Northern Ireland Assembly, 7 March 2011

484 contributions from 72 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I wish to advise the House that a valid petition of concern was presented on Friday 4 March 2011 in relation to six amendments published for today’s Further Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. Those are amendment Nos 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, which are in group 2 and are to do with chanting at regulated sports matches and banning orders, and amendment No 11, which is in group 3 and is to do with sex offender licensing provisions and legal aid. The votes on those amendments will be on a cross-community basis and may take place later today.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I beg to move

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

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

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

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As there are ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. 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 for Employment and Learning that he wishes to make a statement to the House.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome this opportunity to update the Assembly on the latest developments in relation to our work on the future policy for widening participation in higher education. In particular, I want to advise Members of the launch of the consultation on the development of a regional strategy for widening participation. I will, shortly, make available a consultation document on the Department for Employment and Learning’s website, and a copy has also been placed in the Assembly Library.

I will give a brief recap on the situation. Widening participation in higher education among students from under-represented groups, in particular, students from low-income backgrounds and those with learning or other difficulties, is one of my Department’s key strategic goals. My Department’s vision for widening participation is that any qualified individual in Northern Ireland should be able to gain access to higher education that is right for them, irrespective of their personal or social background.

My Department addresses the issue of fair access to higher education through a number of policy initiatives. Those include requiring higher education institutions to publish annual access agreements and widening participation outreach strategies that outline their range of outreach and bursary support to low income students and communities. My Department also provides widening participation premium funding through the teaching and learning block grant to provide additional support to students while in college, as well as a range of specific funding mechanisms for widening participation such as Step-Up to Science at the University of Ulster and the Discovering Queen’s outreach programme. Much of that special project work is undertaken in schools in areas with traditionally low levels of progression in education.

For the 2010-11 academic year, my Department allocated £2·5 million to promote widening participation in higher education. At almost 50%, Northern Ireland now has the highest participation rate of any area of the United Kingdom. Data for 2008-09 shows that almost 42% of Northern Ireland’s young full-time first-degree entrants were from socio-economic classes 4 to 7, compared with only 32% in England and 28% in Scotland. We have, therefore, been quite successful in achieving our objectives of raising the motivation, aspirations and performance of students who, otherwise, may not have considered going into higher education. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate our universities, further education colleges and schools on their work in this vitally important area.

Nevertheless, there remain stubborn pockets of under-representation, including of socio-economic classification groups 5 and 7 and of low participation and high deprivation areas. That is why my Department is leading the development of a new integrated regional strategy for widening participation in higher education in Northern Ireland. I am absolutely committed to developing a new approach to widening participation in Northern Ireland based on a future vision of the sector in which the people who are most able but least likely to participate in higher education are given every encouragement and support to achieve the necessary qualifications to apply to and benefit from the higher education that is right for them.

Let me be clear that my vision for widening participation does not include quotas for the lowering of academic standards. Such soft bigotry of low expectation patronises and demeans those who can excel in spite of a challenging social or family context. My vision of widening participation is about raising aspiration, challenging stereotypes and empowering those who are most able but least likely to enter our universities.

The development of a regional strategy for widening participation represents a major step forward in delivering the new approach. In March 2010, my Department established a higher education widening participation regional strategy group and four expert working groups — comprising relevant experts from the education sector, the public sector, the private sector and other Departments — to consider the issues involved and begin to outline a new approach.

The strategy group subsequently held a pre-consultation event for the public in May 2010 to ensure that as many views as possible were considered in the early stages of the development of the consultation document. The strategy, therefore, represents the first integrated approach to the issue. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to the development of the document for their commitment and hard work on this extremely important and complex issue.

In April 2010, my Department commissioned a review of the financial support initiatives designed to encourage widening participation in higher education, in order to determine the extent to which the funding was being appropriately targeted, the impact on increasing participation and the overall value for money of the programme expenditure. The review report reached a number of positive conclusions and made a number of recommendations for improvements in funding that have been incorporated into the proposals contained in the consultation document.

The development of the consultation document has been conducted in tandem with the development of consultation documents on the development of a higher education strategy, on tuition fees and on student support arrangements, and care has been taken to ensure that the consultation document aligns with other departmental strategic approaches, such as Success through Skills, FE Means Business and the Executive’s economic and social development strategies.

One of the key issues to be addressed in the consultation is the identification of all those groups that are under-represented in higher education and that may require additional support in a more strategically focused manner. The consultation addresses and puts forward proposals for how we might better target resources at each of the critical stages in the student cycle. We need to raise aspirations among under-represented groups to participate in higher education and, in turn, to raise their education attainment levels to allow that participation. We also need to enhance the recruitment processes in order to ensure that students have the necessary information to apply for the right course and that their whole potential is recognised in the selection process. We also need to ensure the retention of students in higher education, once in the system, and their ultimate progression into employment.

The issue of drop-out rates in higher education has become a particular area of concern in recent years. The issue is a particularly complex one, and research has shown that many factors may impact on dropping out, including finance, gender, education background and, of course, the subject being studied.

It may be helpful at this stage if I give Members some sense of why I believe that widening participation is such a critical issue for Northern Ireland. First, there is the need to promote social mobility and extend opportunity. Too many families and individuals in Northern Ireland still regard higher education as somehow not for them. For example, the 2001 census showed that almost half of the Northern Ireland population came from the socioeconomic classifications 5 to 7, yet just a quarter of the student population came from those groups. I believe that the House is united in striving to ensure that people with the necessary qualifications, from all social backgrounds, should have the opportunity to access higher education. Raising education aspirations is fundamental to promoting such opportunities.

Secondly, there are benefits that graduates as individuals, and society generally, may derive from higher education. Research studies show that participation in higher education may lead not only to higher pay but to a wide range of personal benefits, including a higher sense of well-being and personal confidence. However, we are not doing this just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is crucial to the economy that we harness the talents of all our people. To achieve the very highest standards, our higher education institutions must have access to the very best pools of talent.

For Northern Ireland to secure a sustainable, globally competitive economy and achieve growth in the number of people with high-level skills, which would make this country world-class, we must encourage participation from groups that have not traditionally benefited from higher education.

The challenge to develop a highly skilled workforce is not just about providing new, young graduates with the skills needed. Given that around 80% of the 2020 workforce has already completed formal education, a major focus has to be the upskilling of the existing workforce.

The consultation document recognises higher education as more than the traditional three- or four-year primary degree. Higher education includes all qualifications beyond level 4, including intermediate level qualifications, in which Northern Ireland currently has recognised skills shortages. I believe that the development of a new regional strategy will be critical to the achievement of the widening participation vision and our skills objectives.

The public consultation exercise that I am launching today is being carried out to ensure that as many views as possible on the widening participation strategy are considered. The consultation document sets out a series of proposals on the way forward. The key proposals include a new regional awareness campaign to improve the understanding of the relevance and benefits of higher education to the individual among adults and young people. It suggests ways of improving educational attainment to ensure a continued supply of high-quality applicants to all forms of higher education. It proposes better outreach from the higher education institutions to local communities, including employers, workers and adult returners, as well as young people from areas with traditionally low participation in higher education. Finally, it considers the methodologies that help to identify individuals in need of support during their course to better track their progress through higher education and help minimise the problems associated with non-progression.

The responses to the consultation document will inform the development of the regional strategy. It is likely that the regional strategy will be published in the summer.

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

As I have said on other occasions, it is my guiding principle that access to higher education should be on the basis of the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. That is why upfront fees should have no place in our higher education system, and why tuition fees, necessary to sustain investment in Northern Ireland’s world-class universities, should be less than those proposed by Browne for England. However, that debate is for another day. Today is about retaining Northern Ireland’s commitment to widening participation in higher education, raising aspirations and promoting opportunity. I trust that the House will join me in this undertaking.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Committee has considered widening participation in higher education on a number of occasions. The Committee believes in the importance of social inclusion, social mobility and widening access and participation. It has become clear that a strong economy needs a well-qualified workforce, and the Committee welcomes any and all efforts on the Minister’s part to ensure that all our people have access to educational and skills opportunities.

I turn to the Minister’s comment that a major focus has to be the upskilling of the existing workforce and his point about a number of young graduates, many of whom are in employment that is probably nothing to do with the degree that they studied. I know one young man in my own constituency who, two years after his degree, wanted to do a course. He had to pay an upfront fee of £400. He is 24 years of age and could not get a loan from any bank in the whole of Lurgan —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Could we have a question?

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

The question, Mr Deputy Speaker, relates to the Minister’s commitment to upskilling. There are dangers around upfront fees. Will the Minister give a commitment to address that issue and look specifically at how the needs of young graduates can be assessed?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, not just for her comments, but for her question. I share her concern about the experience of that graduate and I want to assure her that that is not how we wish to proceed. Widening participation means widening participation in every true sense, and that is the commitment that I, as Minister, want to see brought forward. I believe that everyone shares that desire; the Member, members of the Employment and Learning Committee and Members of this House.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister share my concern that only one pupil in 10 in certain parts of the controlled sector is accessing further education compared with one in five in the maintained sector? Will the Minister confirm that he will not run away from his ministerial duties by playing resignation statements and joining the on-the-runs?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the deputy Chairperson of the Employment and Learning Committee and thank him for his genuine concern for my personal well-being. [Laughter.] No doubt, he sees opportunity for himself, but at this stage I am not able to encourage him in any form.

It is important that we focus on the issue of widening participation. The Member rightly raised concern about what are described as young, Protestant, working-class males having proper opportunities to participate in higher education. That group, among others, has to be a matter of priority and concern for the House and my Department. I look forward to receiving valuable contributions to the consultation so that we can bring forward meaningful proposals that will be more inclusive and representative of wider society. That will lead to our universities not being places only for the select few, but, rather, places for all who want to avail themselves of higher education.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like other Members, I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is important to highlight the potential impact of the suggested increase of student fees on people from socially disadvantaged areas. The Department is trying to widen participation, so it is a bit silly not to be factoring that in when looking at possibly increasing fees.

In his statement, the Minister highlighted that targeting is important. In some areas of social disadvantage, the first step to higher or further education is through the community and voluntary infrastructure, and there is —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am coming to my question; I have to build a picture. There is evidence that people make that first step through the community and voluntary sector. Will the Minister indicate whether he has had any discussions with the Department for Social Development on its involvement in neighbourhood renewal and the European social fund, where money has been targeted but groups have failed to get funding through programmes such as the Training for Women Network?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question, and I understand her point. I have not had specific discussions with the Minister for Social Development on that matter. Nonetheless, the consultation affords everyone the opportunity to participate and make a meaningful contribution. I have no doubt that Ministers, Members of the House and members of political parties across the range of civic and social society will be interested in this.

The Member raised the issue of student fees. It is important to state that I reject the notion of up front fees, and I also reject the level of fees advocated by Browne for England.

The issues around tuition fees will be subject to the public consultation, which I hope will emerge very shortly. Opportunities can then be taken to explore those issues in more detail.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister and congratulate him and his Department on this initiative. Will the Minister outline what discussions have been held with the universities to ensure that the young people who are given the opportunity to go to university achieve the necessary qualifications to apply for and benefit from the higher education that is right for them?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question and for his long-time commitment to education in all its forms, including higher education and further education. He raised an important issue, and I am pleased that our local world-class universities are seized of the need to widen participation. As I said in my statement, they already have programmes in place in which that is their stated desire. Those programmes can be built upon, and I will watch with interest the options and actions that the universities take as we seek to open the doors even wider to all elements of society so that more can avail themselves of a higher education. That will provide considerable benefit to the wider public and society in general and, hopefully, will improve the necessary skills that Northern Ireland needs if it is to move forward in the economic times that we face. It is important work, and that is understood by the universities. I have no doubt that we will have their co-operation as we move forward.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome any strategy that delivers fair access to education that will improve high-value employment to local people. I share Members’ concerns that an increase in student fees could undermine the good work that has been done in this area. On improving employment progression, what work does the Minister think needs to be done to improve career planning and the role of further education in providing a link to higher education pathways?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. I strongly agree that it is important to take a co-ordinated approach to education, be it further education or higher education. I also take his point about the advice that students and young people receive, particularly on careers and pathways. That is increasingly important, and it is important that that be done in a co-ordinated and joined-up way that provides good, sensible and meaningful advice so that students can pursue careers through higher education or further education that will lead to meaningful opportunities, rather than just gaining qualifications and ending up working in supermarkets or doing more menial jobs. Through the consultation, I want to encourage people’s ideas and innovations to generate that interest and restore opportunities for young people to avail themselves of a higher education place that enhances their life prospects and, ultimately, makes a positive contribution to society and life here.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement on what is an important subject. Although a lot of work has still to be done, he highlighted the relative success in our participation rates. However, the Minister’s statement also acknowledged the fact that we are weaker on drop-out numbers. Will he expand on the strategy that the Department will pursue to avoid having a revolving-door approach to students from a lower economic background? Will he also expand on the Department’s strategy to retain students once they enter the system in the first place?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for making that important point. At present, insufficient support is given to individuals who find themselves at university, perhaps as the first member of their family or their generation to avail themselves of the opportunity to go. It is important that colleges and universities adequately support and encourage them and that we do not lose people for the want of looking after them properly. I hope that the consultation document and the responses to it will lead to a careful assessment of how best we can help people for whom a university education is a new but good thing that is to be encouraged and that we strongly support.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also thank the Minister for his statement. I want to stay on the subject of career paths. How joined up is the relationship between his Department and the Department of Education? Would earlier careers advice be more beneficial to our younger people to assist them in their higher education?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the question. The Member, again, makes the valuable and important point that a career path is vital and that good, sound advice should be offered and given at the earliest opportunity. I am happy and willing to work with the Minister of Education to improve careers advice to all our students. Such advice and the opportunities that it should highlight are increasingly important to young people as they move forward in their overall education.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Minister agree that the thought of Jonathan Bell taking up his role would be enough to make him stay on, possibly for many years or, indeed, maybe for ever? I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he confirm that the plans that he outlined will help Northern Ireland to stay at the top of the UK’s widening participation league?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member. I will carefully avoid his first assertion. [Laughter.]

Northern Ireland enjoys a particular United Kingdom status in widening participation, which it is important to maintain. How we continue to stay at the top of that league and encourage young people from all social backgrounds to avail themselves of a university or college education are key priorities of the consultation. We are finding the right balance, in that although tuition fees are levied, we still have the best record in participation.

So, it is not just about money and access, although it is important to stress and reiterate that university places must always be allocated on the basis of people’s ability to learn rather than on their ability to pay. That remains our guiding principle.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement on widening participation, and I thank him for acknowledging the Step-Up programme, particularly at Magee campus in my constituency. Recently, as well as this issue, the Committee for Employment and Learning has been exercised by those not in education, employment or training, the education maintenance allowance and the strategy on further and higher education. One wonders how those matters might be brought together and into greater focus. Given that the Minister referred to social mobility, which is one of the most important areas, what could be done to maximise participation — and I say this deliberately — among the Protestant community in my constituency? Allowing the maximum student number (MaSN) cap has enabled the Magee campus to develop, and it could be one important way to widen participation across low-income families.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question, which coincides neatly with the fact that he represents that area. He has long championed that cause at Magee, for which I pay tribute to him. It is important to state that a number of consultations have begun; on the higher education strategy and today’s widening participation strategy. I hope that the review of fees strategy will emerge in the coming days. Of course, although there are strong linkages among the three of them, they, nevertheless, represent distinct areas of higher education policy. Therefore, it is appropriate to consult on them separately. Of course, once those consultations are complete, we will seek to implement recommendations, taking care that they are consistent with the Department’s approach on all those issues. I hear the case that the Member made again about student numbers at Magee, and I confirm that the matter is subject to my ongoing consideration.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He clearly stated his opposition to a quota system, and I thank him for that. Will he outline the important role of schools and parents in raising education attainment and aspiration levels in young people?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. He raises a very important point, and we would do well to stress the important role that parents, guardians and families have in encouraging young people to avail of higher education to improve not only their quality of life but, in turn, the overall economic context in which we all live. I sense that, somewhere along the line, the ethos of reaching out for higher education has been lost in some communities, so I very much hope that we can reinvigorate, recharge and re-energise parents and guardians to be enthusiastic about allowing their children to consider university as a place from which they can benefit and use as a ladder to success.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement. We should be justly proud of our participation rates, and we must do our utmost to continue reaching out to communities. Should the strategy cover the likes of foundation courses in further education colleges, because, given the potential hike in tuition fees, more students may move over to the further education sector to take up such courses?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member raises yet another interesting point. It is increasingly important and evident that the linkage between further education colleges and higher education colleges — our universities — are important links and that we need to co-ordinate better the opportunities that exist for all our young people. I hope very much that we can bring that work forward, whether or not it is specific to the consultation announced today but certainly in the context of the already issued consultation on the future of higher education in Northern Ireland. The work undertaken by Sir Graeme Davies and others strikes at that, and those are important issues that we should all reflect on and bring forward in a positive manner.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has highlighted his departmental commitment to the widening participation strategy. Given his reduced budget allocations, will the Minister assure me that, in coming to any decision on the future of tuition fees, he will be shaped by the policies in the widening participation strategy?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question and am happy to confirm that my guiding principle as Minister and, indeed, that of my Department is that places at universities should be based purely on the ability to learn and not on the ability to pay. That is the guiding principle and will remain so even in the face of the difficult economic climate and the budgetary considerations that we have to deal with.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. I ask the House to take its ease until we change over.

Executive Committee Business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I call the Minister of the Environment to move the Further Consideration Stage of the High Hedges Bill.

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

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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, 2, 3 and 5, which deal with the powers of the Department to prescribe the maximum fee that councils can charge when receiving a complaint under the Bill. The second debate will be on amendment No 4, which proposes placing a duty on the Department to prepare a report on neighbour disputes associated with single trees.

I remind Members that, under Standing Order 37(2), the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill is restricted to debating any further amendments tabled to the Bill. Once the debate on each group has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we move through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. Members should address all amendments in the group on which they wish to comment. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 3 (Procedure for dealing with complaints)

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 3 and 5. The amendments concern fees, and Members should note that amendment No 1 is a paving amendment to amendment No 2 and that amendment Nos 3 and 5 are consequential to amendment No 2.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 3, line 27, leave out subsections (7) to (9).

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: After clause 3, insert the following new clause:

“Fees

3A.—(1) The Department shall by regulations prescribe the maximum fee which may be determined by a council under section 3(1)(b).

(2) A fee received by a council under section 3(1)(b)—

(a) must be refunded by it where subsection (3) applies; and

(b) may be refunded by it in such other circumstances and to such extent as it may determine.

(3) This subsection applies where—

(a) a fee is paid to the council under section 3(1)(b) in connection with the making of a complaint to which this Act applies;

(b) a remedial notice is issued by, or on behalf of, the council in respect of the complaint; and

(c) the remedial notice takes effect.

(4) Regulations may make provision, in relation to a case where subsection (3) applies, for the payment to the council by any person who is an occupier or owner of the neighbouring land of a fee of such amount (if any) as the council may determine.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular—

(a) provide for the fee not to exceed such amount as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(b) provide that, where two or more persons are liable to pay the fee, those persons are jointly and severally liable;

(c) provide for the fee to be refunded in such circumstances or to such extent as may be prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 3: In clause 14, page 11, line 42, after “(b)” insert

“fees payable under section (Fees)(4) of that Act and”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 5: In clause 18, page 13, line, after “section” insert “(Fees)(4),”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

At Consideration Stage, the fee mechanism proposed by the Committee for the Environment was agreed to, although Members acknowledged my concerns about the removal of flexibility for councils, human rights, enforcement complications and the administrative burden on councils. Members indicated that there was a need for further amendments at Further Consideration Stage. As a consequence, I tabled amendments that seek to accommodate the Assembly’s desire for fairness in the fees payable for the investigation of a complaint and to address the shortcomings that the Assembly recognised in the amendments that were agreed and voted to stand part at Consideration Stage.

They involve replacing clauses 3(7), 3(8) and 3(9) with a new clause 3A, which will deal specifically with fees issues. Subsection 1 of the new clause requires that my Department make regulations to limit the level of fee that can be levied by councils, effectively replicating the amendment made to clause 3(7). Subsections 2(a) and 3 provide for the mandatory refund of the complainant’s fee when a remedial notice takes effect. That allows for the completion of any appeals process before any refund or transfer takes place.

Subsection 2(b) restores the discretionary power of a council to refund fees, which was inadvertently removed by the amendments voted to stand part at Consideration Stage. That provides flexibility for councils and means that fees can be refunded in other appropriate circumstances, for example, if a complaint is found to be outside the scope of the legislation.

Subsections 4 and 5 provide a regulation-making power to deal with the amount of fee payable by the hedge owner, the determination of who pays when there is more than one owner or occupier and the refunding of the hedge owner’s fee in prescribed circumstances. Those amendments allow the fee transfer policy to be properly developed to take account of human rights and public consultation issues. That will also provide the opportunity to consider a range of issues, including the financial circumstances of the hedge owner in the same way that the financial circumstances of the complainant can be considered. The regulations will be subject to full public consultation and approval in draft by the Assembly, so MLAs will have the opportunity to scrutinise further any proposals before they are implemented.

The amendment to clause 14 makes provision for any fee levied on the hedge owner to be registered as a statutory charge, removing the potential legal costs associated with fee recovery if the hedge owners refuse to pay. The amendment to clause 18 means that the regulations dealing with the transfer of the fee to the hedge owner will be subject to approval in draft by the Assembly.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ar son an Choiste Comhshaoil, cuirim fáilte roimh BhreisChéim an Bhreithnithe den Bhille um Fálta Arda.

On behalf of the Committee for the Environment, I welcome the Further Consideration Stage of the High Hedges Bill. The Bill was referred to the Committee on 10 May 2010, and, after conducting its scrutiny, the Committee recommended several amendments. One of those was to require the Department to place an upper limit on the level of fee that a council can charge someone for making a complaint about a high hedge. The Committee agreed that recommendation after researching the level of fees charged elsewhere. We were advised that, in England, where councils are given discretion to charge whatever fee they feel appropriate, there is not only a vast difference in the level of fee charged by different councils but that some councils charge as much as £650.

The Committee was content with the principle that councils should be allowed to charge a fee for providing the high hedge service. It recognised that that would help to deter vexatious complaints as well as protecting ratepayers from having to pay for a service from which they do not benefit. However, it was determined that councils should not be allowed to charge so much that it would be likely to make the service inaccessible to most, if not all, people who are unfortunate enough to find that their light is blocked by a high hedge.

The Bill includes a provision for the Department to limit the level of fees, but the Department told the Committee that it would not do that unless there was a clear need to do so after the legislation had been operational for some time. The Committee was pleased that the Assembly accepted its amendment at Consideration Stage to require the Department to place a cap on fees. We welcome the fact that the first subsection of the new clause that is added by amendment No 2 will endorse that by requiring the Department to do so through regulations. The Committee also welcomes the Assembly’s endorsement of its suggestion that a person paying to complain about a high hedge should have that fee refunded if the complaint is upheld by the council.

The Committee was also adamant that the refund should not come from the council, as it would place a burden on ratepayers. The Committee wanted to see the fee being recouped from the hedge owner. As Members will recall, the Minister was not keen to bring forward the Committee’s requested amendments, and he warned that the Committee’s amendment might be subject to human rights challenges. Nonetheless, the Assembly clearly recognised the fairness of the Committee’s approach and supported its amendment.

On behalf of the Committee, I am delighted that the Minister’s proposed new clause not only meets the Committee’s requirements for the refunding of upheld complaint fees by the hedge owner, but takes account of human rights and public consultation requirements. In addition, amendment No 3 makes a provision for any fee levied on the hedge owner to be registered as a statutory charge. That removes any potential legal costs associated with fee recovery if the hedge owner refuses to pay. I know that councils will welcome that approach.

Finally, amendment No 5 makes the new regulations subject to draft affirmative procedure, so they will come before the Assembly for approval before being made law. That is also to be welcomed.

On behalf of the Committee, I welcome and support amendment No 2 and amendment No 1, which is the paving amendment for amendment No 2, and the detail and security provided by amendment Nos 3 and 5.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will be brief. There should be reasonable consensus around the House for the Minister’s proposed amendments. As the Chairperson indicated, when the Committee brought forward a range of amendments at Consideration Stage in respect of fee levels and the polluter pays principle, which related to where costs should lie, it was indicated that there needed to be further refinement of the Bill and that consequential amendments would have to be brought.

The Minister has put forward a very sensible set of amendments. It is right that people should have some certainty regarding the likely level of fee. One of the advantages that we have is that we have been able to look at how the legislation has been brought in and operated in England and Wales. There is no doubt that some mistakes were made there. We have not simply a bespoke piece of legislation but one that tries to avoid some of the mistakes that have been made there. One of the mistakes that is further refined by this is the idea that there was an open-ended situation regarding fees, which has meant that there has been a very wide disparity. It is important that regulations are put in place to deal with the fees issue. As the Minister indicated, when looking at those regulations, a wide range of considerations need to be taken into account, for example, the ability of either party to pay.

It is important, as a consequential amendment, that if we are to have remedial notices, the person who is deemed to be at fault has to pay and it should not get tied up with legal charges or additional cost. It should be relatively straightforward and should be done in as cost-effective way as possible. I believe that the amendments cover that point and ensure that the detailed regulations that will need to flow from the legislation are not simply produced by the Department but that they are given that democratic scrutiny, which was indicated by the Minister. Therefore, I believe that the amendments are very sensible. They add to the progress that we have made on the Bill at Second Stage and at Consideration Stage. The Further Consideration Stage refines the Bill into something that will be of benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the Minister’s four amendments to the House.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I, too, will be brief. I welcome the Bill and the Minister’s amendments, with one slight proviso. Before I go into that, I think that it is especially good that we are now making it a statutory charge, so there will be no legal fees. It is also especially good that the regulations will be subject to draft affirmative resolution. We need to make sure that, regardless of whose hands the Department will be in, they should look at the cost to councils, so that whatever figure is chosen as a fee will allow the councils to get back their costs. Obviously, that is a question of judgement, but I think that the amendments are very sensible, and we support them.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his comments. This is an important Bill, which has attracted the interest of many people in my constituency on whom it would have an impact, particularly those who have issues with their neighbours’ high hedges. The Bill introduces a system whereby difficulties and disagreements about hedges between neighbours can be resolved through discussion and mediation. Should that fail, there remains the facility to lodge a formal complaint with the local council, which, effectively, will act as an independent third party. It will make a decision based on the merits of the case that is presented to it. The Bill represents real progress on a troublesome issue and it will, I believe, be welcomed by householders throughout Northern Ireland. For too long, the matter has been ignored. Now is the perfect opportunity for the House to progress legislation that will have meaningful impact and actually make a difference.

I turn to the first group of amendments before the House. I am content with amendment No 1, which removes subsections 3(7) to 3(9). I welcome their replacement by a new clause in amendment No 2. That clause makes provisions for fees that local councils can charge for the provision of that relate to disputes about high hedges. Although I accept that a fee must be levied, everything must be done to ensure that it is reasonable and provides value for money to those who have paid the council to perform a service. I accept amendment No 3 as an administrative and appropriate amendment to schedule 11 to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. Amendment No 5 is another minor administrative amendment. Those amendments are common sense.

I am broadly supportive of the Bill and the first group of amendments. I will finish by making a brief general comment. A number of Bills are coming through the House that involve either the transfer of a function to or increased functions for local councils. The House ought to be mindful and careful not to give increased responsibilities and functions to local administrations with one hand, while taking away their financial resources with the other. At present, councils have powers to persuade. The Bill will give them real power and real teeth.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Members for their support. No specific questions were raised during the debate so I do not have to respond to any particular issues. A number of Members indicated that the Bill would benefit their electorate. That is why my Department brought it forward. There has been a gap in legislation for many years. We have seen many hedges spring up and grow completely out of control. Trees are allowed to grow 30 ft or 40 ft high and are built up as a dense hedge. That has a huge impact on individuals. The Bill will help us to deal with an anomaly that has existed for some time. I ask the House to support amendment Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5.

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

New Clause

Amendment No 2 made: After clause 3, insert the following new clause:

“Fees

3A.—(1) The Department shall by regulations prescribe the maximum fee which may be determined by a council under section 3(1)(b).

(2) A fee received by a council under section 3(1)(b)—

(a)must be refunded by it where subsection (3) applies; and

(b) may be refunded by it in such other circumstances and to such extent as it may determine.

(3) This subsection applies where—

(a) a fee is paid to the council under section 3(1)(b) in connection with the making of a complaint to which this Act applies;

(b) a remedial notice is issued by, or on behalf of, the council in respect of the complaint; and

(c) the remedial notice takes effect.

(4) Regulations may make provision, in relation to a case where subsection (3) applies, for the payment to the council by any person who is an occupier or owner of the neighbouring land of a fee of such amount (if any) as the council may determine.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular0151

(a) provide for the fee not to exceed such amount as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(b) provide that, where two or more persons are liable to pay the fee, those persons are jointly and severally liable;

(c) provide for the fee to be refunded in such circumstances or to such extent as may be prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 (Statutory charges)

Amendment No 3 made: In page 11, line 42, after “(b)” insert

“fees payable under section (Fees)(4) of that Act and”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

New Clause

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate, which contains only one amendment. Amendment No 4 proposes placing a duty on the Department to prepare a report on neighbour disputes associated with single trees.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move amendment No 4: After clause 16, insert the following new clause:

“Duty to report on single trees

16A.—(1) The Department must prepare a report on the nature and extent of neighbour disputes associated with single trees not forming part of a high hedge including an assessment of the potential for legislation to address the issues.

(2) The report shall be laid before the Assembly before the end of the period of 18 months from the time this Act receives Royal Assent.”

I regard the amendment as a straightforward and reasonable amendment that will place a duty on the Department to investigate the nature and extent of the impact of tall and overgrown single trees on people’s quality of life. A report of the findings of that investigation should include an assessment of the potential for legislation to address the issue, and it should be produced within 18 months of Royal Assent to the Bill.

I welcome the elements of the Bill that will introduce long overdue provisions to tackle the problem of high leylandii hedges. I have seen at first hand the negative impact that vast hedges have on people’s quality of life and enjoyment of property. However, I have also seen at first hand how excessively tall trees, some over 50 ft tall, can have a negative impact on people’s quality of life, enjoyment of property, and health and safety. It is also my understanding that a significant number of consultation responses to the Bill raised that concern.

I recognise the difficulties with defining what classifies a tall tree and the concerns, which I share, about the protection of single trees of historical significance or local character and amenity. I consulted the Woodland Trust and local authority tree officers, who are confident that it should be possible to deal with the enforced maintenance of certain single trees through legislation. For those reasons, I propose amendment No 4 to ensure that the Department monitors the operation of the High Hedges Bill and investigates whether comparable legislation could tackle the similar issue of tall trees.

It is my understanding that the amendment has the general support of the House; indeed, some Members feel that it does not go far enough. It is for that reason that I ask all Members and the Minister to give serious consideration to supporting what I deem to be a fair and reasonable amendment.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As we heard, amend­ment No 4, which is in the name of Mr Lyttle, will introduce a new clause that will require the Department to prepare a report on the nature and extent of neighbourhood disputes associated with single trees that do not form part of a high hedge. The Committee was also concerned about single trees. Submissions to the Committee’s call for evidence showed that several organisations, particularly councils, were disappointed that the Bill would not cover single trees and other problems that are associated with hedges and trees, such as roots, overhanging branches and fallen leaves. It was suggested that the lack of inclusion of single trees may lead to many of the problems that are brought to councils not being resolved.

The Committee requested research on the number of complaints that councils receive that relate to single trees rather than to hedges. The research found that only rough estimates could be ascertained because councils do not consistently record all complaints of that kind. It appears that many councils do not differentiate between complaints relating to hedges and those to single trees, and a number of complaints that they receive are not solely related to the impact of the tree or hedge on light. However, it was still apparent that a significant proportion of complaints that councils receive relate to single trees rather than to hedges. The Committee felt that that needed to be addressed in the Bill.

The Bill might be called the High Hedges Bill, but it is about light and about how access to light affects enjoyment of one’s property. The Committee, therefore, looked not at whether a single tree constituted a hedge but at whether one big evergreen tree could block out as much light as two or three trees, which is the Bill’s definition of the term “hedge”. Clearly, it could, and I am sure that we could all think of examples of places where that happens.

I should stress that, before going down the route of tabling an amendment, the Committee sought reassurance that including single trees in the Bill would not lead to conflict with planning provision, such as tree preservation orders, or would not jeopardise ancient or historically significant trees. The Department responded that guidance would be produced in association with the Local Government Association to accompany the legislation and would specifically address the issue of tree preservation orders. However, it was noted that tree preservation orders do not usually apply to evergreen or semi-evergreen trees. Once certain that single ancient or deciduous trees would not be affected, the Committee asked the Department to reconsider the inclusion of single evergreen and semi-evergreen trees in the Bill.

The Department stated that the inclusion of single-tree problems would change the scope of the Bill and would require a full public consultation before an amendment to that effect could be made. However, the Committee noted that a significant number of responses to the Depart­ment’s consultation made it clear, without being prompted, that they wanted and expected the Bill to deal with problems caused by single trees. Members agreed to a Committee amend­ment to include single evergreen and semi-evergreen trees in the Bill. However, several members still had some misgivings about the pressure that the inclusion of single trees in the Bill might put on single historic or characteristic trees and, on being advised that another Member was considering tabling a revised amendment at Further Consideration Stage, I agreed with members not to move the Committee’s amend­ment at Consideration Stage.

On receiving notification of the amendment, most members of the Committee who were contacted in the short time available were content with it, but, because some felt that the clause was not sufficiently strong, I agreed to table the Committee’s original amendment to extend the Bill to include single evergreen or semi-evergreen trees. However, it did not appear on the Marshalled List of amendments. That eventuality had been allowed for by the Committee, which agreed that, if the amendment was not allowed, it would recommend that the Department must recognise the need for legislation to address the detrimental impact on reasonable enjoyment of properties caused by single evergreen or semi-evergreen trees and would like to hear a commitment to see that addressed in the new mandate.

Having consulted a majority of the Committee members — we have not had a formal meeting since the Marshalled List was issued — I am confident that Mr Lyttle’s amendment sufficiently meets the recommendations of the Committee to warrant its support. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee —

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps it would be useful if he would inform the House why the Committee amendment was not accepted at this stage. Was it because the Speaker felt that it would dramatically change the Bill, or was it for another reason?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I cannot clarify that; I just know that it did not appear on the Marshalled List. The Committee voted to table the amendment. I voted against it on the day, but I was happy to move it on behalf of the Committee. We were given an assurance that an amendment coming forward would address the issues on behalf of the Committee, but it seems that that has not appeared. On behalf of the Committee, I am disappointed that the amendment has not been accepted by the Speaker. That is perhaps something that we should have been dealing with today. I share the concerns of some members of the Committee who were clearly in favour of moving that amendment.

There was a phone-round of members of the Committee by the staff to get a clear line on whether people would agree with Mr Lyttle’s amendment, and there has been a clear indication from a majority of the members. On behalf of the Committee, I support amendment No 4, and I know that members will have a chance to speak when I have finished.

I will now speak on behalf of Sinn Féin. I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to discuss the amendment that went through on behalf of the Committee. In the absence of anything in the Bill, Mr Lyttle’s amendment may go some way to looking at the issue, and I believe that it is something that may be brought back in the next mandate. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that. I think it is a common-sense approach. After all, it is only a report. There may be consequences for local councils, but, on behalf of Sinn Féin, I do not see any problem in supporting the amendment proposed by Mr Lyttle.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I am disappointed that the Committee amendment did not come today. I was one of those who would have preferred it to come the last day and, after conversation with the mover of this amendment, I was happy that it was not moved because we were coming up with something that was possibly stronger and tied down much better. However, I was disappointed when I read it on Thursday, as I believe that it is much weaker. Those who, from the outset, were sceptical about including single trees will have a weaker position than ever if they support this amendment. It talks about single trees, not blocking out light, so could include roots, leaves or any species of tree. We debated all those issues in the High Hedges Bill when we had concerns about specific trees. However, the amendment opens up the gamut to include every tree under the canopy of heaven. So, I have concerns about that.

I was disappointed because I had a conversation with Mr Lyttle about the amendment and there was a suggestion that we were going to focus primarily on leylandii, which are the biggest problem in residential developments in which gardens are maybe not as big as that of my colleague in front of me from North Down. They do not enjoy the small gardens that we have in South Antrim, where single trees can be a nuisance and block out light. If the original amendment had come forward today, we could have had a conversation about including it in the Bill.

The other problem I have with the amendment is that it states:

“The Department must prepare a report on the nature and extent of neighbour disputes”.

I am puzzled as to how the Department will do that, short of going round every home in Northern Ireland, rapping the door and asking people whether they have a problem with a hedge, and given that, when Royal Assent is granted, it will be for local councils to look after the High Hedges Act. The Bill does not compel a council to record incidence of single or nuisance trees. The only issues that councils will be focusing on are those relating to hedges. That is the only reason why the Bill came about.

So, as regards the amendment, I struggle to see how the Department will get the information that Mr Lyttle hopes it will get, because that will put a greater burden on the Department and councils. Given that the Bill does not include that requirement, the amendment is suggesting that the Department and councils will have to collate that information at a later date.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Perhaps one solution would be to include it as part of the census.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Yes, given that this is possibly the last opportunity to do so. Maybe it would have been better than what Mr Lyttle is suggesting today.

The Department was resisting the opportunity to move away, and the Chairperson made remarks about that. However, those who took part in the consultation referred to single trees. It would be unfair to use a figure, but a high proportion felt it worthwhile putting it into the consultation process that those trees caused a nuisance. It is disappointing that we are pushing the issue away for 18 months and asking for a report that could raise all sorts of questions. We are giving the general public false expectations about single trees. I will not support the amendment.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I congratulate Mr Lyttle on getting involved when he is not on the Committee and for tabling this amendment. There was some dispute on the Committee about the matter. I welcome the amendment, although much more work needs to be done. We need to talk to many more people before we tackle single trees.

I have great concern that, had we included single trees, although they were only the evergreens or semi-evergreens, there was much more behind it. I want to tell you a story, although it relates less to light and more to leaves. When I was a councillor, someone asked me who was responsible for the leaves on a road because they had slipped the other day. I told them that they should have worn better shoes and walked more carefully. They asked me whether that was my position as a councillor. Both positions are right. We need to get the control of trees, leaves, light and everything that comes with them.

This amendment goes only part of the way, but at least it acknowledges that we need to think about the issue properly, and I hope that we bring it back to the next Assembly and have proper legislation regarding trees. There is a need to have something done for those who suffer from light, leaves, berries or everything else that comes with trees. However, one does not have to cut a tree down. One can pollard it, take all the branches off and get it back to a main torso. It can then grow again, and one can pollard it many years later.

I welcome amendment No 4, but there is much further to go. I hope that the Minister will try to find some way to make councils keep a record so that they do not have to knock on every door to get proper accounts, which is what Mr Clarke suggested they might have to do. The amendment caught us slightly unawares towards the end of Committee Stage, and we did not consult on it properly. However, I support it.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Chris Lyttle for tabling the amendment.

As Members said, the amendment was discussed in the Environment Committee. I hear entirely what Mr Clarke said. We all know the problems associated with high hedges and, in this case, high trees. High trees can lead to problems not only with amenity and light but with cabling, be that TV, telephone or electricity cabling. In fact, high trees can interfere with the signal and reception for digital TV. Those issues need to be dealt with.

The counter-argument asks how we can protect the integrity of some trees, which have, for want of a better phrase, embedded roots in the heritage of a particular area. There are trees that have been in those areas for many years and form part of their culture and heritage. So, a balance has to be struck. However, from looking at it again, I am not sure whether producing a report with findings within 18 months will tell us an awful lot more than we know already. If it is to establish the type and nature of disputes or difficulties that have arisen as a result of high trees, the Department will have to go to the courts, and it may have to go to councils. It may also have to go to the Housing Executive, for example, which has its own mediation role to play in a lot of the problems and disputes between neighbours. It also has a role to play in dealing with issues in some of the less well-laid-out estates, where problems were caused by trees planted many years ago. Nobody anticipated that those trees would become a problem, because they were just regarded as a beautiful attraction that would enhance an estate.

On the one hand, therefore, I see a lot of merit in exploring the matter further to establish what the issues are and the effect that they may have. I am not sure whether that will realise an awful lot more.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Member is right. Will he accept that the original intention of the Bill was to address a lack of enjoyment and lack of light due to high trees, whereas the amendment opens up opportunities to deal with all single trees? We will build up expectations if we agree to the amendment. If that route is explored and the trees in question are deemed to be problem trees, every single tree will be cut down, which is exactly what the Committee did not want. Under the Bill, we tried to address a lack of enjoyment due to a loss of light, whereas the amendment will include all other things, such as problems caused by leaves, as mentioned by Mr Kinahan, a South Antrim colleague of mine.

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

I thank Mr Clarke for his intervention. Indeed, many other issues are associated with high trees and how they intrude upon amenity. The definition of the amenity as somebody’s property will probably need to be dealt with by legal-minded people elsewhere.

I emphasise the point again: the amendment widens the range of issues that need to be looked at. However, that is not to say that those issues are any less important. Having TV reception or telephone reception affected by high trees could be a bigger problem than having light blocked out if, for example, they need to use the phone in an emergency.

If the Department is going down the route of accepting the amendment, there is a lot of merit in it —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The root?

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

The r-o-u-t-e, Peter.

If the Department goes down the route of accepting the amendment, what it is looking for to help with the report and to establish its findings will have to be clearly defined. A multiplicity of issues that result from high trees affects people’s homes. Perhaps Mr Lyttle could add to that by providing some clarity on his amendment. I look forward to hearing Mr Lyttle elaborate on his amendment in respect of that.

I approach the amendment like many others in the Chamber. I support it in principle, but the more I think it through, the more I realise that, if reports are to be commissioned, they will need to include a great deal of detail and have quite a bit of spec attached to them. That will be needed if we are to avoid a situation like we had in Committee, where we received inconclusive findings that did not strengthen the case for the inclusion of single trees, despite Committee members knowing that that case had to be made. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your time.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

There are two important issues when considering amendment No 4 in the name of Chris Lyttle. When we consider those issues it will explain why the DUP is unable to support that amendment.

Earlier, I asked the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment why the Committee’s amendment did not appear on the Marshalled List of amendments. I remember the discussion that the Committee had on single trees, and, at that time, I made the point that the issue was relevant and merited further discussion. I also said that I did not think that it could be included in the Bill, as it would have changed the Bill dramatically. Therefore, I wonder whether the Speaker also came to that conclusion and whether that is why it could not be included in the Bill.

The first important question when considering the amendment is whether it is relevant to the Bill. Mr Lyttle does not sit on the Committee for the Environment, and, had he been a Committee member, he would have been aware of the discussions that took place on single trees. All Committee members recognised that it is an issue. However, departmental officials advised the Committee that the issue of single trees could not be included in the Bill, as the Bill was not primarily about that issue and its inclusion would dramatically change the Bill’s meaning.

It is also important to say that there was no consultation on the issue of single trees. When the Bill was originally consulted on, it was not about single trees, and the public were not given the opportunity to comment specifically on that issue. My colleague Mr Clarke referred to the number of responses that mentioned single trees, and I think that the figures that he referred to were from the responses from district councils. Quite a few of them raised it as an issue. However, if we look at the responses from individual members of the public, we find something different, with only two or three of the approximately 100 responses mentioning that issue. Therefore, because the issue was not included in the Bill, the public were not given an adequate opportunity to discuss it or to give their opinions on it. Previous contributors to the debate, including Mr McGlone, have said that including the issue of single trees in any way would widen the scope of the Bill. We must be aware of that.

The second reason why I am unable to support the amendment is the requirement on the Department to make reports. As my colleague Mr Clarke said, that, in itself, could prove to be difficult. If agreed, the amendment would require the Department to make reports:

“on the nature and extent of neighbour disputes associated with single trees”.

However, given that that is not actually part of the Bill and not something that councils could enforce, I wonder whether, as Mr Clarke asked, councils actually collate that type of information. I suspect that they do not, because they do not have the time or resources to do so. It would be asking dramatically more of councils to look at the issue of single trees. Therefore, I am unsure how the report would be compiled and whether councils would be able to collate the information required by the amendment.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He will know that, when the Committee discussed the issue of disputes, a great deal of emphasis was put on disputes being resolved locally and through mediation before councils became involved. Therefore, if someone were to approach a council, it would be in relation to the original purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with high hedges. The Committee also recommended that guidance should be given to the general public on how the process should work, and that guidance will not include reference to single trees. Why would someone go to the council to tell them that they have a problem with a single tree, if it is not in the guidance?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I totally concur with that. Most Members would hope that a complaint would never reach the stage where councils become involved. The focus has always been on individuals settling their differences without getting to the stage where an official complaint is made. In such circumstances, the complaint, even if it were not about a single tree, would never have been made to the council, and, therefore, the council would not be able to record it as an incident or an issue. The Member makes a good point. There are issues about how the report will be done and, as Mr McGlone said, whether it will tell us anything that we do not already know. There is also the issue of whether it could be included in the Bill. I am not sure whether the issue of single trees is entirely relevant to the main focus of the Bill. For those reasons, I will vote against amendment No 4.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am seeking clarity on the amendment not being accepted. I know that you cannot speak on behalf of the Speaker, but can I have some clarity on what the ruling would be?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members will be aware that the Speaker considers the admissibility of amendments at any stage. If an amendment does not appear on the Marshalled List, it is clear that it has not been selected.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I fully understand Members’ concerns about single trees. This weekend, I was dealing with a dispute about a single tree and trying to mediate on the issue.

Amendment No 4 is a sensible approach, given that we have no other amendments to deal with the issue, and it will allow us to gather evidence. I came slightly late to the Committee for the Environment when it was dealing with the High Hedges Bill, but the main issue was that the Committee could not get clear data on how big the issue was. For the amendment to be included in the Bill, the Committee would need to know how big the problem is. Councils will start to implement the high hedges legislation while the report is being carried out, and other issues outside the scope of the Bill will become apparent as councils go through the process and explain to people who are making complaints that they do not fulfil the criteria of the legislation. Even after six months, councils and the Department will have a good idea of what issues will need to be included in further legislation. This is a good opportunity, and this is a good amendment.

The biggest issue is a single evergreen or semi-evergreen blocking out light and the detrimental impact that that has on a person’s reasonable enjoyment of property, versus the owner of such a tree on the other side of a hedge. Such trees have been laid out in a certain manner, benefit a garden visually and may have been there for a considerable time. All those arguments must be taken into account. Some of the trees may have been planted by a relative — a father, mother or grandparent — and those emotional issues must be taken on board.

As other Members said, the report would have to investigate the staffing implications for local authorities. George Savage —

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Yes, certainly.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member agree that, should the amendment be successful and we ask local councils to collate the information, which could be quite difficult in itself, local councils would have to spend significantly more time, resources and money trying to collate the information for the Department? Does he share my concern that local councils might not want the amendment to be made, as it would place an additional burden on them?

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I do not agree. If we have to identify a problem and some of us are aware that it is a problem, there must be information to back that up. I do not think that that will create a great additional burden on councils, as enforcement officers will be dealing with issues that cannot be resolved through the High Hedges Bill.

So I do not think that it is a problem. If enforcement officers —

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will give way when I have finished this point.

If enforcement officers or council officials with responsibility go out and look at every single tree, a considerable amount of work will be involved, even if the complaint does not turn out to be genuine. At the very least, it has to be investigated. If an investigation is carried out for every complaint about single trees in the North of Ireland, it will be a considerable amount of work.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. My colleague has already spoken about resources and consultation. The amendment would place an additional burden on local government. At Committee Stage, members were careful about trying to get full cost recovery, or as much cost recovery as possible, so that councils would not have to bear costs. Has the Member any concerns that local government was not consulted on the issue?

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The issue was raised. The Member speaks about full cost recovery. Single trees may involve a considerable outlay of resources to people who would have to prune such trees. Obviously, they will have to do so without killing the tree. There is a possibility that a 20 ft tree being cut down to 6 ft may not survive. An owner would have to bring in a tree surgeon, at considerable cost. There are a number of issues. The owner must ensure that the tree keeps its shape and that the job is done properly. The report can deal with some of those issues. Mediation will still be a key requirement to deal with such concerns, given the sensitivities that can arise. Trees may have emotional impacts on people because they may view a tree that was planted by a relative as that relative living on. That is a serious issue that has to be seriously considered.

Councils receive many different types of complaint from the public about trees and high hedges. Trevor Clarke touched on the issue when he spoke about moss on patios and lawns and foundations being damaged by single trees and high hedges. People could incur considerable costs that could run into thousands of pounds, through no fault of their own, in having to underpin foundations. That is now being addressed though legal avenues. Roots are another issue that must be investigated in the report. Under the current law, residents can remove roots on their side of a boundary. Again, considerable costs could be involved.

Amendment No 4 calls for a report to be carried out to collate evidence and provide it to the Department and the new Minister in the next mandate. That is a sensible approach. We do not have an alternative, and I see no reason for not backing the amendment. Members who oppose the amendment will simply let the matter sit and take no further action to progress the issue.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

It is unfair to say that my party just wants to sit back and take no further action about single trees. If we accept amendment No 4, and it forms a part of the Bill, no action will be taken except the production of a new report. It will do nothing about single trees.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The report will provide the new Minister in the new mandate with information about how big the issue is and where new legislation should be framed to deal with it. That is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing until the next mandate. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will take up where Mr Willie Clarke left off. The sentiments behind amendment No 4 are perfectly reasonable, but it is ill-judged. I agree with Patsy McGlone: the more we delve into the detail, the more it does not stack up as the proper way to proceed.

The last Member who spoke essentially offered us two alternatives, which were to accept the amendment or to sit on our hands. I do not think that those are the proper choices. I think that there is a better and more productive way to go forward without the amendment. The reason I say —

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

OK. I will give way.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member quoted the previous Member as saying that we cannot just sit on our hands and do nothing. Does the Member agree that this Assembly needs to be a bit more mature and recognise that sometimes doing nothing is the right approach, particularly if it is going to make an amendment to legislation that will have an effect on the public that is worse than doing nothing? It is sometimes appropriate for the Assembly to do nothing.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I appreciate the Member’s point. That is sometimes the case, although I am not going to advocate doing nothing in this case.

When I look at the proposal, although I admire the sentiments behind it, I wonder whether the Alliance Party has moved from its traditional reputation of being tree-huggers to being tree killers. I appreciate that that may also apply to others in the House. I do not know whether it is trying to create a bit of clean, green water between itself and the Green Party, which I suspect may not be just as enthusiastic about the proposal. We wait to hear the words of Mr Wilson at the next stage.

There are a number of points to be made about the proposed amendment. First, the requirement to produce a report seems to be very unusual in respect of legislation. That is not normally the way in which it happens. I appreciate that the Member has not been here for a long time. The normal process is that Departments produce reports that produce reviews. It is very rare for that to be straitjacketed in a particular way in legislation. If the amendment is not passed, I would like to see — I suspect that it will have to happen anyway — a wider review of the legislation once it has been implemented and has had time to bed in. Simply not having the provision in place will not mean that the Department will be sitting on its hands or doing nothing. It will give the Department greater scope to look at what needs to be done.

This legislation was somewhat controversial for some people because it was implemented a few years ago in England and, as I understand it, there were a lot of problems with that. That is one of the reasons why the Department and the Committee have striven to ensure that we get what we have right. It is fairly clear that, at some time down the line, there will have to be a review of the legislation to ensure that we have got it right, not simply on the matter of single trees but on a wider range of topics, and that we have something that is bespoke to Northern Ireland. That will have to happen, and I am sure that the Department would see that as a progressive route — no pun intended.

What we have in the proposed amendment is something that straitjackets us in a number of ways. First, mention was made of the Committee’s amendment. I am relatively agnostic about whether single trees ultimately do or do not form part of the proposals. I took the view that they should not be part of this legislation because that was not part of the consultation, and I think that it would be wrong to insert it into the legislation. As Mr Clarke indicated, the Committee’s amendment at least limited the single tree issue to where it saw the problem as being, whereas the scope of this proposal is too wide. It covers anything to do with single trees.

Secondly, if we are to get a report on the nature and extent, it means that we have legislation that does not cover single trees. If it is known that that is not, therefore, a valid complaint, will someone in the community put in a complaint to their local council about single trees when they know that that is outside the scope of the legislation? If they do not put in a complaint, how do we get a clear-cut view of the impact of single trees? Why would someone complain about something that they know will not only cost them a certain amount to lodge but will have no chance of success? How will get a particularly accurate picture of that?

Any review needs to go beyond simply single trees and, consequently, the proposal is flawed in that respect as well. The point that Mr McGlone made is also valid. If we are to have a proper review, I question what is proposed under new clause 16A(2), which would mean that a report would be produced within 18 months. In practice, if the report is laid before the Assembly within 18 months, drafting will probably start within a year of the legislation coming into effect.

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

Does the Member accept that if any review is to be conducted, the Department’s criteria for such a review will be key? In other words, how wide-ranging or narrow would the review be — whether, dare I say it, it would be a root and branch review — and what specific areas would it go into?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

That is a valid point. I hear heckling from the Back Benches that no leaf should be left unturned. We need to have an opportunity to have a review. A review after 18 months, however, is far too soon, and if we the amendment is made, we will be specifically tied to a particular report on a particular issue in a time frame that may not produce the answers that we require.

Mr McGlone is right: it is important to have a degree of discussion and consultation among the Department, the Assembly and the Committee for the Environment in the next term on what the scope of a review should be.

If we accept the amendment, and I have no doubt that there are good intentions behind it, we straitjacket that review to one particular issue and one particular time frame in one particular way. There is, however, an opportunity to have a wider review. We have done some educated guesswork, and it is only sensible in mapping a way forward that we have talked about fees. Perhaps the fees regime will not work out particularly well. Is that covered by the amendment? No. It is limited to a report on single trees. What is the overall impact on the environment? Again, that is outside the scope of the amendment.

I want to see a commitment to a wider review that will be carried out in a more timely fashion. I suspect that we will require a minimum of at least two or three years of implementation before we will be in a position to have a proper assessment of the overall impact of the legislation. I would prefer not to tie our hands at this stage with what is an unnecessary amendment. The requirement to produce a report or undertake a review does not need to be in the Bill. We have seen that happen with a number of pieces of legislation. In addition, the idea of a review has been got wrong from the start. I would much rather see the Department conduct a review in a more realistic time frame, in which it can have discussions with the Committee for the Environment.

However well-motivated, the amendment is ill-judged. I urge the House not to accept it today, and instead, in an almost Blairite fashion, find a third way. It is not a question of the amendment itself or of sitting on our hands but of finding something that is of much more productive use by way of support for some sort of report, ultimately from the Department, on a wider review of the implementation of the legislation. That is a much more sensible way forward, and I urge the proposer of the amendment to consider that and not press his amendment. If he does, however, I urge to House to take a wider view on a better way forward for the implementation of the legislation and vote against the amendment.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I welcome the amendment. High hedges and trees have been a major issue in my constituency. As a member of North Down Borough Council, I have dealt with many such cases over the past 30 years. Indeed, I was involved in drawing up a number of my constituents’ responses to Lord Rooker’s consultation, and I know for a fact that some of the respondents were referring to high trees rather than hedges.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am not in any way questioning the fact that single trees need to be discussed. However, does the Member not accept that, if made, the amendment will limit the scope of any report and that we should instead be looking at the implementation of the entire Bill? Would that not be a better way forward than simply having a single report that deals with one specific issue relatively soon in the term of a new Assembly? We should try to get it right for all constituents.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I accept the Member’s point, but I do not agree with it.

The Assembly is giving a lot of time to discussion of this legislation. I doubt whether the next Assembly will revisit the issue unless there is an obligation in existing legislation. I am not sure where we are going. I would prefer to deal with the issues of light and the amenity of a garden. Discussing roots and so on makes it a totally different issue that has no place in the Bill.

Many of my constituents have been unable to enjoy their gardens because of inconsiderate neighbours who are unwilling to reduce their hedges. People have become aware of this legislation in recent months. People have asked me about the precise detail of the legislation and when it will be implemented, yet it is clear that the legislation will not cover those people’s cases. The legislation does not go far enough. Most people expected the legislation to resolve issues that have been around for 20 years; they thought that the High Hedges Bill would resolve problems that they have with their neighbours. In fact, it will not resolve problems in most cases, and those people will be very disappointed. We are building up expectations.

High hedges are not the only issue, as they often incorporate high trees as well. Many people’s problems relate to individual trees and their impact on light. Therefore, it is important that we look at the question of individual trees and groups of trees in respect of light and amenity but not in respect of the wider issues that other Members raised. I certainly do not approve of felling trees in normal circumstances. However, there are certain circumstances in which individual trees, such as leylandii, can be removed without causing environmental damage. In other cases, trees are protected by tree preservation orders or by being an integral part of an area of townscape character or a conservation area. Nothing should be done to those trees.

We have to look at the problems; for example, councils should monitor complaints. One of the things that came out of the report is that most councils have no idea of the number of complaints because they do not keep a record of them. Councils do not distinguish between trees and high hedges. The amendment asks that we find out the extent of the problem.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

How does the Member expect that information to be collated? I am still unsure about that.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

If people tell a council that they have a problem, the council should keep a record of it.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Given that single trees are outside the scope of the legislation, a complaint about a single tree will not be acted on. Why would someone ask a council to do something that they know to be outside the scope of what a council can take action on? We would not get a full picture.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

People go to councils already. I am aware of people coming to North Down Borough Council with a problem and the council saying that it can do nothing about it. With the passing of the High Hedges Bill, people will become much more aware of the legislation. They will ask a council whether a particular problem is covered by the high hedges legislation, and the council will have a record. There is no intention of going out and doing a census that looks at every tree. Basically, if constituents have a problem with a particular tree, they would approach the council.

There are a number of other issues around high trees. Obviously, a blanket view on cutting down trees is absurd and totally unacceptable. It is important that we consider the issue further and support this amendment. That will help us revisit the issue, because, if we have no obligation to follow this up, the next Assembly will probably let the matter go.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When I took office some two years ago, I decided within weeks that I would move high hedges legislation forward. As a constituency representative, I knew that that issue required some remediation, because there was no possible means of dealing with it under existing legislation. Quite quickly, I proceeded to put out to consultation high hedges legislation. I repeat: high hedges legislation; legislation not about trees, but about hedges.

The major problem identified is that Castlewellan Gold leylandii-type trees that have been allowed to grow without control cause huge damage to other people’s property and their enjoyment of the property, due to loss of light and other issues.

Today, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. This Assembly seems to have the capacity to see something coming from stage left, and, without having given it due consideration, to walk through the Lobbies and support it, even though it has not been properly thought through.

This matter went to the Committee in May 2010, and was discussed by the Committee until December 2010. That was seven months in which to deal with a 20-clause Bill. Today, something has come forward that fundamentally changes the Bill, and, all of a sudden, Members are prepared to go through the Lobbies and support it, without it having had due consideration, consultation or anything else. That is not a good way to legislate. Had the Committee come up with the idea during the process, we could have given it due consideration and made an appropriate response. If we want to carry out a tree survey, that is not something that needs to be legislated for.

Should the High Hedges Bill go forward unamended, I anticipate that, when the responsibility is given to councils to take forward, they will quite quickly identify where there are other problems outstanding. If a large-scale problem exists, of course we will respond. That is what this House is about. We are debating the issue because we responded to the existing problem in the first instance.

I do not know about the rest of the House, but, as I go through life, I discover that there is not a solution to every problem that I come across. I discover that, on occasion, there are solutions that are disproportionate to the scale of the problem, and, therefore, those solutions are not carried through. We have identified that there is a significant problem. We are going to deal with that in a significant way. However, to go down the route that is being proposed by Mr Lyttle today would open the door for a cranks charter. As public representatives, we know that people do not always come to us with the best of intentions. People get involved in disputes with neighbours over a range of issues, and this will be an opportune time for people who have other problems with their neighbours to create real problems. Councils, public representatives and everyone else will get drawn into that. Huge costs will be incurred by the councils as a consequence, and we do not know what the resolution will be. I ask Members to think again about this particular issue.

If the amendment is agreed today, Chris Lyttle may become known as “Chopper” Lyttle as a consequence. I do not know whether Brian Wilson is still a member of the Green Party. I know he is not standing for the Green Party after this mandate concludes, but I am stunned that he wants to include something on the removal of deciduous trees. It is quite shocking that the Members to my right, including Mr Wilson and Mr Lyttle, want to take us down a route that would ultimately lead to the removal of deciduous trees in urban settings.

Trees add to the value of life. There are many fine chestnut trees and oak trees in urban settings that have a wonderful canopy. That may affect the light in someone’s garden or leaves may land on other people’s properties, and so forth. That, in turn, may lead to those people getting involved in this report, which may ultimately lead to a situation in which such trees would have to be removed. I am opposed to that. I am wholly opposed to removing quality trees in urban settings. I regret the fact that Mr Wilson and Mr Lyttle seem to be going down a route in which they support the removal of quality trees from urban settings, undermining wildlife and the environment. It is a shocking day when the Green Party supports the undermining of the environment to this extent.

Mr Wilson seemed to think that there would be some great resistance to this, but there is no unwillingness in my Department whatsoever to carry out an early assessment of the effectiveness of high hedges legislation. I have seen the ginormous single tree referred to in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, and have great sympathies with the individual who is involved in that situation, which involves a leylandii that has grown completely out of control. However, if there is something more that the Department can do to respond to that situation that is practical and sensible and that will not lead to a situation in which high-quality deciduous trees would be removed from urban settings, it will be quite happy to look at those issues again irrespective of who the Minister may be, because those are sensible and rational ways of going about things. However, the Members are trying to force us to spend an unknown sum of money pursuing the issue. In these straitened times, when my Department, unlike some others, is suffering a significant reduction in funding because of the planning downturn and other issues over the past two years, where would we find the money to do this? Are the Members proposing —

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Minister give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I listened to the comments from the other side of the House, and some common-sense points have been made. However, if the amendment is not made, and Mr Weir clearly outlined his views, will the Minister commit to a review of high hedges legislation around single trees and the roles and responsibilities of councils in how they would address the issue?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that. I am in office for a few more weeks, so it is difficult for me to make a commitment about what others might do thereafter.

Were I in office, I would absolutely give a commitment to the House to review the effectiveness of the high hedges legislation, and if it is deemed not to be effective and where there are reasonable solutions, I would be very happy to look at those issues. I would be totally up for a review. If the Member’s party happened to hold the Environment Minister’s portfolio, I suspect that it would be up for review. I suspect that the other parties that currently make up the Executive would also support that. That can be done without legislation.

The system allows the Minister of the day, whoever that happens to be, to identify how to fit measures into their priorities. At the moment, with the departmental budget set for four years, it would mean cutting something else. It may mean cutting the local government grant or the grants that we give to NGOs. Mr Wilson and Mr Lyttle could be supporting cuts to the RSPB, the National Trust and many of the other organisations, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature, that do a very fine job in supporting the Executive in delivering their biodiversity strategy and all the other strategies that we need to ensure that Northern Ireland’s environmental position continues to get better. Perhaps we could just abandon a few more area plans and put them back for another few years. If we proceeded with the proposal, those are the sorts of decisions that the Minister would have to take.

I am quite happy and willing to go down the route that was suggested by Mr Boylan. However, the sooner we enact the legislation, the better. It will have a significant beneficial impact on hundreds if not thousands of our constituents. We can deal with the issue that Mr Lyttle has raised in a rational way that is measured and responsive to our needs. I urge Mr Lyttle not to press the amendment to a vote in the first instance. We have taken account of his desires; I have made that very clear. Should he wish to proceed, I urge the House not to support the amendment.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

My only regret is that it seems to have taken a newcomer, in the words of Peter Weir, and a non-member of the Environment Committee to raise this issue in any detailed fashion. I tabled the amendment because Members, including those who sit on the Environment Committee, advised me at Consideration Stage that provision for single trees would not be included in the Bill. Having consulted with the Woodland Trust and local authority tree officers, I was reluctant to let that pass without putting forward proposals that could find a way, on behalf of local people, for us to include in the Bill some form of consideration on single trees.

I thank Mr Boylan, the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, for his support for the amendment and for highlighting councils’ disappointment at the lack of provision in the Bill on single trees. I also thank Trevor Clarke for his interventions. I particularly regret that he was not able to find his voice before today. I am not too sure why that was.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I resent the claim that I lost my voice because, if I remember correctly, when the Bill was last debated in the House, I was one of the Members who urged the Chairman to move the amendment. I want provision for single trees to be included, so the Member’s accusation is unfair and unjust. I had a conversation with Mr Lyttle, so to suggest that I lost my voice is unfair.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

If that is the level of conversation that Mr Clarke has with people, we may need to get him some help in developing that. I fear for his constituents if that is the extent to which he lobbies on issues about which he feels strongly.

To speak substantively to some of Mr Clarke’s concerns: I fail to see how the Department could not find a way to require a council to focus information-gathering on this issue. Indeed, it is important to emphasise that amendment No 4 requires the Department to conduct a review outwith the council, at this stage.

I thank Mr Kinahan for his contribution. He recognised that I was not a Committee member, and I welcome his support for my contribution to the debate regardless of that. He also re-emphasised disappointment that single trees had not been included in the Bill.

Mr McGlone raised issues around concerns for heritage. As I said in my opening remarks, I share those concerns, which is why the amend­ment proposes to review this issue as opposed to making concrete provision in the legislation. Mr McGlone also raised concerns about the timescale of the report. I am not sure that the public would grace the Department with much longer than 18 months to try to find a way of tackling what every Member who spoke acknowledged to be a serious problem in their constituency.

Alistair Ross also recognised the issue but said that it would not be possible to include provision for single trees in the Bill. He said that consultation responses had raised significant concerns, but that that had come from councils. Well, obviously, councils represent local people, and I argue that there is significant concern out there. He also questioned the Department’s ability to collate the information in a detailed manner. I am not sure that the public would grace the Department with that excuse; they would expect us to review this situation in detail.

Mr Clarke also understood the concerns —

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I am looking for more clarification on that issue. Members have outlined genuine concerns about how such information would be collated, not least because the issue of single trees is not in the scope of the Bill. Therefore, when an issue is raised with a local council, it will inform the individual concerned that single trees are not included in the legislation and may not collect that information. The Member is now saying that it will be up to the Department rather than local councils to collate that information. Will he tell us how he envisages that happening?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I find it hard to see how there is an issue about a Department and a local council working together to appropriately collate information. The issue has already been raised. We are saying that it is outwith the Bill, but that issue has been raised with councils for many years. People already contact councils about single trees and will continue to do so. On the ground, they have not disassociated single trees from high hedges, and they expect delivery on that issue.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Has the Member given any thought or consideration to how much it will cost to implement this? I do not think anybody knows. If it is identified as a six-figure sum, and I expect that it will be, where should that funding come from? Where does the Member propose that the DOE should cut? Should it be the NGOs? Should it be the Planning Service? Should it be NIEA? Should it be from the next Assembly’s legislative programme? Should it be from waste management? Where does the Member propose that we cut to enable us to do this? There will be potential opportunities to address this in a way that is not legislated for.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister. As was said by a colleague, the need to know the scale of this problem and the significant number of times that it has been raised with Members suggests that it is something that we try to find resources for. The Minister knows clearly my position and that of my party on the need for an independent Environment Agency and our record on biodiversity. Therefore, to suggest otherwise is extremely misleading and disingenuous, but that has already been done. As was said by colleagues, the amendment provides a reasonable timescale for the Department to fulfil the duty of preparing a report.

I also thank Mr Weir for his contribution. Despite saying that the amendment was ill-judged, he recognised the sentiment behind it.

He suggested a wider review of the legislation. I do not see how amendment No 4 would preclude such a review. Indeed, given —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Let me finish the point quickly. Given the length of time taken to introduce the high hedges legislation, I am sure that the public would shudder at the thought of another review of legislation before we get anywhere near to dealing with the single-trees issue.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. The point is not about the wider review. If the Member’s amendment was to go through, we would, in effect, need to have two reviews. As well as the wider review, we would have a review on that specific aspect. Surely, if there is to be a review, it makes more sense for it to encompass all the issues. Surely that would be a more sensible way forward. It would certainly be a much more cost-effective way forward.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention. As I stated, my concern is that, two or three years down the line, the High Hedges Bill will have failed to tackle the single-trees issue. I propose, therefore, before getting anywhere near to considering the issue in detail, that we have an additional review now. Nevertheless, I take the Member’s point on board.

Mr Wilson spoke eloquently about the nature of the problem and about the fact that the High Hedges Bill would let down many local people who raised the issue. I fear that, in the absence of amendment No 4, those people will feel that we have failed to deliver for them.

I also thank the Minister for the points that he raised. As he rightly said, in his time in office, he has put high hedges in focus. As I said in my opening remarks, my only regret is the time that it has taken him to do that. He also suggested that the amendment would fundamentally change the Bill. However, as I said, I do not think that the people for whom tall trees and high hedges are an issue disconnect the two. The Minister also said that we do not need legislation to review tall trees. Unfortunately, the length of time that has passed suggests otherwise. The Minister raised concerns about the cost of dealing with the issue. As I mentioned, people feel that the extent of the problem means that we must find ways, albeit cost-efficient ways, to explore the scale of the problem, with a view to introducing concrete proposals.

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment for his support for the Bill and for his intervention, during which he said that there are common-sense motives behind the proposed amendment.

In conclusion, I fear that, should we not move today, the Department of the Environment will be abdicating its responsibility to help local people affected by excessively tall trees. I also fail to understand how a Department cannot work in co-operation with local councils to gather information that is already being submitted by local people affected by the problem. In addition, given how long it has taken us to introduce high hedges legislation, we need a concrete proposal for the Assembly to review the issue.

Question, That amendment No 4 be made, put and negatived.

Clause 18 (Regulations and orders)

Amendment No 5 made: In page 13, line 4, after “section” insert “(Fees)(4),”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That concludes Further Consideration Stage of the High Hedges Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. As Question Time is coming up at 2.30 pm, I ask the House to suspend until that time.

The sitting was suspended at 2.14 pm.

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

2.30 pm

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

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

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how they are taking forward the recommendations in the Victims’ Commission report, ‘Dealing with the Past’. (AQO 1195/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Dealing with the past is a highly sensitive matter. However, it is an issue that we need to resolve. It is an issue for all the parties in the Assembly, the community at large and the two Governments. We have received a paper from the Commission for Victims and Survivors that contains its views on dealing with the past. We thank the commission and all involved for their hard work in producing that paper. Junior Ministers and officials have met the commission to discuss the contents of the report and to seek clarity on some of its recommendations.

When we published our strategy for victims and survivors in November 2009, we outlined our commitment to taking forward a range of issues in a comprehensive and coherent manner. We identified that a comprehensive assessment of the needs of victims and survivors was required to inform the development of the new service, and OFMDFM’s immediate priority is the design and establishment of that service. Since the commission was established, we have made it clear to the commissioners that the delivery of the comprehensive needs assessment is a responsibility that rests clearly with them and that its timely delivery is crucial to informing the development of the service to meet the needs of all victims and survivors.

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

One recommendation from the victims’ commissioners was that OFMDFM’s policy on cohesion, sharing and integration should include a commitment to dealing with the past as one of its core themes. As the draft proposals on cohesion, sharing and integration, conspicuously, did not deal with that matter, will the deputy First Minister ensure that when a final cohesion, sharing and integration policy is produced, it will, effectively, do so?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that the cohesion, sharing and integration consultation has ended and that officials and, indeed, the First Minister and I are presently engaged in work to consider the outcome of that consultation. In the course of that consultation, many people commented and put forward ideas and suggestions, all of which will be considered seriously as we go forward. The Member knows as well as anybody else in the House that the issue involves more than the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister or, indeed, the Executive or the Assembly. It exercises the two Governments and, indeed, many people in the community. If a solution is to be found to resolve that issue, that is where it is to be found.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

In trying to progress the issue of innocent victims and dealing with the past, does the deputy First Minister not think that the long, slow process of building his credibility in that regard would be enhanced by a clear, unambiguous statement of his involvement?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member is, probably, the person in the House who is most embedded in the past. The contribution that he has just made in no way lends itself to this afternoon’s discussion.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Dealing with the past is a sensitive issue, and the role of victims of the past conflict is important. Will the deputy First Minister tell the House whether views expressed by the commission are consistent with those expressed by the victims’ forum?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The commission’s views are not consistent with those expressed by the pilot victims’ forum. The forum gave the commission important critical scrutiny and provided advice on dealing with the past. The pilot forum retains divergent views on the definition of victims. However, it reached consensus on the principle that all victims who are in need should receive support and assistance regardless of the circumstances that caused their need.

Dawn Purvis (Independent, Belfast East)

Does the Minister agree that the issue of dealing with the past is too huge a burden to be placed solely on society’s victims? Does he agree that the current piecemeal approach to dealing with the past is not sufficient, nor is it fully joined-up or co-ordinated? Does he agree that a wider societal debate on how to deal with the past is needed?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am firmly in the camp of people who believe that the needs of victims have to be considered first and foremost in how we deal with that issue. We all understand that, due to the nature of the conflict, there are many victims of different political allegiances and many with none. To be honest, and as I have said publicly in recent times, the way in which governments have dealt with the past has been all over the place. I get no sense from anybody that governments have even the remotest clue about how to set about dealing with the past. I do not speak for the First Minister on this issue, but my party has stated its position. However, I am conscious of the fact that our position is different from the position of many others in the House and outside the House.

I have often described the issue of how we deal with the past as one of the great failures of the peace process. I believe that to be true. However, a solution for that has to be found, and that can only be found when we have a comprehensive and joined-up approach in which everybody recognises their responsibilities in contributing to that.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they would support the delisting of buildings on the Maze/Long Kesh site. (AQO 1196/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Delisting is a matter for the Department of the Environment. That Department included a review of the listing decision in respect of the relevant buildings at MLK (Maze/Long Kesh) in September 2009. The original listing decision taken in 2004 by direct rule Ministers remains unchanged.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Do the facts that the buildings on the site did not qualify to be listed on the basis of their architectural interest or age, and that the original listings that he mentioned were not equality proofed deter the Minister from supporting a shrine to terrorists under the guise of a conflict transformation centre?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not know how many times I have answered questions about that. It has never been the intention of anyone involved in the project to have a shrine at the Maze/Long Kesh site. What we are attempting to do has been widely acclaimed by all those who have looked at the site. In 2004, for example, the NIEA listed buildings at MLK, following detailed research and recommendations from the CGMS historic buildings team and recommendations of the MLK cross-party consultation panel. CGMS is an English archaeology firm that won the contract to identify heritage at MLK in line with the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects Order 1995 and the 1991 Planning Order. The following buildings have been listed: H-Block 6; the multidenominational chapel; specific lengths of perimeter walls and watch towers; the prison hospital; and the administration block. The hangars at the site have been given scheduled building status. Several other buildings, such as the main gate building, the visit block, the kitchen and the prison laundry have been retained. In 2005, the DOE confirmed that cage compound 19 would be listed when it is moved to its final position on the site.

Listed buildings can be delisted. However, given the detailed consideration and consultation that took place at the time and the recent examination of the issue, the Department of the Environment has ruled that the buildings at Maze/Long Kesh will not be delisted. The 1991 Planning Order details the policy on listing.

It is important to stress that all of the fairly eminent developers who have come to look at the site have looked at the tremendous advantage that the site gives us. I have outlined the detail of the buildings that are being retained. I suppose that the people who kept intact the prison at Robben Island —

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

The deputy First Minister’s time is up.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— where Nelson Mandela was held would appreciate the importance and the significance of this.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the fact that there are no stated intentions to delist the buildings. Does the Minister agree that the listed buildings, including the prison buildings, in conjunction with the conflict transformation centre, will be a key component in the overall development of the site?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The peace building and conflict transformation centre is of immense importance. That is accepted internationally. That is why we have the full support of President Barroso and the European Union. We have made our application to the European Union and fully expect to be successful in achieving something in the region of £18 million over the course of the next short while to enable us to have this project up and running by 2015. We believe that it will be a very important part of what is one of the most significant development sites in the whole of the North.

Others have shown an interest in the site. For example, the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) is currently involved in detailed negotiations with officials. If that move can be made, there is no doubt that we will effectively have a site that will be a major focus, not just for the North but the whole of the island. As we know, many people in the farming institutions, North and South, regularly attend the Balmoral Show. For it to be sited at the Maze/Long Kesh site would be of huge economic advantage to us. It is a site of great economic significance.

There should be sensible and common-sense development of the listed buildings in a way that offends no one, because Members will remember that many people were on the site, not just the ex-prisoners. People worked there. There is a military installation that was used during the Second World War. Many prison officers are supportive of the project, and there are many others, including people in the British Army who guarded the prisoners there, who accept the enormous significance of the site. In economic terms, it is very important for us to develop it.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that the Maze/Long Kesh is at least relevant to all traditions in our society, and the retention of the buildings in question is important to our shared history and shared future?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes; I believe that that has been widely recognised. I hope that the recent conversations that have taken place have brought about an increased realisation that nobody is looking to use the site for political advantage. What we are trying to do is use the site as part of an arena to which people from the international community can come and where there can be an educational facility for those looking to learn about how conflict is resolved. We can use the enormous benefits that will flow from that for the economic prosperity of our people.

As I said, the RUAS has indicated its desire to move to the site, and discussions are ongoing. I have no doubt whatsoever that the site will attract many developments in the coming years. Many people recognise that, if we properly develop it, the peace-building and conflict transformation centre will probably be the centrepiece of the whole site, which is one of the largest sites on the island of Ireland. It is about economics and jobs. We all know that if the site is properly utilised, thousands and thousands of new jobs will be provided. I cannot see the argument against that.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Many people will be interested in the commitment to the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society. When can we see progress on that commitment and the interest shown materialising into the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society having a quality facility and a quality show on the premises?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I was privileged to meet the RUAS when we attended the Depart­ment of Agriculture and Rural Development’s breakfast at the Balmoral Show last year. It was obvious to me that the authorities were very anxious to move to the site. Now and over the coming period, very sensitive negotiations are taking place between officials and the RUAS. The RUAS is very anxious to move to the site, and we are anxious to make that happen as quickly as possible. If it can happen next year, that will be grand, but if we have to wait for a year after that, that will also be grand. It is a massive project to move, but it is fair to say that we and the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society are very anxious to make it happen.

Simpson Gibson (DUP, Strangford)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they responded formally to Her Majesty’s Government’s consultation on the relocation of coastguard facilities. (AQO 1197/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Our officials have drafted a response to the consultation, which we are currently considering. We intend to submit that response to the Department for Transport by the 24 March deadline. We are also writing to the Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning, setting out our significant concerns about the potential closure of the only coastguard rescue centre here, as it will leave us as the only Administration without a coastguard presence.

Furthermore, it would also affect the South and the arrangements between both jurisdictions because Belfast coastguard is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s official liaison point with the Irish coastguard. We asked the Minister for Regional Development to consider submitting a response to the consultation together with our civil contingencies group. The issue is also to be included on the agenda of the next British-Irish Council meeting in June.

The First Minister and I had a positive meeting at Bregenz House with Sir Alan Massey, chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and his staff on 17 February 2011 to discuss the draft proposals. We made clear our concerns about the impact that those proposals might have on the safety of people on our coast and at sea, and the impact on potential job losses. A coastguard service here that is fit for purpose for the twenty-first century should mean that the Belfast maritime rescue co-ordination centre is retained on a 24/7 basis. Our consultation response reflects that view.

Simpson Gibson (DUP, Strangford)

We appreciate the response. This is a matter of considerable public concern. Many people do not appreciate that the responsibilities of the coastguard station are much more than simply for our coastal seas; the coastguard is also responsible for the waters of Lough Neagh and Lough Erne. Given that an emergency involving the coastguard invariably requires the co-operation of all emergency services —

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Question, Mr Gibson, question.

Simpson Gibson (DUP, Strangford)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that that co-operation is likely to be more effective through having a local coastguard station?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely 100% agree. The First Minister and I, when we met Lady Sylvia Hermon and Sir Alan Massey at the coastguard station, made the point forcibly that the case for retaining the centre on a 24/7 basis is already made. From our perspective, given that we have a view that the waters on the north-eastern coast of this island are probably some of the most dangerous in these islands, it is important that we co-ordinate with not just the authorities in the South but with those in Scotland and England. The case is compelling, and we will continue to make it forcibly that the coastguard centre should be retained, not on a piecemeal basis but a 24/7 basis.

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

The Minister will be aware of the successful campaign to save the coastguard station at Malin Head, with which I had the privilege of being involved. Does he agree that our coastguards pre-date partition? Does he also agree that this is an all-island service that depends entirely on the integration between the Irish coastguards and those in the North? Does he agree that the same arguments are as valid for this coastguard station as they are for the one at Malin Head?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Coming from the traditions that I come from, I could make all sorts of arguments in favour of that, but this is about life and death. It is about how we save lives and have the most effective service possible. The relationships between Malin Head and Bangor have been powerful and strong over many years.

The work at Dublin and Valentia also has to be co-ordinated. Unless there is a co-ordinated approach, we endanger people’s lives, and not just at sea. A Member mentioned the availability of the facility for people who may get into difficulties in places such as Lough Erne or Lough Neagh. That is important to a fly fisher­man such as me, because I would not know when I would have to avail of some support.

The approach needs to be joined up. Any attempt to remove the Bangor/Belfast coastguard would be a major break in the chain of what has been a very effective service for many decades.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given what the deputy First Minister has said, particularly in his last answer, about the impact of the Belfast coastguard around this island and on other coastlines, will he advise us on what else we can do to ensure that that vital service is protected?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have to continue to lobby people and to support all who are involved in this very important campaign. There is no disagreement in the House about supporting the retention of the coastguard station. So, we have to intensify our efforts. The First Minister and I are very much involved as a result of the discussions that we had at the coastguard station with the representatives from England and Lady Sylvia Hermon to ensure that the service is retained.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his response so far.

When he and the First Minister speak to those who will make the decision, will he emphasise, apart from the normal commercial operations, the importance of the coastguard service to the leisure and tourism industry from Foyle all the way round to Carlingford and inland as well?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That case has been made. We live on an island, and, as a result, people are attracted to the ocean. That results in all sorts of leisure activities, such as sailing. When we go to Bangor and see the amount of boats that are in the marina, it is obvious that sailing is a very popular activity for many of our citizens. Also, many people fish in such places as Lough Neagh and the Erne lakes. All of those are important recreational activities for our people.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the past, people have lost their lives at sea in various tragedies. I had a friend who lost his life in a river while fly-fishing. We all know somebody or some family who have been affected by such tragedy. Fishing communities along the County Down coast have suffered awful tragedies in recent years, so the coastguard service is important. There is no political argument about that. This is about life and death and how we can protect our citizens, not just when they are working but also when they are involved in leisure activities.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the development of a childcare strategy. (AQO 1198/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Kelly to answer that question.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We hope to bring a paper relating to the policy and economic appraisal report on childcare to the Executive in the next few weeks. That paper will outline the report’s key findings. Once a way forward is agreed, the next phase of the work on the development of a childcare strategy will begin. It is our intention that a lead Department, or Departments, for that policy area will be identified and that the childcare strategy will be developed with a lead from that Department, or Departments, in collaboration with the relevant ministerial subcommittee and the child poverty subgroup.

In advance of a lead Department being identified, OFMDFM ensured that the budget included an additional £12 million for the childcare strategy.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the news that an additional £12 million has been found to implement the childcare strategy.

Will the Minister outline who has provided funding for PlayBoard projects over the past few years? Will he also reassure after-school clubs, which are quite concerned about funding at the moment, that funding will continue seamlessly from this financial year to the next one?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Funding for PlayBoard was covered by DHSSPS from the end of June 2008 until December 2008. From January to March 2009, OFMDFM provided the necessary £250,000. During 2009-2010, OFMDFM provided £786,000, with an additional £80,000 from DHSSPS and £60,000 from DETI. From April 2010 to March of this year, OFMDFM has provided £577,000 with the additional £100,000 coming from the Department of Education and £60,000 coming from DETI.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he recognise that there is a specific need for childminders, given the decline in their numbers over the past 10 years? Will he assure the House that the new childcare package will go some way to address the need in that area?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member identified a difficulty that we are keen to look at, and that will form part of the strategy as we move forward.

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

What evidence can the junior Minister provide that the childcare strategy will be co-ordinated with the child poverty strategy and with the Executive’s decision to make the economy the number one priority in the provision of affordable childcare?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The evidence is that the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people, which the other junior Minister and I chair, asked the child poverty subgroup to become involved. Therefore, we have a very co-ordinated approach. The Member will know that the reason why the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people was included was to ensure that all Departments are involved. It is also a priority to appoint a lead Department or Departments to take the strategy forward.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what actions they will take to ensure that arm’s-length bodies deliver value for money. (AQO 1199/11)

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

10. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to what extent they will reduce the number of their Department’s arm’s-length bodies. (AQO 1204/11)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 10 together.

The Executive agreed criteria and arrangements for the review of arm’s-length bodies. Those were announced when the statement on the draft Budget was made in December. The Budget review group, supported by officials from OFMDFM and DFP, is reviewing arm’s-length bodies against those criteria on the basis of information that Departments supplied. That group will bring recommendations to the Executive.

OFMDFM has departmental responsibility for a number of arm’s-length bodies that fall within the scope of the review. In the context of the Budget plans for 2011-15, we expect each of the Departments’ arm’s-length bodies to deliver savings of 3% per annum in their administration and operating costs. That will deliver accumulative savings of £4·9 million by March 2015. OFMDFM is examining the potential to deliver savings in its arm’s-length bodies through a rationalisation of their structures and functions. That will include an examination of the potential for greater sharing of accommodation and back office functions. Consistent with the work that the Budget review group is taking forward, we will critically examine the current and future role of each of the bodies for which OFMDFM is responsible. We will also consider the potential for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of the services that they provide.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the review. Will the deputy First Minister assure the House and the public that, as part of that review, if any of those arm’s-length bodies is underperforming or not providing value for money, they will be got rid of or amalgamated with another body, if necessary?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I made it clear that we are looking closely at all this. That obviously includes the performance of the arm’s-length bodies. If they are not performing or delivering in the way entrusted to them by the Executive, we have a responsibility to deal with that in a manner that ensures that the public purse, which is very stretched at the minute, is protected.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. What criteria are being used to carry out the review of arm’s-length bodies?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are looking at a range of arm’s-length bodies, with the aim of assessing which might be abolished, merged or integrated into Departments.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what action he has taken to develop export markets for creative industries. (AQO 1209/11)

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

11. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, given that March has been designated “Creativity Month”, how he is using his budget creatively to promote job creation. (AQO 1219/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 11 together.

My Department supports job creation and innovation as investment in culture, arts and leisure. That fuels the emergence of creative people and creative enterprises. The creative industries are recognised across the world for their potential for job and wealth creation, and the sector can help to grow a dynamic and innovative economy in Northern Ireland.

In 2008, my Department launched the creative industries innovation fund to help the sector to compete and succeed on the world stage, and 134 businesses and 22 sectoral development bodies have been supported to promote innovation in business through people and sectoral development. Evaluation of the programme is ongoing, but emerging findings indicate that many businesses have significantly increased their innovation and international activity.

The digital contents sector, which includes Internet games and mobile applications, is a massive global growth area. Later this month, my Department will help to support one of the largest ever overseas trade missions for a specific business sector. Around 40 business delegates from Northern Ireland’s interactive media and music sectors will attend the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas, which will showcase our creative enterprises and support access to export markets.

The Department is working across the region to raise the profile of creative industries and enhance their contribution to rebuilding and rebalancing our economy. I am pleased that the Executive have assigned an additional £4 million in the draft Budget to help to develop the skills and capacity to grow the sector even further.

"Creativity Month" during March this year is also important in promoting a range of events across Northern Ireland to raise the profile of the creative industries.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that we all agree that the sector has huge potential. Will the Minister tell us whether he has an estimate of the export earnings that have been generated by creative industries here in the past four years and what role our investment ambassador, who was appointed last August, is playing in boosting those earnings?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am quite clear about the amount that we have invested in the sector. However, to carry out an assessment of the total benefit to our economy would require a piece of work. I do not have that information to hand, but I will certainly consider it. With regard to promoting the sector, we want to use every opportunity, every mechanism and every individual to best effect.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

John McCallister is not in his place to ask a supplementary question.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister has outlined the importance of creative industries to the Northern Ireland economy. Will he provide an update on the creative industry’s innovation fund, and will he confirm whether the fund will be in place next year?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

In 2008, the Department secured funding from the Northern Ireland innovation fund to undertake a three-year programme to boost local creative industries. That included the provision of a creative industries innovation fund and a range of related initiatives to support innovation in business by people and through sectoral knowledge and development. The fund, which is administered by the Arts Council, has made awards to date totalling £3·62 million to 133 individuals and 23 sectoral bodies. The sectors that have been supported include film, digital media, music, craft and the performing arts. Moving forward, my Department is evaluating the impact of the fund and will consider how best to build on its success. As I indicated already, £4 million has been assigned in the draft Budget to provide similar and prioritised support to further help our creative industries on the world stage.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that investment in arts at grass-roots level, including community level, is critical to ensuring that we remain competitive in the creative industries and in indentifying and nurturing new talent?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member rightly identifies the link between the creative industries and all the other creative activities and industries in Northern Ireland. In the current financial situation, it is important that, as the Arts Council allocates resources, it ensures that we get the maximum value for money and that we direct money as far as possible to front line services.

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

Will the Minister tell us whether he or his Department had any discussions with the Department for Employment and Learning or its Minister with regard to improving training opportunities for people in the creative industries?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The creative sector spans different Departments, including DCAL, DETI and DEL.

It is important that we have a joined-up approach. I welcome the suggestion. I am not aware of discussions, but it is a matter worth considering. We need to have all the skills in place. I have met a number of folk in the universities. I was with some of them the other day and I asked how they would identify their needs.

One of the important things is that in 2008 the Department launched a strategic action plan for the creative industries. That was primarily with DETI and Invest NI, but DEL has a role to play as well.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how much funding both he and his Department have invested in motorsport safety over the past two years. (AQO 1210/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Responsibility for funding and investing in motorsports safety in Northern Ireland rests in the first instance with the organisers of those events and the governing bodies of the sport. However, over the past two years, my Department, through Sport NI, has committed up to £2 million to motorsport to help it bring about health and safety improvements at a number of motorsport venues across Northern Ireland.

That funding has been made available through the 2&4 Wheel Motor Sport Steering Group (2&4 Wheel MSG), which is the umbrella body for the four governing bodies of motorsport in Northern Ireland. I recently attended a press conference organised by 2&4 Wheel MSG to announce the works that had been assisted through this funding. It was well-attended by representatives of all the motorsport interests, governing bodies and circuit owners. The course changes that have been carried out at various venues across Northern Ireland, together with the safety equipment which has been purchased, received a very positive reaction from within the sport and was recognised as an important safety improvement for motorsport.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. It would be remiss of me not to ask a supplementary pertaining to my own constituency. In that vein, I ask the Minister to confirm how much funding Kirkistown motor racing circuit has achieved through the fund.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The circuit at Kirkistown received £435,500 to assist with major upgrading works. Those included the erection of a new marshals’ suite, a new scrutineering building and six pit-lane garages. A new tarmac run-off area and gravel trap were also constructed at the hairpin section of that track.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his comments regarding motorsport in general and in particular his £2 million investment to help improve the health and safety aspect of that exciting sport. Can he tell me, in similar vein, how much he is spending on the promotion of motorsport and to help attract more tourists and visitors to watch and participate in it?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member touches on areas of responsibility. The marketing of the sport is an issue for DETI and the Tourist Board, and they recognise that as a priority. My Department’s role is to support the sport to be effective, safe and successful on the ground.

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

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, given the recent fish kill in the Sixmilewater River, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is pursuing enforcement. (AQO 1211/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

With regard to the incident on the Sixmilewater river on 23 January, DCAL fisheries officers responded immediately to a call from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) for assistance. Over the following days, they carried out a detailed count and classification of the dead fish at the scene of the incident. DCAL fisheries staff continue to work with NIEA staff on the ongoing investigation of this case. DCAL will assist NIEA in providing a specific fish mortality assessment indicating the abundance, age class and species as supplementary evidence to progress a possible prosecution.

The NIEA is an agency of the Department of the Environment, and it is therefore the responsibility of the DOE to ensure that NIEA is pursuing enforcement.

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

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I recognise that it is the Northern Ireland Environment Agency that will take the prosecution. However, I urge the Minister to put, and keep, tremendous pressure on it to come up with a result. This was a great river, full of fish, and it has been polluted twice. That is having an impact on all those anglers who regularly fish that river.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I agree that the recent incident on the Sixmilewater resulted in the death of significant numbers of fish. However, the matter is under investigation by the NIEA and, therefore, I cannot make any further comment on it at this time. I assure the Member that both I and the Minister of the Environment realise the importance of this matter. Fishing is a very popular sport in Northern Ireland and an important part of our tourism offer.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

What support does DCAL provide to angling clubs that suffer fish kills in waters under their management?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

DCAL fisheries staff are happy to work closely with angling clubs that suffer fish kills in waters under their management. Fisheries staff are able to provide detailed technical advice and guidance on all aspects of the reinstatement of fisheries affected by pollution. Those include the monitoring of water quality, habitat improvement works and the restocking of native fish species.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I, too, am very concerned about the Sixmilewater. Has the Minister looked at giving local fishermen or other people who know the river the power to take their own samples and help the environment into the future?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The implementation of the sort of work that the Member speaks about brings us into the area of responsibilities of the Environment Agency. That is, of course, a matter for DOE rather than DCAL.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure on which groups the cultural awareness strategy will focus. (AQO 1212/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Historically, there has been a lack of tolerance, understanding and respect for aspects of the indigenous cultural traditions in Northern Ireland. On occasion, that has led to tensions between the two main communities, which resulted in street unrest and criminal harm to people and properties linked to them. The aim of the cultural awareness strategy is to address those historical tensions in the context of a shared and better future to develop greater tolerance, understanding and respect for our indigenous cultural traditions. Therefore, it is proposed that the cultural awareness strategy will focus on the two main communities in Northern Ireland, supporting one significant project from each. Pre-consultation has taken place with several organisations, including the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland and the GAA.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I understand what he says, but, given the fact that we now have so many new cultures, which are lesser known to the general public, and the fact that we have the CSI document, which aims to promote cohesion, sharing and integration, why have we deliberately excluded those new cultures?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The primary objective of the strategy is to address the historical tensions that exist between the two main communities in Northern Ireland. The aim is to develop greater tolerance, understanding and respect for indigenous cultural traditions. I believe that that is a valid and laudable objective; one that will have to be addressed successfully if we are to create the society in Northern Ireland that is envisaged by the Executive and the Assembly. I appreciate that there are concerns about the proposals, and those are reflected in the responses that my Department received to the consultation. I take this opportunity to reassure Members that the Department will consider and address all the comments received during the public consultation before the strategy is finalised and implemented.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In support of comments made by Anna Lo, I ask the Minister whether “cultural awareness strategy” is not now an absolute misnomer in that it does, indeed, exclude ethnic minorities. Secondly, does the Minister accept that it is widely perceived that the criteria for funding associated with the strategy is so prescriptive and so specific that people feel that the Minister wants to use it to direct funding to pet projects of his liking?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have already answered the first part of the Member’s question. Again, I reject the suggestion made in the second part. The fact that I have had pre-consultation discussions with the Gaelic Athletic Association indicates that it is not a case of directing funding to projects that are particularly identified with my cultural background.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister tell the House how much funding his Department will allocate through this policy in future years?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member makes an important point. It is a small pot of money, and it is important that it is directed strategically. Based on the Department’s current spending plans, it is estimated that the cultural awareness strategy budget will be £75,000 a year for the next four years of the current CSR period.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of the difficulties facing Irish League soccer clubs due to reduced attendances brought about by health and safety regulations. (AQO 1213/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I understand the concerns that have been raised with me by some Irish League football clubs about the impact that the new health and safety regulations appear to be having on attendances at certain Irish League football club games. In response to those concerns, I have asked my officials, in conjunction with Sport Northern Ireland, to look at those concerns in order to see how they might be addressed in the absence, at the moment, of further funding opportunities. I will, of course, wish to be satisfied that any proposed changes will continue to make reasonable provision for the safety of spectators. In the meantime, I am continuing to look at ways of identifying where and how further support to clubs may be provided that would assist them in complying with the regulations.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer and declare an interest as a stadium operator. Does he agree that the new health and safety regulations have contributed significantly to reduced attendances at Irish League games and other sports in Northern Ireland?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have listened to the concerns of the IFA and the Premier League football clubs and the GAA. The fact is that, since the councils started to issue safety certificates, concerns have been expressed by clubs across the different sports. It is also clear that issues remain to be resolved — safety first, certainly. However, we need to bear in mind that there may be some sort of managed risk. I recognise that the regulations have created difficulties at some games, and that is why I have asked my officials to look into the matter in conjunction with Sport NI. It was put to me by one individual that it looks as though we may have a Rolls-Royce model in Northern Ireland when, in fact, a Mondeo would be adequate and fit for purpose.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he comment on the viability of professional soccer in the Six Counties, as it is threatened at the moment because of falling attendances and other related factors? Is he aware that discussions over recent years have been aimed at securing the viability of professional soccer on this island?

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Order. The Member’s question has no relevance whatsoever to the question in hand. I call Mr Tom Elliott.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister said that he has asked his officials and Sport NI to look at the issue of health and safety that has been raised by clubs. Will that include a financial assessment of the downturn in the market in that regard and what finance would be required to bring clubs up to spec?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have had conversations with a number of clubs directly and have met with representatives of all the Premier League clubs in Northern Ireland. We have a verbal indication from them of the sort of impact that they feel the matter is having on gates. In some weeks, it has no impact at all, and in others, for some clubs in particular, it is definitely an issue. On the basis of the attendance figures, we can work out what the financial implications are for the clubs. In some cases it would be true to say that it would require substantial work at a ground, but in other cases a very modest commitment is all that is required. For example, at one club, it was simply a matter of having the funding to acquire radios and put some training in place, amounting to a modest outlay of a few tens of thousands of pounds. For some clubs, a comparatively small amount of money makes a very large difference, but in others the cost would be more substantial.

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

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the IFA has taken considerable steps to address some of the other barriers that existed towards good attendances at Irish Football Association games, particularly the Football for All programme, which has played a huge part.

Will the Minister continue to support improving the environment at football matches by supporting the banning of sectarian chanting at football games in Northern Ireland once and for all?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Again, I fail to see the connection between that question and health and safety regulations, which is what the original question was about. I believe very much in a shared and better future. I want to see an environment in which all sports are open and inclusive. Therefore, problems with things that people say, and rules that exclude people from a particular political tradition from being a member of a club and participating in those sports, all need to be addressed in a holistic way.