Northern Ireland Assembly, 7 February 2011

358 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 7 February 2011.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 7 February 2011.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Ministerial Statements

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Education that she wishes to make a statement to the House.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Le do chead, is mian liom ráiteas a thabhairt maidir le cruinniú de chuid na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas i bhformáid rannach oideachais. Is in oifigí comhrúnaireachta an NSMC in Ard Mhacha a bhí an cruinniú seo ar 21 Eanáir 2011.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in education sectoral format. The meeting was held in the NSMC joint secretariat offices in Armagh on 21 January 2011. I represented the Executive as Minister of Education along with the Minister for Employment and Learning, Danny Kennedy MLA. The Irish Government were represented by Mary Coughlan TD, Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills. This statement has been agreed with Danny Kennedy and is made on behalf of us both.

Déanfaidh mé achoimre anois ar na príomhphointí ón gcruinniú. Clúdaíonn siad gach réimse comhaontaithe de chomhoibriú oideachais.

I will now summarise the main points from the meeting, ranging across all the agreed areas of education co-operation.

I dtaca le cáilíochtaí múinteora agus aoisliúntas na múinteoirí de, ghabh an Chomhairle a buíochas le TJ Ó Ceallaigh ón tSeirbhís um Fhorbairt Ghairmiúil do Mhúinteoirí agus le Seán Mac Corraidh ón tseirbhís chomhairleach don churaclam as a gcur i láthair comhpháirteach faoin gclár oibre Thuaidh/Theas trí Ghaeilge i réimse oiliúint múinteoirí agus fáiltíodh roimh na réimsí a aibhsíodh le haghaidh comhghnímh in 2010-2011.

In respect of teacher qualifications and super­annuation, the Council thanked TJ O’Ceallaigh from the Professional Development Service for Teachers and Séan MacCorraidh from the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service for their joint presentation on the North/South Irish-medium work programme in the area of teacher education and welcomed the areas highlighted for joint action in 2010-11.

Ministers noted the recent progress made by the joint working group on teacher qualifications, including the special focus on Irish-medium education and the ongoing liaison between the two teaching councils about issues relating to the professional recognition and registration of teachers in both jurisdictions. We also noted the ongoing contribution of exchanges between the inspectorates of both Education Departments to support the continuing development of inspection practice in both jurisdictions, including the particular focus of the 2009-2010 exchanges on the themes of good practice in literacy and numeracy education and early childhood education.

We welcomed the very positive report on the eighth SCoTENS annual conference, which took place in Belfast on 28 and 29 October 2010, under the title “Teacher Education for Inclusion”.

I dtaca le tearcghnóthachtáil oideachasúil de, chuir na hAirí fáilte roimh an obair chomhoibríoch atá á tabhairt chun cinn ag an dá Roinn ar litearthacht agus ar uimhearthacht lena n-áirítear: tacaíocht do sheachtain matamaitice na hÉireann 2010, sraith imeachtaí, a eagraíodh idir 9 agus 16 Deireadh Fómhair, a raibh sé mar aidhm aici feasacht, ómós agus tuiscint i dtaobh na matamaitice a chruthú go gach duine; an clár leabhar do pháistí a eagraíodh le linn mhí Dheireadh Fómhair 2010. Tá pleanáil idir lámha anois le haghaidh comhdhála i mí Feabhra 2011 leis an teideal oibre ‘Cur Chun Cinn Litearthachta laistigh agus lasmuigh de Scoileanna’; tá treoirthionscadal Am le Léamh á bhunú sa Deisceart le linn 2010/11; agus foilsíodh comhthuairisc leis an gCigireacht Oideachais agus Oiliúna agus leis an gCigireacht Oideachais agus Scileanna ar ‘Conas Litearthacht agus Uimhearthacht a Chur Chun Cinn inár Scoileanna’ ar 15 Nollaig 2010.

Ministers welcomed the collaborative work on literacy and numeracy being taken forward by both Departments, including support for maths week Ireland 2010. A series of events was held between 9 and 16 October aimed at promoting awareness, appreciation and understanding of mathematics for all, and the children’s book programme took place during October 2010. Planning is now under way for a conference in February 2011, with the working title “Promoting Literacy within and beyond Schools”. A Time to Read pilot project is being established in the South during 2010-11, and a joint report by the Education and Training Inspectorate and the Department of Education and Skills inspectorate on how to promote literacy and numeracy in our schools was published on 15 December 2010.

The Council noted that officials will explore the potential to hold a peer learning event on school attendance in spring 2011, with a focus on post-primary pupils. The Department of Education is planning to commission research to establish the underlying causes of and influences on the non-attendance of looked-after children at post-primary level and to identify effective approaches and actions to tackle the issue. The work of the task force on Traveller education is nearing completion, and the Department of Education hopes to receive the task force’s final report by the end of March.

The Council also welcomed the collaborative work under way to develop a toolkit for diversity, to support the professional development of middle management in schools.

I dtaca le riachtanais speisialta oideachais de, chuir an Chomhairle fáilte roimh an dul chun cinn leantach atá déanta ag Lárionad Uathachais an Bhaile Láir, go háirithe maidir lena sheachadadh oiliúna agus le caidrimh chomhpháirtíochta a thógáil le gníomhaireachtaí bainteacha i réimse an taighde. Tá na hAirí ag tacú fós le hiarrachtaí an lárionaid agus na Ranna Oideachais araon chun plean ilbhliantúil a fhorbairt d’fhorbairt thodhchaíoch an lárionaid.

The Council welcomed the continuing progress being made by the Middletown Centre for Autism, particularly its delivery of training and the building of partnership relationships with relevant agencies in the area of research. Ministers continue to support the efforts of the centre and the two education Departments to develop a multiannual plan for the centre’s future development.

I dtaca le malartuithe scoile don óige agus do mhúinteoirí de, thug an Chomhairle dá haire gur críochnaíodh cleachtadh scóipe ar leibhéil reatha agus úrnua comhoibrithe oideachais agus teagmhálacha le cúnamh an Lárionaid um Staidéar Trasteorann agus an Chuibhreannais Malartuithe Thuaidh/Theas; gur críochnaíodh measúnú den chéad bhliain den tsraith phíolótach fiontair den chlár ag díscaoileadh teorainneacha agus go rabhthas ag dréim le comhthuairisc a fháil ón dá chigireacht ar chríochnú a measúnaithe fhoirmiúil den chlár; agus na díospóireachtaí leanúnacha ar chomhoibriú amach anseo maidir le formhuiniú cáilíochtaí obair óige chun tacú le dea-chleachtas agus é a chinntiú agus soghluaisteacht agus malartú proifisiúnta a éascú ar bhonn thuaidh/theas agus thoir/thiar.

The Council noted the completion of a scoping exercise on current and recent levels of educational co-operation and exchanges with the assistance of the Centre for Cross Border Studies and the North South Exchange Consortium. It noted that an evaluation of the first year of the pilot enterprise strand of the dissolving boundaries programme has been completed. It looks forward to receiving a joint report from both inspectorates upon completion of their formal evaluation of the programme and ongoing discussions on future co-operation and endorsement of youth work qualifications to ensure and support best practice and facilitate professional mobility in exchange both on a North/South and east-west basis.

We also noted that the Causeway programme, which strengthens and improves relationships between young people in England, Scotland, Wales and the island of Ireland, has supported the activities of more than 5,500 young people and youth workers since its commencement in 1999 and that a celebration event for the programme is planned for March 2011. Ministers welcomed proposals for the 2010-11 North/South student teacher exchange project.

Mar fhocal scoir, d’aontaíomar gur chóir go gcasfadh Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas i bhformáid rannach oideachais in earrach na bliana 2011.

In closing, we agreed that the North/South Ministerial Council should meet again in education sectoral format in spring 2011.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

At least there was one beneficial outcome of the meeting on 21 January, which was the agreement between the Minister and the Minister of Finance on EYF, as opposed to the lack of substance in her report to the House. Given that her report mentions that there was discussion on good practice and collaborative working in numeracy and literacy, will the Minister tell the House why the House still has not been informed of the numeracy and literacy policy for the children of Northern Ireland? I remind the Minister that 31 months ago the House was told that there would be a policy. While she wastes her time with promises, aspirations, conferences and discussions, there has been no product or delivery. That is the Minister’s legacy. On the basis of her report, I am glad that it will be the last that she delivers to the House.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

First, Mr Storey keeps banging on the drum about EYF. [Interruption.] It is not even relevant to the North/South conference on literacy and numeracy. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Given that he raised the issue, however, one would think that he is disappointed that the Minister of Finance and I reached agreement on an issue that is so important to schools. I respectfully suggest to the Chairperson of the Committee for Education that, instead of trying to berate the Minister of Finance and me for reaching that agreement, he would be better to support our work in that regard.

Secondly, the Member makes a presumption about whether the statement is the last on the North/South Ministerial Council that I will give to the House in this term. If he would be so kind as to listen to me and stop trying to interrupt, I will draw his attention to the final comment that I made in my statement, which is that there will be a North/South meeting in spring 2011. Therefore, I do not think that he should presume to know the work of the Assembly or, indeed, the North/South Ministerial Council.

On literacy and numeracy issues, the Member — indeed, the entire House — will be aware that I have made it an absolute priority to tackle underachievement and promote the raising of standards and equality in all our schools. We have huge challenges to face, and I have done everything that I can to ensure that we face those challenges. We have removed selection and the 11-plus, about which I am very pleased, as there is no selection in the South of Ireland, which is one of the areas from which we can learn a lot.

I am also pleased that we are making some progress with literacy and numeracy, and standards are improving. In 2006, more than 12,000 young people left school without having achieved five or more good GCSEs including English and maths. In 2009, from when the most recent data are available, that number fell to around 9,500. I am pleased with the improvement, but the number is still far too high, and we have to do everything that we can to deal with that.

I am putting in place a range of policies aimed at raising standards for every child and tackling underachievement. The policies include the school improvement policy; Every School a Good School; transfer 2010; the revised curriculum and entitlement framework; the literacy and numeracy strategy; the early years strategy; support for newcomer pupils and Traveller education; the extended and full-service programmes; and the Achieving Belfast and Achieving Derry programmes.

If we were to listen to the party of the Member opposite, it would tell us that we have a world-class education system. It is caught on a little bit of a hook, because, on the one hand, it is saying that we have a world-class education system, yet, on the other hand, it is talking about the need to deal with literacy and numeracy. I believe that we have moved forward. I will publish the revised literacy and numeracy strategy in the coming weeks, and I look forward to Members’ support for that important document. Members will be interested to learn that the South has also published a draft literacy and numeracy plan for consultation. We also have a North/South literacy conference on 23 February in the Cavan Crystal Hotel, and I hope that the Chairperson of the Committee for Education will join us at that event.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Whatever the future holds, I hope that whoever is the next Chairperson of the Education Committee behaves in a more respectful manner not only to the House but to the Minister and to his fellow Committee members. It is embarrassing at times when we have to listen to our Committee Chairperson behave in the way that he does.

In the light of her statement and the work of the North/South Ministerial Council on removing barriers and obstacles to mobility, will the Minister outline what work is being done to address access to transport and education services in both jurisdictions for children living along the border?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, as an cheist sin. I thank the Member for his question, which is an important one. Members will be aware that we have people from all communities living on different sides of the border who are finding it difficult under our current arrangements to access transport and education, whether they be from the Protestant community, the Catholic community or, indeed, neither. I remain very keen to address the obstacles to mobility that affect the lives of pupils living in border areas, and I know that my Executive colleagues share that keenness. Removing obstacles to mobility is one of the issues that has been brought before the North/South Ministerial Council when it meets in full format.

It is my desire to remove legislation that restricts transport assistance across the border and requires Northern schools to give priority to Northern residents in school admissions. I am considering the legality of the issues to establish whether they are in breach of EU law. I will continue to explore how best we can support movement and remove obstacles to mobility. The Department of Education and the Department of Education and Skills have been working on a proposal to permit pupils to travel across the border where a school in the other jurisdiction is the nearest school to the parental home or where parents wish their child to be educated in that jurisdiction. The proposal requires an amendment to transport legislation, which currently permits transport assistance to be provided to grant-aided schools in the North. The policy of the Department of Education is to remove obstacles to mobility. DE and DES agree that all the issues that the joint research raised should be examined in the controlled environment of a pilot exercise. The residency issue has been raised with the Attorney General, and we await his advice on the legality of the existing legislation under EU law.

There are issues with Irish-medium transport that are related to matters in the North. Discussions continue with CnaG about revising the enhanced parental allowance for parents who live some distance from a public transport route.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an ráitis a thug sí dúinn inniu. Ach tugaim faoi deara nach raibh aon tagairt ina ráiteas do mhalartuithe oideachasúla. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire an aontódh sí liom go ndearna an chomhchoiste um malartuithe oideachasúla Thuaidh/Theas an-chuid dea-oibre. An bhféadfadh an tAire a insint domh cad chuige nár ligeadh don chomchoiste sin leanúint ar aghaidh agus a chuid moltaí a chur i bhfeidhm? Cad chuige ar scoir sí an comhchoiste?

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I noticed that there is no reference in the statement to North/South educational exchanges. Does the Minister agree that the North/South exchange consortium did excellent work? Why was that group not allowed to implement its findings, and why did she stand it down?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

My Department continues to work with the Department of Education and Skills on the study of North/South co-operation in the education sector. Part 1 of the study has been completed and is with both Departments for consideration. The North/South exchange consortium worked with the Centre for Cross Border Studies from January to June 2010 on part 1 of the study. I appreciate both its work and the contribution that it made to that study.

I, along with my ministerial colleague in the South, decided to cease funding the NSEC from July 2010. It is for both Departments to commence part 2 of the study and to make recommendations on the way forward for North/South co-operation. The study may incorporate a two- to three-year action plan. I look forward to receiving a copy of the report.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I noticed the reference to the Middletown Centre for Autism. Can the Minister update us on the progress that has been made on the centre to date? In particular, can she tell us when it might come into full operation?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The joint communiqué of the North/South Ministerial Council plenary session at Limavady on 14 December 2009 outlined the lifting of the Southern Government’s pause on giving additional capital funding for the Middletown Centre for Autism. The communiqué also announced the preparation of an updated and phased multiannual plan for the develop­ment of the centre.

The centre continues to operate two of its four planned services. Since opening, it has trained over 5,000 education professionals and parents. It is worth highlighting that the feedback on its delivery of second-tier training has been overwhelmingly positive. I take this opportunity to commend the centre’s staff for their continuing efforts. The centre recently published a further research bulletin covering educational assessment.

I welcome the fact that both Departments have completed the mapping of the development of autism services. Officials from the Department of Education and the Department of Education and Skills have met to discuss the joint develop­ment of the phased multiannual plan for the further development of the centre. They also agreed a framework of meetings that will include engage­ment with stakeholders in the field of autism.

The continued success and development of the Middletown project can best be taken forward by the two Departments working closely to ensure that the centre reaches its full potential to deliver a first-class service directly to the children who need it. The Middletown centre already provides a training and advisory service for parents and a research and information service. It is planned that it will provide two further services: an educational assessment service and a learning support service.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I note that the Department is planning to commission research on the non-attendance at school of looked-after children at post-primary level. Will the Minister inform the House about the extent of that problem and about discussions she had with the Health Minister on it?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Statistics show that, as of September 2009, 1,653 children and young people in the North of Ireland had been looked after continuously for 12 months. The statistics also tell us that a significant number of looked-after children in the North have poor school attendance and low educational achievement.

In the current financial year, my Department has provided £372,000 to the education and library boards’ looked-after children teams for additional education welfare posts, tutoring support and a youth worker to support looked-after children. In addition, funding totalling £117,000 for work such as mentoring, coaching and literacy and numeracy support has been allocated.

As the Member said, my Department has commissioned research into improving the school attendance of looked-after children at post-primary level. The aim of that research, which is to be completed by the end of March, is to provide us with information that will inform policy and practice in improving the attendance of looked-after children. It is hoped that improved school attendance will lead to improved attainment. The link with health is obviously one of the issues that this research will focus on. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and I will work together on all aspects of early years.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle agus a Aire. It is good to hear Mervyn Storey agreeing that some good work is being done on the North/South Ministerial Council, so fair play to him for his movement on that. Will the Minister give us further detail of the Irish-medium sector’s collaborative work programme?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. In 2010-11, a key focus has been on Irish-medium education. An Irish-medium subgroup has developed a comprehensive and collaborative programme of work, focusing on the early and continuing professional development of Irish-medium teachers throughout Ireland.

The programme incorporates a Gaelscoileanna conference, which incorporates school visits. The Gaelscoileanna Teo conference in Tullamore on 19 November 2010 was attended by 10 Irish-medium teachers from Gaelscoileanna in the North. A one-day conference was also organised for that cohort of 10 teachers on 18 November in Kildare Education Centre. Representatives from 10 participating schools in the South also attended the event.

On professional development services for teachers, there will be workshops at the conference of Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, which, as Members will be aware, is the equivalent organisation in the North. We have professional development workshops based on the identified needs of Irish-medium schools in the North, which will take place in March 2011.

We have a blended learning project on language and literacy development with a specific focus on oral language and writing development. That project involves 12 Irish-medium schools — six from the North and six from the South — and commenced in October 2010. It incorporates the development of interactive online course discussion and a support forum. The representatives from the 12 participating schools are leading the project in their own schools.

The project also has an Irish-medium community of practice. It will provide an opportunity for Irish-medium schools throughout the island, particularly those in proximity to border communities, to meet after school to discuss and analyse needs and to develop action plans to satisfy those needs.

Delivery of that programme of work is well under way. A presentation outlining the various elements of the programme and an update on progress was provided at the meeting in Armagh on 21 January.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Further to Mr Lunn’s question about the autism centre at Middletown, does the Minister continue to think that the project is value for money? Does she continue to think that providing two out of the four services this far into the regime up there is value for money? Does she not agree with me that the centre is competing with some of the community and voluntary services that are offered in Northern Ireland and is damaging some of them? Does she also agree that there is no buy-in from parents and service users? Why is she persisting with something that does not have the support of those whom it is meant to help?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

It was easy to anticipate the Member’s question; I had the relevant page in my notes open before he asked it. It is disappointing to hear a member of the Ulster Unionist Party — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to continue.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

It is disappointing to hear a member of the Ulster Unionist Party attacking a project that is doing work for some of our most vulnerable young people. Members of this House — [Interruption.]

I did not interrupt the Chairperson of the Committee for Education or Mr McCallister, and I do not know why they persist in trying to interrupt me when I am speaking.

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

There is a contradictory approach. On the one hand, the parties opposite claim to support children with autism, while on the other hand, they spend their time attacking a project that is doing every­thing that it can to support children with autism.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What further action has the Minister taken to ensure that students from Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged due to the introduction of A* grades at A level?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

That is an important issue, and I am pleased that the Member raised it. The Member will be aware that following earlier correspondence with the Minister for Education and Skills, I reiterated my concern that the admission arrangements adopted by universities in the South of Ireland in response to the introduction of the A* grade at A level are disadvantaging those students from the North who apply to southern universities. That is simply not good enough. For many years, the attitude towards A levels by southern universities ensured that strong relationships were forged between young people from the North and the South, and building those relationships is more important than ever if we are to drive forward an all-island economy. I understand that admission arrangements are a complex and sensitive issue, but those issues need to be resolved.

I have sought support from the Minister in the South, with the aim of achieving a mutually beneficial solution that delivers equality for all students across this island. With my agreement, officials from CCEA met the Irish Universities Association at the end of last month. Further work on the matter is being carried out and a follow-up meeting is being planned.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During her statement, the Minister of Education told the House that the work of the taskforce on Traveller education is nearing completion and that its final report would be completed by the “end of March”. That is different to the report of the North/South Ministerial Council in education sectoral format, which says that the final report of the taskforce will be ready “early next year”. Will the Speaker find out from the Minister what the accurate position is? Perhaps that was yet another slip from the Minister.

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

The Hansard report will be studied.

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

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in special EU programmes sectoral format.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The North/South Ministerial Council met in special EU programmes sectoral format in Belfast on 13 January 2011. It was the first NSMC meeting in that format since February 2010. I chaired the meeting and represented Northern Ireland, and I was accompanied by the Minister for Social Development, Alex Attwood. The Government of the Republic of Ireland were represented by the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan. It was a particularly difficult day for him, as it was the day on which the news that eventually led to the election being called in the Republic of Ireland broke. That disrupted matters a little.

Mr Pat Colgan, chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), updated the Council on how the work of the SEUPB had progressed since February 2010. Mr Colgan advised that the closure of the Peace II and INTERREG IIIa programmes from the previous round of EU funding is in its final stages, and that the SEUPB submitted its final closure report to the European Commission by the agreed deadline of 30 September 2010. Mr Colgan went on to advise the Council on the current Peace III and INTEREG IVa programmes. The assessment and approval of project applications has continued under both programmes, and, between them, they have approved 175 projects, worth around £325 million. As regards actual project expenditure, Peace III spent £250 million and INTEREG IVa spent around £35 million by the end of 2010. Expenditure on both programmes is, therefore, significantly above their respective cumulative EU spending targets for 2010. That means that the budget for either project will not be deducted by Brussels.

The Council also noted progress on a number of other issues relating to the two programmes. Mr Colgan advised that five local authority-based groups involved in the INTERREG programme have had 18 projects approved to date, worth approximately £17 million. Some of the group projects are still under assessment and could add £10 million to that total. The Council is aware of the concerns that groups have raised regarding their role under the INTERREG IVa programme. However, Ministers were encouraged by the progress that was made during 2010 and noted SEUPB’s confidence that the five would secure the full amount of the programme budget set aside at the planning stage for locally based cross-border actions worth around £55 million.

The Council also noted that the Peace III programme continued to address the needs of the victims and survivors of the Troubles. The Peace III theme of acknowledging and dealing with the past has a particular focus on the needs of that key sector and has a total budget of approximately £45 million. Around half of that has been allocated, with more than 50 projects approved. The theme reopened for further applications in November, and those will be assessed from March onwards.

The Council agreed that it was essential for both main communities in Northern Ireland to participate fully in the Peace III programme. Mr Colgan advised on the work that SEUPB has been doing by way of outreach to under-represented groups and communities, encouraging them to apply for Peace funding. In addition, he reported that the SEUPB had commissioned the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) to produce an estimate of the community uptake of Peace III funding. The findings of that research will be available shortly.

The Council noted that SEUPB continues to facilitate North/South participation in the transnational and interregional strands of INTERREG. That funding is allocated competitively, project by project, on the basis of quality. To date, 42 projects with Northern Ireland partners have been funded. That compares favourably with the previous programme period when there were just 17 projects with local partners.

The Council agreed to meet again in this sectoral format in early summer.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. At its meeting in December last year, the Committee was told that out of 61 applications to the INTERREG IVa programme, only 18 had been approved, which is a success rate of just under one third, although eight projects were still under assessment at that stage. Will the Minister advise the Assembly on what grounds the remaining 35 projects were rejected or withdrawn and what work is being done to improve the approval rate?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Chairman raised an important point, and it is one that has concerned me. I had a number of meetings with the local authority-based groups that were concerned that the £55 million that had been allocated might not be spent because the rejection rate among projects was so high. There are a number of reasons for that. First, in the past, rather than seeing the projects through, local authority groups were project facilitators. There has been a step change in the involvement that they have had to have, and that created a difficulty. Secondly, in the past, many of the projects dealt with small amounts of money. Now, of course, there are much larger projects and perhaps the complexities around what is required for the assessment was something that the groups had to get their head around. Thirdly, there are cross-border projects and there has to be a strong cross-border element, which has not always been possible with some of the local authority groups, especially those that do not have an interface along the border.

I am sure that we have done all that we can to facilitate the groups. We have made available to them their administrative funding right up to 2013. That is a vote of confidence, in that we believe that they can keep on working through the programme period and have the ability, because they have the administrative funds available, to bring forward projects. We have also sought in the assessments of the projects to show where difficulties lie. We have tried to help the local authority groups with that.

There are now some very good quality projects coming through. There is one in my constituency with which I am particularly pleased. Some £5∙5 million or €5∙5 million — I cannot remember which — was made available for the Gobbins path project. That will be a massive tourist facility, and one that will be as important as the Giant’s Causeway in promoting tourism along the north coast. The Chairman may take issue with me on that. Nevertheless, each will complement the other and should benefit both our areas by attracting tourists.

Those are the reasons, and that is the work being done. I now monitor the matter, because Members have raised with me the issue of the time being taken. The situation is being monitored monthly to try to ensure that pressure is kept on that particular aspect of INTERREG IVa and to ensure that the money is spent.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister said that the Council noted that Peace III programme was continuing to address the needs of the victims and survivors of the Troubles. Is he confident that that funding will be shared throughout the community in a fair way to ensure that the victims and survivors in most need can avail themselves of it? We know from other funding programmes that there are people who have not been able to avail themselves of the money. Is the Minister confident that this money will reach the most needy?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That issue has been raised since I became Minister, and I think that it was raised before then as well. Indeed, the issue of community balance in those funds has been raised at all the meetings that I have had. I must say that, to his credit, the Minister for Finance in the Republic has been as enthusiastic as I have been in ensuring and demanding that programmes are seen to distribute money right across the board. As a result, SEUPB has put considerable effort into contacting under-represented groups and helping with applications. I can already see the impact that that has had in my constituency. We will not know the final picture until we see the NISRA report early in the spring. The report will, of course, be shared with the Committee and the Assembly.

All the evidence to date makes me hopeful. I hear from under-represented groups, whether in rural areas or among the unionist community, that SEUPB has at least made the effort to try to ensure that there is a much more equitable distribution of peace money, even though there is no requirement in the terms of Peace III to have an even balance. Nevertheless, it is recognised that there is no point in having money for this purpose if one community feels that it does not have the same opportunity to access it as another.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He will recall that, last December, the Committee was given a table that showed that some local authorities were doing better than others. The Irish central border area network (ICBAN) had three times the project approval rate of the councils of the metropolitan area (COMET). Can the Minister explain that discrepancy and outline the support that can still be made available to groups for applications?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his question. He is quite right, and I understand the interest that he has, because COMET covers his North Down constituency — sorry, his Strangford constituency.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Just repeat that.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I meant to say Strangford constituency — I just want to get that on the record. COMET has not been as successful.

The Member is quite right. There is a discrepancy between the moneys received by the likes of ICBAN and the east border region committee, which received £4 million and £3·7 million respectively, and the moneys received by COMET.

I do not know whether the situation is improving. All that I can say is that no COMET projects are under assessment. There was one submission, but it provided too little information to proceed and was withdrawn. There is an issue with COMET, which I understand, because COMET does not have an interface with the border with the Republic. Projects must have a cross-border element to enable them to access funding. Perhaps that has been more difficult for COMET than for ICBAN or for projects in the north-east region.

All we can do is continue to work with them. We cannot make it easier for one area to get projects ahead of any others. There are certain criteria to be met, and I am sure that the Member appreciates that. I will be more than happy to meet representatives of COMET if they feel that certain issues need to be addressed or assistance is available that would help them to have more projects accepted. In my answer to Mr Frew, I said that I did not want discrepancies between communities; neither do I want there to be discrepancies between areas in Northern Ireland.

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

I apologise for being a minute or two late at the start of the Minister’s statement. Overall, we can be reassured by the quality of the management of the special EU programmes. The theme of the Peace III programme is acknowledging and dealing with the past. Since we are drawing down a substantial sum of EU money under that heading, does the Minister agree that that puts a further onus on us to ensure that our policies on and resources for acknowledging and dealing with the past are fully consonant with that objective? Furthermore, does he agree that there is, perhaps, a lack in what we are doing in that regard?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not quite sure what the Member is getting at or whether he means that spending by Departments generally in Northern Ireland is not reflecting that objective. Perhaps there is another aspect to his question. We have a budget of £45 million for that theme; we have allocated approximately half that money and will continue to allocate it. If the Member feels that there is more that Departments can do, other Ministers need to address that matter.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Part of the question that I wanted to ask has been answered. I wanted to know whether the Minister had discussions about under-represented groups and whether those groups had been identified. What communities are being under-represented when it comes to funding? What measures are being taken by SEUPB to address the lack of successful applications from certain areas? David McNarry said that COMET projects did not have the same success as those in other areas. It is my belief that projects in the unionist community are not submitting proper applications.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I said, the evidence from the Peace I and Peace II programmes is that the unionist or Protestant community was under-represented. That was put down to the fact that there appeared to be fewer applications from the Protestant community. Some rural communities also felt left out.

What work has been done? We want to ascertain the nature and scale of the issue and to try to ensure that the measures that have been put in place are working. That is why the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency is undertaking the assessment of the applications that have been processed to date and the distribution of those. As far as working with communities is concerned, there has been outreach activity. We have also publicised the programmes to all communities and have done significant work with specific groups. The Orange Order, for example, has appreciated the work that SEUPB has done with it to access funding for some of its projects and programmes.

I want to emphasise that Sinn Féin was represented at one of the meetings that I had with the Foreign Minister and the SDLP was represented at another. At those meetings, there has been no dissent from the view that we have to ensure that the funds are evenly distributed right across the board.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on investigations into alleged irregularities in the use of moneys by Families Acting for Innocent Relatives (FAIR) and South/North Armagh Victims Encouraging Recognition (SAVER/NAVER)?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Irregularities in procurement were identified and investigated by SEUPB. Investigations are being conducted, and some of those have been passed onto the PSNI. I am sure that the Member will appreciate that, as there is a police investigation, it would probably not be appropriate for me to comment any further other than to say that, when the allegations were made, they were investigated. When the investigation turned up an apparent irregularity, SEUPB referred it to the PSNI, which is where the investigation lies at present.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My question follows on from that of Mr Callaghan and relates to the need for proper governance of public moneys. It is about getting the balance right. A Peace III project in my area, which is worth several million pounds, has been through assessment, through independent assessment, sent to the Department, assessed by the Department and has now been sent back to the SEUPB for further assessment. We certainly need governance of our money; I am not arguing that we do not. However, is there a danger that we are putting together a system that ensures that money does not get to the front line where it is needed?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sure that the Member appreciates the importance of ensuring that public money is well spent. However, there is another reason for the level of assessment and investigation into how EU money is spent. On occasions, I have been criticised in the House for announcing that, as a result of EU assessments into funding that it has provided, we have had to pay money back at the end of programmes. That is sometimes due to the least, little infringement, such as a document not being in the right place or not being available. We can lose millions of pounds to the EU, because it has that clawback mechanism.

Sometimes the assessment is overly rigorous. When I ask why we have incurred a particular fine or penalty and I am given the reasons, I ask myself: can the EU really expect that we have that degree of rigour? Sometimes it is as little as the absence of a signature from a document. Given that level of scrutiny, it is important that we do not leave ourselves open to being hit with millions of pounds being clawed back from the public purse after a programme is over. That is why many of the projects are open to that assessment and, afterwards, to that scrutiny. Without that, we could jeopardise Northern Ireland’s public purse in the longer term.

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

I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that he wishes to make a statement.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I welcome this opportunity to provide an update on an issue that has emerged about the regional oral medicine service. In November 2009, the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust became aware that six people who had been referred for surgery following a diagnosis of oral cancer could potentially have been referred at an earlier stage of their illness.

I should explain that patients will attend oral medicine clinics if they suffer from any of the following symptoms: persistent mouth ulcers; unusual changes to gum, roof of mouth, and so on; white patches, or lesions or abnormalities in the mouth; teeth grinding; facial pain; or complications of radiotherapy to head and neck. A small number of people attending the service may have cancer. There are about 160 cases of oral cancer in Northern Ireland each year. The course of disease in oral cancer cannot be predicted, and suspicious abnormalities or ulcers in the mouth may be totally innocent or harmless whereas others may progress to cancer. At the time when the Belfast Trust became aware of the issue, all six patients were being appropriately managed and receiving the treatment that they required.

In December 2009, the Belfast Trust took action to review and carry out a look-back exercise into the issue. That was an extremely time-consuming and complex process that involved looking at some 3,000 clinical charts, lab reports and radiological investigations of every patient who had attended the service during 2009. It was the judgement of clinical experts undertaking the review that the vast majority of the 3,000 patients considered had been appropriately managed and treated. However, during the time that that intensive work was being completed, it became clear that there were problems with the management of a number of patients. That raised major concerns that the clinical experts determined needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

The issue that emerged was that 18 people were identified where concerns existed about the quality of care. All 18 of those people were being actively managed by specialists in the Health Service at the time that the concerns were identified. Following further investigations, it is now known that there is a total of 22 people for whom there are serious concerns, that 15 cancer patients have been identified and that four cancer patients have since died, three of whom died from oral cancer and one from other causes. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies to the families of those patients on the loss of their loved ones.

As I already said, we now know that 15 patients who were diagnosed with oral cancer may have had some delay in their diagnosis. As regards the six people identified initially, I have been informed that they have all had the opportunity to discuss their condition with their clinician and are aware of the potential delays in treatment. At this stage, I understand that not every patient will have been told that there was a potential delay in their diagnosis. That is partly to do with the fact that some are complex cases, and many of the patients had a range of other conditions that were being treated. I want to assure patients and the House that the Belfast Trust will inform individuals of any potential delays.

I also want to take this opportunity to apologise to all patients who may have had delays in their diagnosis. The public must have confidence that their treatment will be responsive, rapid and of the highest quality. For the vast majority of people, their experiences will reflect high-quality care. However, when that care falls short, every possible step must be taken to ensure that patients are informed and that any failings are addressed quickly to avoid any unnecessary pain and distress. With this situation, it is important to remember that all the patients about whom there were major concerns were already being managed by other experts at the time that the concerns were identified. The trust has advised me that it is not the case that those patients were waiting to be called back as part of that review; rather, they were being actively treated by other specialists.

The term “oral cancers” covers a number of cancers. Patients with cancer have a range of very different types of tumour, all with different clinical features, some of which will progress at different rates.

Clinicians have also advised me that the review has focused on patients seen in 2009. On the advice of senior clinicians, it was not considered necessary for people who attended the oral medicine clinic prior to 2009 to have their clinical notes reviewed. The trust has been advised by experts in Northern Ireland and Great Britain that they would expect any patients seen prior to 2009 and who developed oral cancer would have already presented with symptoms. People who attended the oral medicine clinic in 2007 or 2008 should not have cause for concern. However, if they have any questions, they can contact the helpline or speak to their dentist or GP.

Following an announcement made by the Belfast Trust on Friday, there were intermediate concerns about a number of individuals, as most Members are aware. As a result, 117 people are being invited to attend a review clinic. Letters have been issued, and all patients affected should have received them at this stage. Although most of those 117 individuals will not have conditions that require action, it is important that they are seen. Also, many of those 117 people will be under the care of their own dentist, who is trained and skilled at identifying the signs of oral cancer.

I want to apologise to all patients who have suffered any anxiety or concern as a result of this recall. The steps being taken are a precautionary measure, but they are necessary because of our commitment to patient safety and the need to provide those patients with the necessary assurances around their health.

The Belfast Trust has set up a number of clinics starting from today, with two sessions on most days; morning and afternoon. Those clinics are for the 117 patients who have been recalled. As of yesterday, around 50 appointments have been made for clinics over the coming days. Further clinics will follow in the days and weeks ahead. I am hopeful that the vast majority of patients who need to be reviewed will be seen during this week. The Belfast Trust also set up a helpline on Friday, which can be reached on freephone number 0800 9801100. As of yesterday, that helpline had received around 60 calls.

In relation to the dentist at the centre of the matter, the Belfast Trust took the decision to supervise the individual’s work in December 2009. The trust considered that that was a proportionate way to ensure patient safety while the investigation was ongoing. Restrictions were placed on the practice of the dentist concerned in January 2010, and as part of that process, the individual was referred to the National Clinic Assessment Service (NCAS). That is a national service that advises trusts on the handling of concerns about the practice of doctors, dentists and pharmacists. During December 2009 and early January 2010, the trust also referred the individual to the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council.

General dental practitioners across Northern Ireland were advised of concerns regarding this individual’s work in December 2010. The dentist was removed from clinical practice by the Belfast Trust. My first priority is to ensure that all patients who have been recalled are dealt with appropriately and quickly. Once that process has been completed, I will expect an urgent update on the outcome of these clinics.

I understand that this issue will cause considerable public anxiety, not least for those directly affected. I share the shock and concern that the public will rightly feel about this matter. I am very unhappy about the distress caused to patients and the handling of this matter.

I was first made aware that concerns had been expressed about the timeliness of referral for the treatment of six cases in December 2009. I was assured at that time that all six patients were being appropriately managed and were receiving the treatment they required. However, I am deeply concerned that I only received further detail on 31 January 2011, and a full briefing, at my request, was provided to me on 1 February. When I was made aware, I immediately decided that I must make a statement to the House. Unfortunately, the issue was leaked to the media last Friday, which left the trust with no option but to release a statement. That meant that the trust was not in a position to ensure that all patients received their letters inviting them to clinics before the matter was made public.

I regret to say that, in this case, there was a breakdown of communication in the health and social care service and in my Department. Therefore, I will initiate an urgent independent inquiry into these matters. I expect that the inquiry will be rigorous and independent. It will examine the quality of care to patients, the circumstances surrounding the issue and its subsequent handling. I will advise Members of further details of the inquiry as soon as possible.

The communication of information on such an important matter will be a key focus in my upcoming review of the issue. It will include an investigation of all actions taken by my Department, the trust and the board. Once the review is concluded, I will decide what further actions need to be taken to ensure that lessons are learned and that measures are put in place to avoid any similar incident in future.

In conclusion, I apologise once again to everyone who has been affected by this matter. I have been deeply disturbed by the issues that have emerged. As a health and social care service, we care for many thousands of people every day. However, I have a duty to ensure that problems are addressed quickly. I assure the House and the public that, where this issue is concerned, I will take every action necessary to ensure that that happens.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I welcome the tone of the Minister’s statement. I also welcome his announcement of the inquiry. However, I remind him of a meeting of the Health Committee that occurred on 27 January 2011. At that meeting were the permanent secretary of the Department and the chief executive of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. At the end of the meeting, when we looked at the issue of the X-rays at Altnagelvin and the children’s hospital, I asked whether there were any other issues out there that the Committee needed to know about but that it had not been told about. Clearly, somebody in that meeting knew about this issue, because it has been ongoing for 13 months, but the Committee was not told about it. Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that there are indeed no other issues out there that the Assembly or Committee need to know about that have not been revealed?

Secondly, there are a lot of worried families — at least 117 — in Northern Ireland who are having their diagnoses today and tomorrow. Can the Minister give the Assembly a categorical assurance that the results of those tests will be given to the patients as quickly as possible so that further delay and alarm can be avoided?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I stress that the cases of the 117 patients who have been called back will be reviewed. In the review that was carried out, they did not appear to have serious conditions, but, in the interests of best practice, they have been called back. I assure the Member that those results will be given as quickly as possible. I am advised that some results can be provided on the same day that the patient attends the clinic. If others need a further test, the results may take up to week. I sought and got an assurance that, given the anxiety that has gone with the contact that they have had with the Belfast Trust, that will be done as quickly as is humanly possible.

As far as the meeting on 27 January 2011 with the permanent secretary and the chief executive is concerned, the permanent secretary advised me that he was not aware of further reviews. I am not clear on the chief executive’s position, but I will certainly make it my business to find out whether he was aware of such reviews at that time. I believe that he would have been. The Member asked whether there were any other issues. I will undertake to furnish him with details. If I were to say to the Member that there was nothing more, but something then emerged, he would quite rightly question my integrity. So I have asked exactly that question, and I will furnish him with that information this week.

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

Before calling the next Member to speak, I ask Members to please check their mobile phones. There is a lot of interference on the system, which makes life difficult, if not impossible, for Hansard staff.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In recent weeks, we have had a number of debacles, especially around the A&E unit in Antrim Area Hospital, swine flu, the situation at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and the X-ray issue at Altnagelvin Area Hospital, all of which have had a negative impact on the Health Service. What is the Minister with responsibility for the Health Service doing to restore public confidence, given that people perceive there to be shortcomings in the service? What is he doing to restore the confidence of Health Service staff, who look to him for management, because it is not good enough that the Minister and the permanent secretary do not know about a major review ongoing in one of their trusts?

Furthermore, what is the current status of the consultant at the centre of the investigation? Is he practising? Is he still being paid? Is he being paid bonuses? Will the Minister give us more details on those matters?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I could go through each of the issues that Mrs O’Neill talked about: Antrim Hospital A&E; the children’s hospital; and so on. Indeed, I have given assurances about the safety of all those services and about how hard staff are working to ensure that they are maintained properly. As far as swine flu is concerned, there was a great deal of alarm and fear about an issue that, as far as any expert could see, was very much well in hand. Furthermore, we did not run out of vaccines; a different virus was not circulating; large numbers of healthy people were not dying; and information was not being kept from the public.

I accept and agree with the Member that the situation at Altnagelvin Hospital is unacceptable. As far as the Belfast Trust issue is concerned, when she says that it is not good enough for the permanent secretary to tell me that he did not know about it and that it is not good enough that I was not told about the nature of the problem until a week ago, I have to agree. It is not good enough, and I will not accept that from my Department, the trusts, the boards or anyone else. I am taking the steps that the Member would expect me to take to ensure that the matter is dealt with properly. As far as the consultant is concerned, he is an employee of the trust and, as far as I understand, he is no longer practising in the trust. I am not au fait with the details of his contract, but let me assure the Member that I have asked specifically whether the trust will continue to employ a consultant who, following an extensive review, is still being provided with a salary, even though he is not working. That is a matter of public interest, as it is to Members and me. I am discussing the matter directly with the trust and dealing with it.

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

I note the Minister’s statement, and I thank him for it. The latest incident is much more serious than last week’s story about X-rays, because it is clear that people knew that conditions had been diagnosed in patients, yet a delay occurred. The Minister said that he learned about the full scale of the problem only recently. Is it the case that the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust knew but did not tell his Department the full story or did the trust tell his Department the full story but he did not know about it, thus failing patients and frightening the public much more than last week’s story did? Will the Minister address and clarify that issue?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

That is why I am putting in place an independent inquiry. The Member’s questions are legitimate. The public and I are asking them as well, and we are entitled to answers. As far as the process is concerned, it has been suggested that some patients’ referrals took longer than they should have done. The first query concerned six patients to whom I referred a year ago. When consultants examined that year’s records, they unearthed a further 18 cases.

That is the situation, and we are following those up. Every one of them, when looked at, was, I understand, getting appropriate treatment. However, a slow referral is not acceptable. I rely on expert opinion to tell me when those referrals should have been made. That is why I will have a proper, independent investigation — an independent inquiry into this issue — to properly and definitively answer the questions that the Member asked, the public are asking and I am asking.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

This is the most horrendous statement that I have heard or witnessed since I joined the Assembly in 1998. People’s lives have been put in danger. It is horrendous, to say the least, and I fully support the Chairperson of the Health Committee. I witnessed the inquisition when he asked the Minister whether there was any other important information that he and the Committee were entitled to know. Yet, here we are again today and last week, with information that came to light only because of very observant reporting, without which we may never have heard of this. It is scandalous, it is shameful and I cannot understand how it happened.

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

May we have the question, please?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

My question is: how much is this costing the taxpayer? The Deputy Chairperson mentioned it; the Minister did not respond. The public are entitled to know how much this will cost the taxpayer. The individual involved has been removed. We want to know how much that will cost. How long will the inquiry, which the Minister is about to set up, take? In the meantime, what will happen to patients who were to use that service? Will someone be employed to do the work of the person who has been removed?

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

Sorry, you have asked at least two questions. I now ask the Minister to answer.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I hope that I get an answer, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Without being flippant, I will try to give the Member more than one answer, because he asked more than one question.

I cannot estimate the cost at the moment. However, I see the cost not in financial but in human terms, and that is what I am focusing on. The anxiety, stress and the possibility of harm that patients have endured or may have come to is my focus. Since it interests him, I will certainly get Mr McCarthy a pounds-and-pence answer, in due course. However, as I said, this is about making sure that patients are put first and that they are dealt with and so on.

I assure you that the inquiry will take no longer than absolutely necessary. I am looking at a very short, sharp inquiry. The Member said that he cannot understand how this was allowed to happen and so on. The reality is that, as I understand it, this is an area where there are not a number of specialists. In fact, I understand that there is one specialist in the area that we are talking about. I understand, or now know, that Queen’s University has undertaken a review of the Belfast dental hospital because it is also a teaching hospital. The number of staff employed there does not begin to meet the need. Then again, as I keep explaining to the House, throughout the Health Service there is stretch. Part of the answer to Altnagelvin, or at least something that created anxiety there, was that, disgracefully, we had seven radiologists when we needed 13. That was part of the problem there, and the backlog built up. In the Belfast dental hospital, our complement is 20 consultants. We currently have 10, as I understand it. Those are the sorts of issues that I also have to grapple with. However, when I am able to, I will report back on those other issues immediately.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Minister, what we have heard today is just totally unacceptable. I demand from you, and the House demands from you that you get on top of your Department and get this issue solved, because it is totally ridiculous that people who have cancer have to be called back, and there have possibly been deaths from this.

Only as recently as last Thursday, Mr Compton, the chief executive of the Health and Social Care Board, told the Committee that no more issues would come out that would be a source of upset to patients. Will the Minister tell the House whether Mr Compton knew about the issue last Thursday? If so, he misled the Health Committee.

The Minister knew about the six patients in 2009. At that stage, given that it was a serious issue, does he not think that he should have come to the House? Furthermore, he obviously did not know about other elements until 2011. Does the Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable that members of his Department or the trust failed to keep him informed? What will he do about those members of staff?

In conclusion, I have a final question. Is the consultant who was involved still working in any capacity —

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

Order, please. The Member will know that I reminded Mr McCarthy that Members should really ask one question. You have now asked three.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will finish my question, and that will do. Will the Minister inform us if that consultant is working in any capacity and whether he received a consultant bonus for working during those two years?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I make that about six questions, and I will try to go through them as best I can. I am not sure what John Compton knew and did not know, but the Member will have an opportunity to ask him that question at the Committee meeting this Thursday. I agree completely that it is totally unacceptable that I was not informed and, therefore, was not able to keep the House informed on such an important issue. I assure the Member that I will deal with that. That will happen partly through the inquiry, but the inquiry will not simply be about the trust. It will also look at the board, the Department and issues around that.

On 21 December 2009, I was told that six patients appeared to have been subjected to delayed referral. All six patients are now receiving the necessary care, and the Belfast Trust is investigating the matter. The information was given to me as a routine take-note submission, and, therefore, I believed at that point that the trust would come back to me when it had the results of its investigation. Therefore, even on this day last week, I was not aware of the scale of the problem. If I am not aware of it, the House is not aware of it. In all cases, I am accountable to the House, which represents the people whom we all represent. They are our employers and pay for the Health Service. Therefore, I take it, as Members will take it, very seriously indeed that I was not informed.

As I say, we will take the matter further with investigations. It is a serious issue, and patients have paid the price through the anxiety of having to be called back when they believed that they had cleared a hurdle. They do not appear to have serious conditions, but, in the interests of best practice, we are recalling them. The other issue is speed of referral, which is a clinical judgement. However, I assure the House that all those individuals, when they were contacted, were receiving the appropriate treatment at the time that they were identified

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have two specific questions and a comment for the Minister. It is interesting that his colleagues are not asking questions on the issue.

In fairness, I appreciate the fact that the Minister has made a statement on the Floor of the House because it is useful to get the information into the public domain as quickly as possible. There is a lack of information, and a lot of patients are being recalled. Will the Minister tell the House whether that will have an impact on other appointments in other departments or on other X-rays in the Royal? I e-mailed the trust this morning about the fact that appointments for some patients who are being seen for bowel cancer have been put back for 10 days or two weeks. I am just concerned that, if we are looking at recalling patients again, additional staff will be there so that it does not have a negative knock-on effect.

The Minister might not be aware of this, but information came to my attention just 20 minutes ago that there possibly was another serious adverse incident at the Royal on Sunday. If the Minister has any information, I would appreciate him sharing it with us; if not, can he give us the information when he receives it?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am not aware of an SAI at the Royal at the weekend. However, Members will appreciate that around five or six SAIs are reported every month. They are not as unusual as you might expect. However, I will ask the questions and I will communicate with the Member. As for the clinics, extra sessions have been arranged. They are very much focused on oral cancer and do not affect bowel cancer, which is a different discipline in a different area.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I apologise to the House for missing the start of the statement. I can reassure Ms Ramsey: of course members of this party are going to ask questions.

Does the Minister agree that both the tone of his statement and the setting up of the inquiry are vital components in restoring public confidence, which is the key factor that we have to address? In an earlier answer, he mentioned the report on dentistry late last year. Were there recommendations in that, and when will some of those be implemented?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As I understand it, the report on dentistry was produced by Queen’s; we are talking about a teaching hospital. There are issues about funding the teaching hospital; Queen’s is historically required to fund 50% of the salaries, and I am not clear that that is happening. There is an issue for us to address about the funding of our clinicians in the dental hospital. As for the inquiry, the key thing is to ensure that we have public confidence by being open and transparent, with a full declaration about the situation. That always has to be the way as far as the Health Service is concerned, and it is the best way to maintain public confidence.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement and I welcome its tenor. The community will be reassured if there is to be a robust and firm appraisal of what is going on in our Health Service. I want to establish a bit more clarity about some of the numbers involved. Maybe I am the only person who is a little bamboozled, but there was a lot in the statement. Can the Minister clarify whether the 22 patients about whom serious concerns were raised in the initial look-back review are separate to or included in the 117 people who are being recalled as part of the intermediate concern batch? Where exactly did the four patients who have tragically died and the 15 people who have been diagnosed with cancer fall in that spectrum of numbers? I just want a sense of some of the quanta involved.

Given that this is a regional facility, can the Minister also provide a breakdown of the trusts that the various patients come from? Furthermore, given that, in December 2009, the Belfast Trust decided to supervise the work of this individual in order to ensure patient safety, and that he was referred to the GDC and the GMC —

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

Question, please.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am coming to the question, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Very quickly.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

When were dentists informed of those concerns, and why did it take a full year from the trust putting this person under supervision, and 11 months from referring him to the GMC and GDC, to remove him from clinical practice?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr Callaghan asked a number of questions. The patients involved in the look-back review would have been assessed in various categories, so none of the 117 would have been involved as far as the 22 patients are concerned.

As I indicated, they do not appear to have serious conditions, but, in the interests of best practice, they will be recalled, and that process is under way.

The 22 people with the serious conditions to whom the Member referred include the six initial patients and 18 others. Not all those patients had oral cancer. Four have died, three from oral cancer and one from other causes. I do not have the information on the home trusts. The Member rightly said that it is a regional hospital that treats patients as they come in. I am interested in knowing about that, and we will look to find that information.

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

Earlier, I asked Members to switch off their mobile phones. Since then, not only have some Members not switched them off but two Members have been using them openly in the Chamber. Please respect the work of Hansard, which is very important to this Assembly, and put those machines off.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. I share the Minister’s shock and concern, and I agree that there has been a breakdown in communication. However, I am further concerned that we are not getting the full information today, and I am concerned that patients are not getting the information that they are entitled to.

In the Minister’s statement, he referred to 15 patients who were diagnosed as having oral cancer, and he went on to say that not every patient has been told that there was a potential delay and that some are complex cases. We know that the late processing of 18,500 X-rays in the north-west resulted in actual, not potential, delays for four patients. In the context of the breakdown in communication that the Minister talked about, is he aware that two of those four patients received information that there was a delay in their diagnosis only on Thursday 3 February? That was the very day that the board and the trust came in front of the Health Committee. Two of the four patients received that information only on that day. Could I ask —

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

Come to a question, please.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Given that the board and the trust met the north-west MLAs and that John Compton was in front of the Committee, is the Minister concerned that his Department, the board and the trust are operating a need-to-know policy?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have said already that I look for openness and transparency. That is the only way that we can keep confidence among our patients and the general population. I am not aware of the example that the Member gave about the X-rays, and I would be shocked if that were the case. I will look at that, and I will determine why the situation arose. It is not acceptable. I referred to the situation at Altnagelvin and this one as being two examples in which the Health Service clearly has to do an awful lot better. The full independent inquiry will provide a number of answers to the questions and confirmation of the answers that I am giving.

I am advised that, through the look back, in the interests of best practice, all 117 of the patients have been or are being contacted. That will have begun at the weekend. All the other patients with more serious conditions, when identified, were already in the system and were being looked after by the appropriate clinicians. I repeat that I am dismayed about where I find myself on the flow of information, and I am determined to deal with this.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister informed us that he only found out about this important issue in December 2010. He then told us that he felt that he should have been told earlier. He informed us that his permanent secretary told him that he was not aware of it, and I assume that he feels that the permanent secretary should have been told earlier. He also informed us that he was not sure whether the chief executive of the trust knew about it. In the Minister’s opinion, when should he have been told? When should the permanent secretary and the chief executive have been told? If those timelines were not made, who will be held responsible for not fulfilling their public duty?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I should be told about serious incidents, but I cannot be told about everything in the Health Service because thousands of issues arise every day. However, that is why I have professionals around me. It is for officials to advise me of what is serious and what I need to know and should be told. I meet my permanent secretary once a week, and he tells me what is important as we move forward. I share my priorities with him. Therefore, you can see clearly how we lay out our priorities for action and our overarching strategies, but, in the end, it all boils down to looking after patients. That is what is important. Each patient is entitled to get the very best care that we can provide, and, where that is not happening, that is a serious issue that I need to know about.

The permanent secretary told me that he did not know about the issue until he informed me. That is an issue for the full, independent inquiry. I need short, sharp answers to those questions to ensure a proper flow of information to me as Minister and thus to the Committee and the Assembly.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and his openness. I was concerned when he said that there were 10 consultants when there should be 20. Of those 10, only one specialises in oral cancer, which raises concerns. Although we have to investigate what went on, what are we doing going forward? Will we make alternative arrangements? Will we retrain, reorganise and restructure to ensure that one of the existing consultants picks up the workload? To my mind, it is bad enough that there is a problem that we need to investigate, but we have to restore confidence and we have to take exceptional measures to ensure that it is restored quickly. Can you give me some reassurance on that?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

We look at the problem and then we determine what the actions are and how the issues require to be addressed. It is a matter for the trust to satisfy me and the board, which commissions the service, to ensure that we are delivering the care that we are required to deliver. However, I repeat: the complement should be around 20, but it is around half that number. Therefore, there is an obvious issue around resources. I am not going to get into resources today, but there are obvious issues around that.

As I understand it, the specialism that we are talking about is rare and not easy to replicate, not least in a country the size of Northern Ireland. That is uppermost in my mind and, therefore, will be on the minds of the board and the trust.

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

That concludes questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on his statement.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take your guidance as to whether you feel that it is appropriate to raise an issue now or slightly later on the next item of business, which is the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill.

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

We are not at that stage, but you can raise whatever issue you have when we come to that item of business.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

OK. Thank you.

Executive Committee Business

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

The next item on the Order Paper is the Further Consideration Stage of the Employment (No.2) Bill. The Minister for Employment and Learning has notified me that he is unable to attend the House to move this Stage of the Bill. I call the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to move the Further Consideration Stage on his behalf.

Moved. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

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

As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Employment (No.2) Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

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

The next item in the Order Paper is the Further Consideration Stage of the Local Government Finance Bill. I call the Minister of the Environment.

Moved. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

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

As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Local Government Finance Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

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

Mr Wells, you indicated that you wanted to raise a point of order with regard to the Further Consideration Stage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. You may do so now.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your advice as to when the matter should be raised. On 22 June 2010, the Assembly debated at length an amendment to the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill tabled by the Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs. A lengthy debate on park hare coursing ensued. As a result of that debate, when all Members, including Mr Molloy, had an opportunity to raise points, the Assembly voted by a significant majority to make park hare coursing permanently illegal in Northern Ireland.

I am, therefore, somewhat surprised that Mr Molloy the Member for Mid Ulster has tabled an amendment that attempts to negate that decision and overturn the vote that was taken at Consideration Stage. I believe that that is a blatant attempt to negate the purpose of the Bill as it now stands. I question whether it was appropriate to accept that amendment and put it on the Marshalled List. I would like an explanation of why Mr Molloy’s amendment is before the House. Does it mean that Members must rehearse all the arguments that they made in June 2010 on park hare coursing, which many find totally unacceptable?

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

Selection of amendments is a complex matter. The Speaker gives it very careful consideration. The Member will be aware that the inclusion of amendment No 10 on the Marshalled List indicates that the Speaker is content that it is in order.

I call the Minister of the Environment to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill.

Moved. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

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

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

There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 7, which deal with wildlife and biodiversity. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 8 to 10 and amendment Nos 13 to 15, which deal with hare coursing. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 11 and 12, which deal with protection of the Irish hare.

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. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (Duty to conserve biodiversity)

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

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 7. The amendments deal with the biodiversity duty, the protection of birds, pesticides and areas of special scientific interest.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 4, leave out “further the conservation of” and insert

“have regard to the purpose of conserving”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, leave out line 17. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 3: In clause 7, page 4, line 13, at end insert

“(1) In Article 4 of the Wildlife Order (protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs) for paragraph (4) substitute—

‘(4) In paragraph (3) “the relevant provisions” means the provisions of—

(a) this Part and of orders made under it,

(b) the Wild Birds Protection Acts (Northern Ireland) 1931 to 1968 and of orders made under those Acts,

(c) any other legislation which implements either of the Wild Birds Directives and extends to any part of the United Kingdom, to any area designated in accordance with section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, or to any area to which British fishery limits extend in accordance with section 1 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976, and

(d) the law of any member State (other than the United Kingdom) implementing either of the Wild Birds Directives.

(4A) For the purposes of paragraph (4) “the Wild Birds Directives” are—

(a) Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds; and

(b) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds.’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 4: After clause 14, insert the following new clause:

“Possession of pesticides harmful to wildlife

14A. After Article 15A of the Wildlife Order (inserted by section 14) insert—

‘Possession of pesticides harmful to wildlife

15B.—(1) A person who is in possession of a pesticide containing a prescribed ingredient shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A prescribed ingredient is one which is prescribed for the purposes of this Article by an order made by the Department; but the Department may not make an order under this Article unless it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of protecting wild birds or wild animals from harm.

(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Article if the person shows that the possession of the pesticide was for the purposes of doing anything in accordance with—

(a) regulations made under section 16(2) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985;

(b) provision made by or under the Poisons (Northern Ireland) Order 1976;

(c) the Biocidal Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 or any regulations amending or replacing those regulations; or

(d) the Plant Protection Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 or any regulations amending or replacing those regulations.

(4) In this Article “pesticide” means—

(a) a pesticide as defined by section 16(15) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; and

(b) anything to which Part 3 of that Act applies, by virtue of section 16(16) of that Act, as if it were a pesticide.’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 5: In clause 23, page 15, line 13, at end insert “(aa) Article 15B,”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 6: In clause 28, page 16, line 31, leave out from “34” to end of line 36 and insert

“43(1) of the Environment Order (agreements concerning land adjacent to an ASSI) for ‘adjacent to’ substitute ‘which is not within’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 7: After clause 28, insert the following new clause:

“Public body: duties in relation to authorising operations

28A.—(1) Article 40 of the Environment Order (public bodies: duties in relation to authorising operations) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (6) before sub-paragraph (a) insert—

‘(aa) shall, in granting permission, impose conditions sufficient to ensure that the requirements set out in paragraph (6A) are complied with;’.

(3) After paragraph (6) insert—

‘(6A) The requirements are—

(a) that the operations are carried out in such a way as to give rise to as little damage as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances to the flora, fauna or geological, physiographical or other features by reason of which the ASSI is of special scientific interest; and

(b) that the site will be restored to its former condition, so far as is reasonably practicable, if any such damage does occur.’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have tabled several amendments for debate. They relate to the biodiversity duty on public bodies, possession of illegally taken wild birds, possession of certain pesticides and areas of special scientific interest.

Amendment Nos 1 and 2 concern the biodiversity duty in the current draft of the Bill. I have been reconsidering the extent of the biodiversity duty, which was agreed by the Executive and the Assembly at Consideration Stage. The current wording is:

“It is the duty of every public body, in exercising any functions, to further the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions.”

Having received advice from the Attorney General, I am concerned that the form of duty may create unnecessary impediments to development and associated economic activity. As a result, I am proposing an amendment that will provide an alternative wording for the biodiversity duty similar to that which exists in England and Wales, so that it will say:

“It is the duty of every public body, in exercising any functions, to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions.”

I believe that that change will provide greater flexibility and will be more relevant to Northern Ireland’s needs. It strengthens our position on biodiversity, and public bodies will be required to take account of biodiversity needs in their policy and programme decision-making processes. I also feel that it does not leave an open goal for those who wish to engage in perhaps spurious judicial reviews and have particular interests in what other people are doing, not for environmental reasons but for financial reasons. It would not be in the public interest to allow that to be the case. That is why we are going down that particular route.

I am also proposing an amendment to clause 1(5) to omit the reference to:

“a department of the government of the United Kingdom”.

This is due to the issue of vires reference to GB bodies in that regard. The amendment will resolve that legal issue. From a policy perspective, that should have a minimal impact on Northern Ireland’s biodiversity. All GB Departments already operate under a biodiversity duty under their national legislation.

Amendment No 3 is concerned with the possession of wild birds. It will give the authorities powers to prosecute anyone who is in possession of protected wild birds or eggs of protected wild birds which that person may have taken unlawfully from another EU country. The amendment will ensure compliance with EU wild bird directives.

Amendment No 4 and the consequential amendment No 5 regarding pesticides aim to close a legal loophole. The amendments aim to prohibit the possession of certain highly toxic chemicals for which there is no legitimate use and which may be used to commit a poisoning offence against wildlife. That is considered important, as there has been an increase in cases involving the poisoning of raptors in Northern Ireland. The amendment will allow my Department to prescribe by order the forms of pesticide that no one should legitimately possess. A similar offence was introduced in Scotland through the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and in England and Wales through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. It is important to note that the amendment will not impact on those who use lawfully approved pesticides for legitimate purposes, for example, for agricultural purposes.

Amendment Nos 6 and 7 are concerned with areas of special scientific interest. Amendment No 6 relates to clause 28, as amended at Consideration Stage. That was a later Back-Bench amendment agreed at Consideration Stage, the aim of which was to give the Department power to enter into voluntary agreements with owners of land outside an ASSI to manage that land in a manner that would help conserve the ASSI. Subsequent legal scrutiny showed that the clause inserted in the Bill was defective due to important differences between management agreements under article 34 of the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 and other agreements under article 43 of that Order and powers that apply to each type of agreement. The amendment I have tabled will resolve the technical problems while achieving the original policy aim.

Amendment No 7 relates to a Back-Bench amendment tabled at Consideration Stage but not moved on the day. That was due to opposition to another amendment related to ASSIs that would have given my Department wide-ranging powers to prohibit by means of by-laws normally lawful activities such as shooting and fishing.

The amendments that were subject to previous opposition have been dropped and have not been pursued. However, the amendment that I propose was not subject to opposition and is considered important for the protection of our nationally important sites. The amendment will place requirements on anyone undertaking an operation on or near an ASSI that has been authorised by a competent authority to minimise potential damage to the ASSI. Individuals will be required to take reasonable steps to restore the ASSI to its former condition. That condition already applies to competent authorities that directly carry out such operations. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the same conditions to activities that they authorise.

The amendments have been considered by the Committee for the Environment, which indicated that it was content with them. I thank the Committee for its considerations. That concludes my explanation of my amendments in group 1.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for the Environment, I will go through the seven amendments in this group and indicate the Committee’s position. As some time has passed since Committee Stage, that may not be always possible. However, I thank the Minister for keeping the Committee informed of the changes that he expected to make to the Bill at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 1 will, as the Minister told us, change the obligations of public bodies with regard to biodiversity. This is an interesting amendment from the Committee’s perspective. During Committee Stage, members questioned the Department about the original wording of the clause, which would have required bodies to “further the conservation of biodiversity”. Members were concerned that that could place an obligation on public bodies that, through no fault on their part, could end up being difficult to meet from a technological perspective and/or financially crippling.

The Committee considered the scenario of climate change altering the nature of biodiversity in an area over time in a way that simply could not be avoided without massive costs. Maybe that will seem a hypothetical threat to some, but we already know of a low-lying freshwater habitat in Wales that is on the verge of being radically altered by contamination by seawater as sea levels steadily rise. That site has been designated for protection under European law, and the authorities are already trying to work out with officials in Brussels how they will continue to meet their obligation to protect the site in future years without bankrupting the local authority.

In response to the Committee’s question, the Department did not appear to have any concerns about the clause at Committee Stage. However, it now appears that the Minister has recognised the risk. He advised the Committee in December 2010 of his intention to change the clause and indicated that new wording would provide greater flexibility while still requiring public bodies to take account of biodiversity needs.

Whether or not we believe in climate change, nature is constantly fluctuating. It is right that we place an obligation on public bodies to take account of biodiversity, but we need to take care that we do not shackle them with fighting the normal fluctuations of the natural world. The Committee recognised that and supports amendment No 1.

I move now to amendment No 2. At the same time as the Minister advised the Committee of his proposed amendment to the wording of the biodiversity duty, he indicated that he would make a further change to clause 1 that would ensure that the biodiversity duty applied only to public bodies in the North. The Committee saw that that was appropriate and agreed to support amendment No 2 also.

The Committee also considered amendment No 3. After Consideration Stage, the Department wrote to the Committee advising that an amendment might be tabled at Further Consideration Stage that would allow for anyone in possession of protected wild birds taken illegally elsewhere in Europe to be prosecuted. The Department advised that the amendment would ensure correct compliance with the EU wild birds directive and that a similar loophole had already been recognised and closed in English and Welsh legislation. The Committee sought opinion on the proposed amendment from all the organisations that had submitted written evidence on the Bill during Committee Stage. None of those that responded had any concerns about the proposal, and the Committee agreed to support the amendment, if tabled at Further Consideration Stage. On behalf of the Committee, therefore, I support amendment No 3.

Similarly, amendment No 4, which would insert a new clause into the Bill, was sent to the Committee after Consideration Stage, to be tabled by the Department at Further Consideration Stage.

The Committee was advised that that amendment would also close a legal loophole that lets someone possess highly toxic chemicals and pesticides for which there is no legitimate use and which may be used to commit a poisoning offence. Again, the Committee sought feedback from interested parties and, although most were content with the proposal, the farmers’ union was concerned that it would impose further regulations on farmers and landowners. The union argued that farmers were already obliged to comply with the Wildlife Order 1985 through cross-compliance, and the more complex it becomes, the greater the risk of farmers breaching it inadvertently and subsequently losing their single farm payment.

The Committee recognised farmers’ misgivings but felt that it was important to close that loophole. Members stressed that they did not believe that the amendment was aimed particularly at the farming community and suggested that existing cross-compliance requirements should help to prevent farmers from inadvertently breaching the clause. The Committee suggested that the Department might wish to look at adjusting the wording of the amendment to ensure that the legislation targets poisoning offences effectively, without impacting inadvertently on legitimate users of toxic chemicals.

Since the Committee saw the proposed amendment, an additional subsection has been introduced, which will require the Department to be specific about the ingredients to which the clause refers and require it to be satisfied that it is in the interests of protecting wild birds or wild animals from harm. The Committee has not had an opportunity to consider that addition to the amendment, but I hope that I speak for members in welcoming it. The extra control that it brings to the clause to protect legitimate users of pesticides, while still protecting wildlife from being poisoned, is in keeping with the Committee’s recommendation. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I support amendment No 4.

Amendment No 5 is less clear-cut from the Committee’s perspective. It adds the offence that would be committed as a result of the previous amendment to the list of offences punishable by imprisonment of no more than six months or a fine not exceeding level 5. The Committee was not afforded the opportunity to discuss the punishment that might be associated with cases where the offence or possession of pesticides is harmful to wildlife. Therefore, the Committee has no position on amendment No 5.

Amendment No 6 makes changes to the amendment that was agreed at Consideration Stage. The Department subsequently advised the Committee that that amendment would give it the power to enter into agreements with owners of land outside an area of special scientific interest for the purpose of managing that land in order to protect the ASSI.

The Committee was also advised by the Department that an amendment would be required to the clause that was added at Consideration Stage in order for it to link to the legislation to which it refers. The Committee sought feedback from individuals and organisations that had submitted written evidence to the Committee during Committee Stage. Although most who replied were content with that clause and the Department’s proposed amendment to it, the farmers’ union indicated that it had concerns about the potential impact on farmers and called for more information.

The Committee agreed to support the policy principles of the amendment but strongly recommended that the Department should produce information and guidance on the potential implications for farm owners and landowners. On behalf of the Committee, therefore, I support amendment No 6 but ask the Minister to reassure the House that appropriate information and guidance will be provided.

The Department also sent amendment No 7 to the Committee for scrutiny after Consideration Stage. The Committee was told that the amendment would place a requirement on anyone undertaking an operation authorised by a competent authority to minimise damage to an ASSI and to take reasonable steps to restore that ASSI to its former condition. The Department indicated that that condition already applied to competent authorities that carry out such operations directly. So, it would seem appropriate to apply the same conditions to activities that they authorise. Once again, the Committee sought the views of those who had commented on the Bill during Committee Stage. All those who responded were content for the changes to be made to the Bill, and the Committee agreed to support amendment No 7.

That concludes the Committee’s position on the amendments in group 1.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. I will go straight to addressing the amendments with no preamble. Amendment No 1 wants to change the requirement to “further the conservation of” biodiversity to “have regard to”.

We are told that the amendment is necessary following the Attorney General’s advice and that it will give greater flexibility and allow for further development and improvement in the economy. Having listened to those guidelines in the Committee, I thought it sensible to support amendment No 1. However, I have had time to think more on the subject; and we have a choice. We are the Committee for the Environment, we must lead on behalf of the environment, and I am uncomfortable with amendment No 1. We have a duty to carry out, as best we can, the protection, restoration and improvement of our biodiversity while finding a balance with the cuts and the poor state of the economy. We also have a duty on sustainability.

About a year and a half ago, I spoke at a biodiversity meeting at Mossley Mill. In those days, only three councils had biodiversity officers and seven had officers who had a biodiversity role as part of their normal duties. Today, 17 of the 26 councils are represented on the local biodiversity officer’s forum and are involved in trying to protect, promote and restore the biodiversity of Northern Ireland. The Environment Committee is currently scrutinising the Planning Bill, which will see a move towards spatial planning, and will include the need for well-being, sustainability and the inclusion of the community and its views in future planning applications. Therefore, it seems strange to remove some of the onus on conserving the biodiversity of Northern Ireland.

The RSPB feels that amendment No 1 waters down what we should be doing, and a little bit of me wonders whether the amendment represents the previous Minister’s style of protecting the environment or whether the Department is behind the watering down. We must be stronger. Therefore, amendment No 1 is not right and sends out the wrong signal. It may fit England and Wales and it may seem sensible, but if the Bill is to be in place for many years, we do not want to water down our biodiversity duties. It would be helpful if the original wording remained in place. It would also be helpful if we had guidelines to show how we could stay with the wording we have and yet allow a little flexibility, so that if councils cannot take up the duty in hard times, they can put it off until a later date.

The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group said that we are failing in our progress on biodiversity. Its report also commented that we need to improve our biodiversity and not simply concentrate on the status quo or on restoring it. Biodiversity should not been seen as a cost. It is every bit as important as heath, education and jobs. Therefore, I oppose amendment No 1.

Amendment No 2 is technical. I support it.

Amendment No 3 will make it illegal to possess wild birds caught illegally elsewhere in Europe. We were told that that complies with the EU’s wild birds’ directive. I support amendment No 3.

Amendment No 4 will make it an offence for a person to possess highly toxic chemicals that could be used for polluting, and we are told that that will close a legal loophole. The Committee met with farmers who were concerned that more guidance is needed, so that those who do not know what is on their farms are not punished. Guidance should be given to farmers and landowners about the toxic materials that they may have used in the past and that are now illegal. They will then be fully aware of what they need to get rid of.

Most farmers and landowners obey and follow requirements and look after the ground extremely well. However, two years ago one farmer near the Ballymartin river had an oil tank gently leaking on to the ground to clean it out. He also had a hose pipe quietly turned on further up the hill to wash the oil in to the river. It could have been two mistakes to have had them both running at the same time. It seemed to be wrong. Some landowners out there are not obeying, and we need that loophole to be closed. However, it is not just aimed at landowners. There has just been a pollution incident in the Sixmilewater. That may be down to another body, and we wait to hear about that. We need to close the loopholes to stop pollution.

Amendment No 5, as with amendment No 4, details an offence. What level of fine does the Minister seek? Does it fit with the level of fine that exists under waste and contamination legislation, which could be as high as £30,000, or is it smaller?

Amendment No 6 would give powers to the Department to allow it to enter into agreements with landowners next to ASSIs. That is to be welcomed, as long as it is not carried out clumsily. Again, I feel that guidelines are needed. We need to know the potential implications for farmers. I await the Minister’s reply.

Amendment No 7 also deals with ASSIs and would place a requirement on anyone undertaking an operation authorised by a competent authority to minimise potential damage to an ASSI. That would be an extremely good measure to put in place, and I support it. However, it raises the question of whether we should monitor the contractors when they come in. We should look at not just their plans for whatever they are doing but at their plans for restoration, so that the Department is doing the monitoring just as much as the contractor has to follow what the amendment proposes. Again, I await the Minister’s response.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Before discussing the issue, it is important that we look at the Bill. Clause 1(1), to which amendments have been tabled, states:

“It is the duty of every public body, in exercising any functions, to further the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions.”

One of the Minister’s proposed amendments to clause 1 refers to having:

“regard to the purpose of conserving”.

Like Mr Kinahan, I listened to the debates and discussions on this matter in the Committee. On reflection, and having learned as much I have, I do not believe that I could support that amendment. First, its actual wording leads to a weakening of resolve and purpose in promoting biodiversity. That is the first major concern of those of us who have an interest in nature, wildlife and reinstating old abandoned quarries, or whatever it might be, to their former glory so that that glory can be enhanced. It is very important that a duty is placed on public bodies to do that.

Secondly, the argument has been presented, and it is in some of the documents that we have today, that such a duty exists already in that shape and form in England and Wales. I have just learned that, following its inquiry into biodiversity, the Sustainability Committee in the National Assembly for Wales has decided to recommend to the Welsh Assembly Government that there be a duty to support and promote biodiversity so that they can build on their existing duty to have regard to biodiversity.

Finally, I would hope to draw experience and expertise from biodiversity officers, that is, the people who know the issues on the ground and whose daily duty is to go out and ensure that biodiversity is promoted and the environment enhanced. Indeed, some such officers prepared a document that has been sent to every MLA. They say that they have a major concern with the proposed amendment, in that it would weaken the duty and change the role of public bodies from a proactive to a passive one. That comes from a representative group of biodiversity officers. Looking down the list I see that, oddly enough, it includes the Northern Ireland Environ­ment Agency’s biodiversity unit, which the Minister may or may not have consulted on this.

That brings me to my final point on what is proposed in this amendment. When a representative group of biodiversity officers, from a wide range of public bodies, government and local government, from right across the North, says that it has not been consulted about it, it gives me great concern. If the practitioners have not been consulted on the likely impact of an amendment to the duty and role of public bodies, it gives me cause for concern. I ask that the Minister considers the fact that consultation has not taken place on what could turn out to be a very significant and major duty for public bodies.

With regard the other amendments, a lot of ground has been covered already on guidance to farmers on the use of toxins. All those things came up in the Committee. I will remain consistent with my position taken in Committee: my party will support amendment Nos 2 to 7.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I have the opportunity, or the loss, of not being a member of the Environment Committee, so I may be able to speak slightly more freely.

My party is comfortable with amendment Nos 3 to 7. I have some reservations on amendment No 2, and, like the two members who spoke before me, I am opposed to amendment No 1, as proposed by the Minister.

I will focus most of my remarks on amendment No 1. We favour the original wording of the Bill. We regard amendment No 1 as a dilution of the duty, which moves from a position where public bodies have a responsibility for furthering conservation to one where they:

“have regard to the purpose of conserving”.

My party regards that as a reversal of biodiversity duty. We are moving to a situation where public bodies are being asked to be reactive to situations rather than proactive in biodiversity. We regard it as sending out not just an indicative signal to society as regards our responsibilities to biodiversity as a whole, but something that will see the historic erosion of our biodiversity not reversed. We should be looking to enhance and restore biodiversity, because as a society we have lost an awful lot of it over many generations. A situation where legislation asks public bodies to defend an already poor and deficient status quo is not sufficient.

To our minds, the original wording is not open-ended and is already qualified, in so far as it says that the duty is:

“to further the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions.”

That is, the functions of the public body. The Minister intends to roll that forward. To us, that is the qualification that seeks to balance a responsibility to develop biodiversity with realities, social or economic, that public bodies may confront. Simply diluting the biodiversity duties is not the way to better find that balance. All that we will do is lose an opportunity to restore things.

The enhanced risk of litigation that was set out by the Minister is entirely speculative at this stage. If that is the case, we can go back and look at the legislation again. It often frustrates me that we come to the Assembly with reasons why we should not be doing things to move forward and address long-running problems in society, rather than striking out and doing what we think is appropriate and sending out the right signals.

The only other point that I want to make concerns the alleged economic costs. We should turn this on its head and recognise that there are economic benefits to be derived from biodiversity and conservation in society. Doing something about biodiversity should not be seen as an economic drain, a waste of resources or something that we have to put up with reluctantly. Public bodies should see it as an opportunity. The original wording in amendment No 1 is more consistent with that view. Indeed, we have the support of biodiversity officers in maintaining the original wording. We share their concern about the lack of consultation on what is quite a significant change in the duty being introduced at the eleventh hour.

This may be a small matter, but I am concerned about amendment No 2’s removing the reference to Northern Ireland Departments. There may not be that many working here, but they are an aspect of the situation, and it is important that we try to ensure that we are all working in the same direction. Our main concern at this stage lies with the dilution that will be caused by amendment No 1, and we will oppose that amendment.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly, but nonetheless firmly, on one point to do with amendment No 1 in the first group of amendments. I am content with the other amendments. I want to endorse what Danny Kinahan, Patsy McGlone and Stephen Farry said about amendment No 1. I am somewhat surprised that the Minister of the Environment felt strongly enough about that amendment to table it. It does not add to the Bill; in fact, it does the opposite and weakens it.

As other Members said, to replace a duty on every public body to “further the conservation of biodiversity” and replace it with merely a statement that would make a public body:

“have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”,

weakens significantly the duty on public bodies. I note that there was a reference to the Attorney General’s advice. It is a significant occasion when we get advice from the Attorney General on Bills, because on other occasions we do not get it. That was the only argument that I saw, and I did not take in the full content of the Attorney General’s advice. It does not seem to be good policy advice, however. It advises that, if an unanticipated situation occurs in future, the clause as it is worded currently would put a totally disproportionate burden on a Department or any public body and would require any such body to skew its resources towards furthering the conservation of biodiversity in a way that would cause grave damage to its ability to carry out its full functions.

That is not the case. As Stephen Farry and perhaps other Members have stated, there is a clear qualification in the existing wording. Indeed, some of us may think that it allows too much of a let-out for public bodies, because it says that, in exercising any functions, those bodies have only to go:

“so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions.”

The public interest and due proportion are fully and adequately protected by those words.

I do not know whether it is possible for the Minister, having heard the debate, not to proceed with amendment No 1, but it is clear, from those who have spoken so far, that the will of the Assembly is not consistent with that amendment.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

The Green Party opposes amendment No 1. Like previous contributors to the debate, I believe that the proposed amendment would seriously weaken the Bill. It would change the duty of every public body:

“to further the conservation of biodiversity”,

to:

“to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.

In effect, the amendment removes a statutory duty and replaces it with a recommendation, which will give the public bodies a licence to ignore that duty. Instead of putting a duty on councils to enhance biodiversity, it requires them not to make decisions that would cause a loss of biodiversity. A proactive role is replaced by a passive role, as biodiversity officers have pointed out.

As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) points out, the EU biodiversity targets for 2020 require us to restore biodiversity, not simply halt its loss. The clause as drafted would help to ensure that Northern Ireland does what is required to meet our obligation under that directive. The clause as drafted would also help us to meet the requirements of the birds directive. The UK is already under scrutiny and could face fines further down the line.

It appears that the change is driven by economics and may be related to the transfer of planning powers to councils. If the clause is amended, there would be significantly less protection for biodiversity in planning decisions. Indeed, a recent global study on the economics of biodiversity shows that sustaining biodiversity is less expensive than the consequences of biodiversity loss. That report estimates that, by 2050, the loss of biodiversity will cost 7% of global GDP. We must be proactive rather than reactive. In fact, I believe that Europe will eventually impose such an obligation on us.

There is widespread support for the clause in its original form, including that of the biodiversity officers forum, most councils, many environmental groups and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It is not clear where support for the change comes from. However, if such an important change is to be made, there should be full public consultation. We should follow the example of the Welsh Assembly Government, which opted to take a proactive approach. Why are we always the poor cousins of devolution when it comes to environmental protection? The Green Party strongly supports amendment Nos 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I oppose the amendment that has been proposed by the Minister. The existing legislation and what the Committee has been presented with represents a stronger position than what is proposed now. As other Members said, the issues are better protected by the existing legislation and proposals than by the amendment, which weakens the position to some extent. It is important that we have the clear direction that is required to ensure the protection that is envisaged in the first part of the Bill and to give meaning to the Bill’s intent.

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

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

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before Question Time begins, I warn Members who would get up and try to ask multiple supplementary questions that that will not be allowed. I know that supplementary questions can sometimes take legs. I understand that, but with the time limit on Ministers in answering questions, there must be one enquiry to a question. Standing Orders are also clear on that. There will not be multiple supplementary questions. I warn the whole House on that issue.

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

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline progress in relation to the sustainable development strategy. (AQO 949/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Gerry Kelly to answer question 1.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Executive formally adopted the sustainable development strategy on 27 May 2010. There is a commitment in that strategy for us to produce an implementation plan that sets out in detail how Departments and others would take forward delivery of the strategies, commitments and strategic objectives.

The consultation exercise on the strategy implementation plan ran from 26 July to 5 November 2010. The findings from that process have been passed to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for consideration, and we are in the process of finalising an implementation plan for approval by the Executive.

The draft implementation plan contains commitments to action on behalf of each Department to deliver the objectives of the strategy and to monitor and report on progress. In fulfilment of our commitment to deliver the strategy in partnership with the wider public, private, and community and voluntary sectors, the draft plan also contains commitments to action on behalf of partners beyond government. It also makes provision for arrangements to ensure continued positive engagement with other sectors as we move into the implementation phase of the strategy.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that, without the facility and resource of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) within OFMDFM, these matters and their implementation and monitoring could be more difficult?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I suppose that that is a matter of debate. The fact is that a decision was made to do away with the Sustainable Development Commission. We put our strategy together, not on the basis of its existence but on the basis of needing to have a strategy, and we will move forward with that strategy. It may be more difficult in terms of substance, but our sponsorship of the SDC cost around £120,000 a year; we may be able to put our strategy forward for a bit less than that.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister any closer to finalising appropriate arrangements and structures to carry on the work of the Sustainable Development Commission, the life of which is coming to an end?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

In developing a new structure to support the delivery of our ambitions for sustainable development, we have sought to identify arrangements that will work effectively alongside the existing structures of government. This refers to the previous question as well. To do so, the principles we have applied are to make use of the knowledge and abilities already at our disposal across government; to bring in external resource and an independent voice, where that adds value to the process; and to secure maximum efficiency and value for money by building flexible structures that are responsive to need. By applying those principles, we have developed a structure that will deliver significant savings compared with the current arrangements and that is optimised to meet our needs. The detail of our proposals will go before Executive colleagues and the Committee for OFMDFM as soon as is practicable.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The junior Minister will be aware that the Committee was very unimpressed by the draft strategy that it saw recently. Will he give an assurance that there will be real and meaningful targets as part of the final strategy, and that all Departments, their agencies and other bodies will be fully signed up to it?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The easy answer is that we certainly intend to make sure that all Departments are signed up to it. It is a cross-cutting issue, which is why it is centred in OFMDFM. We will have monitoring and reporting facilities to bring that forward. We will not just have a strategy; we will watch the strategy as it progresses.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I echo what has just been said. In the interim report last week no replies were given to the question about which Departments were not answering, and the deadline is 25 March. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that such vital but lofty strategies actually mean something, have time frames and become achievable?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We have given a series of commitments in the sustainable development strategy on reporting, accountability and, as I said to the pervious Member, on sustainable development, including: sustainability scans as part of the impact assessment process; integrating sustainable development into the Programme for Government; setting specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely (SMART) targets; identifying lead Departments in relation to our strategic objectives; the development of indicators and reporting on Departments’ sustainable development performance. The detail of the implementation of each of those commitments is set out in our draft implementation plan.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

2. asked the First Minister and the deputy First Minister what actions their Department is taking to ensure continued efficiency and to reduce departmental administrative costs. (AQO 950/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Our Department has a unique role in the Civil Service. It provides advice and support to the First Minister and me and to the Executive and other Ministers and their Departments concerning participation in the institutions of government. It also develops a wide range of cross-cutting policy and provides many advisory functions, for example, on issues of economic policy, the Programme for Government and the investment strategy, tackling poverty and social exclusion, equality of opportunity, human rights, good relations, children and young people, victims and survivors, sustainable development and civil contingencies. OFMDFM also sponsors and oversees the work of a number of arm’s-length bodies.

It is worth remembering that in 2004 there were 460 staff in post in the Department. That had reduced to 427 in April 2007, and, in 2010, the Department carried out a restructuring exercise that further reduced staffing levels. At present, we have 351 staff in the Department. On top of that, we plan additional efficiencies to be put in place during the Budget 2011-15 period to achieve a 12% reduction in departmental operating by March 2015. That will include a further reduction in staffing numbers, which we aim to achieve through a combination of natural wastage and redeployment to other Departments.

The Department will work closely with the trade union side throughout the planning and implementation stages and will ensure that our staff and their representatives will be kept fully informed throughout the process. The reductions will not impact on the delivery of programmes or our commitments in the Programme for Government. All areas of the Department, including its arm’s-length bodies, will continue to be subject to review to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer and welcome the continued commitment to reducing administrative costs. The deputy First Minister mentioned the reduction in staff numbers, certainly compared to the last Administration. Will he give any detail on the total administrative costs during the last Administration and how that compares to today’s figures?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is obvious from the answer that we have seen a reduction of some 109 personnel over that period. I do not have to hand the savings that that brings to our Department, but they are substantial. We will write to the Member with the exact figures in due course.

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

Do the deputy First Minister and the First Minister have any plans to reduce the number of special advisers in their Department?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Everybody in the House is aware that there will be an election in the next couple of months, so making changes to those who advise us at this stage would not make sense. Whatever new Administration is elected after the Assembly elections, and whoever is the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and the other Ministers in the Department, will have to decide who their advisers are and what their numbers will be. We are content to wait for the Assembly election and its outcome.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. Will the Minister give an assurance that efficiency in the Department will in no way affect the delivery of front line services?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In taking forward planning for savings throughout the Budget 2011-15 period, senior management teams in OFMDFM are carrying out analyses that will identify options for reductions alongside an assessment of the impact of those reductions. The focus of that work, which will include our arm’s-length bodies, will be on back-office functions and will allow us to continue to deliver on our key objectives, which are driving investment and sustainable development; tackling disadvantage and promoting equality of opportunity; operating effectively the institutions of government; and delivering an agreed Programme for Government. Our aim is to ensure that the delivery of front line services is not adversely affected by the savings plan.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the deputy First Minister inform the House about the policy innovation unit’s input on the construction of the draft manifesto?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As we go forward, support units in the Department are involved in every aspect of our work. We all understand that as a result of what I described last week when the First Minister and I met Treasury officials and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the draconian cuts that have been inflicted on us as a result of decisions taken by the Tory-led Administration — we are all very conscious of the Ulster Unionist Party’s support to the Tories during the election campaign — mean that it is obvious that the Administration have to deal with the fallout from that. From our perspective, in what is a very difficult time for our Administration, we have to focus on our key aims, one of which is to ensure that the development of our economy is front and centre of the Programme for Government. In addition, we must ensure that front line services are protected and that those people who are most disadvantaged in our society are assisted by processes and programmes that recognise that, in a time of austerity, they are, indeed, the most vulnerable section of our community.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how their Department intends to build on the goodwill generated by the recent ministerial visit to Brussels including the potential to secure funding for a Peace IV programme. (AQO 951/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Our recent visit to Brussels was highly successful in renewing the unique relationship with the European institutions that we have enjoyed and benefited from in recent years. That was most evident in President Barroso’s reaffirmation during our visit of his personal commitment to assist our Administration and to the continuation of the task force. Goodwill was equally evident during other meetings with the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, Commissioners Márie Geoghegan-Quinn and Johannes Hahn, and Danuta Hübner, the Chairperson of the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development.

Recently, our junior Ministers chaired a meeting of the Barroso task force working group to prepare for an inward visit by Commission officials that is anticipated for March. They emphasised the need for a step change in our engagement with European funding programmes, policies and networks. A framework for discussion with European officials was agreed, and it seeks to allow regional objectives with EU priorities for 2011 and with Europe 2020, the EU strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. That approach will help us to identify further opportunities to access EU funding programmes. A key purpose of the task force’s visit will be to identify tangible opportunities in the EU programmes to help the Executive to increase by 20% the amount of funding accessed from Europe on a competitive basis.

During our visit to Brussels, we raised the issue of a Peace IV programme at the highest levels. We were encouraged by the positive remarks made by senior figures in the Commission and the Parliament, and I know that we have a great deal of support in EU institutions for another Peace programme.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On that note, will the Minister provide an assessment of the possibility of a Peace IV programme?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members will be aware that the First Minister and I have reported on that in the past. They will also be aware that we discussed the issue with President Barroso, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek and, indeed, the Irish Government, all of whom recognised the importance and success of previous Peace programmes in supporting peace-building work. Already, the British Government, in their response to the public consultation on future cohesion policy, have included a commitment to support further European funding in support of the peace and reconciliation process. We would, of course, welcome further European funding and will continue to lobby for it. We are also all very conscious that there is an ongoing debate and negotiation in Europe vis-á-vis individual member states’ contributions to the process, going forward. Until that is settled, it is hard to predict the outcome.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Goodwill can be generated when those who hold the purse strings in Brussels are aware of the knowledge and professionalism of the Assembly over the past four years. Does the deputy First Minister know how impressed they were with his colleague the Baron of Northstead, when he talked about a warm homes scheme?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Well, I think that, you know — [Laughter.]

In all our visits to Brussels, we have been conscious of who we are and who we represent. I am not going to answer a question that plainly misrepresents what happened in relation the resignation of my party leader as MP for West Belfast.

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

I thank the Minister for his replies. Does he agree with the Member who represents Northern Ireland on the Committee of the Regions Mr Francie Molloy that the Barroso process is a flop? He stated that at a recent meeting of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think, and I know that the First Minister agrees, that the Barroso task force is very important and is the embodiment of the goodwill that clearly exists at the highest level in the EU for the peace process here. President Barroso created a group of Commission staff who benchmarked our participation in EU matters against that of other regions and made suggestions about policies and funding that may be of interest to us. The task force remains available to provide advice and guidance on EU policies and their application to our circumstances. That help is vital, because it opens doors for Ministers and officials in any of their dealings with the EU and makes for better and more effective engagement.

If the First Minister and I learned anything from our most recent visit to the European Parliament and to the European Commission, it is that we can do more, that we need to up our game and that all our Departments, without exception, need to get to know the workings of the European Commission and the European Parliament and about the availability of resources for their Departments. As I said in my initial answer, we hope to increase what we gain from Europe by 20%. Therefore, we are very conscious that the support that we receive from Europe is critical. The access that we have as a region is incredible compared to that of many other regions throughout western Europe. With the opening of our new office and with the experienced staff there, we intend to continue to encourage all of our Departments, in a cohesive and joined-up way, to avail themselves of the considerable resources there, which I do not doubt will come our way if we can increase our activity in that area.

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

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when their Department will publish its response to the consultation on the draft programme for cohesion, sharing and integration. (AQO 952/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The draft cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) programme is continuing to be developed following the consultation process, which closed on 29 October 2010. The public consultation afforded everyone the opportunity to comment on the range of issues covered in the draft CSI programme. Although the consultation formally closed on 29 October, officials granted one more week to allow for late returns to be included in the analysis of the findings. The consultation attracted 290 written responses and included the wealth of views in material gathered from 11 public meetings and 15 targeted sectoral meetings that were held in a range of locations during September and October 2010.

The draft report on the analysis of the consultation responses was completed in early January 2011. Officials are considering the findings, and proposals for the ongoing development of the programme for cohesion, sharing and integration will be passed to the First Minister and me shortly for our deliberation. We were heartened by the interest, effort and engagement of all those who took part in the consultation, and we want to give the views of all those people due consideration as we look at how we build on and strengthen the document. We intend to publish all the responses on the website in due course, along with the results of the analysis.

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

I am very disappointed that we have no time frame. I think the answers were “issued shortly” and “in due course”. According to OFMDFM’s recent publication on good relation indicators, sectarianism is on the rise and the number of peace walls has increased considerably since the ceasefires in 1998. Therefore, does the deputy First Minister not agree that there is an urgency to publish the strategy to deal with sectarianism and other forms of hate crime? When exactly might we see the launch of the final strategy —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to her question.

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

— given the amount of adverse comment that there was on it?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I was part of an Administration that existed on and off from December 1999 through to October 2002 and that was led by the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. During that period, they failed miserably to come forward with any cohesion and integration strategy. We have come forward with an agreed approach, and it has been out for consultation. There has been a lot of debate and commentary on it and, in my answer, I outlined the number of responses that we received. We are encouraged and heartened by all of that. I indicated in my answer that our minds are open and that we are looking to strengthen our approach, listen very carefully to what is being said and see how we can move forward in a way that clearly shows that, at long last, we are capable of devising strategies that will bear down on racism and sectarianism. From our perspective, it is absolutely vital to do that.

The next steps centre around the work of the officials, who are considering the analysis of the consultation and are developing proposals for the next steps on a range of issues on the CSI programme, including the further development of the programme for cohesion, sharing and integration; the implementation of the ministerial panel for the CSI; the future of the provision of funding to groups and advice to government; and plans for the transition from current arrange­ments for the delivery of good relations funding and services to new arrangements. The First Minister and I will begin to receive detailed advice on those issues in February.

So, we are not under any illusions about the importance of the issue. As we go forward, it is absolutely vital that we recognise that there has been a transformation in our society in so far as the overwhelming majority of the people who vote for all the parties in the Assembly want us to move forward together and to build a better future for them and their children. That is what we are trying to do, and some of us are trying to lead by example. It is not easy. There are people out there who are opposed to peace and who appear to thrive on trying to ferment strife, sectarianism and racism. However, those people are very much a minority in our society. I am absolutely of the view that, as we go forward and work together, we can bear down on those people and let them see that the best way forward is to join the rest of us in building a better future.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that all parties, including the SDLP and the Alliance Party, should start to act constructively in the process, including by bringing forward their proposals for the Departments over which they have responsibility?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

All Departments have a responsibility to do just that. I know that we will soon be discussing the Budget, but I am conscious of the fact that we went through a situation at the beginning of this Administration in which the former Minister for Social Development voted for a Budget and the SDLP voted against it in the House. That was not very cohesive from an SDLP point of view. That former Minister, who now is the leader of the SDLP, also said in her party conference speech that she wanted to, effectively, cosy up to the Ulster Unionist Party, which is a party that hooked itself up to the Conservatives, who imposed swingeing cuts on our Administration and effectively withdrew £4 billion from our Budget over the next number of years. So, there is a responsibility on those who call for more cohesion to be more cohesive themselves.

Dawn Purvis (Independent, Belfast East)

I welcome the deputy First Minister’s remarks. It would indeed be a good legacy for this Executive and this Assembly if a cohesion, sharing and integration strategy was published, along with a vision for Northern Ireland and an action plan to achieve it. Can the deputy First Minister give an assurance that that programme will actually be published before the end of this Assembly?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We would like to be in a position to do that. It will depend on the work that is ongoing, which officials are involved in, and the forwarding of that to the First Minister and me. We will endeavour to do that. At the same time, we are very conscious of the fact that we are facing Assembly elections and that there will be different Ministers involved in the participation of different Departments in the ensuing period. It is hard to know whether it would be more sensible to publish at this stage or to wait for the new Administration to take it forward. After all, it is now only a few months away. This is vital work.

The Member has just visited northern Iraq, where she took the experiences that we have been through to another region of the world that has suffered enormously in recent years. That was very important work, and I congratulate her. I too, along with other Members of the House from unionist parties, have been to Iraq and understand that people there pay great attention to what is happening here. Well done to the Member; there is no doubt whatsoever that, as we go forward, the outcome of our CSI strategy and how we deal with it will be of interest not just to ourselves but to many other regions of the world that have endured conflict.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the review of arm’s-length bodies being carried out by the Budget review group. (AQO 953/11)

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they have any plans to review the role of their Department’s arm’s-length bodies, with a focus on the greater sharing of key services currently being delivered by the various commissions. (AQO 954/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answers questions 5 and 6 together.

The Executive will shortly consider criteria to be applied by the Budget review group in reviewing arm’s-length bodies. The Budget review group will bring recommendations to the Executive that will inform final decisions and lay the basis for legislation early in the term of the next Assembly. Our officials will provide support to the group in its work.

OFMDFM has responsibility for a number of arm’s-length bodies, including the Equality Commission and the specific commissioners for victims, children and young people, and, when recent legislation is implemented, older people. These will, of course, fall within the scope of the Budget review group’s remit. The potential to deliver savings through the rationalisation of the structure and functions of OFMDFM’s arm’s-length bodies will be examined, focusing on greater sharing of back-office functions across bodies, including the various commissions sponsored by the Department. Our officials have been in discussion with these organisations about reducing costs. Meetings are continuing, with the aim of proactively identifying scope for savings and efficiencies through closer collaboration.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Does he agree that, given the huge amounts of public money being spent on a lot of these arm’s-length bodies, which some people describe as quangos, the outcome of this review should see many of them being axed and their responsibilities and roles being incorporated into various Departments?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the ongoing review. However, we all know and understand that, at a time of great financial difficulty for our Administration, there is a huge responsibility on us to look at what more can be done to ensure the proper monitoring and dispensation of very scarce resources. Without pre-empting the review, it is fair to say that a very critical examination of all the arm’s-length bodies is taking place, with a view to ensuring far greater efficiency.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his reply. Recent figures have demonstrated a considerably higher spend per child in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom — by the Children’s Commissioner, for example. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that bodies must become as efficient as possible and offer value for money?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. All the arm’s-length bodies understand that things are different now and resources are scarce, so there is a huge responsibility on them and on us to ensure that we are bearing down on all the arm’s-length bodies to ensure that we get the service that we desire and require for the people we represent at the least possible cost.

Justice

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

1. asked the Minister of Justice to outline the current level of threat posed by dissident republicans. (AQO 964/11)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

11. asked the Minister of Justice what is the current position on the request by the Chief Constable for additional funding of £200 million to combat the dissident republican threat. (AQO 974/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, with permission, I will answer questions 1 and 11 together. The level of threat in Northern Ireland remains severe. That was illustrated by the attempted terrorist attack on the Antrim Road in Belfast the week before last. There is no doubt of the callousness and irresponsibility of the individuals who abandoned two devices in a highly populated residential and commercial area while hundreds of people continued to go about their daily business. I am thankful that no one was killed or injured, but let me be clear: the intent was to cause death and serious injury. There was a significant risk to anyone passing had the devices detonated. I pay tribute to the professionalism and bravery of police officers and to the Army technical team in dealing with the incident. I acknowledge their continued determination to carry out their duties against the backdrop of the threat. I highlight also the tremendous display of community spirit, with churches and others stepping in to assist those who were moved from their home.

I am still pressing the Government to meet the request that the Chief Constable and I made for £200 million of funding from the Treasury reserve for the police budget. The agreement that was reached on the devolution of policing and justice recognised that access to the reserve would be possible for such exceptional security pressures. I have spoken to the Secretary of State a number of times in recent days, including this morning, to impress on him the importance of the request and the need for a positive outcome. The issue is being considered at the highest level of government. I have made it clear that my ability to accept my draft budget is conditional on the Government meeting their obligations, and I have been supported by the Committee for Justice on that.

It is important, however, to recognise that there needs to be a wider response to terrorism beyond that which policing can offer, and that was shown by political and community leaders over the past week. It is clear that we must continue to work together to make progress on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland to promote a shared, positive and peaceful society.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Can the Minister tell the Assembly whether it is he or the Secretary of State who has the power to revoke the licence of people released under the Good Friday Agreement? If it is the Minister, can he tell us, following reports in the newspapers over the weekend, whether there are names of people who are known to him and whether he is considering that action?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for the question, which he answered himself. Responsibility for such matters rests with the Secretary of State. It is no part of the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Has the Minister information that up to 100 terrorists are planning to form another terrorist grouping? Can he assure the House that, if he has the appropriate evidence, those people will be rounded up and incarcerated?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can only refer the Member to what I have just said. I have no evidence, and, if there were evidence, I would have no such responsibility. However, I have no doubt that, if there were evidence, it would be presented by the Police Service to the Secretary of State in a way that would enable him to take any appropriate decisions.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Storey, I apologise. Your question was grouped, and you should have been called before Mr Bell.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I accept the Minister’s comments that a severe threat remains. If we were unable to secure the additional funding, what would be the impact on the continuation of the delivery of effective and good policing in Northern Ireland?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Storey raises an extremely important point. I have been assured by the Secretary of State that discussions are ongoing at the highest level of government. If the £200 million that, together with the £45 million provided from Executive funds, we believe to be required to meet the additional security funding were not made available, the entire budget for the Department of Justice would be in major jeopardy. Frankly, that would be an indication of serious difficulty for the entire process of the devolution of justice, based as it was on the letter to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister by the previous Prime Minister last year.

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

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the PSNI’s efforts to deal with the dissident threat would be much more effective if primacy for intelligence rested with the PSNI and not with MI5, as is currently the case?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Although I thank Mr Bradley for his question, I do not agree with him. In line with entire UK policy, MI5 has had full operational responsibility for all national security matters since November 2007. The issue is the relationship in intelligence gathering between the Chief Constable of the PSNI, MI5 and the Garda Síochána. The Chief Constable has assured me that he has full access to all the intelligence that he requires. Indeed, much of the work on the ground is being provided by police officers, rather than by MI5, so I do not believe that there is any need to change the arrangements at the moment. The important issue is that there is the fullest possible co-operation between all the agencies on this island and throughout the United Kingdom.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that the actions of the PSNI in countering the terrorist threat are of benefit not merely to Northern Ireland but to an area that extends well beyond our shores?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The simple answer is yes. It is clear that some people, if they had the capacity, would wish to carry their terrorism to Great Britain and possibly further afield. There is absolutely no doubt that the front line work that community police officers and those involved in intelligence matters in the PSNI are doing, in conjunction with their colleagues in the gardaí, other police services across the UK and MI5, is helping to stop that happen. However, there is no doubt that the work that is done every day on the front line in Northern Ireland is a key part of the anti-terrorism strategy for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Justice how many people have been questioned, charged, prosecuted or sentenced in relation to the paramilitary funeral of John Brady in Strabane in October 2009. (AQO 965/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

To date, four people have been arrested in connection with that matter. One person has been charged with offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. A report has been sent to the Public Prosecution Service about a further individual. As charges have been brought and the police investigation into the matter is ongoing, it is not appropriate to comment further.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware of growing concerns in the unionist community that the PSNI seems to be going soft on republicans? In the light of the dissident threat, will he ensure that the PSNI will make every effort to bring dissidents to justice?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Statistics for last year show that 80 people were charged with terrorist offences. The fact that the PSNI is taking resolute action against terrorist threats, from whatever quarter they emerge, is a clear indication of the work that is being done. I believe that any perceptions that the PSNI is not pursuing terrorists are completely misplaced.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

At the funeral in question, four men fired a volley of shots over the coffin. There was a guard of honour of 50 men, and four stood vigil over the coffin overnight. Can the Minister explain how tolerance of that blatant display of illegality, which turned a funeral into a political stunt, can do anything but undermine the rule of law?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

If that were the case, I would agree that it could undermine the rule of law. However, there is no evidence that anything other than a robust police operation is in place. Given that that operation is ongoing, I shall not comment further.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Members will be well aware of the concerns that were raised about the tragic death of John Brady while in custody. Can the Minister provide an update on the steps that have been taken to ensure that such a tragedy does not recur?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Callaghan for that question. I understand that, following a full investigation by the Police Ombudsman’s office into the incident, a file has been forwarded to the PSNI’s professional standards department, and misconduct proceedings are ongoing. Therefore, again, it is not appropriate to comment any further until that process is concluded.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Justice what processes he has put in place to reduce the reoffending rates for prisoners and the associated annual cost of £80 million. (AQO 966/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have commissioned important work to develop a new, comprehensive strategy for reducing offending. It aims to reshape fundamentally our approach to tackling the factors that lead people into criminal behaviour and the obstacles that hinder them moving away from it. That will require a joined-up and co-ordinated approach across Departments, the justice system and the voluntary and community sector.

Successful rehabilitation of those who are convicted of crimes is a key responsibility of the justice system. If we are to achieve effective rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders, whether they are in custody or under supervision in the community, a joined-up approach needs to be adopted that deals with a range of factors that can contribute to an individual’s offending. They include poor mental and physical health; drug and alcohol rehabilitation; educational deficits; lack of employment; and poor or inadequate housing. Research indicates that those social factors, which are generally known as pathways, are often precursors to offending behaviour. They are addressed in the Prison Service through the pathways model. That adopts a multi-agency approach to ensure that those who have offended or are at risk of offending can be helped to access mainstream and specific services most effectively.

The pathways model identifies a total of nine key pathways, which, if effectively addressed, will contribute to a reduction in offending behaviour and the successful rehabilitation of offenders. The consultation process for the draft pathways strategy for the resettlement of offenders in Northern Ireland will commence this month.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he inform the House of the timescale in which he expects the pathways strategy to kick in and when we can expect to see a difference in levels of reoffending?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I said, consultation on the pathways strategy will start this month. It is part of the wide-ranging review under the strategic efficiency and effectiveness programme by the Prison Service and the ongoing work to reform the Prison Service overall. By the end of the month, I also expect to make a statement on the Owers review on the oversight and management of prisons. I believe that it will further inform the work of the pathways project.

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

The Minister will, of course, be aware that 70% of prisoners suffer from either mental illness or a personality disorder and that the state, by and large, fails them. They go on to reoffend. What assurances will the Minister offer the House that new measures are being taken to ensure that prisoners who suffer from personality disorder or mental illness are, when released, actually able to get the resources that they need so that they do not end up back in prison?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member identifies a key point about the rehabilitation process that is needed. However, a key issue is that that cannot be provided by the Department of Justice alone. As Members will be aware, health services in the prison estate are now provided by the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. There is a need to develop those services further and for wider liaison with a range of voluntary organisations that help with rehabilitation, particularly NIACRO and Barnardo’s. Work needs to be done to liaise with the Housing Executive and housing associations to assist on matters in that area. Clearly, training for employment would also help. All those factors run together, and the Prison Service is seeking to address them. However, we are all well aware of the Prison Service’s problems in dealing with its history and seeking to move forward.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I listened to what the Minister just said about co-operation. Is he satisfied that all other Departments co-operate enough to allow us to get on top of that programme once and for all?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will resist the temptation to start enumerating exactly what co-operation may be needed. The simple answer is that society has failed to recognise the need to work together on the rehabilitation of offenders. It has been seen as an issue for justice agencies and not, as I explained in my original answer, as part of the pathways process to look at the range of issues around employment, housing, social welfare and so on. The Member’s question rightly highlights the need to improve joined-up working. Certainly, the Department of Justice is keen to work co-operatively. We will continue to build our links with other Departments to ensure that those services are provided.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the Minister of Justice what discussions he has had with the director of the Prison Service regarding the appointment of the new governor of Magilligan prison. (AQO 967/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The appointment and deployment of governor grades in the Northern Ireland Prison Service is an operational decision for the director general. Prior to the announcement being made, I had discussions with Mr McConnell about the appointment of governors, including the robust performance management arrangements he is putting in place whereby the governors of the three prisons will be set clear priorities and required to report directly to him. That is a positive development that will ensure that appropriate responsibility is devolved while ensuring a strong accountability mechanism.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he satisfied that, with respect to any new or recent appointments, people are au fait with the recommendations of the ombudsman’s report into the death of Colin Bell, so that we ensure that lessons are learned from previous incidents and can move forward?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Sue Ramsey raises a valid point, but I can only quote back to her what was said by the Prisoner Ombudsman on the making of those new governors’ appointments. She pointed out that we are now more than two years on since the death of Colin Bell and referred to the appointment of the new director general who, she said, is evidently fully committed to the delivery of widespread reform. She said that she believes that Alan Longwell can now play an important role in taking the service forward. We have to work with the position that we are in and ensure that we get the most robust and strong management structures in place, but I am reassured by the statement from the Prisoner Ombudsman as to how she now sees things.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I draw the attention of the Minister again to the latest report on our prisons; that is, the Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI) report, which came out in December. In that report it was indicated that we have now had 20 reports on our prisons since 2005. The CJI’s report makes that 21, and we are now waiting for Dame Anne Owers’s report, which will make it 22. Is it reasonable to assume that, after 22 reports over the past five years, we now have enough information to allow some decisions to be made in relation to our prisons, or does the Minister intend to have another round of reports?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I assure Lord Morrow that I do not intend to have another round of reports. A great number of the reports that he refers to were commissioned in respect of individual incidents or small aspects of the working of the Prison Service. The point of the overall review, which is currently being led by Dame Anne Owers, is to draw together the lessons of the past reports, as well as doing its own work from first principles. As I said, that report is likely to be published in its initial form by the end of this month, and I think it will show the ability to draw together some of those strands, as, indeed, the work being done by the strategic efficiency and effectiveness programme is drawing together some of the operational responsibilities in the Prison Service. I am determined that we use those reports as a way of leading the change that is needed in the Prison Service in order to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners and a reduction in offending.

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

The appointment of at least one of those governors was a fairly sensitive matter. I accept that it was an operational matter for the director of prisons, but nonetheless, was there any discussion between the Minister and the director of prisons in relation to what was a very sensitive appointment? Would it not have been prudent for such a discussion to have taken place prior to that appointment being made?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree with Mr Maginness that it was a sensitive issue, and I have said that there was discussion with the director general. However, it is clearly an operational issue and not one in which I should have been interfering as the Minister, as opposed to the director general. The structures that the director general has put in place for direct reporting and accountability by the three governors to himself have shown that we will have a robust management system that will ensure the full accountability of all three institutions to headquarters. Progress has to be made on that basis, because it is the director general’s responsibility to deal with those operational issues.

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

5. asked the Minister of Justice to outline his plans for the rebuilding of Magilligan prison. (AQO 968/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Prison Service is presently completing the outline business case, which will address the redevelopment of Magilligan Prison. The outline business case will include the analysis of a number of options and will advise on the Prison Service’s preferred option. I hope to receive a copy of the business case later this month.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. I put it to him that I am deeply concerned. Given the need to replace Magilligan, will he reassure the Assembly that public funding will be available to do so? Not only do we need to rebuild Magilligan, we need to rebuild a women’s prison in some shape or form, and that is an even bigger demand. In the present financial circumstances, that is worrying. Will he inform us where we are or what we might have to do to ensure that those prisons can be built?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree with Dr McConnell — sorry, McDonnell; I was confusing him with the director general of the Prison Service — that there are difficult issues that must be addressed. The reality is that priority for the Department’s capital spending has initially to go to Desertcreat college, which is, of course, also meeting the needs of the Prison Service, and to forensic science facilities. However, there is capital allocation to be directed at the needs of the Prison Service. That is why it is so important to see the detail of the outline business case and to see in what way it is possible to fund the urgent necessity to provide fit-for-purpose accommodation to replace the outdated accommodation at Magilligan and, most importantly, to provide an appropriately sized and properly resourced facility for women prisoners to replace the operation at Hydebank Wood. Both are essential; neither will be easily funded in the current proposals. However, both remain on the list of matters that need to be addressed.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware of the continuing deterioration of the fabric of the estate at Magilligan, thus the need for the newbuild. Will he ensure that as much pressure and persuasion as possible is applied to ensure that that funding is in place so that the very good work that is done, particularly by prisoners out in the community before they are released, can continue under a much better regime?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Yes, I will certainly continue to seek to secure those funds, and any assistance that Mr Campbell can give in pressurising his colleague the Finance Minister will be much appreciated. He rightly makes the point that Magilligan most recently underwent an inspection that showed it scoring three out of four in each of the four categories under which national inspections are carried out. The fabric of the building is what lets down the extremely good work that is done by the staff at Magilligan, in particular the good rehabilitation work being done in the Foyleview unit.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s answers. Will the Minister take appropriate steps to ensure that, whatever newbuild is established at Magilligan, it will be designed in such a way that it does away with waste? As we know from poor design in the past, the staff-to-prisoners ratio is far too high. We even have some prison staff getting up to an hour’s extra pay a day to get on and off post, which is obviously a waste of public money.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McCartney makes an extremely valid point, although I fear that it goes slightly beyond the direct issue of the replacement of Magilligan. However, there is no doubt that part of the hampering of the prisons estate is the inappropriate builds at Magilligan and Maghaberry. There is a real need to ensure that we have buildings that are fit for purpose, provide proper facilities for rehabilitating prisoners and allow for proper supervision by prison officers without requiring excessive numbers of staff compared with other institutions on these islands.

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

6. asked the Minister of Justice what steps he will take to safeguard the work currently carried out by the Probation Board, given that it might have to make 60 staff redundant. (AQO 969/11)