made to ensure that they are enforced. Vets and owners will have to decide at an early stage whether dogs will be placed in a working environment or a showing environment. An owner will decide to protect the dog’s tail and bring it down the show route or to dock the dog’s tail to protect it in a working environment. The loophole created the potential for people to ride both horses. Dogs could be marked as working dogs but simply end up in homes rather than in a working environment. Our amendment will mean that owners have to decide whether they intend their dog to operate in a show environment or a working environment.

I appreciate that tail docking is an emotive issue for dog owners. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate clearly, from her own mouth, that the proposed amendment and legislation will not be applied retrospectively. In other words, she should confirm that, if a dog’s tail is docked prior to the enactment of the legislation, it can still be shown. There is a lot of concern among dog owners who have read the Bill and were not clear —

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I accept what the Member said about owners being allowed to continue to show dogs that had their tail docked before the ban. However, does the Member not understand that there is also frustration among those who breed dogs and work with them daily? Once those dogs come to the end of their natural life, owners cannot show whatever other dogs they work with. They do not want to keep them, because they cannot dock their tail to prevent injuries. If someone has a pup that had its tail docked before the ban comes in, that dog can be shown, but, once it comes to the end of its natural life, that is it — they are out of show business.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I suspect that there may be some dogs in that category. However, my understanding is that the risk of increased tail damage is something like 17%, which is not insurmountable. The Committee’s amendment allows for that increased risk. At that point, an owner can choose to introduce their dog into a working environment and to use it as a working dog.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Does the Member recognise the information from Wales and England that 50% of injuries are to long tails? On the point about the description of a working dog, when a dog, be it a terrier or whatever, runs out on its own, it normally hunts. In the dog’s terms, it is working. It may do different work from what we actually want it to do, but, in that sense, it is a working dog. Given that situation, it is hard to define what is meant by a working dog. Dogs should be allowed their freedom.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Some argue that dogs should be allowed the freedom to express themselves. The Committee heard evidence that that was a factor when tails were docked. However, no firm evidence was given to justify that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I would appreciate it if I could pursue my point for a moment. I have been generous with Members.

I fully accept that, if dogs’ tails that are presently being docked are not docked, there will be more tails and a greater likelihood of tails being damaged. However, a balanced judgement has to be made about the increased risk of damage to tails against the injury that a dog may incur if its tail is removed and the effect of that on its welfare and ability to express itself. I simply say to Members that a balanced judgement has to be made.

The issue of show dogs that damage their tail was mentioned earlier. After reflecting on and learning more about the emotiveness of that subject, I accept that we must look at that carefully and address it at Further Consideration Stage. The amendment and the legislation presently exclude an owner who has an attachment to showing dogs from doing so should their dog get injured. I intend to look at that at Further Consideration Stage to see whether an exemption can be made. I understand that such an exemption has occurred elsewhere, and we should examine that too.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. If we look at this at Further Consideration Stage, the Member should consider the fact that a dog owner who docks a dog’s tail because it gets damaged will not be able to show that dog in a class of docked breeds anyway. At shows, part of what is looked at is the dog’s tail and how the dog is being managed. Why, therefore, would someone want to enter a dog with an amputated tail, given that that dog will not be of the same show standard as the other dogs against which it is competing?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I raised that issue because I was lobbied on it by those who show dogs. I understand that some points would be removed. However, those people feel strongly that they would still wish to show their dog even if it had an injury. It may be the case that no one decides to take up that change. However, it is my understanding that some people would wish to take it up, so we should consider that. Nevertheless, it will be their choice whether or not they take it up.

The Committee took a wide range of oral and written evidence in examining the Bill. We reflected on that evidence and came forward with some changes. We also convinced the Department to table amendments to some areas. That is a healthy process in a democratic system. The Committee has played its scrutiny role by challenging the Department in certain areas and seeking changes, and that is appropriate. It is now up to the Assembly to give its judgement on that work, which is what should happen in a democracy. I support the second group of amendments.

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

I declare an interest as an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association Northern Ireland. On 22 September 2010, I attended one of the association’s seminars at Hillsborough, which planned to focus on some aspects of animal welfare and to highlight the expertise on animal welfare that exists in the veterinary profession. One of the speakers that day made a particular comment that I picked up on. She said that each farm animal should have a life worth living, and, of course, the same can be applied to all animals.

One of the introductory paragraphs in the Bill states that DARD may exercise its powers if it is satisfied:

“on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering.”

Other Members also referred to that. I do not know how many meetings we have had on the Welfare of Animals Bill, but I am certain that we did not fall short when seeking evidence, the most important, in my view, being that from the veterinary profession.

I have never, in my 12 years in this Assembly, received so many lobbying letters or e-mails devoted to a single issue. I am pleased, therefore, that we have reached this stage. The number of lobbying letters received has increased each week, and they continue to arrive as each lobbyist makes a good case for the handling of the particular breed of dog that they deal with daily. That list started to grow and grow, and I am sure that other Members had a similar experience.

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for his lengthy and factual address. I also thank the Committee Clerk for his guidance and for bringing us to heel during our debates.

I referred earlier to the evidence that we obtained from the veterinary profession. I found it a little surprising that the Department’s vets did not necessarily share all the views of their fellow professionals who gave evidence on behalf of the Northern Ireland veterinary association. Although I was slightly surprised at the difference in professional opinion, I did not share the expressed thinking that questioned the motives of the profession as represented by Veterinary Northern Ireland.

We were strongly advised by VetNI that it foresaw major difficulties with implementation and policing if the Agriculture Committee opposed a total ban on tail docking by making exemptions for pure-bred spaniels and hunt, point and retrieve breeds. Since then, a line of text has been added to the exempted list that I am not completely satisfied with but have reluctantly agreed to accept. I refer to the wording:

“or any combination of such breeds”

found at the end of all five descriptions of dogs exempted in the proposals. I see that resulting in regular disputes, as owners argue with professionals about the breed of dog. In the event of a dispute, the decision will be left to the vet. It is easy to produce evidence that an animal is pure-bred, but where are the reference books or comparators that a vet can point to before making a decision on a combination dog? My view is that the words “combination of such breeds” really means mongrels with a hint of authenticity. Thus, their owners can proceed to have the dogs’ tail docked.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Does the Member accept that spaniels of different breeds, such as cocker spaniels, are a combination of breeds within themselves? Mongrels are not a breed; they are a mixture that no one can define. It is clear that, with the breeds as defined in the amendment, the proof would have to be the dog itself. I cannot see how you could call such a dog a mongrel in that situation. There are combinations of breeds within those defined groups, which are hunting dogs, particularly spaniels and pointers and retrievers. It is the same for terriers; there are Jack Russell terriers and various distinguishable breeds within the terrier category that would not be termed as mongrels, certainly not by their owners.

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

I agree with the Member.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Does the Member also agree that following his trail of thought on pure-breds would lead to a conclusion similar to that reached by the Department? Are we talking about pure-breds here or the welfare of animals? I bring mongrels back into the debate. What is more important: whether the animal is a mongrel or a pure-bred? I thought that we were talking about the welfare of the animal, regardless of their breed.

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

The breed is included in amendment No 20, which the Chairperson has tabled and we are debating, but my view is that “combination” is open to different interpretations.

The concluding paragraph is the one that I consider most relevant. I did not vote against the exemptions, purely on the back of an assurance that I was given by the Minister when I questioned her during the evidence session on 16 November 2010. The Minister firmly assured me that, if the fears expressed by the Northern Ireland veterinary association proved to be correct, the Department would revisit the issue. I would like the Minister to confirm today that she made that commitment.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I declare an interest as a member of Lisburn City Council. This is not a subject that has exercised the council so far, but no doubt it will. I support amendment No 2, and, provided that it is passed, I will support amendments Nos 5 to 10.

We support the amended clause, which makes it an offence to dock a dog’s tail for cosmetic reasons. We are content with that, on the basis of the Department’s assurances about limiting the impact of the legislation on the dog showing industry while retaining a strong emphasis on protecting the welfare of dogs.

I listened with interest to Mr Molloy’s comments about the dog show fraternity. I am not a member of the Committee, so I have not been privy to what seems like an enormous amount of discussion on the issue. It seems that the problem for the dog show fraternity here will be the lack of harmonisation between the law in the Republic and the law up here. However, that is perhaps more a problem for the Republic, because it will be the odd one out in European terms. As far as I am aware, as well as GB, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Germany and Denmark have banned docking, and Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria have ratified the European convention that prohibits cosmetic docking in the same way as we intend to.

A recent article in ‘The Irish Veterinary Journal’ states:

“Veterinary Ireland informed its members that any request to dock puppies’ tails should be refused. It is the sincere hope of Veterinary Ireland that no member of the profession would perform this act.

Furthermore and as indicated in this article the Veterinary Council of Ireland has specifically confirmed that any act of tail docking (except for therapeutic reason) performed by a registered Veterinary Practitioner would be deemed as unethical.”

It also states:

“Therefore, should a Veterinary Practitioner perform such an act, they would be in breach of the Guide to Professional Behaviour and would thus be open to disciplinary action by the Veterinary Council.”

That does not mean that the South will change its regulations, but it certainly gives a fair pointer towards the thinking down there. Although there is a short-term problem and our dog showing fraternity may suffer for a while, is it not possible — I do not speak as any kind of a dog expert — that dog shows could gradually become events where dogs have tails and are just judged in the same way? What is the difference? If it gravitates that way, surely that is the best solution.

Research carried out in Scotland after its ban indicates that 82% of the vets who were polled had not seen an increase in the number of tail injuries to dogs. Several key veterinary groups throughout the UK and Ireland, including the Association of Veterinary Surgeons Practising in Northern Ireland and, of course, Veterinary Ireland, have come out in favour of a complete ban on the docking of dogs’ tails. We really have to go with the tide. It is clear, across all the civilised countries in Europe, that that is the way to go. For that reason, we support amendment No 2.

We would like to see the legislation perhaps go a little further and protect all dogs, but we are content with the requirements outlined in clause 6 in relation to the certification of working dogs by a veterinary surgeon only. That should remove any potential loophole from the legislation. It is vital that the certification of a working dog is applied rigorously and that the first condition takes precedence over specification of breed. Any move whereby tail docking is deemed appropriate on the basis of breed only would make a complete mockery of the legislation. Having said that, we are content to support amendment No 2 and, providing that that is passed, amendment Nos 5 to 10.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next Member to speak on the Bill after Question Time will be William Irwin.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.29 pm.

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

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he intends to bring forward proposals for a strategy to promote and enhance the Irish language before the end of this mandate. (AQO 920/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am disappointed that I have not been able to progress the issue as I would have liked. Nevertheless, an issue on the cultural rights of children in the classroom remains unresolved. On 20 December 2010, I wrote to the Minister of Education to ask for a meeting in early 2011 to try to progress the matter. I received a reply, dated 19 January 2011, and a meeting has been arranged for 8 February 2011. If my concerns around the issue can be addressed, I intend to bring a draft strategy to the Executive before the end of this Assembly.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Aire. I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that he would acknowledge that current schools regulations allow for governors and teachers to determine and develop the cultural ethos of their schools. However, does he accept that those regulations cannot be prescriptive, nor can they foist upon schools subjects or activities in which there is absolutely no interest?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Culture in the classroom is important. First, it is important and right for children because there is good evidence that, by bringing the culture of the community and the home into the classroom, one can improve academic performance in the school. Secondly, it is not only right for children in schools but it is the right of children, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, there is a human rights issue. The Member opposite belongs to a party that often speaks about addressing issues on a rights-based approach. I want to ensure that children in all education sectors in Northern Ireland have the opportunity to experience and enjoy the cultural rights that they are afforded by international convention.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

In his reply, the Minister mentioned the Minister of Education. Will he outline what he expects of the Minister of Education to enable him to progress a strategy?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am seeking a firm commitment from the Minister of Education that the cultural ethos of local communities will be reflected in local schools. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child incorporates the full range of human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social. The guiding principles of the convention include non-discrimination, adherence to the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and the right to participate. Participation rights include the right to express opinions and to be heard, the right to information, and the right to freedom of association. Engaging those rights as children mature helps them to bring about the realisation of all their rights and prepares them for an active role in society.

As I said, I will meet the Minister of Education on 8 February to try to progress the matter. It is important to emphasise that this matter is a responsibility of the Government, because we are part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom Government have signed up to and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The outworking of that involves a range of issues, such as teacher training, in-service teacher training, the curriculum, the provision of teaching materials and training for governors. In addition, if we are to see the matter resolved, a holistic and resolute approach such as I have indicated will be required.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Tuigim go bhfuil sé ar intinn aige straitéis amháin a fhorbairt do na teangacha dúchasacha anseo. Ach nach gceapann sé go mbeadh sé níos feiliúnaí dá mbeadh straitéis amháin ann don Ghaeilge agus straitéis ar leith ann don Ultais, toisc go bhfuil an dá theanga ag céimeanna éagsúla forbartha?

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Why does the Minister believe that a single strategy for indigenous languages is suitable? Would it not be much more beneficial to have one strategy for Irish and another for Ulster Scots, given that the two languages are at completely different stages of development?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. One could look to the example of the cross-border body, which, I think, his party had a hand in creating. That single cross-border body covers the Irish language and Ulster-Scots language and culture. Thus the two strands exist within the one cross-border body. That is a good model that I would seek to replicate, and it may be quite satisfactory to have a single — I stress the word “single” — cross-border body for both. As the Member finally seems to appreciate, the single strategy will have two strands. That is important, because if we are to build a shared and better future, we need to explore the relationships between cultural traditions, and that is much more easily done through a single strategy. Finally, the issues that pertain to the development of one particular cultural tradition are the same as those that pertain to the development of another cultural tradition, even if they are at different stages of development on issues such as broadcasting and education.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Fra McCann is not in his place to ask question 2, and George Savage is not is his place to ask question 3.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of the relationship between investment in sports and savings in the cost of healthcare in later life, and whether he will continue to support programmes that have been successful in this area. (AQO 923/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am interested to know the reasons for the absence of some Members in view of the amount of time that we spend preparing for Question Time.

There is strong evidence of a link between regular and sustained participation in sport as a form of physical activity and savings in healthcare costs, including in later life. Sport Matters, the Northern Ireland strategy for sport and physical recreation for 2009 to 2019, provides evidence that physical inactivity and obesity combined cost the Northern Ireland economy about £500 million per annum. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s research suggests that simply stopping the rise in levels of obesity in Northern Ireland through interventions such as physical activity would save that Department at least £210 million over the next 20 years. In addition, evidence published recently shows that certain types of health conditions associated with inactivity cost the UK economy £1 million an hour.

Moreover, a 2007 Foresight programme report sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimates that current NHS costs attributable to dealing with people who are overweight and obese are likely to rise to £10 billion per annum across the UK by 2050. Appropriate investment to enable more people to participate in sport can help to reduce many of those costs. It is partly for that reason that I am keen to do what I can to support programmes that encourage participation in sport. In the context of the draft Budget and the Sport Matters strategy, I am also engaging with Sport Northern Ireland to agree priorities in that regard. This morning, I was at the City Hall in Belfast for the launch of a programme designed to meet that very objective.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he is well aware of the ongoing development of community facilities in east Belfast, from the Comber Greenway and the Connswater Greenway to all the excellent sport-based projects. Will the Minister provide more details of the evidence and sources that he quotes as showing a link between investment in sport and savings in healthcare costs in later life?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Sport Matters provides evidence that the combination of physical inactivity and obesity costs the Northern Ireland economy £500 million per annum. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s Fit Futures report estimates that simply stopping the year-on-year increases in levels of obesity in Northern Ireland through interventions such as physical activity would save that Department at least £210 million over the next 20 years. The Fit Futures report also describes the rising obesity levels in Northern Ireland as a “potential financial time bomb”. A report to the Assembly’s Health Committee in 2009 suggested that certain types of health conditions associated with inactivity cost the UK economy £1 million per hour. The UK Chief Medical Officer has recognised that regular physical activity, including sport, can contribute significantly to a reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has estimated that diabetes care in Northern Ireland costs 5% of the health expenditure in Northern Ireland and a total of 10% of hospital inpatient resource. The British Medical Association also considers that risks of contracting certain of the more dangerous forms of cancer are definitely reduced by increased exercise, and the Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health estimates that the cost of working days lost to mental ill health in Northern Ireland may be as much as £125 million a year. Research undertaken as part of the development of Sport Matters suggests that sport and physical activity can contribute positively to mental health.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that a lot of the big schemes that grab the media headlines are very expensive ways of getting our folk out and exercising? Many schemes are run by local authorities and, if properly advertised, might get a greater output in attacking the obesity levels and the other levels that he indicated. Will the Minister’s Department look at that specifically?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I agree entirely with the Member that many of the schemes that have the most impact are modest, low-cost schemes. The grants of £30,000 that were given recently for small capital works made a real impact. I visited a number of places where additional facilities made the opportunity for greater use of a football pitch, and a small boxing club was able to start up in east Belfast with the aid of such a grant. The small grants can make a big difference. This morning, 22 sports coaches went out across the city of Belfast, and that is part of a scheme that is operating across the Province at a community level.

The Member mentioned local authority programmes, and I encourage local authorities to ensure that people are aware of those opportunities. A lot is happening and a lot is available, but it is not always taken up to the maximum extent because of that issue.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I agree that tackling health issues is not only a matter for the Health Department. Will the Minister give an update on the recent discussions that he or his officials have had on the Investing for Health strategy, which brings a lot of this to the fore? Has he had any recent discussions on using sporting stars to promote the Protect Life strategy on suicide?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

All of our work in sport is taken forward under the umbrella of Sport Matters, which is the strategy. That is a cross-departmental approach, through which different Departments come together to bring something to the table. For example, the Department of Education has a role in making school facilities available for wider use, and all the Departments are part of that process. Not only do we have an umbrella group that drives that forward but there are specific working groups on particular themes. I am happy to supply the Member with more details about the particular working groups and their targets.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What consultation has taken place between the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Education Minister regarding the sports strategy in schools?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have had several meetings with the Education Minister, and I am glad to say that those were some of our more constructive meetings. In fact, it may shock some people to hear that there was almost a meeting of minds on some points. We need to ensure that we get the proper provision of school facilities for wider community use. We also need to ensure that there is the maximum possible opportunity for young people in schools to avail themselves of sporting facilities. I am glad to say that in our new school programmes that are coming through the Department of Education, including newbuild projects, redevelopment, and so on, there is a much greater focus on ensuring that we get very good sporting provision for young people.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Mickey Brady is not in his place to ask question 5.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how much funding his Department is currently providing for arts projects in County Tyrone. (AQO 925/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Arts Council has provided a total of £234,446 to arts projects in County Tyrone. My Department has also made available a total of £49,200 for the community festivals fund for projects in County Tyrone that may include arts elements.

Funding for the arts in County Tyrone does not simply come from central government. We need to remember the role of local authorities in investing in the arts. The Member, who I understand is the Mayor of Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council, might be interested to note that her council has a much lower spend on the arts, at £5·60 per person in 2008-09, compared with an average of £13·93 across councils in Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is a bit of work to be done there. In her role as mayor, and with her passion for the arts, I am sure that the Member will encourage a much greater investment from Dungannon council in the future.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Michelle O’Neill for a supplementary, if you wish.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I absolutely wish.

I welcome the investment from the Department. As mayor of the council, I know that we are very committed to the arts in our area. The funding is distributed in a mix of ways, but two of the biggest projects that we fund are the Bardic Education, Arts and Media — BEAM — centre in Donaghmore and the Community Recreational Arts in Coalisland — CRAIC — theatre. Does the Minister agree that those are perfect examples of how investment in the arts should be taken forward in a rural community?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Investment in the arts is a good thing, regardless of whether it is in rural communities or in urban communities. It enhances people’s quality of life in the same way as sport. When you bring it down to a local level, investment makes the arts much more accessible to people. In fact, if Dungannon council could increase its spend from £5·60 to £13·93, like the rest of the councils, it would have even more money to spend in Tyrone.

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

I am sure that we all share the concern that the average spend on the arts in Tyrone is so low. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no purge from his Department on spending on the arts across the North?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am not sure what the Member means by the word “purge”, but I understand that he is obviously referring to Northern Ireland. I will ensure that we get the maximum possible investment in the arts across Northern Ireland. We are in a difficult financial situation, and there are cuts across all Departments. As a member of the SDLP, the Member may wish to speak to his colleague in the Department for Social Development, and maybe he would free up some of his Department’s money or even invest some of it in community arts projects. Then we would have even more money to spend.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

We are still on the subject of Tyrone. What lessons does the Minister believe that we can learn from successful arts projects in areas with dispersed populations, such as the Scottish Highlands, and apply to areas such as County Tyrone?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am not sure that I have learned any particular lessons in regard to expending money. However, I have visited the north of Scotland during my time in office to see how arts and cultural projects are delivered. There are lessons that can be learned, particularly in respect of the economic benefits that can flow from the arts and culture. We visited the Gaelic college on the Isle of Skye, and it is a primary example of a good, high-quality project, which is creating employment in an area that is quite isolated.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not so interested in how constituents in Tyrone are getting their funding, but will the Minister outline to the House how arts funding caters for people in the Province who have disabilities?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Arts Council recognises that organisations that work with people who have disabilities fit in well to the Arts Council’s strategy and the arts and disability policy. Arts Council initiatives include core funding of several arts and disability organisations, including the Arts and Disability Forum. In addition, the Arts Council funds a wide range of arts and disability projects through lottery funding and supports the arts and disability equality charter. That is a Kitemarking project, which was developed by disabled people to encourage and to reward good practice among arts venues.

In 2010-11, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland supported the Arts and Disability Forum to the amount of £76,271 through its annual support for organisations programme.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for an update on the preparations for the World Police and Fire Games in 2013. (AQO 926/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

At the Northern Ireland Executive meeting on Thursday 9 September 2010, they agreed in principle to support the 2013 World Police and Fire Games up to a cost of £6·04 million. Subsequently, my Department made a bid for that amount in the 2010 Budget review. Subject to the Budget’s being approved, that money will be available from 1 April 2011, subject to the normal budgetary processes.

On 6 December 2010, a business case that included a recommended delivery mechanism for implementing the 2013 World Police and Fire Games was approved by DFP. In addition, DFP has approved the proposed structure, governance and accountability arrangements to be put in place by my Department for the delivery vehicle. A company limited by guarantee, which will be sponsored and monitored by the Department, is being established to deliver the games in August 2013. I am in the process of appointing the chairperson and directors of the company. An inaugural meeting of the board of directors has been scheduled for 21 February 2011.

Members will be aware from previous answers that a 2013 stakeholder group, which is chaired by DCAL and incorporates key stakeholders from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Northern Fire and Rescue Service, Belfast City Council and Sport NI, was managing the 2013 World Police and Fire Games project until such time as a delivery vehicle was established. The stakeholder group had identified and taken forward preparatory work on various work streams, which include volunteering, tourism, legacy, transport and logistics and sport, for the planning and organisation of the games in conjunction with the relevant external bodies. That will now be the company’s responsibility.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

There has been a great deal of talk in the media about the Olympics. Of course, that event is happening in London. The real issue for Northern Ireland is its legacy. The World Police and Fire Games will happen in Northern Ireland. When I hear the Minister say the words “in principle”, I begin to worry. Northern Ireland’s reputation will be on the line. Potentially, there will be 10,000 participants in the games. Can the Minister give the House a guarantee that not only will money be available to ensure that the games are a success but the necessary infrastructure will be in place to ensure that Northern Ireland is not made a fool of internationally?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have every confidence that the event will be extremely successful. Northern Ireland has the capacity, ability and resources to deliver a successful World Police and Fire Games. It is important that we do nothing that will in any way undermine worldwide recognition that Northern Ireland is a place that can host successful sporting events. The World Police and Fire Games organisers are selective about where the games are held. The fact that they are coming here is a positive, strong vote of confidence in Northern Ireland.

I was pleased that the £6·04 million was in the Budget. We have not yet finalised the Budget. I believe that the money is available. I am pleased about that, and I am sure that the Member is, too.

As regards Northern Ireland’s organisational ability, we have a strong group of people who have a great deal of experience. Some of our service personnel have been involved with the World Police and Fire Games in the past. They understand the scale of the event and the challenge that it brings. We are talking about 10,000 athletes and around 15,000 others, family and friends, coming to Northern Ireland. In total, 25,000 people will come, possibly for one month. They will not just come for the games; they will holiday here. That will have considerable benefits for the local economy.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware that in the same year that the World Police and Fire Games are held in Northern Ireland, Londonderry will be the UK City of Culture. It has been suggested that events be planned that straddle both occasions. Will he ensure that his departmental officials will work resolutely to ensure that those events are successful wherever they may be held?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member is right to draw attention to the fact that the World Police and Fire Games will bring a large number of people to Northern Ireland. As he said, 2013 is also the year when the UK City of Culture has been awarded to Londonderry. It would be a golden opportunity to ensure that the benefits from that large number of visitors, in some way, flow to the city. I am sure that that was very much in the minds of the organisers. I have spoken to a number of them, and it is something that they have not forgotten; it is on their agenda.

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

What can the Minister tell us about venues selected for the games? Will venues outside Belfast be used?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Sport Northern Ireland recently completed an expression of interest exercise to identify potential venues to host sports. Over 75 applications were received, and Sport NI has been carrying out a number of site visits. Venues that meet the minimum standards to host approximately 65 sports have been identified, and Sport NI is working with the Police Service of Northern Ireland security directorate to prioritise those venues.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Mr Cathal Boylan is not in his place to ask question 8. I call Mr William Irwin.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in light of the review of services by Libraries NI, how he intends to ensure that communities, such as Richhill, continue to have access to a library service. (AQO 928/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I recognise the valuable contribution that the public library service makes to our local communities, and I remain fully committed to the provision of a comprehensive library service throughout Northern Ireland.

The recent draft Budget, which is out for consultation, presents a challenge to all my Department’s sponsored bodies. The board and senior management team of Libraries NI will have to consider how the public library service can be most effectively managed within available resources. Library services in communities such as Richhill are being considered within Libraries NI’s ongoing strategic review of the library estate.

That review is a three-stage process: a review of the library estate in greater Belfast; a review of the library estate in the rest of Northern Ireland; and a review of mobile library provision across Northern Ireland. Stage one of the review was implemented in the summer of 2010, and Libraries NI has begun the second stage of the review. A full public consultation on the review proposals commenced on 10 January, and I emphasise that nothing has been finalised by the Libraries NI board at this stage. Those reviews are operational matters for Libraries NI, the board of which includes councillors from my party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party.

I encourage everyone who has an interest in libraries in Northern Ireland to participate in the consultation process. That will help to ensure that Northern Ireland will have a modern, accessible and excellent library service in the future.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it within the Minister’s power to intervene to ensure that libraries such as Richhill’s remain open?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

That is fundamentally an operational issue for Libraries NI, and it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to influence its decision. Intervention in the board’s decision would be appropriate only if there was evidence that the consultation process had been significantly flawed or the remaining services did not meet Libraries NI’s statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service. I assure the Member, however, that robust criteria are being applied to the review process to identify libraries that are fit for purpose, capable of delivering on the vision of Libraries NI, in the right location and sustainable.

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

Does the Minister agree that the definition of “rural” in the Northern Ireland context is somewhat dubious and puts at risk some of the libraries that are situated in rural communities such as Waringstown, Carnlough, Moira and Crumlin, and that it would be a great loss to those communities if the libraries were to close?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Libraries in rural areas are important to the local communities. I am not sure that it is a question of definition. Current provision in rural areas is highly valued, and I am convinced that it provides a much needed service. Mobile libraries are vital in providing services to rural communities that have limited access to a static library. That is why I have authorised Libraries NI to purchase four new mobile libraries this year. I have also authorised investment in rural libraries. I have, for example, authorised investment in a new library in Dungiven and an extensive refurbishment of Newtownstewart library. Furthermore, modern technology offers ways of delivering services in rural areas where a building is not sustainable, and customers can access a range of online library services, such as ordering and renewing books and accessing reference resources.

Education

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

1. asked the Minister of Education whether there will be job losses within her Department and its arm’s-length bodies as a result of the Budget settlement. (AQO 934/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, nuair a bheas mé ag freagairt ceist uimhir 4 beidh nóiméad sa bhreis ag teastáil uaim. When answering question 4, I will require an extra minute. Before I do that, with the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker and the House, I would like to make a brief reference to tragedies over the past week, when three young people lost their lives. In the past two days I have spoken with three devastated principals who are showing huge leadership at this very difficult time. I know that the Assembly will join me in offering my condolences to the heartbroken families of those young people.

In answer to the question posed by Margaret Ritchie, tá bearna maoinithe de £300 millún ann anois don oideachas thar thréimhse an Bhuiséid mar gheall ar shocrú Státchoiste na Breataine £4 billiún a aistarraingt ón bhlocdheontas. The British Treasury’s withdrawal of £4 billion from the block grant has resulted in a funding gap of £300 million for education over the Budget period. That will present significant challenges; however, I am determined to protect jobs and front line services throughout the education sector. During the Budget process we managed to increase what was originally proposed for education, and I will continue to bid for additional money to ease pressures. The Executive identified a further £1·6 billion of revenue, almost half of which remains unallocated. I will be arguing strenuously for a portion of that £800 million to supplement the shortfall in the education budget.

In preparing my spending proposals, I identified a number of areas for protection in order to protect the most vulnerable. Those included: special educational needs; extended schools; school counselling services; youth; and extra funding for early years. I have also approved the extension of the eligibility for free school meals entitlement.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. On behalf of the SDLP, I extend our condolences to all the families of the young children who lost their lives in such tragic circumstances.

I will now move on to the supplementary question. Teachers’ unions and education partners estimate that the cost of the cuts to the aggregated schools budget will equate to 5,000 teaching posts over the four-year Budget period. How can that be reconciled to the Minister’s goal in the savings plan for protecting front line services for children and young people?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat Gabhaim buíochas least as an fhreagra. I met the teachers’ unions this morning, and we had discussions on all aspects of the Budget. I am not going to go down the same road as other Ministers by scaremongering and making all sorts of wild guesstimates about job losses in order to position my Department for any additional funds. It is not fair to people. I have never tried to disguise the fact that it is not a good Budget for education. I intend to bear down on management and administration, protect front line services and do everything I can to protect jobs. I ask the Member in return, because of her concern about potential job losses, for her party’s, along with other parties’, support for my bid for additional resources for education.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

When will the Minister be in a position to provide the Education Committee and the House with a detailed spending plan?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

My Department provided detailed spending plans to the Committee on 24 November 2010. My departmental officials have been at the Committee regularly, and I have also been at the Committee. I respectfully suggest to the Member that she should go back and get the information that was provided to the Committee.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that, although education certainly requires resources, a major step forward would be the establishment of the Education and Skills Authority (ESA), which would amalgamate nine areas of administration and put funds into front line services?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Aontaím leis sin. Tacaíonn torthaí an dréachtBhuiséid go mór leis an údarás um oideachas agus scileanna a bhunú. The implications of the draft Budget allocations argue strongly for the establishment of the education and skills authority and I remain totally committed to that vital reform. I intend to press ahead with the convergence of services and management structures across the education and library boards to ensure greater consistency and efficiency in service delivery. Without that, scarce resources will continue to be spent on unnecessary bureaucracy, it will be spread too thinly over existing institutions, and it will be spent on duplication. That was a key area that the trade unions raised with me this morning. They are keen to see the establishment of ESA.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I, too, take this opportunity to express the condolences of the Ulster Unionist Party to those families that lost a child in tragic circumstances over the past few days.

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of switching £41 million from capital to revenue and the impact that that will have on the schools estate? Will she confirm whether Her Majesty’s Treasury is happy with that arrangement?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

As the Member knows, we have invested significantly in the school building programme since 2007. The Executive agreed a 10-year programme that contained 108 schools. We have 55 built or under construction, and a further 12 will begin in the next few weeks. Recently, we had the sod-cutting at Taughmonagh, County Antrim, and at Madden, County Armagh. Fifty-four schools remain on the list to be built over the next six years. We have spent £588 million on school building.

In relation to your question about the impact of the £41 million, the draft Budget settlement for education was particularly difficult in year one. I was faced with very difficult choices. The choice was between doing everything one could to protect jobs and the front line and using some of the money in the building programme to ensure that we have money to protect jobs. My starting point is to protect jobs and front line services.

It is with regret that I reclassified that money. That is one of the areas that the Executive will be looking at because we make provision with the Executive about that. Will that have an impact on the schools estate? Of course it will, and that is why I am asking all parties to support me in my bid for further resources for education.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Education for an update on her Department’s review of community use of the schools estate. (AQO 935/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The schools estate represents a significant public resource. I am determined that it should be used more widely to serve the needs of pupils, parents, families and the local community. All schools should consider the potential benefits of their premises being made available for members of the community served by the school. Many schools already do so and the arrangements are negotiated and agreed locally.

The working group established to make recommendations for consideration by the Department of Education and ESA has reported to the Department of Education. The report contains 36 wide-ranging recommendations, many of which impact on policy and operational areas outside the remit of the Department of Education. The recommendations have been considered in detail across the Department. Other Government Departments, agencies and district councils have also provided comments on the recommendations. I await the education and library boards’ response to the working group proposed guide to managing community use. I want to ensure that guidance for schools takes account of any issues raised in response to the recommendations. That also needs to be in line with the establishment of the education and skills authority.

The programme of extended schools has been significant in opening up our schools to the community. I love passing schools morning, noon and night, and at weekends, and seeing the lights on and the playing fields being used by local communities, and I am sure that the Member agrees with that. That is our objective, but we need to do it in partnership with local schools.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I agree very much with her sentiment that we all enjoy seeing schools being used outside the normal hours. However, will she give a commitment to my colleague David McNarry that the review will be completed and acted upon before the end of this Assembly?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will do everything that I can to ensure that we complete the review before the end of the mandate. The review is wide-ranging and has, as I said, 36 recommendations. I pledge to the Member that I will work with other Departments and district councils on that.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I convey our condolences to the families and loved ones of those children who have died from suicide. Those of us who have worked with children who subsequently committed suicide know exactly how they feel, and our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Will the Minister provide better information to community organisations, youth clubs and churches on how they can access the schools estate and what their liabilities are, particularly for insurance and the quality of the equipment that they use?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

As I said, my Department is working on guidance on the use of schools. I want community organisations to use schools, but that needs to happen in partnership, and there are issues, such as insurance and extra costs. I specifically mentioned the extended schools programme, which is a very good model that we can consider.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Are there any further plans to build full-service community schools?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

There are two full-service community school networks. We are looking at how schools link in with local communities, particularly to tackle disadvantage. We are working to make sure that we provide the best possible educational outcomes for children and young people. The Member will also be aware of the Achieving Derry and Achieving Belfast programmes, in which we link closely with communities to ensure that we increase levels of literacy and numeracy.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Education to outline the timetable for the proposed cuts to the schools estate budget and when schools will be notified of the outcome. (AQO 936/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

D’fhógair an tAire Airgeadais agus Pearsanra dréachtBhuiséad an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin 2011-15 ar 15 Nollaig 2010. The Executive’s draft Budget 2011-15, which was announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 15 December 2010, provides proposed current expenditure and capital investment allocations for the four-year Budget period. The draft Budget is subject to consultation until 16 February 2011, at which time responses will be considered.

Budget 2010 is taking place in a difficult economic environment, in which the British Treasury has removed £4 billion from the block grant. Although the Executive succeeded in finding an additional £1·6 billion through revenue-raising measures, half of that has yet to be deployed in the Budget figures. I will argue strongly that some of that money must be added to the education budget to protect key front line services.

The Department will actively engage with stakeholders. On 7, 8 and 11 February, we will hold meetings in four community venues throughout the North, and I encourage all stakeholders to attend them.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister also tell us what criteria she will use to introduce those cuts?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I have already stated that I am doing everything that I can to protect jobs and front line services. We protected the budgets for special educational needs, counselling and youth services, and we also protected the extended schools budget, which is a very good budget line. We also extended the criteria for free school meals so that more children will get a school meal every day.

Despite a difficult budget, we also added an extra £3 million to early-years provision. I have listened to Members, and there is consensus across every party that we need to get more money into early-years provision.

For the first year, I also propose to reclassify £41 million of capital in the draft Budget, because, if the short-term choice is teachers and classroom assistants or constructing new school buildings, we need to do everything that we can to protect teachers and classroom assistants’ posts.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. As she is aware, many schools in the system are awaiting newbuilds. Will she confirm whether there is a moratorium on capital newbuilds?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

There is no moratorium on school builds, but, if the Department cannot secure further resources, it will be difficult for it to continue in the way in which it has done for the past four years. I can say that the 13 school builds that were approved in August will go ahead. I would like to be able to continue with the school building programme, and I look forward to all parties supporting my bids for additional resources. However, we should not be under any illusion. The draft Budget is difficult for us all, and particularly for education.

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

I am sure that we all share the Minister’s frustration at the lack of capital investment in our schools. Will she gaze into her crystal ball and tell the House whether the list will be longer or shorter by 2015?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I do not agree with the first point that the Member made. No one can say that we have not undertaken a significant school building programme since 2007, and I am proud of that programme. I do not use crystal balls to make policy. The only way in which we can continue with the school building programme is if the Member’s party and the other parties support my bids.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Question 4 has been withdrawn

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

5. asked the Minister of Education for her assessment of whether her Department can meet all the revenue raising targets set out in the draft savings delivery plan. (AQO 938/11)

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I extend the condolences of the Alliance Party to those families who were bereaved by suicide last weekend.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Maidir leis na spriocanna atá leagtha amach i mo phlean um imdháileadh agus coigilt airgid, ní dhírítear iad go príomha ar ioncam a ghiniúint. The allocations and savings plan does not contain any targets that are primarily focused on raising revenue, and the Department’s functions are such that the scope to raise revenue is extremely limited. I firmly believe, and I am sure that the Member shares my belief, that children’s education is a fundamental right. It should be a universal service that is open to all. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to introduce charges for core educational services. My Department has examined specific non-classroom services to consider what scope there might be to increase revenue. In some cases, charging was discounted, as it would likely impact more strongly on the most deprived and act as a barrier to inclusion for those children who most need the service. My budget proposals on others services, such as the provision of school meals and transport, focus on efficiency and reducing costs rather than on raising revenue. However, further consideration may need to be given to charging and funding structures over the Budget period to ensure the most appropriate use is made of our limited resources.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Minister detail some of the contingency plans that she will use if additional funding does not become available?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I have already said that I plan to reclassify £41 million of capital expenditure and put that into schools’ budgets. We have done everything that we can in the draft Budget to protect front line services; the special educational needs budget; the youth budget; the counselling for schools budget; and the extended schools budget. We also did everything that we could to militate against big losses in the aggregated schools budget in the first year. We must avoid unnecessary duplication, establish the ESA and get money into the classroom.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will, the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no job losses in the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) and other professional services as a result of the Budget?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will be looking at all the education and library boards and the various services to see where there is duplication, unnecessary administration and overlap. My preferred option would be for the ESA to be up and running. Our work is being organised through a convergence programme. Money should not be wasted on administration; it needs to get to the classroom.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I extend my sympathies to the family of the young man who died in tragic circumstances during a Medallion Shield rugby match at the weekend, as well as to those who tragically died as a result of suicide. In her answer to Michelle McIlveen earlier, the Minister correctly stated that officials had been before the Committee for Education on a number of occasions to discuss budgetary matters. However, the Committee has requested more finite detail so that it can help with the draft Budget, and that has not been made available to date. When will that information become available?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

For clarification, I mentioned three young people, and I did refer to the young man that the Member mentioned. I spoke to his school principal this morning and to those of the other two young people.

My officials have been at the Committee and, as the Member knows, I have also been at the Committee. The Department of Education is always happy to provide information, and my officials are working through the Committee’s requests.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I want to pick up on the answer that the Minister gave to Mr Lyttle about contingency plans and, in particular, her plans to transfer capital to revenue. The Minister of Finance and Personnel indicated that that proposal would not receive his support. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and what will she do if that possibility is not forthcoming?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am not aware that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has said that he will not support it. First, it is a matter for the Executive. I have written to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and he has outlined that it is a matter for the Executive.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

6. asked the Minister of Education what action she is taking to address the withdrawal of end-year flexibility. (AQO 939/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Chuir Státchoiste na Breataine srianadh rochtain i bhfeidhm ar sholúbthacht dheireadh bliana sa bhliain 2008. The British Treasury restricted access to end-year flexibility (EYF) in 2008. At that time, I made several representations to the then Finance Minister, Peter Robinson. At that point, the Executive, collectively, recognised the unique position of education and agreed that schools should be treated as a special case. Since then, I have continually highlighted the importance of EYF to the education system with two further Finance Ministers, Nigel Dodds and Sammy Wilson. Since 2008-09, my Department has sought access to EYF from the Executive as required and, at the same time, worked with education and library boards to manage the position of individual schools through prudent financial planning.

In October, the British Treasury demanded that the existing EYF scheme be abolished, including all accumulated stocks, with effect from the end of this financial year. I was not prepared to accept that loss of school funding, and I immediately raised the issue at the Executive meeting on 22 October 2010 and at Budget bilateral meetings with the Finance Minister. I then formally issued a letter to the Finance Minister on 13 January 2011 and followed that up with a meeting on 21 January, at which the issue was resolved. We both agreed that schools must continue to have access to surpluses that they had accumulated through sound financial management, and guaranteed to put in place arrangements to ensure that both past and future savings would be honoured in line with the Executive’s commitment to schools. That is a good outcome for our schools: indeed, it is the outcome that I fought for, with support from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Schools have now been provided with the certainty that they require.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle agus a Aire. I welcome the hard work that the Minister has done recently. The Treasury’s raid of school coffers was a disgrace, and it was a bad setback. However, I am glad that the work has continued and that the decision has been overturned.

I also concur with some of the comments made earlier about the young people who have died this week.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Your question?

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Minister has touched on it already, but perhaps she might say a bit more and confirm whether the schools have been given notification that the funds will be secured.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Chuir mé litir chuig na scoileanna go léir. We sent letters to the schools. They are aware of the situation and, obviously, were very concerned. Thankfully, the issue has been resolved, which shows that when Ministers work together, they can get the desired outcomes.

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

Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire faoi na socruithe nua a bheas a gcur i bhfeidhm agus a fhiafraí di conas a oibreoidh na socruithe nua agus cá has a dtiocfaidh an t-airgead leis an scéim seo a mhaoiniú. Will the Minister explain the new arrangements that will be put in place, tell us how they will work, and where the money will come from to operate the new arrangements?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Tá an próiseas seo á fhorbairt faoi láthair ag mo Roinn agus ag comhghleacaithe sa Roinn Airgeadais agus Pearsanra, ach tá an próiseas ag céim luath agus mar sin de tá sé ró-luath tuilleadh sonraí a thabhairt air.

My Department and DFP colleagues are developing the mechanics of the process. It is at an early stage, so I cannot give any details on the exact mechanism. However, there is a firm guarantee about arrangements, and the scheme will be put in place using Executive resources.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I also welcome the fact that the Finance Minister and the Education Minister came together to give this guarantee to many schools, because schools in my constituency contacted me about the issue. Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that, if schools underspent by more than 5% in this financial year, the money that they saved for future projects will be secured and honoured?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I made a clear statement about past and future money. Schools will get the resources that are rightfully theirs. There are sound financial principles and frameworks, to which it is important that schools adhere. It is 5% either way or £75,000, so schools should not accumulate major surpluses. The arrangements will be honoured.

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

7. asked the Minister of Education how the Budget settlement will impact on front line services. (AQO 940/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Léirigh mé riamh gur mhaith liom cosaint a thabhairt do sheirbhísí tús line, an méid is féidir liom, nuair a bhí mo chuid pleananna coigilte agus mo dhréacht-imdháiltí á ndearbhú agam.

In determining the draft allocations and savings plans, I always made it clear that I want to protect front line services. My core priorities have been raising educational standards; targeting educational inequalities; removing inequalities; reducing bureaucracy; driving up efficiency; eliminating duplication; and minimising any impact on front line services in the classroom. Members are aware of what has been ring-fenced, so I will not repeat myself.

If we do not receive further resources, I am particularly concerned about the scale of resource savings that will have to be delivered next year. Members know that I am seeking to reclassify £41 million from capital to revenue in 2011-12. I will also continue to fight for unallocated resources for education because an additional £800 million of revenue has still to be allocated. I will not make any final decisions until after the Executive agree the final Budget. Only at that stage can the impact for all educational services be properly assessed.

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

Will the Minister tell the House what discussions she has had with the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO), in light of its members expressing concerns in the media today about job losses?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I met representatives of the INTO and other unions this morning. We discussed the importance of the establishment of ESA, which is one of the single biggest ways to get money into the front line to protect classrooms, teachers, classroom assistants and other school staff. We also discussed the importance of equality in education. The unions were pleased about the situation with end-year flexibility because many of their schools are worried about that. They also supported the protection of the most vulnerable people and front line services. They want to ensure that education receives additional resources, and I look forward to all parties in the House supporting that.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Question 8 has already been answered. Mr Thomas Buchanan is not in his place for question 9.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

10. asked the Minister of Education if she can confirm that funding is still available for newbuild schools which have been given the go-ahead. (AQO 943/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Tá infheistíocht shuntasach déanta agam i scoileanna nua.

We have invested significantly in new schools. The Executive agreed a 10-year investment strategy that had 108 schools. Fifty-five of those schools have been built or are under construction. Fifty-four schools remain on the list to be built over the next six years, and a further 112 schools are at various stages of planning. It is intended that the 13 schools that were announced in August will be given the go-ahead subject to the necessary approvals.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

That concludes questions to the Minister of Education. Members may take their ease for a few moments while we change the top Table.

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

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just come through Question Time and a number of Members either withdrew their question or did not appear to ask it. The Speaker referred to that on a previous occasion. Will you undertake, Mr Deputy Speaker, to draw the Speaker’s attention to the considerable discourtesy to the House that that represents? We have just come through an era when offenders either got off or got out early. Can we ensure that, in the House, offenders who repeatedly do not appear are punished in some way, such as not being called in the future?

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

The Speaker is aware of the problem, but I ask the Member not to generalise too widely. I know that there are Members involved in Committees who are carrying out important work in chairing those Committees. However, I agree that there should be some communication with the Chamber.

Executive Committee Business

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. I thank the Committee Clerk and his staff for all their hard work and patience. I think that, if the Clerk had had a big stick, he might have used it on some of us.

The Committee has taken this issue extremely seriously. As a Committee member, I know that we are still receiving representations from concerned groups on many of the issues in the Bill. The issue that causes most concern among my constituents, who are largely rural dwellers and have an interest in country sports and the showing of dogs, is tail docking.

I am of the opinion — I have voiced it previously in the House — that tail docking, especially for working dogs, is absolutely essential. It is unwise and unacceptable that a blanket ban on tail docking should be considered by the Minister. That is so especially when one considers the number of working dogs in Northern Ireland. There are thousands of working dogs in the Province, and many of them have their tail docked in order to prevent serious injury while hunting in thickets or thorny cover. To suggest that that should become an offence is offensive in itself to the thousands of working-dog owners in Northern Ireland. Owners who have docking carried out are acting only in the best interests of the dog. There are many incidents of injury to tails to back that up. The breeds that are chosen for hunting, such as spaniels and terriers, thoroughly enjoy doing what they are best at, and tail docking is a sensible procedure to allow the dog to enjoy hunting without trips to the vet to treat painful damage to their tail.

The Department’s opinion is that a low percentage of working dogs suffer tail injuries. That is true, but only because most working dogs have their tail docked at a few days old; hence the incidence of injuries is low. The facts speak for themselves on that matter. It is essential that, if the House agrees a ban on tail docking, the Bill should exempt working dogs.

The showing of dogs and other animals is an important part of life in rural Northern Ireland. It is vital that the owners of dogs that have their tail docked now or in the future can continue to show their dogs if they wish.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I approached this issue with an open mind. As other Members have said, tail docking is an emotive issue. There is plenty of passion about the subject among the stakeholders: the hunting and showing fraternities, the animal rights groups and the veterinary community. I thank them all for giving evidence to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. However, we have to base our decisions on the best available advice. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons clearly stated that the practice of tail docking caused unnecessary suffering to dogs. Veterinary experts from around the world agree with that opinion; there is no getting away from that. As was mentioned, the European Union is considering legislation to ban the practice of docking dogs’ tails.

Some Members talked of the pain caused to animals being acceptable, and others said that the level of pain involved was equivalent to nothing more than an “ouch”. Perhaps if those Members were to have a piece of their own anatomy amputated, they might take a different view, particularly the male Members.

The Committee’s evidence sessions took place over a considerable period. An awful lot of work was done, and I pay tribute to the Committee staff. A clear need was expressed during the evidence sessions for an exemption for some breeds. As I said, I approached the issue with an open mind but, as the evidence mounted, I was compelled to agree that there was an argument for the exemption on welfare grounds of a couple of breeds of dogs, such as spaniels and hunt point retrievers. A number of Committee members agreed with that. We were moving some way, I felt, towards a compromise proposal. I will touch on that later when I talk about the Minister’s proposals.

The concern about those breeds centred on the fact that their full tail was more susceptible to damage in undergrowth. That, coupled with the medical treatment and the real possibility of amputation, would have been extremely painful for those dogs and would affect their well-being. Committee members expressed the view that the controlled docking of working dogs’ tails before a pup was five days old was a preventative measure and a considered response to the welfare of the working dog. I add the caveat to that to specify the two breeds that I mentioned.

The Committee discussed which dogs should be exempt in the Bill. The Minister made a proposal concerning spaniel-type pure breeds and hunt point retriever pure breeds. The majority of the hunting fraternity, I must say, were satisfied with that approach. They came to the Committee table viewing the process as one of negotiation. They wanted some concessions, but they were fully aware that they were not going to get everything that they wanted.

I felt that the Department and the Minister took a practical approach to the issues, especially in relation to enforcement. We heard about examples of enforcement, which I will touch on when I address a different group of amendments. The more breeds and cross-breeds that are included, the greater the enforcement minefield.

Some Members touched on the showing of dogs. Sinn Féin is opposed to cosmetic tail docking, as was the Committee throughout Committee Stage. I never heard any Committee members say that they supported cosmetic tail docking. I have heard differently on the Floor today. There seems to be a snowball effect. Each breed about which Members receive a lobby letter is added to the list; it is like some sort of conveyor belt. Perhaps we will meet another group tomorrow and will have to put onto the list the dogs that it wants to include. I am concerned about that. As I said, I see no reason to dock tails for purely cosmetic reasons. It is cruel. There may be health reasons to support tail docking, but there are no cosmetic reasons.

Members touched on the issue of dogs that had their tail docked before the ban and asked whether they could be shown for their natural life. They can. The Committee Clerk and the Department gave us clear guidance on that. They stated clearly that dogs that had had their tail docked already could be shown for their natural life. There is a considerable period in which we can be guided into the new legislation. It will give everyone time to prepare. Another Member said that dogs are born with a tail, so why not show dogs with their tail? If all the dogs have a tail, they will be shown on a level playing field. The legislation will evolve over time as it is rolled out. It is a bit like breeding. Perhaps there is a challenge for breeders to look at making tails shorter through breeding practices and evolution. There is a responsibility on breeders.

Other Members talked about the docking of pigs’ tails and lambs’ tails. That is carried out because of welfare issues to do with the way that those animals are farmed. The Department outlined clearly that that is done for the greater good, and I think that everyone accepts that. Improved husbandry would probably eradicate the need to dock pigs’ and lambs’ tails. That would obviously involve considerable expense for our farming community, but I think that it will happen over time. The docking of pigs’ and lambs’ tails is cruel too, but it is done for the greater good. There are serious welfare issues involved, such as pigs eating each other’s tails and fly strike among lambs. There are good reasons for tail docking in those circumstances, but we have to look at better husbandry.

I will move on to the Committee’s proposed amendment. I will read a part of the Committee’s report that refers to the Minister’s amendment:

“Members noted that this was a significant movement by the Minister and the Department. However, having received evidence from stakeholders advising that working and hunting dogs can be cross-bred to improve their performance in these areas, Members believed that this proposal fell short of their requirements. Members indicated that extending the amendment to include spaniels, hunt point retrievers and terriers (and combinations of these breeds), in conjunction with the policy proposals for subordinate legislation, would remove the possibility of docking a dog’s tail for cosmetic reasons”.

I repeat that that was said by the Committee, some members of which are here today. The Committee tabled its own amendment to prevent tail docking for cosmetic reasons and:

“close ‘loopholes’ identified in the English and Welsh legislation.”

The Committee decided — I voted against this — to move to the English and Welsh model but with a few extra caveats.

I wish to give Members who are not on the Committee a flavour of what we are talking about. The exemption includes spaniels of any breed or combination of breeds; terriers of any breed or combination of breeds; any breed commonly used for hunting or any combination of such breeds; any breed commonly used for pointing or any combination of such breeds; and any breed commonly used for retrieving or any combination of such breeds. That is a considerable number of dogs, given that hundreds of dogs comprise each breed. If Members think about the number of terriers and combinations of breeds of terriers alone, they will understand that we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of dogs. That is where we are and where the amendment is. That is where the Committee felt that it had to go on the issue.

I think that the amendment is too wide, is unworkable and cannot be enforced. The evidence from the English and Welsh experience shows that there were major enforcement issues with such a provision. The Committee knows that, and it knows damn well that that will be very difficult to enforce. Others talked about the great cost to councils of enforcing it. However, there will be a great deal more cost in trying to prove whether or not a dog should have its tail docked. It will be an absolute minefield. However, the will of the House is that we go in that direction.

Some Members stated that there will be more injuries if tails are not docked. However, as I said to the Minister, the same argument could be used for any limb. The more we have, the more likely we are to get injured. Will we, therefore, start removing dogs’ paws to reduce injuries? Should we take off two of their paws, so that they are less likely to get injured and have less chance of getting their paws jammed in a door?

The Committee is behaving like a child: the more it gets, the more it wants. Some Members are now arguing for cosmetic docking. Perhaps they will put it in their election literature that that is what they are calling for. They are speaking with a forked tongue at the minute. As I say, the Committee is like a child who gorges on sweets, even though they do not particularly want them, until they make themselves sick. They do not realise what they are doing; they just want to do it. If you will excuse the pun, a LeasCheann Comhairle, they are like a dog in a manger. I will leave it at that now that I have aired my views.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The previous Member who spoke was right about the fact that there is a lot of confusion. After that contribution, he has caused more confusion than anyone else here today.

The Committee took a lot of evidence over a number of weeks. While some of us would suggest that some of the evidence was for the right reasons, I would suggest that some of it was for the wrong reasons. The term “cosmetic docking” has been used. However, I and some others believe that the Department has created that to a certain extent, because, as I said in an earlier intervention, it has been trying to push the Committee in a certain direction.

The previous Member who spoke was right about the fact that there was a lobby. However, that lobby comprised people who work day in and day out with dog breeds and, therefore, know exactly what those breeds’ characteristics are and how their tails can get damaged. The views of a lobby group should be taken into consideration in just the same way as any other evidence. We have to listen to the people who work with dogs day in and day out, and those people believe that banning tail docking is going too far. They care about and have paid huge amounts of money for their dogs and are, therefore, concerned about injury. If any measures are to come into effect here, they should be to ensure that due process is followed before tail docking is done. An owner must go to a vet and get everything recorded. That will ensure that not just anyone can do the procedure and that the dog does not go through any unnecessary suffering.

Some people possibly think more of their dogs than they do of any other possession. Their dogs are so valuable to them that they do not want to make them suffer, and they will try to treat them as well as is humanly possible. However, anyone listening to the Department’s point of view would imagine that the people who work with dogs were barbaric in how they carried out the operation in the past. However, I think that that is an unfair assumption.

The evidence that was given was selective. It was selected from just 52 vets’ practices from all those in the UK, and we could not even find out whether those practices were in rural or urban settings. It makes sense that most of the dogs in a rural setting are more likely to be used for work. The Department was fiercely against tail docking from the outset, particularly for working dogs and those used for sport and shooting. Statistics would surely be different if the opinion of vets in rural parts were asked for. However, the Department was very selective in where it got its information.

I was one of the people who supported the amendment. I will continue to support it today, but I will vote against the clause itself in its entirety. I will do that because I do not believe that the amendment has gone far enough. I think that people who have bred dogs should be allowed to continue to look after them in the fashion that they have been. The process would be more workable if other controls were put in place that would mean that the dog would have to be taken to the vet within a certain number of days to go through the procedure. As the previous Member who spoke said, this will probably be unworkable because of confusion about various breeds. That would be easily overcome by the suggestion that, if someone wants to dock any dog, they could take it to the vet within a certain number of days and let the vet carry out the procedure. That would mean that docking would be done in a humane way, with the result that the dog would go through as little suffering as possible.

Pictures were circulated to us of dogs whose tail had been injured. Perhaps some of us, including the Member who spoke previously, chose not to look at them. Evidence was given about the severity of the pain that is caused. One of the experts referred to the pain of docking as being similar to a person saying, “Ouch”. However, if the tail were amputated at a later date when the dog is older, the dog would obviously go through a lot more pain.

Evidence was also given to suggest that, when dogs are injured and the tail does not need amputated in the first instance, it is more likely that it will be amputated at a later date because the injuries do not fully heal. For that reason, I support amendment No 2. It goes some way to protecting dogs and the welfare of animals. However, I do not believe that it goes far enough, so I urge Members to vote for the removal of clause 6.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As Members heard today, there has been quite a bit of division on this issue. I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development that this has been the most contentious issue in the Bill. However, by and large, that is all that I agree with him on.

The amount of squabbling and some of the contributions have made this a hugely difficult issue to get any kind of consensus or agreed way forward on. There has been considerable comment from stakeholders, both from those who oppose and from those who support an outright ban.

It may help if I start by reminding Members that the purpose of the Welfare of Animals Bill is to update and strengthen the powers that are currently available in the Welfare of Animals Act 1972, which no longer meets society’s expectations. In particular, the welfare standards for non-farmed animals, including dogs, lagged well behind the improved welfare standards that are already in place for farmed animals.

The key aims of the Bill are not only to stop cruelty and to stop animals suffering unnecessary pain and distress but to promote and enhance the welfare of all protected animals. I believe that docking a dog’s tail causes unnecessary suffering. In addition to causing acute pain, a wide range of scientific evidence demonstrates that tail docking deprives the dog of a major bodily appendage and can result in behavioural changes in some dogs. It also deprives the dog of a vital form of canine expression and may result in post-docking infections and complications, including incontinence. Therefore, in a bid to prevent pups from suffering unnecessarily, the Bill would impose a complete ban on the docking of dogs’ tails unless it is undertaken by a veterinary surgeon for the dog’s medical treatment or to save its life. That is my preferred position.

My aim is to prevent the unacceptable practice of the cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails. However, from the remarks in the Chamber and the comments from a wide range of stakeholders, there is obvious strength of feeling behind the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development’s proposed exemption to allow the tails of certified working dogs to be docked. Although that is disappointing, it is at least reassuring to hear that some Members do not support cosmetic docking. The Committee’s amendment does not go as far as I would like. Although its proposed exemption is not ideal, it will, if made, go some way towards stopping cosmetic docking.

I welcome the fact that the Committee’s amendments include a proposal to strengthen the powers to stop the showing of dogs with a docked tail, but it must be remembered that most dogs that are shown are docked to conform to what was previously the breed standard and not for the welfare of the dog. Should the Committee’s amendment be made, I will instruct my officials to work with the Committee to ensure that the subsequent subordinate legislation, which will be made to enforce that exemption, is as effective as it can be. That will go some way towards ensuring that the exemption does not leave the back door open for cosmetic docking.

I have set out my preferred position, and Members are aware from today’s debate that I brought a compromise to the Committee in an attempt to meet the needs of the stakeholders who expressed a desire for some flexibility for working dogs. Obviously, my amendment did not go far enough. Although the Committee amendment would lead to a very unworkable situation, I am horrified to hear that members of the Committee are considering voting down the entire clause.

I recognise the strength of feeling expressed in support of the Committee’s amendment. However, in the interests of building consensus on this hugely important Bill, I remind the House that it deals with issues such as dog fighting, about which Members have come to me and have expressed concern on the Floor of the House. The Bill is not just about tail docking; that is a very small part of it. There are hugely important elements to be considered today. In the interests of pragmatism and of listening to the Committee — I have made a virtue of listening to stakeholders and the Committee — I brought forward a proposal, but that was rejected. The Committee’s proposal is not perfect, but I will not oppose the tail docking amendments tabled by its Chairperson.

We need to keep the entire Bill in context. I bring Members back to the fact that we are providing a duty of care to all protected animals, including domestic pets and horses. We are making it possible to act to prevent animals from suffering, and we are strengthening powers in respect of dog fighting. We are providing powers to regulate a wide range of activities involving animals, such as dog breeding establishments, and we are increasing the penalties for serious animal welfare offences. I do not want to lose the tone of the Bill over the single issue of tail docking.

The Bill substantially updates and strengthens existing powers to deal with animal welfare issues. It will put us at the forefront of the protection of farmed and non-farmed animals. However, given the nature of some Members’ comments during the debate, it is clear that they are in favour of cosmetic docking. I am appalled to hear that some Members are considering voting down the entire clause because they feel that it would be wrong to have it in place. I caution against that, and I will explain what will happen if the clause falls: it will, effectively, say that we support cosmetic docking, and many people will be appalled at that. However, the implications are much worse. If the clause is voted down, the only power that we will have is the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which requires a vet to dock a dog’s tail. We will be in a far worse position than before we started the Bill. We will no longer have any powers to require pups to be docked before their eyes are open. It will also be impossible to enforce the requirement that only a veterinary surgeon may undertake the procedure. The North of Ireland will become the docking capital of these islands, and it will send out the message that the welfare of dogs is not important. If the clause is voted down, the House will be the laughing stock of Europe.

We heard about how many European nations are voting against this practice and about the direction in which everybody is going. We will be laughed at, and it will be one of the most retrograde steps that this legislature has taken.

Any Members who consider voting down clause 6 should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. The removal of all regulation of tail docking beggars belief. I cannot believe that we are at the point of considering it, so I hope that Trevor Clarke is in a minority of one. I hope that he is the only person — and I see that he has left the Chamber — who lacks the common sense and decency to vote the clause down. It is mind-blowing what goes on in the House, and this has been one of the most bizarre days that I have had. Although the Committee’s amendment is not perfect, I urge Members to support it and the entire clause. Stephen, it is over to you.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister and Members for their contributions to the debate. I do not intend to summarise each contribution. Instead, I will address some concerns that Members raised. Generally, I welcome the support expressed for the amendments, and I fully appreciate Members’ comments. I shall comment on some of them.

Mr Molloy expressed the view that the clause on tail docking should have had wider consideration and should take into account, for example, the docking of lambs’ and pigs’ tails. However, the Committee accepted that there were considerable welfare considerations requiring those animals’ tails to be docked. In addition, it noted that research was being undertaken into how, for example, husbandry could be developed to remove risks. I expect that if such a breakthrough is made, the Department will add the docking of lambs’ and pigs’ tails by means of clause 5, “Prohibited procedures”.

A number of Members mentioned dog showing. I stress that the Department and, indeed, the Committee did not just pluck the issue out of the air. It has already been debated in England and Wales. Indeed, as I stated previously, at a meeting on 29 November 2010, EU Agriculture Ministers agreed to undertake a study into prohibiting the showing and trading of dogs and cats where their tails have undergone non-curative surgery, namely docking.

In addition, the Kennel Club, which has the welfare of dogs very much at heart, expressed its view to the Committee that, for the purposes of clarity, we should introduce an immediate ban on showing dogs with docked tails. With the welfare of dogs at heart, the Kennel Club has removed the necessity for docked tails from show breed standards, which means that, at a show, a docked tail will be of no advantage over an undocked tail. If a dog is bred to be shown, there will be no requirement for its tail to be docked. Mr Beggs sought confirmation from the Minister about when the ban on showing dogs with docked tails will take effect. I hope that the Minister has provided that clarity. I reconfirm what I and the Minister stated previously: if a tail has been docked before the ban comes into effect, the dog can be shown for the remainder of its natural life.

Mr Bradley expressed concern about the combination of breeds, and he allowed Mr Molloy to intervene in response. I support those comments, and I would add that the combination of breeds will allow for different characteristics of working dogs to be bred. If anything, it will strengthen breeds. Mr Lunn spoke about harmonisation between this jurisdiction and that of the Republic of Ireland. I advise him that the relevant Department in the Republic has consulted on its Animal Health and Welfare Bill, and it has included a policy principle to prohibit what it describes as mutilations. In addition, both jurisdictions have in place an all-island animal health and welfare strategy that seeks to co-ordinate legislation in those areas. Finally, in November, the Republic’s Minister attended the EU Council meeting at which, as I said, agreement was achieved on a study into the banning of showing dogs with docked tails. So there is harmony in that respect.

Willie Clarke spoke of the controlled docking of tails. That is an important point that needs to be emphasised. Docking will require veterinary certification and will be controlled by subordinate legislation that will be subject to the scrutiny of the Committee and the House. He also stated that it was too difficult to police and that many dogs are included. I repeat: a professionally qualified vet will certify that the dog will be used for lawful hunting and lawful pest control.

The Minister stated her preferred position, and we respect that. However, I have already covered the evidence that brought the Minister to that position, and the Committee felt that it was inconclusive. I welcome her offer for the Committee and her staff to bring forward the necessary subordinate legislation. I also welcome the fact that she will not oppose the amendments.

I hope that I have provided sufficient clarity in respect of Members’ queries. The Committee has thought long and hard about the clause, and there have been many developed debates. However, we have returned to the same conclusion each time: docking a dog’s tail for any reason other than the welfare of the dog is wrong. Docking a dog’s tail so that it conforms to a breed standard is wrong. Docking a dog’s tail because it makes a dog look prettier is wrong. If one accepts that, one must also accept that it is imperative that the practice of showing dogs with cosmetically docked tails needs to be discouraged. That is what happened in England and Wales, and it will happen in Scotland when the impact of a total ban on docking filters through. The issue is being debated at the highest level in Brussels and throughout Europe.

The ban on tail docking is needed to protect the welfare of the dog. The exemption for working dogs is needed to protect the welfare of the dog. Cosmetic docking neither protects nor enhances the welfare of the dog and should not, therefore, be permitted. I commend the amendments to the House and ask it to support the Committee by voting for them.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 61; Noes 19.

AYES

Ms M Anderson, Mr S Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Beggs, Mr Boylan, Mrs M Bradley, Mr PJ Bradley, Mr Brady, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr Callaghan, Mr Campbell, Mr W Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Cree, Mr Doherty, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr McCallister, Mr F McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Mr B McCrea, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Moutray, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Mr G Robinson, Ms Ruane, Mr Savage, Mr Sheehan, Mr Spratt, Mr Wells, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr W Clarke and Mr Molloy.

NOES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Bell, Mr Bresland, Mr T Clarke, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mr Hamilton, Mr Kinahan, Mr I McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Poots, Mr Ross, Mr Weir.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Clarke and Miss McIlveen.

Question accordingly agreed to.

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

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Fighting etc.)

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

We now come to the third group of amendments for debate, which remove an exemption in the Bill to offences relating to photographs and videos of animal fighting. With amendment No 3, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 4. Members should note that amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment No 3.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (4).

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 4: In page 6, leave out lines 13 and 14. — [The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew).]

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Amendment No 3 is one of two amendments in the group, namely amendment Nos 3 and 4, which deal with animal fighting. The Bill strengthens existing powers in respect of animal fighting, including dogfighting and cockfighting. There are already substantial powers in the Welfare of Animals Act 1972 in respect of animal fighting. It is currently an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal by causing, procuring or assisting at an animal fight; promoting, causing or permitting any performance; taking part in an animal fight; keeping, using, managing, permitting or assisting in the keeping of any premises for animal fighting; receiving, causing or procuring money for admission to an animal fight; and being a spectator at an animal fight. Those current offences will be enhanced by the Bill because they will become offences regardless of whether unnecessary suffering is caused.

In addition, new powers will be added to make it an offence to keep or train an animal for use in connection with an animal fight. Therefore, if evidence such as training equipment, etc, is present, the power will exist to seize a dog before it ever fights. The Bill will also make it an offence to cause an animal fight to take place or to attempt to do so; to supply, publish or show a video recording of an animal fight; to possess a video recording of an animal fight with the intention to supply it; and to place or accept a bet on an animal fight.

Furthermore, penalties for animal fighting will be increased from a maximum of three months’ imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine to a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Other new powers allow for the destruction of animals that are involved in fighting offences, forfeiture of equipment, and reimbursement of expenses that are incurred by the PSNI in connection with keeping animals that are involved in those offences.

Powers are also included to allow a court to disqualify a person convicted of animal fighting offences for any one or more of the following: owning animals; keeping animals; participating in the keeping of animals; controlling or influencing the way in which animals are kept; dealing in animals for fighting; transporting animals; and arranging for the transport of animals. A court will also be able to cancel any current welfare licence or disqualify a person from holding a licence following a conviction for animal fighting offences. Those new powers will strengthen the current powers significantly and send a strong message to individuals involved in that type of abhorrent activity that animal fighting is not acceptable in a civilised society.

As amendment No 3 resulted from recent legal advice received after Committee Stage was completed, my officials were not able to discuss it with the Committee. However, as the amendment will strengthen the powers in respect of animal fighting, I am confident that the Committee will welcome it.

As I outlined, clause 8 creates a number of offences in relation to animal fighting, including an offence to supply, publish, show or possess a photograph, image or video recording of an animal fight. However, an exemption is provided to those offences if the photograph, image or video recording is of an animal fight that took place outside Ireland or Britain or before the commencement date. Our legal advice is that that exemption should be removed from the Bill, as its inclusion could make it difficult for the prosecution to prove its case. I have accepted that advice.

Amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment No 3. I, therefore, propose to amend clause 8, in line with the legal advice, to tighten the powers in relation to animal fighting. I call on Members to support the third group of amendments.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

As the Minister said, amendment Nos 3 and 4 were not presented to the Committee but resulted from legal advice received by the Department. The Committee has consistently and unanimously condemned the heinous, monstrous and despicable crime that is animal fighting. I have no doubt that members of the Committee will welcome any strengthening of the legislation. The supply of photographs or videos of animal torture should be banned, irrespective of where they are sourced, and I am glad that the Department received timely information on that matter. As I said, members did not have the opportunity to discuss the third group of amendments at Committee, but I confirm what I strongly believe will be their position, namely their agreement to the amendments. I fully support the Minister on those amendments.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Everyone condemns dogfighting and animal fighting. One of my first experiences of the issue was when I was sitting on Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council. There was a well-highlighted case of a dog that had been imported for fighting. It was one issue against which the council, across the board, united in opposition. The same opposition existed in the Committee: total opposition to any aspect of dogfighting and total support for measures to deal with it. I support the amendments.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I support the third group of amendments. Clause 8 is significant, as it strengthens significantly the ability to prosecute those involved in a wide range of activities in connection with animal fighting. We are aware from programmes such as ‘Spotlight’ that organised dogfighting is an issue for Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, there may be other forms of animal fighting. The legislation will apply to any form of animal fighting. It appears that the activity occurs to give some sort of pleasure to deranged humans, or for betting purposes.

Clause 8(3) states that it would be an offence to supply, publish, show or possess photographs or images of the fighting.

Amendment No 3 would create an exemption to that, in that it would not apply if the fight took place outside the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom.

On reflection, I see why it is important to remove that. First, does it really matter where an inappropriate image that is promoting animal fighting originated? It would be in the possession of someone who supports or encourages that activity. That exemption would provide protection for someone involved in animal fighting — for example, someone in Finland, where, as we are aware, there are connections, would have been exempt. The exemption might also have created a necessity for anyone prosecuting to prove that an offence had happened in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. That could have provided a defence for someone involved in animal fighting in our jurisdiction and who had photographs or images of it. They might have had a defence by arguing that the fight did not happen here.

Similarly, I understand that amendment No 4 removes the commencement date. By removing that, the necessity to prove when the event occurred will be removed. Both amendments will strengthen the powers of prosecution and make it more difficult for anyone to defend themselves for having inappropriate images, photographs or video recordings of animal fighting. Someone who is involved in such activity will now be much less likely to carry such images and, if they do, will be much more likely to be successfully prosecuted. The amendments will help to bring that horrendous so-called sport to an end, and those who have been involved in that reprehensible activity will be successfully prosecuted. I support the amendments.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will not repeat what has already been said. We need to send a clear message to people who indulge in such activity that it will not be tolerated and that they will be subject to the full rigours of the law. I am more than happy to support both amendments.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their contribution to this part of the debate. It shows that, like me, Members deplore animal fighting and want the best controls possible to deter that barbaric and horrific practice. The amendments will strengthen the powers in the Bill and will close any potential loopholes that people involved in that practice might use to escape the full force of the law. I call on Members to support the amendments in this group.

Question, That amendment No 3 be made, put and agreed to.

Amendment No 4 made: In page 6, leave out lines 13 and 14. — [The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew).]

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 (Penalties)

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

Amendment No 5 is consequential to amendment No 2.

Amendment No 5 made: In page 18, line 18, leave out “sections 6(5)” and insert “sections 6(5) and 6(10)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

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

Amendment No 6 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 2.

Amendment No 6 made: In page 18, line 24, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 (Deprivation)

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

Amendment No 7 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 2.

Amendment No 7 made: In page 18, line 31, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 (Disqualification)

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

Amendment No 8 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 2.

Amendment No 8 made: In page 20, line 17, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 34 and 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 (Destruction in the interests of an animal)

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

Amendment No 9 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 2.

Amendment No 9 made: In page 21, line 36, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 37 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 (Orders with respect to licences)

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

Amendment No 10 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 2.

Amendment No 10 made: In page 25, line 3, leave out

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2) and (4)”

and insert

“sections 4, 5, 6(1), (2), (4) and (15)”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Moutray).]

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 42 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 (Inspectors)

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

We now come to the fourth group of amendments for debate, which deal with enforcement and clarify the meaning of an “inspector”. With amendment No 11, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 12.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 11: In page 26, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert

“(1) In this Act, ‘inspector’, in the context of any provision, means—

(a) in so far as that provision relates to farmed animals, a person appointed to be an inspector for the purposes of that provision by the Department;

(b) in so far as that provision relates to other animals, a person appointed to be an inspector for the purposes of that provision by a council.

(1A) In subsection (1), ‘farmed animal’ means any animal bred or kept for the production of food, wool or skin or for other farming purposes.

(1B) The Department may by regulations amend the definition of ‘farmed animal’ in subsection (1A).

(1C) Before making regulations under subsection (1B), the Department must consult such persons appearing to the Department to represent relevant interests as the Department considers appropriate.”

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 12: In page 26, line 33, at end insert

“(4A) Each council must furnish to the Department, at such times and in such manner as the Department may direct—

(a) such information relating to the exercise of the council’s functions under this section; and

(b) such information relating to the exercise of functions by inspectors appointed by the council for the purposes of this Act, as the Department may require.” — [The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew).]

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Amendment No 11 deals with the appointment and powers of inspectors and has two elements. The first element makes it clear that inspectors appointed by the Department will deal with farmed animals and that inspectors appointed by councils will deal with other animals.

The second element specifies what is meant by “farmed animal” and provides powers to amend the definition of “farmed animal” if it proves necessary in the future. Any such subordinate legislation will be subject to consultation with the stakeholders and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and will be made by draft affirmative resolution of the Assembly.

This amendment has been proposed at the request of the Committee, which had concerns over the time frame for the implementation of the powers by councils. This amendment will allow for the powers for the two groups of inspectors to be commenced at a different time. To address the Committee’s concerns, I have agreed that the powers for councils to appoint inspectors will not be commenced until 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That will provide sufficient lead-in time to allow my officials to work with councils to help them to prepare for implementation.

I am also aware that the Committee and councils are concerned that a new burden would be placed on councils, and that would impact on ratepayers. I assure the House that I am not placing an unfunded burden on councils, and I do not want ratepayers to face increases in their rates bills to cover the cost of animal welfare. Therefore, to allay those concerns, I have guaranteed to make available to councils annual funding of £760,000 for the Budget period. In addition, any licensing and registration functions will be passed to councils only as new subordinate legislation is made, which allows fees for those activities to be set on a full cost-recovery basis.

It is also important to highlight that although the Bill will place a statutory obligation on councils to enforce the provisions in respect of non-farmed animals, the powers are permissive in that councils will have discretion over how they implement them within the available resources. By providing the £760,000 funding to councils, I am asking them to implement the new enforcement role in the most efficient and effective way possible to ensure that priority cases can be addressed.

I have already advised the House that powers for councils will not be enacted until 12 months after the Bill is completed. So, there will be no requirement for councils to carry out any enforcement work in the next financial year. However, I still intend to make funding available for that year to enable councils to put the necessary preparatory arrangements in place in advance of the commencement of those provisions.

In its report on the Bill, the Committee made a number of recommendations regarding funding and progress on working with councils. To that end, amendment No 12 provides a power to request information from councils to enable the Department to monitor the implementation of policy with regard to non-farmed animals. That will allow the Department to assess the volume of complaints and the outcome and effectiveness of the actions taken.

It is critical that my officials and I work with councils to take that important element of the Bill forward. On 1 March, I will be meeting with members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and elected representatives from the rural affairs committee of NILGA, which will give me an opportunity to directly address the concerns of councils and to start the discussion about plans for future implementation.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I declare an interest as a member of Craigavon Borough Council.

Clauses 17, 29 and 45 have particular impact on local councils as they allow for the appointment of inspectors and provide powers to those inspectors in relation to animals in distress and the prosecution of offences. Those powers bring with them considerable resourcing implications.

The Department has recognised that there will be additional resource requirements and, based on the average case incidence in England and Wales, which is approximately 4,500 a year, has estimated that a sum of £760,000 would be required each year for all councils in Northern Ireland.

As the Minister indicated, that amount has been included in the draft Budget for the next CSR period. However, the Committee and elected councillors continue to be concerned by the issue of resources, particularly the size of the estimated resource implications and the long-term availability of resources.

The Committee heard from the rural affairs committee of NILGA that the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals receives some 8,000 calls about animal cruelty each month. Although only 40% of those calls are followed up, that still amounts to approximately 3,200 instances of animal cruelty each month, rather than the 4,500 incidents each year that were cited by the Department and formed the basis of its £760,000 budget allocation.

Committee members welcomed the inclusion of the £760,000 in the draft Budget, but they continue to worry that a new Minister, with different spending priorities, might wish to utilise those moneys differently. In addition, it does not take into consideration how the enforcement responsibilities are to be addressed beyond the next CSR period. Committee members agreed that that figure should be reviewed in light of experience.

Committee members were also critical of the Department for concentrating its consultations with local councils at an official level, and were adamant that elected councils had not been consulted. That was reinforced by the rural affairs committee of NILGA, which is composed of a cross section of elected councillors from the 26 councils. Indeed, the Committee continues to receive correspondence from councils indicating their complete opposition to a transfer of these powers without consultation at an appropriate level.

There were different opinions on how those issues could be resolved. Although all Committee members agreed that the Department needed to consult immediately and extensively with elected councillors, there was debate on how that could be achieved without delaying the Bill’s progress through the House. Therefore, Committee members agreed that the Department should defer the appointment of inspectors for a period of not less than 12 months to allow for appropriate consultation. That will result in clause 45 being amended to allow for the appointment of departmental inspectors to undertake testing for animal diseases such as bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis.

The Committee has also written to the Minister to ask that she attend a meeting with the Committee and elected councillors, which, I am pleased to say, she has agreed to do. It is important that the consultation is taken seriously and afforded the proper attention that it requires. This will be the commencement of what I believe will be a frank but fair consultation process. On the basis of the assurances received from the Minister in Committee and in the House, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development supports these amendments.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As the Chairperson of the Committee said, the lack of consultation was raised as a major issue in all the reports that the Committee got, including some of the times when NILGA was represented. It was clear that the Department only consulted with selected officials, and that it did not consult with elected councillors.

As I said earlier, the Committee wants to ensure that those elected councillors who make decisions on rates and other issues are the people who are consulted, and it is clear that that did not happen. Indeed, a number of councillors sit on the Committee, and it was clear that they had not heard anything about it or been consulted on any of it. Trevor Lunn said this morning that Lisburn City Council had never debated the issue, and the same applies across the board. There was no consultation.

As for the point that the discussions will be about the implementation of this, there is no indication that that will be the case. Local government could say that this is not a role that it can play and that it cannot employ inspectors. Local government has not decided yet. There are also governance issues and other issues around RPA that have to be sorted out by local government before councils can take on those powers.

A lot of issues are up for discussion. The discussions that will take place between the Department, the Committee and councillors should focus on the relevant aspects of the Bill, along with the cost of implementation. It is clear that the costs envisaged by councils and the possible court cases that may arise cannot be estimated at present. There is no indication of the number of court cases; it is impossible to estimate. There is also the matter of the number of vets and inspectors. The Department’s response was that its vets would not be used and that it would be up to local government to employ its own vets. We know what the cost of that will be. The Committee said that the Department already had vets and that there could be some future co-operation on the issue.

The Committee’s discussions have been about all aspects of the Bill, not just about how it will be implemented by the Department and local government. It is important for local councillors to be involved in those discussions, and they should not be represented by NILGA officials.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Does the Member believe that there has been enough co-operation and communication with local councils and councillors? Have they been brought into the loop?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No. There has been no worthwhile consultation, especially with local councillors. There has been some communication with a small number of chief executives and officials, but there has definitely not been any consultation with councillors. That was clear when the rural affairs group from NILGA attended the Committee: none of them was aware of the issues or the costs to be incurred by local government. Figures have been thrown about in relation to the costs involved, but the USPCA had an entirely different set of figures. Many different issues need to be looked at, and local government must be brought up to date on the implications of the Bill before it takes them on. There must be proper consultation.

Departments must get the message that consultation with local government should be with councillors, not officials. That should apply across the board, including in relation to Bills. We should be talking to the people who have to set the rates and who will be criticised for their decisions. Those people should be part of the decision-making process. We have to deal with those important issues, including the full costs that will be incurred.

There is also the issue of licensing. Councils still have the power and the obligation to issue licences. They will also have to deal with the tagging or microchipping of dogs, which is a dual responsibility, and be required to inspect dogs before a licence is issued. There are so many conditions attached to issuing a licence that dogs will be lined up in the foyer of councils, waiting to be inspected by the officer who issues the licence so that he can decide whether one should be granted. A lot of responsibility will fall on local government that does not exist at present and which will be an imposition.

Unfortunately, the cost involved will be passed on to the ratepayers, who are the people who own the dogs. The costs of microchipping and licensing and the role that local government will play in the implementation of the Bill will mean an additional cost for ratepayers. There must be further consideration and proper consultation before we move forward.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I wish to comment on amendment No 12, which will require councils to provide information to the Department. I accept that it is appropriate for the Department to know what is happening throughout Northern Ireland and, therefore, the amendment is appropriate. However, I seek the Minister’s reassurance that, in requiring information to come forth, she will enter discussions with local government to ensure that it is in a concise form and that it does not become a huge bureaucratic burden. Only necessary information should be required so that we do not create undue burdens and can ensure that useful information that can be acted on will come centrally to her Department. It will be useful to gather the number of enquiries that local government handles.

I declare an interest as a local councillor, although I am not standing in the forthcoming local government elections. The Department indicated that £760,000 will be available, which will be split among all 26 local councils in Northern Ireland, and it is bound to be difficult to work out whether that amount is sufficient. As the Department gathers information, I hope that it will be able to determine whether it has overestimated or underestimated the moneys required for local government to carry out this duty. I suspect that it may be an underestimation of the burden that will fall on local government because of the legislation. If the Department has that type of information, I hope that, if the situation is reviewed, the level of support to local government can be adjusted appropriately.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will be brief. I agree with Francie that there was not enough consultation with NILGA and the councils. That is nothing new, and I am not blaming DARD. Several pieces of legislation from the House will involve delegation to local authorities. We should learn lessons from lack of engagement. The key message is that it is not enough to consult; we must work in partnership with local authorities.

The Committee for the Environment is working on several Bills that will head down to the local authorities and place considerable burdens on them: the Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the High Hedges Bill, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, the Planning Bill, and the Waste and Contaminated Land (Amendment) Bill. The issue must be considered in the round, and the Executive need to examine it in more detail. The situation is new for everyone, but it is about partnership working.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If councillors and councils are not consulted, how does the Member expect them to work in partnership? If there has been no consultation, it is my understanding that councils cannot, and are not, part of it. I am interested in hearing the Member’s suggestions about bringing them into the consultation process, co-operating and working together at this stage.