Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 February 2011

645 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Matters of the Day

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notification from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on a matter that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I will call the Minister to speak for up to three minutes on the subject. I will then call a representative from each of the other political parties to speak, as agreed with the Whips. Those Members will also have up to three minutes to speak on the matter. As Members will know, the convention is that there will be no opportunity for interventions, questions or a vote on the matter. I will not take any points of order until the item of business is completed. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to update the Assembly on the Manx2 air crash last Thursday at Cork Airport. There has been a shared sense of tragedy and grief throughout the island, and I am sure that all in this Chamber will wish to join with me in relaying our condolences and sympathies to the families and friends of those killed and injured.

Over the weekend, the Southern authorities have released the names of those who died and those who were injured in the crash. Those who died were the pilot, Jordi Sola Lopez from Barcelona; the co-pilot, Andrew John Cantle from Sunderland in England; Pat Cullinan from Plumbridge in Tyrone, who was a former pupil of my Assembly colleague Claire McGill, and I know she joins with me in offering her condolences to his family; Captain Michael Evans, deputy harbour master at Belfast harbour; Brendan McAleese from Kells in County Antrim; and Richard Kenneth Noble, originally from England but living in Jordanstown, County Antrim.

Four people were injured in the crash and are still in hospital: Peter Cowley from Glanmire in Cork, Mark Dickens from Watford in England, Heather Elliott from Belfast, and Brendan Mallon from Bangor, County Down. Their condition is reported as comfortable. Donal Walsh from Waterford and Lawrence Wilson from Larne, both of whom suffered minor injuries, have been discharged from hospital.

Last Friday afternoon, the deputy First Minister visited the injured in Cork University Hospital. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the doctors and staff at the hospital who are caring for the injured and to the emergency services that attended the crash scene, without whose prompt actions there could well have been more fatalities. I commend also the team from the PSNI and Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, which set up a unit at Belfast City Airport to provide assistance to the relatives and friends of the passengers. I visited Belfast City Airport on Thursday along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and I said then that my Department would offer whatever assistance it can to the Southern authorities to deal with the crash and with whatever arrangements are needed by the bereaved families and relatives of the injured.

My Department stands ready to help wherever it can over the coming weeks. I repeat my sincere condolences and sympathies and, I am sure, those of all Members to the families of the bereaved and the injured.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I pass on the condolences of the Democratic Unionist Party to all the people who have been bereaved. The greater number of those who were travelling on the flight to Cork that morning were businesspeople, and it is a flight that many businesspeople take there and back for their work. Of the six people who died, four were businesspeople, and the two others were the pilot and the co-pilot. We remember the pilot and the co-pilot and their families in England and Spain. I also wish to put on record my condolences and those of the party to the families of Brendan McAleese, who worked in Central Laundries in Cookstown; Pat Cullinan, who was a partner in KPMG in Belfast; Captain Michael Evans, the deputy harbour master at Belfast harbour; and Richard Noble, managing director of the Irish division of the Danwood Group printing business. Behind each businessperson, there is, of course, a family, whether that is a wife with young children or a grieving mother and her wider family. On behalf of my party, I sincerely give my condolences to each of the bereaved families, and, indeed, I wish the survivors a very speedy recovery.

The First Minister, my party leader, spoke to the Taoiseach last week and asked him to pass on good wishes to those who had survived and good wishes and thanks to the emergency services. As the Minister for Regional Development said, the emergency services had a great deal to do under very trying circumstances, and we acknowledge their work and commend them for their actions.

Last week, my party leader spoke of the fragility of life, and that is very true. All that we can do as public representatives is to sympathise with the bereaved, to support the injured and, importantly, in the weeks and months to come, to find out what actually happened on that flight to Cork last week.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter and to associate myself and the Ulster Unionist Party with the comments of Minister Murphy and Minister Foster.

It was with great shock and sadness that we all learned of the events in Cork last week. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, it is important that we record our sympathy with all the families and keep in our prayers and thoughts all the people who mourn at this time. As Mrs Foster mentioned, it shows us how fragile life can be and how quickly, like the families involved in this dreadful event in Cork, any of us can be thrown into tragedy. Of course, we keep the families in our thoughts and prayers and also those who survived and are still in hospital. We wish them a speedy recovery.

I place on record our gratitude to the emergency services, on the scene and at Cork University Hospital, for their excellent work and speedy response to the incident. Such an occasion will always be difficult to respond to. As Minister Murphy mentioned, the response up here from the PSNI and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust was important. In such a tragedy, it is important that we all work together to support families at a very difficult time. I hope that that support and the prayers will continue for the families who mourn and the families of the people who are recovering in hospital.

It is with great sadness that we stand here today to speak on this event. We hope that lessons are learned from the tragedy and that they can be built on to ensure that we lessen the chances of ever having to stand here again after such an event. We will keep the families in our thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.

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

I join the Minister and colleagues in expressing the sincere sympathies of the SDLP to the families of Pat Cullinan, Brendan McAleese, Richard Noble and Captain Michael Evans. With your permission, Mr Speaker, it might be appropriate to express condolences in Spanish a la familia de Capitán Jordi Sola Lopez y al pueblo de Manresa en Cataluña, que, hoy, como nosotros, sentiran el dolor de haber perdido un miembro de su población.

Like us, the people of Manresa in Cataluña, near Barcelona, will be suffering from the great tragedy of this loss. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that, unusually, the flight originated on this island and ended on this island. Not too many flights do that. As the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment pointed out, those people left our city to do a day’s work thinking that they would probably be back in Belfast in time for dinner, and for them never to return compounds the great tragedy that unfolded on Thursday at Cork Airport.

I also join colleagues in expressing our great thanks to the emergency services at Cork Airport. It seems that they behaved in an exemplary fashion. We should also remember Cork Airport’s chaplains, from all denominations. By all accounts, they really stepped up to the mark in fulfilling a very difficult and challenging pastoral role as the great tragedy unfolded in front of their eyes. Nothing will bring back those who have been lost to our region, but it is undoubtedly necessary that a full investigation take place and that we understand the cause of and the truth behind what happened at Cork Airport on Thursday.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I join my colleagues in extending sincere thoughts, prayers and condolences to all those people, and particularly the bereaved, who have been affected by the tragic accident in Cork, and we pray for the full recovery of all those who were injured. I join my colleagues in paying particular tribute to the response of all the emergency services. The speed of their response undoubtedly prevented further loss of life.

I spoke with representatives from Belfast City Airport on Thursday, and I send our encouragement and sympathy to all the staff at the airport who have been affected by this tragic accident. I join in extending our sympathy to the Lopez family in Spain, and, in particular, to the family of Brendan McAleese, as my father worked with him. I assure all the families who are dealing with this incomprehensible loss that they have the full support of the Assembly in dealing with their grief.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we come to the first item on the Order Paper, I want to address an ongoing issue in the Chamber. It concerns Members not turning up for Question Time when their names are down to ask a question. It gives me no pleasure to address this issue, but it has to be addressed. I have previously commented on the issue of Members not being in their places for Question Time, and there was a brief period of improvement. However, over the past two Tuesdays’ sittings, there were 10 occasions on which Members were not in the Chamber when their questions were called. Now, as far as I am concerned, that treats the entire House and its procedures with total and absolute contempt.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have raised the issue with the Whips and the Business Committee several times. I am disappointed that the situation continues. I appreciate that times are busy for all of us. However, that is not an excuse. Surely, it is individual Members’ responsibility to check whether they are on the list to ask questions. I can understand that, in certain circumstances, Members may be unable to be in their places when they are called to ask questions. There is no reason why they cannot inform me in good time so that they can withdraw their questions and, at least, show the House the courtesy that it deserves.

What is happening? Some Members come to the Speaker’s Office or the Business Office to say that they cannot be in the Chamber for whatever reason. We can all accept that. However, certain Members just do not turn up. In fact, the Clerk or whoever is in the Chair looks around the Chamber and, all of a sudden, realises that a Member is not in his or her place but has given no reason for that absence.

In the next number of days, we will certainly discuss resources in various Departments, or, indeed, the lack of them. If Members really understood the resources that are required from a Department and a Minister to provide an answer to a question, they would realise the seriousness of the issue. Over the next number of weeks, as we come to the end of the current Assembly, I ask for co-operation on the issue. I assure Members that if I have to address the issue again, a Member who is not in his or her place to ask a question will not be called to ask a supplementary question at Question Time in the House for some time. That is the only way that the matter can be dealt with.

I have raised my concern at the Business Committee and with the Whips, parties and Members. It seems to be falling on deaf ears. As Speaker, I have no choice but to take the action that I have outlined. This morning, I address the entire House and all parties. The situation cannot continue.

A Member might say to me that, at least, the Minister will have to provide a written answer if he or she is not in the House. I am not too sure that that will happen. I suggest that there might be some doubt as to whether Ministers would decide to forward a written answer to a Member who is not in the House to ask his or her question. We all have to be careful. None of us wants to go down this road — certainly, not me. However, Members have left me no choice. I will not address the issue again in the House. I am clear that we will keep a list of Members who are not in the House to ask their questions. If those Members are not called to ask supplementary questions, they will certainly know why. Let us have the co-operation of everyone in the House to ensure that there is an improvement and the situation does not happen again.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I inform Members that the Construction Contracts (Amendment) Bill, the Waste and Contaminated Land (Amendment) Bill, the Energy Bill, the Safeguarding Board Bill, and the Allowances to Members of the Assembly (Repeal) Bill have all received Royal Assent. The Construction Contracts (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Waste and Contaminated Land (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Energy Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Safeguarding Board Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, and the Allowances to Members of the Assembly (Repeal) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 became law on 10 February 2011.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 14 February 2011.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 14 February 2011.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement to the House.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to update the Assembly on the outcome of the 2010-11 February monitoring round. The starting point of the monitoring round was the outcome of the December monitoring round. As Members will be aware, that round concluded with an overcommitment of £14·7 million in respect of current expenditure and no overcommitment in respect of capital investment.

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

On many occasions, I have highlighted the importance of exercising sound financial management to minimise any risk of any overspend at the block level, because that would have severe repercussions for the Executive. However, the Executive now find themselves in the unprecedented position of having proactively to manage down any possibility of generating an underspend at block level. That is because such an underspend will be lost to us, given the UK Government’s decision to abolish the existing end-year flexibility (EYF) scheme. The context of the February monitoring round is, therefore, fundamentally different to previous years. I am concerned about that unilateral and punitive decision by the UK Government to refuse future drawdown, not only to any underspends generated in this financial year, but, as I have said to the House on many occasions, to the £316 million of current expenditure EYF stock that we had built up.

I have registered my strong reservation about that decision in discussions with Treasury Ministers, as have my Scottish and Welsh counterparts. I have been informed that the UK Government will announce new EYF arrangements at the time of the UK Budget on 23 March. My officials have already highlighted to their Treasury counterparts that it is essential that the Northern Ireland Executive are properly consulted on the proposals for the new EYF scheme.

It is also important to point out that the Executive’s allocations in the February monitoring round are constrained by the Assembly control totals, which were established in the spring Supplementary Estimates. In essence, although Departments may be able to process more spend than the limit set, to do so would breach an important Assembly control.

Before I go on to the outcome of the February monitoring round, I will highlight the level of reduced requirements surrendered and the level of bids submitted by Departments over the course of this round. Departments declared reduced requirements in this monitoring round of £27·1 million current expenditure and £27·2 million capital investment. That is a significant surrender of resources at this late stage in the financial year. It is disappointing that despite the warnings that have been given, we have reached this situation. The main element of the capital resources surrendered were £17·4 million from the Department for Regional Development (DRD), which came from Northern Ireland Water (NIW). Other large amounts of capital investment surrendered were £3∙2 million from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) and £2·3 million from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD).

There are also significant reduced requirements in respect of current expenditure. The largest surrender by far was, again, from DRD in respect of Northern Ireland Water, which amounted to £14·9 million of non-cash and other resource depreciation. That large DRD surrender, along with more than £4 million of its capital investment surrender, was due to the conversion to international financial reporting standards (IRFS). However, that conversion happened much earlier in the financial year, so it is particularly disappointing that DRD surrendered such large amounts to current and capital funding due to technical accountancy changes that had been known about for many months.

Another significant current expenditure reduced requirement was £6·1 million from the Department for Social Development (DSD), which related mainly to the Social Security Agency (SSA). Some £3·5 million of SSA surrender also related to the IFRS accountancy changes.

The full details relating to all the reduced requirements are included in the tables that are attached to the statement.

Although I acknowledge that some of that funding was surrendered because of reasons outside the relevant Departments’ control, I think that, had Departments exercised better financial management and forecasting, some of those resources could have been surrendered during earlier monitoring rounds. That would, of course, have enabled the money to be spent on what were, perhaps, more pressing needs.

In addition to the reduced requirements, the Executive allow Departments to move resources across spending areas where the movement is reflective of a proactive management decision that was taken to enable a Department to better manage emerging pressures within its existing baselines. That is to facilitate better financial management, and Departments that made use of that mechanism should be commended for their efforts to deal with emerging pressures. It has also been necessary, largely because of technical issues, to reclassify one amount between different categories of expenditure. Again, details of those changes are provided in the tables that are attached to the statement.

In addition to the reduced requirements surrendered by Departments, there was a number of centre adjustments that added amounts of resources available during the monitoring round. The most significant was a Barnett formula allocation resulting from the recent additional allocation by HM Treasury to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). That provided an additional 2010-11 allocation of £8·2 million current spending and £2·2 million capital investment to the Executive. There was also a number of technical transfers with Departments outside Northern Ireland and, furthermore, there was a small EU match funding surrender and small additional pressure relating to reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) interest around the equal pay loan. The net effects of those adjustments was to make available a further £2 million of current spending and £0·2 million of capital investment.

The net result of all those transactions, taking account of the December monitoring outcome, was to make available £22·6 million of current expenditure and £29·6 million in capital investment allocation.

Against those amounts of resources available, Departments submitted bids for £19·9 million of current expenditure pressures and £19∙4 million in respect of capital investment. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) bid for an additional £10 million of current expenditure resources on the basis of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. Given the overall level of resources available, the Executive agreed to meet that bid to ensure that the funding remained in Northern Ireland.

There was a number of further current expenditure allocations. Of those, £4 million was allocated to DSD to provide additional funding to the Housing Executive following the increased activity due to the cold weather in December, and £4 million went to DRD to fund additional roads maintenance and additional Northern Ireland Water costs. Both those pressures were a direct result of the severe weather in December. Some £0·8 million was allocated to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) for the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, and £0·2 million was provided to the Department of the Environment (DOE) to address inescapable pay pressures resulting from the shortfall in planning receipts and to provide emergency financial assistance to district councils.

The Executive allocated £8·6 million of capital investment to DRD to fund essential safety works at the City of Derry Airport. I know that that will please the Member sitting to my left. That includes an upgrade for the runway and the infrastructure to meet the safety requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority. A further £6 million was allocated to DRD to fund strategic roads improvements and structural maintenance. I know that that will greatly satisfy the Member for Strangford, who has been studying potholes across his constituency with great vigour over the past number of weeks. Some £4·5 million was provided to DHSSPS to fund a small number of capital investment projects across health trusts, and £0·3 million was allocated to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) for the development of motorsport.

Those allocations totalled £19·4 million. Although some £10 million of capital resources remain, it was not possible to allocate that funding to specific Departments because no further bids were made as part of this round. However, I am minded to consider favourably a late submission from the Department of Education seeking to draw down a further £2·2 million in capital. I hope that that can be covered by the time we progress to the provisional out-turn.

This monitoring round concluded with a number of significant allocations to Departments. In fact, we were able to meet all bids by Departments over the course of the monitoring round. Those resource allocations will help to deliver essential public services to the benefit of people in Northern Ireland.

As we approach the end of the financial year, I have emphasised again to my Executive colleagues the importance of exercising sound financial management. That is particularly important this year given the circumstances facing the Executive. Although we need to ensure that there will be no breach of departmental budget control totals, it will also be crucial to minimise any end-year underspends because, as I have already highlighted, any and all underspends will be lost to the Executive due to the UK Government’s decision to abolish the EYF scheme. I commend the February monitoring round to the Assembly.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement.

During its briefing on the Department of Finance and Personnel’s monitoring position, the Finance Committee heard that a systems error had resulted in almost £1 million needing to be found for interest payments for ratepayers who are due a refund of their rates. Will the Minister confirm whether the supplier is at fault for the systems issue, and, if so, whether any of the additional £0·9 million needs to be recouped from it? In addition, what further costs might be incurred by Land and Property Services in putting the issue right with regard to cost of the systems fix and staffing necessary to undertake corrective action on the affected accounts?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will come back to the Chairperson on the detail of any additional spending. Any bids made in this monitoring round for the matter that he is talking about and any outstanding moneys will, I understand, be the responsibility of the Department, and LPS will have to fund those. If there are issues about further payments — I am not aware of any — I will come back to the Member about that.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Listening to the Health Minister and his chief spin doctor on the radio last week, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Finance Minister had been habitually unfair to the Health Department and its budget. However, I see from the Minister’s statement that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been allocated an additional £10 million in current expenditure and £4·5 million in capital expenditure. Will the Minister outline just how generous he and the monitoring round process have been to the Health Minister and his budget over the past number of years?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Department of Health bid for £10 million in this monitoring round to deal with pressures, most of which were, I think, around drugs etc. It is significant that we were told in December that that pressure was £30 million. I have always believed that Departments sometimes need to look within their existing resources to see what savings can be found. Miraculously, that figure has come down from £30 million in December to £10 million in this round. That has been made available, plus £4·5 million for the small capital spend. Of course, £20 million was made available in the June monitoring round and another, I think, £3·6 million in capital spend in September. Do not forget that the Department of Health was also exempted from the £30 million reduction that had to be levied against the Department as a result of the £120 million fall in our Budget due to the mini-Budget that the Government at Westminster launched in June.

If we look at the additional allocations this year, we can see that they amount to nearly £70 million, which is roughly a 1·4% addition to the total health budget. That is significant. The Member has made an important point. The extra money shows that, when looking at allocations and money that is available or surrendered by Departments, the Executive always give the Health Department a great deal of priority in the money that is made available in the reallocations.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Northern Ireland Water’s handing back of the bulk of its money may well test the public’s understanding. If that relatively high level of reduced requirement is down to poor financial management, are there steps in place to rectify that? Will the Minister indicate the expected underspend this year? As a consequence of that underspend, how much money could be lost to the Treasury?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, financial management in Northern Ireland Water is the responsibility of the Minister for Regional Development. All that I, as Finance Minister, can do is emphasise to Departments the need to ensure that they flag up underspends.

There are sometimes good reasons for underspends. For example, in the case of DRD, a lot of the capital works scheduled for December could not take place because of the bad weather and the other pressures on the Department. In some cases, contract prices came in lower than expected because of the recession, which led to savings on capital projects. In some cases, planning delays meant that work that Departments had anticipated taking forward did not happen. In addition, accountancy changes have affected the amount of depreciation on assets. However, the point that I am making — it is, I think, the point that the Member is getting at — is that some of those things could have been known about at an earlier stage and, therefore, the money should have been surrendered. That is why it is important that Ministers get on top of the work of their Department and its arm’s-length bodies to ensure that there are no surprises at the end of the year when the money cannot be spent.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement.

The significant capital investment surrendered by a number of Departments is worrying, given the current economic climate in which many firms are looking for jobs, particularly in the construction sector. I note in the Minister’s statement that £10 million of capital resources remain that it is not possible to allocate because no further bids have been made. The Minister will say that it is up to each Department to do its own thing, but is there any way that we can drive forward more efficiency in Departments? I look to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to see if an initiative can be implemented to drive forward much more efficiency to ensure that laxness in Departments no longer remains and to ensure that money is not wastefully handed back to the Treasury.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member makes a good point. It is, of course, for the Department of Finance and Personnel to monitor the money that goes out to Departments on a regular basis. There are two levels at which that can be done. The first is at ministerial level. It is my responsibility at Executive level to reinforce the point to Ministers that not only are they required to manage their resources but there is political fallout if those resources are not managed. People will find it inexplicable that we are complaining about the Treasury snatching £316 million from us, which it did when it took away the end-year flexibility stock, if we make any further contribution to that. We will not know if we have until the provisional out-turn figures are published at the end of May, because there might be some overspends between now and then that will be offset against unallocated capital money that we still have.

My officials regularly meet financial accounting officers in Departments to reinforce that message. We have to reinforce the message at a political level and a departmental level. Ministers have to know that there is political embarrassment it we give money back at a time when, as the Member rightly pointed out, we are having economic difficulties. I hope that the combination of those pressures gets the message through. Members also have a part to play, and I hope that they will play it. When Committees are consulted about monitoring rounds, surrenders of money etc, Committee members have a vital role to play in speaking to officials and probing on the amount of money that is given back and when it is given back.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I also thank the Minister for his statement. In a similar vein to the last question, will the Minister confirm what other Departments had a problem with the depreciation of assets as a result of the use of international financial reporting standards? Presumably, many other Departments have large asset bases that will have fallen as a result of the use of those different standards. Did those Departments act in a much more responsible manner earlier in the year?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I pointed out in the statement, the two Departments with the biggest returns on that basis were DSD and DRD. There were no significant underspends from other Departments as a result of the changes in IFRS standards.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will the Minister tell the House why the recent allocation of the Barnett formula by the Treasury to the Department of Work and Pensions did not come to us until so late in the year?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is a decision by the Treasury. What happens is that the Treasury decides to spend the extra money and once that has been spent there is consequential for Northern Ireland, which is calculated on the basis of the Barnett formula. If the Treasury makes an allocation to the Department of Work and Pensions late in the year, the Barnett consequential will only come to us late in the year. Obviously that is what happened in this case.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Like my colleague Gregory Campbell and others, I obviously have a particular interest in the City of Derry Airport and the £8.6 million it has been allocated. Will the Minister confirm whether a direction will be required from the Minster for Regional Development to spend that money?

I will pick up on some of the comments that have been made about the £10 million that has not been spent. Like many others, I am committed to the city of culture in Derry. Given that Derry City Council did not make a business case, is it too late to have some of that money allocated to the city of culture?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

On the Member’s second question, the answer is that the £10 million that has yet to be allocated has now been reduced to £8 million because of the bid that will be paid to the Department of Education. That £8 million has to be spent before the end of the financial year. So, it is not a case of saying, “Look, the city of culture is going to need money, can we not allocate it now?”. If there are no projects on which the money can be spent in this financial year, it cannot be allocated, because that money cannot be carried over. I am not aware of any Department having identified bids for the city of culture in this financial year.

The Minister for Regional Development will need to make a direction for the allocation to the airport, because the business case for the airport would not normally have been accepted. It was perhaps fortuitous that the money was available when my colleague Mr Campbell and representatives from Londonderry council made the case for the airport. We promised that we would try to do something if we could, and, because of the way that the February monitoring round worked out, we were able to do so.

I recently gave an interview on Radio Foyle. I was told that the draft Budget and the allocations in it were not good for the north-west, but I pointed out that the allocations for the north-west were very good. That illustrates that when a case was made—one was made very forcefully to the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, the Minister for Regional Development and me—a direction was made and when the money was found it was allocated. That allocation will be a welcome boost for ratepayers in Londonderry, who would otherwise have had to bear the cost.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Assembly and the Departments do not want to hand back any money. However, it is important that the spend is made correctly and not handed out for repainting corridors simply to get the money spent. Does the Minister know whether any Department has indicated an overspend?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The final position will not be known until we have the provisional out-turn figures, and, from memory, we will not know that until the end of May. We are not aware of any Departments declaring massive overspends or underspends at present. If there is no way to allocate the £8 million capital that is left and if no other bids come in between now and the end of the year, it will either be offset against overspends or it will go back to the Treasury. We will not know that until we have the provisional out-turn figures in May.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am concerned that there is no proper financial planning to provide emergency financial assistance to district councils should we have another cold spell similar to the one we had at Christmas. The Minister of the Environment encouraged councils to do more, and the Minister for Regional Development encouraged councils to agree a suitable deal with Roads Service, with councils being offered a measly £860 to conclude a deal. We just need to think of all the bin lorries that were out on the roads, and I congratulate the councils that managed that. Councils need funding that will allow them —

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Question, Mr Kinahan.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

My question is just coming. We need the funding to be there. The emergency assistance mentioned today covers help only with the water crisis. What plans does the Minister have for financial planning, either now or in the future, to give councils more money so that they can take action if we have another cold spell?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The mechanism by which assistance can be given in such emergencies is the Financial Assistance Act (Northern Ireland) 2009. Allocations will be made in the monitoring round today. Money will be made available to DSD for the emergency work that the Housing Executive had to carry out as a result of the cold spell; from memory, £1 million goes to Northern Ireland Water for the extra work that it had to carry out in December; and, in September, DRD received £1·4 million in financial assistance towards the flooding in Fermanagh. Therefore, mechanisms are in place for that in the form of the 2009 Act. Some of the money that came through the Act has been distributed and dealt with by councils — for example, the £1,000 payment to households as a result of flooding. When it is shown that there is a case to be made, the Executive have not been found wanting, either in monitoring rounds or in straight allocations to Departments, as has happened here. As the money allocated to flooding indicates, there is nothing to stop that money going through councils to people at local level.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Like many others, I am concerned about the £10 million. I am sure that many small firms in particular will be scratching their head and wondering why we did not get it right. Will the Minister and officials analyse how we might do things better, other than the late returns and the timing? Given the situation with the schools estate and our colleges, I am surprised that the Minister of Education and the Minister for Employment and Learning do not appear to have made bids in time. Will there still be an opportunity for them to do so?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I emphasise the point that it is a case not just of making bids in time but of how much money can be spent between now and the end of the financial year. I must add that important caveat. This is one reason why I emphasised to Departments that they should not leave the surrender of reduced requirements until February. They must look ahead and, if there is any chance, surrender them in September or December, so that they can be allocated for the kinds of purposes that the Member has rightly drawn to the House’s attention.

How can we improve the monitoring? In an earlier answer to the Member’s party colleague, I indicated what needed to be done at a political level and official level. At the end of the day, this comes down to Departments deciding to hoard money “just in case”. If every Department does that, we finish up with a situation such as we have today, in which £54 million is surrendered six weeks before the end of the financial year. That is not good, and it is not easy to spend that kind of money at this time of the year.

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

Capital moneys were returned by NI Water. Is the real lesson not that the existing structure simply does not facilitate the long-term capitalisation of NI Water, which is so absolutely necessary? Does the Minister agree that the Minister for Regional Development’s proposal to bring NI Water in house would not assist in that matter?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

One could argue that to bring Northern Ireland Water in house would exacerbate the problem because we would be tied even more tightly to financial rules about carry-over etc. Usually, it is easier to have a looser financial arrangement the further we remove such bodies from government.

The Member made an important point. In looking at the future governance structure of the likes of Northern Ireland Water, especially where there are long-term capital projects, and how they are financed and delivered, a case could probably be made that a looser arrangement and connection, whether through mutualisation or whatever, would give the flexibility that the Member rightly identified as sometimes necessary where there are huge ongoing and rolling capital commitments.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Members may take their ease for a few moments until we move to the next item of business.

Executive Committee Business

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call the Minister for Social Development to move the Consideration Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Moved. — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 6 and 9 to 11, which deal with the period during which penalty points can accumulate for accounting offences; young people’s attendance in clubs; and restrictions on advertising functions. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 7, 8, 12 and 13, which deal with regulation of irresponsible drinks promotions and alcohol pricing for registered clubs.

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 amendment will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 8 (Penalty points)

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 6 and 9 to 11. The amendments deal with the period during which penalty points can accumulate for accounting offences; young people’s attendance in clubs; and restrictions on advertising functions. Members will note that amendment Nos 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, as are amendment Nos 3 and 4. Amendment Nos 5 and 6 are mutually exclusive, as are amendment Nos 9 and 10. I call Mr Fra McCann to move amendment No 1 and to address all the amendments in the group.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am sorry for being late. I got caught up in something in the Great Hall.

My initial reason for wanting to amend the stated period from “3 years” to “12 months” was to take into consideration the problems that some clubs may have when new committees are elected, which happens fairly regularly in registered clubs. They end up with a new secretary who is not used to the bookkeeping or to the way in which the club is run. Clubs could be heavily penalised because of resulting mistakes, and that could happen if a club continually changes its committee. To retain the three-year period could penalise a club. If possible, I wish to support another amendment that reduces the period from three years to two years. If such an amendment can be adopted, I propose not to move amendment No 1.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

The Member has a number of options. He can refuse to move the amend­ment, in which case the speaking rights move to the proposer of another amendment. Alternatively, he can move the amendment and decide, later in the debate, whether he wishes to move it or not to move it.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I choose not to move the amendment.

Amendment No 1 not moved.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

In that case, I call Mrs Mary Bradley to move her amendment.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 16, line 43, leave out “3” and insert “two”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 3: In page 17, line 7, leave out “3 years” and insert “12 months”. — [Mr F McCann.]

No 4: In page 17, line 7, leave out “3” and insert “two”. — [Mrs M Bradley.]

No 5: In page 17, line 24, leave out “3 years” and insert “12 months”. — [Mr F McCann.]

No 6: In page 17, line 24, leave out “3” and insert “two”. — [Mrs M Bradley.]

No 9: After clause 11, insert the following new clause:

“Young persons prohibited from bars

11A.—(1) Article 32 of the Registration of Clubs Order (young persons prohibited from bars) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (13) for ‘9’ in each of the three places where it occurs substitute ‘11’.” — [Mr F McCann.]

No 10: After clause 11, insert the following new clause:

“Young persons prohibited from bars

11A.—(1) Article 32 of the Registration of Clubs Order (young persons prohibited from bars) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (13) for ‘9’ in each of the three places where it occurs substitute ‘10’.” — [Mrs M Bradley.]

No 11: After clause 11, insert the following new clause

“Restrictions on advertisements relating to functions in registered clubs

11B. In Article 38 of the Registration of Clubs Order (restrictions on advertisements relating to functions in registered clubs) after paragraph (2)(a) insert—

‘(aa) the publication of an advertisement displaying the following statement, “FOR MEMBERS ONLY”; or’ ”. — [Mr F McCann.]

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I move to 10. I wish to insert the words “move to 10”.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Do you wish to address the other amendments in the group, Mrs Bradley?

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 as well. I hate coming in like this.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Mrs Bradley, there is the opportunity to debate the issue and not just move the amendments that you have put. If you wish to debate, please continue.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We want to insert “two” instead of “3” in clause 8. Where a club is convicted of the same offence twice within three years, a court must endorse the penalty points on the certificate of registration. Amendment No 2 would mean that the same offence would have to be committed within two years before a court could endorse any penalty points. I move to insert “two” and leave out “3”.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Do you wish to further debate it, Mrs Bradley?

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I just want to support the amendment.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am checking the time and the place, because I am not sure whether this is actually happening. It is slightly surreal. Despite the previous contributions, I presume that I am to address the entire group of amendments. I will try to get things back on track. I will begin by making remarks on the first group of amendments as the Chairperson of the Committee.

I will deal first with amendment Nos 1 to 4, although some of those may not be there now. These amendments refer to the discretion of the courts in respect of penalty points for registered clubs. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 will allow clubs to repeat certain offences punishable with a level 3 fine over a shorter period without necessarily receiving penalty points from the court. Amendment Nos 3 and 4 would allow clubs to repeat certain offences punishable with a level 4 fine over a shorter period without necessarily receiving penalty points from the court.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6 would restrict the shelf life of any penalty points received by a registered club to either one or two years. If amendment Nos 5 and 6 are passed, registered clubs will probably have to commit two offences attracting a level 3 or level 4 fine in a shorter period before they have their licences suspended automatically. I believe that these amendments are motivated by a well-meaning desire to protect volunteer club officers who may inadvertently breach some of the rules associated with the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Committee had some sympathy with this situation. However, the Committee accepted the Department’s argument that the provisions, as drafted, give clubs the opportunity to show due diligence in respect of offences.

The Committee did not accept that the Bill should be changed to allow more discretion for the courts in respect of these offences. As I said at Consideration Stage, the Department advised that prosecutions under the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 are actually very rare. There was one in 2009 compared to 168 in the licensed sector in the same period. Therefore, the Committee felt, following a division, that amendments similar to these were unnecessary.

Amendment Nos 9 and 10 refer to changes to the licensing hours for clubs. The idea is that sporting clubs could allow younger members to be in the licensed parts of their premises until 11.00 pm or 10.00 pm rather than 9.00 pm. The Committee heard evidence in support of that from the Federation of Clubs, the GAA and the Golfing Union of Ireland that was consistent with our position on underage drinking controls. The Committee did not support proposals to amend the Bill in that regard.

Amendment No 11 refers to the easing of restrictions on advertising by registered clubs. The Committee received a lot of comment on this issue from groups representing pubs and hotels. They argued that clubs already have an economic advantage as a consequence of their paying lower rates and having access to membership fees to subsidise alcohol prices. The pubs and hotels also insisted that the law is already being flouted in that regard, as many clubs reportedly advertise Christmas events and wedding functions for non-members. The clubs represented disputed much of that and insisted that the easing of advertising restrictions was essential for their survival.

Liquor licensing is fraught with difficulties and competing interests, and I know that the Bill seeks to strike a balance between those two parts of the licensed trade. The Committee felt that the Bill generally achieves that objective and, therefore, did not support amendments similar to amendment No 11.

In a personal or party capacity, I will address the three broad groups within the first group of amendments and focus particularly on the three-year shelf life for penalty points put on a licence. The shelf life is currently three years in the Bill. There was a proposal to reduce it to 12 months, but that has disappeared. The proposal to reduce it to two years is the one that is before us.

The record will show that I raised concerns about the three-year shelf life at Committee Stage. I feel that that is a long time to have penalty points sitting there, and that it is somewhat inconsistent. Maybe some of us have personal experience or are certainly well aware of penalty points on driving licences, and that is —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

No, I am not going to give way, because I know exactly what the Member is going to ask me.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I just want to declare an interest.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

He is declaring an interest. I thought that he was going to ask me whether I had an interest to declare, so I am glad that I can now dodge that. Some may have personal experience of penalty points remaining on a driving licence for two years.

I questioned the three-year shelf life from two different perspectives. The Member opposite and, indeed, others pointed out that many clubs are staffed, by and large, by volunteers, many of whom are inexperienced, even though there is a responsibility on them, and that to endorse points on a licence for such clubs may, therefore, be seen as too burdensome and unfair. There is some merit in that argument.

During evidence sessions at Committee Stage, I raised concerns about big retailers who have huge volumes of sales, because there is potential for them to breach some of the restrictions on their licences. I felt that a 12-month shelf life for penalty points might mean that we end up with a scenario in which premises where certain offences are committed twice in one year could be closed down, which would have an economic impact on those employed there and, indeed, the wider community. The robust defence from the Department at that time was that those offences — selling alcohol to a minor and selling alcohol to people who are already drunk, neither of which anyone supports — are serious offences and should be treated as such. The Department’s view was that keeping the penalty points on a licence for three years would better instil good behaviour right across the licensed trade.

On reflection, though, I am glad that the Member opposite has withdrawn his amendment because, whatever my sympathies about a three-year shelf life being too long, I think that a 12-month shelf life is too short. That would have created the potential for premises, be they clubs or pubs, to offend habitually and to get into a pattern of not doing things that they should be doing. Premises should produce their accounts and adhere to what may be seen as the less important aspects of their trade. Equally, they should not be selling to minors or people who are already drunk. I felt that a 12-month shelf life could create a situation in which a club that had its licence endorsed with points, which then lapsed after 12 months, could repeat an offence towards the end of the next 12 months, so there would never be an occasion when it would lose its licence. I therefore think that two years is a sufficient period to catch habitually bad behaviour. It is robust enough to allow us to continue to bear down on the bad behaviour that happens in a very limited number of licensed premises and to catch people out over that period. A 12-month shelf life is just a little too lenient. My party, therefore, supports amendment Nos 2, 4 and 6.

I expressed concerns about advertising by clubs at Consideration Stage. I would not say that there is no need for advertising, but registered clubs should have limited opportunity to advertise functions or events on their premises. We need to be very clear on that point in this debate, and I ask the Minister to be equally clear about it in his response. If we agree to make the amendment to lift the restrictions on advertising, we must do so in the full knowledge that it is not advertising as we necessarily know it. It is not the kind of advertising that, for example, a restaurant uses to promote some sort of offer; it is not like that. It is a very restricted form of advertising, essentially to members only. I know that the amendment states that. I have expressed my concerns about this issue previously, because even though that restriction is there, advertising is very clearly being abused in some cases. I cited the example of the Civil Service club, no less.

From the top to the bottom, there is confusion about what can be advertised. Therefore, that needs to be made clear. I have concerns about the advantage that such advertising could give to the club sector. Even if we are clear about what we are doing, I am concerned that the provision could still be open to abuse. If, as is made clear in the amendment, advertising were for members only, perhaps the Minister could issue guidance through the Department to the registered club sector to make clear what it can advertise, who it can advertise to and who it can target. That would make the distinctions involved very clear. Obviously, such guidance would also be issued to the Civil Service to make sure that it is absolutely clear about what was going on. Regardless of whether the amendment passes or not, confusion exists, which may be compounded by any changes that we make. Therefore, if the amendment passes, it is an opportune moment for the Minister to issue guidance to the registered club sector to clarify the new situation.

Finally, I want to talk about minors in clubs. For a number of reasons, my party will not support any amendment on the time until which minors are allowed in licensed premises in registered clubs. Consistency is required. My understanding is that the same restriction of 9.00 pm exists for bars, hotels and pubs. Therefore, I do not think that it is fair to treat clubs in an inconsistent way. We tried to be consistent throughout the process in applying one change to both sectors. I understand the point that clubs make about prize-givings or summer games that go on quite late, with kids perhaps going into a bar after 9.00 pm. However, just because I understand it does not mean that I have to agree with it.

Everybody can take their own view on those issues. However, as a father, I feel uneasy about those amendments. We are not talking about children aged 16 or 17 being allowed into premises. We are talking about younger children. I have difficulty and personal unease about amending the law to allow children to be in registered premises later than 9.00 pm. To do so would be inconsistent and would run contrary to what I thought was an emerging consensus about young people and alcohol. Far from being puritanical or going down a prohibitionist-type route, I thought that we were being a bit more mature and sensible about how we expose young people in our society to alcohol. Everybody knows the difficulties about exposing young people to alcohol. Between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm, a lot of alcohol can be consumed on a licensed premises, whether that is a club, pub, bar or hotel. My colleagues and I are uneasy and concerned about the impression that such a change would give, the inconsistency with other measures that we are trying to take in the Bill and with other measures that the Minister is exploring elsewhere in trying to clamp down on the misuse and abuse of alcohol.

Although I understand the point that is being put forward, we have to be careful about the message that we send out about young people and alcohol. Here, if we choose to pass one or other of those amendments, we would be saying that young people could be in bars and exposed to the consumption of alcohol well into the night, even, as one amendment suggests, right up to 11.00 pm, which is normal closing time. I do not know about anybody else, but I would not want any of my kids in a bar or club until normal closing time. We need to be careful about the message that we are sending out about the use and, more importantly, the abuse of alcohol and its effect on young people.

I long for the situation that appears to be prevalent in —

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Hold on a second.

I long for the situation that appears to be prevalent in other parts of Europe, where there is a much more mature attitude to the consumption of alcohol and young people’s exposure to it. It is not that other countries are without their problems. However, they certainly have a better attitude towards alcohol. We do not have that here. Everybody knows the problems. The Member who is about to intervene frequently tells us about what goes on in streets in his hometown. I will give way to him now if he wants to tell us about that.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for giving way, although I do not want to mention those particular episodes.

Does the Member accept that around 73% of alcohol — [Interruption.]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Order. The Member may be able to hear the electrical interference. Anyone who has a mobile phone, please switch it off. Do not switch it to silent; switch it off.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My point is that 73% of alcohol consumed is now consumed in the home. To follow that logic, there should, to some degree, be a restriction on drinking in the house, because children are probably exposed to that drink culture at home far more than they would be in the type of clubs that we are talking about. The people in charge of the clubs or teams have a very serious supervisory role in looking after the children. Only approximately 28% of alcohol sold is consumed on licensed premises, and I think that that is a point worth making.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention; he is right that there has been a change in culture around the consumption of alcohol. People have exercised freedom of choice over where they consume alcohol, no doubt helped by pricing considerations, which is our other concern, so that is a very valid point.

I would not want the Member to start encouraging colleagues who may want to look at the consumption of alcohol in the home as well. There is a very real difference when it comes to us, as a legislature, controlling behaviour in the home. We can only do that in ways that would not interfere with people’s liberties and freedoms. There is a marked difference in what we, as an institution, can do about the consumption of alcohol where we have control over it. I take the Member’s points on board, and I agree that we should encourage more sensible consumption of alcohol. However, I do not think that that is assisted by sending out the message, as it may be interpreted, that it is OK to sit in the bar of a registered club until 10.00 pm or 11.00 pm. It is inconsistent with the general movement on this issue, which is not to be draconian or puritanical, but sensible and moderate.

The fact that children can only stay in a licensed premises until 9.00 pm is a recognition that there needs to be a cut-off time. I do not think that there is any compelling evidence to push it beyond that time. It is not that the evidence from the registered club sector is not useful, but I think that it is outweighed by other, social considerations about the consumption of alcohol and the exposure of young people to that. That does not mean that I do not have sympathy for the Member’s point or an understanding as to why the Members have tabled their amendments, but I do not agree with them.

I have previously highlighted what I thought were other inconsistencies in the Bill, which have been dealt with by subsequent amendments from the Minister. It would be a backward step to make either amendment. We should be sending out a very clear message, and I think that we all share the view, that we want people to be careful about the consumption of alcohol, the way that it is consumed and the way that people are exposed to it in our society.

I reiterate that we, as a party, do not support either amendment. However, we will be supporting the other amendments, particularly those on the shelf life of penalty points, as two years is a reasonable and sensible compromise.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

We support amendment Nos 2, 4 and 6 as put forward by Mrs Bradley and Mr Tom Gallagher. During a presentation from stakeholders, I had some sympathy with them about the fact that the shelf life of penalty points —three years — is a long time. That is quite draconian, particularly when huge supermarkets can sell alcohol to hundreds of thousands of people in that three-year period.

It can be easy enough to make a mistake twice or three times in three years. I feel comfortable with the SDLP’s compromise of two years. It is a more common sense approach, but I certainly do not agree with shortening the period to 12 months.

Amendment No 10 is about prohibiting young persons from bars. I understand what stakeholders said about sports clubs, particularly in the summer, holding events that might not finish until 8.00 pm or 9.00 pm and young people not being allowed to go into the bar for a soft drink. However, I agree with Mr Hamilton: we have a growing problem with alcohol. If we are taking measures such as banning irresponsible drinks promotions, and if we are trying to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse in our whole population, we should not encourage our young people to stay in bars, where adults are consuming alcohol, for too long. However, I am comfortable with the SDLP’s amendment to extend the time from 9.00 pm to 10.00 pm. We support amendment No 10.

As regards restriction on advertisements relating to functions in registered clubs, I am certain that clubs have, in general, very efficient means of informing their members of coming events through club newsletters or their membership list. They can circulate notices in advance to let people know. It is certainly not essential for them to have public advertisements.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I should have done this at the start, but I declare an interest as a member of Cumman na Méirleach and the Irish National Foresters. One of the things that I raised in the previous debate on this Bill was that some clubs have a membership of 600 or 1,000 people, so it is very difficult for them to keep in constant touch with their membership. Some of their members probably live miles away from the club premises, so the only way in which people can find out whether there are functions in a particular club is through advertising. The Chairperson said that perhaps the Minister could issue advice to clubs about advertising to members only. Having spoken to a number of club members, I know that clubs are dying a slow death. Many clubs close their premises, perhaps on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, because they are not being used. The only way that they can keep themselves alive is through members’ functions. There has to be a better mechanism for them to contact their members than just writing letters.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I accept what the Member is saying, but we have to be fair to pubs because they are also dying on their feet. We need to be fair to commercial premises as well. I will keep an open mind and wait to hear what the Minister will say about guidance being issued.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I agree with amendment Nos 2, 4 and 6. There is common sense in reducing from three years to two years the period that the points system can be kept on a club’s licence record.

Indeed, three years could be open to abuse by individuals with a grudge against a club, and I am the first to recognise that such a scenario could arise. I agree with my colleague that reducing it to 12 months could open up a scenario in which, if you are clever and time your abuses correctly, you might get away with it. Therefore, two years is sensible, and my party supports that proposal.

I find amendment No 11intriguing. However, it is also intriguing to drive past adverts for the Civil Service Sports Social Club, which is a short distance from the House. If I were to walk through the door of that club to avail myself of the meal being advertised, I wonder which three members would sign me in. I have my doubts as to whether anyone would sign me in. As I told the Minister previously, I doubt whether a member of the Civil Service club would sign me in to anywhere, although that might be more to do with my attitude to alcohol. I find all that intriguing. Nevertheless, common sense tells me that it is a bit like the warning on cigarette boxes: if the warning is there, at least we would have fulfilled our part by stating that a club should, by and large, be for members only. For that reason, I will not oppose amendment No 11.

I know that some clubs — generally the smaller ones — need to find ways to increase revenue flows. The thing that amuses me about that is that those clubs will not be going out with huge advertising campaigns. I doubt whether even the larger Belfast clubs will run major campaigns. That having been said, it is hard to know what effect amendment No 11 will or will not have, although it would certainly do away with the anomaly of having to drive past advertising that should not be there.

Amendment No 10 refers to young persons. The Committee and the House is fully aware of my concerns about young people and drinking. The irony is that I concur fully with the second group of amendments, which try to effect a mechanism to reduce the level of underage drinking in Northern Ireland. That is aimed at promoting sensible attitudes towards alcohol. However, we have to be open and honest: in Northern Ireland, and probably across the UK and Ireland, we have a huge difficulty with attitudes to alcohol. People in this country do not go out for a quiet half pint or pint. That just does not happen. The culture is that you go out and drink the place dry, after which someone carries you home, or, as my wife could tell you, the Ambulance Service ends up carrying you into hospital with someone else carrying you home the following morning. Our society’s unfortunate attitude to alcohol consumption leads to alcohol abuse.

As a parent, I find the proposal to increase the present watershed for children in clubs from 9.00 pm to 10.00 pm or 11.00 pm incompatible with what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. I have had to attend functions in clubs with my family, because, let us be honest, these days, some clubs hold wedding ceremonies and all sorts of other ceremonies. Consequently, if it is a family function, you take your children along. The fact is that, as usual at such events, I sit drinking my Diet Coke, feeling totally out of place and hearing things that I probably should not hear because others are not drinking Diet Coke. Therefore, under no circumstances would I want my child to be there after 9.00 pm.

I do not believe for one minute that I will improve my child’s education about or attitude towards alcohol by having them there between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm or 11.00 pm and beyond. Unfortunately, the reality is that, beyond 9.00 pm, the formal ceremonies are over and the dull, boring speeches that we all sit and listen to are finished. What happens after that? The entertainment comes on, and, unfortunately, the drink goes in.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I can understand what you are saying, and, initially, when —

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Will the Member refer all remarks through the Chair? The only “you” in the Chamber is the Speaker or Deputy Speaker.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Apologies, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When the Committee was being lobbied by and holding meetings with the Federation of Clubs over a couple of years, members at first argued against any extension of hours or young people being allowed into clubs. During Committee Stage, sports clubs came in — mainly the GAA and others — and said that, because most of their sports for young people were played on summer evenings, some did not finish until 9.00 pm or 9.30 pm. Therefore, they wanted to be in a position to take young people back to their club to give them a mineral and a bag of crisps and maybe even to discuss match tactics, which needed hours to be extended.

I talked to somebody recently who was going to collect their child who was playing a match in Belfast, and they told their child to wait for them at the club because it was safe and not to stand about anywhere else that might have left them open to danger. There are reasons why we changed our mind on that matter in Committee, not least that it offered the best possible way forward for clubs and for kids who participate in sports.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his intervention and for reminding me about those issues, which we looked at. I have been in many clubs, and I have seen how junior clubs work. I do not buy into the argument that anybody training beyond 9.00 pm must be taken to the club where the bar is open, into an atmosphere where drink is being poured. I have seen many a club that has its youth teams in after 9.00 pm, but one thing is certain: they are not taken into the bar. They certainly are not taken into the bar to be addressed on how to improve their sporting performance. I do not think that anybody could stand up in the House and argue that the best place to give young people, or older people for that matter, any direction on their sporting prowess is in a bar, while everybody else there is probably getting less and less coherent as the night goes on. I do not think that that is a sensible or a sane argument. I certainly do not think that it is an argument that you will find most parents in Northern Ireland buying into. That is my fear about all of this. The idea that we can have children in clubs beyond 9.00 pm will not be widely accepted by parents. I do not care whether those parents send their children to the sporting organisations that have been mentioned here. I send my children to sporting organisations, and I would not like to think for one second that they would be asked to go into such an environment after 9.00 pm. In fact, I would not like them to be in such an environment at any time, but that is another matter.

Children might be at family functions in clubs until 9.00 pm. I have no issue with that. I have no issue with the law as it stands. However, there is something completely inconsistent about the idea of having children in that atmosphere any later than 9.00 pm. It will send out the wrong message to our young people if we keep them in clubs until 10.00 pm or 11.00 pm, in an atmosphere in which, like it or not, alcohol flows freely. As I said, all the formalities are over by 9.00 pm, so the entertainment and drink that goes with it are the only reasons for staying. As a parent, I certainly do not want to send the message to my children that that is morally acceptable.

Members opposite have raised the issue of people consuming alcohol at home. I put it on record that I have witnessed parents in public forums handing over alcohol to children who are nine and 10 years of age. Whether that is morally acceptable is a judgement that society has to make. I think that it is totally wrong that that happens in our society. We can bury our heads in the sand, but it happens, and drink is given out freely by some parents to their children in their home even though they are under age. That is a moral judgement to be made by those parents. Does it lead to a better attitude to alcohol in the home? I have strong doubts about that.

I have worked with organisations that have looked after those already addicted to alcohol even before they reach the legal age to drink, and it is unfortunate that that happens in our society. It is regrettable that underage drinking takes place in homes. I am not going on a moral crusade, but I ask parents to think long and hard about their attitudes to alcohol and how they promote a more responsible attitude towards it to their children. There are dangers, and we cannot bury our heads in the sand. If alcohol were not so popular and if we could remove it from society, we could avoid a massive dent in our health budget. As I said, my wife, who is a paramedic, would probably be unemployed. I am told that 85% of the incidents that paramedics respond to are alcohol-related. If those were taken away, our Ambulance Service would be decimated, as it would no longer be required. However, that is not the case; that is not how society works.

It is inconsistent of us to talk about moving to 10.00 pm or 11.00 pm, which would bring children into an atmosphere in which the wrong attitude to alcohol would be introduced to them.

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

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate.

First, I would like to explain the approach I took at Consideration Stage and since on the substantive matters in the amendments in group 1. At Consideration Stage, I said that there were three matters that I wished to consider further: young persons on licensed club premises after 9.00 pm; what might be endorsed and for how long on a certificate of registration of licensed clubs; and advertising in respect of licensed clubs. I stress that all three matters are in respect of licensed clubs only. Whatever view the Assembly may take on those three matters — the Executive have a view, which I will confirm shortly — the amendments tabled today by Mr McCann, Mr Brady, Mr Gallagher and Mrs Bradley impact on licensed clubs only. I am sorry, I will correct that: children and young people being on premises will impact on sporting clubs only. Although the wider amendments will impact on licensed clubs, the proposal in respect of underage people is in respect of sporting clubs only.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Although I agree with the previous Member who spoke about the drinking culture and the problems that it causes, particularly the health-related problems, there appears to be an implication that, if you allow your children to be looked after in a sporting club by people who are responsible and are ensuring that there is discipline etc, suddenly after 9.00 pm the scenario changes and the people who were supervising children before 9.00 pm suddenly lose interest and do not continue to do so until the children are picked up by their parents. I argue that that is simply not the case and that people in sporting clubs, such as the coaches who look after the teams, are very responsible. I also presume that they have all been vetted under child protection measures. Such people do not change. An extra hour or whatever it may be will not make a huge difference. Those people will still be responsible for the children they bring into the club, and they will continue to be responsible until the parents of those children pick them up. I just wanted to make that point.

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

I thank the Member for that intervention. Although I am mindful of my Executive responsibility for the various matters that are under debate, I also think that, in the broad sense, that observation is correct. Parents and other adults in licensed premises, of whatever nature, display high standards of responsibility. Sporting clubs have a slightly different character, and parents and other adults display the particular responsibility that applies in those premises. However, I stress that the amendments that deal with penalty points and the advertising of functions extend to all clubs and only to clubs. I also stress that the proposals that deal with underage people being in licensed premises extend only to sporting clubs. There is a difference in the proposals that has to be acknowledged. That must be acknowledged, because we are legislators and we have to create certainty so that there is no doubt about what we are legislating for.

I felt that further assessment was required on the three matters that I just mentioned, and that has been reflected in the debate. I also felt that, whatever way the vote on those three matters fell at Consideration Stage, the past couple of weeks have demonstrated that it is useful to bear down on various legislative proposals to see whether there is a better way forward. Given that, I acknowledge Mr McCann and Mr Brady for the amendments that they tabled at Consideration Stage and for those that they tabled for today. I also acknowledge Mr Gallagher and Mrs Bradley for the amendments that they tabled for today. At the same time, I acknowledge OFMDFM’s view on a paper that I put to it on advertising functions on club premises. It is always useful to keep interrogating clauses to determine whether a better clause could be drafted at a subsequent stage, including Further Consideration Stage. Without prejudice to the way in which the votes will go today, I acknowledge all those who usefully contributed to bearing down on the matters in question so that we could get to a place where Members have come to new levels of understanding about the right course to take, because it is clear that opinion has varied, even in the past couple of weeks.

Having said that, in the run-up to amendments being tabled and in advance of the Executive meeting last Thursday, I thought that there was an opportunity to get broad agreement on the advertising of functions. However, I was less clear about the two other matters that I mentioned. That is why I did not bring a paper to the Executive about those matters, instead bringing only one on the advertising of functions. However, I thought it useful that the two amendments were tabled and that the Assembly had the opportunity to consider and vote on all the options.

Mr McCann and Mr Brady tabled amendment Nos 1 to 4, which I understand will not be moved. The original intention behind the amendments was that, for offences named in schedule 1, a registration would not be endorsed where a second conviction was given within 12 months of the first. The amendment that Mr Gallagher and Mrs Bradley tabled would mean that a registration would not be endorsed if a second conviction were given within two years of the first. However, I stress that those amendments relate only to schedule 1 offences.

The Executive’s position, as outlined in the Bill, is that the timeline should be three years. Without prejudice to the Executive’s position, I was going to scope out that issue. However, there seems to be emerging consensus on the Floor that it might be appropriate for the Assembly to consider those matters further.

As with much legislation in the Assembly and other jurisdictions, different thresholds are always being created. The schedule to the Bill, for example, contains various thresholds for penalty points. That is appropriate, and that is why I opposed an amendment tabled by Mr McCann at Consideration Stage to treat all offences the same. His amendment proposed that all offences, whether major or minor, would be subject to the same level of penalty points. That is not a good principle of law. Offences should accumulate differential penalty points to reflect the more serious nature of some.

When it comes to thresholds, however, it is reasonable for the Assembly to consider whether, given the difference in penalty points for minor and major offences, there should also be different time frames within which those penalty points could be endorsed on a certificate of registration. That was a reasonable question, and it is a reasonable debate for the Assembly to have. It is the view of the Executive and, therefore, my view that the Bill is correct: a court could endorse penalty points on a certificate of registration if the same offence was committed twice within three years, and it could take into account any points accumulated over a three-year period. However, I hear what the Assembly is saying, and it is for the Assembly to decide how it wishes to proceed.

Amendment Nos 9 and 10 would allow a young person under 18 to be in the bar area of a sporting club until 11.00 pm, as supported by Mr McCann and Mr Brady, or until 10.00 pm, as supported by Mary Bradley and Tommy Gallagher. The existing 9.00 pm curfew applies to all licensed premises and registered clubs. Sporting clubs provide a valuable service to the community in many different ways. The Executive have their view of the Bill, but it is fair to comment on points raised by Members who contributed to the debate.

I confirm that the amendments tabled by Mr McCann and Mary Bradley would impact only on sporting clubs. That is an important point to understand fully. A further question was raised about the need to be consistent. It is already the case, under clubs legislation in Northern Ireland, that sporting clubs are treated differently from other clubs. Under current licensing legislation in Northern Ireland, owners of licensed premises must apply to the court for what is known as a children’s certificate to allow minors to be in certain parts of those premises. However, the children’s certificate provision does not apply to sporting clubs because they are already deemed to be different under the law. Therefore, there is a prima facie argument that to be consistent with that current law, which exempts sporting clubs, we should consider whether the licensing hours for sporting clubs should also have a different provision from any other licensed premises. That is a matter for the Assembly to consider. It is not a matter for me to influence one way or the other. As a member of the Executive, I cannot take a position on any of the amendments tabled by Mr McCann or Mrs Bradley. I hold to the Executive position that the appropriate time for children to be on licensed premises in sporting clubs is up to 9.00 pm and not thereafter.

As has been stated by various Members, amendment No 11 is a different matter entirely. The amendment to article 38 of the Registration of Clubs Order will mean that, when advertising a function, clubs must ensure that the advertisement states clearly that the function being advertised is for members only. Failure to do so will constitute an offence. I am pleased to say that, following Executive approval for such an amendment, I am happy to support that amendment.

During the Bill’s legislative passage, I met the clubs’ leading representative body, the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, on a number of occasions. It believes that registered club membership, especially in larger sporting clubs, is spread over areas too wide to be easily reached via notices placed in the premises. The federation believes that, to maximise their fund-raising capacity, clubs should be able to notify their members of functions by advertising them in the media. There are, however, safeguards. Article 30 of the Registration of Clubs Order specifies conditions for functions in registered clubs. The policy intention is that all registered clubs should have their specific objects and their members’ interests at heart and should not operate on a commercial basis. I believe, therefore, that the legislation should not contain any unnecessary barriers to clubs’ important fund-raising activities, and I urge Members to support that amendment.

I want to reassure Members, in particular Mrs Anna Lo and the Chairperson of the Committee, and confirm that, further to the passage of the Bill, in the event that the new clause is accepted by the Assembly, the Department will issue guidance about the advertising of functions. The advertising of functions shall state “for members only”. I reassure Members that that will be included in the guidance notes issued to clubs in respect of the exercise of that matter.

In today’s debate and at Consideration Stage, mention was made of the Civil Service club. I checked out that matter with an official from the club, who is, in fact, an official in DSD. The irony there is very rich. That official came back to me on the matter and put to me the argument that, having taken legal advice, the club was of the view that what it was doing was indeed permitted under current law. The club did not take legal advice in the past couple of weeks; it had taken legal advice prior to that.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I find that very interesting. Does the Minister agree that that proves the point that I was trying to make, which is that there is huge confusion in respect of the matter? Although the Civil Service club may have the resources to take legal advice, that is probably not available to many other clubs in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that that highlights the fact that there is huge confusion about what is and is not permissible and that clear guidance and a tidying-up of this law is very much required?

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

It demonstrates three things. First, it demonstrates that there may be confusion, or, secondly, it may demonstrate that, if people ask a lawyer to give them the right answer, they will get the right answer. Thirdly, it confirms that there is a need to create certainty and avoid any doubt. The new clause on the advertising of functions in clubs for club members only and the guidance that will be issued on that will create certainty and avoid doubt. It will ensure that the Civil Service club is, without any difficulty, on the right side of the law. I welcome the fact that Members have broadly endorsed that shift in the character of the Bill, and I want to acknowledge the role of Mr McCann and Mr Brady in creating the opportunity for the Executive to go in that direction.

I also acknowledge the comments of Mr Hamilton and his party colleague Mr Craig on the issue of whether it should be one, two or three years when it comes to endorsement of the certificate of registration. I acknowledge Ms Anna Lo’s comments in that regard as well. Two years has the potential, in the view of the Assembly, to be more balanced, while I obviously hold to the Executive’s position.

I commend to the House the amendment on the advertising of functions and reiterate the view of the Executive on the other two matters. I understand why Members have tried to scope the issue of endorsement of the certificate of registration and the issue of minors being on sporting licensed premises after 9.00 pm. I commend my amendment to the House.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I support the amendments that I have before me. Amendment No 10 would amend article 32 of the Registration of Clubs Order 1996 to allow young people to be on sporting clubs’ licensed premises until 10.00 pm, not 9.00 pm. The young people who play for these clubs deserve the opportunity to be appreciated on club premises the same as everyone else. They are young players who need encouragement, and they will be doing that in the company of their parents and the club stewards, who are very responsible people. The amendment would mean that young people could remain on the premises of a sporting club — only a sporting club — until 10.00 pm, not 9.00 pm. I support all the amendments.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Amendment No 1 has not been moved, so I will not call it.

Amendment No 2 made: In page 16, line 43, leave out “3” and insert “two”. — [Mrs M Bradley.]

Amendment No 3 not moved.

Amendment No 4 made: In page 17, line 7, leave out “3” and insert “two”. — [Mrs M Bradley.]

Amendment No 5 not moved.

Amendment No 6 made: In page 17, line 24, leave out “3” and insert “two”. — [Mrs M Bradley.]

New Clause

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

We come now to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 7, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 8, 12 and 13. The amendments deal with the regulation of irresponsible drinks promotions and alcohol pricing for registered clubs. Amendment Nos 12 and 13 are consequential to amendment Nos 7 and 8.

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

I beg to move amendment No 7: After clause 9, insert the following new clause:

“Irresponsible drinks promotions

9A. After Article 31 of the Registration of Clubs Order insert—

‘Irresponsible drinks promotions

31A.—(1) Regulations may prohibit or restrict a registered club from carrying on an irresponsible drinks promotion on or in connection with the premises of the club.

(2) A drinks promotion is irresponsible if it—

(a) relates specifically to any intoxicating liquor likely to appeal largely to persons under the age of 18,

(b) involves the supply of any intoxicating liquor free of charge or at a reduced price on the purchase of one or more drinks (whether or not intoxicating liquor),

(c) involves the supply free of charge or at a reduced price of one or more extra measures of intoxicating liquor on the purchase of one or more measures of the liquor,

(d) involves the supply of unlimited amounts of intoxicating liquor for a fixed charge (including any charge for entry to the premises),

(e) encourages, or seeks to encourage, a person to obtain or consume a larger measure of intoxicating liquor than the person had otherwise intended to obtain or consume,

(f) is based on the strength of any intoxicating liquor,

(g) rewards or encourages, or seeks to reward or encourage, consuming intoxicating liquor quickly, or

(h) offers intoxicating liquor as a reward or prize, unless the liquor is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises.

(3) Regulations may modify paragraph (2) so as to—

(a) add further descriptions of drinks promotions,

(b) modify any of the descriptions of drinks promotions for the time being listed in it, or

(c) extend or restrict the application of any of those descriptions of drinks promotions.

(4) If any provision of regulations under this Article is contravened—

(a) the registered club,

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention, and

(c) any other person permitting the contravention,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(5) Regulations shall not be made under this Article unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.

(6) In this Article “drinks promotion” means, in relation to the premises of a registered club, any activity which promotes, or seeks to promote, the obtaining or consumption of any intoxicating liquor on the premises.’.”

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 8: After clause 9, insert the following new clause:

“Pricing of intoxicating liquor

9B. After Article 31A of the Registration of Clubs Order (inserted by section (Irresponsible drinks promotions)) insert—

‘Pricing of intoxicating liquor

31B.—(1) Regulations may prohibit or restrict a registered club from varying the price at which intoxicating liquor is supplied on the premises of the club during such period or hours as are specified in the regulations.

(2) If any provision of regulations under this Article is contravened—

(a) the registered club,

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention, and

(c) any other person permitting the contravention,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(3) Regulations shall not be made under this Article unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

No 12: In schedule 2, page 25, line 25, at end insert

“31A(4)

Contravention of regulations as to irresponsible drinks promotions

5-6

31B(2)

Contravention of regulations as to pricing of intoxicating liquor

5-6”

— [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

No 13: In schedule 3, page 26, line 24, at end insert

“ . In Article 2(2) (interpretation) in the definition of ‘regulations’ after ‘subject’ insert ‘(except as otherwise provided in this Order)’. ” — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

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

As I did at Consideration Stage, when a similar group of amendments was moved dealing with other licensed premises, save clubs, I apologise to the Assembly for the late introduction of amendment Nos 7 and 8. This is unusual practice but, as Members are aware, the issue of irresponsible drinks promotion became more crucial and critical during the latter part of last summer, in particular. Consequently, I was minded to do an urgent consultation on a proposal to ban irresponsible drinks promotions, with the consequence that the amendments at Consideration Stage were tabled without there being full scrutiny. Similarly, the amendments before the House today have been tabled without full scrutiny.

However, the amendments aim to ensure that there is the same law across the spread of licensed premises and, subsequently, that the same regulations will apply, if it is the will of the Assembly, across the range of licensed premises. Today’s amendments are consistent with the amendments approved by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, except that these amendments apply to licensed clubs.

During Consideration Stage on 1 February, I introduced amendments that provided for new powers in the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to allow my Department to make regulations to prohibit or restrict irresponsible drinks promotions and other specified pricing promotions. The original policy intention was for that provision to be applicable to premises licensed under the 1996 Order and to clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs Order 1996. That intention was clearly stated in the consultation document on irresponsible promotions, in briefings provided to the Social Development Committee and during my speech at Consideration Stage.

Due to timing and resource constraints, the provisions to be included in the Registration of Clubs Order 1996 could not be finalised in advance of Consideration Stage. Not wishing to delay the progress of the Bill, I stated during Consideration Stage my intention to introduce measures into the Registration of Clubs Order 1996 by way of this amendment at Further Consideration Stage. In effect, therefore, amendment Nos 7 and 8 mirror the provisions included in the Registration of Clubs Order 1996 when the House discussed the Bill on 1 February. Amendment No 7, therefore, provides a power for DSD to make regulations to prohibit or restrict irresponsible drinks promotions. It defines what is meant by a drinks promotion and specifies activities regarded as irresponsible drinks promotions. Irresponsible promotions — those that encourage recipients to consume greater amounts of alcohol than they might otherwise choose to under more normal circumstances — can lead to problems, including health problems, crime and disorder.

I recognise that most registered clubs are well run and their management committees would never permit irresponsible promotions. However, it is important that irresponsible promotions of alcohol are restricted or prohibited on any premises permitted to sell or supply alcohol. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for registered clubs to be permitted to hold promotions that would be illegal if held in pubs. That is the essence and intention of the amendments. I do not intend to outline what might be regarded as an irresponsible drinks promotion. That is included in the Bill as advised by the Office of the Legislative Counsel. It will fall to the Minister for Social Development, whoever he or she may be, to come before the House to table regulations to prohibit or restrict a registered club from varying the price at which intoxicating liquor is supplied on its premises during such period or hours as specified in the regulations. That includes happy hours, as amendment No 8 refers to.

Provision has not been made in the Registration of Clubs Order 1996 to restrict promotions where two or more alcohol products are included in a package. That provision is primarily targeted at off-sales premises, with supermarkets often selling multipacks of canned beer cheaper than water. As registered clubs are not permitted to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, I believe that provision for that in the Registration of Clubs Order 1996 is not necessary at this time.

I recognise that bulk selling might present an issue for on-trade premises, which may, for example, provide five shots for £5 where the price of one is £3. However, I am satisfied that an activity such as that is covered by other examples of irresponsible promotions as provided for in amendment No 6. Furthermore, when making regulations, my Department will be able to modify them or extend or restrict their application and, therefore, has the facility to, if necessary, amend the list by subordinate legislation in light of experience. In line with provisions in the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, it will be a level 5 offence for any premises to hold an irresponsible drinks promotion, and the new penalty points provisions will be amended accordingly.

Amendment Nos 12 and 13 are consequential. Amendment No 12 amends the table of offences with penalty points in schedule 2 to include the penalty points attributable to the offences that relate to the contravention of the regulations governing irresponsible and specified pricing promotions. Amendment No 13 amends schedule 3 to provide that the regulations governing the irresponsible promotions and specified price promotions must be approved in draft by a resolution of the Assembly before being made.

I will make one further comment about a matter that was referred to earlier. It is about any licensed premises that, in a previous regard in respect of advertising, may be on the wrong side of the current law, whatever it might mean. I will reiterate what I said during Consideration Stage: this week, I and Minister Ford are due to meet the Chief Constable, Matt Baggott, about licensing matters that cover the range of licensed premises, not just clubs, where allegations have been made and where there appears to be prima facie evidence of breaches of the current law. We will have that meeting if Minister Ford is available, and he may not be because of a family bereavement in England.

I assure Members that my officials and, no doubt, Mr Ford’s officials, through the assistance of those in licensed premises who are working on the right side of the law, have provided to us prima facie information and had previously provided that evidence to the PSNI on what they considered to be breaches of the law around advertising — although that might not be such an issue in the future — opening hours, closing hours, events that have been run in various licensed premises, and so on. Quite a volume of information and evidence is available in that regard and, as I indicated previously, I shall bring all those matters to the attention of the Chief Constable. I shall urge upon him that, with that level of offence, the PSNI and the other regulatory authorities, including the courts, should take a view and take all necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that the law, in all aspects, is being complied with.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

When many clubs have their general meetings, they present tickets to members that allow them to get free drinks on one day a year. Is that caught in the legislation so that clubs are stopped from doing that?

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

I thank the Member for that intervention. The law enables a future Minister for Social Development to bring regulations before the Assembly. The regulations will define irresponsible drinks promotions. During Consideration Stage, I spoke at some length about what may well be viewed as irresponsible drinks promotions, subject to the approval of the Assembly. I also indicated what might not be viewed as irresponsible drinks promotions, and although it is a matter of judgement and, ultimately, a matter for the Assembly to make a call on, guided by the Minister and subject to the consideration of the Committee, there will be a clear view of what is on the wrong side of being irresponsible and what is on the right side of being responsible.

I do not want to pre-empt the view of a future Minister on the matter that the Member referred to, but if that is a once-a-year or very rare occasion, I would be surprised if a Minister or the Assembly were minded to consider that that was on the wrong side of what is or is not an irresponsible drinks promotion. It is quite clear, however, that there are many other examples of what could be considered irresponsible, and I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time — sooner, rather than later, and, I hope, in a matter of months — a Minister will come to the Assembly to seek its endorsement to rule various promotions as being on the wrong side of the legislation, if the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Where there are allegations of a breach of the law, whether in pubs, clubs or other licensed premises, and, moreover, where it has been claimed that the PSNI is not fulfilling its obligations to enforce the law, I shall bring chapter and verse to the attention of the Chief Constable on Wednesday. I hope that where there is clear evidence of breaches, the police will act in a proportionate manner and will ensure that the law is upheld. I ask the House to support the amendments.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

As I indicated during Consideration Stage, the Committee gave some consideration to irresponsible drinks promotions and how they affect alcohol-fuelled public disorder and other important social problems. The Committee took the view that the whole of the retail alcohol trade, whether on-sales or off-sales, needs to take the issue very seriously.

The amendments relate to irresponsible promotions in the registered club sector. I remind the House that the Committee noted evidence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland that alcohol-fuelled disorder issues were rarely associated with the registered club sector. The question then follows: why should the amendments be considered or agreed? During the Committee’s deliberations, members considered evidence on the competitive tensions between registered clubs on the one hand and pubs and hotels on the other. Some members felt that registered clubs were unfairly and wrongly competing with pubs and hotels, while other members argued that registered clubs made a positive contribution to their communities and were concerned that clubs are struggling to survive.

The Bill, as amended at Consideration Stage, introduced wide-ranging powers to restrict many different kinds of alcohol promotions in licensed premises such as pubs and hotels. The amendments put forward today are designed to ensure that those kinds of promotions will be subject to an equal level of restriction in registered clubs. The Committee generally feels that the amendments are necessary to ensure that registered clubs will not have an unfair advantage over pubs and hotels.

As I said at Consideration Stage, it is regrettable that the regulations of the type proposed by the amendments are felt to be necessary. I call again on those few irresponsible retailers to change their ways. On behalf of the Committee, I encourage the whole licensed trade to bring forward its own code of practice, which will curb all irresponsible promotions, particularly those that may lead to public disorder.

As I indicated at Consideration Stage, the Committee’s support for the amendments in question is dependent on its review of the subsequent regulations and their application to truly problematical alcohol promotions with wider social or public order consequences.

Moving away from making comments as Chairperson of the Committee, I welcome the comments made in the latter part of the Minister’s introduction about his upcoming meeting with the Chief Constable. That is particularly important in the context of the Bill and the wash-up that is included because it has enlightened me, the Committee, the Minister and the whole House on some of the issues that are prevalent in the licensed sector. Evidence in the Committee’s report includes a representative of the club sector freely acknowledging that breaches of the licensing regime happen on a very regular basis. The point is that we either have a licensing regime or we do not. The current conditions exist for very good reasons, not least to ensure that no particular advantage is given to one sector or that it does not encourage bad behaviour. Therefore, I think that that meeting is very important.

I do not think that anybody here is getting particularly het up about infractions that occur because of an oversight or misunderstanding about the law, but we are particularly concerned about repeat offences and breaches of the licensing laws, which are happening regularly by repeat offenders, probably in the full knowledge of what they are doing. There is an important need to stress that we value the current regime, otherwise, legislating as we have elsewhere in the Bill to have the penalty points regime is pointless. If we are going to have a penalty points system to enforce certain aspects of the law, it needs to be backed up by robust action taken by the police and the courts. Otherwise, we are legislating for fun. There is no point in us legislating if the people whose job it is to enforce the law do not take it seriously. Given some of the evidence that the Committee and the House has heard in previous stages of debate, there are questions about how seriously the current regime is being taken. Therefore, I particularly welcome the Minister’s comments.

The second group of amendments are, effectively, just being consistent with what is happening for pubs, hotels and bars. That is to be welcomed, not least because we do not want to have any sort of distinction. An irresponsible promotion is such whether it is in a registered club or in a pub. I do not think that we can make any exceptions. We have to be very clear that if a promotion is irresponsible, we cannot have the situation in which it is permitted in one establishment but not in another. I reiterate the point about what constitutes an irresponsible promotion. Following an intervention from Mr McCann, the Minister seemed to indicate that the type of promotion that Mr McCann was talking about, where you can drink all you can for free for a day, was not irresponsible. Equally, it could be interpreted that encouraging people to drink all that they can for free because they are club members has very much been caught by the Bill. It highlights the need for the Assembly to be clear.

That is why the Bill is good. It gives examples of what might be considered irresponsible promotions, rather than being definitive. The Member or, indeed, his successor, in bringing forward future regulations, needs to be careful that, in trying to catch what are transparently irresponsible promotions, he does not catch others that would not be regarded by most people to be irresponsible or, certainly, were not intended to be so and were not taken up irresponsibly by individuals.

The big message that should come from the amendments should be the Assembly’s encouragement of all sectors, including registered clubs, pubs and hotels, to act responsibly by their own accord. The Assembly is about to take a power to outlaw irresponsible drinks promotions. Sectors need to realise that they must act. As I said at Consideration Stage, in many respects, it would be best if the Assembly did not have to make regulations to outlaw irresponsible drinks promotions and the sectors took it upon themselves not to behave irresponsibly. The Minister or, indeed, his successor is being armed to go to the pub sector, the hotel sector and the registered club sector to tell them that the Department now has the power to outlaw irresponsible drinks promotions and that it is up to them to take it upon themselves to act voluntarily. That would be more welcome than the Assembly having to bring in regulations.

I am very much attracted by some examples of good behaviour, such as ongoing work by the alcohol forum in the north-west and Foyle. That is a good example of local authorities and others engaging on a voluntary basis those who sell alcohol in the community and trying to work out some of the problems that are addressed in the Bill. That approach is preferable in the longer term than simply outlawing things. It is to the Assembly’s advantage to take that power. Hopefully, it will not need to use it and sectors will behave responsibly, but, at least, that power will exist.

I seek clarification from the Minister. Although I understand the situation, I believe that it may be worth putting it on record. The clubs sector is concerned about its advantage in being able to sell alcohol at lower prices due to members’ fees and having lower overheads than pubs. The Bill does not affect its ability to do that. There may be future legislation on minimum pricing that may affect it. However, the Bill does not. It is worth putting on record that the Bill does not impinge on pricing policy — at this stage, anyway — but, rather, deals with how clubs promote the sale of alcohol on their premises. With all those issues considered, I very much welcome the second group of amendments.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call Mrs Mary Bradley.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not wish to speak.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call the Minister for Social Development to make his winding-up speech on the second group of amendments.

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

I thank the contributor to the debate on the second group of amendments. I will make one or two comments. First, I concur with the Committee Chairperson that what the licensed industry does of its own accord to positively encourage its members and licensed premises to act responsibly is important. As I said at Consideration Stage, we saw proof of that last summer, when Pubs of Ulster moved positively to deal with what was viewed to be irresponsible drinks promotions by a licensed outlet in the city of Belfast. At Consideration Stage, Mr Ramsey indicated that he was aware of what he considered to be ongoing irresponsible drinks promotions in the city of Derry, which had occurred the very week prior to the Consideration Stage debate. Therefore, although the licensed trade does intervene positively to encourage responsible practice, it remains the case that there are examples — hopefully, not many — of when the positive encouragement of the licensed trade falls on deaf ears when it comes to certain licensed premises. That is why it is very important to put in place a legal regime, as we are doing today, to mitigate the actions of those who, despite positive encouragement from their peers, continue to fall on the wrong side of the law or good practice when it comes to drinks promotions. That is why this week’s meeting with the Chief Constable is important. Beyond the positive encouragement of the licensed trade and the legal regime that the Assembly might vote for, we need to have the right enforcement. Without the right enforcement, bad cases will go unpunished and bad practice that will have bad outcomes for the quality and welfare of people’s lives will begin to embed itself in what will, hopefully, be a very small sector of the licensed trade.

Simon Hamilton also raised the issue of minimum pricing. The Minister of Health and I are very close to signing off the consultation document on minimum pricing. I hope that that consultation document will go out quickly and will receive a generally positive endorsement. I can confirm to the House that the licensed trade, its representatives and the various trade bodies, as well as some of the major commercial outlets in the North, are watching this issue closely and making firm representations about their views on minimum pricing.

Without anticipating the outcome of the consultation, I believe that the Assembly, a future Minister and the Executive will have to be very strong on this matter, because there is going to be a lot of pressure brought to bear. In being strong, we should try, not only to get minimum pricing over the line and be the first jurisdiction on these islands so to do, but to make sure that the minimum price is effective, not set too low, and set sufficiently high so as to ensure that a new discipline is created, especially around bulk purchases. That will ensure that the worst impact of excess alcohol and any impact of excessive alcohol are mitigated. I endorse the amendments.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Finance and Personnel

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

Questions 5, 7 and 8 have been withdrawn. A written response is required for questions 7 and 8.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his assessment of the recent joint statement by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, which asserts that the planned cuts in capital budgets for next year will put the recovery of the economy in jeopardy. (AQO 1021/11)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Members will be aware that the spending review revealed a major cut of 40% in our capital spending over the next four years. That will have an impact on the local economy, particularly the construction sector, which now relies heavily on contracts placed by the public sector. About 56% of employment in the construction industry now depends on public sector contracts.

We took a number of steps in the draft Budget. We switched £252 million from current to capital spending. We also sought to supplement the resources available to the Executive through the sale of public assets, divesting ourselves of assets that we believe we no longer require. That will give us about another £450 million of assets to put into capital expenditure. Hopefully, by doing that, by the end of 2014-15 we will be spending £1·5 billion in that year on capital projects. That is in keeping with the long-term trend of capital spending for the Executive.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that there is a need for additional fiscal powers to enable this Administration, and perhaps others, to better promote economic recovery and greater accountability, particularly of the banking sector? I heard representatives of the Scottish and Welsh Administrations make the point that there was a need for additional fiscal powers.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have to be very careful. As we saw in the debate about corporation tax, the Treasury will be happy in some instances to give more fiscal powers to the Executive. However, that always comes at a price. Those fiscal powers will never be granted without a monetary attachment.

If you are granted a fiscal power, but money is taken from you so that less is available in the block grant, the overall impact could be negative. We have to look within our existing resources to see the best way to release more money. I have also been exploring with people in the construction and insurance industries other ways in which we might draw money into the Executive without impacting on the block grant.

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

The 10-year capital expenditure programme agreed by the former Prime Minister was not honoured by the coalition Government and is, I understand, going to the dispute resolution process of the Joint Ministerial Committee in London. Is the Minister optimistic about a successful outcome, and when will we know whether the Treasury will reverse the 40% cut to our capital budget?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not a case of reversing the 40% cut but of honouring the pledge to make capital spending available in Northern Ireland over the 10-year period. That pledge was made because we ran down our infrastructure during the Troubles, because money was diverted to spend on the security of Northern Ireland. As a result, we have been left with an infrastructure that is, in many cases, creaking and in need of repair. That is why the investment package was there.

We will simply be aiming for a recommitment that the £18 billion that was promised over the period will be delivered. Under the current spending plans open to us, there is no way that that £18 billion commitment will be met over the budgetary period.

We have to ensure that the Treasury and the Government stand by their commitments. My officials are discussing several issues with them. First, they are asking how they reached their figures. Secondly, they are asking how they expect us to spend £4 billion in the last two years of the investment plan, which is what we would have to do to meet the £18 billion target? Thirdly, they are discussing how we can ensure that the resources are spread more evenly so that we can have a proper planned investment of capital over the remaining Budget period?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

How would the Minister respond to sections of the business community that have criticised the Executive for being too timid in transferring money from current expenditure to capital expenditure? Will he seek to avoid making a bad situation worse by blocking those Ministers who want to raid their already poor capital budgets to pay for current expenditure during the next year?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have a lot of sympathy for the point that is being made by the business community. One of the reasons why we switched £252 million from current spending to capital spending was because of the arguments that were made by the business community.

I listened to a programme on Sunday as I was driving down the road, and steam started coming out of my ears. Business pundits were talking about the Executive being too timid, not switching enough into capital spend, and everything else. Yet, at the same time, they were saying that we must spend more money on health, training and education. I will probably not make too many friends in the business community by saying this, but they cannot have it all ways. We have a finite budget. If they want to switch money from current spending to capital spending, sacrifices will have to be made. It is very easy for the armchair critics to sit back and say that we have been timid, but all that they suggest is spending more money, not how to relocate the existing amount of money.

I hope, because it was a considered decision by the Executive to switch from current to capital, and it was the right thing to do, that we hold to that decision and that Ministers will not take the easy way out and try to put some of their capital fund back into current spending. I hope that Ministers look at some of the things that they have to do in their Departments to ensure that they cut back on current spending so that we can deliver on the capital programme, which is so important in the long run to delivering a good economic infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Government also made a pledge, as part of the devolution resettlement, to allow access to Treasury reserves for any bid made for policing requests. As the Minister with lead responsibility for negotiations, can he update us on any progress on the £200 million bid that the Chief Constable made to the Treasury?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not think that the £200 million access to the contingency fund was ever in any doubt. Indeed, the Westminster Government made it clear that they would honour it. At one stage, they went a wee bit shaky on it and said that access to the fund would be granted only after we had looked at our own resources. The suggestion was that we would get access to the fund only once we had gone through our monitoring rounds and looked at our reduced requirements to see whether we could, within our existing budgets, meet the demands of the Chief Constable. The Treasury has since firmed up on that and made it quite clear that the £200 million is available.

The second issue was whether or not the Chief Constable could guarantee that money and build it into his planning because of the dissident and security threat that his force was facing. The argument that the Treasury made was that the commitment was always going to be year on year, and that funding would have to be applied for annually, which would not necessarily have guaranteed that the money was spent in the best way. There have been extensive negotiations on that. My officials have been in discussion with the Treasury. We are going in the right direction, and we will be able to have not only access to it, but access in advance so that proper planning for that money and how it is spent can take place.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the current position in relation to the resolution of issues surrounding the Presbyterian Mutual Society. (AQO 1022/11)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The ministerial working group, the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and I, on behalf of the Executive, have managed to secure from the Government the resources necessary, first, for a £175 million loan and, secondly, for a £25 million contribution to the mutual access fund. Of course, as the Member will know from the Budget discussions that we have had, we have already allocated £25 million from our own Budget in Northern Ireland to that fund. We are also expecting a contribution of at least £1 million —although I hope that it will be substantially more that that — from the Presbyterian Church, which has a responsibility in all of this, so that we can ensure that the small savers get a large proportion of their money back in the first instance.

The arrangements and details of the fund are being worked out by DETI. As far as repayment is concerned, a scheme will be put forward for acceptance by the savers. The £175 million will have to be repaid first, because it is a loan that the Executive have taken out. Once the property starts to be sold, the savers will get their money, and the repayment to the mutual access fund will come after that. If there is any surplus, the administrator will decide how it is to be distributed.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that information and breakdown. Investors seem to feel that there is some ambiguity about whether they will have to pay back the £25 million contribution from the Northern Ireland Budget.

If devolution were not in place, could the deal have been delivered? I am talking about the overall package of £175 million.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

From the very start, we have sought to ensure that the Executive would help those who were hurt financially as the result of the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS). Had we not had devolution and the commitment from the Ministers whom I mentioned earlier, there would have been no rescue package for the Presbyterian Mutual Society savers; their money would have been long gone. Considerable resources are involved. I know the resources that my Department discussed at official and at ministerial levels. I also know about the political capital that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister expended and the tireless efforts of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in dealing with the problem. That would not have happened had we not had devolution.

There are those who I think wish that we had not been successful in getting this arrangement. I am talking about the kind of whingers that we have in the TUV, who scrutinise every statement to see how they can unsettle the savers in the Presbyterian Mutual Society. I think that they would prefer for those savers to lose out so that could make some cynical political capital from that.

He has been talked about as the Mr Nasty of Northern Ireland politics, but he is also the Mr Grumpy and the Mr Cynical of Northern Ireland politics. Of course, we all know who we are talking about — the leader of the TUV, who leads a party with very few followers. He is looking for a platform —

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

Minister, your two minutes are up.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

He thinks that he can somehow or other capitalise on the misfortune of savers to give himself a political platform.

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

We all hope that a sound rescue plan for the PMS savers can be put in place. Does the Minister agree that, if the Assembly is to lend £200 million to the scheme, Members, who will vote on the matter, are entitled to have the full details of an independent assessment of the risk involved in the scheme, not merely an assurance from the Minister?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister is required to do the due diligence exercise, which the Department has carried out. Believe you me, given the hoops that we have had to jump through for the Treasury, it has not been an easy exercise. We said all along that this is a 10-year deal, which shows the Executive’s commitment. However, it depends on what happens in the property market. It is not without risk, and I do not want to be accused of trying to hide the risks involved. Members will have to vote on it on the basis that there is no guarantee at the end of the period that 100% of the commitments will be realised.

However, that is true of any situation that relies on the sale of property that has been devalued and in which there is a 10-year period over which that value has to be recouped. Neither the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the First Minister and deputy First Minister nor I have ever tried to hide that, which is why we wanted the mutual access fund and the contribution from Westminster, which we have been able to secure.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

There are many Mr Men about in politics from time to time, including Mr Funny. In light of some of the questions, I do not detect Members being begrudging on the issue, except what the previous Member to ask a question was driving at.

Will the Minister confirm that the status of the very welcome contribution by the Northern Ireland Executive is not a loan?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are three parts to the Executive’s contribution. First, there is the £175 million that we will raise through the RRI: that is a loan that has to be repaid, and interest will be attached to it. Secondly, there is a financial contribution of £25 million from the Executive, which is contained in the Budget: that is a loan that will have to be repaid. The third element is a £25 million contribution from the Treasury: that is a gift to the Northern Ireland Executive, not a loan to the Presbyterian Mutual Society. Should money be available to cover that at the end of the period, it is up to the administrator as to how it is distributed.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, given the withdrawal of end-year flexibility, where the funding will come from to allow schools to access carried-over resources. AQO 1023/11

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is important to clarify that there was never an expectation of the Executive having to make an immediate payment from the accumulated reserves saved in the schools sector. Although the Executive may have lost access to all their accumulated end-year flexibility (EYF) stock through the unilateral and punitive actions of the Treasury, that does not undermine the prudent scheme that operated in the education sector. As the Member knows, school boards of governors were encouraged to exercise their function under the local management of schools (LMS), which enabled schools to carry savings from one year to the next. It was good budget practice, and it enabled them to save for two or three years for large items of expenditure that were required and that they could not achieve in one year. Such practice can continue into the forthcoming Budget period, and we assured schools that they can do that. Indeed, we assured schools that we want them to continue to do that. If the issue had been handled differently, the concerns of schools might not have arisen in the first place.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There has also been an indication that the Minister of Education may be preparing to convert some capital finance to resource finance. Is that feasible and practical in the current framework, and, if so, does it need the approval of the Executive or the Department of Finance and Personnel?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is technically feasible because, as I stated in an earlier answer, we switched £252 million of our current spending into capital spending.

Normally, the money that the Treasury gives us for capital spending cannot be turned into current spending, but, because we voluntarily made that switch, we can switch it back if we wish. However, Ministers cannot simply do that; they must ask permission because the Budget statement makes it clear that the money has been switched into capital. If it has to be switched back, Executive approval is required.

Is it desirable? In an answer I gave previously to a Member, I indicated that it is not the situation that we would like to see. Only after a lot of consideration did we switch the current money into the capital purse. We did that for very good reasons, which, as far as I am concerned, still pertain. I would like that amount of money to be left intact.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

Does the Minister agree with me that, to challenge the British Treasury’s smash-and-grab tactics, discussions with his Scottish and Welsh counterparts will assist him in ensuring that we can move forward on a joint platform?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not rise to the bait that my colleague on my left would like me to in discussing “smash-and-grab tactics” and everything else. I know that he is being mischievous and that he would like me to be mischievous. Most times, I would not mind indulging him, but I will not today.

The Member has made a very important point. He is right. Ours is not the only area to have suffered. Wales lost £385 million in the raid on in-year flexibility reserves. Scotland lost considerably less than that, but, nevertheless, it lost money. All three Finance Ministers have collectively raised this with the Treasury. Only last week I signed off on a letter from all three of us to the Treasury on the issue.

A new scheme will be introduced in the March Budget, and that fact shows that its withdrawal was a cynical exercise. The Treasury knows that we have to have some way of carrying some money over from one year to the next; otherwise all we will do is blow the money on things that are perhaps not necessary and not good expenditure. Sometimes, towards the end of the year, a capital scheme may slip, and we need to have the flexibility to carry over that money. The Treasury knows that we need such a method. Good, prudent management of resources indicates that we need it, and that is why the Treasury will reintroduce the scheme. I suspect that the only reason that the Treasury stopped it was because it saw that there was probably £800 million in the three devolved Administrations and decided to have some of it.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I declare an interest as a governor of Regent House Grammar School and Donaghadee Primary School. Does the Minister agree that the savings were made through the good financial stewardship of schools that were prepared to make some short-term gain in the long-term best interests of the pupils? It is vital, as has been said, that that money is guaranteed, as schools have been let down by the Conservative Party — a party that the questioner campaigned for at the last election.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I have made clear, it is important that schools have that flexibility. I have given an assurance, and people have asked how I can do it. My assurance is that not only will schools have access to the money that they have already saved, they will be able to continue to behave as they have in the past, saving up to 5% of their school’s budget every year and carrying it over.

That can be done because the scheme is self-financing. Some schools will save money. Others, which have saved money, will spend their savings. By and large, over the period in which this has been operating, the amount of money that flowed in from new schools saving was offset by the schools that decided to spend what they had saved. Therefore, there has never really been a draw. In some years, there might be a small imbalance. Maybe more savings will be withdrawn than will be put in, or more will go in than go out, but that can be dealt with in the in-year monitoring rounds.

There is nothing for schools to fear. Even without end-year flexibility, we can do things internally in Northern Ireland. I want to get that message over to schools, because I do not want them to feel that they have to squander money at the end of the year and not adhere to the sound financial planning to which the Member referred.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on discussions he has had with local banks regarding increasing lending to local businesses. (AQO 1024/11)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I met representatives of local banks and the Institute of Directors on 6 December 2010 to discuss actions that could be taken to improve access to business finance and customer relations. The meeting was attended by representatives from the British Bankers’ Association, Barclays Bank, Ulster Bank, Bank of Ireland, First Trust Bank, Northern Bank, Santander and HSBC. We discussed the implementation of the recommendations contained in the British Bankers’ Association’s business finance task force report. That report included 17 recom­mendations, not all of which are particularly applicable to Northern Ireland, but we wanted to determine which of them could be applicable and whether they would be applied in context. We hope to have a second meeting to discuss progress on the implementation of the report.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he believe that the recent bail out in the Irish Republic will have any negative consequences for the Northern Ireland banking sector?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have great concerns, which I have already raised on a number of occasions with Brian Lenihan, the Minister for Finance. My two concerns are as follows: first, the recent bail out indicates that there has to be a restructuring of the Irish banks. That could mean some branches being sold or the representations of Irish banks in Northern Ireland being reduced. There will be implications for jobs, for the banking network and for competition.

My second concern is that, as a result of the bail out, the banks have been told that their reserves are much too low and that they have to get their balance sheets in a healthier position and get their reserve levels up. That means that any cash that comes in has to be used to build up reserves, with the result that there is less money available for lending. That will have an impact on Northern Ireland businesses.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister is well aware that, when it comes to bank lending to businesses, although very often what is counted is the total amount that is lent to businesses to allow them to secure and grow, the terms that are applied and the interest rates that are attached are often what really counts.

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

The Member must ask a question.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What discussions has he had with the banks to improve those conditions for local businesses?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have had extensive discussions, although I am not always happy with the explanations that I am given. For example, it stretches the imagination as to how one local bank can now charge 11·49% over the Bank of England base rate for overdraft facilities. Out of the blue, some banks have forced people to pay huge fees to renegotiate their terms, even though they have been paying their loans or keeping their overdrafts within limits. I have never had a satisfactory explanation from the banks as to why that is being done. Some businesses are so badly down on their knees that the banks do not go after them, and I am worried that the banks go after businesses that are viable and have prospects, because they can get cash from them. The banks pursue those businesses, and the danger in doing so is they are going to damage good, viable businesses in Northern Ireland and put them in a situation in which they cannot grow or continue to operate.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether his Department is conducting any research to advance the drug treatments available to those suffering from motor neuron disease. (AQO 1035/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

No studies on drug treatment for motor neuron disease are under way in any of our health and social care trusts. Furthermore, health and social care research and development, which is in the division of the Public Health Agency that allocates research funding provided by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, is not currently funding any such studies.

Research into new treatments, including new drugs, is typically undertaken by the pharmaceutical industry or in specialised institutes and laboratories across the world. If new treatments were to become available in the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) would be expected to assess them. NICE rigorously and independently assesses drugs and treatments and provides guidance to my Department on their use. That guidance is then assessed for its applicability to Northern Ireland.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Is his Department being proactive in co-operating and keeping abreast of developments through its counterparts in the South? Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, for example, is taking part in international trials for new drugs that may benefit sufferers of motor neuron disease. If those are approved, will the Department make them available to sufferers in the North?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I was not aware that those trials were ongoing specifically in a hospital in Dublin. Trials are typically ongoing in a number of hospitals and in a number of countries. However, if new treatments become available after research, they will be assessed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. It is on its recommendation that the Health Service is then able to fund particular treatments.

I understand Mr McKay’s questions. It is a particularly difficult condition with a poor life expectancy. Work on the condition is ongoing. If we got the appropriate drugs that gave sufferers any anticipation of progress, I would not be slow in coming forward.

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

Will the Minister advise the House whether he agrees with the Belfast Trust’s decision to close neurology beds at the Royal Victoria Hospital? Does he have any concerns that it took that decision without consultation?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

There have been changes to the neurology unit in the Royal Victoria Hospital. Those have not altered the hospital’s capacity to deliver the care that it delivers regionally. There have been ongoing discussions which, I believe, have been presented to the Health Committee. One of the big issues about the neurology clinic is the state of the building, which certainly needs investment. However, I am assured that the reconfiguration of beds in no way limits that clinic’s capacity.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many times interim management and support (IMAS) has been called into trusts in the last three years. (AQO 1036/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

At the request of the trusts concerned, the interim management and support team made one-day visits to the A&E departments at Altnagelvin and the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. IMAS reported the findings of each visit in a letter to the respective trusts. IMAS separately provided input to the Northern and Southern Trusts in respect of the implementation of the service reforms.

I understand that IMAS is also working with the Health and Social Care Board and trusts in respect of the development of mental health services. When I established the Health and Social Care Board, I gave it responsibility for all performance management and improvement across health and social care organisations. I also expect all trusts to continuously look to improve how they deliver services to patients.

During 2009-2010, the board worked with trusts to secure improvements in performance against set standards for waiting times in A&E departments. As part of that process, additional external support for trusts was made available in the form of the IMAS team. I do not need to be advised about all that work as it is normal business and should be treated as such. I expect and require to be told of any serious issues or incidents. However, in respect of the IMAS visits, there were no unresolved issues of which I needed to be formally advised.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. It cost almost £10,000 for IMAS to review the Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. Does that mean that the Minister has come to the view that that was not proper? What is the position on asking the RQIA to carry out such a review, given that it has been used quite extensively in the past?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I think that the figure for all of the IMAS work in Northern Ireland is £11,000. If I am incorrect about that, I will write to the Member. My information is that the cost of IMAS going into the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children was more like £3,000, but we will not fall out over a few thousand pounds. As I say, I will write to the Member about that.

The IMAS recommendations are part and parcel of the work done in the Health Service to seek constant improvements and efficiencies and to benchmark against actions that are undertaken in other parts of the UK. The interim management and support service, which is available to all trusts throughout the UK, makes recommendations on a frequent basis. It looks at certain procedures and makes recommendations. It looked at the procedures in Altnagelvin hospital, for example, and decided that those were worth taking to other parts of the United Kingdom.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Following the IMAS review and the discussions held between it and the Health and Social Care Board, will the Minister outline what reports he has received as a result and whether Assembly Members or the Health Committee will have sight of those?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I normally expect to see reports of a serious nature and those about serious incidents. That is part and parcel of the routine work done in the Health Service. The performance management and improvement sector in the Health and Social Care Board is very much about delivering efficiencies and better practice. It does not simply measure what is done but looks at ways to do things better. If it discovers a serious incident, I expect it to report that to me.

Routine work such as that — there are reviews ongoing all the time, such as value-for-money audits the whole way through — is normal practice. Indeed, the RQIA, which was mentioned, routinely goes into nursing and residential homes and fashions reports. If the RQIA sees something seriously adverse, I would see its report about that. That is part and parcel of what we look at in business. I spent many years in business, so I am familiar with that sort of routine performance management and improvement and with seeking productivity gains.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister said that he expects to see IMAS reports about serious matters. Does he agree that Members of the House should not read in the local newspapers about serious matters being investigated by IMAS? In what circumstances does he believe that such reports should be shared with Members?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave to Mr Campbell other than to advise the Member that just because something is in a paper does not mean that it is true. Just because a paper says that something is serious does not mean that it is. For example, a recent headline in a local paper stated that the A&E at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children was unsafe. IMAS never said that, but that was the interpretation used. So, I think that Members need to guard against that type of headline.

Reports go routinely to the board, and the board meets monthly and always in public session. I report routinely to the House, as I am doing today, and to the Committee, so there is constant reporting. If reports are serious, we will, of course, bring those reports forward. I expect to be told about such reports, and, when I am not told about them, I get upset, as does the House. However, please do not assume that because something is in a newspaper it is true.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action he intends to take to restore public confidence in the Western Health and Social Care Trust following recent negative reports. (AQO 1037/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Members are aware that the Regional Health and Social Care Board recently carried out a review of aspects of the performance of the Western Health and Social Care Trust. That review concluded that the performance standards that the trust is required to meet in respect of those issues have now been fully restored. The trust and the board took appropriate, responsive and proportionate action to make sure that issues were resolved and that there was no ongoing risk or danger.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that he would agree that the confidence of the public is paramount to trust in the trust. Will the Minister give an assurance today that we will see a turnaround in the future from, to put it mildly, all that bad publicity? In the past, the Western Trust has received a considerable number of negative comments. Will the Minister assure the House that we have heard the last of those negative comments?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I say to Lord Morrow that I cannot give him that assurance, because of what I have already said in answer to Mr Callaghan’s question. I cannot legislate for or determine what people are liable to read in the newspapers or the comments made in the newspapers. However, I can tell the Member that, for example, we have responded to that business in the Western Trust. There were a number of issues, and I can go through them as required. There was a full review of imaging in Altnagelvin. Let me also assure him that we had a governance review. What we concluded on top of that is that there are no concerns about the quality of the professional performance of the doctors, nurses and health professionals, who all perform well.

As far as some of the issues are concerned, some of the headlines were disgraceful. However, there are a couple of issues. For example, the issue at the reporting stage of X-rays is completely unacceptable. I have said to the House that that is not acceptable and I will not tolerate it. That is why we have taken the steps that we have.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. I appreciate what the Minister said. I remind him that, last week, he also said that he would be shocked if it were true that two of the four patients who had a delay in their cancer diagnosis were informed of that only on the day that the board and the trust appeared in front of the Health Committee. The Minister has probably discovered that that was, in fact, the case. Given that the reviews that he talked about are carried out internally —

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

Question.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

This is a very important matter. The question is: will the Minister extend the independent review of oral medicine that he spoke about last week to include the debacle at Altnagelvin hospital? We still do not know how many patients the 18,500 X-rays represent.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have ordered the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority to inquire not simply into reporting at Altnagelvin but reporting throughout all the trusts to ensure that we have a uniform and consistent high standard. That should give confidence to everyone.

Since Ms Anderson made her comments last week, I have enquired into when patients were told. I am assured by the trust that no patient was notified of their diagnosis as late as 3 February. Indeed, all diagnoses were available. I am told that patients were advised of their late diagnosis and that there were concerns about four of those patients on 8 July 2010, in September 2010, on 14 October 2010 and in November 2010. I am very interested to know whether the Member has information to show that the information that I have been given is incorrect. That is what I was assured by the trust. Patients have a right to be told immediately, and it is important to ensure that that happened.

The Member is also aware that Altnagelvin had a requirement for 13 consultant radiologists and got nine. At that stage, equipment needed to be replaced, and that has since been done. There have been improvements, and, clearly, the service is where it should be now.

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

Will the Minister admit that thousands of employees of the Western Trust and other trusts that have been the subject of controversial reports are dismayed and demoralised about those reports? They are not high earners; they are the lower paid and very hard-working employees —

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

Question, please.

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

What consideration has the Minister given to their problems?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr Gallagher makes an important point: staff are frequently dismayed and demoralised by the frequent criticisms and comments about their performance. If someone comments on trusts or hospitals, it is the people who work in those trusts or hospitals they are talking about, and, if someone complains about a service, the people who deliver that service are being complained about. All too often as I work through complaints, I discover that they are routinely unfounded. Where those complaints stand up, we will deal with them.

I will repeat what has been discovered in the considerations and what I have reported: there are no concerns about the quality of professional performance. We have very good staff throughout our Health Service, and we should be proud of them. They need, deserve and merit our support, instead of what I see as constant, almost guerrilla warfare against the Health Service from some sectors, particularly some parts of the media. I regret that because it has an effect on morale.

Around 70% of costs in the Health Service are wages. Around 80% of the staff are female and are overwhelmingly low-paid. They do a huge job, and they do not do it for the money. They do it to provide a service. I empathise with the sentiments behind Mr Gallagher’s remarks.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Does the Minister have any progress reports from the Western Health and Social Care Trust on the developments at the south-west hospital and its progress?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The south-west hospital is a major investment that I was able to announce in July 2007. It will be an acute hospital in that area that will deliver services for generations to come. There is much more to be done. The capital infrastructure of health in Northern Ireland is extremely poor. Many of our hospitals are 50 years old or older, and many of the mental health institutions that we operate in are 100 years old or older.

The Member will be aware that I prioritised four major capital projects: the Ulster Hospital ward block; the maternity unit at the Royal; and the Omagh local hospital and Altnagelvin radiotherapy unit in the Western Trust area. However, I need support from the House to enable me to provide adequate resources to deliver the four major capital projects that I am looking at.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether the future of the accident and emergency facility at the Mater Hospital, Belfast is secure. (AQO 1038/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Mater Hospital, including the accident and emergency department, will continue to be an essential part of the network of hospitals that provide high-quality care to the people requiring the services of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure he is aware that speculation is doing the rounds that the accident and emergency facility at the Mater Hospital is to be downgraded as a prelude to closure. Can he reassure us on that? Has he given the Belfast Trust a directive that the accident and emergency facility should not be downgraded and should not be closed?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The way Mr Sheehan spoke was almost as if the accusation was that we are downgrading the A&E and that the hospital was closing. That is the sort of speculation that goes around, and I think Mr Sheehan has a strong role to play in ensuring that such speculation does not take hold. I have said many times in the House that the Mater Hospital plays a key and integral role in the delivery of hospital services in Belfast. Although the recommendation in the Developing Better Services strategy is for a local hospital, I have made the point that we see it very much as part of the Belfast delivery through the Royal, City and Mater Hospitals. The Mater Hospital is the regional centre for ophthalmology for the whole of Northern Ireland. It has a theatre block that, frankly, surgery in Belfast could not survive without. The future of the Mater Hospital is absolutely assured, and I have had discussions with the authorities about that.

I have no plans whatsoever at the moment to close A&E at the Mater. It will continue. It has around 40,000 visits a year, which is a number that we could not replicate as things stand. We can take comfort from that. As the service evolves, there will be changes. I cannot say that this, that or the other will be there for ever and a day. I am still the Minister, and I will be for a number of weeks yet, Tom Elliott permitting — [Laughter.]

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

And the voters.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

There will be no changes to the A&E department. I am confident of the voters, as is Mr Storey.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister provide certainty and clarity to the House on the retention of all medical care at the Mater as it currently exists?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I could not say that about any hospital in Northern Ireland, including the Royal, the City and Altnagelvin. The delivery of services is evolving all the time. We will see changes, as I have said repeatedly. If, for example, a patient has cancer, they will not go to the Royal, the main regional hospital, they will go to the City because that is where the specialism is. If, on the other hand, someone, God forbid, were to go through the windscreen of their car on the way home, they will not go to the City. The chances are that they will go to the Royal. It is about specialism as well. We have specialism in delivering services because patients do better that way. That is what achieves the best outcomes.

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

I warmly welcome the Minister’s reassurances on the Mater accident and emergency unit and the hospital at large. I remind the House that a previous Minister, Bairbre de Brún, had major plans to diminish the Mater Hospital. Thank goodness that that was prevented by me and other Members.

Will the Minister consider the sharing of psychiatric services between the City Hospital and the Mater? A decision has been made to transfer, in part at least, psychiatric services to the City Hospital.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

That decision will be very much informed by the Bamford review of mental health. The proposal is for a single acute mental health hospital for the city of Belfast. There is also a strong lobby for such a unit to be on an acute site because of the stigma associated with mental health. It should be seen in the same way as any other type of acute medicine. There is a consultation and, in due course, the report will be made public. I do not want to pre-empt it. However, with or without the acute psychiatric hospital, the Mater Hospital’s future, as far as I can see, is assured. It has a very important role to play in the delivery of hospital services in Belfast. I see it very much as an extension of the Royal and the City complexes in Belfast and as a regional centre for ophthalmology and a number of other services and specialities.

Dawn Purvis (Independent, Belfast East)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if he will issue a directive to ensure that funding for Home-Start schemes continues beyond March 2011. (AQO 1039/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Since the children’s fund came to an end in March 2008, I have provided resources from my budget to continue to assist projects that were previously supported by the fund. Activities that contribute to the aims and objectives of my Department are being carried out. Those included four locally based Home-Start schemes: Down district; Armagh and Dungannon; Newry and Mourne; and Ards, Comber and peninsula area. I am committed to providing funding for those schemes until the end of the current financial year. As the Member knows, the Executive’s draft Budget is out for public consultation. Until it is agreed, work on the detail of my Department’s budget cannot be finalised. That means that, at this time, I am unable to give guarantees to any groups about the availability of funding beyond March 2011.

Dawn Purvis (Independent, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will agree that Home-Start is a good example of preventative spending on an early intervention programme for vulnerable families that keeps children out of care, thereby improving their lifetime opportunities and actually saving the public purse the cost of services — potentially £300,000 a child — in later life. What priority has the Minister given to such preventative spending measures in his budget?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Ms Purvis will be aware that I place great store by preventative spending. One of the proofs of that is, of course, the establishment of the Public Health Agency and all the work that it does, including the funding of more than 600 projects along those lines.

I should also say that, when the children’s fund was abolished, all Departments had an opportunity to step in and pick up the funds that they saw as essential. As far as I know, my Department was the only one to step in, which we did in the case of Home-Start. We have funded around 25 Home-Start projects throughout Northern Ireland. Most of those are funded by money that comes from the trusts. Four of them were funded through the Department with project money, and they were told to seek alternative sources of funding by the end of March 2011. I understand that three of them — Down district, Armagh and Dungannon, and Newry and Mourne — have done that and are getting funding from the trusts. Furthermore, the trusts have assured them that they will continue to buy their services come April 2011. The fourth Home-Start scheme has still to make the step, and I am encouraging and will continue to encourage it to do so. As the only Minster who stepped in to support the type of activity that was previously provided through the children’s fund, I feel that my record on the importance of Home-Start is clear.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Since the demise of the Executive programme fund for children, how are cross-cutting issues that affect many Departments being gauged effectively to ensure that benefits are shared? Does the Minister agree that gaps have arisen since the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister decided to axe Executive programme funding?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I agree entirely with Mr Beggs. The children’s fund was set up by the previous Executive and carried on through the direct rule interregnum until we came back into office, at which point the abolition of the children’s fund was one of the first things to happen. I regret that, because so many of its projects were of real value in the area of prevention. That is why my Department stepped in to support the Home-Start schemes. I regret that a number of schemes that would have provided great support for children in need have gone by the wayside.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I share my colleague for East Belfast’s regard for the Home-Start scheme. In the absence of such schemes, how will the Minister provide early intervention measures for hard-to-reach families and children?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Home-Start is by no means the only arm with which we approach the delivery of children’s services. In addition, we provide children’s services in a number of areas, particularly around family intervention and children’s support. That is not to say that I do not value Home-Start; I do, and it has an important role to play.

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

I ask the House to take its ease for a moment or two.

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

Executive Committee Business

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

We return to the debate on the Further Consideration Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

New Clause

Debate resumed on amendment Nos 7, 8, 12 and 13, which amendments were:

No 7: After clause 9, insert the following new clause

“Irresponsible drinks promotions

9A. After Article 31 of the Registration of Clubs Order insert

‘Irresponsible drinks promotions

31A. (1) Regulations may prohibit or restrict a registered club from carrying on an irresponsible drinks promotion on or in connection with the premises of the club.

(2) A drinks promotion is irresponsible if it

(a) relates specifically to any intoxicating liquor likely to appeal largely to persons under the age of 18,

(b) involves the supply of any intoxicating liquor free of charge or at a reduced price on the purchase of one or more drinks (whether or not intoxicating liquor),

(c) involves the supply free of charge or at a reduced price of one or more extra measures of intoxicating liquor on the purchase of one or more measures of the liquor,

(d) involves the supply of unlimited amounts of intoxicating liquor for a fixed charge (including any charge for entry to the premises),

(e) encourages, or seeks to encourage, a person to obtain or consume a larger measure of intoxicating liquor than the person had otherwise intended to obtain or consume,

(f) is based on the strength of any intoxicating liquor,

(g) rewards or encourages, or seeks to reward or encourage, consuming intoxicating liquor quickly, or

(h) offers intoxicating liquor as a reward or prize, unless the liquor is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises.

(3) Regulations may modify paragraph (2) so as to

(a) add further descriptions of drinks promotions,

(b) modify any of the descriptions of drinks promotions for the time being listed in it, or

(c) extend or restrict the application of any of those descriptions of drinks promotions.

(4) If any provision of regulations under this Article is contravened

(a) the registered club,

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention, and

(c) any other person permitting the contravention,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(5) Regulations shall not be made under this Article unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.

(6) In this Article “drinks promotion” means, in relation to the premises of a registered club, any activity which promotes, or seeks to promote, the obtaining or consumption of any intoxicating liquor on the premises.’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

No 8: After clause 9, insert the following new clause

“Pricing of intoxicating liquor

9B. After Article 31A of the Registration of Clubs Order (inserted by section (Irresponsible drinks promotions)) insert

‘Pricing of intoxicating liquor

31B. (1) Regulations may prohibit or restrict a registered club from varying the price at which intoxicating liquor is supplied on the premises of the club during such period or hours as are specified in the regulations.

(2) If any provision of regulations under this Article is contravened

(a) the registered club,

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention, and

(c) any other person permitting the contravention,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(3) Regulations shall not be made under this Article unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

No 12: In schedule 2, page 25, line 25, at end insert

“31A(4)

Contravention of regulations as to irresponsible drinks promotions

5-6

31B(2)

Contravention of regulations as to pricing of intoxicating liquor

5-6”

— [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

No 13: In schedule 3, page 26, line 24, at end insert

“ . In Article 2(2) (interpretation) in the definition of ‘regulations’ after ‘subject’ insert ‘(except as otherwise provided in this Order)’. ” — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

Question, That amendment No 7 be made, put and agreed to.

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 8 made: After clause 9, insert the following new clause

“Pricing of intoxicating liquor

9B. After Article 31A of the Registration of Clubs Order (inserted by section (Irresponsible drinks promotions)) insert

‘Pricing of intoxicating liquor

31B. (1) Regulations may prohibit or restrict a registered club from varying the price at which intoxicating liquor is supplied on the premises of the club during such period or hours as are specified in the regulations.

(2) If any provision of regulations under this Article is contravened

(a) the registered club,

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention, and

(c) any other person permitting the contravention,

is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(3) Regulations shall not be made under this Article unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.’.” — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call Mr Fra McCann to move formally amendment No 9. The Member is not in his place, so amendment No 9 is not moved.

New Clause

Amendment No 10 proposed: After clause 11, insert the following new clause

“Young persons prohibited from bars

11A. (1) Article 32 of the Registration of Clubs Order (young persons prohibited from bars) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (13) for ‘9’ in each of the three places where it occurs substitute ‘10’.” — [Mrs M Bradley.]

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 50; Noes 28.

AYES

Ms M Anderson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Butler, Mr Callaghan, Mr W Clarke, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Dallat, Mr Doherty, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Gallagher, Mr Gardiner, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kinahan, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr A Maginness, Mr P Maskey, Mr McCallister, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McDevitt, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Neeson, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Purvis, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Sheehan, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brady and Mr Gallagher.

NOES

Mr S Anderson, Mr Bell, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Gibson, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mr Hamilton, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr I McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Bresland and Mr Hamilton.

The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr Attwood, Mr Ford, Ms Gildernew, Mr G Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCausland, Mr Murphy, Mr Poots.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call Mr Fra McCann to move formally amendment No 11.

Amendment No 11 not moved.

Schedule 2 (Schedule to be substituted in Registration of Clubs Order for Schedule 6)

Amendment No 12 made: In page 25, line 25, at end insert

“31A(4)

Contravention of regulations as to irresponsible drinks promotions

5-6

31B(2)

Contravention of regulations as to pricing of intoxicating liquor

5-6”

— [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

Schedule 3 (Amendments)

Amendment No 13 made: In page 26, line 24, at end insert

“ . In Article 2(2) (interpretation) in the definition of ‘regulations’ after ‘subject’ insert ‘(except as otherwise provided in this Order)’. ” — [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Attwood).]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

Members 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 is one group of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in turn. The single debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 8, which deal with the docking of dogs’ tails. Once the debate on the group is complete, any further amendments will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

We now come to the amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 8, which deal with the docking of dogs’ tails. Members will note that amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive. Amendment No 5 is consequential to amendment No 1, and amendment No 8 is consequential to amendment No 7. I call Mr Peter Weir to move amendment No 1.

Clause 6 (Docking of dogs’ tails)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 4, line 20, at end insert

“or;

(c) for the purposes of showing a dog.”

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 5, line 5, leave out subsections (12) to (18). — [Mr Weir.]

No 3: In page 5, line 5, leave out subsections (12), (13) and (14). — [Mr Weir.]

No 4: In page 5, line 13, leave out subsection (14) and insert –

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

(a) that person reasonably believed—

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

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

(iii) that the dog was one in relation to which subsection (13) applies; or

(b) the dog’s tail was removed in the circumstances described in subsection (3)(a) or (b).” — [Mr Beggs.]

No 5: After clause 6, insert the following new clause

“Regulations specifying breeds of dog

6A. The Department may by regulation specify breeds of dog bred for the purposes of showing to which section 6(1) and (2) do not apply.” — [Mr Weir.]

No 6: In clause 31, page 19, line 14, leave out “and (12),”. — [Mr Weir.]

No 7: In clause 59, page 33, line 10, leave out “section 56,” and insert “sections 6, 56,”. — [Mr Weir.]

No 8: In clause 59, page 33, line 11, at end insert

“(2) Section 6 shall not come into operation until two years after Royal Assent.” — [Mr Weir.]

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I presume that you are also looking to me to address the amendments?

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

That would be very useful.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am delighted that you have given me the opportunity.

These amendments concentrate on tail docking. There was a wider debate of the issue at Consideration Stage, when the majority view was in favour of a ban, and amendments specifically relating to working dogs were accepted by the House. This is an attempt not to reopen that wider debate, although there is a range of views on tail docking, but to look at specific issues that have been raised by those involved in dog trials. I am sure that a lot of Members have received lobbying from many people involved with show dogs. These amendments try to address those concerns. There is a range of amendments, and I suppose that they are in descending order of preference.

Mention has been made that, in many ways, this legislation brings us into line with what has happened in respect of tail docking in England, Scotland and Wales. There is no doubt that registered breeders have seen a reduction in the numbers of those breeds that would normally have been docked. Figures from the Kennel Club show the difference in the number of registrations between 2006 and 2009-2010. Some of the more popular breeds that would normally have been docked, such as Rottweilers, Dobermanns, boxers and King Charles spaniels, have been fairly dramatically affected. For example, Rottweiler registration has gone down by just over 70%, Dobermann by 53%, King Charles spaniel by 40% and boxer by just over 37%. Indeed, some breeds that were customarily docked are in danger of extinction, with only one pinscher registered in 2009-2010.

There is a danger that this could be a vicious circle to a certain degree. It could drive down dog numbers because those animals are not bred, and that could lead to a situation in which the numbers are massively reduced or breeds are driven to extinction. It strikes me as being very strange: if the effect, particularly in the area of show dogs, is to drive down dog numbers because there is no market for them, it is somewhat beyond me how that can fit in with the general concept of the welfare of animals. Ultimately, it leads to a lot fewer dogs of particular breeds.

Concern has also been raised that this legislation will lead to economic loss for Northern Ireland. At the moment, for example, five championship shows are held at the King’s Hall. That leads to direct income. In addition, bringing the pets in and getting them ready generates a substantial amount of income. About 37% of the entrants to those shows come from traditionally docked breeds. The secretaries who run those shows have confirmed that, should the number of entrants from docked breeds fall to the same level as on the mainland, it may become financially unviable to continue with the shows. That would lead to a large-scale reduction in income. There is also the potential that a range of native Irish breeds, such as the Glen of Imaal terrier, which is already on the endangered list, will be in danger of extinction. Consequently, amendment No 1 looks for an extension of the exemption to dogs that are for the purpose of show trials: for example, dogs that are with registered breeders. Regulations can be brought into place to cover that.

With amendment Nos 2 and 3, amendment No 2 is our preferred position, and if it falls, we will seek to push amendment No 3. The Bill seems to draw a distinction between a dog show at which a fee is paid and one at which it is not. That will have a major impact on dog exhibitors from Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and Europe. Again, it is about removing tail docking as an offence. Our preferences have been indicated, particularly from an international perspective. A lot of EU countries do not have this prohibition and, consequently, it will disadvantage dog breeders here by comparison with breeders from those countries. Making this a specific criminal offence is not particularly helpful.

Amendment No 2 goes further than amendment No 3. Obviously, if amendment No 2 goes through, it will have a knock-on effect, as the Deputy Speaker said, on amendment Nos 3 and 4. We see a certain amount of merit in Mr Beggs’s amendment. We prefer ours, because it goes further, but, in the event of our amendment being unsuccessful, we have no problem with Mr Beggs’s amendment.

The other amendments look again, depending on other events in connection with this, at the position. If we are unsuccessful in excluding this as a category, the Department should have the opportunity, as a fallback position, to look at those breeds that traditionally are involved with tail docking and bring forward regulations from a show trial point of view. That is the purpose of that amendment.

In the wider context, people will undoubtedly make the case for a ban on tail docking. As anyone who has gone into this issue in any detail will know, that may be a reasonable position for many dogs but does not cover all dogs. For many dogs, the least cruel thing is actually to ensure that there is docking at an early stage. A number of dogs are greatly inconvenienced and in great pain at a later stage with a fully grown tail, which they then face the amputation of. This is an opportunity for us to provide a nuance to the general position that the Assembly has established.

Amendment Nos 6 and 7 are largely consequential on earlier ones. Finally, amendment No 8 does not directly impact on the issue of show dogs, but it at least creates a bit of breathing space by delaying the commencement Order. Again, that is not our preferred position. Action should be taken in this legislation to look at the specific position of show dogs. However, at least a delay would allow the Department some opportunity to look at the issue again and bring forward regulations. As I understand it, the Department is not in a position to do that immediately anyway, so, effectively, this would slightly lengthen the delay. However, if we obtain what we want and get some of the earlier amendments accepted by the Assembly, amendment No 8 becomes redundant. It is very much our final issue.

There is a lot of emotion tied up in this issue. It is a very complex subject for anyone who looks at it. Our intention is simply to get it right and not to leave those involved in show trials in Northern Ireland at a disadvantage against anywhere else in Europe, and to ensure that we do not achieve something that we least desire: if this Bill goes through unamended, it will lead to a massive reduction in numbers for certain breeds of dog. I fail to see how the destruction or non-breeding of a range of dogs is in the broader interest of the welfare of animals. I commend the amendments to the House.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I advise the House that the Committee has not had the opportunity to discuss these amendments. My opposition, as Chairperson of the Committee, arises from the fact that they are contrary to the Committee’s policies on tail docking, the showing of dogs with docked tails and the showing of dogs where the tail has had to be amputated following injury.

Those policies have been agreed by the Committee and, importantly, by the majority of the House following a vote on the amended clause 6 on 1 February.

Amendment Nos 1 and 5 are two different ways of attempting to achieve the same outcome. Amendment No 5 is consequential to amendment No 1. Those amendments seek to offer protection against offences if a dog has had all or part of its tail docked for the purposes of showing a dog and, as a consequence, to reintroduce the cosmetic docking of tails. The amendment will seek to allow the routine or cosmetic docking of a dog’s tail for no other reason than for the showing of a dog. It is not so much a back-door attempt to allow cosmetic docking as the opening of the floodgates to the unnecessary practice of cosmetically docking a dog’s tail.

Members have decried the use of the term “cosmetic” as emotive. However, let us not beat about the bush: show dogs are bred to be put on show against breed standards, among which is that the tail should be docked. However, that is not a requirement placed in the standards by the Kennel Club but rather an option that is applied by owners. Breed standards are principally about the appearance of a dog, and tail docking is about improving the appearance. The ‘Oxford English Dictionary’ defines “cosmetic” as a treatment intended to improve appearance. It is cosmetic docking, pure and simple.

There are claims that the docking of show dogs’ tails is prophylactic or preventative in the same way as working dogs’ tails, as currently specified, can continue to be docked for welfare reasons through veterinary certification. The argument is now being made that show dogs’ tails are docked for welfare reasons, and the Bristol University report ‘Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain’ is cited as proof. That report indicated that 36% of tail injuries were in-house and that 14·4% were a result of being caught in a door. On the face of it, those are worrying statistics until one delves deeper. The statistics are based on the number of reported tail-related injuries, which totalled 281; that is 281 out of a population of some 138,000 dogs surveyed — 0·23%. That equates to 101 dogs out of 138,000-odd that have had in-house injuries. When further information was sought, it was found that 30 cases out of a sample size of 138,212 required amputation.

I in no way wish to trivialise the pain that those dogs suffer, and I have no doubt that reputable owners and breeders value highly their animals’ welfare. However, let us not create a smokescreen by saying that welfare is the justification for allowing routine docking of a tail. It is not. Many in-house injuries are the result of human interventions, such as closing a door on the tail. That does not justify the docking of a tail as distinct from the docking of working dogs’ tails, which is permitted on the basis of the natural conditions in which it works. Indeed, in some circumstances, the pest that is being hunted can cause the damage.

The overriding objective for showing a dog is its appearance, and the removal of part or all of the tail to adhere to a breed specification results in the cosmetic docking of tails. It is not appropriate to alter the appearance of a dog to achieve a cosmetic outcome. The Kennel Club and show dog owners state that it should be left to them to take the decision to dock or not. In other words, they support the elective docking of the tail. That is further proof that welfare is not the priority in the decision, unlike in the case of working dogs, but that the appearance of the dog is paramount.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

If the net effect of the passing of the current legislation is a massive reduction in the number of dogs, presumably the welfare of a dead dog is not particularly good in that regard. If the dog does not exist in the first place, that would surely actually go to the welfare of it. It is not just a cosmetic issue.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his intervention; I will cover that as I continue. The Committee is totally opposed to cosmetic docking, and I was delighted that the House indicated at Consideration Stage that it too was opposed to it.

I now turn to the second and third amendments. The former seeks to remove subsections 12 to 18 from clause 6, and the latter seeks to remove subsections 12 to 14. The issue is whether it would be an offence to show a dog with a docked tail. As previously explained to the House at Consideration Stage, the Bill allows for dogs to be shown if the tail is docked before the ban is enacted. It will be an offence to show a dog if its tail is docked after the ban is introduced. The Committee has been very clear when it has said that, if you accept that the cosmetic docking of tails is wrong, it is also wrong to allow the continuation of events that perpetuate that practice. Those two amendments seek to do that, as they seek to allow dogs with docked tails to continue to be shown despite the removal of a docked tail as a requirement by the Kennel Club.

In addition, amendment No 3 would remove the vitally important offence of providing false information to a veterinary surgeon in respect of certification. As I indicated, the Committee’s position is that you cannot ban the cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails yet allow the showing of dogs that have been put through that unnecessary elective practice. The Committee is content that working dogs with legally docked tails can continue to demonstrate their working ability at dog shows, as the primary objective for docking the tail is on welfare grounds.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

In the early part of the Member’s statement, he suggested that the Committee has not had the opportunity to discuss the amendments, so how can he, as Chairperson of the Committee, now say that the Committee has a view on various aspects? The Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss the amendments, which are a change from the position that was agreed in the House.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member will be well aware that there were opportunities to put amendments before this point, and the Bill has to move on.

As indicated, the Committee supported and indeed strengthened subsections 12 and 14 of clause 6 in Committee during Consideration Stage. The proposed amendments seek to undo what has been agreed, and the Committee stands opposed to them.

Amendment No 4, which is in the name of Mr Beggs, seeks to allow the showing of a dog whose tail has been damaged and has, unfortunately, had to be amputated. That was also discussed previously in Committee, and the Committee agreed that it should continue to be an offence. I make it clear that the overwhelming majority of breeders and owners value their dogs, and, as has been pointed out by other Members, they often spend more money on the dogs than on themselves. However, it is unfortunate that there are a few in society who would deliberately set two dogs on each other to make a profit, and I have no doubt that there are those who would deliberately damage a dog’s tail so that it would be surgically removed, in order to make a profit.

Let us be clear: the proposed amendment is not limited to mature dogs but incorporates all ages of a dog from a newborn puppy upwards. How much more likely will be instances of damage to a pup’s tail with the excuse that it was the bitch that damaged it when the reality is that it was damaged deliberately to secure a higher profit? The amendment will create a loophole that will allow that heinous act to be carried out. The Committee did not wish to see that loophole created. Our priority is to protect the dog from the few who would undertake those actions. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with the Committee and oppose this amendment.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

No, I have already given way twice. Members will all have an opportunity to speak.

Amendment No 6 seeks to remove the showing of a dog with a docked tail as an offence. Hopefully, the House will agree with the Committee position that cosmetic docking is wrong and that the showing of dogs with cosmetically docked tails only perpetuates that practice. The Committee believes strongly that the practice needs to be discouraged and is content that an offence be created. It is accepted in England and Wales that the showing of dogs with docked tails promotes the cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. How can the Chairperson of the Committee represent that as the Committee’s view, given that the Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss that?

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

Thankfully, that is not a matter for this Chairperson but for that Chairperson.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, this discussion has taken place time and time again. The Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss the amendments, yet the Chairperson is giving an opinion on them. In fact, he is even using deliberate damage as justification. How can the Chairperson represent the Committee when the issue has not been discussed?

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

I have already given my view on the matter.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

The position that I have given is the Committee’s latest position.

The final two amendments seek to delay the commencement of the tail-docking clause until such times as the Department brings subordinate legislation for a period of two years after Royal Assent. The Committee sought to defer the commencement of clause 45 regarding enforcement of the Bill by local government, and the Department has agreed to that. That has an impact on clause 6, as the penalty offences created in it would be enforced by dog wardens. That action was taken for positive reasons; namely, to allow for further discussions on the Bill’s impact on local government. The Committee agreed a period of a year to undertake those discussions, conscious that the issues needed to be addressed as soon as possible to allow for the introduction of all parts of the Bill.

The proposed amendments are negative. They seek to delay the introduction of necessary and timely welfare legislation aimed at protecting dogs. They could lead to further welfare problems, because, if the House agrees to a statutory start date, it will create a demand for dogs with docked tails, with only a few being successful enough to be shown. That will create a surplus of dogs in Northern Ireland that either will have to be rehomed or will end up as strays, impounded and subsequently euthanised. There is no concern for welfare; rather, there is support for the promotion of docked tails at shows. The Committee has an assurance from the Minister to defer and is content with that arrangement.

Accusations have been made that the Committee has not listened to the owners of show dogs, and they feel that they have been unrepresented during Committee Stage. On 2 March 2010, the Committee took evidence from Show Dogs Ireland. Although the organisation came to talk about the principles of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill, it gave an extensive presentation on tail docking and the showing of dogs. The Committee also received written evidence from the Council of Docked Breeds, and that evidence is contained in the report. Members will undoubtedly be aware of the content of that submission. Therefore, the Committee is content that appropriate representation has been made to and received by the Committee.

Docking the tails of farmers’ dogs, which are used for herding or driving cattle and sheep, began early in Georgian times in England. The practice exempted the owner from a tax levied on working dogs with tails. Many other types of dogs were also docked to avoid the luxury tax. Even when the tax was repealed, the tradition of docking continued, and it does so today. However, community standards change, and legislation must reflect that. The practice of docking dogs’ tails was acceptable and known as routine, elective or cosmetic, but it is no longer acceptable. After many hours of debate, the Committee accepted that. The House accepted it on 1 February, which is barely two weeks ago. The Committee’s position on its policies on the matter has not changed. It hopes that the House maintains its position again and opposes the amendments. I also repeat the Committee’s established position as contained in its report.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I agree with the Committee Chairperson. We discussed many aspects of the Bill on 1 February, including the Committee’s amendment coming to the House. Overall, there is support for the amendment, but I did not agree with it from the outset. I would have preferred the more focused amendment that the Minister was proposing, because I saw a greater ability in it to enforce the legislation. The wider the debate becomes, the more groups are sought to be included, and the more reasons and opportunities are sought to allow more dogs’ tails to be docked, the more it does a disservice to the House to continually look for ways to bring that forward.

One main aspect of the legislation is to protect non-farm animals and to prevent cruelty. That is what we are discussing today. We accept that exemptions have to be made for a number of working breeds, such as pointer retrievers, and that such calls were also made for terriers, spaniels and combined breeds. There is an understanding that there is real concern that worse damage can be done to a dog’s tail through its work in undergrowth. That was clear in evidence to the Committee. A lot of lobbying and discussion has taken place on cosmetic docking, which is an emotive phrase. I agree with the Chairperson and his dictionary reference that it is docking that is carried out to improve appearance. It is not carried out on welfare grounds. It is carried out purely for appearance. Therefore, from that point of view, there is no way that I will support any of the amendments.

The Chairperson is correct to say that the Committee looked at ways to close loopholes that would allow dogs with docked tails to be shown, as has happened across the water; for example, when car parking fees were charged as a way to get round the legislation. Some people who argued for that now seek loopholes that would allow that to happen. I speak as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. We discussed that issue at length over many weeks. It seemed like groundhog day. We went over the issue continually. Not once did I hear anyone in the Committee call for cosmetic tail docking. That never happened. People can look at the records. All Members are on record as saying that the matter is not about cosmetic tail docking: it is about benefitting the welfare of working dogs and allowing them to work. I heard that continually.

At the beginning, when I came to the matter, I was opposed to tail docking. After I heard the evidence, I was persuaded that there are some well-founded reasons for it. However, we simply cannot change our position. All parties were engaged at Committee Stage. Not once did I hear them call for exemptions for cosmetic tail docking. I put that on record. Some material was distributed —

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Member has made several references to cosmetic tail docking. Can he show me exactly where that is referred to in the amendments? Perhaps prophylactic docking has been suggested. However, nowhere is it suggested that docking be permitted for cosmetic reasons.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Member may call it what he wants. At the end of the day, you cannot say that there should be exemptions for working dogs. Nobody has given me a clear rationale for allowing more dogs to have their tails amputated on medical grounds. That is what we are talking about. It causes pain. The matter is about animal welfare. The Member says that there is no reference to it. Throughout Committee Stage, it was referenced continually that exemptions were necessary purely on welfare grounds.