Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 March 2011

349 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday 14 February 2011, a Member made and repeated a falsehood about my declarations of interest at Committee meetings during evidence sessions on the Welfare of Animals Bill. My accuser stated that at no time did I declare my honorary membership of the Northern Ireland veterinary association during meetings of the Committee. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that, at the end of the debate on 14 February, I brought the wrongful allegations to your attention.

Will you confirm to the House that you have received a copy of correspondence from the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee office that states categorically that I declared my interests at the appropriate times during the taking of evidence on the Welfare of Animals Bill?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his point of order. As the House knows, I do not normally get involved in Committee business. However, the Member has spoken to me about the issue outside the House, and, as he said, he raised it previously in a point of order. I know that the Member feels very strongly about the matter, and he has shown me correspondence to confirm what he said in the House about properly declaring his interests at meetings of that Committee. I am content with that evidence. The Member clearly has that on the record, and I now consider the matter to be closed. Once again, I thank the Member for his point of order.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 February, I raised a very important issue with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety through an urgent question for written answer. My understanding is that such questions should be responded to within two working days. My question, without elaborating on it, was about an inactivity and lack of response from the Minister. That was the issue that I raised, and 25 working days later I have still not had a response. I seek your guidance about what Members should do if they raise the issue of inactivity from Ministers and get inactivity by way of response.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his point of order. If Members have exhausted all other channels and find that they still cannot get an answer from a Minister to a particular question, I am happy for them to raise that as a point of order in the House and get it on the record. After that, I will write to the Minister to see how we can get an answer to the particular question. I will do that on this occasion.

Order. Before we begin, I wish to advise the House that a valid petition of concern was presented on Monday 7 March 2011 in relation to two amendments published for today’s Consideration Stage of the Planning Bill. Amendment Nos 20 and 102, which are in group 3, deal with planning control. The votes on those matters will be on a cross-community basis and may take place today.

Ministerial Statement

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome this opportunity to update the Assembly on the conclusions of the review into the major interruption to water supplies over Christmas and the new year.

The composite report, which was published last week, gives us a comprehensive account of the events during the emergency. I thank the Utility Regulator and the two reviewers appointed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) — Heather Moorhead and Phil Holder — for their hard work. Both strands of the review were completed within a very challenging timescale. The report contains a number of detailed conclusions. NIW (Northern Ireland Water) and stakeholders will need to absorb those and respond to them in a vigorous and positive way. The interim chief executive of NIW has already accepted the report’s findings. A great deal of work will be involved in taking the necessary actions forward, and it would not be sensible for me to try to deal in detail with the 60-odd recommendations today. However, the publication of the report gives us an opportunity to reflect on, and acknowledge, some realities.

Turning to the emergency itself, the regulator said that the winter weather was an exceptional once-in-a-100-year event. The record-breaking period of sub-zero temperatures over two weeks was followed by an equally dramatic thaw on Sunday 26 December. The report states that:

“temperatures jumped up by 20°C in a few hours right across Northern Ireland. As a result, up to 40,000 bursts on customers’ pipes which had occurred during the cold weather all started to leak, more or less at the same time. Consequently on Monday 27 leakage was at a level not previously experienced and over the following days parts of NIW’s water network drained down and thousands of customers lost their water supplies. As reservoir capacity dwindled, some areas went without any supply and in other areas, NIW instituted rota cuts to maintain supplies to hospitals and other essential facilities; a situation unknown in Northern Ireland in a decade. It took NIW just over a week to refill its system and restore water supplies to all its customers.”

The regulator recognises that NIW’s:

“Front line operational teams worked effectively in very challenging weather conditions.”

I reiterate my thanks to all those in NIW, and in many other organisations, who helped to deal with the emergency. I am grateful for the co-operation that was so willingly offered and given.

Nonetheless, despite the efforts of NIW staff and contractors, the overall response fell far short of customer expectations. As the report says:

“The consequences of the incident were exacerbated by the fact that the emergency response led by NIW was wholly inadequate. There was ineffective communication with customers and no comprehensive arrangements for alternative supplies of water. The communications failure meant that in the days immediately following the thaw, many customers were losing their water without any warning or explanation.”

As was said at the time, exceptional conditions require an exceptional response. The emergency resulted in a significant failure to deliver the most basic services to people, and NIW has to learn lessons from that, especially about communication with customers during such incidents.

The regulator warns that such extreme conditions:

“with a changing climate could recur in the near future.”

NIW needs to meet the challenge of dealing with similar weather conditions in the future. Ensuring the continuance of supplies and services for customers is the priority. As I said, the regulator has completed a thorough investigation and produced conclusions that are detailed in the report and which give a clear way forward on how NIW can improve its emergency response. I will work with NIW and stakeholders to ensure that the appropriate actions are taken. As the report says, to mitigate future emergencies, we need to acknowledge that:

“This would require community wide action.”

The regulator’s analysis indicates that:

“at least 80 of the increased demand resulted from usage or bursts on consumers’ properties. Commercial properties were closed during the holiday period and bursts went unnoticed and ran for longer. Survey evidence estimates that there were bursts on more than 40,000 customers’ properties (domestic and non-domestic).”

Action to inform people how they can support the public supply is needed, and the review includes recommendations in that area.

Turning to the infrastructure, the regulator concludes that NI Water’s mains performed as well as could be expected under the harsh conditions in comparison with other water mains in the UK. That confirms that the investment we have made, nearly £1 billion over the last four years, is helping to improve the service and reverse the lack of investment in earlier decades. Obviously, we still have some way to go. Leakage is not yet at economic, let alone sustainable, levels and there are many areas where infrastructure needs to be renewed. Despite the reduction in funding available to the Executive, I have managed to increase investment in water significantly from within my Department’s budget to partly meet any shortfalls. At over £660 million, I have delivered funding for a substantial programme, and it will allow me to provide NIW with the water mains investment levels recommended by the regulator in its final determination.

In relation to my role and that of my Department, the report concluded that I:

“acted in a manner consistent with the governance requirements”.

It says that I was fully engaged for the entire period in seeking to deal with the situation and performed all of my roles and responsibilities effectively. It adds that:

“Departmental officials also provided timely support and assistance in the crisis.”

I am content that the report recognises what I said at the time, that this was an operational matter and that responsibility lay with NIW. That may not suit some commentators, but it is the reality. I accept that calls for me to be held personally responsible are part and parcel of politics, but it is time to move on from the deliberate misunderstanding and convenient ignorance to deal with the reality of the relationship we have with NIW.

The external reviewers identified the unique hybrid governance arrangements which currently exist. We need to face up to the fact that these arrangements, which I inherited from direct rule Ministers, are at odds with what the Executive have chosen to do. I have said that we need to examine the relationship and clarify the situation as we do so. Others have opposed this, unfortunately including the majority on the Committee for Regional Development, but we will need to do deal with this in the future.

Those who do not want to accept these conclusions will attack the process. They will say that the report was biased or a whitewash. We have already seen this line, and we saw it pedalled by some almost before the review began and during the review. Stories about Facebook friends and candidate lists were exaggerated to suggest potential conflicts of interest, even when those involved were not aware of the links. Allegations of conflict over potential NIW board appointments and the regulator’s existing role in NIW’s governance were raised by others, when, logically, I should have been the one concerned about them. I was prepared to set aside any reservations and support the review. It is time for others to accept that this review was properly and professionally conducted.

There are huge challenges ahead for our water and sewerage services, and everyone needs to support NIW in meeting them.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

The Regional Development Committee did not oppose the:

“need to examine the relationship and clarify the situation”,

to quote the Minister. It made no comment on the policy merits of the proposed water and sewerage Bill. The Committee, by majority vote, was not happy to rush through, without Committee Stage, a Bill on the governance of Northern Ireland Water. It is not clear to me how it is possible to:

“examine the relationship and clarify the situation”,

if there is no time to do any examination or to seek any clarification.

However, does the Minister accept the report’s finding that the external reviewers have included that, while the governance arrangements are complex, they were clear to the stakeholders and they, therefore, had no material impact on the crisis?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I accept what the Chairperson has said. I went before the Committee and argued that there was an opportunity in the remainder of this mandate to address some of the governance arrangements, which have left the organisation NIW operating, on the one hand, as a company under company law but, on the other hand, answerable to the public purse under the accountancy arrangements that we have. We had an opportunity to deal with that and a number of other issues.

There was time in this mandate to do that. The Committee is entitled to its own view on the issue of accelerated passage for the Bill. Nonetheless, at every opportunity, where people have been critical of NIW and said that it needs to change, a lot of parties here have talked the talk; very few of them have walked the walk.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I concur with the comments made by the Chairperson in relation to the request for accelerated passage. Will the Minister tell the House whether the large scale failure of supply in Northern Ireland Water features as a risk on the Department’s risk register? If it does, who has responsibility for it? How is it tested, and how frequently?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department’s risk register looks at the areas over which the Department exercises control. The Department does not exercise control over the risk management of NIW. It has its own risk register. The regulator looked at that issue, as did the NIW report. At every meeting that is held, the Department is represented. Obviously, those people make a professional assessment of the areas of risk in their own area of operation. Immediately after the crisis, we tried to restore some degree of public confidence by asking for that to be externally validated by a professional from outside NIW. The report that came back to the Department said that they were satisfied that NIW was managing those risks. However, they recognised the need for improvements in response to the emergency and for a longer-term resilience plan to be worked through. That concurs with some of the findings of this review.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the Minister’s statement. The party to our left, the SDLP, says that the report is a whitewash and that those appointed to look at the leadership, management and governance aspects of the Minister’s Department and role were conflicted. What his view of that allegation?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Can I say that — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to continue.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Questions were raised around that. Ironically, if those people were conflicted, I should have been the person most concerned about that, because that would have gone against rather than for me. The appointments for the independent part of the review were made by OFMDFM. It was satisfied that the people whom it had appointed were not conflicted in any way, and I was happy to accept that assurance. Indeed, questions were also raised around the regulator. However, I think that it is quite clear from his report that the issue was approached in a very thorough and professional way, because it does not pull any punches about where improvements are needed. I think that that is a very useful service for this Assembly, in terms of the immediate response of NIW to any further emergency weather situation, and for the incoming Assembly and Executive in the new mandate, in terms of the future of NIW as an organisation.

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

Mr Speaker, had I been allowed the opportunity to make a point of order, I would have made it clear that knowingly misleading the House is not a good reflection on any of us, and the previous comment did just that.

Many consumers will be shocked to read this report and to see that it spends a lot of time justifying the actions of a few and says very little about where the hundreds of thousands of people affected by the freeze-thaw incident will see some improvement to their service in the years ahead. The Minister suggested that we should talk the talk and walk the walk, so why did he write to me 10 days ago refusing an offer to sit down around the table with colleagues from the other parties to discuss the long-term future of Northern Ireland Water? Why is the Minister uninterested in having a debate on a cross-party basis about the future of Northern Ireland Water?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not sure what exact terminology the Member used about the report. However, when the report was published, he said that it was discredited. I do not know whether or not he used the term “whitewash”, but it was reported in the media that he did. I think that that moved, in a very serious way, from suggesting that the people responsible for conducting the report were perceived to be in some way conflicted to actually alleging that they conspired in some way to cover up what he believes to be the truth of the situation.

As regards measures for consumers, the report makes a very significant number of recommendations for improvement. That was the focus of this report and of the Executive’s action from the moment that the crisis happened. Very quickly after that, we held meetings with NIW about short-term resilience, improvement and lessons learnt. All of that was focused on consumers and on ensuring that we did not have a repeat of the lack of service that was provided to consumers over the Christmas period. That was the Executive’s entire focus. Therefore, to say that consumers were somehow ignored in all of this is a very loose interpretation, if not a misrepresentation, of the report altogether.

His suggestion is almost like the ‘Belfast Telegraph’-inspired suggestion for academic selection: let us create another process for something to happen. There is already a Regional Development Committee, which has responsibility for scrutinising all of the Department’s work, and I have engaged with it on issues around NIW for four years. I have undertaken to take a paper on the future of NIW to the Executive.

I am not sure whether Mr McDevitt thinks that the regional development spokespersons in every party have more authority than his colleague who sits on the Executive. However, the actual decisions on recommendations that are to be brought to the Assembly will be made at the Executive table in an open and transparent process, not in some committee meeting that is not minuted, regulated or part of any function of the Executive. If the Member is interested in openness and transparency, it is through the structures of the Assembly, such as the Committee for Regional Development, which he sits on, the Executive Committee or the Assembly itself, that discussions and debates can be had in a very open and transparent way.

The Member needs to be consistent. I understand that he has a difficulty with consistency, given that he opposed water charges but now supports a mutualised company that would involve such charges. He wants the — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Throughout the crisis, the SDLP mantra was that I should take responsibility. It is now proposing a mutualised company that is further removed from government. That would mean that government would have less authority and control over the provision of water and sewerage services. The only thing consistent about his — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The only thing consistent about his propositions thus far is their inconsistency.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is very important that the report came out so quickly.

I understand that the report says that the front line operational teams worked effectively in what were, no doubt, very challenging weather conditions. However, I have talked to staff and union representatives from Northern Ireland Water who are quite critical of the fact that many of the staff who were on standby during the crisis were not called in. Have the Minister and the regulator met the union to talk about its criticism of staffing at that time?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I spoke to the unions, and I encouraged them to make representations to make their views known to the regulator, who conducted the report. I believe that they did so. Unions continuously make representations on working arrangements. They are quite entitled to do that, and they can have valid points to make. It is my understanding that the regulator took evidence from the unions, assessed that response and came to the conclusions that are in his report.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister feel that the recommendations will help to prevent a reoccurrence of this winter’s chaos? How does he define the term “community wide action”? Further, does the Minister believe that he is the right person to oversee the future of Northern Ireland Water?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In answer to the last question, the electorate will determine that in about eight or nine weeks. My party will then determine whether I get back into a ministerial role. It will be the luck of the draw, or non-luck of the draw, if that role is in the Department for Regional Development (DRD), depending on how things play out. There are a lot of hurdles to be jumped before that question is concluded.

There are recommendations in the report, and, I think that the regulator’s line on this is that NIW was prepared for the expected but unprepared for the unexpected. Although NIW felt that it had an incident plan in place that was able to cope, it certainly was not able to cope with the weather situation that was thrown at us over the Christmas period. There are very serious recommendations in the report, but not just for NIW. Some of those issues stray into the civil contingencies group, which will have learned lessons from the approach that was taken over the Christmas period.

To be fair, during the freeze period, I heard staff from NIW on the radio advising people that the thaw would cause pipes to burst and that people, particularly those in outlying areas or farmers with outlying farms or drinking troughs, should check and turn off their supply if possible to ensure that we tried to maintain a water supply. I am not sure that the community acted on that advice in the way that I think it should have, because repeated requests were made. During the emergency, several large industrial customers were found to have had leaking supplies for a number of days. The volume of those leaks would have been equivalent to the supply of a small town. Obviously, there are lessons to learn from the NIW response. Lessons have been learnt already. The severe criticism of the response is valid.

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

However, there is also a need to better inform the community, on both the domestic and non-domestic sides, about their responsibilities if a similar weather pattern were to occur again. People need to be more informed about what they can do to contribute to a reduction in water supply and how they can play their part in ensuring that we do not reach crisis levels, as we did over the winter period. There are recommendations on how to inform the community of its role, which are very useful. Some 80% of the leakage was on the private side. Therefore, if even half the customers had taken steps to try to reduce it themselves, there would have been a significant improvement in the water supply to other areas, which had to be cut off purposely through rotation to try to restore the levels in the reservoirs.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement. As a matter of interest, I note that Mr McDevitt did not call on all the housing spokespeople to come together to talk about the crisis that occurred in the Housing Executive and housing associations over Christmas. As the Minister is aware, other parties, including the SDLP, have proposed that NI Water become a mutualised company. What would be the implications of that down the road?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There would be a number of implications. People who advocated a mutualised company pointed to the Welsh Water model. We have to understand that Welsh Water is a self-financing company and charges households an average of, I think, £411 a year for water. It is further removed from government and, therefore, further removed from the responsibility of the Minister who is in charge of that area in Wales.

I will want to put a paper to the Executive, and it will be for an incoming Executive and mandate to decide what to do about NIW in the longer term. I have brought the argument for the need for change to NIW to the attention of the Executive many times over the past four years. I have met resistance from other political parties around the Executive table every time that I have brought propositions. Indeed, Mr McDevitt described my propositions as unaffordable and unworkable. He then claimed that they did not exist, and then he voted against the proposition for some short-term measures for change that I brought to the Regional Development Committee.

Those who advocate the mutual model should be clear with the public about what the full consequences of that would be, because I have seen some — [Interruption.]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Order. Please allow the Minister to answer the question.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Some Members have a difficulty with manners as a basic requirement in the House.

I have heard some people say in the media that the Executive cannot afford to continue to pay for NIW, that that would bankrupt the public purse and that there is a better way of doing this, as if there is a magical crock of gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere that will pay for it. Those people advocate the mutualisation model. As I said, the mutualisation model, as it works in Wales, is further removed from government. It is a move towards privatisation and charges domestic customers for their water supplies. Those who argue that point of view are entitled to do so, even though it may conflict with their other public position of being opposed to water charging. However, if they are going to argue that position, they should argue the full position so that, in advance of the election, the public can make their judgements about who they want to support.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. As the Minister will know, I am very concerned about the impact of a shortage of local plumbing inspectors who have local knowledge of the system. Has that issue been dealt with?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The regulator looked at that. As part of its crisis response, NIW effectively moved back into the local area. I was on the ground and met some of the local engineers who were dealing with the situation. The Member is quite right that, at local level, there is very beneficial knowledge of the historical water supply, of where people are located and even of details of customers. That is important. There is certainly a lesson there for NIW. It was incumbent on NIW to try to improve its management system and to go through that kind of tough-book system of issuing instruction, and that has improved the service overall.

Nonetheless, given the geography of the region that we live in and the importance of local knowledge, it is vital to get that balance. There was a reference to how, in an emergency situation, the company relied on the local knowledge that was available. The need to retain local knowledge is an important lesson for the company, as is the need to improve the efficiency of the service.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he acknowledge that, since the moment it was revealed that those who were meant to lead the review were previously considered for roles in Northern Ireland Water, the review has been undermined? Will he give us his assessment of the comments of the Commissioner for Public Appointments that were made public last week? Is he aware of her concerns regarding the review?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Commissioner for Public Appointments is entitled to make whatever comments she wishes. The question for the people who conducted the review was for those who appointed them — the First Minister and the deputy First Minister — to assess. The Member knows that this is a very small place and there are few people who do not know other people. Tenuous links were being made to suggest that people had a conflict of interest. Indeed, Heather Moorhead was not even aware that she had been on a list for consideration. She accepted the proposition that she be involved in the review in good faith, until, halfway through, it was pointed out by someone who knew that she had been on a list.

The question of being satisfied as to whether a person has a conflict of interest is for those who appoint that person. They did that, and I was prepared to accept those assurances from them. The outcome and the product of the review show that it was clearly a professional piece of work that did not pull any punches in its response. From my perspective, if I had rejected the people involved, I would have had more to worry about in relation to the conduct of the review than most.

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

If the same kind of freeze incident happened again and the Minister were looking ahead to the thaw and considering the great effects on consumers that we saw in the latest instance, would he do anything different from what he did on the previous occasion?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The report is clear about my role and about the governance issues for which I am responsible. It says that I acted effectively in dealing with the matter. I am sure that everyone can improve on “effectively”, and I would try to do that. The Member is a former teacher, so, had he marked a person’s work as “effective”, he would have thought that they had done quite well.

Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned. One of the responses in the review to the sort of question that George Robinson asked was that there was a need for greater community involvement in dealing with the issues. As we can see in this instance, despite forewarnings to people that the thaw would result in pipe bursts and they needed to take some responsibility for checking their own arrangements, 80% of the water loss happened in private properties. That can be improved through greater communication with the public about their responsibilities in advance of an incident such as the recent one. That could have saved a situation in which NIW was forced to rotate water supplies.

The review amounts to a substantial volume of work, containing 60 recommendations by the Utility Regulator for improvements. The civil contingencies group will have looked at the incident and its response to it and will have seen areas in which it feels it can improve. There are lessons for us all from the incident, and people who think that they have nothing to learn are in a dangerous place.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I welcome all the women who are attending the Assembly and different events throughout the place to mark the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day. Maith sibh.

On 13 September 2010, the Minister stated that he would bring forward short-term legislative proposals to improve the governance of water services. Where does that sit at the moment?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I described that in my exchange with the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development. There is still an opportunity, which, probably, runs out today, to bring forward those short-term measures. I appreciate that Members are reluctant to use the accelerated passage procedure, but, nonetheless, it has been used quite regularly in other instances. There is a risk of NIW staying as it is, as a hybrid model. That is identified in the overall report as part of the difficulties that NIW faces. There is still an opportunity — a limited window — to do something about that, but, nonetheless, I do not feel that there is sufficient support to bring that forward.

I will bring longer-term proposals to the Executive before the end of this mandate. The Assembly has been prompted and probed on this over the past four years, and the suggestion is that the arrangements we have are not fit for the purpose of devolved government. We really need to grasp this nettle and make substantial changes in the new mandate.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will be more than aware of my criticism of how information was passed out to the community, the failures of the website and, on some occasions, the misinformation about whether water was being turned on. As part of the recommendations from the regulator, will the Minister outline how Northern Ireland Water has moved on the short-term measures that it can take to ensure that nothing like what happened over this period happens again?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Even before the review, I met NIW and, on behalf of the Executive, pressed it to put in place short-term resilience measures immediately. Thankfully, we now seem to be moving out of the cold weather and into the spring, but, at that time, in January, there was an indication that we faced further severe weather in February. That did not materialise, and I suppose that that makes a point about weather predictions and how we manage them.

The recognition across the board was that communication was the key and central failure in the response, in both the call centre capacity and the facility for dealing with incoming measures and answering queries and in the website and other methods of communication with customers. In the immediate aftermath, we were given assurances about a much enhanced and technologically improved call centre facility so that people could get accurate information. NI Direct stepped in to support that because NIW’s website was separate from that of NI Direct, which has much greater capacity.

The information that was put on the NIW website was such that engineers could read and understand it but members of the public could not. There was immediate recognition that that was not suitable. Immediate steps were taken to improve the website’s capacity and the information that was on it.

Other areas being explored and developed are issues such as the use of other broadcasters to get regular messages out, an emergency broadcast service, possibly through radio. That is being considered to such an extent that NIW is examining putting up a radio itself for a limited period if there was an emergency again or making better use of services such as the BBC to get accurate information, warnings and advice out to people.

As I said, part of this is about forewarning people about what to expect so that they can take their own measures. If such an incident were to arise again — hopefully not of the same severity, although we cannot predict what the weather will do — then people need to be much better informed and able to communicate more directly with NIW as an organisation.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. Despite all the criticism of the Minister and the party politicking around that, a lot of people appreciated the efforts that he made to get the bottled water, particularly for elderly people, that community activists gave out. Does he believe that the interim NIW board fulfilled its responsibilities over Christmas and the new year?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member is correct in that the board is an interim one. A new chairperson will be appointed by the end of this month, and the process of filling the vacancies for non-executive directors on a longer-term basis has already begun. The report singled out the interim chairman and acknowledged the leadership role that he played.

Performance was benchmarked against the boards of other water companies, and it was acknowledged that the board had the requisite skill, competence and ability across a wide range. The Member will know that, on these boards, you do not simply appoint six, seven or eight people from a water utilities background. A broad range of skills and experience is needed in that board in order that they complement each other. The report found that the board had a sufficiently broad range of skills, which was commensurate with that of other water company boards.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

The Minister stated that leakage in the infrastructure is not yet at economic levels let alone sustainable levels, and many areas of the infrastructure still need to be renewed. I appreciate that the Department has invested money to meet the shortfalls. However, will the Minister give the House an indication of the percentage of the deficient network that that will replace? Does he have a time frame for the completion of the work?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, the review found and accepts as a historical legacy that the leakage figures are not at economic or sustainable levels. Much more work needs to be done. The regulator’s review found that much work has been done. As the Member knows, the Executive have invested £1 billion of capital investment over the past four years. That is part of playing a very substantial catch-up exercise due to lack of investment over previous decades.

Despite the reduction in the capital budget, which particularly affects my Department, I have managed to identify funds in addition to those initially allocated to me to bring it up to £660 million worth of investment over the next four years. That will meet what the regulator recommends for mains rehabilitation. I do not have the percentage figures, but I will supply them to the Member. What we have invested to date and what we propose to invest over the next four years matches what the regulator recommends for mains rehabilitation investment, but we still have the outstanding legacy to deal with, and catch-up is required. It will bring us to a stage at which leakage is sustainable and economic, but the question is how far we go beyond that and whether it becomes uneconomic to continue to invest after that. We are not at that point yet, but we have identified very substantial investment that is in line with what the regulator recommends.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I congratulate the members of the public who helped and worked together when the crisis happened. The Minister said that the response was wholly inadequate. As we know, the public see the Assembly, councils and all of us in government as being responsible. What has been put in place, probably in discussions with other Ministers, to ensure that we have a good 24-hour responsibility so that, whether it is Christmas or the weekend, somebody can make decisions and get people in so that the public get the response that they want immediately?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There was a sense in the regulator’s report and the recommendations that the executive team in the NIW did not respond as a corporate unit. There was no clear line of who was responsible for what area, which is a lesson that the NIW is obliged to learn. The regulator’s report has 60 recommendations, and the regulator will check to see how those are implemented. Indeed, the Department will use its oversight mechanism to ensure that those proposals are implemented. The corporate team response was non-existent; people did not have specific roles. The emergency response of most organisations is to pool their entire corporate team and make sure that there is oversight in all areas of responsibility. That did not happen in the NIW; it was not part of its emergency plan. In hindsight, it certainly was a deficiency. The regulator has clearly identified that that needs to change in any future response.

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

The Minister told us that this was an operational matter and was the responsibility of NIW. Given that there is just an interim chief executive at the moment and a board that is top-heavy with people who have no experience in the water industry, does the Minister accept that he has in the past stood four-square behind the former chief executive, Laurence MacKenzie, and that the image that the 40,000 people who were deprived of water have is of our Minister standing with Mr MacKenzie, who has now gone? Does he accept that many people will see this morning’s statement as a Pontius Pilate exercise — a washing of the hands, so to speak — with no responsibility for what might happen in the future?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not sure how the Member can come to that view. The report is very clear. I am not misrepresenting or misinterpreting it in any way; it is very clear about where responsibility lay.

The Member remarked that the board is not top-heavy with people experienced in the water industry. The only person with water utility experience to leave the previous board was the chairman, Chris Mellor. Therefore, there is little difference in capabilities. Incidentally, the Member has never changed his position that that chairman needs to be reinstated, even though Mr Mellor argued that tens of millions of pounds’ worth of contracts being wrongly procured was simply a matter of getting the paperwork right. The Member is still of the view that a person who holds that view of public finances is fit to be the chairperson of a public organisation here. I have never heard Mr Dallat change that view.

In respect of my responsibility, I was confident at the time and remain confident — I think that the report reflects it — that I acted on my responsibility for NIW. In its oversight role, the Department will continue to ensure that NIW lives up to the report’s clear, consistent and evidence-based recommendations on where responsibility lay and where improvements must be made. There is no hand-washing effort about that at all. At my request, I came to the Assembly’s first sitting after Christmas to make a statement on the issue. Other Ministers had to be dragged to the Assembly to make state­ments related to their area of responsibility. I brought terms for recommendations to the Executive. Although the Member shakes his head, I asked my Executive colleagues for their support for the review and its terms of reference, again unlike other Ministers.

Reviews are being conducted across a broad range of areas of responsibility. As a Minister in the Executive, I do not know who set the terms of reference for those reviews. I do not know who is conducting them. I do not know when they will report. They have never been discussed around the Executive table. I have never seen any of the other Ministers asked to come to the Assembly to answer, as they should, questions about those reviews. That is in stark contrast to my approach. I asked to come to the Assembly with the first item of business after Christmas to answer questions from my Assembly colleagues on this. I asked the Executive to conduct a review. I brought terms of reference to the Executive for their approval, and the report went back to the Executive. Mark that against reports on other areas of government here. Scrutiny committees cannot get access to those reports. They do not know who is conducting them or what the outcomes may be. Some SDLP Members may shake their head, but that is the reality. This report was open and transparent. I have been upfront, never washed my hands and never shirked responsibility in dealing with the Assembly and making myself available to it and asking to come to answer questions on these matters. That is in marked contrast to, perhaps, the Member’s colleague and some other Ministers.

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

That is outrageous.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Order.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister mentioned the former chairperson of NIW, Mr Chris Mellor, who stated publicly, on television, that he would have done a better job than the interim non-executive directors appointed by the Minister. What is the Minister’s view on that?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I commented on his fitness for public office in terms of his approach and commentary around the wrongful procurement of tens of millions of pounds in contracts. He said that that was simply a matter of getting the paperwork right. I do not think that that is the standard that the Assembly should apply to meet its desire to have open, transparent, accountable and properly scrutinised public spending. As for his doing any better, the plan that the NIW board operated to was developed and devised under Chris Mellor’s leadership.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I join my colleagues in commending front line staff and all the community groups on the ground who responded to the freeze-thaw over Christmas. I recognise that exceptional weather was at play. I also share the report’s concern about the “failure” of Northern Ireland Water’s executive leadership during the incident. Given that the Public Accounts Committee report on procurement and governance in Northern Ireland Water found departmental oversight of the company to be “clearly deficient” and that the Utility Regulator’s report finds that there was a failure to address lessons identified from the 2009-2010 freeze-thaw incident, why does the Minister feel that departmental governance is so fit for purpose and dismiss mutualisation as an option to be considered to improve governance of our water supply?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member strayed into an area of the PAC report, which is yet to be responded to by the Department. Although I am happy to get into those issues, it is not normal protocol for me to answer questions on a report that the Department has not responded to.

On the arrangements for managing NIW’s operational response on the ground and its implementation plan for emergency responses, the regulator and the review found that the governance arrangements were adequate. The Department asked questions, it was given assurances, and the governance arrangements were adequate.

As for mutualisation, at least the Member’s party is upfront in arguing that domestic customers should pay for water. Other parties have argued that that should not be the case. People may feel that, in the first instance, there should be a stronger connection and more responsibility between the Department and whoever happens to be the Minister and NIW, which provides our water and sewerage services. I am simply making the point that mutualisation would loosen those arrangements, bringing the organisation further from government. If Members feel that water and sewerage services, in which the Executive and the public whom we represent have invested billions of pounds, are vital, I am advising them that, under mutualisation, we would have a looser and less authoritative arrangement.

In addition, mutualisation involves self-financing. Therefore, people proposing that arrangement should explain it in its totality. It would mean that domestic customers would pay, as is the case with Welsh Water, an average of £411 per household each year. If that is the proposition, I am happy to debate it, but let us not try to offer a solution where we are saying that the Executive cannot afford to pay for NIW and the people should not pay for it, but, somewhere at the end of a rainbow, there is a crock of gold that will sort it all out for us.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

First, I put on record my thanks and praise to all front line Northern Ireland Water staff who were out during those difficult times. At that stage, contractors were brought in as well. Is the Minister aware that some of those contractors have yet to receive payment? I am not even sure whether their payments have been processed, and that may have a significant effect on future work that they might be required to do for Northern Ireland Water.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I was not aware that that may be the case. None of the contractors involved has brought the matter to my attention. I will certainly take note of the Member’s question and take the issue up with NIW to ensure that the Executive’s policy of prompt payment for services, which was initiated through the Department of Finance and Personnel, is observed. The Executive set a standard of prompt payment for people who do work for government services. Particularly at this time, people are working with very tight margins and are struggling to keep organisations open and companies afloat, so I will raise the issue with NIW and ensure that people who did work are properly paid in sufficient time.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The report deals with events from and beyond 27 December. As we all know and as Roy Keane has said on many occasions, “Fail to prepare; prepare to fail”. Does the Minister accept that the report should have dealt with matters before 27 December, because, no matter what was done after the event, given the lack of emergency planning by Northern Ireland Water before then, it was fairly obvious that a disaster was going to happen? How can he argue credibly for more powers over Northern Ireland Water now, when everything that he said today and over the past number of weeks was about evading responsibility?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Perhaps the Member has not read the report. It goes into issues prior to 27 December. It makes an assessment of NIW’s preparation, saying clearly that NIW was prepared for the expected. You should have read it. The report is a matter of record. Although the Member and the SDLP might dispute that, it says clearly:

“NIW was … prepared for the expected … but … unprepared for the unexpected.”

Therefore, the report does assess NIW’s state of preparedness before Christmas; the fact that the company put the emergency planning operation in place in early December and stood it down again; how effective that plan was during the freeze in early December; and what lessons were learnt following the regulator’s view of the freeze incident in the earlier part of last year. So, the Member clearly has not read —

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

[Interruption.]

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am sorry; I cannot answer questions asked from a sedentary position. If the Member has other questions to ask, perhaps he should have asked them.

The Member clearly has not read the report. It assesses the situation prior to December 2010 and NIW’s state of preparedness, and it makes criticisms of that. Where recommendations flow from those criticisms, NIW needs to address them.

I listened intently to two or three days of Budget debate in which, on the one hand, the SDLP made propositions and then, on the other, made arguments that completely contradicted them. The Member is doing that again. He argues that I am trying to avoid responsibility and that I should take responsibility. That was the SDLP mantra throughout the whole freeze-thaw incident. The party has come up with proposals that move NIW further from the responsibility of government. So, as I said, the only thing consistent about the SDLP over the past period has been its inconsistency. It may fool some of the people some of the time, but SDLP Members cannot stand here and argue that more authority is needed and that the Minister in charge of the DRD needs to be more in control of NIW, while advancing propositions that will move the organisations that deliver water and sewerage services further away from government and further away from responsibility so that —

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

[Interruption.]

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am sorry; I am getting hectored by the bad-mannered Mr McDevitt. I have answered his question about discussion. He wants to set up some sidetrack process that involves himself and I am not sure who else when we already have open, transparent opportunities in these political arrangements for discussion through the Committee of which he is a member. Why he wants to sidestep the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and the rest of his Committee colleagues —

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

[Interruption.]

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to answer questions when I am being continuously interrupted. Manners are very easily carried. My mother used to say, “Manners maketh the man”. Obviously, they have not made much of a man over there.

Last September, I outlined to the Assembly that I would bring proposals to the Executive for discussion and to inform an incoming Executive. I am not sure what parallel process Mr McDevitt wants to become involved in, but it does not involve transparency or openness.

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

[Interruption.]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Order.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Such a process does not involve the established institutions of the Assembly. Mr McDevitt appears to want to sidestep his own Committee, his Committee colleagues, the Executive and his colleague on the Executive, which is where those discussions and decisions rightly take place. That is the forum for debate, and, ultimately, that debate comes back to the Floor of the Assembly.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. The Minister will not have been surprised by the SDLP proposal to mutualise the water service, which will, as he said — I agree with him — lead inevitably to water taxes. It was first mooted by the previous leader of the SDLP, Mark Durkan, and was called a Durkan tax.

I will pick up on the question that Tom Buchanan asked. Have the Executive allocated the required capital funding to the DRD over the Budget period to allow the necessary investment to continue?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There is no doubt that, as a consequence of the reduction in our Budget delivered from Westminster, where the Tory cuts were unsuccessfully challenged, if challenged at all, we have a substantial reduction in the capital budget. The initial allocation that I received as part of that capital budget would have left a substantial shortfall, particularly in years 2 and 3, in the allocation for NIW. Through reallocating the Department’s resources and through further allocations that we received as a consequence of the final Budget proposition, I have been able to bring that up to a substantial level of £660 million over the next four years, which meets the regulator’s recommendations for investment in NIW.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

That concludes questions to the Minister for Regional Development on his statement. We now move to the next item of business, which is —

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A Member indicated that I was misleading the House in the question that I asked. Let me say that I was referring to a statement that Mr McDevitt himself released.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, what was said earlier was misleading. It is not the case that the SDLP ever suggested that any report was a whitewash. I strongly counsel Members to pay due respect to what was and was not said. I will ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order to knowingly misrepresent another party’s position in the House.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Could I please respond to the two points of order? Both Members made their points. They are now on record, so I wish to move on.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I hand the statement in to the Speaker’s Office? If you will indulge me, I will read out exactly what it says.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Order. It is not in order to read out the statement. If the Member wishes to hand it to the Speaker, he is quite at liberty to do so. I wish to move on.

Executive Committee Business

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill dealing with the abolition of the Health Protection Agency; functions in relation to biological substances; radiation protection functions; revocation of the AIDS (Control) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; co-operation with bodies exercising functions in relation to public health; the regulation of health and social care workers; arrangements between the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Northern Ireland Ministers; and relationships between the health services.

In July 2010, the UK Government announced their intentions to carry out a radical reform of the NHS. One of the key elements of that reform is streamlining the number of existing arm’s-length bodies. Most of the changes to those bodies will be given effect by the UK Health and Social Care Bill, which was introduced at Westminster on 19 January 2011.

At the outset, it is important to say that the vast majority of the Bill’s provisions apply to England only. Members will be aware that any proposed changes to a Westminster Bill that relate to a devolved matter or that require a specific amendment or reference to legislation that applies in Northern Ireland must be agreed by the Assembly by means of a legislative consent motion. It is primarily those provisions to which I will now draw Members’ attention.

All healthcare regulatory bodies, including the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, will be given new powers to establish voluntary registers. That may affect the future delivery of regulation for some healthcare professionals on a UK-wide basis. The Bill will abolish the General Social Care Council and will transfer the role of regulating social workers in England to the Health Professional Council (HPC). Given the close working relationships that have been established between social care regulators in each country of the UK, the Northern Ireland Social Care Council is taking steps to develop a working relationship with the HPC. In future, the HPC will be known as the Health and Care Professional Council, and it will utilise its expertise to provide administrative, technical or advisory services to any body or individual that is involved in maintaining registers of health or social work professionals and social care workers.

The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE), which scrutinises and oversees the work of the nine healthcare regulatory bodies, will become the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, and it will be otherwise known as the authority. It will become self-funding through a compulsory levy on the healthcare regulators, and ministerial requests for advice from the authority will be subject to a fee. The authority will be given the power to provide advice or auditing services to the regulatory bodies and to charge for that advice. Accountability to the four UK Parliaments and Assemblies will be achieved by placing a duty on the authority to lay its strategic reports before those bodies.

My Department will continue to appoint one non-executive member to the council of the authority. The authority will have responsibility for accrediting the voluntary registers mentioned earlier. The Bill will abolish the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator (OHPA), which was established under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to undertake fully independent adjudication of fitness-to-practise cases. The issue, as highlighted in the Shipman inquiry, was to separate the functions of investigation and adjudication in fitness-to-practise matters. The General Medical Council (GMC) has enhanced the independence of adjudication and modernised existing processes, so it is considered that similar benefits to the setting-up of the OHPA can be achieved through reforms to the GMC’s legislation. The OHPA is still in shadow form and would not have been operational until April 2011. Therefore, it has no impact on Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Health wishes to take a more direct role in health protection in England, with the result that the Health Protection Agency (HPA) is to be abolished in its current form and will become part of the new public health service (PHS) for England. The HPA was established under the Health Protection Agency Act 2004. The Act gives a number of functions to the HPA, including health and radiation protection functions. The Health and Social Care Bill will abolish the HPA as a statutory organisation and will repeal the 2004 Act. Health protection functions that are not devolved to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Health as part of the new public health service.

Non-devolved functions that the HPA currently undertakes for Northern Ireland, such as aspects of radiation protection and other UK-wide functions will continue to be provided for Northern Ireland by the public health service. My Department, along with the Public Health Agency and the health and social care sector in Northern Ireland have sought assurances that we will continue to receive the range of expert advice and support currently being provided and will also be able to participate actively in health protection matters on a UK-wide basis.

I also wish to assure Members that our own Public Health Agency will remain as a freestanding body and will continue to carry out its public health functions across Northern Ireland. The Bill also seeks to make changes to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is responsible for producing guidance on good clinical practice and the cost-effectiveness of NHS resources in England. It also examines new interventional procedures developed throughout the UK to check that they are safe and effective.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) has links with NICE, whereby all guidance published by the institute is reviewed locally to test its applicability to Northern Ireland and, where appropriate, endorsed for implementation here. Part of that endorsement process is to provide information to allow the guidance to be interpreted in the Northern Ireland context and to identify any important differences in service provision here.

My Department’s arrangement with NICE ensures that Northern Ireland can access the same safety checks as England and can get timely advice from NICE staff on guidance issues. NICE will be re-established as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) and will be known as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to reflect its extended remit, which will incorporate elements of social care. For example, it will assume responsibility for producing quality standards for adult social care. For my Department to continue its existing arrangements with the newly established National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, it will be necessary to amend article 8 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Article 8 enables the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to enter into arrangements with special health authorities. However, it does not allow arrangements with non-departmental public bodies. For the Department to continue arrangements with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which will become an NDPB, the 1991 Order needs to be amended. That amendment will be effected through the Health and Social Care Bill. Therefore, it will require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The legislative consent motion seeks to put in place a mechanism that will allow us to continue our current relationships with those organisations and to access the information and expertise that we need. On that basis, I ask Members to support the motion.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak on behalf of the Committee. On 3 February 2011, the Committee took evidence from departmental officials on the need for a legislative consent motion on the Health and Social Care Bill. I want to say at the outset that, after hearing evidence and exploring issues with officials, the Committee was content for the legislative consent motion to proceed.

As Members will know, the British coalition Government have put in process various reforms of the NHS in England, which include streamlining the number of arm’s-length bodies or “quangos”, as they are often called. The Bill is relevant to here because it will make changes to arm’s-length bodies that are already established or will be newly established by the Department of Health in England. As some of those bodies provide or will provide expertise and services, some consequential amendments are required to our legislation. In a nutshell, that is why legislative consent is required of the Assembly and why the Minister tabled the motion that is before the House.

Many of the arm’s-length bodies in question play a vital role in legal, ethical, quality and safety issues associated with the service’s access and research. They also provide advice and guidance, regulation, inspection and monitoring, and a measure of uniformity and public assurance across a wide spectrum of services. One such body, to which the Minister referred, is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which produces best-practice guidance that is designed for the Health Service in England, but is also appropriate for us in many instances. Indeed, many other countries, such as New Zealand and Canada, use its services.

The simple reason for that buy-in of NICE services is that they cost £90 million a year to run. As we all know, we do not have a spare £90 million in the current Budget process with which to set up a similar service for our own use. Therefore, it is important that we are able to tap into that function and share that expertise. For that reason, legislation is needed to create a mechanism by which to enter into a contractual relationship with NICE and other bodies when their status changes as a result of the Bill.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the Committee is content for the Department to proceed with the legislative consent motion. I commend the motion to the House.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I agree with the Minister and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee that it is important that we build and work on our relationships with NICE and its successor organisation. It is encouraging that the coalition Government are moving to streamline the public Health Service. I wonder whether the Minister will want to comment on where they might have got such an idea. It is important that streamlining takes place, that relationships with groups such as NICE are maintained and that we continue to buy into that expertise, because there are issues of quality and safety. It is important that we have had the debate and that the Committee took evidence to move that forward. I support the motion.

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

The SDLP supports the legislative consent motion, which asks the Assembly to consent to the provisions of the new Health and Social Care Bill at Westminster. We accept the importance of the role of, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which will, as the Minister said, be under a new name and that we are able to avail ourselves of its services. The SDLP is, however, of the view, as we stated previously here, that we will have a better Health Service not only through working more closely with the rest of the UK, but by taking the tremendous opportunities that exist to work with the Republic on an all-Ireland context. It is important to understand that.

The motion has been before the Executive and agreed by all Ministers. Like I said, the SDLP has no difficulty with that.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I concur with what the Member said about the potential for better outcomes and better value for money in developing North/South joint procurement and joint services, among other things. Does the Member share my sense of frustration, and that of many families, about the fact that although on the one hand we are striving to keep up to the standards or developments of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its successor, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in London, we are at the same time still in a position in which many standards set by NICE, including the offer of fertility treatment, are not being fulfilled here for various reasons? We should strive towards that, and hopefully that will be reflected in the Budget settlement.

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

The Member has made the point well. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

In recent times, much comment has been made about the funding of our National Health Service. Any reasonable proposal to make efficiencies throughout the Health Service, thus saving money, is welcome, and the money should be put back into front line services. The Bill seeks to reduce bureaucracy by cutting down the Department’s NHS functions and abolishing quangos that do not need to exist and streamlining the functions of those that do. The Health and Social Care Bill will rationalise a number of public bodies. Let us hope that by so doing our community will not be disadvantaged.

I pay tribute to the work of the Health Protection Agency. Our constituents’ expectation is that the Northern Ireland Health Department will continue to provide a first-class Health Service. Every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland expects to receive nothing but the best. It is our hope that the Health and Social Care Bill will come up to expectations. The Alliance Party supports the motion.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am happy to forgo this opportunity to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and the Health Committee. I already said that a number of the bodies provide advice, guidance, regulation, inspection and monitoring, as well as a measure of uniformity and public assurance across not only a wide spectrum of services but the UK as a whole.

My officials liaised closely with Department of Health colleagues to ensure that we maintain the expertise or service currently provided by the bodies affected. The main focus of our engagement has been to make sure that Northern Ireland continues to receive services or expertise under the new arrangements that will come about as a result of the proposed changes to bodies.

Members will appreciate that an arrangement whereby a body provides services and expertise on a UK-wide basis not only reduces unnecessary duplication but makes good economic sense. It is also clear that Northern Ireland could never hope to replicate the range of experience and expertise that a UK-wide body can provide. It is important that Northern Ireland continues to have access to that experience and expertise. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill dealing with the abolition of the Health Protection Agency; functions in relation to biological substances; radiation protection functions; revocation of the AIDS (Control) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; co-operation with bodies exercising functions in relation to public health; the regulation of health and social care workers; arrangements between the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Northern Ireland Ministers; and relationships between the health services.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Civil Registration Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I move that the Further Consideration Stage of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill is now taken.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Minister, it is the Civil Registration Bill, not the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I move that one as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have got two for the price of one this morning. [Laughter.]

Moved. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr S Wilson).]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

The Minister is obviously switched on today.

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

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I just had them in the wrong order there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Moved. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr S Wilson).]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

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

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call the Minister of the Environment, Mr Edwin Poots, to move the Consideration Stage of the Planning Bill.

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

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

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

I inform members that a valid petition of concern was presented on Monday 7 March on amendment Nos 20 and 102. I remind Members that the effect of the petition is that votes on those amendments will require cross-community support.

There are four groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on the functions of the Department and local development plans. The second debate will be on the amendments dealing with enforcement and penalties, including time limits. The third debate will be on planning control. The amendments deal with third-party appeals, commencement, the Planning Appeals Commission and the protection of trees. The fourth debate will be on the 64 technical amendments to the Bill. Those include Assembly controls on subordinate legislation.

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

Clause 1 (General functions of Department with respect to development of land)

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 16, 78 to 80 and 86. The amendments deal with the functions of the Department and local development plans. Amendment No 16 is consequential to amendment No 15, and amendment No 79 is consequential to amendment No 78.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 11, leave out “contributing to the achievement of” and insert “furthering”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 11, after “development” insert “and promoting or improving well-being”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr Boylan).]

No 3: In page 1, line 12, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take account of”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 4: In clause 2, page 2, line 7, after “prepare” insert “and publish”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 5: In clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert

“(3) The Department must prepare and publish a statement of community involvement within the period of one year from the day appointed for the coming into operation of this section.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 6: In clause 3, page 2, line 27, at end insert

‘( ) the potential impact of climate change;’. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr Boylan).]

No 7: In clause 5, page 3, line 25, leave out “contributing to the achievement of’ and insert ‘furthering”. — [The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr Boylan).]

No 8: In clause 5, page 3, line 27, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take account of”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 9: In clause 6, page 3, line 36, after “Act” insert

“and in any other statutory provision relating to planning”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 10: In clause 6, page 3, line 37, leave out “local”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 11: In clause 6, page 3, line 37, leave out “other”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 12: In clause 6, page 4, line 5, leave out “the local development” and insert “that”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 13: In clause 8, page 5, line 11, at end insert

“(7) A plan strategy is a plan strategy only if it is—

(a) adopted by resolution of the council; or

(b) approved by the Department in accordance with section 16(6).” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 14: In clause 9, page 5, line 36, at end insert

“(8) A local policies plan is a local policies plan only if it is—

(a) adopted by resolution of the council; or

(b) approved by the Department in accordance with section 16(6).” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 15: In clause 10, page 6, line 10, at end insert

“(4A) The Department must not appoint a person under subsection (4)(b) unless, having regard to the timetable prepared by the council under section 7(1), the Department considers it expedient to do so.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 16: In clause 16, page 8, line 5, leave out “(5)” and insert “(4A)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 78: In clause 221, page 142, line 41, after “understanding” insert “of planning policy proposals and”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 79: In clause 221, page 142, line 41, at end insert “other”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 80: In clause 221, page 143, line 8, leave out from “, with” to “Personnel,” in line 9. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 86: Before clause 224, insert the following new clause:

“Review of Planning Act

223A.—(1) The Department must—

(a) not later than 3 years after the commencement of this Act, and

(b) at least once in every period of 5 years thereafter,

review and publish a report on the implementation of this Act.

(2) Regulations under this section shall set out the terms of the review.” — [Mr Boylan./Mr W Clarke.]

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ar son an Choiste Comhshaoil cuirim fáilte roimh Chéim an Bhreithnithe den Bhille Pleanála. On behalf of the Committee for the Environment, I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Planning Bill.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on 14 December 2010. Although it was the largest Bill ever to come before the Assembly, the Committee was determined to conduct the best possible scrutiny in the short time available. The Committee sought a brief two-week extension but managed to produce its report a week in advance of that, thereby enabling the Department to bring the Bill back for consideration today. That required the Committee to meet all day twice a week throughout February, and I wish to put on record my thanks to the members and staff for accommodating that heavy workload.

There were 61 written submissions to the Committee’s call for evidence, and the Committee took oral evidence from 11 organisations, including NILGA, the NI Housing Executive and the Consumer Council. The Committee also held a very well-attended stakeholder event, at which organisations and individuals were encouraged to give their comments on four specific areas of the Bill. Departmental officials were in attendance to respond to the issues raised, and it proved to be a very useful way of gathering a lot of views in the short space of time available to the Committee.

The Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill led to it making 25 recommendations. Most have been addressed by the Department tabling its own amendments today, and some by commitments from the Department to future work or legislation. I thank the Minister for that. However, a few outstanding recommendations required the Committee to table its own amendments. Disappointingly, there are a couple of recommendations that the Minister originally indicated he would make amendments to address, going as far as to provide draft amendments for the Committee to see. However, between then and now, he declined to table them, without explanation.

Where that has happened, the Committee has gone ahead with its own amendments. However, I, and, I imagine, other members, find it very unsatisfactory. Where amendments could not resolve members’ concerns, the Committee sought commitments from the Minister to make sure that those concerns would be addressed. To some, he responded in writing; to others, he or his officials gave verbal commitments. I welcome confirmation of those commitments again today.

Resources were a key concern. Councils are worried about being handed responsibility for planning without sufficient resources to deliver it effectively and efficiently. The Committee was adamant that it wants to see full transfer of resources from Departments to councils for the planning functions that they are taking on and that will not be covered by planning fees.

The Committee also recognised that the introduction of the new planning system will result in a sea change of responsibility and behaviour for councillors and council staff. The Committee welcomed the proposed pilot projects that will help to inform the change process but also wants to see comprehensive capacity building and training. Token gestures and lip service to training will not suffice.

Another key Committee recommendation was for local development plans to have a statutory link to community plans. The Department told the Committee that community planning was being developed through local government reform proposals and that legislation for that process had still to be developed. The Committee therefore welcomed the Minister’s written commitment that a statutory link between community plans and local government development plans will be provided in future local government legislation.

With regard to amendment Nos 1 and 2, most respondents to the Committee’s call for evidence felt that the function of the Department under clause 1 should be expanded to reflect the desired outcome of the new planning system. They felt that it was no longer satisfactory that the Department’s sole aim should be:

“the orderly and consistent development of land”.

They wanted to see a much greater aspiration, going beyond governing the development of land to promoting sustainable development and tackling disadvantage and poverty. Organisations also sought recognition of environmental limits, well-being and other social factors such as disadvantage and good relations.

The Department insisted that duties to the environment were covered by its obligations to local, national and European legislation and that the social factors were already requirements for the public sector. It also maintained that well-being as a concept was still being consulted on as part of the local government reform consultation.

Despite that response, the Committee agreed with the concerns of stakeholders and sought amendments to improve the Department’s commitment to sustainable development and well-being as a way to recognise the full aspiration of the new approach to planning in the North. As I alluded to earlier, the Department initially agreed to an amendment in relation to sustainable development but again I note my disappointment that the Minister will not now bring that amendment forward. I hope that he will explain to the House why he will not do so.

Regardless of the Minister’s decision, the Committee was clear and unanimous: sustainable development should be at the heart of planning, underpinning decisions. Although members accepted that it was unrealistic to expect the Department or councils to secure sustainable development, it was perfectly reasonable and right to require them to further sustainable development. There should be a clear direction to do so in clauses 1 and 5, and I support amendments Nos 1 and 7 on behalf of the Committee.

The Department refused the Committee’s request for an amendment on well-being. Although it may be true that the concept is still being consulted on as part of the local government reform consultation, that should not rule out its inclusion in the Bill. We were assured that the local government reform legislation will be implemented in tandem with the Bill. If that is truly the case, there should be no nervousness about introducing a concept now that will eventually fall into place, and I urge the House to support amendment No 2.

On amendment Nos 3 and 8, the Committee recommended that the Department remove any risk of misinterpretation regarding the obligations of the Department and of councils to policies and guidance issued by the Department for Regional Development. The wording of clauses 1 and 5 is inconsistent with that of clause 8, and the Committee supports the Department’s amendments to address that.

On amendment Nos 4 and 5, the Committee was concerned that, although there had been an obligation on the Department to produce a statement of community involvement since the Planning Reform Order was published in 2006, one had never been produced. To avoid repetition of that situation, the Committee recommended that a time limit be placed on the production and publication of the Department’s statement of community involvement. The Committee welcomed the Department’s commitment to do that through amendment Nos 4 and 5.

On amendment No 6, the Committee was keen to place a requirement on local authorities to take the potential impact of climate change into consideration when conducting surveys of districts, and the Committee asked the Department to consider amending clause 3 accordingly. However, in its response, the Department indicated that it did not believe that it would be possible for councils to collate the necessary information from the sectors that produced emissions in their region to enable them to meet such a requirement. The Committee maintained that that was not its intention and that it wanted councils to look at best practice and guidance on taking the potential impact of climate change into consideration and to factor those into their district surveys accordingly. In the absence of such an amendment from the Department, the Committee agreed to table its own amendment at Consideration Stage.

Having conducted an inquiry into climate change for the best part of a year, Committee members are aware of its importance and of the impact that planning has and could have on it in future. There is huge potential through the Bill to tackle climate change at a local level and to ensure that all councils are actively working to introduce climate change measures through local plans.

The Committee felt that councils should be required through the legislation to take the implications of mitigating and adapting to climate change into account in their surveys. That would not necessarily require councils to collect and collate detailed local emission information, but it should necessitate the consideration of long-term flooding predictions and an observance of best practice in reducing carbon emissions etc. On behalf of the Committee, I support amendment No 6, and I urge the House to recognise its importance and to support it too.

I cannot comment on amendment Nos 9 to 14 on behalf of the Committee, because, during Committee Stage, Committee members were content with the relevant clauses. However, the amendments do not appear to alter the policy principles established in the relevant clauses.

On amendment No 15, there was considerable concern among the stakeholders who responded to the Committee about the proposal in clause 10 to enable the Department to appoint an independent examiner. Some stakeholders felt that it would give the Department inappropriate control. Others suggested that, if the Planning Appeals Commission could not meet its requirements, it should be tasked with appointing an independent examiner, thereby ensuring that the independence of the PAC is extended to the independent examiner.

The Committee was concerned about the allocation of costs for the process. Members were concerned that, although the cost for the PAC to carry out its duties is covered by OFMDFM, there is no indication of how an independent examiner would be paid. The Department later confirmed that it would pay for independent examinations conducted by an independent person that it appointed. That clarity was welcomed, as was the fact that the costs would fall to the Department rather than to individual councils.

On the appointment of an independent examiner, the Department stressed that the PAC would be the first choice to conduct independent examinations. However, if it was unable to do so within the appropriate timescale, clause 10 would give sufficient flexibility to appoint an alternative examiner. The Department insisted that it was important to retain the option, but it agreed, through amendment No 15, to strengthen its position that the appointment of an independent examiner would be done only in exceptional circumstances and only when necessary to meet a council’s timetable. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome amendment No 15 and encourage support for it and for amendment No 16, which is consequential to it.

I move to amendment Nos 78 to 80. A respondent to the Committee’s call for evidence suggested that clause 221 should be strengthened by the inclusion of a requirement for bodies in receipt of planning grants to further the understanding of planning policy proposals. The Committee asked the Department to consider such an amendment and was content with amendment Nos 78 and 79 accordingly.

Amendment No 80 removes the requirement for the Department of Finance and Personnel to be consulted before grants can be awarded. That was another suggestion made by the Committee on the grounds that the requirement was no longer necessary and was out of keeping with similar grant-awarding processes. I support amendment No 80 accordingly.

The final amendment in the group is amendment No 86. As a result of its scrutiny, the Committee expressed concern about how the process will roll out, and it asked the Department to consider the possibility of introducing a review period following the implementation of the Act. The Department did not agree to that on the grounds that reviews can be instigated at any stage, and the Committee agreed not to pursue the matter.

Having spoken at length on behalf of the Environment Committee, I will now say a few words on this amendment as a representative for Newry and Armagh. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken on board the point about carrying out a review. Yesterday in the House, we talked about maturity and common sense, and the Minister was willing to take forward a review in respect of the matters debated then. Yet, when we ask for a review in respect of planning policies being transferred to local government, he has refused to take that request on board. I want to make some points about a review.

At present, the e-PIC system has not reached its potential but is vital to the future of the Planning Service and how it rolls out. There are teething problems with the system. As the Minister is well aware, we asked for a rural design guide, and there has been no sight of that. Also, professional and technical members of staff from the Planning Service are being redeployed. Although it is recognised that planning receipts are down and the number of applications is not as high as in previous years, it is understood that the workloads are being transferred to those in the Planning Service at this time. It would not be appropriate, having not brought forward a workload programme, to transfer this policy in its current state without a mechanism to review how that planning process will operate and be implemented on the ground. The Minister should take that on board seriously and look at exactly what we are going to transfer to local government.

If the Minister is minded to support a review, we could look at the amendment’s reference to five years and the requirement to publish a report. If planning policy were to be split and if we could look at what will be delivered through development planning and development management at local level, we could get the Department to come back with a suggestion about exactly what we would need to review. I do not think that it would be an overall review. I think that there are ways of keeping an eye on it and checking it. This issue could be considered at Further Consideration Stage, if the Minister is willing to bring it forward and if the Members across the Floor are concerned about the type of review we are suggesting.

We asked for a review of PPS 21, which the Minister agreed to previously. If we properly define the type of review that we want to have, it would not be difficult to ensure that proper planning policy is rolled out, that proper resources have been given to local councils and that accountability exists. Many Members still sit on councils and are well versed in the planning process. If we are going to lift this policy from the Department and set it down in local government, we need to have a review. This is also relevant to other clauses. Also, as part of the review, maybe we could look at a third-party appeal process, if the Minister was keen to bring that forward.

With that in mind, I support a number of the amendments. My party colleague Willie Clarke will give the Sinn Féin view on the amendments.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I very much welcome the chance to speak at Consideration Stage. Before I start, I thank the staff from the Committee and the Department for the long hours that they put into the Bill. Without all their hard work, we would not be able to make any of the comments that we make today. I am sure that they worked long hours and well past midnight many times. I thank them for all the hard work.

When I first spoke about the Bill, I was concerned that we were dealing with it too quickly. I shall be brief, before I get on to the amendments, but I am still concerned that we are doing this too quickly. Only time will tell. We know that there are 17 or more sets of guidance to come through and that this is really an enabling Bill. I want to ensure, both today and at Further Consideration Stage, that we get the right checks and balances into the Bill to make sure that the next Assembly has some control but, at the same time, is able to hurry it all through. We do not want the Bill to be sitting for ages without being implemented. We know that there are regulations to follow, we know that we have to get RPA in, and we know that RPA failed to get there the last time. There is a great deal that we need to get in place.

I am also concerned that, with such a large Bill with so many clauses, however human any of us are, we can start off for the first 25 or 50 clauses with full concentration, but, after two or three hours, concentration has lapsed and things are getting more complicated. Without the help of the Department and Committee staff, we would never have got through it, and I congratulate everyone on all of their hard work.

We need to change our planning system, and the Bill is absolutely vital to that. Therefore, the Ulster Unionist Party will support most of the amendments. The group 1 amendments deal with the functions of the Department and local development plans. I hope that Members do not go through each amendment one by one. I will go through, as quickly as I can, the few that I think are necessary.

We very much welcome amendment No 1, which replaces “contributing to the achievement of” with “furthering” in relation to sustainable development. I hope that the legal side that is advising us and will be advising councils makes sure that we find a nice, comfortable way through that that councils can afford.

We welcome amendment No 2. It means that we are taking well-being into account, and I welcome the fact that it will allow us to plan our walkways and our use of parks, forests, rivers and all sorts of things. It will be a challenge for councils to find a way of interpreting it, and we will need good guidance from the Department on that.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I appreciate the sentiments behind amendment No 2. However, does the Member not envisage a bit of a problem? Well-being is not defined in legislation, so there is a danger that, if it is contained in this legislation, we will be affording a duty but people will not know what they are supposed to be doing. Is there not a technical problem with that?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for that comment. I agree that there is a problem with defining well-being, but given that the legislation is going to be there —

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

On that very point, surely, if the sequence of events is that we have reform of local government first and the legislation to enable that is first, those powers of well-being and the definition of well-being should be included? The Planning Bill and the transition of those powers should follow that reform of local government. Therefore, a definition should be in there by the time any transition of powers for planning takes place.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Again, I see the Member’s point. We need good guidance on the definition of well-being. However, the review system proposed in the last amendment in this group is one way of looking at how we define well-being and take it forward.

It is absolutely right that we put the onus on councils and the Department so that well-being is part of the future. We have to find a way of defining well-being. We want walking routes and pavements in the local development plan in order to encourage people to walk, enjoy the countryside and get fresh air. There is a whole lot more to it, and it is, therefore, right that well-being is put in the Bill. However, we must find a way of defining it in the future, and we all need to work on that.

Amendment No 3 proposes that the Department “take account of” policies and guidance. Amendment Nos 3, 4 and 5 are technical and ensure that the Bill is tidied up, so I will not to go into them in great detail.

Amendment No 6 proposes that councils take account of the “potential impact of climate change”. It is rather like the amendment that deals with well-being. It is absolutely meet and right that that is in the Bill. We know that climate change is happening, whether we believe that we are responsible for some of it or that it is natural. I am very concerned about the possible massive costs to councils. We will need good guidance from the Department and good discussions — particularly in the review, if we have it — of what we mean by climate change.

We can pinpoint the easy issues, such as flooding and not building on flood plains, but there are the other impacts, such as the grit from road gritting going into gullies and poisoning the ditches or sheughs and the impact of snow, if we continue to have longer cold spells. Another easy point is transport and trying to get people out of their cars and lorries. Northern Ireland relies very much on its transport system, and that puts an onus on the Department and councils to keep an eye on climate change.

Amendment Nos 9 to 14 are technical. I agree with them, so I will move on.

With regard to amendment Nos 15 and 16, I welcome the ability to bring in an independent examiner. I particularly welcome it as it will help councils to timetable. I see this as a learning process. As councils produce their surveys and pull their local plans together, they will need as much help as possible. It is absolutely right to have an independent examiner to help things to move quickly, as long as the Department is not too heavy-handed, and I have faith that it will not be. There will be backlogs, and we must find our way through. The more people we have helping councils, the better.

Amendment Nos 78 and 79 will allow the Department to give grants, and that is another good idea. However, I am slightly concerned about giving grants to bodies that are not-for-profit, as most bodies are there for profit in some way. I am not sure how that can be defined, and maybe the Minister will clarify that. I also welcome amendment No 80, as it removes the oversight role of DFP.

Amendment No 86 is extremely important. As Members heard, we had much discussion about that in Committee. We need a review mechanism in place, and we have heard all along that a lot of the legislation is based on legislation in England and Wales and that they, too, are constantly learning. It is absolutely right that we have something in place so that we can constantly look and see how well we are doing. If there is to be a review once in the first three years, will that be done with a body that is there all the time collecting information and advising us how to do better, or will a new body be brought in in the third year? My feeling is that it should be the first option, because it is probably more cost-effective. I like the amendment because it forces us to have a review, no matter who is Minister and no matter what Assembly we have. It is absolutely right to do that. I hope that the Minister will look at the amendment and that, if he does not support it, he will find a way of putting something in to act as a check and balance in the future. The Ulster Unionist Party supports all the amendments in group 1.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Today, I am reminded of why we are discussing the transition of powers to local authorities. After the Macrory report and the 1973 reform of local government, those powers were taken away from local authorities because they had been abused. In any normal society, it is accepted as the norm that local councils — parish councils, district councils or whatever they are in other western democracies — deal with planning and have various other powers. As we well know, however, the North is not the norm.

The challenge for us as politicians is to move to a society in which local politicians reflect the community and perform their duties and functions in a role of absolute commitment to equality, transparency and to the removal of the barriers to exclusion. As the Committee scrutinised the Bill, usually in the Senate Chamber, it became increasingly apparent that the Bill had been rushed through and was out of sequence. The document on the reform of local government is merely out for consultation at the moment. That reform must be in place before the Bill in order that —

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Order. I thank the Member for setting the context for the debate. I would like you now to address the amendments in this group, please.

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

I appreciate your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker and, indeed, your forbearance. However, without one reform setting the context, we will get the other reform absolutely wrong. If the Planning Bill is dealt with outside the context of the reform of local government, the issues to which I referred — the lack of transparency, openness and equality and the failure to protect against discrimination — will be repeated. Those were pivotal to the errors of the past, and that is why I set the context.

The SDLP broadly supports the first group of amendments. I have no intention of going through each amendment individually. Mr Kinahan highlighted the issue of well-being in amendment No 2. It is important for that term to be defined. I hope that, as part of local government reform, it will be defined.

I, like the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, sat through an important inquiry by that Committee into climate change. Therefore, I welcome amendment No 6, which requires councils to take into account the “potential impact of climate change” when conducting surveys of their district.

Amendment No 15 provides for the independent examiner to be appointed by the Department. I welcome the recognition by the Department that the independence of that examiner is pivotal and must be beyond reproach. Therefore, the Department was asked by the Committee to tighten up the conditions under which that independent examiner might be appointed, and the amendment is welcomed accordingly.

Moving quickly though the amendments, I welcome amendment No 86 and thank Committee Members for tabling it. It is important because, as I outlined earlier, the progress of the Bill, local government and reform should be monitored. It is an important amendment that allows us to keep a close watch on whether progress is made.

It would be wrong and remiss of me not to reflect the fact that local government welcomes progress. It also welcomes the powers and the oversight role that it is so necessary to deliver equality. Likewise, it wants to make sure that it is not sold a pup by having to bear the costs of the transition and the handover of those powers and that the process will, in effect, be cost-neutral, not because the Department bumps up prices but because a smooth transition is made. The Department must ensure that there is compatibility when planning powers move from central government to local government and that ratepayers are not lumbered with excessive rates bills as a consequence. I know that the Minister has spoken about that issue before, but the Environment Committee got mixed messages about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your forbearance. However, before I forget, I would like to pay tribute to the Committee staff who punched in very long hours and to the departmental staff who put pedal to the metal virtually every day to make sure that all of the information was brought before us as efficiently as possible. I would like to pay tribute to and thank them because, quite often, that goes unrecognised.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the Bill’s Consideration Stage. We support the first group of amendments except for amendment Nos 1 and 7. Clause 5 says that the Department must carry out its functions with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. However, those two amendments would change the wording to say that the Department must carry out its functions with the objective of “furthering” sustainable development. We believe that the amendments dilute the Department’s commitment to sustainable development and water down the legislation to achieve that. We, therefore, oppose amendment Nos 1 and 7.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Amendment Nos 1, 2 and 7 put sustainable development at the heart of the planning system and link that to the well-being of people in the North of Ireland. At Committee Stage, I felt that the Planning Bill needed to be more robust in promoting sustainable development and well-being. Sinn Féin believes that there is a huge opportunity to move away from a land-based planning system to one based on spatial planning, with people and communities at its core.

The Member who spoke previously said that the amendments on furthering sustainable development will dilute the Department’s responsibility. However, Sinn Fein’s opinion is that the amendments will actually strengthen that responsibility, because they ask local authorities to go further than they normally do. That is what we are trying to get at with “furthering”.

Other Members touched on the definition of well-being. I think that it is widely know what is meant by “well-being”. It has already been pointed out that that is out for consultation as part of the local government reform process, of which well-being is a major plank. The Planning Bill, which deals with well-being and sustainable development, is a driver for real change by lifting people out of poverty, affording them better mental health and ensuring that they have a better quality of life, all of which will have great significance for Departments’ budgets. By putting planning at the heart of people’s lives, we will make greater savings in the long run. We have heard the debates about the health budget not having enough resources. If Members think about this strategically, they will realise that we are looking to front-load the system in order to make savings in the long run. As I said, by giving communities a greater sense of well-being, people will have better mental health and self-esteem and will make a contribution through their taxes to this establishment.

The Department rejected the inclusion in the Bill of the concept of well-being, because it said that there was no precedent for it. I reject that. If there is a will, there is a way. The Department is being very dogmatic about the issue. As I said, the local government consultation refers to well-being, and it should be in the Bill. The majority of responses to the Committee supported having sustainable development and well-being in the Bill. We have a duty to ensure that, when the people speak, we listen. There is no point in putting things out to consultation and people asking for major change if we then decide not to implement those changes.

Sinn Féin supports amendment Nos 4 and 5, which strengthen the requirement for statements of community involvement. We also support amendment No 3.

Amendment No 6, which Sinn Féin also supports, makes the link between the planning system and the need to tackle and respond to the impact of climate change. The amendment would make it a requirement for councils to consider the impact of climate change when carrying out surveys of their district. There is a need for local authorities to factor in best practice. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about using the best practice from around the world that helps to mitigate the impact of climate change. We are not asking local authorities to carry out emission surveys on a global level. We are asking that they gather the evidence and let that formulate their views on implementing or designing local plans. We are talking about using best practice to reduce our carbon footprint and emissions and to combat flooding, which has a major impact on the island of Ireland.

Sinn Féin supports amendment No 15. The Department gave clarification on the appointment of an independent examiner, saying that he or she would be appointed only in exceptional circumstances and that the PAC would always be the first choice in an examination. I welcome the clarification that OFMDFM would cover the cost of the independent examiner.

Amendment No 86, proposed by my colleague and me, calls for the Department to carry out a review within three years of the implementation of the Bill. It is Sinn Féin’s opinion that that is a sensible thing to do, so that any problems that may arise can be addressed and greater comfort can be given to local authorities.

At this point, I declare an interest as a councillor on Down District Council. Local authorities are nervous about the number of powers that are coming down from the Assembly, and they feel that resources will be a problem, no matter what the legislation is, be it the High Hedges Bill, the Welfare of Animals Bill or the Planning Bill. We need to give comfort to local authorities and their umbrella support groups, such as NILGA, which were very supportive of a review. As the Chairperson outlined, we are willing for the review to be flexible, if there is a willingness in the Department for that. That would be sensible, as it would help the Department, communities and local authorities. If things are not working or need to be tweaked, there would be an opportunity to do that.

Also outlined was the opportunity to look at third-party rights of appeal. That is the subject of an amendment that does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of going through because of the petition of concern. Tabling a petition of concern is an abuse of power, because it was not designed for this type of legislation. Planning impacts on everybody, not just people on one side of the community or the other. This petition of concern is a total abuse of power. We should be mature enough to debate what we want in a Planning Bill. I hope that we get that maturity, and I hope that, if and when there is a review, we can look at that again.

Obviously, there are problems. There is front-loading of the system, a lot of community involvement and a lot of community planning. I accept that. However, if there are still problems with ordinary citizens having their rights heard, there is an onus on us to ensure that their voice is heard.

I will finish by speaking about sustainable development, the key deliverer in this Bill. It will add to a low-carbon economy in the North and provide good job opportunities. Companies throughout the world that are seeking to relocate are aware of their carbon emissions and carbon footprint. If we are ahead of the game and leading the way, those companies are more likely to set up their businesses in our part of the island of Ireland.

We need to look seriously at the renewables industry. I know that I am going off slightly, but we need to ensure that everything that we do is sustainable in the best possible manner. By putting that in the Bill, we are saying that that will be the framework that the public sector and the private sector work off. That will be the skeleton, and it will be up to the rest of the sectors to put flesh on the skeleton.

Every Department says that it makes a contribution to sustainable development, but no one ever leads that work. Through the Planning Bill, there is now an opportunity for the planning sector to lead the rest of the sectors in that regard. It will help to improve community life and well-being. It will cut down on emissions and on people travelling in vehicles. Instead, jobs, schools and opportunities will be relocated in neighbourhoods. For too long, housing developments have been pushed out of the way to the outskirts of towns — the problem is out of the way. Then you see major difficulties, with people underachieving and having major health problems such as obesity and mental illness. This is an opportunity to address that. I will leave it at that.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.38 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if, and when, his Department will commission the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust to progress the development plans for the Lagan Valley Hospital site. (AQO 1223/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust has already been asked to develop its outline proposals for the future redevelopment of the Lagan Valley Hospital site. I will need capital to progress that work. However, I submitted bids of £1·8 billion of capital to address the legacy of underinvestment under ISNI II. I had been expecting £1·3 billion. In the run-up to the draft Budget, there were suggestions of £1·1 billion, falling to £0·9 billion.

I eventually received £851 million over four years, which was less than half my bid. With contractual commitments of £250 million and annual fixed costs of £100 million for the maintenance of an ageing health and social care estate, that leaves less than £200 million for new investment. That level of funding is insufficient to meet the demands that are being placed on the Health Service. The impact on the health capital programme will be disastrous, and some very difficult decisions will have to be made.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure that he would like to apologise to the people of Lagan Valley for his party urging them to support the Tories, who reduced our capital allocations. Perhaps he can explain why, given that the strategic outline business case for the £50 million-plus development of Lagan Valley Hospital was submitted over a year ago, his Department has not asked the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust to commission the development of a full business case.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I will begin by referring to the Member’s opening comment. Of course, a block grant came across to us of around £10 billion, and it is up to the Executive to decide. I am looking at DUP/ Sinn Féin cuts. If Mr Frew is serious about the hospital in Lisburn, he would — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr Givan. It is very hard to remember the names of these unelected Members.

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

Eighty million pounds has been set aside in the Budget for the social investment fund. Has the Minister had any discussions with other Ministers about how that fund may be disbursed, or, indeed, would it be available to him for capital for projects such as the Lagan Valley Hospital?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am not aware of any such moneys being available. I have a fund of £851 million over four years, but when £250 million of current contractual commitments are taken out of that, along with £100 million a year for maintenance, it leaves very little money to do anything. That is why I protest so strongly. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The reality is that there is enough money in the Budget. The fact is that the Department for Regional Development (DRD) was getting £2 billion under ISNI II. Under the new block, with all the cuts in it, DRD still gets £2 billion. The question is whether we want to spend our money on hospitals or road bypasses. That is a very pertinent question. I repeat: that is a matter for the DUP and Sinn Féin, who came together to devise the Budget and vote it through, in opposition to Ulster Unionist Party and SDLP Ministers. We are where we are, but I assure Members that there is not enough money in the Budget to begin to do what has to be done, never mind work our way through the comprehensive list that I have.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member is not in his place for question 2. Question 3 has been withdrawn because it requires a written answer. I call Ms Sue Ramsey.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on suicide prevention following the recent ministerial and Executive meetings. (AQO 1226/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The ministerial co-ordination group on suicide prevention supported the development of guidance on building emotional resilience in schoolchildren and managing critical incidents in schools, the development of community crisis response plans and further consideration of preventative measures on the Foyle Bridge. The response to deaths in the Colin area and the operation of the “card before you leave” protocol were also discussed.

I have provided an updated paper on suicide prevention for discussion at the next Executive meeting.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I genuinely thank the Minister for meeting my colleague Jennifer McCann and me yesterday. We had an in-depth discussion. It just so happens because of the way the questions fell that the subject has come up again today.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide as much information as possible on the work that is going on in the Executive, because I have concerns about other Ministers playing their roles. Media guidelines also need to be looked at. I know that the Minister has given a commitment, but if he could provide perhaps a written report, without going into too much detail, on the incident in Lagan Valley psychiatric unit a number of weeks ago around the issue of suicide and self-harm, I would appreciate it.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

On the latter issue, I said at our meeting yesterday that I would write to the Member, and I will do that when I have full details on the issue around the patient at Lagan Valley.

As the Member and the House are aware, we have set guidelines for the media on the reporting of suicide, because improper reporting of it has an effect on those individuals who are liable to self-harm. That is why it is so important that those guidelines are in place and are observed. Most of the media and press outlets observe them, although I regret that there have recently been lapses. We will look to ensure that such lapses do not happen again, because when they do, harm occurs.

This is not a health issue alone. I think we are agreed on that. This is a matter for the Department of Education, the Department for Education and Learning (DEL) and the Department for Regional Development; it is a matter for all Departments working together. We are looking at certain responses; for example, I mentioned work being done on Foyle Bridge, which is a suicide point in the north-west. We are also looking at pupils’ emotional health and well-being. It is about building resilience. DEL wants to reduce the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and we are looking at other areas where the Departments of Health and Education can co-operate, such as the Roots of Empathy programme in schools.

A lot of work is being done as well as what is being done through the anti-suicide strategy. However, this is a matter of stamina; we must keep with it and keep the pressure on. It will take a number of years to fully address the issue, but we must never lose heart, because so many of the victims of suicide are youngsters, and that is a double tragedy.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Are the trends any different to what they were? What age group is most at risk? Do we know the stats for the past couple of years, so that we can compare them to now?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The trend is up and down. In one year, the number will be down and we get a wee bit of comfort, but the next year it will jump up and then go down again, so we are getting spikes in the numbers, which can be very discouraging. However, I am told that that is to be expected. We have a number of actions in place through our Protect Life strategy.

As far as the statistics are concerned, I understand that people in the 25-44 age group are most likely to successfully commit suicide. However, to an extent, and rightly so, we concentrate on the very young people because some very young people are being affected. In the Colin and Lagan Valley areas recently, there were a number of very young people in a cluster. We now have strategies in each trust for cluster responses, because that is one of the very terrifying aspects of this.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I join others in commending the Minister for the work and effort that he and colleagues have put into suicide prevention. Will he elaborate on the divide between urban and rural areas? Is the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development engaged in the strategy to tackle suicide on a rural basis? When the Health Committee visited Lifeline, mention was made of mobile phone roaming charges.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As far as mobile phone roaming charges are concerned, we have agreements with some providers, although some are now charging; it could be Orange or O2, I am not sure which. However, we will follow that up because it is important that they give us that contribution.

Suicide affects all strata in society and all ages, but it is concentrated in the young. There is a clear correlation between suicide and economic deprivation and educational disadvantage. That is unquestionable. The main concentrations of suicide are in north and west Belfast, which are the areas that are the most economically deprived. As well as a general response, we have a policy in which money follows priority. That works in rural areas too, because they are by no means immune, which is a point that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development makes routinely with me. We do not ignore that, and we are not complacent about it.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of his Department’s capital projects in light of the draft Budget 2011-15. (AQO 1227/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I submitted capital bids of £1·8 billion to address the legacy of underinvestment and I received less than half of that — £851 million — for the next four years. With contractual commitments of £250 million and annual fixed costs of £100 million for the maintenance of an ageing health and social care estate, less than £20 million is left for new investment. That level of funding is insufficient to meet the demands being placed on the Health Service. The impact on the health capital programme will be disastrous, and there will be serious implications for our ability to deliver a modern Health Service. Some very difficult decisions will have to be made.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister tell us when the planned improvements to Dundonald hospital are likely to commence as a result of the budget?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

We need £1·8 billion, but we planned to spend £1·3 billion at one stage and then it was £1·1 billion — the number is all over the show. When one gets less than half of what is needed, there is a critical mass of money that has to be spent before one even starts, including £100 million on the routine maintenance of old buildings.

I have four major capital priorities: the Dundonald ward block, the Altnagelvin radiotherapy unit, the maternity hospital in the Royal and the local hospital in Omagh. All of those need the funding to go with them, which means that although I may be able to get them started, the completion times will be over years. That is the problem and the worry. The ward block that the Member referred to in the Ulster hospital is failing. It has concrete cancer and health and safety problems. It has a wiring system that is more than 50 years old, and the heating system is in a similar condition. That building will not last the time that it will take to get the money, which is why the capital funding for the Health Service is so bad. It is disastrous. To paraphrase somebody else, it is, frankly, obscene that we are being placed in this situation bearing in mind that the Health Service has been starved of funds for generations — over 40 years. The Health Service is again the main bearer of the burden and pain as far as capital is concerned.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister inform the House where the proposals for the new local enhanced hospital in Omagh now sit in his priority capital works? He will be aware that the project was in the 2007-2011 comprehensive spending review (CSR) period. We in Omagh were told by the Minister that the money was in the bag. The project seems to have slipped off the radar. When will that new hospital be built for the people in Omagh?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I remind Mr Buchanan that our bid was for £1·8 billion, and then it was cut again and again. Even Mr Buchanan will realise that those sort of cuts to a budget, which leave less than half of what you were getting, will have an effect on how we deliver. As I explained to him, the Omagh local hospital is one of my top four capital priorities. There are others, but let me remind him that the Budget to come forward tomorrow provides amounts of money that will not allow me to go forward on a number of major projects. Mr Buchanan will have his opportunity tomorrow to vote for the Omagh local hospital by rejecting the Budget that the DUP and Sinn Féin have concocted.

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

The Assembly is aware that money is already in place for the new hospital at Enniskillen to be completed and opened next year. In light of the permanent secretary’s statement, made following the cuts agreed by the DUP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, that the Health Service will be broke next year, will the full range of services at Enniskillen that were identified in ‘Developing Better Services’ be delivered and fully funded by his Department? Will he give us such an assurance?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Enniskillen hospital contract is one that is let and to which we are legally bound. That is one example of our contractual commitments that amount to £250 million annually. As far as services are concerned overall, in real terms, the health budget goes down by 2·4% over the next four years, and that is indisputable. It is a 2·4% reduction in real terms. That means that whatever activity is going on at the minute will fall by 2·4% over the next four years, and that is before we take into account increases in demand and elderly population growth.

The Health Service is needed most by younger and older age groups, both of which are growing. We have the fastest growing population in the UK — the highest birth rate. At the same time, our elderly population cohort is growing faster than in anywhere else in the UK. All those demands are coming forward; never mind new drugs, therapies and treatments that we can see coming down the line. Therefore, it is a mathematical fact that activity will fall. It cannot do anything else. If we do not have the resource to drive the activity, that activity will fall, and this Budget proposes a 2·4% cut in Health Service activity right across the board.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Question No 5 for the Minister. I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Question No 6

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps he has taken to encourage the sharing of health services with the Republic of Ireland. (AQO 1228/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am always glad to hear from Kieran McCarthy.

My duty as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is to secure the best possible services for the people. Where tangible benefits are to be achieved, such as economies of scale, enhanced viability of projects and concrete improvements for patients, I am ready to work with the Republic of Ireland for our mutual benefit. The existing range of co-operation is extensive and goes beyond the original five areas of co-operation in the Belfast Agreement, which, for example, did not refer to child protection or suicide prevention.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. What dialogue did he have with the previous Health Minister in the Republic? A new one will be appointed shortly. Will the Minister get involved in further talks, so that the duplication of services is avoided and the people in that part of the world will receive nothing but the best from health services North and South?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have routinely reported in ministerial statements to the House the dialogue that I have had. Mr McCarthy has had occasion to routinely ask me questions on that issue. As far as the principle is concerned, it is where we gain mutual benefit. We go forward in areas where I see mutual benefit for the Northern Ireland population and the Minister down South sees mutual benefit for citizens of the Irish Republic.

Beyond the original five areas of co-operation, such as accident and emergency and co-operation in high-technology equipment, we have moved forward in areas including suicide prevention, child protection, paediatric congenital cardiac services, the satellite radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin, GP out-of-hours, and so on.

There are a number of areas on which we have moved forward, including cancer research and, indeed, the Ambulance Service memorandum. I have always looked at such matters on the basis of where we will gain benefit, and, yes, we gain benefit on both sides of the border. I will be active wherever I see benefits.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the areas of co-operation that the Minister outlined. However, since the Minister frequently commissions reports but does not publish them, when can we expect to see the publication of the North/South feasibility study, which explores areas of efficiency in health and social services throughout the whole island?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I do not commission reports and not publish them. The Member was referring to a feasibility study that was commissioned by Paul Goggins, who, as she will probably be aware, was a direct rule Minister. I have no ownership of that report. Besides, I have, by and large, taken forward the issues in it. As I said, I am not into spending money on bureaucracy, which is what that report was about.

Not all cross-border co-operations are as fruitful as anticipated. For example, two cross-border GP out-of-hours schemes are running at the moment: one in the south Armagh/Castleblaney area, which is averaging only 34 patients a month; and one in Donegal/Londonderry, which is averaging only 10 patients a month. Those are examples of where we have tried cross-border co-operation that does not work. However, there are successful areas, such as the satellite radiotherapy unit. If only I could persuade the DUP and Sinn Féin to come up with a proper capital budget, we could secure cross-border co-operation that would serve as an example. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

It is wonderful to hear cries from a sedentary position, because it means for certain that my remarks are accurate. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

Has the Minister read the programme for government that was agreed recently between the Labour Party and Fine Gael in the South? Does he agree that that programme offers a further opportunity to mitigate the impact of the DUP/Sinn Féin Budget by joint procurement on an all-island basis? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have not had a chance to read it. I have been engaged in battling those self-same DUP/Sinn Féin cuts, which were voted through the Executive only last week. Of course, I am in a position to speak about that. None of the Back-Benchers to my left was at that meeting, so they are relying on reports; whereas I can report personally on what actually happened.

We look forward to seeing how we can best deliver the budget. Of course, the key relation­ships are within the kingdom: England, Scotland and Wales working together in a joint Health Service. Of course, I have no compunction whatsoever about co-operating with the Irish Republic where it benefits Northern Ireland.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the reasons for the additional waiting times for a neurology appointment at Altnagelvin Hospital. (AQO 1229/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I understand that, as a result of staff absences, there are specific challenges in the Western Health and Social Care Trust. I have been assured that the trust is actively engaged with the board in addressing pressures. However, it has proved very difficult for the trust successfully to recruit a locum consultant to sustain services in the short term. I fully acknowledge that people are waiting much too long for a neurology appointment at Altnagelvin. That is totally unacceptable. This year, I have invested £6·3 million to improve access to outpatient appointments.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answer.

Does he acknowledge, as I do, that the increasing delays of up to 50 weeks have caused huge distress not only for patients with neurological conditions but their families? Does he also agree that it makes no sense from a health-outcomes point of view and from an economic point of view to allow what are often degenerative conditions to worsen and that we need to take specific measures in the west to address some of those recruitment and retention issues? In particular, does he see scope for further North/South co-operation in the north-west of the island to ensure that we build capacity there?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Current capacity for neurology services in the Western Trust does not meet demand. That is a fact. Efforts to recruit have proved unsuccessful, and, in fact, consultants from the Belfast Trust are attending to support the services in the west and in Altnagelvin. It is very difficult to recruit a locum neurologist. That skill is very scarce. We need to build capacity, and the best way to do that is through training and support for our own staff. That, of course, needs a resource and investment that we currently do not have. However, I have put in some £6·3 million this year to do that. That is the best win and is the same approach that I have taken to cardiac surgery, where capacity is short and where we need to build it. However, I accept that patients in the Western Trust area are having to wait too long.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Is it not the case that the cuts in neurology came as a result of the Cameron cuts that the Health Minister acted as a cheerleader for? When will the Health Minister be honest and tell the House when he will move from Cameron’s cutter to Cameron’s quitter?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us be careful. That is not a supplementary question to the original question. [Interruption.] Order. It is not. Let us move on.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the Minister aware that, to date, in some trusts, private clinics are still being used to deal with NHS patients? The reality is that we are still being charged extortionate prices. Will the Minister agree to review some of those issues? When we talk about the efficiencies in the Health Service, it seems to me that private medical services are creaming off public patients.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I would love to know where that is happening. Consultants have a contract and are contracted to work so many hours a week. What they do out of hours is, frankly, their business. Whether they do a bit more consultancy or paint their bedroom ceiling is a matter for them. We have 11 consultants in Northern Ireland. That is not enough, and we require more. Talking about “extortionate this” and “extortionate that” is running away from the issue and the problem. What is extortionate is the way that the Health Service is being run down here. We currently have the worst-funded Health Service in the UK pro rata. We are worse than England, Scotland and Wales, and I have the figures to demonstrate it. [Interruption.] Here we go.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to continue.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Shouting will not change the facts. We were not in that situation four years ago. It is the situation now, and that is why we have such waiting times for neurology services in the Western Trust and all over. For anyone who has a capacity to listen, I will say that that is getting worse. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

It is getting worse, and these are “made in Northern Ireland” cuts that have been voted through by the DUP and Sinn Féin at the Executive.

Justice

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

1. asked the Minister of Justice what discussions he has with the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and the Parades Commission following the arrests of people involved in an illegal dissident republican parade in Lurgan. (AQO 1238/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have regular discussions with the Chief Constable on a range of issues and have discussed the topic of illegal parades. I have also discussed the matter with the chairman of the Parades Commission. Decisions on investigations in individual cases, however, are a matter for the Chief Constable and his officers.

I am advised that, to date, four people have been arrested in relation to the parade in Lurgan on 23 January. All four have been released pending a report to the Public Prosecution Service. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his response. Many people across society in Lurgan have done tremendous to create a situation that is now much improved. Given that, will the Minister commit to pressing for speedy prosecutions and for the maximum tariff allowable to be imposed on anyone who is convicted in relation to events of this nature?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I fear that Mr Moutray misunderstands my position. My responsibility is to ensure that the Police Service has adequate resources to protect the community, but issues of prosecution and pressing for maximum sentences are entirely outwith the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

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

Will the Minister join me in urging all political representatives to support the Parades Commission in its decision-making role?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Clearly, an election is coming up. I have no difficulty in doing that. I highlighted the fact that I met the new chairman of the Parades Commission. In the absence of agreement in the House on any other arrangements, the Parades Commission has an important role to perform this coming summer and, perhaps, for some years ahead. I hope that all public representatives, all agencies related to the issue, those who parade and those who wish to protest about parades will recognise that the Parades Commission has a job to do and will engage constructively with it.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Last year, dissident activities in Lurgan cost £220,000 to the rail network alone. Can the Minister give an overall estimate of the policing and other costs associated with managing the dissident threats?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I cannot give an accurate estimate of the costs, because the overall policing budget covers a number of areas between which there is significant interplay. However, I can agree with what I suspect is Mr Gardiner’s point. The costs of providing for the security needs of this region are excessive, and it is incumbent on all politicians and everyone in public life to do all that they can to dissuade others from getting involved in such activities.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. asked the Minister of Justice to outline any discussions he has had with the Chief Constable in relation to the Police Ombudsman’s report on the McGurk’s Bar bombing. (AQO 1239/11)

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

6. asked the Minister of Justice to outline any discussions he has had with the Chief Constable in relation to the findings of the Police Ombudsman’s report on the bombing of McGurk’s Bar. (AQO 1243/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answers questions 2 and 6 together.

I met the Chief Constable on Monday 28 February, and the bombing of McGurk’s Bar was among the items that we discussed. I was also briefed by the Police Ombudsman on his findings. Having had those discussions, I place on the record of the Assembly, as its Justice Minister, that it is clear that those killed were in no way responsible for the bombing and were innocent victims. I am deeply conscious of the pain that suggestions to the contrary have caused to the relatives of those killed.

How we deal with the legacy of our past is a challenge to the Assembly and the Executive. The Department of Justice and the organisations that it funds will continue to play their part, but the issue is far wider than one simply for my Department. The development of a coherent and effective approach is, as I said, a challenge for all of us in the House.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. It is important that he has put on record that it is clear that the people killed were not responsible and, indeed, were innocent. Does the Minister agree that the interests of justice were not served by the inadequate investigation by the RUC into the McGurk’s Bar bombing?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

We need to be careful not to stray excessively far into the past in the assumptions that we seek to make. It is clear that the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as it exists today, has a significant and serious role to perform in providing the policing needs for the people of Northern Ireland and deserves the full support of everyone in the House in doing so. As I said in my first response, it is also clear that there are other aspects relating to the past for which agencies of the Department of Justice, specifically the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police Ombudsman, have a remit.

However, there are serious difficulties in seeking to address all the concerns of the past if we simply use that as an opportunity to drag up individual issues and seek to make major cases. There are matters of concern, but the key issue must be to ensure that we provide for the needs of the present day.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat. The central finding of the Police Ombudsman’s report on the McGurk’s Bar bombing was that there was an investigative bias on behalf of the RUC. Does the Minister regret the effective rejection of that finding by the Chief Constable?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Bradley for that question, but I am not sure that there is much to be gained by my seeking to engage with matters that are for the ombudsman or the Chief Constable about how the report was written and the response to it. I am aware that the Chief Constable met representatives of the families a few days after the report was published, and, on the basis of that discussion, I understand that he agreed to make no further comment on the arrangements, in accordance with the wishes of the family. In that respect, it is probably best that I do the same.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

The Police Ombudsman’s initial report was published, and, seven months later, a completely rewritten report was published. Will the Minister examine the botched work of the Police Ombudsman? Also, has the Chief Constable indicated whether any new evidence has been presented? The ombudsman indicated that there was new evidence, but the Chief Constable has denied that. Has the Chief Constable indicated to the Minister that new evidence has been provided in the second report?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It would be a very dangerous prospect for any Minister to start to criticise the work of a body such as the Police Ombudsman’s office. That would lead us into significant difficulties. The Chief Constable has not told me of any new evidence being provided. It is quite proper that he did not tell me because it is an issue for the Chief Constable.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

3. asked the Minister of Justice what steps he intends to take to ensure that the objectives of community safety partnerships will be taken into consideration if the amalgamation of district policing partnerships and community safety partnerships become the new policing and community safety partnerships. (AQO 1240/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

At the outset, I stress that I see community safety as being of equal importance to policing in the concept of each new policing and community safety partnership. From their inception, those partnerships will establish their own plans, taking into account community safety and policing issues in meeting the needs of their local area. They are new partnerships, but they may choose to build on the objectives of existing CSPs and DPPs while working within the remit set out by the Justice Bill, in which the functions inherited from CSPs and DPPs are of equal importance. The PCSPs’ plans will also have to sit with the strategic objectives of the joint committee, which will be my Department and the Policing Board working together as equal partners. Those strategic objectives will encompass the objectives of the Department of Justice and the Policing Board in respect of policing and community safety and will ensure a coherent approach across the 26 council areas.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. Does the Minister agree that the valuable work carried out by community safety forums and partnerships should continue and not be replaced by PCSPs and that they should work alongside them in some way to try to promote better community safety?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Ms Anderson for that question. It is clear that we are seeking to enhance the good work done on community safety in the new partnerships. A number of groups will be related to the work of community safety in different areas. The provisions are there for an open arrangement for membership of the various partnerships to suit the needs of the local community. However, it is vital that we build on the good work done by existing partnerships if we are to seek maximum benefit from the new partnerships.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I raised this issue with the Minister during discussions on the Justice Bill, but with CPLCs, PACTs and the DPCSPs, it would be possible to deliver an essay without saying a word.

Does the Minister agree that, although we encourage engagement between the police and the community, having to attend so many different meetings puts a huge burden on the Police Service of Northern Ireland? If police attend and service those meetings, obviously, they cannot be out fighting crime. Is the balance right or are there too many bodies for police to attend?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I was wondering whether we would get a kind of alphabet soup out of Lord Empey’s acronyms. He raises an entirely reasonable point. However, the key issue is that in bringing DPPs and CSPs together into PCSPs — if we are going to talk acronyms, let us really talk acronyms — the number of bodies will be reduced. Those are the key bodies. There will be a single partnership for each of 25 districts. In Belfast, there will be a single partnership citywide and four DPCSPs, which represent the city’s four area-command sectors as they are currently composed.

Lord Empey, rightly, draws attention to a number of other bodies. Those bodies do not have the same status as proposed new partnerships, nor are they touched by operation of the Bill. They remain in existence in so far as, frankly, sector inspectors in the Police Service see them as serving a valuable purpose in meeting the needs of their relationship with people in a particular local neighbourhood. As Minister, I am not going to be prescriptive and say that they should not exist. The issue is to ensure that there is an overall structure that meets the needs of each district. Then, we allow local liaison to proceed in a way that best suits the needs of local policing. That is the appropriate way forward, regardless of whether there is an alphabet soup.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will be more than aware of my views on DPPs and whether there is any need for them. I suggest that there is not. Nonetheless, through the Bill, the Minister has decided to bring DPPs and CSPs together. Will he ensure that when the two bodies are amal­gamated, the new body will provide value for money and, indeed, the service that is required to show that community safety is at its heart?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Indeed, as he said, Mr Ian McCrea has made his views well known on a number of occasions in the past. After detailed discussion at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, the House has accepted that we will go down the route of seeking to rationalise partnership by having a single partnership in each district. One key issue is that it produces value for money in that less money will be directed to administration of the two partnerships and more money from available funding can, therefore, be devoted to appropriate projects to promote community safety on the basis of whatever each local partnership decides for its area.

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

Will the Minister reassure the House that, despite Mr Ian McCrea’s bizarre and strange view on DPPs, the original idea behind them, which was to bring accountability for policing to local areas, will be preserved with the new arrangements along with the enhancement of community safety, and that it is in everybody’s interests that that takes place?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am sure that Mr Maginness would not necessarily expect me to agree with his description of Mr Ian McCrea’s views. However, he is correct; we have sought to maintain one of Patten’s key reforms, the creation of DPPs, in the policing committees of new partnerships. I am committed to ensure that that continues, alongside the work of the wider partnership as it seeks to promote wider notions of community safety. At some point in the future, there may be further rationalisation of the operation of those partnerships. However, I doubt very much that I will be Minister when that happens.

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

4. asked the Minister of Justice if he can confirm that prison authorities recently introduced a drugs amnesty in Maghaberry prison. (AQO 1241/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Recently, the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) was made aware that a quantity of illegal drugs had been smuggled into Maghaberry prison. As a result of using those drugs, one person collapsed and had to be taken to Lagan Valley Hospital to receive medical treatment. It is clear that that bad batch of drugs posed serious risks to prisoners. In such cases, the overriding concern must be for the health and welfare of prisoners. That is why, in order to minimise risk and proactively encourage prisoners to hand over their drugs, the governor of Maghaberry prison alerted prisoners to concerns about the potential harm that those drugs could cause and took the decision to not impose any sanction on any prisoner who handed in illegal drugs within a 48-hour period.

The Prison Service has a duty of care to prisoners, and that action is in line with its policies on safer custody and on reducing the harm of illegal drugs in prisons. Such amnesties are taken in only very exceptional circumstances in which the risk posed is considered very high. However, they are not unique to NIPS and are used from time to time by police and prison services in other jurisdictions. On this occasion, no drugs were handed in to the authorities, although it is possible that they may have been disposed of in other ways.

The Prison Service maintains a tough stance on drugs and will continue to take every measure necessary to reduce the supply of drugs in prisons and, in partnership with the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, to provide a range of interventions and support services to prisoners with addiction problems.

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

I welcome the Minister’s reply. Was that a one-off amnesty? Does the Minister have plans to introduce further amnesties, if he cannot ease the drug situation?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Bradley raises a fair point. There are no plans for further amnesties, but that does not mean that further amnesties may not happen in the future, if they are felt to be necessary in the interest of the health and safety of prisoners. As I said in my substantive answer, this issue has to be addressed from time to time by prison services and police services in every jurisdiction. It is not a unique feature of Maghaberry or of Northern Ireland, but it is important that we protect the lives of those who are in the custody of the Prison Service.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As part of a policy for clean health for prisoners in relation to drugs, and in addition to the recent amnesty that was seen in Maghaberry, has the Minister had discussions with the director general of the Prison Service about education programmes and drugs awareness programmes?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has raised a very interesting question. The simple answer is that I, personally, have not discussed the issue with the director general. I understand that it is an issue that is continually considered by the Prison Service, but, in light of what has been said, it is, perhaps, an issue that we need to prioritise.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister address another issue that is occurring in Maghaberry and other prisons? Some prisoners are faking incidents. They get themselves taken into hospital at taxpayers’ expense, get themselves treated with legitimate drugs, then overdose on those legitimate drugs and cause even greater expense to the public purse?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have no evidence of any occurrences of the sort that has been suggested by Mr Craig. In the case of the recent incident that we talked about, I understand that only one prisoner was taken to Lagan Valley Hospital and that prisoner received only outpatient treatment there.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Has the Minister assessed the impact of the drugs amnesty in the prison on prison staff morale? To what extent was the amnesty made necessary by the problems associated with supervising visitors?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not aware that staff morale was affected by the one-off, short-term amnesty. As I said, amnesties are held in prison services in every jurisdiction, and to suggest that the problem is unique to or particularly felt in Maghaberry is flying in the face of reality.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

5. asked the Minister of Justice for an update on determining long-term policing objectives. (AQO 1242/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am working with the Chief Constable, his senior staff, the Policing Board, partners in the policing and justice field and the wider community to develop and shape the long-term policing objectives that our community needs. Based on initial discussions, I have outlined some key themes and proposals for new objectives. They are centred round the nature of policing and the role of police in society.

In January, I published for public consultation a paper in which those key themes were explored in more detail. The proposed objectives cover the following areas: policing that is delivered in a way that protects and vindicates the human rights of all; policing with the community as the model for all policing; policing in partnership with other police services, the public and statutory, voluntary and private partners; policing that responds and adapts to emerging changes in society and contributes positively to that transformation; and a police service that is free from external interference in operational matters, but accountable, through the Policing Board, for operational decisions and to the Department and the Assembly for the use of public money.

The public consultation is ongoing and runs until 13 April. A number of meetings and discussions have already taken place during the consultation period, and more are planned with key stakeholders before the closing date.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for a comprehensive answer, and I welcome the consultation. I know that the Minister agrees with me that setting long-term objectives for policing is a very important task and one that would benefit from the widest possible participation, particularly from the community. Will the Minister let us know the range of individuals and organisations he has so far engaged in discussions?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The range of organisations consulted was the usual wide range that my Department would consult across many issues and included other Departments, public bodies with any particular interest in policing, local councils and DPPs. There is also the opportunity for the public in general to engage. I am disappointed that, so far, we have received relatively few formal responses, although they have come from, for example, the Lord Chief Justice, one or two DPPs and the Police Superintendents’ Association. However, it is clear that, to date, politicians in general, whether as Members of the Assembly or through political parties, have not engaged with the policing objectives. I think that that is something that we are all guilty of. We tend to respond when issues arise, rather than respond at an earlier stage when consultation is going on. I urge Members to take the opportunity to contribute to the discussion in whatever format they wish in order to enhance the proposals for the new objectives, which will be coming forward in the next Assembly.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. He has outlined to the House that his Department is currently involved in a consultation process. Can he give an assurance to the House that, when that process is completed, there will remain one police service in Northern Ireland and that there will not be two-tier policing in this country?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can certainly assure Mr Humphrey that the objectives for the Police Service of Northern Ireland are overarching objectives that will apply to every part of the PSNI. Clearly local work will then need to be done in conjunction with the new partnerships. I hesitate to name them for fear that Lord Empey will pick me up on it. The issue is the overarching responsibilities of the Police Service, in conjunction with the Policing Board. Mr Humphrey is quite right to talk about a single police service meeting the needs of every person in Northern Ireland.