Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 February 2011

420 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister for Employment and Learning that he wishes to make a statement.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to update the Assembly on the latest developments in our work on the future policy for higher education tuition fees and student finance arrangements. In particular, I advise Members that Joanne Stuart has provided me with an update to her report, ‘Independent Review of Variable Fees and Student Finance Arrangements’, which I am immediately making available on the Department for Employment and Learning’s website. A copy has also been placed in the Assembly Library.

As Members will recall, on 12 October 2010, my predecessor, Lord Empey of Shandon, made a statement on the independent review of variable fees and future student finance arrangements. The review was carried out by Joanne Stuart, the chairperson of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland. The publication of Ms Stuart’s original report coincided with the release of the findings from Lord Browne’s review of the English system of higher education. I am grateful to Joanne Stuart for her original report and for the update to it.

In her original report, Joanne Stuart made a number of recommendations on future fees and funding arrangements. She recommended that tuition fees should remain in place at current levels, rising in line with inflation. She recommended changes to the qualifying thresholds for entitlement to the maintenance grant, which would mean that a greater number of students would be eligible for the maximum maintenance grant and that more students would be eligible for a partial grant. In addition, she recommended that we retain the higher maintenance grant in Northern Ireland, which is almost £570 more than the maximum grant currently available in England.

The report further recommended:

“that this position is reviewed in light of the outcomes of the Browne review in England, particularly if recommendations of that review could impact significantly on student flows between Northern Ireland and England.”

In line with her recommendation, my predecessor, Lord Empey of Shandon, asked Joanne Stuart to update her report in light of the Browne review and the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, which was announced on 20 October 2010. As Joanne Stuart acknowledged, the environment in which her update has taken place has undoubtedly changed from that which existed during the completion of her original report. She has considered a range of additional external factors that were unknown or incomplete when the original review was completed. They include the coalition Government’s changes to the fee structure and repayment terms in England, following the Browne review; the Welsh Assembly Government’s changes to the fee structure in Wales, following the Browne review; and the coalition Government’s comprehensive spending review and the Northern Ireland Executive’s subsequent draft Budget proposals for 2011-12 to 2014-15, particularly as they relate to my Department.

As well as considering all that additional information, Joanne Stuart spoke to various bodies concerned with the changes, including the higher education institutions, the National Union of Students-Union of Students in Ireland (NAS-USI), the Employment and Learning Committee and others. In the report and update Joanne Stuart recommends that the tuition fees and financial support model should incorporate the three elements of tuition fees, maintenance grants and repayment terms and that those should be treated as a complete package. That is a sound approach, to which I would add that maintenance loans, although not in the Stuart review remit, are also part of the package.

The updated Stuart report sets out recommendations, including the retention of the basic fee at the current level of £1,310. For those who are unfamiliar with the basic fee, I should explain that this lower fee is most commonly used by the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise and further education colleges. The report also recommends an increase of the higher fee cap to between £5,000 and £5,750 from the current cap of £3,290. It further recommends the alignment of the maintenance grant thresholds for household income levels to those in England — in other words, we extend the £19,000 household income qualifying threshold for entitlement to a maximum grant to a threshold of £25,000. It is recommended that the higher maximum grant of £3,475 be maintained and that the repayment threshold at which loan repayment will commence be increased to £21,000 from £15,000. The report states that we should adopt the UK Government fee structure for non-Northern Ireland-domiciled students studying at Northern Ireland higher education institutions — in other words, set a basic fee level of £6,000 with a maximum fee cap of £9,000 for students who come to study in Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. The detail of and rationale for the recommendations are set out in the updated Stuart report.

There is significant public interest in these issues, and it is for that reason that I have released the updated Stuart report now. Joanne Stuart’s recommendations are not necessarily what will happen to the funding of higher education; rather, they are an important element of a process within which all voices will be heard through a public consultation. In due course, decisions will be made by the next Assembly.

As the Assembly considers the draft Budget and prepares to vote on a final Budget settlement, it must be aware that there are significant implications for the future funding of higher education. Members of all parties must be aware of the consequences that flow from the Budget settlement. It would be irresponsible of me, as Minister, not to draw the attention of the House to that fact. To that end, yesterday I briefed the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Employment and Learning Committee on the Stuart update. I acknowledge and express my thanks for the positive and open-minded way in which they are engaging on these issues. I also circulated a copy of the update to Executive colleagues.

It may be helpful if I give Members a sense of the implications of Joanne Stuart’s recommendations and how they might contribute to the forthcoming consultation document. First, it is important to set out the key factors that should influence our thinking on student finance and funding arrangements. We all agree that we want to develop a “Made in Northern Ireland” model that strikes the right balance between being affordable to the public purse and to students and graduates, maintaining access and continuing our proud record of having the best higher education participation rates in the United Kingdom for those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, and promoting excellence in our higher education institutions and allowing them to remain internationally competitive.

Joanne Stuart’s original conclusion was that we must have tuition fees. The Stuart update focuses in particular on two options: maintaining the status quo or increasing the maximum fee cap. Maintaining the status quo is rejected, as it would not address the deficit in higher education funding. Indeed, on the basis of the calculations and assumptions in the Stuart update, there would be a shortfall of between approximately £40 million and £65 million per annum upon roll-out to a full three-year cohort. Instead, Joanne Stuart recommends an increase in the maximum fee cap to between £5,000 and £5,750.

As I told the House in response to recent questions for oral answer, I am committed to doing what I can to minimise the impact of any such fee increase on Northern Ireland families. My officials are working on the details of the budgetary implications of the recommendations in Joanne Stuart’s updated report, and the forthcoming consultation document will set out a range of options. There will be broad support for Joanne Stuart’s recommendations on maintenance grants, and I am considering whether it is feasible, including financially, to include that support in the consultation paper.

I note Joanne Stuart’s recommendation on repayment arrangements. Repayment is a critical area, and we need to ensure that students, their families and others fully understand it. Students do not need to pay up front to participate in higher education, and I intend to ensure that that continues. No student and no family will be required to pay fees up front. I repeat that fundamental point: no student and no family will be required to pay fees up front. That is part of my determination to ensure that access to university is based on ability to learn not on ability to pay. Students can defer payment of their tuition fees through a tuition fee loan that is repayable only after they have left higher education and are earning above a certain income. Even then, repayment is not based on the amount that they owe; it is based on the income that they are earning above the threshold. At present, repayment begins once borrowers are earning £15,000, and they repay 9% of the income earned above the threshold. For example, on a salary of £16,000 borrowers will repay £7·50 each month, irrespective of whether their student loan debt is £5,000 or £10,000.

The new proposals in England and Wales will increase the repayment threshold from £15,000 to £21,000, and Joanne Stuart recommends that we adopt that model. Repayment is managed through the tax system. Historically, there has been no scope for variation across the UK Administrations, as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs systems could not have coped. However, the introduction of the new regime in England and Wales for new students from 2012 means that there will be two systems. The first is the existing £15,000 threshold for students already in higher education, which attracts a low rate of interest and is repaid for up to 25 years, at which point any outstanding loan debt is written off. The other system is the new £21,000 threshold for students entering higher education in academic year 2012-13. It will, depending on income levels, attract a higher rate of interest and will be repaid for up to 30 years, at which point any outstanding loan debt will be written off. Either of those models could apply in Northern Ireland, and the public consultation will seek views on both options.

I note Joanne Stuart’s recommendations on adopting a different fee regime for students from Great Britain who want to study in Northern Ireland. Although a relatively low number of students from other parts of the UK study here, I understand the rationale, which is primarily about minimising the potential displacement of Northern Ireland students if significant numbers of students from Great Britain seek to come here to avail themselves of lower fees. I am still considering that issue, and Joanne Stuart’s recommendations will obviously inform my thinking.

Finally, the Stuart report and update includes a recommendation on the need for better communication to ensure that parents, prospective students and careers teachers have a better understanding of the student finance package and its benefits, such as not having to pay up front to access higher education. I welcome that recommendation, and I am considering how best we do that.

I hope that the statement has given some sense of what are emerging as the likely consultation proposals that I plan to bring to the Executive shortly. I am sure that all Members will appreciate that I cannot and will not make pledges that neither my Department nor the Northern Ireland Executive can afford. As I have stated, my officials continue to work on the details of the budgetary implications of those issues. That work is in its final stages, and I plan to bring a paper to the Executive in late February or early March with the intention of launching a public consultation as soon as possible thereafter. That consultation will include options on the complete package of tuition fees, maintenance grants, maintenance loans and repayment terms. In addition, I understand that Joanne Stuart will brief the Employment and Learning Committee tomorrow and that, in a subsequent session, officials will engage with the Committee on the next steps in the process.

I am extremely grateful to Joanne Stuart for her hard work and commitment in producing her original report and subsequent update. I remain committed to bringing forward a “Made in Northern Ireland” model for our future student funding and finance arrangements. I have clearly indicated that I am committed to ensuring that access to higher education here is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. No student or family will be required to pay up front for their fees.

I reiterate to Members the importance of a mature and responsible debate on the issues. Such a debate will allow consensus to emerge on proposals that are affordable for the Executive and graduates; protect and maintain our widening participation record; secure appropriate investment in our higher education institutions; and maintain the excellence of our universities.

Higher education confers benefits, and it is right that the beneficiaries should contribute towards the cost. As the Employment and Learning Committee said in a recent press release, we need to balance how much tuition fees should be and how much public finance should be given to the universities. That needs to be done in the context of the current financial and economic realities. Our approach to higher education funding also needs to protect and promote the excellent standing of Northern Ireland’s universities and colleges and their contribution to our regional economy.

Although a vote in the Assembly will, in due course, determine the level at which tuition fees are set, it is important to reflect, as Joanne Stuart has done, on the fact that whatever model we come up with should be looked at in the context of the total package, not just as one element. I have always recognised the importance of giving the Assembly and the public a say on these issues. I remain committed to doing that through further engagement with Members and through forthcoming public consultation processes.

The future of higher education is of immense significance to the future of our economy and our society. Our excellent universities produce graduates who make Northern Ireland highly attractive to inward investors. They are drivers for social mobility, and they enrich Northern Ireland’s cultural and social life. That is why I am committed to protecting and promoting the excellence of our universities.

For individuals, access to higher education opens up career pathways and opportunities that might not otherwise be available. That is why I am committed to ensuring that access to our universities is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. In light of that, the Executive and Assembly would do Northern Ireland a disservice if we were to allow the discussion of the future of higher education funding to be based on the consideration of short-term electoral gain rather than on an evidence-based approach. Joanne Stuart’s updated report has made an important contribution to such an evidence-based approach. I trust that all Members will now reflect carefully on the updated report and ensure that their public statements are based on fact, not fear, and contribute to a serious, mature debate, not electioneering.

I pledge to the House that I am determined to ensure that no young person, no student and no family will be required to pay upfront fees and that access to university will continue to be on the basis of the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. I ask all parties in the House to join me in achieving a “Made in Northern Ireland” solution that secures fairness, affordability and excellence.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the briefing that he afforded to the Deputy Chairperson and me yesterday afternoon. I place on record the Committee’s thanks to Joanne Stuart for her report. She has appeared before the Committee, and she will be with us again tomorrow morning.

The Committee agrees with the Minister that the decision on where to set tuition fees should take account of maintaining access, widening participation, tackling social exclusion and improving social mobility. Above all, fees should be fair. The Committee has approached the issue with the seriousness that it deserves and has not made rash pronouncements.

Joanne Stuart’s first report was completed in March 2010 and, as was said it would be, was revised last autumn after the Browne review. There are some startling differentials in the outcomes. In her initial report, she said that the fees should not rise. Taking an evidence-based approach, to which the Minister referred, she set out the evidence for making that statement against the levels of social deprivation and the lower income thresholds and, indeed, the success that we have had here in widening access to universities for people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. We are keen to know what has changed for such a leap to be made on tuition fees and for a recommendation such as what we have heard from the Minister to be made.

Will the Minister outline what his Department has contributed and what, if any, policy proposals regarding fees his officials have developed? Thus far, it seems that Joanne Stuart has been forced to do all the heavy lifting.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to Mrs Kelly, the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, for her interest and involvement and that of the Committee in this work. She said correctly that the Committee has been very responsible in dealing with this important issue.

It was necessary for Joanne Stuart to update her original report in the light of the Browne review and his recommendations for the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly England, and, indeed, in light of the budgetary considerations that we now face as a result of the comprehensive spending review, which was announced in October 2010. With that in mind, it was timely and important that Joanne should update her report. That was a recommendation in her original report, so my predecessor acted correctly on that. That report is published today. I know that the Committee is meeting Joanne Stuart tomorrow, and my officials will also be available for further consultation.

The Member asked what departmental officials and I have been doing to bring forward views on the issue. My officials and I have been active in consulting widely with key stakeholders — that makes me sound like an estate agent — by which I mean universities, student bodies and other interested parties. We are considering models, and I have been in contact with my counterparts Leighton Andrews in Wales and Mike Russell in Scotland, as well as with David Willetts in Westminster. We are looking at models for bringing forward proposals for the consultation document. It is important that the consultation document is brought to the Executive and made available for wider public consultation so that everyone can have a mature and responsible debate on this important issue. Final decisions will have to be concluded during the next mandate.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is the first time that I have been accused of being positive and open-minded.

Given the financial cut as a result of the Barnett consequentials, does the Minister believe that Northern Ireland would be best served by ensuring the twin aims that young working-class people can still access university on ability to learn and that our two universities and higher education colleges remain leading world-class British colleges of excellence? I say that as a working-class boy who accessed university.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question and for his undue modesty. I have tried to say in the statement today and I underline my view that access to university should remain on ability to learn and not on ability to pay. That is my fundamental guiding principle and that of my party, and I believe that it is shared by all parties in this House. We would do well to remind ourselves that we have a very good record for widening participation and attracting students from poorer socio-economic areas. In fact, we have the best record in the United Kingdom. I want to preserve that, and I am publicly committed to maintaining that record.

The Member will be aware that there will be consultation in the near future to look at targeting issues such as the most able and the least likely. Therefore, I am committed to ensuring that access to higher education remains based on ability to learn and not on ability to pay. The Member is right that we have to find a balance. Not only must we keep affordability and access levels, we have to ensure and protect the world-class universities that have served us so well in Northern Ireland.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. It is important to remind all parties that, at one time or another, they opposed student fees. I am not surprised that we are discussing the issue today, considering that the Minister’s party stood with the Tories in the last Westminster election. The Minister kept saying that access to university is about ability to learn and not ability to pay. I am concerned about where we are coming from on that issue. We are talking about increasing student fees even though the first Stuart report stated that there should be no increase. The old saying is that he who pays the fiddler calls the tune: will that be an option in the consultation document? Devolution is about us making decisions for our people, including our students.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member please come to her question?

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will, a Cheann Comhairle. The Finance Minister says that there is no issue about increasing fees in his Budget, but I am concerned about who runs the Department: is it the Minister, or is it Queen’s University?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for her question. She raises an interesting issue, one on which she would do well to examine her own party’s record.

We need to realise that it involves cost. Potentially, the Member, presumably on behalf of her party, is inviting me, as a member of the Executive, to create a black hole of up to £80 million. That may be good electioneering, but, practically and financially, it is not in the real world.

I ask all parties to maintain their good, mature response to the debate. It is important that we do not descend into party political arguments that end up in cheap electioneering. I warn the Member off that dangerous and unwise approach, as, ultimately, it does no service to students, graduates, universities or anyone who is remotely interested in higher education. I hope that we can work together.

It is clear that the draft Budget’s implications for my Department are not good. I want to work with my Executive colleagues, including the Minister of Finance. If the Member’s Executive colleagues have money to give me to fund student fees and to make courses free or, indeed, to support students in any way, I will not be precious about it: I will accept money from the Minister for Regional Development, the Minister of Education or from whichever quarter the necessary money comes.

The guiding principle must be to seek a Northern Ireland-based model that is best suited to the needs of students and universities and which is based on ability to learn not ability to pay.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his open and honest statement about the challenges that face us all. It is important that the premise of ability to learn over ability to pay and Northern Ireland’s record on student numbers are maintained. Does the Minister agree — and it is worth reiterating — that there is a responsibility on all of us in the House, whatever our viewpoint, to face budgetary realities? Does the Minister agree that we must have the debate in that light?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. I agree strongly that we set out the issues, which are difficult, complex and which will require important and, potentially, difficult decisions to be made, in a mature and responsible way. Surely it is the test of what is called a five-party mandatory coalition to address those issues. If the coalition works properly and cohesively, it should take a collective view on those issues and not descend into party politics and cheap electioneering.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I agree that we need to set electioneering aside. The House needs to send out a clear message that no one should be deterred from higher education by cost. A more sustainable model is needed. When will the Minister deliver detailed proposals that allow us properly to assess the balance that is being struck between students, universities, state and business to provide a more sustainable higher education model in Northern Ireland, and when exactly will consultation commence?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his important question. I have factually set out Joanne Stuart’s updated report. I encourage all Members, parties, interested people and key stakeholders — said the estate agent again — to study the report in detail, as it has significant implications. Arising from that, and on completion of the budgetary process, which, in itself, is important and the House will decide on in coming weeks — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Minister, you may continue.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

What I intend to do then is to bring forward to the Executive, in late February or, at worst, early March, proposals for an options paper for full consultation with everyone throughout Northern Ireland. That is my intention. We are working on proposed models and we will bring forward that paper to the Executive as quickly as we can to seek Executive agreement on it. I am not in the business of being a popular or unpopular martyr on those issues. We will seek to get Executive agreement for that consultation, which will be a full and proper consultation that will stretch over the period in which the House will go into election mode, if it is not already there. Then the new Assembly, and whoever is the Minister, will bring forward the proposals as necessary on the future funding for higher education.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. To follow on from the previous question, given the need that prospective students and universities have for certainty on funding, will the Minister indicate what he sees as the timescale for a final decision on fees? Is he indicating that there will not be any impact on 2012-13?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. He raises a significant issue. The decision is one that will have to be faced early in the life of the new Assembly because if we get approval for the consultation process at Executive level, as I hope that we will, the process will take 12 weeks, which will carry us through until late May. It will then be for the House and the Minister to make recommendations and to bring forward proposals.

The clock is ticking. It is an important issue, and certainty is required by students, parents and, not least, universities, which will need to know how their finances will be managed over the coming years. It is important that we have that mature reflection and that people treat the issue with due regard, to allow us to be in a position for the new Assembly to make an early decision on it, however difficult that decision may be.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I note that he said — as he did at the time of the Browne review — that he wanted to see a solution here in the North of Ireland, yet, on the face of it, it seems that he has accepted lock, stock and barrel the Browne review, an English solution to the North of Ireland’s problem. Given that we need a vote in the Assembly, as the Minister said, and that there are some parties that are still implacably opposed to tuition fees, what is the Minister’s plan B if that vote does not support an increase in tuition fees?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. I understand, from reading recent news reports, that he may not be a Member of the new Assembly. Of course, one cannot guarantee that any of us will still be Members, and I am not suggesting that. I am not saying that that is one less problem for me to deal with — [Laughter.] What I am saying is that these decisions have to be faced. We can live in a world where nobody takes a hard decision and we blame political rivals or competitors for various things.

My basic point is that, in what is described as a five-party mandatory coalition, there is an expectation among the wider public that we will look at those issues together to try to achieve a fair and secure resolution that keeps student fees at reasonable levels of affordability, protects widening participation and protects the status of our universities.

That is the task ahead, not only for this Assembly, in its dying embers, but the new Assembly. I hope that Members will approach the issue on that basis.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement and for giving Members notice of the full text. The Minister spoke of a shortfall of between £40 million and £65 million per annum. Under the proposals in the statement, how many families does the Minister estimate will end up paying more, and how much of that shortfall will be made up each year?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member is obviously referring to the budgetary position that my Department finds itself in. That is slightly separate from the statement, which is largely a factual report of Joanne Stuart’s updated recommendations to me.

With regard to the budgetary considerations, we are significantly trimming back funding to higher education. Those proposals are there, and the universities are not impressed by them. They are concerned about the quality of the education that they will be in a position to provide. However, we are where we are financially, and we seek to make those efficiency savings and to bring them forward in a responsible way. However, unless the Executive provide further support, there will undoubtedly be a further negative impact on funding to our universities and on how higher education is funded in Northern Ireland. That is my concern, and those are the issues that we have to deal with.

The Budget is in draft form and not yet confirmed. I will continue to make representations. Obviously, the Executive’s priority remains improving the local economy. We have to ensure that our students and the high standards and quality of our further and higher education are key to that economic revival. It would be very short-sighted to impact on that negatively, and I am very conscious of that. I know that the First Minister and deputy First Minister made that important point and had that important point made to them when they were in Washington in the latter end of last year. I very much hope that that view will be endorsed at Executive level. However, those are the harsh financial realities in which I find myself in charge of this Department. I am seeking solutions and will look for the support of all parties.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Stuart report recommends retention of the basic fee at current levels for agricultural and further education colleges. Outside of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, however, other Departments have impacts on costs. I am thinking of the Department of Education with its teaching colleges and the fact that there are too many trainee teachers and too few vacancies, as well as the associated costs of nurses, doctors and allied medical professionals. Have there been detailed discussions at the Executive and have decisions been made to ensure that there is a coherent and collective approach to the total costs that will be incurred in this sector?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I have adopted a collective approach to this matter and will continue to do so. Last week, I was somewhat surprised to learn that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development had not applied the inflationary increase to the budgets of the colleges under her jurisdiction. It surprised me because, for at least three successive years, that same Minister had no difficulty in applying those increases. I can only imagine that it was a peculiar form of electioneering and an attempt to gain cheap advantage.

If I were cynical, if I were bitter and twisted, I would highlight that the same budget cut funding to the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster. That cut seemed to be unfortunate and peculiar, but perhaps there are political reasons for it.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I understand that the subject of student fees is very difficult. However, it is clear that devolution has put the economy at the heart of building Northern Ireland. A highly educated workforce is key to that. The SDLP will not and cannot support the fees increase and will urge other parties in the Executive to resist and reject them.

Are the DEL budget assumptions the prime reason for Joanne Stuart’s recommendations? I ask that because people will look at the recommendations cynically and say that they are not independent. Where is the evidence behind those recommendations?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Let me state, absolutely, that Joanne Stuart’s work has been completely independent. Neither I nor my Department sought to intrude upon that or to influence it in any way. With the report, what you see is what you get.

As I informed the House earlier, Joanne Stuart’s update to her report is important. It was a recommendation in the original report that she should update matters on the back of the Browne review in particular and in light of the comprehensive spending review. Those considerations and that wider context — not simply the Northern Ireland Executive’s budgetary considerations, but the wider financial world that we now live in, with the block grant and the current financial resources in our nation — are not without importance.

I assure the Member that Joanne Stuart acted independently, and her report reflects that. It is a challenging report to the Assembly, to me and my Department, to the Executive and to those of us who will be charged with bringing her recommendations forward.

I am slightly disappointed to hear the Member talk of a predetermined outcome, because I am not making a judgement on Joanne Stuart’s report at this stage. I am still engaged in carrying out studies, speaking to interested parties and looking at models for a Northern Ireland-based approach. I am doing that so that we can go back to all the people and say that this is the best effort that we can collectively make, not on a political basis but on the basis of what is best for the students and the universities that we seek to serve.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I regret that Joanne Stuart’s report was commissioned in 2008, yet we still have not got the issue sorted at this late stage. Mention has been made of the independence of Joanne Stuart in compiling her reports.

If, for example, Queen’s University decides that it wants to increase its fees to £9,000, as has been mooted, what control will the Department or a future Minister, whoever that may be, have over that decision?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. I am loath to enter into a largely speculative debate.

The approach hitherto taken by Queen’s University and the University of Ulster has been constructive and helpful, and has been mindful of the financial restrictions and the overall context in which the debate is taking place. It would not be wise for me to speculate on how any of the universities will react. We should work through the problem and achieve the Northern Ireland-based solution that we all seek. I hope that the Member will add her contribution to that.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his measured statement on what could be an emotive subject. With one or two honourable exceptions, the response from Members was also measured, and Members were attentive to what the Minister said about this difficult problem. In light of the importance of higher education to our regional economy, does the Minister agree that the issue of tuition fees requires a corporate approach from the Executive?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his comments. They reflect the mood and tone of the House, which I welcome and appreciate. I did not enter politics to raise student fees and to become an even more unpopular figure. However, that is not the issue. The issue is wider than personal and party political considerations, and the mood of the House demonstrates that. Members want a fair and reasonable solution to the issue, and I am working with everyone involved to achieve that and will continue to do so. I reassure the House of that, and I particularly want to encourage those who are cynical and sceptical and have one eye cocked towards the election. An election is important, but more important to students, parents, graduates and the universities is the long-term stability and security of higher education in Northern Ireland.

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

The Assembly was created to give hope to future generations, not to tax the hopes of this and future generations. The SDLP, Sinn Féin and the DUP are all opposed to an increase in student fees, and in the House of Commons on 9 December 2010, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Sammy Wilson, said that he was fundamentally opposed to such an increase. Given all that, will the Minister take this opportunity to create a unity of purpose in the Chamber and tell Members that he also opposes an increase in student fees? Will he also commit to taking the matter back to the Executive so that we can take this issue off the agenda before the election and give hope to future generations in the region?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his contribution. Until the Member spoke, I had considered Colin Firth to be the leading contender for this year’s Academy award for best actor. [Laughter.] However, if Academy members are watching today’s proceedings or get the opportunity to watch them, they may find a new contender. [Interruption.]

I have tried to set out the updated report on behalf of Joanne Stuart today. I heard what the Member said, and I also heard the passion with which he said it. Although I understand that passion, I must deal with the situation as I find it. I am working through the issue and will continue to do so. There is no — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member, having asked the question, might be interested in listening to the answer.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

There is no deliberate intention on my behalf to raise student fees, nor is there any malice. However, against that, I have responsibilities as the Minister for Employment and Learning and as a member of the Executive. Throughout the process, I have consistently been open and honest, and I continue to be so. I seek the co-operation and help of Mr McDevitt and Members from the other parties as we work through this difficult issue.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement; he has a difficult job to try to balance the books. Now and again, the two universities here have mentioned the need to consider greater flexibility on the cap on student numbers. Would the Minister consider reviewing that, so that the universities could spread the costs and help to balance the books?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question, and I thank her for her sympathy as well. She will be aware of Sir Graeme Davies’s review into the future of higher education, which is out for public consultation. The capping of student numbers at particular universities, both Queen’s University and the University of Ulster, is included in that review. There is, perhaps, an opportunity in the review to refocus things. I will not express an opinion because it is a live consultation, and we want people to contribute to it. It is based on a wider time frame than the current debate focuses on. Nonetheless, it remains an important aspect, and I encourage all Members and all political parties to involve themselves in that consultation.

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

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. Nothing gives rise to greater resentment than student fees, and I have no doubt that increases in those fees will give rise to great resentment among young people. The Minister is handicapped by two things: first, Westminster’s decision on the fees in England and the Barnett consequentials on that and, secondly, the Department of Finance and Personnel’s decision on its Budget, which will engage a deficit of around £68 million. Given that, and given the fact that the Minister is committed to a genuine consultation, does he feel that the proposals in Joanne Stuart’s report can be amended or altered, bearing in mind that he is handicapped by the double whammy that he has received with regard to his budget?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I do not underestimate the task before me. However, it is not before only me, it is before the entire House and the entire Executive. This ought not to be a party political issue. I am working hard to ensure that it does not become party political and that the Executive and the Assembly take corporate responsibility for it. I welcome the tone of today’s debate. We have had a bit of toing and froing but, in the wider frame, most Members accept the enormity of the task before us. However, it should not be beyond our wit or ability to bring forward a sensible outcome with help and co-operation from each other.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank the Minister, the Department and Joanne Stuart for all their hard work on this important issue. It has created the opportunity for some to electioneer and, as we have already heard, that opportunity has not been missed.

To what extent will the future level of tuition fees be determined by the Budget settlement voted for by the House?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

One crucial element of the issue is the current deliberations on the draft Budget. Members will be aware that I have raised concerns about the level of funding and its impact on and implications for higher education. A lot of the burden of my Department’s efficiency savings has been placed at the door of higher education, and, as I said earlier, the universities are concerned about that.

However, we are where we are. Very soon, the draft Budget will become, one imagines, a final Budget. That potentially makes my task, and that of the House and the Executive, even more difficult. My only hope, and my expectation, however misplaced, is that we will address the issues together.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In his statement, the Minister referred to the consultation paper going out and then back to the Executive. Can he tell us whether it will include options for having no fees or having a fees freeze? Or will the only options in the paper be for a rise in fees? I would appreciate an answer.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Let me confirm that the options paper will contain as many options as we can possibly include. I will not second-guess it, because work on it is ongoing. A full range of options will be available for a full and proper public consultation.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That is the end of questions to the ministerial statement. Members may take their ease for a few moments.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Mr McGimpsey, to move the Consideration Stage of the Sunbeds Bill.

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

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the 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 amendments that deal with enforcement, principally through fines and the creation of restricted zones, together with the Minister’s opposition to clause 3. The second debate will be on amendments that deal with the creation of duties, including duties to provide information and to provide protective ear-wear. I am sorry: I meant to say “eyewear”. The third debate will be on the licensing of sunbed premises.

Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill. The Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. I remind Members to address all the amendments in the group on which they wish to comment. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (Prohibition on allowing use of sunbeds by persons under 18)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate as shown on the grouping list, and this includes the Minister’s proposal to remove clause 3.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert

“(1) An operator of sunbed premises who —

(a) allows a person who is under 18 to use a sunbed on those premises, or

(b) allows a person who is under 18 to be present (except in the course of providing services to the operator for the purposes of the business of the sunbed premises) in a restricted zone on those premises,

commits an offence.”

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 20, at end insert

“(4A) Subsections (4B) and (4C) have effect for determining what is for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a restricted zone.

(4B) If a sunbed on the sunbed premises is in a wholly or partly enclosed space that is reserved for users of that sunbed, every part of that space is a restricted zone.

(4C) If a sunbed is in a room on the sunbed premises but not in a space falling within subsection (4B), every part of that room is a restricted zone.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 3: In page 1, line 22, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 4: In clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 5: In clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out “level 3” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 10: In clause 5, page 3, line 42, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 13: In clause 6, page 4, line 17, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 17: In clause 8, page 5, line 6, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 22: In clause 9, page 5, line 20, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 25: In clause 10, page 5, line 32, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 26: In clause 11, page 6, line 6, at end insert

“‘registered medical practitioner’ means a fully registered person within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983 (c. 54) who holds a licence to practise under that Act.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 27: In clause 14, page 6, line 41, l eave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 30: In clause 18, page 8, line 19, at end insert

“(2) Subsections (3) and (4) have effect for determining for the purposes of this Act on which premises a sunbed is sold or hired where—

(a) the order for the sunbed is taken on certain premises (premises A); and

(b) the sunbed is despatched for delivery in pursuance of the sale or hire from other premises (premises B).

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the sale or hire is to be treated as taking place on premises A.

(4) But if—

(a) premises A are not in Northern Ireland; and

(b) premises B are in Northern Ireland,

the sale or hire is to be treated as taking place on premises B.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Amendment No 1 inserts an additional offence, proposed new subsection (1)(b), which makes it an offence to allow a person under 18 to be present in a restricted zone on the sunbed premises. That amendment was suggested by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety during its scrutiny of the Bill, as a restricted zone is included in the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010, which extends to England and Wales. The amendment ensures that a person under 18 cannot, for example, accompany his or her mother into the room where the sunbed is housed. It aids enforcement of the Bill, and I am thankful to the Committee members for their input.

Amendment No 2 enhances amendment No 1 by providing three new subsections that provide a definition of “restricted zone” referred to in the proposed new subsection (1)(b).

Amendment Nos 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 17, 22, 25 and 27 raise the fines for most offences in the Bill —- namely, in clause 1 and in clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14 — to level 5 on the standard scale of fines for offences punishable on summary conviction only.

Level 5 is a fine not exceeding £5,000. That amendment was suggested by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety during its scrutiny of the Bill, as it was thought that a fine with an upper limit of £5,000 was set at a more appropriate level. I am thankful to the members of the Committee for their input.

Amendment No 26 provides a definition of “registered medical practitioner”, as that was not previously defined in the Bill.

I will now turn to clause 3 and amendment No 30. Members will have noted from the Marshalled List my intention to oppose the Question that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. The reason is that I wish to replace clause 3 with amendment No 30, which inserts three new subsections at the end of clause 18. That arose from a doubt that clause 3 was within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Amendment No 30, which inserts new text at the end of clause 18, has the same legal meaning as the original intention of clause 3, but it clarifies the position and ensures that the prohibition of the remote sale or hire of sunbeds to under 18s is done within the legislative competence of the Assembly.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Before I go into my set speech, I wish to say that it has been a pleasure to deal with the departmental officials throughout our scrutiny of the Bill. There are people who, perhaps, have a rather jaundiced view of the benefits of devolution, but when one sees what can be achieved when the Committee, the Minister and the officials work together, it is remarkable. As a result of that, we have legislation on the use of sunbeds that is among the strongest in Europe and that will do a lot to protect young people from the harmful effects of the use of sunbeds. The Sunbeds Bill was the first major piece of legislation that I dealt with when I took up the chairmanship of the Committee, and it has been a very pleasant experience. Not every interface between the Committee and the Minister and his team has been as pleasant, but this one has been good news for all concerned.

On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I welcome the Bill’s Consideration Stage. The Sunbeds Bill is timely and welcome. Having looked closely at the Bill and what it has to offer, I am confident that it will make a significant step forward in protecting our young people against the dangers of sunbeds. The Bill will provide robust legislation to regulate the use of sunbeds by those over 18 who choose to use them.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on 25 May 2010. To ensure that there was enough time to scrutinise this wide-scoping legislation, the Committee sought an extension to 4 November 2010. As members will confirm, the Committee needed that time to go through the Bill’s many complexities and to hear what people had to say about its proposals. The Committee received written submissions from 30 organisations and individuals, and it took oral evidence from those who represented the widest possible range of interested parties in the time available. The Committee’s report concluded on 12 October 2010.

The Committee’s detailed scrutiny led to a recommendation to the Department that 12 amendments be made. I am pleased to report that all those recommendations were accepted by the Minister and are reflected in the amendments that we are considering today. I thank the Minister for his co-operation and for taking on board the Committee’s recommendations. We can safely say that there are unlikely to be any divisions on the Bill and that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.

I am sure that my Committee colleagues will support me in noting the good working relationship that was established between the Committee and departmental officials during the Committee Stage. That helped the process along and paid dividends when it came to agreeing recommendations for amendments. My previous experience has been that some officials from other Departments would say, “The answer is no. Now, what is the question?” I am glad to say that the officials from the Health Department said, “The answer is yes. Now, how can we work together on this particular issue?” That augurs well for ongoing legislative scrutiny.

Before I talk specifically about the amendments in the first group, I wish to provide a brief synopsis of the work undertaken by the Committee and an overview of the key issues that we identified as we scrutinised the Bill. There was a major issue around the need for a licensing scheme rather than a simple registration scheme. That issue was raised with the Minister at Second Stage. During that debate, he made a commitment that he would consider subordinate legislation for licensing. We see that as a major step forward. Obviously, we would have the sanction of removing the licence from someone who is not adhering to the provisions of the Bill.

There was also concern about the levels of fines and fixed penalties, which the Committee believed were too low to act as proper deterrents. A recurring theme throughout the debate will be that the Department reacted to that and significantly increased the fines to a level that I see as a very strong deterrent to those who would abuse the use of sunbeds.

We also discussed the concept of a restricted zone in premises where sunbeds are in use to assist local authorities — district councils, in our case — with enforcement. The Minister referred to that in his opening statement. Many witnesses raised the problem of the use of sunbeds by children in private homes. There was also concern about the delegated powers in the Bill. Those are all issues that I will return to later.

Other important issues were considered by the Committee that do not relate to the amendments being debated today. The Committee was concerned about the commencement dates for the subordinate legislation provided for by the Bill. The Bill allows for subordinate legislation, which would govern various features, to be introduced at a later date. Those include information to be provided and displayed, protective eyewear and training and technical requirements. The Bill does not specify dates for the commencement of the subordinate legislation. Much of the evidence received by the Committee urged that specific dates for commencement be added to the Bill. The Department explained that its intention is to introduce the subordinate legislation as soon as possible and that officials are already working on the detail. Officials indicated to the Committee, in public session, that they expect most of the subordinate legislation to be introduced within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. Again, that is very welcome.

The Department resisted putting definitive dates in the Bill for two main reasons. First, the work has to be done to develop, for example, the technical requirements for sunbeds and training courses. That work needs to be consulted on, and the outcome of that consultation needs to be incorporated in the draft subordinate legislation. Secondly, the officials working on the Bill may find themselves diverted to potential crises such as swine flu. If there were a definitive date in such an event, the Department could be in a position to break its own law. However, officials made it clear to the Committee that they are working on aspects of the subordinate legislation and are keen to see it brought forward within 12 months of Royal Assent.

The Committee was concerned about whether a provision is needed to prohibit those with skin type 1 from using sunbeds. The Committee is aware that the Republic of Ireland intends to introduce its own legislation to regulate sunbed use in the future. Indeed, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) gave evidence that the use of sunbeds should be banned full stop. There is considerable merit in that argument. However, with hindsight, the Committee felt that that may be taking the legislation too far, particularly when the draft legislation had made no provision for it. Speaking personally and as a member of the Committee, rather than as the Committee Chairperson, I must say that I was very tempted to consider it at one stage. I have never used a sunbed in my life, which is pretty obvious given my pale skin. As far as I am aware, none of my family has ever used a sunbed. Listening to the evidence, I was almost tempted to back the call for a total ban. However, the Committee decided not to do so, as we feel that the legislation that we have is deliverable.

In the middle of our consultation, it became apparent that our colleagues in the Irish Republic were hinting at bringing in legislation that would ban the use of sunbeds by people with what is known as the Celtic skin type. I do not know how exactly that is defined. However, I believe that people with red hair, freckles and a certain type of skin have the Celtic skin type. It is prevalent throughout Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. The problem is that, as yet, we do not know what the Irish will do in respect of the legislation. These are the very early stages. It would be good if there was some consistency between the two jurisdictions for the very obvious reason that, if there were very tight regulation in Northern Ireland, people in Strabane, for example, could go across the camel hump bridge — or whatever it is called — and avail themselves of sunbeds in Lifford under much more lax legislation, or vice versa. Therefore, we thought that there was some merit in that. Unfortunately, the Irish legislation is still at a very early stage, so we do not know where we are going. Of course, at the moment, the Irish are dealing with more important issues than sunbeds with their election campaign.

The legislation may include an outright ban on sunbed use by over 18s who have the very fair skin type that I mentioned. The Committee discussed that issue with departmental officials at its meeting on 14 September. The officials indicated that the issue had not been consulted on and that substantial research would be required before making a decision on whether the concept was desirable, workable, necessary or possible.

However, the departmental officials stated that the intention was to emphasise the risks associated with using sunbeds for people with fair skin in the written information provided. It was noted that the Bill also included a power to introduce compulsory training when such accredited courses become available. Such training courses would have to include coverage of the risks associated with fair skin. The Committee agreed that that was a suitable method of addressing the risk and that it would keep itself informed on the developing legislation in the Republic of Ireland. On reflection, we took a fairly balanced decision on that issue, despite the fact that it came to the Committee very late in its consideration of the Bill.

I will now comment on the first group of amendments, which concern enforcement. The Committee welcomes amendment Nos 1 and 2, which introduce the idea of a restricted zone. Enforcement of the Bill will be carried out by local authorities. The Committee received evidence from Belfast City Council and from the Chief Environmental Health Officers Group on the difficulties associated with enforcing clause 1 as originally drafted. They suggested introducing the concept of a restricted zone in premises where sunbeds are in use. Persons under 18 will be prohibited from entering such a restricted zone. The Committee agreed with that position and welcomed the Department’s commitment to introducing an amendment on that issue.

Amendment Nos 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 17, 22, 25 and 27 deal with the level of fines and fixed penalties. The Committee noted that the Bill allowed for fines from levels 1 to 4 under the Fine and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984. That is a standard scale for offences punishable on summary conviction. A level 1 fine is £200; a level 2 fine is £500; a level 3 fine is £1,000; and a level 4 fine is £2,500. A level 5 fine is substantially higher at £5,000.

The Committee considered the level of fines and noted that, in clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, the fine was set at either level 3 or 4 rather than at level 5. The Committee felt that fines ranging from £200 to £2,500 were not sufficient deterrents, and that was echoed by much of the evidence supplied to the Committee, such as that provided by the British Association of Dermatologists. The Committee was, therefore, pleased that the Department indicated that it was tabling an amendment to bring all fines, with the exception of the fine provided for in clause 7, up to the level 5 amount of £5,000. The Minister addressed that in his opening remarks. The Committee strongly welcomes that amendment.

Opposition to clause 3 and amendment No 30 are linked, so I will comment on them jointly. On 3 February 2011, the Committee received a briefing from officials who advised that an issue had been identified with the legislative competence of clause 3. That matter has now been resolved, and the functions of clause 3 will be dealt with by a new subsection at the end of clause 18. The Committee was reassured that the amendment to clause 18 will have the same effect as the original intention of clause 3. The Committee was content with the Department’s explanation for amending the Bill in that way and agreed to vote down clause 3 and to support amendment No 30.

That is all that I have to say about this group of amendments. I am sure that other Members will wish to comment.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin welcomes the Consideration Stage of the Sunbeds Bill. It has been some time since we debated the principles of the Bill. As the Chairperson pointed out, the Committee had lengthy and worthwhile debates during evidence sessions with various stakeholders including cancer organisations, charities and local government representatives. Over 30 organisations submitted written evidence to the Committee. Sinn Féin supported the principles of the Bill from the very start, and we listened very carefully during all those evidence sessions. As a result, a number of amendments were suggested to the Department, and we are pleased that those have been taken on board and are being moved today.

Sinn Féin welcomes amendment Nos 1 and 2, which bring into play arrangements to have restricted zones in areas or premises where sunbeds are in operation. Perhaps I misheard the Minister, but when he moved the amendments, I think that he referred to children following mothers into sunbed areas. However, these are changing times, and many a man now uses a sunbed, so the legislation is obviously equally valid for men and women. That amendment should make enforcement easier for local councils and environmental health officers in carrying out their roles.

The other amendments in the group deal with the level of fines. When considering the original fine levels, we decided that they were not high enough to deter bad practice. We welcome the amendments, which will allow for fines to be maximised.

Finally, the Minister set out the reasons for opposition to clause 3 and the impact on amendment No 30. The Department assured the Committee that that was necessary because of potential problems with the legislative competence of the Bill. Sinn Féin is content with what is effectively a tidying-up clause.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

There is general agreement on the Bill, and the Committee’s hard work in scrutinising it has certainly paid off. I concur with the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson that this is an excellent example of the Assembly working at its best. The Minister, departmental officials and the Committee scrutinised the Bill and worked together to look at what was needed to change and improve it. They worked collectively to come up with the necessary changes to make the Bill an effective and worthwhile piece of legislation. The House can take pride in having delivered the Bill to protect people in Northern Ireland.

Other Members laid out the case for all the amendments, and the Ulster Unionist Party supports that. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 complement each other and will add to the protections in the Bill. I accept the Deputy Chairperson’s point that the legislation applies to all of us. Of course, Mr Speaker, I have never used a sunbed; that is why I am this colour.

The other amendments refer to the level of fines. When the Committee considered the issue, there was concern about having a meaningful level of fine. It is important that the Minister and the Department took that issue on board. The case has already been made for opposition to clause 3 and the subsequent amendment. This has been a good piece of work by the Minister, the Committee and departmental officials. We support the amendments.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Mr Alex Easton.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am sorry; I meant to call Tommy Gallagher first. I apologise for that.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Bill is a welcome development to the SDLP, coming as it does against the rising incidence of skin cancer. I also refer to the constructive approach taken by everybody involved, particularly the Department, members and all those who gave evidence.

Members referred to the dropping of clause 3 in favour of a later amendment. The entire Committee agreed on that. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 refer to the restricted zone and persons under the age of 18 and has some useful steps about enforcement. The only exception regarding persons under the age of 18 being in that zone is specified in clause 1(b) of the amendment: the only people allowed in there are those employed to carry out maintenance, for example.

The SDLP also welcomes the amendments that increase fines by 100% — from £2,500 to £5,000 — for people convicted under the legislation. We welcome the Bill and feel that it is an important step in improving public health and addressing concerns about the growing incidence of skin cancer.

Kieran Deeny (Independent, West Tyrone)

As a member of the Health Committee, I reiterate what has been said: the Bill is a very good example of the Chairperson and members of the Committee, our clerical team, the departmental officials and the Minister all working together. It is good news.

As has been mentioned, the legislation is as strong as any that probably will exist in Europe for protecting the skin of our population. In some sense, we are leading the way. It is also supported very much by all the health professionals. I have no doubt that the legislation, when it comes into being, will save lives and decrease the number of our population with skin cancer, so it is good news for health professionals and our population.

I will not go through all the amendments, but I, with the rest of the Committee, support them all. When we discussed clause 3 at length with departmental officials last week, we saw right away that it made sense to remove it and deal with the issue by amending clause 18. I support all the amendments and the removal of clause 3.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I support the Sunbeds Bill. I echo the words of my party colleague Mr Wells: it shows what can be done with the Department, the Minister and the Health Committee working together. Hopefully, it is a good lesson to learn.

I welcome the Bill’s Consideration Stage and I support the first group of amendments. I welcome and support amendment No 1, which clarifies clause 1(1). I also welcome and support amendment No 2, which clarifies where the restricted zone is situated for the purpose of clause 1(1). I am also supportive of amendment No 4, which increases the fine for anyone who is convicted of being in contravention of the Bill.

I support amendment No 5, which increases the penalty for those who are guilty of operating a sunbed in licensed premises unsupervised. I am also content with amendment No 10, which raises the bar for those who fail to provide information to users. I support amendment No 13, which raises the penalty for failure to display information. I also support amendment No 17, which raises the penalty for licensed sunbed providers who fail to supply protective eyewear. That is vital to protect the sight of those who use a sunbed.

I support amendment No 22, which raises the penalty for the failure to train members of staff who operate a sunbed, and amendment No 25, which raises the penalty for those providing sunbeds on licensed premises who fail to comply with all requirements that are requested of them in conjunction with the Bill. I support amendment No 26, which redefines “registered medical practitioner”. I am also content with amendment No 27, which raises the penalty for those who refuse to permit an authorised officer on to their premises, and amendment No 30.

I commend the amendments, with the exception of the Minister’s opposition to clause 3, which I do not support.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As members of the Health Committee will know, I was not a member of the Committee when the Sunbeds Bill passed through the majority of its treatment by that Committee. However, from what has been said in the House today and from informal discussions with colleagues, it is fairly clear that there is widespread warmth and appreciation for the degree of co-operation from the Minister, his officials and the Department. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee for the diligence and enthusiasm that they have shown towards this very productive measure.

The Chairperson made reference to what may forever become known as the camel’s hump conundrum and the way in which some of these issues are dealt with along the border region. It strikes me, as someone who grew up in the border area, that there was a time when the camel’s hump itself was known as a restricted zone. Thankfully, however, we have moved on from the days of that zone to dealing with new restricted zones.

A few important issues arise as regards how the Department may co-operate and communicate with the Republic in future in respect of the scope and substance of regulation and restrictions and also the levels of fine. On a practical day-to-day level, there would not be much point in a fine in Strabane being £5,000 if the fine for a similar breach in Lifford were only £50.

In effect, it would make nonsense any deterrent on a commercial basis. Leaving that aside, I echo what my party colleague Tommy Gallagher said, and I am happy to support —

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Perhaps the Member has better contacts in County Donegal than I have. I think that the way forward is to urge the Irish authorities to take this very progressive legislation on board and use as much of it as possible as a template for their laws. Far be it from me to tell the Dáil what to do — I would not suggest such a thing for one moment — however, the level of fines, the principle of licensing and the educational material could go a long way towards helping the Irish authorities to develop progressive legislation in the Twenty-six Counties.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Absolutely. Any further cross-border harmonisation will be very helpful. There are institutional arrangements for bringing forward such matters, which I hope will be pursued by the next batch of Ministers on both sides of the border. I look forward to the day when Mr Wells has the opportunity to contest the seat in South Down for the Oireachtas. Perhaps he could share his wisdom all the way from Dingle to Downpatrick. Until that day, I am happy to take my seat.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. I very much appreciate the co-operation that there has been between the Health Committee and the Department and its officials. It has been very constructive. As far as the Irish Republic is concerned, legislation is still to be made there, and we will liaise with its officials throughout that process. Mr Wells’s suggestion about mirroring is very good, and I am quite sure that our Southern counterparts will listen to that point of view. We are seeking to make subordinate legislation within 12 months, but that will be subject to consultation.

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

Amendment No 2 made: In page 1 line 20, at end insert

“(4A) Subsections (4B) and (4C) have effect for determining what is for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a restricted zone.

(4B) If a sunbed on the sunbed premises is in a wholly or partly enclosed space that is reserved for users of that sunbed, every part of that space is a restricted zone.

(4C) If a sunbed is in a room on the sunbed premises but not in a space falling within subsection (4B), every part of that room is a restricted zone.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 3 made: In page 1, line 22, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Service and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

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

Clause 2 (Prohibition on sale or hire of sunbeds to persons under 18)

Amendment No 4 made: In page 2, line 24, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Service and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Remote sale or hire of sunbeds)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

No amendments have been tabled to clause 3. However, I remind Members that we have already debated the Minister’s proposal to remove clause 3 from the Bill and to insert the relevant provisions later in the Bill.

Question, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Clause 4 (Prohibition on allowing unsupervised use of sunbeds)

Amendment No 5 made: In page 3, line 9, leave out “level 3” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Duty to provide information to sunbed users, or buyers etc.)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the second group of amendments, which impose new duties on sunbed premises or operators. The amendments are listed in the grouping list.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 6: In page 3, line 14, after “information” insert “and such other information”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 7: In page 3, line 21, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 8: In page 3, line 25, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 9: In page 3, line 39, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 11: In clause 6, page 4, line 5, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 12: In clause 6, page 4, line 14, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 14: In clause 8, page 4, line 38, at end insert

“(3A) A person (the ‘seller’) who sells a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (3B) commits an offence.

(3B) The seller must provide a person who is buying the sunbed with protective eyewear.

(3C) A person (the ‘hirer’) who hires a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (3D) commits an offence.

(3D) The hirer must provide a person who is hiring the sunbed with protective eyewear.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 15: In clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “subsections (2) and (3)” and insert “this section”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 16: In clause 8, page 5, line 4, at end insert

“(5A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3A), it is a defence for the seller to prove that the seller (or an employee or agent of the seller) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.

(5B) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3C), it is a defence for the hirer to prove that the hirer (or an employee or agent of the hirer) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 18: In clause 9, page 5, line 10, leave out “the requirement” and insert “a requirement”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 19: In clause 9, page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert

“(2) The operator must—

(a) meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed; and

(b) secure that such employees or agents of the operator as may be prescribed meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 20: In clause 9, page 5, line 14, at end insert

“(2A) A person (the ‘seller’) who sells a sunbed to any person and who fails to meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed commits an offence.

(2B) A person (the ‘hirer’) who hires a sunbed to any person and who fails to meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed commits an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 21: In clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert

“(3A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2A), it is a defence for the seller to prove that the seller (or an employee or agent of the seller) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.

(3B) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2B), it is a defence for the hirer to prove that the hirer (or an employee or agent of the hirer) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 23: In clause 10, page 5, line 26, at end insert

“(2A) A person (the ‘seller’) who sells a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (2B) commits an offence.

(2B) The seller must secure that a sunbed referred to in subsection (2A) meets such requirements as may be prescribed.

(2C) A person (the ‘hirer’) who hires a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (2D) commits an offence.

(2D) The hirer must secure that a sunbed referred to in subsection (2C) meets such requirements as may be prescribed.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

No 24: In clause 10, page 5, line 30, at end insert

“(3A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2A), it is a defence for the seller to prove that the seller (or an employee or agent of the seller) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.

(3B) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2C), it is a defence for the hirer to prove that the hirer (or an employee or agent of the hirer) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I support amendment No 6. Such other information has been added to that subsection to enable the Department to prescribe other information that it considers necessary to users of sunbeds. For example, information that is not health-related, such as to highlight that it is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to use a sunbed on those premises. That term has been added to other parts of the Bill and is reflected in amendment Nos 7 to 9, 11 and 12.

Amendment Nos 14 to 16 refer to clause 8, “Protective eyewear”. They will place an additional duty on sellers and hirers of sunbeds to provide their clients with protective eyewear and, subsequently, will provide sunbed operators with a defence. During the Health Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, the Department noticed that sellers and hirers of sunbeds would not be subject to the same provisions as those operating sunbed premises. These amendments seek to rectify that loophole. I am thankful to Committee members for their input.

Amendment Nos 18 to 21 refer to clause 9, “Requirements in relation to training”. They will ensure that sellers and hirers of sunbeds will be subject to the same training requirements as staff operating in sunbed premises and, subsequently, will provide sunbed operators with a defence. During the Health Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, the Department noticed that sellers and hirers of sunbeds would not be subject to the same provisions as those operating sunbed premises. These amendments will rectify that loophole. Once again, I am thankful to Committee members for their input.

Amendment Nos 23 and 24 refer to clause 10, “Requirements in relation to sunbeds”. They will place a duty on sellers and hirers of sunbeds to ensure that their sunbeds meet the same technical requirements as those operating in sunbed premises and, subsequently, will provide sunbed operators with a defence. During the Health Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, the Department noticed that sellers and hirers of sunbeds would not be subject to the same provisions as those operating sunbed premises. These amendments will rectify that. I am grateful to Committee members for their input.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I hope that the media cover this co-operation between the Department’s officials and the Committee as much as they cover our disputes. On Saturday, I told a journalist that we would be bringing a group of departmental officials before the Committee on Thursday to answer very pointed questions on a certain issue, and she replied with a text message saying, “I’ll pray for them.” So, although there can be difficult times with the Committee, there are times when we get a high level of co-operation.

In my previous comments, I should have mentioned the Committee staff. Apparently, I am not allowed to name individuals, but I must say that both the previous and present Committee Clerks have worked tirelessly, along with their teams, to bring about total agreement with everyone on the issue, so I pay tribute to them.

There is a serious aspect to all this, because, as we know, melanoma is one of the most serious forms of cancer known to man. The death rate is very high, and, in Northern Ireland, various statistics indicate that, every year, at least one person dies as a result of the misuse of a sunbed. Indeed, some figures indicate that the problem is quite prevalent. Consequently, the serious intent behind the legislation is to ensure that we bring under strict control the use of something that can, if misused, kill.

The amendments that deal with that very issue are in the second group. Amendment Nos 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 relate to clauses 5 and 6. They allow the Department to prescribe what information, other than strictly health information, that will have to be displayed in sunbed premises. The Committee was content that the proposed amendments would allow information to be given to people who were hiring sunbeds for home use so that they could note that it is illegal for under-18s to use a sunbed. The Committee noted that, as per its request, every sunbed hired will have a sticker advising people of the health risks and stating that it is illegal for people under the age of 18 to use them.

Amendment Nos 14, 15 and 16 relate to clause 8, which deals with protective eyewear. The provision of eyewear was raised by several organisations, such as the British Medical Association and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. The organisations noted that protective eyewear should be provided free of charge to all sunbed users and that the clause in the Bill should be amended to allow for that. The Department noted that providing eyewear free of charge was no guarantee that it would be used. In addition, the Committee was concerned that free eyewear should not lead to a use-it-and-dispose-of-it mentality, which would be environmentally unfriendly. The Department proposed an amendment to ensure that sellers and hirers of sunbeds provide eyewear to their clients and to provide a defence for those sellers and hirers. The Committee was content with the amendments.

Amendment Nos 18, 19, 20 and 21 relate to clause 9, “Requirements in relation to training”. All the evidence showed support for training. However, many believed that training should be extended to sellers and hirers of sunbeds, as well as to those operating sunbeds on commercial premises. The Department proposed an amendment to clause 9 to ensure that all persons who sell and hire sunbeds are trained in the same way as those who work in sunbed premises.

Amendment Nos 23 and 24 relate to clause 10. There was a broad welcome for that clause. For example, the British Medical Association stated that all sunbeds should adhere to the British and European standards. Cancer Research UK stated:

“that all sunbeds manufactured and sold in the European Union (EU) should carry a prominent, clear and permanent warning, highlighting the risks associated with use.”

The Department proposed an amendment to ensure that sunbeds sold or hired meet the same requirements as those in sunbed premises and to provide a defence for sellers and hirers. Again, the Committee welcomed those amendments, and I commend them all to the House.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Again, Sinn Féin welcomes this group of amendments around duties. Amendment Nos 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are to ensure that proper information of any nature has to be displayed in premises where sunbeds are placed and to be given to people who hire sunbeds for home use. It is vital that information on health risks is displayed to ensure that over-18s who use sunbeds make informed choices about their use.

Amendment Nos 14, 15 and 16 deal with the provision of protective eyewear, not earwear, as the Cheann Comhairle originally said. He gave me a vision of someone wearing earmuffs while on a sunbed. On a more serious note, the amendments will ensure that those who sell or hire sunbeds will provide protective eyewear for users, which is to be welcomed.

Amendment Nos 18 to 21 deal with requirements in relation to training, and it is vital that all sellers or hirers of sunbeds do so with adequate training so that they can be responsible in carrying out their duties.

Amendment Nos 23 and 24 relate to clause 10 and are, again, welcomed by Sinn Féin, in that, whether sold or hired, all sunbeds should carry a universal warning of the dangers of their use.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I support amendment Nos 6, 7, 8 and 9, which clarify and expand the supply by operators of information on the health risks associated with the use of sunbeds. I also support amendment Nos 11 and 12, which clarify the information to be displayed by operators in sunbed premises. I support amendment No 14, which clarifies that a sunbed operator must provide protective eyewear, whether on their premises or when hiring out a sunbed.

I am content with amendment No 15, which is purely technical. I support amendment No 16, which clarifies the duty of the sunbed supplier in relation to protective eyewear and explains that the individual user of the sunbed is responsible for wearing the protective eyewear supplied. I also support amendment Nos 18 and 19, which clarify the requirements in relation to eyewear. I support amendment Nos 20 and 21, which clarify what constitutes an offence or defence in relation to training. I also support amendment Nos 23 and 24, which clarify what constitutes an offence or defence in relation to the requirements of the owner or provider of a sunbed.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank Members for their contributions and for their support for the group 2 amendments, and I am grateful to the Committee for its valuable input and helpful suggestions throughout its scrutiny of the Bill.

Question, That amendment No 6 be made, put and agreed to.

Amendment No 7 made: In page 3, line 21, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 8 made: In page 3, line 25, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 9 made: In page 3, line 39, after “information” insert “and other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 10 made: In page 3, line 42, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

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

Clause 6 (Duty to display information notice)

Amendment No 11 made: In page 4, line 5, after “information” insert “and such other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 12 made: In page 4, line 14, after “information” insert “and other information”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 13 made: In page 4, line 17, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

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

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Protective eyewear)

Amendment No 14 made: In page 4, line 38, at end insert

“(3A) A person (the ‘seller’) who sells a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (3B) commits an offence.

(3B) The seller must provide a person who is buying the sunbed with protective eyewear.

(3C) A person (the ‘hirer’) who hires a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (3D) commits an offence.

(3D) The hirer must provide a person who is hiring the sunbed with protective eyewear.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 15 made: In page 4, line 40, leave out “subsections (2) and (3)” and insert “this section”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 16 made: In page 5, line 4, at end insert

“(5A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3A), it is a defence for the seller to prove that the seller (or an employee or agent of the seller) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.

(5B) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3C), it is a defence for the hirer to prove that the hirer (or an employee or agent of the hirer) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 17 made: In page 5, line 6, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

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

Clause 9 (Requirements in relation to training)

Amendment No 18 made: In page 5, line 10, leave out “the requirement” and insert “a requirement”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 19 made: In page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert

“(2) The operator must—

(a) meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed; and

(b) secure that such employees or agents of the operator as may be prescribed meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 20 made: In page 5, line 14, at end insert

“(2A) A person (the “seller”) who sells a sunbed to any person and who fails to meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed commits an offence.

(2B) A person (the “hirer”) who hires a sunbed to any person and who fails to meet such requirements in relation to training as may be prescribed commits an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 21 made: In page 5, line 18, at end insert

“(3A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2A), it is a defence for the seller to prove that the seller (or an employee or agent of the seller) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.”

(3B) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2B), it is a defence for the hirer to prove that the hirer (or an employee or agent of the hirer) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 22 made: In page 5, line 20, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 (Requirements in relation to sunbeds)

Amendment No 23 made: In page 5, line 26, at end insert

“(2A) A person (the “seller”) who sells a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (2B) commits an offence.

(2B) The seller must secure that a sunbed referred to in subsection (2A) meets such requirements as may be prescribed.

(2C) A person (the “hirer”) who hires a sunbed to a person and who fails to comply with the requirement in subsection (2D) commits an offence.

(2D) The hirer must secure that a sunbed referred to in subsection (2C) meets such requirements as may be prescribed.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 24 made: In page 5, line 30, at end insert

“(3A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2A), it is a defence for the seller to prove that the seller (or an employee or agent of the seller) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.

(3B) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2C), it is a defence for the hirer to prove that the hirer (or an employee or agent of the hirer) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Amendment No 25 made: In page 5, line 32, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 (Exemption for medical treatment)

Amendment No 26 made: In page 6, line 6, at end insert

‘“registered medical practitioner” means a fully registered person within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983 (c. 54) who holds a licence to practise under that Act.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 (Obstruction of officers)

Amendment No 27 made: In page 6, line 41, leave out “level 4” and insert “level 5”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Registration of sunbed premises, etc.)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the third group of amendments for debate. The amendments deal with licensing arrangements, and are shown on the grouping list.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 28: Leave out clause 15 and insert

“Registration or licensing of sunbed premises or operators, etc.

15.—(1) Regulations may make provision for—

(a) registration by district councils of—

(i) premises which are used as, or which are proposed to be used as, sunbed premises;

(ii) premises on which the sale or hire of sunbeds takes place or is proposed to take place,

and for prohibiting the use for those purposes of any premises which are not registered in accordance with the regulations;

(b) licensing by district councils of—

(i) premises which are used as, or which are proposed to be used as, sunbed premises;

(ii) premises on which the sale or hire of sunbeds takes place or is proposed to take place,

and for prohibiting the use for those purposes of any premises except in accordance with a licence issued under the regulations; or

(c) licensing by district councils of—

(i) operators of sunbed premises;

(ii) persons who sell or hire sunbeds,

and for prohibiting a person from operating sunbed premises or from selling or hiring sunbeds except in accordance with a licence issued under the regulations.

(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) create offences punishable on summary conviction with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;

(b) provide for defences in relation to any offence created by the regulations;

(c) provide for section 13 or any provision of Schedule 1 or 2 to apply with modifications;

(d) provide for district councils to have power to charge fees in relation to registration or licensing;

(e) provide for district councils to have power to revoke licences in such circumstances as are prescribed;

(f) provide for appeals against decisions of district councils to a court of summary jurisdiction.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 29: In clause 17, page 7, line 39, after “under” insert “section 15 or”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Amendment No 28 provides a complete redraft of clause 15, which now enables the Department to introduce either a registration or licensing regime using subordinate legislation. The draft also provides for the option of licensing, either for sunbed premises or for operators of sunbed premises. In addition, it enables the details of a registration and/or licensing scheme to be provided in subordinate legislation in relation to offences, defences, fixed penalties, levels of fees, licence revocation and appeals.

Amendment No 28 came about as a result of Members asking during the Bill’s Second Stage for a licensing scheme to be included. Although it was not thought possible to include such a scheme in the Bill within the time frame, I am thankful to Members for their suggestions and to officials for working to include that provision.

Amendment No 29 ensures that any regulations made to introduce a registration or licensing scheme for the sunbed industry must be laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. In short, that means that any regulations will be subject to a debate in the House.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

We may be dealing with the last group of amendments, but they are probably some of the most important. As the Minister said, amendment Nos 28 and 29 deal with licensing. The possibility of a licensing scheme was a major issue discussed during Committee Stage. As introduced, the Bill did not allow for licensing; it allowed only for registration. Departmental officials told the Committee that licensing had been considered but had not been brought forward due to a lack of time to consult and deliberate on the issue. However, Committee members and other MLAs expressed concern during Second Stage. The Committee felt that, without licensing, the Bill lacked teeth. Indeed, that sentiment was echoed by practically everyone who submitted evidence to the Committee, including the Ulster Cancer Foundation and the British Association of Dermatologists.

Therefore, the Committee is very pleased that the Minister has agreed to propose an amend­ment to allow for licensing. The amendment provides for licensing to be introduced by secondary legislation under an affirmative procedure at a later date. That will provide a means by which the Department can consult properly with, potentially, everyone who is affected by a licensing scheme on the details of the scheme before bringing it to the Committee and hence to the full Assembly for approval.

I want to pick up on one phrase that the Minister used in his speech on amendment Nos 28 and 29. He mentioned introducing:

“either a registration or a licensing regime”.

However, it is very much the will of the Committee and the House that licensing be introduced. If all sunbed operators were licensed, their licences could be revoked if they contravened the provisions of the Bill, and they would cease to trade. However, that would be a last resort. We like to think that through education and advice from district councils and through implementing the Bill, the power will never be required. Maybe I picked it up wrong, but I am slightly concerned that the Minister is still suggesting that registration is appropriate. Can he confirm that he means licensing? The words “licensing” and “registration” mean rather different things. Licensing means that there is a piece of paper that can be revoked, which means that someone cannot continue to practice.

With that one caveat, which I am sure that the Minister will pick up on, I am sure that the Bill will save lives. In 20 years’ time, people who would have died from a horrible form of skin cancer will be alive thanks to the legislation. Surely that is what the Assembly is about. It is about doing something positive for future generations.

I have never used a sunbed, but I have young daughters who have a different outlook on life to their father’s, and they may well use sunbeds in the future. Therefore, on a personal level, I welcome the knowledge that they will be protected from the worst excesses of sunbed abuse and from the consequences of the sunbed industry not being regulated. I urge the early implementation of the Bill. Further stages should go through very rapidly.

I urge the Minister to continue on his campaign of health promotion, particularly on the issue of cancer. In answer to a written question, he quoted a figure of 2,300 deaths as a result of various forms of avoidable cancer; that is, cancers caused by lifestyle choices such as smoking, excess alcohol and the use of sunbeds. Those are the low-hanging fruit as far as preventing needless deaths in Northern Ireland is concerned. If we can reduce the number of people dying from cancer as a result of their lifestyle choices, we will make a major impact on the number of needless deaths in Northern Ireland.

I know that the Minister is committed to several other policies that will follow the sunbed legislation, on matters such as the display of tobacco products and the use of vending machines. There are a few other ideas in the mix, and those are to be welcomed. As someone who has lost friends and relatives to avoidable forms of cancer, it is dreadful to think that a different choice or a piece of advice or legislation could have saved their lives. Therefore, it is good to see that the Health Department is determined to bring in legislation to protect the community. With that slight caveat, I strongly welcome the Bill and wish it a fair passage.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. At Second Stage, Sinn Féin put on record its concerns about licensing sunbed providers. My party is content that the Department took those concerns on board. I appreciate what the Department said about the length of time available to allow it to introduce licensing at this stage, but I welcome the amendment, which provides for licensing to be introduced later. Therefore, I concur with the Chairperson’s remarks and ask the Minister for clarification of his intention in that regard.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I am happy to support the third group of amendments. Amendment No 28 refers to registration or licensing of sunbed premises or operators. The Committee indicated that it was content with the proposed amendment, which was agreed with the Department, to replace the clause in order to allow regulations to be made for registration or licensing of sunbed premises and/or operators, including those that sell or hire sunbeds. I am also content with amendment No 29.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank Members for the points that they have made. As regards the licensing scheme and registration, it is not a case of either/or; it is very much the intention to have licensing. I can give Members comfort as far as that is concerned. I say on record in the House that it is the intention to introduce a licensing scheme. We are not going either for registration or for licensing. Registration will, effectively, be both, rather than one or the other.

I take Mr Wells’s point about health promotion. I remind Members that we set up the Public Health Agency specifically to take forward health promotion and better lifestyle choices. Every year, 8,500 patients present with cancer in Northern Ireland. Annually, we lose around 2,300 patients, the figure that Mr Wells mentioned, to lung cancer alone, which is preventable loss. Frankly, that is down simply to smoking. If cigarettes were not available, that figure would plunge dramatically.

The issue under discussion, skin cancer, is the most common form of cancer, with 28% of all cancer patients presenting with it. Therefore, I am grateful for Members’ support. This is very important legislation. As the Chairperson of the Health Committee said, it will save lives in the future.

Question put, That amendment No 28 be made.

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present.

House counted, and there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung.

Upon 10 Members being present —

Question, That Amendment No 28 be made, put and agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 (Regulations)

Amendment No 29 made: In page 7, line 39, after “under” insert “section 15 or”. — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 (Interpretation)

Amendment No 30 made: In page 8, line 19, at end insert

“(2) Subsections (3) and (4) have effect for determining for the purposes of this Act on which premises a sunbed is sold or hired where—

(a) the order for the sunbed is taken on certain premises (premises A); and

(b) the sunbed is despatched for delivery in pursuance of the sale or hire from other premises (premises B).

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the sale or hire is to be treated as taking place on premises A.

(4) But if—

(a) premises A are not in Northern Ireland; and

(b) premises B are in Northern Ireland,

the sale or hire is to be treated as taking place on premises B.” — [The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey).]

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.36 pm.

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

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

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

1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what steps her Department is taking to address the growing high level of unemployment in the South Down constituency and across Northern Ireland. (AQO 979/11)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I fully recognise the impact that the economic downturn has had on the local labour market, with unemployment having increased significantly since 2007. That is why in the draft Northern Ireland Budget, Invest Northern Ireland, in association with my Department, has proposed short-term employment measures aimed at boosting employment across Northern Ireland. Those measures will see over £18 million directed at creating in excess of 5,000 jobs and will build on the success of initiatives by my Department such as the short-term aid scheme and the accelerated support fund that were developed in response to the economic downturn.

My Department, through Invest Northern Ireland, continues to focus on boosting Northern Ireland’s private sector productivity as the means of generating wealth and economic growth, which will lead to increased employment opportunities for all. That approach is clearly illustrated in the South Down constituency, where, over the past five years, Invest NI has offered £21 million of assistance to businesses. That contributed towards projects that plan to invest more than £76 million in the area and included support for high-quality projects by companies such as MJM Marine, B/E Aerospace and Thompson Aero Seating.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer and the reference to the £21 million for South Down. We will take the same again if she has it. Is the Department making any specific attempt with regard to the hopeful return of our once-buoyant construction industry?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I indicated in my last Question Time, certain sectors continue to do well while others continue to do badly. Construction is the one sector that continues to be stubbornly in the latter category. Invest NI has been working with companies to ensure that the supply chain that feeds into bigger companies can provide what is necessary. I can refer him to some instances around the Province, but I cannot think of one in his constituency at the moment.

We are working consistently with bigger companies to encourage the supply chain locally. In doing so, I hope that we can help the construction sector. However, the Member will understand that that relates to the housing sector, which, unfortunately, is still in a downturn, although I noticed this week that there is some welcome suggestion of stabilisation. It is also a difficulty, given the capital budget that we have to deal with over the next three to four years. The Member will know that that is not of our making. I would have liked to see more capital spent in Northern Ireland over the next three years.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. What is the status of the Mournes signature project, given the importance of the Mournes to the Province?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Two signature projects touch on south Down: the St Patrick’s heritage trail and the Mournes signature project. Tourism has a strong offering in south Down; it could create sustainable employment. The investment from the Tourist Board in infrastructure in south Down to improve the visitor experience for those who visit provides an opportunity for the private sector to expand or create businesses based on increased visitor numbers.

The main element of the Mournes signature project is the Mournes coastal route, which will tie in and improve key amenity and viewpoint sites along the east coast from Newry to Belfast. Eleven letters of offer have been issued for financial assistance totalling £998,656. Other projects are being progressed. I am pleased to see the Mournes signature project move along. The Mournes are one of the most beautiful areas in Northern Ireland, and I am keen to see that we get the maximum employment benefits out of what we are doing there with tourism.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her replies thus far. One of our biggest problems in Northern Ireland is the high level of economic inactivity, estimated to be 30%. Does the Minister have any plans to tackle that issue in conjunction with her colleagues in DEL and DSD?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In my substantive answer, I made reference to the £18 million that is set aside for my Department in the draft Budget. Part of the reason for that money being set aside, in addition to the need to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy — we have spent a long time discussing the issues around that — is the great need to rebuild the Northern Ireland economy coming out of a recession.

A lot of Members have spoken to me about people who have lost their job and the need to get those people back into employment. So, that money has been set aside to deal with areas such as the agrifood sector, which tells us that it can give us somewhere in the region of 15,000 jobs up to 2020. We want to look again at call centres. Down District Council has done some proactive work to attract call centres into the Downpatrick area. I will urge Invest Northern Ireland to work with councils to get an offering in and around those areas. So, call centre work will be looked at again. Ordinarily, we would not be looking at those sorts of jobs, but it is very important to get jobs back into the Northern Ireland economy. We can start to rebalance after we rebuild.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 2 has been withdrawn. Mr Armstrong is not in his place to ask question 3.

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

4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what discussions she has had, in the last 12 months, with the US economic envoy, Declan Kelly, in relation to any potential inward investment. (AQO 982/11)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have met the US economic envoy to Northern Ireland on several occasions during the past 12 months, both here and in the United States. Mr Kelly was influential in organising the Washington conference in October 2010, which brought together two dozen chief executives from some of the largest existing investors in Northern Ireland, such as Seagate, Allstate, Caterpillar and Citi, along with senior representatives from the key US target companies. There can be no doubt that the conference was hugely successful, and it resulted in new job announcements by both Terex Corporation and the Dow Chemical Company. Following the conference, a co-ordinated and strategic follow-up plan was put in place to maximise the opportunities that it created. Mr Kelly continues to provide valuable support to that work, acting as a key ally and influencer in Washington and in the US private sector.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. How many jobs have been either supported or created as a result of those efforts?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is difficult to specifically say which jobs have come about because of an intervention by Mr Kelly, because he has been interacting with firms at a very high level. Who knows what conversations he has had that have resulted in a follow-up with Invest Northern Ireland? He is very much part of the team in Invest Northern Ireland; he is almost part of the in-house team now. He works closely with Alastair Hamilton and provides a very good sounding board for us when we want to discuss going over to America and influencing people there.

Mr Kelly has also played a vital role — this will be acknowledged by the MLAs for Foyle and East Londonderry — in the UK City of Culture bid by Londonderry. He provided strong support to the team in Londonderry. That has proved very useful, because we have great hopes for that city come 2013.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will be aware that I refer to my constituency of Mid Ulster at every opportunity. Can she give any detail to the House on what support has been given by her Department to businesses and companies in my constituency?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. Like him, many other Members will be looking closely at their constituency in the run-up to 5 May. Mid Ulster has been at the very heart of engineering and the construction sector, which we mentioned earlier. Therefore, when the downturn came, we knew that there would be specific difficulties in the Mid Ulster area. The Invest team has been working closely with a lot of the companies there and has been looking for opportunities for the Mid Ulster area. The Invest trade division has arranged a forum in Cookstown on 14 February for potential suppliers for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. We are looking for opportunities in that event. We are also looking for opportunities for local suppliers to become involved with the police and fire college just outside Cookstown. We discussed capital expenditure earlier, and I am pleased that that project is going ahead, as it will provide construction opportunities.

There have also been some good news stories in Mid Ulster. The Coalisland-based Autogen Manufacturing Ltd has secured orders in the Middle East worth over £5 million, and Anaconda Equipment International, with which Mr McGlone and Mr McCrea will be familiar, has secured work in Kurdistan and is pursuing more contracts in Russia. The message behind that is that we need to look outwith Northern Ireland and to the export markets to develop our companies, whether those are in Mid Ulster or across Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will not provide the market for those innovative companies, so the Department and Invest Northern Ireland need to support those companies in finding work across the globe. I am pleased that those companies have stepped up to the mark.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

The Minister has touched on concentrating efforts outside of Northern Ireland. Have any businesses in Northern Ireland taken up the challenge of investment now, which was raised by Mr Declan Kelly at the Europa Hotel recently?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I take it that the Member is referring to Mr Kelly’s mention of banks and his comments, which were quite startling for some, on how people should get on and do business now, rather than waiting for things to happen. Mr Kelly made the point very well that we should not sit back and wait for circumstances to change but should take the opportunities where they arise now. However, that does not mean that we do not understand the difficulties that local companies face in accessing finance. The issue of the banks and how they deal with local companies continues to be a problem for us.

We are looking further afield for different mechanisms for accessing finance and, in the near future, we will look at some venture capital funds. Indeed, having looked at DETI’s draft budget, the Member will know that funds have been set aside for venture capital. We need to be more creative in how we get money to people, bearing in mind that the selective financial assistance rules are tighter now. We may need to look at different ways of getting businesses access to finance and making it easier for businesses to grow and expand. That will allow us to grow the economy in Northern Ireland.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on any discussions her Department has had with the local banking sector in relation to their support for local small and medium-sized enterprises. (AQO 983/11)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My officials and I maintain regular contact with the banks and ensure that the specific problems raised by businesses and their political representatives are brought to their attention. A new series of official-level meetings began between my Department and the banks in December 2010, and I will arrange further meetings as necessary. My colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, met representatives of the British Bankers’ Association, the banks and the Business Alliance in early December to discuss the relationships between banks and their customers.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her reply. I also thank her for her earlier reference to the awarding of the city of culture to Derry and the importance of that to small businesses in the city.

Does the Minister agree that banks could do a lot more to create financial liquidity to help and support local small business enterprises? Those businesses in my constituency are under serious pressure.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member reflects a question that has been put to me on many occasions. Although the banks indicate that they are open for businesses, many small and medium-sized businesses — some of them sole traders — have great difficulties with their banks. Much of it is about communication, with banks indicating that they will take prohibitive action against a business the following week, which gives the individual or small company little time to deal with the issues at hand.

On behalf of the House, I ask the banks to be more understanding of the difficulties faced by sole traders and SMEs. When those businesses are in difficulties and are having to deal with cash flow difficulties, their minds are focused on those issues and not on their relationship with their bank, which was a lot easier in the past, when circumstances were not as tight. However, as I have said, we need to look at alternative funding mechanisms, and Invest Northern Ireland is doing that through the venture capital model. We are not familiar with the model in Northern Ireland, as it does not happen very often. The culture has been for businesses just to look to their bank and, in the past, that was fine. However, circumstances change, and we need to reflect that to help businesses.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

What types of finance are available apart from venture capital?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have already referred to the fact that I have set aside money for venture capital in my draft budget. Market failure exists in that section, and there is a need to put funds in to support high-growth-potential innovative SMEs to get off the ground and keep moving. In Northern Ireland, a lot of spin-out activity is happening out of our universities, and some of those companies are among the most innovative. I want to be able to support them with the venture capital initiative.

I noted an article in today’s paper about Halo and Business Angels Network, which is a joint initiative between Invest Northern Ireland and InterTradeIreland based at the Northern Ireland Science Park. Again, that is money to help start-up companies to develop, and I hope that it is a success. We have a culture in Northern Ireland that banks are the only source of money; however, we need to move away from that to look for other sources.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Why should that be so, and what can be done to improve the situation with the banks?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, unfortunately we have no statutory control over any of the banks in Northern Ireland, and I have often referred to the fact that we have no indigenous banks. As a result, we only have the power of persuasion and embarrassment, and we have tried to use that over the past two years. As I said in my answer, we continue to speak to the banks and give them particular circumstances. When MLAs bring those circumstances to me, I write to the banks and bring them to their attention. I have met banks to discuss individual cases, and it is important to continue that interface so that they know about the difficulties in the business community.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Raymond McCartney is not in his place for question 6.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

7. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for her assessment of the claims recently published in the ‘Andersonstown News’ in relation to the level of funding in West Belfast compared to other areas of Belfast. (AQO 985/11)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was disappointed at the tone of the article in the ‘Andersonstown News’ on 20 January 2011. It contained a number of inaccuracies, most significantly the suggestion that the overall investment figures quoted for each of the Belfast constituencies was direct government funding rather than a combination of government support and company investment. Invest NI’s chief executive subsequently received calls from members of the West Belfast Partnership Board dissociating themselves from the article and its message. They reaffirmed their view that Invest Northern Ireland had been actively trying to find opportunities to support their work in west Belfast.

I will put the record straight: since 2005-06, the amount of investment in west Belfast has been £52·49 million, stimulated by Invest NI assistance of £13·43 million. Some £19·86 million of that investment related to inward investment projects. Larger investments included those by LBM Holdings, Colorite Europe and Fusion Antibodies.

Finally, I reassure Members that my Department and Invest NI continue to work with clients and local partners to encourage further investment and employment opportunities for those living in areas such as west Belfast.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. What steps has she taken to address the lack of funding by Invest NI in West Belfast, which experiences some of the highest levels of disadvantage and deprivation in western Europe?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thought that I had answered that question in my substantive answer.

It is hugely disappointing that the ‘Andersonstown News’ should seek to put the headline “Invest NI shame” on its front page. It only leads to a lack of confidence among young people in west Belfast who are looking for work. When I looked at the new business starts offered into west Belfast during the period referred to in the article, I found that there were 640. Most of them were supported through the enterprise development programme, delivered in conjunction with Enterprise Northern Ireland. That compares with 568 in east Belfast and 710 in south Belfast. That proves the point that there is lot of activity going on between Invest NI and the local community.

I was pleased to meet yesterday representatives of Delta Print and Packaging, facilitated by Mr Attwood, to see how well it is doing in west Belfast and to listen to the company’s further plans for that site. It is good to see the way in which that company has played a key role, both in west Belfast and in Northern Ireland in general, and to see the way in which technology has been used to develop that company into a very good, competitive company in west Belfast.

I recently visited another company in west Belfast, Label One, which has opened new offices in Ballygomartin. I was pleased to be at that opening, and I hope to visit that constituency again before the end of March.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I assure the Minister that her answer was well and truly received and heard on these Benches.

Will the Minister inform us of the current position of the West Belfast and Greater Shankill Task Forces initiative?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. I issued a draft Executive paper in June 2009 outlining options on the way forward for the task force initiative, and I await a response from several colleagues, receipt of which will allow the issue to be discussed by the Executive. The draft Executive paper details options for taking the initiative forward. One of them is to transfer responsibility for the initiative to OFMDFM. However, that is a matter for colleagues to decide. I hope that we will be able to discuss that Executive paper very soon.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister referred to her powers of persuasion and embarrassment. Perhaps she could use them in this instance. Given that many Northern Ireland firms bask in the status that a Queen’s Award to Industry bestows, does she not think that it is unfortunate that some employers in the private sector are indicating to their employees that they may not be able to have the day off for the royal wedding in April, unlike their colleagues in the public sector?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I very much hope that that is not the case. Apart from anything else, productivity would be particularly low if people were forced to work on a day when their colleagues in the public sector were enjoying the celebration of our future king’s nuptials in London.

I look forward to some respite from the canvassing trail on that day and to enjoying it. I heard that productivity was very low yesterday because people took sickies. Someone said that 350,000 people took a sick day yesterday. I certainly do not want to see people being forced to take a sick day. I would much rather that their employer gave them a holiday to celebrate what will be a national event.

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

If we could move from nuptials back to the real issue, I understand the corrections that the Minister has given in relation to the article in the ‘Andersonstown News’. However, there still is a chronic problem in both west and north Belfast with unemployment and the number of people who are economically inactive. Does the Minister have any additional measures available to her that can assist people in west and particularly north Belfast?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hear the Member’s call. I could hear other calls around the Chamber as well. Part of the £18 million that we secured in the DETI draft budget will be used to look at the areas that the Member spoke of. The hope is that we can deal with people who have lost their job by using tools such as the social economy, which has a strong presence in the communities that the Member mentioned and, indeed, in the Foyle constituency. We hope that we can help those people back to work in a proactive way.

The work of the West Belfast and Greater Shankill Task Forces’ employers’ forum, in which more than 70 employers have taken part, is very useful. It is one of the successes of those task forces, and I know that the work that Mike Ryan does as chairman of that forum is much welcomed in that area. The £18 million will be used to deal with unemployment issues in areas such as those that the Member mentioned.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

8. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment who owns power generation assets over 50 megawatts, currently and in May 2007 and if this meets her stated objective of encouraging greater competition in the electricity generation sector. (AQO 986/11)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

At the time of the establishment of the single electricity market in 2007, there were nine owners of power generation assets greater than 50MW operating on the island of Ireland. Since then, ESB has sold two generation sites to Endesa; AES has purchased Premier Power Ltd; BGE has commissioned a new gas-fired power station at Cork; and Viridian has significantly increased the capacity of its Huntstown plant. There has also been an increase in renewable generation in recent years. Five companies now have renewable generation assets of greater than 50MW each. In light of that, it is my view that there is good evidence of better competition since 2007 in the electricity generation sector.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. What effects will wind generation have on the overall mix of generation? Can the Minister provide the House with some idea of the cost of standby electricity generation from the major supply companies?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member will know that one of the important aspects of wind energy is the cost of connection for wind farms. Many people who are looking at the possibility of setting up a small wind generator on their farm or at their business have told me that they are concerned about the grid connection charges and the transparency of some of the grid connection issues. I had a meeting with Northern Ireland Electricity last week about that issue. I hope that a seminar or workshop-type event can be held in the near future, and I hope that the Ulster Farmers’ Union will become involved in that. At that event, the Department and NIE will talk about grid infrastructure and the need to have connections made, perhaps, I would argue, concurrently with the planning application.

At present, as the Member knows, unless the planning application has been secured, it is not possible to apply for a grid connection, which causes a delay. NIE has told me why that is the case, but there needs to be more discussion about those issues. The Member knows that most of our wind generation is produced in the west of the Province. That is where the grid is not as strong, so there needs to be a lot of investment. To deal with that situation, we will need more investment in the grid over the next two to five years.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra a thug sí. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí di cad é atá ar bun ag a Roinn le níos mó éagsúlacht a chothú i nginiúint an leictreachais.

Does the Minister’s Department offer any specific incentives to encourage diversity in the generation of electricity?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes we do, in the form of the Northern Ireland renewables obligation certificates (ROCs). The Member will know that, recently, a consultation took place in which I suggested that those who have facilities for anaerobic digestion should get four ROCs. I hope that that will provide more diversity through wind, anaerobic digestion, biogas, tidal and wave power.

We are looking at the whole mix of renewables. I very much hope that that will happen, because I have provided an incentive through the ROCs scheme.

Environment

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

1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he can confirm that there will be no further compulsory redundancies within his Department if his budget proposals are brought forward. (AQO 994/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department has not had any compulsory redundancies to date. In response to the Executive’s draft Budget 2011-15 and to inform the consultation process, I published my Department’s draft spending and savings proposals on 10 January 2011. The savings proposals include a planned reduction of some 300 posts in the Budget period. That is an estimated figure based on current proposals and may change following completion of the consultation process. When the final outcome is known, I will be in a better position to consider the final impact on staff numbers and how proposed reductions will be managed. I will continue to do everything possible to avoid compulsory redundancies and I hope to manage reductions in staff numbers through natural wastage, closure of vacancies, redeployment and severance packages where appropriate.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that resources to ensure the development of local social and economic infrastructure and good planning should be a priority for his Department and should not depend on the collection of planning fees, which are now a diminishing resource? Will he also comment on the status of Downpatrick planning office following our meeting last week?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That view conflicts with the previous Assembly, in which the Minister was Sam Foster and the cross-party Environment Committee agreed that the fee structure should support development planning. If we were to move away from that point and subsidise planning applications, we would be using public resources to subsidise development. I am not sure whether the Member is suggesting that we should cut funding for health, education, social development or roads to subsidise private people making planning applications, but I suspect that that is the tone of the question.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister said that there have been no redundancies in his Department. Have there been any redundancies in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We have reduced staff across the Department, mainly in the Planning Service. The corporate services section of NIEA and the corporate services sections of all other sectors of the Department have been reduced significantly. We have amalgamated that work. The impacts of the cuts that have come about as a result of the Tory-Liberal pact, and the damage to front line services, are being minimised as far as possible.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister clarify the future funding of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), specifically in light of the extra funding that they are able to leverage for environmental protection?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I remain committed to funding non-governmental organisations. Those organisations will be the subject of bids, which we will assess as they come in. I assure the House that we will continue to offer fairly extensive funding to NGOs. I also recognise what the Member said about those organisations being able to leverage money that the Department would not be able to gain otherwise.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 2 has been withdrawn, and Mr McGlone is not in his place to ask question 3.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the establishment of a single marine management organisation. (AQO 997/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is no need for a marine management organisation. My Department is the marine planning authority for the offshore region, and it is the marine licensing authority. It is also responsible for marine nature conservation. Proposals for a marine Bill envisage my Department as the marine planning authority for the inshore region.

My Department works effectively with other Departments on marine issues of mutual concern. I can see no reason to transfer responsibilities from the control of a Minister who is accountable to the Assembly and the electorate to a non-elected quango.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his definite answer. I was thinking about the confusion over who controls the foreshore and inshore waters. Is it the coastguard or the local council? The Minister will remember the tragic accident that happened along the County Down coast not so long ago, after which it became clear that nobody had the authority to impose a ban on jet skis.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department is not responsible for the health and safety of people using waters for leisure purposes. As regards planning and the usage of waters, we will be developing a marine planning statement in conjunction with the other UK Administrations, and we are looking at producing a marine Bill. All that will help to clarify what can and cannot be done in offshore waters.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to co-operation with other UK authorities in the development of a marine management statement or something along those lines. I am sure that he will correct me if I am inaccurate. I am sure that the Minister has observed that the North is not an island. Will he, therefore, tell the House whether, given our common coastline, there has been any consideration of, or discussion about, improving marine management between the North and the South?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member knows, there are areas of co-operation on our waters and waterways, including the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, which probably needs to be replaced. The Member needs to reflect on the fact that we are part of the United Kingdom. The marine Bill will, therefore, be done in conjunction with the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom and Westminster.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

In light of the fact that the Minister faces a £4 million gap in funding next year unless a plastic bag tax comes on line, does he recognise that we will be at serious risk of not meeting our commitments under the marine strategy framework and thus incurring European infractions?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am in discussions with the Finance Minister on that issue, and I am very hopeful that it will not be a problem.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on the northern area plan. (AQO 998/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In September 2010, my Department requested that the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) hold an independent examination to consider objections to the draft plan. The commission has not as yet formally indicated a start date for the examination, the timing of which is for it to determine.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline the position on Coleraine houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The issue of HMOs in Coleraine is one for the northern area plan to look at and to put into context. I understand that there are difficulties and significant problems in some areas, particularly where HMOs are located in long-term residential areas. However, in other locations in the Coleraine Borough Council area, HMOs work as student accommodation in the winter and as holiday homes in the summer, and they have worked well in areas that did not have a residential background to begin with. Those issues will need to be properly and independently scrutinised by the Planning Appeals Commission before recommendations are brought back to my Department.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister tell the House what lessons have been learned from the past to plan for the future? Is he satisfied that greedy, selfish property developers will not drive a coach and horses through future plans?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not sure how long we have, but I do not think that 30 minutes is enough to answer that question. As regards learning from the past, we need to look at sustainable development, for which there must be a need in the first place. Sustainable development needs to be done in a way that does not cause substantial damage to the environment and needs to meet the public’s social requirements. It also needs to be balanced, because if it is too heavily weighted in favour of either environment or economic issues, it will not work. We must take all issues into consideration and take balanced planning decisions for the wider benefit and welfare of the public whom we represent.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his very good answers. Will he update the House on the state of judicial reviews that are holding up the development of other area plans throughout Northern Ireland?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There has been quite positive news on that. The judicial reviews in Craigavon and the northern area have been withdrawn. The Craigavon area plan has now moved on, and the northern area plan is at the point where we have asked the Planning Appeals Commission to conduct its independent examination. It should normally take the PAC around one year or a bit longer to carry that out, and I will put a bit of pressure on it on that front, as I wish it to get the examination started quite quickly. It would normally then take the Department a further year to consider the PAC’s report. We received the PAC report on the Magherafelt area plan just last week. I hope that the Department will be in a position to move forward with its final report on that over the next six months.

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

6. asked the Minister of the Environment how core environmental projects will be funded if the plastic bag levy does not raise the revenue anticipated in the Budget. (AQO 999/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The introduction of a plastic bag levy can only be implemented once the relevant legislative powers are in place. As it is anticipated that the earliest that a scheme could begin to raise revenue is April or May 2012, a range of environmental programmes around river restoration, environmental noise, marine resources, minerals mapping, fly-tipping and the repatriation of waste have been identified that may have to be suspended or postponed pending revenue receipts from the plastic bag levy.

My officials will draw up contingency plans to prioritise the environmental projects and the key element of each project. The prioritisation exercise will allow the Department to explore any alternative funding or delivery options, such as funding through INTERREG projects, increasing income in other business areas such as licensing, identification and introduction of efficiencies in current working practices, partnering with non-government bodies and volunteering initiatives.

However, even after exploring those options, it may still be necessary to postpone some of the environmental projects while monitoring the risk of potential EU infraction. Should the risk of infraction increase significantly, I will ensure that my officials continually review the position with a view to bringing forward elements of projects as well as proposals for the reprioritisation of other work areas across the Department.

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

I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he accept that the point of the plastic bag levy is for it to raise as little money as possible? We want to disincentivise people from using plastic bags. Therefore, is it not a bit strange, and indeed unwise, to earmark a whole load of environmental measures against a revenue stream that, if he truly believed in sustainability, he would not want to exist?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If the Member thinks that he will have a world without bags, he must be living on another planet. We propose to introduce a plastic bag levy. Some people will use other types of bags; they will buy bin liners, paper bags, and so forth. Paper bags are not necessarily any more environmentally friendly, so do not feel good if you are walking about with a paper bag, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] Considerably more fuel is used in their transportation and considerable amounts of water are used in their manufacture.

We need to look towards single-use bags and ensuring that as little environmental damage is done as is possible. If that involves a levy or taxation, which yields funds that can be used to benefit other environmental schemes, then that is a good use of that money. I am wholly opposed to introducing taxes or levies on the basis of the environment and then throwing that money into a large pot to use for taxation. It has to be for the benefit of the environment.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Irrespective of one’s view on the plastic bag tax — and my view is fairly well known — does the Minister share my concern that businesses, independent retailers and the general public of Northern Ireland have not been consulted on the policy?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The private Member’s Bill went through its process, and I understand that a consultation took place. The plastic bag levy will involve a series of regulations, which will also require consultation, so there will be opportunities for consultation to take place. Even through the Budget process, there are opportunities for people to make their views known. They have done that, and I have received delegations on the issue from people who are involved in the manufacture and sale of plastic bags to wholesalers.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I will pursue the point on the plastic bag levy. Will the Minister comment on the fact that the worst types of plastic bags for the environment are black bin bags, which I do not think the levy is targeted at, and not the thin bags that we pick up at the supermarkets?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The thin plastic bags have their issues. They are regularly seen in the sides of hedges, blowing about the streets, and so forth. They are unsightly. Plastic bags constitute about 0·3% of the waste that ends up in landfill, and they take about 500 years to disappear. However, quite a number of those who are involved in recycling can take the plastic bags out of the system. There is an opportunity to reuse them, albeit at a small cost. As technology moves forward, we will have better ways of dealing with plastic and the waste that is derived. I hope that we will find a good proper use for it after it has been used by the public, quite reasonably, for its original purpose.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

7. asked the Minister of the Environment, following the transfer of powers on planning matters, what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that policies and decisions are applied consistently across the 26 local council areas. (AQO 1000/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Planning Bill will require councils to operate within parameters that are set by the Northern Ireland-wide regional development strategy, which is published by the Department for Regional Development (DRD), and by the Northern Ireland-wide planning policies, which are published by my Department. The Department of the Environment will also have powers to intervene in the preparation of local development plans in the unlikely event that a council fails to fulfil its responsibilities. In addition, the wider role of central government audit, inspection, performance management and monitoring will be critical in ensuring that planning functions are carried out in a clear, fair and consistent manner. To that end, the Planning Bill introduces provisions for the Department to access and to report on the district council’s performance of its planning functions. Until local government reform, the Department is consulting on new service delivery and performance improvement frame­works for local government. That will allow performance indicators to be set and intervention by the Department if a council’s delivery of service falls below acceptable standards.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that unless safeguards are put in place, the whole credibility of the Planning Service is at risk?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I agree with the Member. That is why, when we took the Planning Bill to the Executive and the House, we indicated that we would consult on the draft local government Bill, which puts in place ethical standards, devises a code of conduct and identifies best practice arrangements. That draft Bill is out for public consultation, and it will be ready for introduction in the early part of the new Assembly term. Once that Bill is concluded and those standards are put in place, it will be the Executive’s decision to transfer planning powers thereafter. I have no proposals to transfer planning powers ahead of that Bill becoming law.

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

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the fox should not be put in charge of the chicken coop. Does he accept that until all the political parties find agreement on the safeguards, there can be no return of planning to local councils given their history?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is what I just said.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr McCartney is not in his place to ask question 8, and Mr Clarke is not in his place to ask question 9.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

10. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on his Department’s plans for a plastic bag levy. (AQO 1003/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As part of their recent Budget announcement, the Executive gave a commitment to introduce a levy on plastic bags. I support the collective Executive decision, and I am considering how implementation can best be achieved.

Members will be aware that Daithí McKay MLA introduced a private Member’s Bill on single-use plastic bags to the Assembly on 6 December 2010. I believe that that Bill, subject to some amendments, may provide an opportunity to secure the passage of the necessary enabling legislation within the lifetime of the current Assembly. My officials are working with Mr McKay to assess the position.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Minister provide further detail about his contingency plans for the plastic bag levy given the number of environmental groups that have raised significant concerns about its revenue-raising potential?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not sure why people would raise concerns about the revenue-raising potential. The more revenue raised, the more potential there is for that money to go into environmental projects and schemes. When the Executive brought their draft Budget to the public for consultation and to the House, they indicated that they wished to introduce the green new deal to Northern Ireland. I think that the green new deal is a policy and a proposal that is well worth supporting. It will deliver for people who are living in homes that are very poorly heated and those who are in fuel poverty. Therefore, we are making a positive move to ensure that we can raise money to put back into environmental projects.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister tell us what impact a plastic bag tax would have in towns such as Newtownards and in villages across Strangford, particularly on small family businesses and people who are vulnerable and cannot afford it? Ultimately, it is a tax that may not even protect the environment.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member can rail against this proposal if he wishes to do so. However, I have identified its advantages. The money raised will be put back into environmental projects that will deliver the potential for people who are living in fuel poverty in Strangford and elsewhere to come out of fuel poverty. I think that that is worthwhile and good.

As regards plastic bags and single-use bags, we have to get to the point where we use resources better as opposed to always using a virgin source of material and then throwing it away. Those days are gone. We are changing to better environmental practices, one of which is reusable bags.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

11. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of how the draft Budget will impact on local councils. [R] (AQO 1004/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Executive’s draft Budget necessitates a 6% reduction in the Department’s opening current expenditure next year compared with the amount available this year. To enable my Department to achieve its objectives over the Budget 2010 period, a range of measures have been identified to deliver savings totalling £15·4 million, covering the reduction in the Executive’s allocation from the 2010-11 opening baseline and other internal pressures, primarily the planning income shortfall and rising pay costs.

We will also have to manage a number of inescapable pressures on our finances next year, bringing the real scale of the pressure to around 12% compared with this year. Against that background, I have considered carefully where my Department’s 6% reduction should fall. For the incoming year, I have had to reduce the resources element of the general grant by 6%. In later years, inevitably, there will be an impact on local government in areas in which my Department makes funding available. That is, unfortunately, unavoidable.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he assure me that any new powers and responsibilities that councils receive over the next four years will be adequately funded by central government and that funding will not be pushed down to ratepayers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The key current area that I have to transfer is the Planning Service, and that is why we are carrying out substantial work to right-size the organisation. That work involves ensuring that the funding is in place. Unlike the first questioner, I am not asking councils to cross-subsidise planning applications. We are also looking at how the Planning Service can raise revenue better, and we are reviewing fees. We hope to raise a further £4 million as a result of that review. Considerable work will be done in advance of planning being transferred to ensure that it is fit for purpose and is living within its means.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the central role that transition officers have played in preparing for the review of public administration (RPA), what steps will the Minister take to ensure that their expertise is not dispersed and lost to us? Given the unforeseen break in their service, is he content that all those officers have been treated in a fair and equitable way by councils?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I expect that that will be the case. I hope that the officers who are supporting the RPA programme will be kept in place on the basis that councils are saving money as a result of the work that they are doing. The council clusters that are coming together need to get to the point at which they are making real, tangible savings, and the key role of those officers will be to identify areas where those councils can amalgamate, cluster and do things collaboratively, and, as a consequence, reduce the costs to ratepayers.

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

12. asked the Minister of the Environment how his Department intends to maintain road safety provision, given the reduction in grants to local road safety initiatives planned in the draft Budget. (AQO 1005/11)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I apologise for the delay, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I had intended to group this question with question 8, for which Mr McCartney was not in his place.

Budget reductions across all Departments are regrettable but unavoidable. I have sought to ensure that any reductions proposed to the road safety budget will not have any detrimental impact on the delivery of road safety in Northern Ireland or the current level of service and support. The reductions of £100,000 to the budget available for grants to local road safety initiatives and £250,000 to the budget for road safety research mean that the resources available for both those work areas will be maintained at or above the levels actually used in the current financial year. The reduction of £57,000 in the budget available for road safety campaigns will not affect my Department’s delivery in that area. As in research, we have been able to deliver our objectives at a lower cost to the public purse.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept that deaths and accidents on Northern Ireland roads are dreadful and tragic and that we should not be cutting back on road safety, which is a priority?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I have indicated previously, road safety is my number one priority. I want to be careful about how I put this, but the past year was the best on record, with a terrific downturn in the number of people killed or injured on our roads. Nonetheless, there were still 55 deaths too many, so there is still work to be done, which is why we are developing the road safety strategy. My Department is doing things smarter, and it is finding a better way of using the resources that are available to it and a better way of communicating with the public. As a consequence, we are achieving results with less money, which is something for which we deserve credit, not criticism.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will be aware that I have raised the road safety issue on many occasions, and I certainly welcome the reduction in road deaths last year. Will the Minister give the House an idea of the work that he carries out in co-operation with the Police Service to get the message across that people should try to drive more safely?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department works very closely with the Police Service and, indeed, other bodies to get the road safety message across. The most recent advertisement to raise drivers’ awareness of driving with due care and attention used real police officers, fire officers, ambulance drivers and paramedics. We will work with all emergency services. For example, in the drink-driving campaigns in the run-up to Christmas, we have a very close relationship with the police. In all such campaigns, we will continue to work with the PSNI, which is an absolutely essential and core element in continuing the drive for better road safety in Northern Ireland.

Assembly Commission

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

1. asked the Assembly Commission what measures it is taking to protect jobs in light of a reduction in its budget. (AQO 1008/11)

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Assembly Commission has been seeking to agree a budget for the next four years that will allow it to fulfil its statutory role while contributing to overall cost savings required across the entire Northern Ireland public sector. The Commission’s proposals provide for a modest reduction in staff numbers across the Assembly secretariat to be achieved through vacancy management, including natural wastage and filling posts from our existing staff resources. There are no plans for voluntary or compulsory redundancies.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for that answer, and I welcome his reassurance to the House that there will be no compulsory or voluntary redundancies. However, in numbers, what does a “modest reduction” mean for the Assembly Commission?

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

For a number of months, and before the discussion and the Budget proposals came out, the Assembly Commission has been deliberating on how to make the same savings as expected of the range of Departments. To date, we are achieving that. However, the Commission has set its target within its budget to try to ensure that there will be no enforced redundancies. At present, we have a staffing complement of 440. Just over 400 staff are currently directly employed by the Assembly Commission. A further 10 staff are employed on a secondment or agency basis. It is envisaged that the total number of staff employed by the Commission in the final year of the comprehensive spending review will be closer to the equivalent of 375 full-time staff. It is anticipated that that figure will be achieved through the retirement or resignation of existing staff.

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

Does the Member share my concern that the reduction in the Assembly Commission’s budget is more of an attack on the scrutiny ability of Committees rather than an effort to save money? Will he assure us that, if there is a need for restructuring, it will begin at the top with management savings and not with the staff who interface most with Members?

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Clearly, the Assembly Commission has been exercised, and I place on record its appreciation of its members and directors for their diligence and patience throughout the recent process. The circumstances worried us in the context of delivering a good and active service, including through Research and Library Services, Hansard and Committee staff. We were also worried about the overall effect that the budget could have on, for example, a reduction in staff. However, we are clear that we can make appropriate adjustments to deliver efficient and effective savings over the comprehensive spending review period without enforced redundancies.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

2. asked the Assembly Commission for an update on increasing car parking facilities in the vicinity of Parliament Buildings (AQO 1009/11)

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

4. asked the Assembly Commission for an update on its plans to increase car parking provision at Parliament Buildings. (AQO 1011/11)

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 2 and 4 together.

The Assembly Commission fully acknowledges the difficulties experienced with parking in the Assembly car parks, particularly on sitting days. For example, that can be seen today. I was out at lunchtime, and there are no spaces.

Senior Assembly staff are in ongoing discussions with Department of Finance and Personnel colleagues in an attempt to resolve what is a difficult problem and to reduce car parking pressures across the estate. Following recent discussions with DFP, the Commission hopes to put in place two low-cost pilot schemes with effect from 14 February, as a possible means of increasing car parking spaces for staff. Those trial schemes will run to the end of March 2011 and will be subject to review.

The first pilot will involve the temporary transfer of daily management of the lower east car park from DFP to direct Assembly security staff. During business hours, access to the car park will be restricted to staff, other persons with official business in Parliament Buildings and visitors.

Security staff will also ensure that all vehicles in that car park are properly parked and that obstructions are not caused. The Commission will simultaneously put in place a park-and-ride scheme using the DFP car park at Rosepark House on the Upper Newtownards Road. That will enable users to leave their cars at Rosepark House and walk a very short distance to Annexe C, where they will be picked up by the Assembly people carrier for onward transport to Parliament Buildings. A return service will also be in place.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his answer. Does he agree that there would be less pressure on the Assembly car parks if there was more car sharing or car pooling? What plans does the Commission have in place to increase the percentage of employees who car share? Has it carried out any recent surveys on car sharing?

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Car parking has been discussed at every Commission meeting that I have attended. I agree with the Member’s comments about promoting and advocating car sharing. It is up to all staff to take heed of that, even as we discuss the matter today. There are, clearly, circumstances in which car parking is a crucial issue in increasing access to the Building because, as we can see today, high numbers of people use it. I will come back to the Member with details of any recent surveys.

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

The mind boggles at the thought of Mr Storey, Mr O’Loan and Mr McKay sharing a car to come up to Stormont together. Incidentally, I do not know who would be the driver.

The issue of car parking seems to at least be being addressed in a general sense. However, does the Commission have any plans to address the issue of disabled parking?

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Disabled issues are always very relevant to Commission meetings, and I understand that a major audit on disabled services throughout the Assembly and in the outside area has recently concluded. At present, four car park spaces are reserved for disabled people. They are located as close to Parliament Buildings as possible, with direct access through ramps from the upper car parks. Those spaces are mainly allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, but that should be subject to ongoing review in conjunction with disabled groups across Northern Ireland. We know too well the number of all-party groups that use this Building to have access to Members, and those numbers are increasing, because we see wheelchair users in the Building on a daily basis. That matter is under review, and I will ensure that it is discussed again at a forthcoming Assembly Commission meeting.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

The spectre of the Members from North Antrim sharing a vehicle together is worth selling tickets for to reduce the overheads of the Commission. It should contemplate that one.

I welcome the fact that the pilot schemes are moving forward. That is very worthwhile. However, will the Commission perhaps look at the possibility of a separate car park for the public if for no other reason than for security?

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Commission receives updated reports on security matters on an ongoing basis. That item is continuously on the agenda. A number of areas in the Stormont estate have been surveyed to look at increasing capacity across the estate. We are looking at specific areas for general car parking for the public, and there are difficulties with that. However, all efforts are certainly being made to maximise the use of the estate. The new car parking pilot schemes that I referred to will increase capacity by a further 40 car parking spaces, which is considerable and should meet present needs. However, when events are held in Parliament Buildings, for example by the Assembly and Business Trust, it brings in huge numbers of people and creates higher demand. The issue is constantly under review.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the Assembly Commission for an update on its plans to improve Internet access in Parliament Buildings. (AQO 1010/11)

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

Perhaps I should be included in that North Antrim team to keep the peace.

I thank the Member for her question, and I know that she is articulating what has been on the minds of a number of Members over the past period of months. Prior to the Christmas 2010 recess, the Assembly Commission agreed to install a dedicated Internet connection for use by Members and staff in Parliament Buildings. The Information Systems Office issued a request for tenders, and two companies responded. Technical clarifications were required before a preferred supplier was identified. It was necessary to carry out work to ensure that the terms and conditions of the contract did not expose the Commission to unnecessary risk, and a supplier has been appointed. The installation and switchover is expected to be completed in the next three to four weeks. The supplier has been informed of the urgency of the project and has been asked to prioritise the upgrade to web access during the installation.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Bob Coulter for his answer. He will agree that, at certain times of the day in this Building, it is hard to get on to the Internet to access information. Given that this is a positive step forward, I would appreciate it if he would outline the beneficial impact that it will have. Will he also outline the financial costs, so that we are aware of what is being done and of how much it is going to cost us?

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. The Commission sought to procure a high-speed connection that is capable of delivering the electronic access needs of Members and other users of Parliament Buildings. On a technical level, that includes a 20 megabyte-a-second always-on connection, with appropriate levels of e-mail and web browsing security. By way of comparison, that will provide a tenfold speed increase to the current provision with the ability to purchase additional capacity up to a maximum of 100 megabytes a second, should the need arise in the future.

Provision of Internet access to the specified standard requires investment in security hardware and an ongoing high-speed communications link. It is anticipated that the hardware element will cost approximately £45,000, with recurring annual costs of £14,600 for the communications link.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Some of us are seeking to be part of the pilot scheme to use the Internet to download our papers so that we get all our mail electronically and save the forest of paper that we get. Currently, we receive more than 100 e-mails a day, and the system is simply no longer fit for purpose and is akin to something in the Stone Age. Local councils have better speeds, and the primary and secondary schools of which I am governor have better speeds. Those of us who want to communicate electronically to stop the deforestation that results from the amount of paper that we get cannot do so because the Internet in the House is no longer fit for purpose.