Northern Ireland Assembly, 21 March 2011

287 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have spoken to you one-on-one about this matter. During Question Time last Monday, the Minister for Regional Development, in response to questioning, placed on record some allegations regarding the role of members of the Public Accounts Committee. Those have since been proven to be inaccurate. I have provided you with a copy of a record of the minutes of that Public Accounts Committee meeting. Will you, in your role as Speaker, investigate those matters and, with the veracity of the minutes that have been provided to you, pursue the required course of action to rectify the inaccuracies that were presented to the House?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his point of order this afternoon. I take very seriously things that are said in the House that are sometimes inaccurate. I also confirm that the Member has shown me the document to which he referred, and I confirm what he has said. He has put his concerns and views on the record. I will certainly write on behalf of the whole House to the Minister and try to confirm as far as possible the accuracies or inaccuracies of what he said.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the last sitting of the Assembly, namely Tuesday of last week, I raised a point of order at the close of business. The Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, and he was to refer the issue to your office. It related to a matter of a considerably serious nature. I had a question listed as oral question 11. The Minister did not get to number 11, which is understandable. The normal practice, according to procedures, is that the answer is placed in the Member’s pigeonhole immediately following Question Time. The Minister for Social Development failed to do that.

The case gets infinitely more serious because I then discovered that another Member was in a position to issue a statement, dated 15 March, containing full details of the issue. Not only did he issue a statement, but he got his photograph taken to ensure that everybody fully understood. He then went to another paper and gave the statement again. This is a very serious matter, and it seems that some Members are more equal than others. Indeed, some Members are treated with utter contempt. That is not acceptable.

We have also been provided with a very lame excuse for why I did not get a reply, namely that my answer was delivered by courier on Wednesday. Why would you engage a courier to deliver something when you are sitting across the Chamber from the person who requires it? Why would you not deliver it then?

Mr Speaker, this is most serious, and I would like you to make a ruling on the matter. I will not tell you what should be done. I think that I know what should be done, but I will wait for your ruling. It is despicable and beyond comprehension that a Minister should treat another Member in such a way. Either he is totally inefficient or his Department is, or maybe it is a combination of both. He seems to be quite efficient at delivering messages to his own Members. Is that how the House will be run in the future, or will we treat everybody as equals?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am conscious that the Member raised the issue at the end of last Tuesday’s sitting. I am deeply concerned that it took the Minister until the end of last week to let the Member have an answer that should have been issued immediately after Question Time last Monday. That is normal procedure in the House. I assure Lord Morrow and the House that I intend to write to the Minister to express my deep concern about the issue. It is totally and absolutely wrong. Usually, if a Minister does not get to a particular question, he issues a written answer immediately after Question Time, and that is put in pigeonholes. On this issue, I agree with Lord Morrow: it is a serious issue about which the whole House should be concerned.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, normally, if a Member is named in the House, he or she is suspended from the House. Does the Minister merit suspension from the House?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let me look into the issue. As Lord Morrow will know, because he is Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, these are complex issues. In addition, as I said to Lord Morrow this morning because I knew that he was deeply concerned about the way in which the matter was handled, Standing Orders are silent on the Speaker’s authority on some issues. I raise that point continually with members of the Committee on Procedures.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I advise Members that on Friday 18 March a valid petition of concern was presented in relation to an amendment published for today’s Further Consideration Stage of the Planning Bill. Amendment No 2, which is in the first group of amendments, is to do with planning control. The vote will be on a cross-community basis, and it may take place today.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I inform Members that the Local Government Finance Bill and the Transport Bill have received Royal Assent. I am also pleased to inform the House that the Caravans Bill has received Royal Assent.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Local Government Finance (Northern Ireland) Act 2011 and the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 became law on 16 March. The Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 also became law on 16 March, and I know that the whole House will want to join me in offering congratulations to John McCallister on having the first private Member’s Bill to be enacted here in 80 years. I want to say a personal word of thanks to John McCallister.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 21 March 2011.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 21 March 2011.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. The motion has been agreed, so today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm, if required.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I wish to make a statement about the public inquiry into the outbreak of clostridium difficile in Northern Health and Social Care Trust hospitals. The inquiry has concluded its investigation and is publishing its report today.

At the outset, I apologise to all those affected, and I offer my sincere sympathies to the families who lost loved ones during this outbreak. There is no doubt that this 027 strain of clostridium difficile was extremely virulent and caused a great deal of pain and distress to all those affected. The outbreak was the first time that the 027 strain was seen in Northern Ireland.

The Assembly voted in favour of a public inquiry in March 2008. However, I made it clear that I was minded to commission a public inquiry. I first wanted to focus on the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority’s (RQIA) independent review of the outbreak. In October 2008, I made a statement to the Assembly about the conclusion of the RQIA review. I also advised Members that I had decided to commission a public inquiry, and I set out the two tasks that were to be undertaken.

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

The first task was to give an independent, rigorous account of how many people died as a result of the outbreak, and the second was to listen to the people who were affected by the outbreak and to let their voices be heard. We owe it to them to pay attention to their stories, to learn whatever lessons we need to from their experiences and to act on them.

Dame Deirdre Hine was appointed to chair the inquiry, and the other panel members were Professor Robert Stout, Dr Jocelyn Cornwell and Eleanor Hayes. The inquiry’s terms of reference were to establish how many deaths occurred in Northern Health and Social Care Trust hospitals during the outbreak for which clostridium difficile was the underlying cause of death or a condition contributing to death; to examine and report on the experiences of patients and others who were affected directly by the outbreak; and to make recommendations accordingly. The chairperson of the inquiry advised me that she wished to include staff in the Northern Trust as part of the second term of reference, and I endorsed that approach. On the basis of the RQIA’s findings, I asked the inquiry to examine the period from 16 June 2007 to 31 August 2008.

In going about its work, the inquiry has not sought to apportion blame. Rather, it has focused on establishing facts, on hearing people’s stories and on identifying whatever needed to be learned. That is what I wanted the inquiry to do.

During the past 23 months, the inquiry met in private 30 times, undertook a familiarisation visit to each of the five hospitals involved, held 20 informal meetings with persons directly affected by the outbreak and held public oral hearings over 14 days in October 2010. The inquiry received 73 completed questionnaires, 50 letters, 113 written statements and a total of 1,055 documents, including reports of similar outbreaks elsewhere in the UK. The report will be publicly available on the inquiry’s website from 12.00 noon today.

The core participants in the inquiry, mostly former patients and relatives, have been given an opportunity to read the report before publication. The inquiry panel has made 12 recommendations. Of those, nine are for the trust and three are for the Department. The recommendations cover aspects such as communication with patients and families; dealing with complaints and feedback; providing information to patients and relatives; governance arrangements for patient safety; quality of care and record-keeping; the use of single rooms and sensitivity around the isolation of patients; end-of-life care; death certification; annual reviews of the trust’s outbreak control plan; staff training; making full use of the advice of the trust’s infection prevention and control staff; a review of A&E departments to examine their suitability for receiving patients with clostridium difficile; a review of the regional guidance on outbreak control plans; and recognising the additional risk that arises at times of organisational change. I accept each of the inquiry panel’s recommendations.

A team of expert reviewers carried out a detailed independent review of the medical case notes of all the patients who died. A total of 124 clinical records were examined, and the reviewers concluded that there were 31 deaths during the outbreak for which clostridium difficile infection was the underlying or contributing cause. Of the 31 deaths, clostridium difficile was the underlying cause in 15 deaths and a contributory cause in 16 deaths. The findings and conclusions presented by the expert group have been accepted in their entirety by the inquiry panel. I also fully accept those findings.

The inquiry report includes a number of positive comments that show that high-quality care was provided in many instances and in many wards. However, it is clear that, in some areas, things happened that fell short of the standard of care that people have a right to expect. Among the recommendations is the need for the Northern Trust to improve how it communicates with patients and their relatives. The trust board, too, has a key role to play in listening to patients’ complaints and taking action where appropriate. Patients and relatives have the right to understand what is happening and to know how their concerns are being dealt with at all times.

The outbreak happened shortly after the health and social care services had undergone major reorganisation. As a relatively new body, the Northern Trust did not have sufficient time to bed down all its governance arrangements and to ensure that there were robust lines of communication. In situations such as that, there are clearly risks for all HSC organisations when it comes to responding to crisis situations. My Department fully recognises that that is an issue, and it will ensure that it is addressed.

The core of the matter is that every patient should be treated with respect, dignity and compassion. Our health and social care service treats and cares for hundreds of thousands of people every year, and, in the vast majority of cases, that care is of a high standard. Unfortunately, patients sometimes do not get the care that they are entitled to expect. It is clear that, at the height of the outbreak, public confidence in the health and social care service was shaken to the point where some people were worried about going into hospital because of fears that they might contract an infection. That is not acceptable.

I have made significant investments to drive down rates of healthcare-associated infections such as clostridium difficile and MRSA. As a result, clostridium difficile levels in our hospitals have halved over the past few years and are now at their lowest level since formal monitoring began. All trusts are fully aware of the need to ensure that there is a culture of zero tolerance of infections. The report has emphasised that this is not about dirty hospitals. The fact is that we will never be able to eradicate clostridium difficile, but that does mean that we should not take every step possible to prevent it.

I want to assure the public that they can have confidence in the quality and safety of care in all our healthcare facilities. It is important that that message is heard and that politicians and the media are careful not to cause unnecessary anxiety. In its report, the inquiry panel has appealed for more responsible media reporting, and I hope that the media heed that appeal. As I have suggested, our focus has to be on everyone who suffered during the outbreak, particularly those who died and their families.

In closing, I want to say a few words about the trust. It is vital now that the Northern Trust is able to continue to improve services and continue to restore the confidence of the community it serves. I want to thank Dame Deirdre Hine and her fellow panel members for carrying out the inquiry in such a sensitive and professional way. I also want to commend the inquiry team on its careful stewardship of public funds. Finally, I want to thank everyone who gave evidence to the inquiry. For many witnesses, that will have been very distressing, but it is their contributions that have given the inquiry its value and power.

Although the inquiry has addressed recommendations to the Northern Trust, at the panel’s suggestion I will require all the health and social care trusts to carefully consider the implications for their own services and to ensure that they implement them. I will also share the report with Health Ministers in other UK jurisdictions. More immediately, I am meeting the chairperson and chief executive of the Northern Trust this week to set a timetable for implementing the recommendations swiftly. I want to assure the public that they will be implemented and that all lessons will be learned.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

This whole issue was terribly difficult for the relatives of those who passed away, for those who survived the outbreak and for the staff who had to deal with the crisis. A criticism of the Northern Trust was that there was a delay between it becoming apparent that there was a clostridium difficile outbreak and that being made public. Does the report of the inquiry give any explanation for that delay? We all hope and pray that this situation will never arise again, but can the Minister assure the House that, if it does, the public will be informed rapidly that there has been a further outbreak?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Indeed, that points to one of the main recommendations of the public inquiry, which is around communications. The trust was deficient in communication, and that is to be regretted. One of the key recommendations that we will take forward involves communicating with patients and families, dealing with complaints and feedback and providing information. It is important that the general public get that information, and we will ensure that that recommendation is implemented, because it is clear that that did not happen in every case. It was a particularly difficult situation for patients and their relatives and, indeed, for staff, as Mr Wells pointed out. One of the best ways of addressing such situations is to have full sharing of information.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the conclusion of the inquiry, and I put it on record that our thoughts and prayers are with all those who lost their life as a result of clostridium difficile.

The Minister said that levels of clostridium difficile were at their lowest since formal monitoring began. Can he confirm that the Northern Trust is at similar levels to other trusts and is not still experiencing higher levels? Can he confirm that the inquiry panel looked at the fact that some wards had higher levels of clostridium difficile than others? Was that identified by the inquiry?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The inquiry focused not on particular wards but on a whole system. It was a running battle, as it were. Clostridium difficile was reduced in one hospital and, when they thought that they had got over the top, it flared up in another. That is why the focus was on the five hospitals of the Northern Trust.

I have set stringent targets. I confirm that clostridium difficile is down by 54% from 2008-09. I have asked for a further 18% reduction over the past year. Other trusts are on target. The Northern Trust got somewhat offline in meeting that target and, as I understand it, is now back online. When I meet the chairperson and chief executive this week, I will make the point that they must hit those types of target, not least for the confidence of the general public. The number of instances at the Northern Trust is dramatically reduced, but there is always more work to be done.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I associate myself and my party with the Minister’s opening words of sympathy to the families caught up in this dreadful outbreak. Does the Minister agree that this has been the correct way to proceed and that incidences are greatly reduced? Does he agree that it was right and proper to do the RQIA report before moving to the public inquiry and that all the lessons, both from the RQIA report and the public inquiry, have been learnt and will be implemented as speedily as possible?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Yes, I give the undertaking that all the public inquiry’s recommendations, three of which relate to the Department and nine to the trust, have been accepted and will be implemented. That will be shared across Northern Ireland. The RQIA has also played an important part. Its recommendations helped to inform measures and actions that I announced to address the issue, such as hand hygiene campaigns, unannounced inspections, the need to change and rigidly control visitor policy, changes in culture and the ward sisters’ charter. All that has been informed by the need to ensure that infection control and patient safety is very much kept to the forefront.

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

It is clear from the Minister’s statement that a litany of failures took place with regard to clinical care, communication and dealing with complaints. Does the Minister agree that it is not enough to simply confine that to the Northern Trust, when there are examples of those failures in other trusts? Will he assure us that he will meet all trusts? With regard to the 31 tragic cases, how many of those individuals’ families now pursue legal cases or have referred their cases to the ombudsman?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I do not know the answer to the second of the Member’s questions. He asked how many of the families were taking legal cases or had referred their case to the ombudsman. That is, of course, every individual’s right. The families can do that if they are so minded.

As far as the litany of failures is concerned, we openly admitted that that was the reason for the public inquiry: to look at omissions and learn lessons. The RQIA review was very much about helping us to end the outbreak. That was its focus and properly so. However, we are also about learning lessons. As I said, all the recommendations have been accepted and will be widely shared throughout all trusts.

Good progress has been made in the battle against such infections. However, it is important to remember that clostridium difficile will never be eradicated. It is present in 5% of the population. In the over-65 age group, clostridium difficile occurs at a rate of around 30%. Therefore, it will not be eradicated. However, we must learn lessons about how quickly it spreads. The fact is that type 027 is a particularly virulent strain, which was never seen in Northern Ireland before. It is very contagious. It presented a huge challenge to staff and was distressing for them as well as being hugely distressing for patients and their families.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement on this serious subject. I join others by offering the sincere sympathies of the Alliance Party to all families who suffered the loss of a loved one from that infection.

As regards communications, what lessons have been learnt about open, honest and early dialogue? Will that be given to patients and their relatives? Has the Minister or the trust put in place any supervisory role in hospitals to ensure that cleanliness is absolutely paramount?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

There is that type of supervisory role in each of the trust’s hospitals. I want to make the point, which is also made by the inquiry panel, as the Member will see when he reads the report: the problem was not dirty hospitals. That was one strapline that prevailed at the time. The only substance that will kill type 027 is bleach. Therefore, it is an extremely resistant strain. It is also highly contagious. Although cleaning is important, particularly as far as patient confidence is concerned, it is about much more than that. That is not the sole weapon that can be employed.

That is why I have announced a number of measures through the Changing the Culture strategy and several further strategies relating to the issue.

I am sorry, but I have forgotten what Mr McCarthy’s first point was.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I asked about communication.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

A key recommendation of the public inquiry, and one that will be taken on board, relates to communication. Patients have the right to know about and to receive full communication on their condition, prospects and prognosis, as do their families. Doctors, nurses and other medical staff in the trusts recognise that, and they will ensure that they act on the duty to make sure that patients fully understand their situations and are fully informed of them.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I, too, put on record my sincere sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives to this infection. I hope and pray that we do not come back to the House to talk about the issue in the near future.

It seems that communication is being focused on greatly. What is the mechanism for informing families? I am aware of families who were told that their relative had contracted and was suffering from clostridium difficile by somebody who thought that they already knew. What line of reporting has been put in place? It should not be the case that it is up to a junior member of staff to mention it in a by-the-way manner and for the family to be taken aback. That problem was identified, and it was one of the key issues brought up by a number of those affected at the 30 meetings held during the inquiry process. What mechanism has been put in place to ensure that there is a proper procedure for informing the families and that it will be done formally?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Communication, as we repeatedly say, is a key area in making advances. The responsibility for that will not fall to one junior member, but will go to board level. There will be executive/director responsibility for ensuring that patients are properly informed and that their condition, prognosis, and so on are communicated. I cannot yet detail the specific actions that will flow from that key recommendation, but I will do so in due course. The recommendations have come through, but a lot of work has to be done, and we must make absolutely sure that we comply in full with the recommendations of the public inquiry.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister will recall that I raised this issue with him on a number of occasions and pressed the case for a public inquiry, as my constituency lies within the Northern Trust area. I welcome the fact that he will meet the most senior officials of the Northern Trust board this week. In his statement, he said that the Northern Trust must:

“continue to improve services and continue to restore the confidence of the community it serves.”

Will the Minister confirm that, despite the improvements, the Northern Trust continues to experience the highest levels of clostridium difficile across all of the trust areas?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As we learn lessons through the recommendations, there will be a strong focus on the Northern Trust, because it was there that the outbreak occurred. We can gain confidence from the big reduction in the rates of clostridium difficile, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the Northern Trust. The Northern Trust has made great progress. In 2007-08, there were 297 cases of clostridium difficile, and that reduced to 102 in 2009-2010. As Members can see, there was a major reduction.

There is more work to be done. We have targets. The Northern Trust went off-target a bit recently, but I believe it is now back on target. It is about keeping the pressure on. I do not want to compare trusts, but the rate is not abnormal when compared to that in other trusts. In 2007-08, the total in Northern Ireland was 1,019 episodes; and that was down to 471 episodes in 2009-2010. That is about the efforts that were put in, but this is about constant vigilance. It is a constant and continual battle.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement and I am reassured that he has taken every possible measure to rectify any areas identified as having room for improvement. The Minister rightly identified the need for increased use of single isolation units. In the Minister’s opinion, does the budget that he was recently allocated allow for such essential measures?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Member will be aware of my issues around that, and I will be saying more about the capital issues very shortly. Many of our hospitals are 50 years old, many of our mental health hospitals are 100 years old, and all require investment. That investment has been absent, by and large, over the past 40 years. One of the key things missing is the availability of single rooms with en suite facilities. One of the glaring shortages that we had in, for example, Antrim Area Hospital, was the ability to isolate, both in the A&E — I am looking to address that, and will say something about it in due course — and in treating patients.

If you look at Enniskillen hospital — and I encourage everybody to go and look at it, as that is what a hospital should look like today — and then go and look at other hospitals, you will see the glaring differences. It is about the staff delivering the best care they can, but it has got to be in the environment that allows that to happen. Although clostridium difficile has always been in the population, 027 is something altogether new and requires a variety of approaches. One of the key approaches is isolation and single rooms with en suite facilities.

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

I also thank the Minister for his statement. I am reflecting on that terrible time when people did not know what was happening and when there was great fear instilled in the community about going into the hospital. Is the Minister satisfied that the report will allay those fears, given that no heads rolled, no one was disciplined and no one was named? Was the £2 million spent on the report good value for money, given that we must ensure that the public are totally content to go into hospital without fear of what happened, not just to the people who lost their lives, but to the many hundreds who were affected and survived, but not without great pain and suffering?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

There was a great deal of misinformation going about at the time, and a lot of scaremongering about dirty hospitals not being looked after or kept clean. There were incidents of our staff being abused in local shops and hiding the fact that they worked in places such as Antrim Area Hospital. You talk about who is to blame. I will tell you who is to blame; clostridium difficile is to blame.

The 027 strain arrived in the Northern Trust area. Who brought it in? How did it arrive in? Did it come in from a patient from outside in the community or did it develop within a hospital? I do not suppose that we will ever know, but there are a number of measures required. It is about things such as antibiotic prescribing, for example, which can cause it. It is also highly contagious; it travels, and is very difficult to kill. There are a number of steps that we have taken. Although we had an outbreak in the Northern Trust area, it could have happened in any hospitals or trust areas in Northern Ireland.

As I said, it was like a running battle or a war, and as the disease was contained in one hospital or facility, and the trust thought that it had turned a corner, it arose in another hospital. That was due to patients being moved around, and we estimate that approximately 30% of the clostridium difficile cases came from the community, with the rest being due to the spreading of contagion throughout the units. The public inquiry was about learning the lessons. The first task was to end the outbreak, the second was to learn the lessons, and that is what we are about.

As to the Member’s question about heads rolling or finding people to blame, the blame lies with clostridium difficile, because it was the cause of the problem. There were a number of factors, but when the Member reads the exhaustive and definitive report of the public inquiry, he will find that the system collectively failed and not any one particular unit or individual.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. It is right that the Minister apologises, because the public inquiry and his statement today show that there were failings in the Northern Trust.

I want to make a couple of points, and some good questions were asked by Members earlier. In his statement, the Minister said that the Northern Trust did not have sufficient time to bed down, yet all the trusts have undergone major reorganisation. Will the Minister give the House more detail on why he believes that clostridium difficile was an issue in the Northern Trust? Are there any other issues that we must deal with because the Northern Trust did not have sufficient time?

The Minister keeps going on about the fact that he is only Minister to have implemented the review of public administration (RPA). Is he now saying that the RPA was implemented too quickly to deal with clostridium difficile?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The public inquiry highlighted that organisational change is an area of danger not just in the Health Service in Northern Ireland but throughout the UK. The report pointed out that, although the Northern Trust was formed on 1 April 2009 and brought together three existing trusts, the bedding down of management and communications had not occurred. There are ways to do that. It may be a matter of putting systems in place before bringing all the various parts together under one umbrella or organisation, and that is the point that the public inquiry made. One trust may have one type of procedure and another trust may have something different, and there is a need for uniformity in the Health Service in Northern Ireland.

The RPA has been a great success. It has saved £53 million per annum and, as the Member knows, I am the only Minister who can say that. We did it, and it was a major success. However, there are drawbacks to the RPA. The inquiry highlighted one of those drawbacks, dangers or vulnerabilities and told us to pay attention to it in the future.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement, which is a different statement to the one he made to me the last time I spoke to him about the issue. At that time, I raised the issue of a woman from Pomeroy in my own constituency. She and her family had been told to get used to the fact that she was dying, and the Minister said that I was scaremongering. I am sure that the Minister remembers making those comments; will he now retract them?

Will the Minister also tell the House what cases he has looked at and what the results have been? He said that he feels that communication was a problem, and there was certainly a communication problem in the case that I brought to his attention. How will the Minister ensure that the inquiry’s 12 recommendations are implemented and that the issues that were raised never happen again? How will he ensure that a consultant cannot tell a family that they should get used to the fact that their mother is dying? Thankfully, that woman survived, despite what happened in the hospital.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I ask Mr Molloy to carefully read the findings of the public inquiry, because one of the key issues that it addressed was end-of-life services. The inquiry team reviewed the records of 124 frail elderly patients. That is the group that needs our Health Service most, and it was the group on which the outbreak was concentrated.

Around 118 of them, looking at the records, were at that end-of-life situation, which makes it doubly tragic because of the lack of dignity and comfort that they experienced at the end of their lives.

As far as that individual case is concerned, Mr Molloy, I remember the general outline. I do not remember the specific detail. I am glad that the end-of-life situation that the family was told about did not occur. However, we must remember that those are very difficult judgements for clinicians to make. As far as communications are concerned, I will make it a duty on the trusts, the boards and the Department to ensure that the nine recommendations in the report for the trust and the three for the Department, including the one on communications, are implemented.

Executive Committee Business

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2011 be approved.

This statutory rule is being made under powers in the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which prescribes that this Order must be laid in draft for approval by affirmative resolution of the Assembly. The changes that I bring forward in the draft Order were subject to a statutory consultation that closed in October 2010.

The Order introduces important changes to the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation (NIRO) that will continue to make it more effective and capable of delivering our targets for renewable energy and electricity. As Northern Ireland’s main policy measure for incentivising renewable electricity generation, it is crucial that the NIRO is able to react to the needs of Northern Ireland while keeping abreast of developments in Great Britain and beyond.

Northern Ireland continues to punch above its weight when it comes to renewable electricity generation. In 2009-2010, there was almost a 30% increase in the number of renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) issued in Northern Ireland compared with the previous year. That compares with a 20% increase for Wales, 14% for Scotland and 8% for England. Last year, building on the introduction of banding levels in 2009, legislation was amended to increase the number of ROCs for some small-scale renewable technologies, wind, hydro and solar PV. Those changes were well received, and there was considerable interest in and uptake of those technologies.

The changes being introduced in the Order are designed to ensure that the NIRO continues to encourage renewable electricity generation while ensuring that any additional costs to the consumer remain minimal. Some of the changes are specific to Northern Ireland, while others will be made in the renewables obligations for Scotland, England and Wales. It is important that the changes are made together and at the same time since the renewables obligations work in harmony across the United Kingdom. It is that synergy across all three renewables obligations that makes the NIRO an effective incentive mechanism.

I want to outline briefly the main proposed amendments to the NIRO for 2011. The proposed amendments in the Order will double the support offered under the NIRO for electricity generated from anaerobic digestion (AD). AD plants up to 500 kilowatt capacity will be able to claim four ROCs per megawatt hour of electricity generated, while those above 500 kilowatts and up to five megawatts will receive three ROCs. That is higher than what is offered in Great Britain or, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland. However, it is necessary to stimulate that technology, which also brings wider benefits to the rural sector.

Since the proposed increase for anaerobic digestion was included in the NIRO consultation, there has been considerable interest in the technology from developers, and many are ready to proceed with construction once the new ROCs levels are in place. That is a clear case of the NIRO being adapted to the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland, and my Department was assisted in making that case by evidence from industry. Without that evidence, we would not have been able to secure the higher ROC level, particularly with Europe.

The Order also introduces higher ROC levels for those generators that were accredited before 1 April 2010 and wish to add further generating capacity. Under the current legislation, any additional capacity would only receive the pre-April 2010 level. That change will hopefully encourage further investment in generation.

From 1 April, all microgenerators seeking first-time accreditation under the NIRO using onshore wind or — this is always where I get tongue-tied — photovoltaic panels for electricity generation will have to use equipment and installers registered under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) or an equivalent certification scheme. That requirement will ensure independent assurance and legitimacy for small-scale on-site electricity generators and increased competition in the market. It will also ensure that consumers are protected. I am satisfied that there are sufficient numbers of installers in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom to ensure that consumers have access to certified installers and equipment and are properly protected, because that is a very important issue.

The Order also introduces sustainability criteria for biomass and bioliquids that are used in the generation of electricity. Biomass has an important role to play in the United Kingdom’s meeting the renewable energy directive target of 15% renewables by 2020. It is therefore essential that Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK take action to ensure that the biomass that we use is sustainable.

The additional requirements set out in the Order are to extend the existing factual reporting introduced in April 2009 for all biomass users over 50 kW. Currently, all biomass users over 50 kW need to report to the best of the best of their ability on a range of biomass matters, including biomass type and whether the biomass is an energy crop or waste. Generators will now also need to factually report on whether the land criteria have been met and on their level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Those legislative changes to the NIRO do not include a formal requirement to meet a 60% emissions saving for biomass generators. The Committee was concerned about that point, and I am happy to say that it will not apply to biomass. It is important to note that there will be a two-year transition period from April 2011 before the 60% requirement is formally linked with eligibility to receive ROCs, and then the requirement will only be for generators with a capacity above 1MW. We will carefully consider the issues raised by the Committee and consultees before making any legislative change on the matter.

The sustainability criteria will not apply to the use of biomass or biogas that is made from waste, landfill gas or sewage gas. Those same requirements are also being introduced in the renewables obligations in Great Britain, ensuring a consistent set of controls for biomass being applied across the United Kingdom’s bioelectricity sector.

The directive requires that bioliquids that are used to generate electricity must meet the sustainability criteria that are set out by the directive in order to be eligible for financial support. Not introducing sustainability criteria for bioliquids would put Northern Ireland out of step with the rest of the UK and bring the UK into breach of the directive. There would also be an increased risk of supporting electricity generation from bioliquids that are not sustainable. Not implementing sustainability standards would also carry a reputational risk for the bioliquids sector and possibly result in additional barriers to its development. The Order therefore introduces sustainability requirements for bioliquids.

Last week, we received excellent news when the Crown Estate announced the launch of the Northern Ireland offshore renewable energy leasing round. That is a major milestone in the development of marine renewable energy in Northern Ireland waters. There is strong potential for offshore wind and tidal stream projects, potentially of up to 1·2 GW, in Northern Ireland waters. That would bring significant economic benefits to Northern Ireland in terms of business supply-chain opportunities and jobs, as well as helping to meet our 40% target for renewable electricity by 2020.

The Crown Estate will be seeking industry views over the next couple of months on how development rights should be offered, which will maximise market interest and commitment to development and produce a win-win situation for the industry and Northern Ireland plc.

Offshore wind and tidal leasing rounds are planned for September 2011, with the potential for development rights to be awarded as soon as spring 2012. I look forward to some world-class projects being delivered in Northern Ireland waters over the next few years.

My Department recently consulted on the level of incentivisation for offshore technologies that would be necessary to ensure deployment in Northern Ireland waters. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will ensure that an announcement on the appropriate ROC level is in place before leasing round bids need to be submitted. Therefore, we will know the incentivisation before the bids need to be submitted to the Department.

Last year, I said that I would make an announcement on small-scale generation, following the introduction of a feed-in tariff (FIT) in Great Britain. There has been much debate around renewables incentivation, in particular, whether a feed-in tariff or the NIRO is the best way forward for encouraging investment. In many ways, it depends who you are speaking to. Some people prefer the certainty of a FIT, while others prefer the renewables obligation; it largely depends on the scale of the operation.

Some Members may recall that a FIT was not adopted here for two reasons. First, we did not have the necessary legislative powers to introduce such a scheme at the same time as Great Britain. That issue is often missed, and people say that they do not understand why Northern Ireland has not introduced a feed-in tariff like they have done in Great Britain or in the Republic of Ireland. However, the reality is that I did not have the legislative power to do so. Secondly, and more fundamentally, I was reluctant to blindly follow Great Britain’s lead without a proper understanding of the impact that a feed-in tariff would have on consumers’ electricity bills and whether it would help us to achieve our target by 2020.

The Department and the Utility Regulator undertook a joint study during 2010, which concluded that replicating GB’s feed-in tariff would add more to consumer bills than the NIRO alone. The overarching conclusion was that Northern Ireland should retain the NIRO for as long as we can retain the lower obligation level for all Northern Ireland suppliers. I note that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s acceptance of that position is in its recent report on renewable energy.

Just before Christmas, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a consultation on its proposed electricity market reform. Its purpose is to examine the reforms necessary to achieve the United Kingdom’s objectives on decarbonisation, renewable energy, security of supply and affordability. The electricity market reform project is intended to develop and deliver a market framework that will enable the cost-effective delivery of secure supplies of low-carbon energy. Although it is primarily focused on the GB energy market, it has significant implications for the future of the NIRO and renewables generation in Northern Ireland. The Department is assessing the implications for the NIRO arising from the proposed introduction of a feed-in tariff, with contracts for difference for large-scale renewables in GB, and will communicate the intentions of the Department later in the year.

I am concerned that any intended consequences on Northern Ireland’s electricity market have not been taken into account by the UK Government, and it is very important that we maintain investor confidence in Northern Ireland while keeping costs to consumers as low as possible. The Department will commission research into the costs of such a scheme here and its impact on the consumer. We are also working with DECC to examine how the cost of any new scheme can be socialised right across the United Kingdom. As I said before, Northern Ireland already punches above its weight in respect of renewables, and it would be wrong for Northern Ireland consumers to have to meet any increased costs arising from a change in an incentives scheme that will ultimately benefit the whole of the United Kindgom. The Department will aim to bring certainty to Northern Ireland stakeholders on the issue as soon as possible.

Finally, I thank the wide range of organisations and individuals who took the time to respond to the NIRO consultation and the call for evidence on AD costs. I also thank the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and its Chairperson for its careful scrutiny of the Order.

The changes that have been introduced in the Order have been generally well received, and it is important that they are brought into operation on 1 April. The higher ROC levels are eagerly awaited by those in the anaerobic digestion sector who are poised to invest and by those generators who also wish to add additional generating capacity.

The latest changes to the NIRO help to ensure that we continue to incentivise a broad range of technologies across all sizes, and it is important that we have as wide an energy mix as we can to maximise our potential to develop and to meet our targets. I am encouraged by recent investment announcements in renewable energy, such as Gaelectric’s £58 million investment in a wind farm in County Londonderry, which could provide enough electricity to power 24,000 homes, and the decision of Belfast Harbour and DONG Energy to sign a letter of intent for an agreement that could make Belfast one of the UK’s leading renewable energy hubs. That is a clear sign that Northern Ireland has the potential to become a world leader in renewables. The amendments to the NIRO are essential to ensure the continuing confidence of investors in the long-term future of renewable electricity in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I ask the House to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2011 be approved.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I call the Minister of the Environment, Mr Edwin Poots, to move the Further 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 Friday 18 March on amendment No 2. I remind Members that the effect of the petition is that the vote on that amendment will require cross-community support.

There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13, which deal with planning control, including third-party appeals and the protection of trees. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 3, 4, 7 to 12 and 18 to 23, which are technical amendments. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 14 to 17 and 24, which deal with changing certain penalties and time limits under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to reflect some of the changes made to the present Bill.

I remind Members intending to speak that they should confine their comments to the amendments. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 53 (Power to impose aftercare conditions on grant of mineral planning permission)

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, 5, 6 and 13. The amendments deal with planning control, including third-party appeals and the protection of trees. Members will note that amendment Nos 5 and 6 are mutually exclusive and that amendment No 13 is consequential to amendment No 2.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 32, line 17, at end insert “(iv) use for ecological purposes”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In clause 58, page 35, line 37, at end insert

“(1A) The Department may by regulations provide for an appeal under subsection (1) to be made by a person other than the applicant, subject to such limits as may be specified.” — [Ms Lo.]

No 5: In clause 122, page 79, line 22, leave out “are dying or dead or”. — [Ms Lo.]

No 6: In clause 122, page 79, line 22, leave out “dying or”. — [Ms Lo.]

No 13: In clause 247, page 158, line 3, after “sections” insert

“58(subsection to be inserted by Amendment 2)”. — [Ms Lo.]

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The amendment would add “use for ecological purposes” to clause 53, which specifies the conditions to which land must be restored after planning permission for mineral extraction and so on. The RSPB has worked with industry representatives involved in mineral extraction — the Quarry Products Association NI — to show how important restored quarries can be in achieving government biodiversity targets, and that should be facilitated wherever possible. It would be in line with sustainable development and biodiversity duties, and it builds on good practice already in place. Quarries provide a great opportunity to have aquatic habitats and to provide biodiversity across the board.

By their very nature, quarries are isolated and quiet areas. After mineral extraction has taken place, they are generally undisturbed most of the time, so they provide a good opportunity for birds to nest on high ledges. Given the nature of extraction, quarries also have ponds, and there is a good opportunity to build on that. The amendment would add to that by looking at wildlife habitats, grasslands, heathland, woodlands and wetlands and by using those conditions to simulate what occurs in the natural environment. In such cases, local native species of trees and cuttings should be used, as they show the greatest capacity for survival in, at times, very hostile and isolated environments. That in turn will result in ecological compatibility between the quarry that is restored under the restoration scheme and the surrounding landscapes. That has received sympathy from the conservation and amenity lobbies. I, therefore, ask Members to support that very worthy amendment.

Amendment No 2 was discussed in a lot more detail at Consideration Stage. It seeks regulations to allow third parties to appeal planning decisions. In Sinn Féin’s opinion, that is the only way to make the planning system fair for all citizens and to remove the bias in favour of developers. We previously discussed the fact that the new Planning Bill provides a good opportunity because it front-loads the system. That should ensure that ordinary residents have a great say in planning, particularly in community and local planning. The amendment states that regulations “may” be introduced, and it seems reasonable to put that in the Bill now. We have also called for a review to be carried out three years after the transfer of powers to local authorities. We are not saying that the planning system will have an awful back-load. Rather, we are saying that, if it is not working, there should be that flexibility to look at third-party appeals, and a good time to do that is when the Department is carrying out the review. That is all I want to say about amendment No 2. I will listen to the debate, and, in my winding-up speech, I will say what I think about the petition of concern. I will leave that to the next aspect of this.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6 were also discussed at Consideration Stage. The Minister was going to seek legal advice on the issue of dead trees. As I said before, I can see the rationale in relation to, for example, large oak trees. They take a considerable period to die and could be dying for 100 years. As I said the last time, all forms of life, even human life, are dying. As soon as we are born, we are dying, and the same can be said of trees. As we get older, we are dying, but we are not put down or cut down. The same can be said about trees. The caveat is that dying trees do not pose a risk to the general public’s health and safety, and that is a very important aspect. They provide important wildlife habitats, and, in my and Sinn Féin’s opinion, they should not be removed. We feel pretty strongly about that. I will listen to the rest of the debate on the issue of dead trees. The Minister was to come back to the House with some legal advice, so I will wait for that.

Amendment No 13 is consequential to amendment No 2, so we will see how that debate pans out.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you for brightening up our Monday by talking about the fact that we are dying from the moment that we are born.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will try to keep that little ray of sunshine going.

I welcome the fact that we are at Further Consideration Stage. So as not to detain the House for too long, I will deal briefly with each amendment.

I welcome amendment No 1, standing in the name of Mr Willie Clarke. He spelled out the case for that amendment, and there is consensus on it between the quarry industry and the RSPB. It is important that we look after our ecology, and the amendment could benefit biodiversity, which I welcome.

Members may not be surprised to learn that I do not greet amendment No 2 with the same enthusiasm. Although I appreciate that the language in amendment No 2 has, to some degree, been softened by the word “may”, reference has already been made to the fact that there would be a review. Consequently, I am not sure that there is a particular need for amendment No 2. It is slightly superfluous. One cannot look inside the mind of a future Environment Minister, who may desire to produce proposals on anything, including third-party appeals. We still view with concern the prospect of third-party appeals, because of their potential impact on the Planning Service.

If amendment No 2 is not needed, what purpose does it serve? It serves only to send a clear signal that appeals should be foremost in the mind of any Environment Minister. That is, I suppose, where we have a problem with it. The whole purpose of the Bill is to have a Planning Service that is fit for purpose and can be the envy of the world. A situation that is not only front-loaded but back-loaded has a danger of producing such a high level of red tape and creating such delay that it would, in many ways, simply defeat the purpose of the Bill. That is why we are quite hostile to amendment No 2. However, we appreciate that there has been at least some movement on it. That has implications for amendment No 13, which is consequential and depends on the fate of amendment No 2.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6 are on trees of the dead and dying variety. We still have the same concern about amendment No 5 as we expressed previously, relating to whether dead trees should be included That is why I am much more content with amendment No 6, which removes “dying”. The point was made at Consideration Stage that it seems slightly ridiculous to protect a dead tree, but a dying tree could exist for decades, possibly even stretching into centuries. Consequently, I can see some logic in the amendment and believe that the distinction between the two is important. We will wait and see what happens. I do not know whether the Member intends to move amendment No 5. However, there could be a high level of consensus on amendment No 6, because it is a sensible enough compromise.

So as not to depress the House any longer, I will sit down now. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I, too, am pleased to see the Bill reach its closing stages, although I still have concerns as to whether we will get it introduced with the right resources for councils.

Amendment No 1 is extremely good. Including ecological purposes in the future uses of our quarries is absolutely the right thing to do. I praise, as others have, the RSPB and the Quarry Products Association Northern Ireland, particularly Laverne Bell, for promoting that at all times through all the quarries. At the Mallusk quarry, which was and may still be a problem for me locally, we had rare newts and peregrine falcons. We now have a community that is acutely aware of what exactly that quarry can be used for. Therefore, amendment No 1 reflects exactly what we would like to happen in quarries. However, it must not happen alone. There must be an allowance, subject to agreements and laws, for landfill and the many other uses for which quarries, as large holes in the ground, are absolutely ideal. However, the end use must be ecological. That is absolutely right, so I support amendment No 1.

Turning to amendment No 2, I find it disgraceful that there is another petition of concern on a measure that is not protecting a minority. We have listened to the arguments from the party on the Benches to my left and accept that it uses the petition of concern because it is there. However, I think that that use is wrong. I have concerns that the public will see it as another dose of DUP arrogance and that that party’s view is that it will get what it wants, so there.

I tabled amendment No 2 along with the other parties, and it is excellent. It is only an enabling power, and it is there so that the Department may put in place third-party appeals if it needs to as part of its review. The Minister and the Department have not supported amendment No 2 and have fought it all along, in the same way as they fought the measure for the review within three years. They are uncomfortable with it. However, look at everything that we are throwing at councils. Councils have to carry out a survey, which will be a big learning process. They have to work with the community and find out how community involvement will work, which will be another learning process. They have to produce the local development plan, which will be another learning process.

There should not be all sorts of ifs and buts as people learn, but there will. If everything is done well, the appeals and everything else should happen at the beginning. All of us will work towards that. We do not want delays in development, and we understand where the Minister and the Department are coming from. However, amendment No 2 is really just an enabling power. We have changed “should” to “may”. It is a belt-and-braces approach aimed at protecting the public, who still believe that big developers get their way because they can and because they are wealthier. It is one way of giving the public protection. Therefore, it is right that amendment No 2 is made and that the protection is left for the Department and the next Minister, whoever that is, to put in place. I support amendment No 2.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6 would remove references to dead or dying trees. I rather enjoyed the thought of whether Mr Clarke should be put down because we are all dying. I even thought that we could maybe go for a cull — no, I take that back. It is an extremely good amendment. The last time the issue of dead or dying trees was raised, we had a little bit of a debate in the Chamber. The Woodland Trust will say that a standing tree that is dying or dead is of much more use to nature than a tree that is cut down and left rotting on the ground. It is also less of an eyesore. It can be pollarded, cut down, trimmed, made as safe as possible and even supported as long as tree specialists, who know what they are talking about and are not in the pay of developers, are always listened to. Pretty ugly stumps can be made to look extremely pretty by planting around them climbers, roses and other plants that also support nature. I support amendment No 5. It is absolutely right that we protect dead or dying trees through tree preservation orders. We should use the skills of those in the world of tree surgery, who know what they are doing, rather than making the issue a bind or battle among ourselves.

Amendment No 13 is consequential to the other amendments in the group. I support all the group 1 amendments.

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

I assure the House that I have never felt better, although I am going downstairs later for the free blood pressure check, which might change my mind.

Turning to the amendments, on which we must speak, I find the whole idea of returning something to its natural state appealing on the surface. However, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were a resident around Ringsend, where four quarries will potentially become super dumps, you might want to give a second thought to the wording. In the past, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I have seen very good examples of that in Germany, where excavation works were turned into leisure space. Those were constructive projects that did not force people to go through a 50 to 100-year process of receiving rubbish from all over the country before getting to that stage. I urge caution on the matter. I support it in principle, but I want to see a great deal more work being done.

I feel extremely passionate about third-party appeals. I am extremely disappointed that, once again, a petition of concern has been tabled. It is an awful abuse of that device, which was never intended for that purpose. However, the Minister and all Members present will know that the Planning Service has gone through a very bad period and that there is a total lack of confidence in the decisions that it has reached in the past. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the Minister, if he wants to intervene. He has obviously changed his mind.

There is a lack of confidence in the Planning Service. Indeed, the Audit Office deemed it not fit for purpose, so you can understand that the provision of third-party appeals would go a long way towards restoring confidence in the Planning Service. It would, in a way, convince people that, if there are brown envelopes around and things happening that are wrong, third parties would, at least, have the right to appeal against decisions. That issue will not go away; it is a major issue for the public. You and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, of areas with high-density populations in which development land has not always been used for the right purposes. We must not give up the battle on that issue.

I was certainly interested in amendment No 5, which is to do with trees. On basic evidence, it appears to be an exceptionally good amendment. We all know that, in the past, when trees were getting in the way of squeezing in an extra house or two, it was not difficult to find a tree surgeon who would deem any tree, no matter how healthy, as dead or dying. That is a fact; that happened in the past. Nevertheless, I wonder what happens, for example, when trees are cropped. If one tree dies, can it be taken away and replaced with a healthy tree? That concerns me a little, but, generally, we do not have any problems with the amendments in this group. We support them and hope that, when the Bill is enacted, after it has been agreed by all the political parties and there is total and absolute consent to it, it will improve the planning process, which is very badly in need of change.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will speak on all the amendments in the first group. We fully support amendment No 1. I will first speak on amendment No 2, in my name and those of Mr Kinahan, Mr Alex Maskey and Mr Dallat, which deals with third-party appeals. It is slightly different from the amendment that was debated at Consideration Stage. It takes into account the Minister’s concerns about the use of the words “shall” or “may”. We have changed it, using the word “may” in order to give more flexibility and to take into account other people’s views about limited grounds for third-party appeals. I stress that clause 58 is an enabling clause that would allow third-party appeals to be brought forward by the Department in an appropriate manner and an appropriate timescale. We are not asking that it be introduced right away.

It is disappointing that the DUP has again submitted a petition of concern. I spoke to a number of my constituents after the debate at Consideration Stage, and I can tell the Minister that people were very angry. I shall not repeat here, in the Chamber, some of the remarks made. Many of my constituents were critical, and some urged me to go to the media. There is a perception about the relationship or connections between the DUP and developers. We have to be very careful when it comes to public opinion. It is important that our planning system is seen to be fair and accessible to all. I understand that, through front-loading, there will be consultation with communities, but it is also important that people have the means to voice their concerns if they are not happy at the end of the process.

It is extremely regrettable that the petition of concern is being used. I request a review of the use of petitions of concern in future, to consider whether they are relevant and within the criteria and whether the issue concerned is contentious or concerns community relations and would therefore require cross-community support. If we do not have such a review, we will continue to see this abuse of power by the DUP and possibly the other major party in the next mandate.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6 relate to the protection of trees. We tabled the amendments because we believe that dead or dying trees can still benefit the ecosystem. As others have said, it can take a long time — hundreds of years — for an oak tree to die. It is important that we review the situation, and I hope that we will receive the support of other Members.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will make a few, brief remarks in favour of amendment No 2. A number of colleagues referred to that amendment today, which is about enabling the Department, through the Planning Appeals Commission, to facilitate third-party appeal where necessary and appropriate. Several Members addressed it, including my colleague Willie Clarke. I was not too sure where his philosophical musings were taking us when he claimed that we were dying as soon as we were born. Now and then, I have heard people say that they are dying after the weekend.

I wish to express my disappointment that the initial amendment was not accepted by the Minister and the Department or in the Chamber, under the rules used. I commend the amendment to the House, although it falls short of what I think is appropriate, given our experience of planning decisions in various constituencies. The amendment is modest. It merely provides the ability for the Planning Appeals Commission to facilitate the right of appeal.

Obviously, the amendment relates to specific conditions. Therefore, there would never be any notion that people could just automatically have the right to a third-party appeal; there would clearly be limitations on that. What I welcome about the Planning Bill is that its whole emphasis is on trying to make sure that the system is fairer and that the process is sped up, with decisions being taken much more quickly. However, we still have to protect people’s rights, particularly, in my view, the rights of the residents of the areas on which the decisions have implications. For the most part, I think that the rights of the residents of an area should be paramount in these matters.

This amendment is designed to add to the protections that are built in to the Bill. I appreciate that the new system will provide for what is called front-loading the system, which is designed to make sure that all the various objections or concerns may be addressed and hopefully resolved at an early stage. I do not accept that adding the third-party right to appeal will automatically snarl up the planning system. I believe and hope that we will find in due course that the front-loading of the system will mean that many of the issues that would have been outstanding in the minds of the people who would have cause to object will instead be resolved. I believe that if the front-loaded system works, there would be less cause for objection or people seeking a right to appeal at the latter end of the process.

Overall, we commend the Bill. However, I have been a representative in South Belfast for a number of years now, and, in my experience, I have found that many people felt that quite a number of decisions that the planners took were completely unjustifiable. In fact, a number of those examples have been raised in this Chamber, certainly with all the previous Environment Ministers.

The amendment is a belt-and-braces exercise. It will ensure that, along with the front-loading of the planning system, we, ultimately, provide the opportunity for people to raise concerns if they feel the need to, provided that they have already been involved in the objections process earlier in the system and any other limitations that the Department may feel appropriate to add in. As I said, this is merely a belt-and-braces exercise that would enable the Planning Appeals Commission to give the right of appeal if concerns still need to be addressed. However, it would neither guarantee nor ensure that that happens.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Unlike Mr Clarke, who may be dying from the day he was born, I intend living until the day I die, and, thereafter, I will only start living and will enjoy that for ever.

A number of issues have been raised today in debating the amendments. Clause 53 provides for used mineral sites to be restored for agricultural, forestry or amenity uses. Amendment No 1 would expand that to ecological uses, and I am quite happy to accept it. The work of the Quarry Products Association has been mentioned, and that is significant. I think that amendment No 1 has the potential to further increase our biodiversity, and that is something that would be good for Northern Ireland.

Amendment No 2 proposes that the Department make regulations that would allow us to introduce the third-party right of appeal. I previously set out the Executive’s position, which has not changed. I said that further consideration of third-party appeals should be deferred until the extensive changes to the planning system under planning and local government reform have settled down and are working effectively. I listened to the arguments then, and many were advanced in favour of third-party appeals during the Bill’s Consideration Stage and, indeed, this afternoon, but I have not heard anything that would persuade me to move from our position.

It has been suggested that third-party appeals would address fairness and create a level playing field, whereby objectors could challenge the granting of permissions in the same way as a developer can appeal refusals. However, the Bill’s fundamental reforms are designed to include third parties at every stage, particularly at the early stages. Statements of community involvement will require councils to set out how they will involve the public in their development plan and development management activities. Likewise, developers will have to demonstrate effective public engagement via pre-application community consultation before their planning applications can be determined.

The whole point of the Planning Bill is to strengthen local democracy by transferring planning powers to councils. Planning decisions will be in the hands of democratically elected public representatives as opposed to an independent Planning Appeals Commission. Those who promote third-party planning appeals appear to have little faith in our councils and councillors to make fair decisions on behalf of the people who elected them.

I heard Ms Lo’s comments about developers. As Minister of the Environment, with responsibility for planning, I state categorically that I am in favour of development in Northern Ireland. In fact, before I was Minister of the Environment, the previous Ministers all took the same stance. There is a presumption in favour of development in Northern Ireland. A whole series of criteria have to be met, and we seek to update those through our planning policy statements, but development is a good thing. It provides the community with homes to live in. It also provides us with our shops, leisure facilities, roads, hospitals and schools. Development is not a bad word; it is positive and good for Northern Ireland when it is carried out in the right context. I will continue to support development that is carried out in the right context.

The Bill will introduce a new emphasis on community involvement. In that front-loaded system will be public consultation. At the earliest stages of the process, that will be a legal requirement — not some touchy-feely thing, but something that is absolutely required of the developers and councils. It is only common sense to allow a new system to mature and bed down. Thanks to amendments at Consideration Stage, the Department of the Environment is required to review the implementation of the Bill after three years, which is not a very long time. During that review, any need for third-party appeals will become apparent. The House can then decide whether to introduce third-party appeals at that point. However, let us wait until we see how the Planning Bill is implemented before we do that.

I turn to amendment Nos 5 and 6. At Consideration Stage, I asked for the similar amendment not to be moved so that I could seek legal advice on the possible liability issues for councils. Legal advice did not indicate that liability was a serious issue. Nonetheless, more trees that are subject to tree preservation orders are in urban or suburban areas, where they may be close to roads or footpaths. As trees die, they deteriorate and lose strength, with the additional risk of shedding branches or even falling. It may be necessary to remove diseased trees to prevent the infection of healthy specimens. That should always be kept in consideration. For both of those practical reasons, I urge Members not to support those amendments. However, there is little benefit in having dead trees in place where they potentially pose a risk. Therefore, we should allow common sense to prevail on that matter.

I quite recently received a letter from one of Mr Dallat’s colleagues, complaining that we had instituted proceedings against an individual who had cut down trees in a conservation area that had the benefit of protection. It was wholly right that the Department did that. It is wholly right that the legislation has increased the level of fines for people who cut down protected trees. However, the benefit to the public of keeping dead trees cannot be reasonably argued in any cogent form.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Presumably, he is not at liberty to give indications as to which Member wrote to him, but, by any chance, were those trees Spanish?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not think that they were Spanish trees. Malone is a very well respected conservation area. I know that Dr McDonnell would always support the preservation of trees in the Malone area.

However, on dead trees —

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will forgive me for being somewhat confused, but I am almost picking up from the Minister that I am in favour of cutting down trees. Have I misread the Minister or my party colleagues, who have become engrossed in a conversation about place of origin or where they grew up? I thought that we were discussing the amendments. I know that you give Members liberty, but I believe that we have gone off the subject. We are also in danger of misleading people. There are enough writs to do with misleading information flying around here, so we do not need to indulge in any more in the last days of the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind the Member, who is also a Deputy Speaker, that this is a debating Chamber. Therefore, things can fly backwards and forwards. I assure him that no writs will be launched as a consequence of anything that I said. If Members wish to refer to what I have said, they will find that it is accurate. The nature of argument here is to demonstrate that, on some issues, there is not always unanimity among parties and that Members do not always speak with one voice.

As I was saying before Mr Weir’s intervention, there is no cogent argument in law for retaining dead trees. If someone wishes to do so, it is a matter for them, and, if someone wishes to encourage biodiversity by keeping a dead tree in place or by cutting it down and not removing the trunk from their property, it is wholly a matter for them. However, as for putting it in law, do we want to make the Assembly look completely daft? That would be the case if we were to go down that route. The argument was made that, although a tree can be dying for a considerable time, it can still be quite active. In those circumstances, it would not be unreasonable for people to ask for a TPO to be removed, albeit that, as I pointed out, doing so can create problems, particularly where a disease that has affected a tree has the potential to spread to others. Applying a TPO, which cannot be removed, to such a tree does not appear to be awfully logical either. However, I will leave that one in the hands of the House.

I urge Members to support the amendments that I indicated and to oppose amendment Nos 2, 5 and 6.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank everybody for their contributions. Mr Weir, Mr Kinahan, Ms Lo and the Minister broadly welcomed amendment No 1, all seeing the need for the ecological restoration of quarries. John Dallat had doubts. However, I would tell him that the Bill will put in place amenity and agriculture conditions, so it will work in tandem with what already happens. I understand his anxiety about landfill sites. As I said, the Minister supported the amendment, which he thought would increase biodiversity opportunities. Indeed, it is refreshing to see that quarrying industry representatives want ecological matters to be included in clause 53. That is very welcome, and I pay tribute to everyone involved.

Amendment No 2 is more controversial. Mr Weir saw no need for it whatsoever, feeling that it would clog up the system. Danny Kinahan pointed out that enabling powers are needed and that nobody wants the system to be slowed up. However, he rightly pointed out that, at times, the odds are stacked against ordinary citizens, because developers have more resources and greater opportunities. John Dallat believed that there is widespread corruption in the planning system, and he shared residents’ concerns about how certain areas are zoned. He felt strongly that residents are not getting a fair crack of the whip and that third-party appeals should be introduced, even going beyond what amendment No 2 states.

One of the proposers of the amendment, Anna Lo, saw that the amendment provided an enabling power; it will allow the Department to introduce third-party appeals if needed. She said that the DUP is very close to developers and she was very concerned about the petition of concern.

Alex Maskey thought that the amendment fell short of the one proposed at Consideration Stage. However, as Alex said, this amendment is a compromise and that is what it is trying to achieve. It is an attempt to give everyone a bit of cover in this situation. As Alex pointed out, the rights of a number of residents have not been protected. Alex believes that residents were fighting a losing battle on large-scale developments in his constituency. He said that front loading should give us all a better planning system. However, the amendment is necessary to ensure that residents have some protection in the future. I hope that I have covered the views of all Members in regard to that.

I agree with Alex and all the Members who spoke regarding the petition of concern. The amendment proposes only an enabling power. It is unfortunate that the DUP introduced a petition of concern, as the mechanism was not created for this type of circumstance. Planning impacts on the lives of all citizens; it impacts across all divides and across the whole community. There is no need to use the petition of concern in this way.

The amendment — sorry, I have so many pages before me, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

With regard to amendment Nos 5 and 6, Mr Weir and the Minister saw logic in protecting dying trees. The whole House is in agreement in that. Amendment No 5 caused difficulty and amendment No 6 was supported by the whole House in general. Dying trees provide more opportunity for biodiversity and have a role in nature conservation.

Some Members feel strongly about amendment No 6. Mr Kinahan supported amendment Nos 5 and 6 and thought that they brought great benefits in biodiversity. Mr Dallat spoke about trees being removed for the purposes of development. Getting a tree surgeon round to sign a certificate to remove trees willy-nilly, where it can be said that they are diseased or dead, allows for large developments to be created. Great financial gains can be created for developers through the demise and sacrifice of our woodlands. Anna Lo supported amendment Nos 5 and 6.

I agree with the Minister. He said he lives every day to the full. I do the same. However, to talk realities, as soon as you are born, you are dying. It is the same with trees.

As regards amendment No 2, the Minister thought that we should allow the system to settle down. Developers will have to carry out effective consultation with communities across the board and the Minister felt that that gave a great deal of protection to concerned residents.

He also pointed out, rightly, that planning matters, particularly enforcement, will now be in the hands of local politicians. It has always been a luxury for local politicians to be able to blame others for issues. Now, powers will be transferred and, where developments affect the lives of residents in a community, their views will have to be taken on board. Large-scale and out-of-place developments will have to go into local community plans, and councils, the community in general and developers will need to sit around the table and discuss them. I understand that front-loading the system is vital to get a good planning system.

The Minister also said that the review will see whether there is need for third-party appeals when all the powers have been transferred. If the review shows that there is need, he feels that it could be introduced at that stage. He also said that dead trees serve no purpose whatsoever and thinks that it is far safer to remove the dead tree — to cut the tree and let it basically waste into the ground and decompose. He thinks that that is a better use and that it would still provide a habitat for different species. I will leave it there.

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Unfortunately, we lack a quorum. I will have to ring the Bell.

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present.

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

Upon 10 Members being present —

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

Clause 58 (Appeals)

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I remind Members that, as the Speaker has received a valid petition of concern on amendment No 2, the vote will be on a cross-community basis.

Amendment No 2 proposed: In page 35, line 37, at end insert

“(1A) The Department may by regulations provide for an appeal under subsection (1) to be made by a person other than the applicant, subject to such limits as may be specified.” — [Ms Lo.]

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 31.

AYES

NATIONALIST:

Ms M Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Doherty, Mr Gallagher, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Sheehan.

UNIONIST:

Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Cobain, Mr Cree, Mr Gardiner, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr K Robinson.

OTHER:

Mr Ford, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Kinahan and Ms Lo.

NOES

UNIONIST:

Mr S Anderson, Mr Bell, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Gibson, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Spratt, Mr Weir.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr McQuillan and Mr G Robinson.

Total votes 76 Total Ayes 45 [59.2%]

Nationalist Votes 30 Nationalist Ayes 30 [100%]

Unionist Votes 39 Unionist Ayes 8 [20.5%]

Other Votes 7 Other Ayes 7 [100%]

Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).

Clause 103 (Acts causing or likely to result in damage to listed buildings)

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate, which are technical in nature. With amendment No 3, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 4, amendment Nos 7 to 12 and amendment Nos 18 to 23. I call the Minister of the Environment, Mr Edwin Poots, to move amendment No 3 and to speak to the other amendments in the group.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 64, line 20, leave out

“level 5 on the standard scale”

and insert “the statutory maximum”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 4: In clause 105, page 66, line 16, leave out “under this section”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 7: In clause 179, page 119, line 22, after “as” insert

“section 27(3) applies section 23 and”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 8: In clause 179, page 119, line 22, at end insert

“(c) section 40, in so far as that section relates to claims for compensation under the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 9: In clause 189, page 124, line 31, after “council” insert “or the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 10: In clause 228, page 145, line 35, after “of’ insert “Part 3 of”. — [Mr Boylan.]

No 11: In clause 232, page 148, line 20, at end insert

“except where those matters are matters of national security”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 12: In clause 246, page 157, line 35, leave out from “by” to “Department” on line 36. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 18: In schedule 3, page 188, line 38, leave out “(6), (7) and (8)” and insert “(5) and (6)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 19: In schedule 6, page 193, line 32, at end insert

“9A. In Article 68(1) for ‘Order’ substitute ‘Act’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 20: In schedule 6, page 195, line 6, at end insert

“The Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38)

22A. In section 1(2)(e) for ‘Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991’ substitute ‘Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 21: In schedule 6, page 206, line 14, at end insert

“The Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (c. 12)

109. In section 17(1), in the definition of ‘planning permission’, for ‘Part 4 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991’ substitute ‘Part 3 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 22: In schedule 7, page 206, leave out lines 31 to 35. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 23: In schedule 7, page 206, line 37, after “131” insert “and 132”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The amendments in this group are technical and do not involve any change in policy. They include textual amendments to ensure a consistent approach throughout the Bill, typographical corrections and updating amendments. I urge Members to support the amendments.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ar son an Choiste Comhshaoil cuirim fáilte roimh BhreisChéim an Bhreithnithe den Bhille Pleanála. On behalf of the Environment Committee, I welcome the Further Consideration Stage of the Planning Bill. The Committee had no position on the amendments in the first debate on planning control. However, two of the amendments in this group are connected to amendments brought forward by the Committee at Consideration Stage.

First, I will refer to amendment No 3. Following its scrutiny of the Bill, not only did the Committee recommend that penalties should be increased for acts causing or likely to result in damage to listed buildings, but called for an additional penalty of conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine. That was to ensure that the protection of listed buildings was seen to be a serious issue and that penalties could be reflective of damage caused.

I am pleased that the House supported the Committee’s recommendations at Consideration Stage. The level of fine liable on summary conviction was raised from level 3 to level 5, and the option of an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment was added to the Bill. However, it appears that when provision is made for two alternative penalties for an offence, it is conventional for the upper limit of the fine liable on summary conviction to be the statutory maximum. Amendment No 3 brings clause 103 into line with that convention, but still reflects the Committee’s wish for tougher penalties to deter and punish wilful damage to listed buildings. On behalf of the Committee, therefore, I welcome amendment No 3.

Amendment No 9 amends the new clause that was introduced by a Committee amendment at Consideration Stage. New clause 189 ensures that councils would not be liable for compensation if they had to revoke a decision made in the absence of a response from a statutory consultee if that consultee had not responded by the required deadline. The Minister’s amendment seeks to include the Department, as well as councils, in that exemption from compensation under those circumstances. That appears to be consistent with the Committee’s amendment, as we know that some planning applications will be referred to the Department for decision, and it is feasible that it too could end up liable for compensation if it made a decision that later had to be revoked because of the late provision of information by a statutory consultee. Amendment No 9 is therefore consistent with the Committee’s position on that aspect of the Bill, but in the absence of an opportunity to discuss the amendment, it does not have an official position on it.

The other amendments in the group were not discussed by the Committee and neither do they relate to any of the recommendations made by the Committee.

Begging your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words on behalf of Sinn Féin, as a Member for Newry and Armagh. Amendment No 10 relates to a review of the Bill and seeks to clarify when that review will take place. The review will take place after all of the powers are transferred down to local councils and when they are fully operational. That review will take place within a three-year period. That is welcome. Having listened to what the debate has been about this morning, I think that that is another mechanism to ensure that councils are operating properly and that the resources are in place. This is a proper review to keep that in check. I would like the House to support amendment No 10. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I support all the other amendments in the group.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

As most of these amendments are largely technical, I support all of them.

The Minister implied that most Members were anti-development. We are not. The Ulster Unionist Party in particular is not anti-development. Development is absolutely vital to Northern Ireland.

I very much support amendment No 9. However, I have one query for the Minister. I do not think that this is a problem, but if councils and the Department are not liable, I assume that the legal system would deal with cases in which something is ultra vires, for instance, so that there is not a gap in which we are allowing government to be free suddenly to do what they like without some form of control.

I am slightly concerned that amendment No 10 seems to put things off for the review yet again. I hope that the Bill is in place and working quickly, but if, like with the RPA, it were to take time to get it in place, that time will be added on to the three years, and it could be a long time before we review it. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Department will make sure that everything happens as quickly as possible, because we do not want to delay the Bill being enacted or to delay the review. I support the amendments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the two Members who spoke for their contributions. As was indicated, the amendments are technical, so there is little to add. Mr Kinahan asked for some assurance that it was not a get-out clause for all Departments. The amendment will clearly put the onus on those Departments that have to respond within a time frame but sometimes do not meet that time frame. It will be an indication to those Departments and their permanent secretaries that they need to step up to the mark and ensure that the responses that they give are delivered within the time set out.

Departments often allow things to run for months and months, thus delaying the entire planning process. Planners are criticised, but, very often, it is not the planners who are holding the process back; it is consultees. The amendment is a good one, which will put considerably more pressure on consultees to deliver their responses in a timely fashion. I urge Members to support the amendments.

Question, That amendment No 3 be made, put and agreed to.

Clause 105 (Control of demolition in conservation areas)

Amendment No 4 made: In page 66, line 16, leave out “under this section”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Clause 122 (Tree preservation orders: councils)

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Amendment No 5 has already been debated and is mutually exclusive with amendment No 6.

Amendment No 5 not moved.

Amendment No 6 made: In page 79, line 22, leave out “dying or”. — [Ms Lo.]

Clause 179 (Compensation where planning permission is revoked or modified)

Amendment No 7 made: In page 119, line 22, after “as” insert

“section 27(3) applies section 23 and”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Amendment No 8 made: In page 119, line 22, at end insert

“(c) section 40, in so far as that section relates to claims for compensation under the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Clause 189 (Compensation: failure of consultee to respond under section 229)

Amendment No 9 made: In page 124, line 31, after “council” insert “or the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Clause 228 (Review of Planning Act)

Amendment No 10 made: In page 145, line 35, after “of” insert “Part 3 of”. — [Mr Boylan.]

Clause 232 (Inquiries to be held in public subject to certain exceptions)

Amendment No 11 made: In page 148, line 20 at end insert

“except where those matters are matters of national security” . — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Clause 246 (Directions)

Amendment No 12 made: In page 157, line 35 leave out from “by” to “Department” on line 36. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Clause 247 (Regulations and orders)

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

I will not call amendment No 13, as it is consequential to amendment No 2, which was not made.

New Clause

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

We now come to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 14, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 15, 16, 17 and 24, which deal with changing certain penalties and time limits under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to reflect some of the changes made to the present Bill. Members will note that amendment Nos 16, 17 and 24 are consequential to amendment No 14.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 14: After clause 247 insert the following new clause:

“Amendment of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991

Increased penalties for certain offences under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991

247A.—(1) In Article 44(6) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (in this section referred to as ‘the 1991 Order’) (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed building) for ‘£30,000’ substitute ‘£100,000’.

(2) In Article 66(1) of the 1991 Order (penalties for contravention of tree preservation orders) for ‘£30,000’ substitute ‘£100,000’.

(3) The amendments of the 1991 Order set out in this section do not have effect in relation to any offence committed before the coming into operation of this section.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 15: After clause 247 insert the following new clause:

“Amendment of certain time periods in relation to enforcement

247B.—(1) In Article 23 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (in this section referred to as ‘the 1991 Order’) (notice requiring planning application) in paragraph (2) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(2) In Article 24 of the 1991 Order (appeal against notice under Article 23) in paragraph (2)(c) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(3) In Article 67B of the 1991 Order (time limits)—

(a) in paragraphs (1), (2) and (4)(b) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’;

(b) in paragraph (3) for ‘10’ substitute ‘5’.

(4) In Article 67F of the 1991 Order (temporary stop notice: restrictions) in paragraph (2) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(5) In Article 73 of the 1991 Order (service of stop notice) in paragraph (3D) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(6) In Article 82 of the 1991 Order (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees) in paragraph (2) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.” — [Mr Boylan.]

No 16: In clause 252, page 162, line 12 leave out “248” and insert “247A, 248” . — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 17: In clause 252, page 162, line 18, leave out “Sections 85 and 126 come” and insert “Section 247A comes”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 24: In Schedule 7, page 207, line 41 at end insert

“The Planning (Northern Ireland) Act 2011.

Section 247A.”

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

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The amendments in the third group are designed to bring in operational dates for certain enforcement provisions. At Consideration Stage, amendments were passed to raise the fines for certain offences related to listed buildings and protected trees from £30,000 to £100,000 and that will come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent. The previous comments would seem to indicate that such a provision would not be a particular friend of developers, and I wholly support it.

Amendment Nos 14, 16, 17 and 24 together introduce a new clause and provide a more legally sound approach to delivering the agreed policy objective. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment has tabled amendment No 15, which will amend the time limits for enforcement action and will provide for an early introduction of the new five-year limits on enforcement actions for breaches of planning control that were passed at Consideration Stage. Those are the amendments in group three.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to refer to amendments Nos 14, 16 and 17 on behalf of the Committee for the Environment. At Committee Stage, Committee members realised that, with the introduction of more stringent penalties to punish and deter damage to listed buildings and protected trees, there was a risk that those buildings and trees — and those likely to merit such protection in the future — would come under significant pressure in the interim period between the intention of the Assembly being known and the fines coming into force. The Committee recommended that the Department should put in place greater enforcement to prevent that occurring during the interim period, and, in keeping with that, it supported Mr Kinahan’s amendment to bring the new penalties into force as soon as the Bill achieved Royal Assent. Amendment Nos 14, 16 and 17 ensure that the intention of Mr Kinahan’s amendment is deliverable, and the Committee, therefore, supports them.

On amendment No 15, Committee members were fully supportive of introducing a five-year period after which no planning breaches could be enforced. During its discussions on the issue, the Committee noted that one of the justifications for that change was that local authorities will be in a better position to enforce breaches of planning controls in their areas. However, although Committee members sought clarification on how the transition might be managed with those who are currently being considered for a breach, the Committee did not specifically indicate at what point it felt that the new single time period should come into force. Therefore, I must indicate to the House that the Committee has no position on amendment No 15.

The Minister said that I was tabling amendment No 15 as the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, but I am actually tabling it as a Member of Sinn Féin. The House supported the notion of the five-year rule, and through amendment No 15, I want to ensure that that part of the legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after Royal Assent. That is why I am proposing to include the five-year rule in the Bill, and I hope that the House will support my amendment. With that in mind, I support all the amendments in the group.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am very grateful to the Department and the Minister for tabling amendment Nos 14, 16, 17 and 24, particularly amendment No 14, which seeks to raise the level of fines. That is something that we all wanted. We may in future still have to look at a percentage rather than at £100,000, but that can be done in the review. However, I am very grateful that the Minister took on board my concern about tree preservation orders and the fact that trees or buildings might be cut down and knocked down in the meantime. It is absolutely right to get those provisions in place.

I had wanted to do the same with Part 2 but did not table an amendment to it that would have ensured that councils were getting the right resources. I urge the Minister, and we debate this matter often, to get the pilot projects in place so that councils really have an idea of the resources that they need. I fully agree with amendment No 15, which, if made, will ensure that enforcement starts at an early opportunity. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the amendments in the group and congratulates the Department and all those who worked incredibly hard to get the Bill through.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Members for the points that they raised. They adequately clarified their positions. I think that no objections were raised to any of the amendments that Mr Boylan and I tabled. I again thank my staff and the Committee for their work in getting the Bill to this point.

Question, That amendment No 14 be made, put and agreed to.

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 15 made: After clause 247, insert the following new clause

“Amendment of certain time periods in relation to enforcement

247B.—(1) In Article 23 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (in this section referred to as ‘the 1991 Order’) (notice requiring planning application) in paragraph (2) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(2) In Article 24 of the 1991 Order (appeal against notice under Article 23) in paragraph (2)(c) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(3) In Article 67B of the 1991 Order (time limits)—

(a) in paragraphs (1), (2) and (4)(b) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’;

(b) in paragraph (3) for ‘10’ substitute ‘5’.

(4) In Article 67F of the 1991 Order (temporary stop notice: restrictions) in paragraph (2) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(5) In Article 73 of the 1991 Order (service of stop notice) in paragraph (3D) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.

(6) In Article 82 of the 1991 Order (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees) in paragraph (2) for ‘4’ substitute ‘5’.” — [Mr Boylan.]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 252 (Commencement)

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Amendment No 16 is consequential to amendment No 14.

Amendment No 16 made: In page 162, line 12, leave out “248” and insert “247A, 248”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Amendment No 17 is consequential to amendment No 14.

Amendment No 17 made: In page 162, line 18, leave out “Sections 85 and 126 come” and insert “Section 247A comes”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Schedule 3 (Periodic review of mineral planning permissions)

Amendment No 18 made: In page 188, line 38, leave out “(6), (7) and (8)” and insert “(5) and (6)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Schedule 6 (Minor and consequential amendments)

Amendment No 19 made: In page 193, line 32, at end insert

“9A. In Article 68(1) for ‘Order’ substitute ‘Act’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Amendment No 20 made: In page 195, line 6, at end insert

“The Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38)

22A. In section 1(2)(e) for ‘Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991’ substitute ‘Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Amendment No 21 made: In page 206, line 14, at end insert

“The Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (c. 12)

109. In section 17(1), in the definition of ‘planning permission’, for ‘Part 4 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991’ substitute ‘Part 3 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Schedule 7 (Repeals)

Amendment No 22 made: In page 206, leave out lines 31 to 35. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Amendment No 23 made: In page 206, line 37, after “131” insert “and 132”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

Amendment No 24 is consequential to amendment No 14.

Amendment No 24 made: In page 207, line 41, at end insert

“The Planning (Northern Ireland) Act 2011.

Section 247A.”

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

David McClarty (Independent, East Londonderry)

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

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair)—

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 7 has been withdrawn and requires a written response.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the actions that will be taken by their Department over the next four years to tackle poverty and deprivation. (AQO 1311/11)

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

8. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the detailed eligibility criteria for the social investment fund will be published. (AQO 1318/11)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 8 together. In line with the Executive’s continuing commitment to tackling the problem of poverty and disadvantage and the need to protect the most vulnerable in our society, we announced in the draft Budget for 2011-15 the creation of the social investment fund and the social protection fund. Those funds will aim to address deprivation and poverty in a strategic way whereby the impact can be seen, felt and believed by everyone in the community.

It is proposed that funding totalling £80 million will be allocated to the social investment fund across the Budget period. We recommend that the social protection fund is allocated £20 million in the first year and are committed to finding funds for the remaining years. Decisions about how funding will be allocated have yet to be taken, but the specific spending areas to be addressed from both funds and detailed delivery mechanisms will be for the Executive to agree. A strategy paper that is being developed will help to inform that decision. The detailed eligibility criteria will be published thereafter.

The contested space programme, which we recently established in conjunction with Atlantic Philanthropies, will provide new funding opportunities for communities dealing with issues that are prevalent in contested space areas. The programme aims to promote and improve relations between and across interface contested space communities. OFMDFM and Atlantic Philanthropies have each committed £2 million for the programme, which will run from March 2014 and will target six pilot areas.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Given the funds that the Minister mentioned and taking into account the expected child poverty strategy, the money secured for the childcare strategy and the earnings disregard pilot, can he assure the Assembly that there will be co-ordination to ensure maximum input?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That is the aim and objective of the Executive and the role of OFMDFM. When the Executive sat down on the first day at the agriculture establishment, we recognised that people, particularly those who were already living in hardship, were going to find life much more difficult as the recession ground on. Therefore, we determined that, while it remained our objective to grow our economy and it obviously assists all those who are without employment if we can bring new jobs in, we recognised that we needed to take immediate action to help people who live in areas of deprivation and people in hard-to-reach communities who have not benefited to the same extent from the peace process and from political stability. Those funds have been put in place and indicate clearly the determination of the Executive to try to make a difference to communities that have not benefited as others have from the process.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his answer, in which he indicated that the Executive have yet to decide how the social investment fund is to be spent. However, will he guarantee that it will be distributed on a needs basis rather than on a political basis?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I certainly guarantee that there will be no political criteria in respect of the allocation of funds. The paper that is being worked on is at a very advanced stage, but I am not sure whether we will be able to get it through, as we are trying to get so many documents through in the last few days before purdah. However, if we cannot get it to the Executive tomorrow, that will happen immediately after the election process is over.

We know what the money is going towards. There is general agreement that we are looking at areas such as dereliction, educational underachievement and skills and training, as well as some thematic areas, which would deal with the use of drugs and alcohol and suicide prevention. Therefore, we have a fair idea of the general themes, but we have to set out the criteria, and we have to determine what the process will be for the allocation of funds.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. He mentioned hard-to-reach communities. Given that the greater Shankill area in north Belfast is one of the most deprived parts of Northern Ireland, I have been pushing the Minister of Education for some time for an education action zone for that area. How does the First Minister envisage the social investment fund contributing to tackling educational underachievement?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I recognise the problems in north and west Belfast, although I also recognise that there are problems in other areas. I know that in my constituency, East Belfast, there is underachievement in educational attainment, particularly among Protestant boys. That was exemplified in the report that was published today. Although that report does not provide the answers, it directs our attention to the need for a co-ordinated approach to those issues. One element of the fund looks at how we deal with getting people into work, and it considers not just training and skills provision but educational underattainment. Therefore, we want to work closely with primary and secondary schools so that we can find the best way to get the results to change those figures and to make the opportunities much greater for those at a disadvantage.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the First Minister for outlining his concerns on deprivation and poverty across Northern Ireland. Will he acknowledge the significance of child poverty across all communities, and will he tell the House when the child poverty strategy will be published?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It would be wrong for me to do that now, as a later question will deal with that subject separately.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the development of the childcare strategy. (AQO 1312/11)

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the development of the child poverty strategy. (AQO 1314/11)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Robin Newton to answer that question.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Shortly after devolution, we reconvened the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people because we recognised that key policy issues were cross-departmental and required joined-up working. Childcare emerged as one of those issues, and the ministerial subcommittee agreed to take it forward. It commissioned a comprehensive report on the current nature of provision, and it sought recommendations on the way forward. The report has been received and is being considered by the subcommittee. It is an important piece of work on which to build a longer-term childcare strategy.

We recognise the significant barrier to employment that the lack of affordable childcare can be. Growing the economy is central to our Programme for Government, and, therefore, tackling those barriers is essential. OFMDFM intends to continue to work over the next year to co-ordinate that area of work through the ministerial subcommittee so that the strategy can be developed and new measures introduced. In advance of a lead Department being identified, we secured an additional £12 million for childcare provision in the Budget settlement. We are pleased to announce today that OFMDFM will continue to support the PlayBoard schemes for a further 12 months while the strategy is developed on a cross-departmental basis. The Member will be aware that OFMDFM stepped in to try to ensure that continued provision after DHSSPS withdrew funding. It did that with contributions from a range of Departments, including DETI and DE.

The Child Poverty Act 2010 specifically requires the Executive to produce and present a child poverty strategy to the Assembly by March 2011. The period of informal consultation on the strategy proposals ended on 6 February. During that period, a new series of related events was held in Belfast, Ballymena, Newry, Londonderry, Enniskillen and Omagh.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the junior Minister for his answer. I welcome today’s announcement for support for PlayBoard. I hope that the funding will be used not just for existing groups and that it will be opened up to other groups.

The junior Minister referred to the lead Department. As childcare is a cross-cutting and cross-departmental issue, has OFMDFM considered taking on the lead role for the childcare strategy and for driving it forward?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

The intention has always been to have a lead Department. The two Departments that seem to be a more comfortable fit for and to be at home with the strategy are the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education. In my answer to the Member, I indicated that OFMDFM will continue to take the lead on this matter for the next 12 months. However, the final objective will be to ensure that a lead Department is identified and that that Department will accept responsibility for the childcare strategy.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The junior Minister will be aware that child poverty is and has been a scourge on our society for some time. Given that the child poverty strategy is to be reviewed in three years’ time, can we expect major improvements to it prior to the total eradication of child poverty by, hopefully, 2020?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member referred to child poverty as a scourge on our society, and I do not disagree. No one in the Chamber wants to see any child in Northern Ireland living in poverty. As regards what improvements can be expected, the Member knows, because we debated the matter in Committee and he subjected me to questioning on it, that we have not hit all our targets. However, significant progress has been made, and we look forward to further improvement as the years go by.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

What interventions does the junior Minister anticipate that the additional funding for childcare will provide?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

We are grateful to have been able to announce today additional funding of £3 million per annum for new interventions. We will fully consult our colleagues and the ministerial subcommittees about the type of interventions to be rolled out. Examples are improving the take-up of the childcare element in the working tax credit for low-income earners on less than £20,000 per annum and middle-income earners on between £20,000 and £40,000 per annum; the possible expansion of out-of-school clubs; the child-minding start-up grant provided through NICMA; and the expansion of the Employers for Childcare not-for-profit scheme, whereby employers provide childcare vouchers to employees and parents, who benefit from tax breaks. Those are the types of programme that we want to encourage. However, that does not rule out anyone coming forward with other innovative approaches to the matter.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the junior Minister accept that the draft strategy is very broad and provides imprecise targets? Given the cross-cutting effect of the policy on child poverty and childcare and the fact that that involves a range of Departments, such as the Department for Social Development, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, does he also accept that there is not as yet an effective cross-cutting replacement for the Executive programme for children and the children’s fund?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

In my answer to Ms McCann, I indicated that it is our desire to see one Department taking the lead and accepting responsibility for the matter. That just has not been possible at this time. We felt strongly that that responsibility falls to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. However, the Health Minister has refused to accept that, which meant that OFMFDM had to pick up the areas where he withdrew funding for PlayBoard-type schemes in order to ensure that they continued. For all those reasons and to ensure that one Department accepts responsibility, that is our desire. However, in the meantime, in the gap that has been established by the Minister’s withdrawal of funding and refusal to take up the matter, OFMDFM will continue for another 12 months.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the discussions they have had with HM Treasury regarding the introduction of a fuel price stabiliser. (AQO 1313/11)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In recent months, we have witnessed a sharp rise in fuel prices due to the increase in oil prices. As a result of that, on 2 February 2011, the deputy First Minister and I met Treasury Minister David Gauke to discuss our concerns. The Finance Minister, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, also attended that meeting. Prior to that, on 1 February 2011, our Administration made a joint declaration with the First and Deputy First Ministers of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the Deputy First Minister and Minister for the Economy and Transport for Wales. That joint declaration called on the United Kingdom Government to take urgent action to address the rising price of fuel by postponing the scheduled fuel price increase in April 2011. We believe that that would stimulate the economy by protecting motorists and road hauliers. In particular, we believe that that would protect rural communities from high and volatile prices. We currently await further developments on the fuel price stabiliser in the UK Budget that is due to be published on Wednesday.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The Ulster Unionist Party is already on record opposing the increase in fuel duty, which was first planned by the Labour Party, in the upcoming Budget. Does the Minister agree that motorists in Northern Ireland are already hit hard enough by high insurance rates and poor road maintenance and that penalising them further with an extra tax on fuel would be wholly unfair?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree absolutely. Indeed, it is not just motorists who are being hit. In many areas, society as a whole in Northern Ireland is paying much higher prices than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is particularly important in relation to fuel. That was the reason why most political parties here felt that the £4 billion cut that the Conservative and Ulster Unionist Parties advocated in the previous election was a bad idea.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome any initiative undertaken by the Executive to achieve a reduction in fuel prices. However, will the First Minister outline what other measures the Executive are taking to alleviate the impact of the economic crisis, particularly on those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We have already talked about the social investment fund and the social protection fund, through which we have specifically allocated funds to help those who will be in greatest need. I look forward to seeing applications to those funds, and I hope that there will be some ambition and ingenuity in our community, as those proposals will come directly from the community. Of course, Departments will also bring forward proposals to the social protection fund. The strength of the kind of fund that we are talking about is that we will allocate funds to what the community itself feels that it needs to pull itself up by its bootstraps.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Does the First Minister hope that the increase in the tax take resulting from the discovery last week in Crossmaglen of the UK’s largest ever illegal fuel depot will allow Her Majesty’s Government to perhaps show more flexibility when it comes to fuel duty in Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I very much welcome the action taken by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), assisted by the PSNI, in what was very much a co-operative exercise. They managed to discover a fuel plant that, the HMRC spokesperson said, was three times larger than any that they had ever discovered in the United Kingdom. Some newspapers have suggested that it is probably the largest illicit fuel plant that has ever been found in Europe. It is good that the criminal gang responsible has had its assets taken from it. I understand that there has been one arrest, but, under parliamentary rules, we cannot touch on that. What I liked was the indicator from the spokesperson for HMRC. I always like statements that give people some idea of the scale involved. That plant could produce 30 million litres a year. The spokesman indicated that the fuel uncovered was sufficient to take a family saloon car to the moon and back 40 times every year.

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

I welcome the Minister’s answer and, in particular, his reference to the problems in the rural community. Is the Minister aware that, where the breadwinner in a rural community often has to travel to greater Belfast for work, the whole process is now extremely difficult? Up to one third of a weekly wage of £300, for example, may be consumed by fuel expenditure alone. The price of fuel also varies widely and can be 10p a litre dearer in rural communities.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to come to his question.

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

Does the Minister intend to ensure stability in the price across the North?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Unfortunately, I cannot give any guarantees on that because it is a reserved matter. However, it is certainly an issue that the deputy First Minister and I have pressed with the Chancellor. Indeed, in the Chancellor’s response, he indicated that that matter was being considered in the Budget. I hope that the Budget, when we hear it, will not proceed with the proposed increase later this year that was outlined previously and that a stabiliser will be introduced to stop the variations that make it so difficult. I recognise that, where people, particularly in rural areas, are reliant on transport to get them to their place of employment, high fuel costs can be a disincentive to go for employment and, in many cases, force people to fall back and rely on benefit.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 4 has already been answered.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the progress that has been made by the community relations unit since 2007 in encouraging mutual respect, understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity in Craigavon. (AQO 1315/11)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

OFMDFM has done much in recent years to improve relations in the Craigavon area. It has worked not only to improve the relationship between the two traditional communities but to increase understanding and appreciation of and respect for the increased cultural diversity in the area and to make Craigavon more welcoming for newcomers. We have often worked in partnership with Craigavon Borough Council. The district council community relations programme provides all 26 councils with funding for the provision of community relations services and activities, including the support of at least one dedicated good relations officer post in each council area. Funding is allocated on the basis of each council’s annual action plan, which is developed from its good relations audit and identifies and prioritises the area’s specific needs.

In the current financial year, 2010-11, we provided Craigavon Borough Council with an initial grant of more than £113,000 and agreed an additional bid of almost £10,000 for the delivery of good relations training with local community groups and to develop the council’s community cohesion plan. That brings the overall investment to more than £120,000, which is a significant increase on previous years.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for his response. There is concern about the types of scheme being cut by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The schemes include Women’s Aid projects and some that work with mental health and suicide interventions. Does the First Minister agree that that should not happen and that the Health Minister should reconsider those cuts urgently?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We are at the tail end of this Administration. In the next Administration, there may well be a new Health Minister who will have the real job of reviewing some of the decisions that are a bit more difficult to argue as sensible. At their last meeting, the Executive stepped in and indicated that no Department should remove any funding allocation that assists the prevention of suicide. It is not consistent with the decision of the Executive, with which all Ministers have to comply, for any spending to be taken away from suicide awareness organisations.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his responses. I accept that all Departments are operating within constrained budgets, as the First Minister said. Given such constraints, has OFMDFM considered giving more money to the minority ethnic development fund?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We have a record of giving support, and this is not something that we want to jettison. We recognise that a lot of those organisations are doing a job that, if we did it directly ourselves, would cost significantly more and that doing without that would cause much more difficulty in communities. We want to be as supportive as possible, and, as the original question relates to Craigavon Borough Council, it can be seen that we have been increasing spending in that area. We try to identify where there have been problems and give whatever assistance we can with financial and other resources.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how many times the Civic Forum has met since 2007. (AQO 1316/11)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Civic Forum, which commenced operation in 2000, has not met since 2002. Following the restoration of devolved powers in May 2007, the then First Minister and deputy First Minister considered the position of the Civic Forum in the re-established devolved arrangements and decided to commission a review of the effectiveness and appropriateness of its structure, operation and membership. The review was also to make recommendations on the most appropriate mechanism for engaging with civic society.

The review was launched in 2008 with a public consultation exercise that attracted 60 written submissions, all of which are accessible on the OFMDFM website. In addition, the review involved meetings with former Civic Forum members and stakeholders and with similar bodies in other jurisdictions. There was no widespread desire for a return to a structure of the size and expense of the Civic Forum as it had previously operated. Accordingly, there have been no meetings of the Civic Forum during this Assembly mandate, which has also resulted in considerable savings to the public purse.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the Civic Forum has not met, not least because taxpayers’ purses and wallets have been relieved of that financial burden? Can he assure us that those financial savings will continue into the next term so that we can bring them back to the public?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We had reached the stage where the Civic Forum, in full operation, was costing about £500,000 every year. We have probably saved a couple of million pounds as a consequence. At the same time, I do not, in any way, want to leave the impression that we want to reduce the connection with our community. We want to continue having consultation. For instance, because of the economic downturn, the deputy First Minister and I brought together a group of stakeholders from across the community. We did that without those people getting or seeking any expenses, which indicates that people are willing to give their views without having elaborate and expensive structures.

It is not for me to commit the next Assembly or Executive, although I believe that they should look at the whole issue of consultation, not just in relation to the Civic Forum. We need to streamline our ways of operating and make them more effective. In the new mandate, we must look at some of the delays that are occurring because of lengthy consultations and, sometimes, unnecessary levels of consultation.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

The First Minister has, to some degree, answered some of the points that I was going to raise. However, can he explain to the House whether any money is being spent on that moribund body, the Civic Forum? What are his intentions, if he is returned to the House in the new mandate, for how civic society may relate to what goes on here?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

During the year, some funding was made available to deal with the consultation exercise that had been set up by my predecessor and the deputy First Minister. That is being rounded off at present, and, although Ministers have not received it yet, I know that it is in the brokerage system to come forward to us. My view for the future is that I want there to be consultation. It is important that we have a connection with the community, particularly with those who have expertise in issues that we are dealing with. However, I think that we can manage to have that consultation and the value of the advice without the expensive machinery of the Civic Forum that we had before.

Education

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

1. asked the Minister of Education whether she will extend the funding for the LILAC project based at Fleming Fulton School, Belfast. (AQO 1323/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Tuigim go bhfuil an tionscadal LILAC maoinithe trí chiste an Big Lottery.

I understand that the linked independent living and advice centre (LILAC) project was funded by the Big Lottery Fund in response to a business plan submitted to the lottery by Fleming Fulton School in 2006. The level of funding for special education is determined by the education and library boards as part of their annual decisions on the allocation of their block grant. Proposals for funding beyond that are normally considered by the Department only if they relate to strategic perspective and there is five-board agreement on the need for any new developments that could be implemented on a regional basis. The Department does not ordinarily fund projects at individual schools.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Mr Jimmy Spratt to ask a supplementary question, and I inform the House that question 6 has been withdrawn.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her brief answer. Does she agree that the services offered by the LILAC project have been valuable, have supported many young people with physical disabilities and allowed them to be included in the schools of their choice throughout Northern Ireland? The Minister has been to Fleming Fulton School and seen the project, which is one that cannot be allowed to disappear.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I have visited the project. The Member will be aware that I have visited many schools throughout the North that carry out much good work and use good practice. However, the position that I outlined in my answer remains the same: the project was funded by the Big Lottery Fund, and funding is a decision for the board. Unless it is a regional policy, the Department does not make a decision in relation to individual schools.

Good practice is ongoing in many of our different schools. I am the first to celebrate that and encourage the sharing of good practice.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her responses so far and the Member for asking the question. Is the project currently funded by the Belfast Education and Library Board?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Chuir Fleming Fulton cóip den phlean gnó tionscadail LILAC chuig Bord Oideachais agus Leabharlainne Bhéal Feirste.

I have been made aware that Fleming Fulton School sent a copy of the LILAC project business plan to the Belfast Education and Library Board. I have also been advised that the board has a number of reservations about the project, including concerns about the duplication of services within the Belfast board area. The Belfast board was not involved in the bid to the Big Lottery Fund.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

2. asked the Minister of Education for an update on the availability of year 1 primary school places in the Bangor area for the 2011-12 academic year. (AQO 1324/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Tá 849 áit in iomlán ar fáil le haghaidh bliain a haon i gceantar Bheannachair don bhliain acadúil 2011-12.

A total of 849 year 1 places are available in the Bangor area for the 2011-12 academic year. The South Eastern Education and Library Board has confirmed that 137 year 1 primary school places are still available.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

The Minister is aware that the integrated Groomsport Primary School closed several years ago, and a commitment was given by the South Eastern Education and Library Board that children from Groomsport would be allowed to go to schools near at hand in Ballyholme and Towerview. However, those parents are now being asked to make fourth, fifth and sixth preference choices for schools that are nowhere near the area. Will the Minister assure me that the commitment to the Groomsport parents that their children will go to nearby schools will be honoured?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Tá tugtha le fios dom gur iarradh ar líon teaghlach atá ina gcónaí i bPort an Ghiolla Ghruama roghanna breise a sholáthar.

I understand that a number of families living in Groomsport have been asked to make additional preferences when choosing schools. The South Eastern Education and Library board has confirmed that some parents have given additional preferences, and I encourage the other parents to do so as a matter of urgency. The South Eastern Education and Library Board has confirmed that, when Groomsport Primary School closed in August 2007, it ensured that adequate places were available at other primary schools in Bangor for some 25 children from that school. There are 137 year 1 primary school places still available in the Bangor area for the 2011-12 school year.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister will be aware of the problem of oversubscription in many non-selective post-primary schools. Will she inform the House of what action she is taking to help the families who have traditionally supported such schools to maintain their links with them?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

In relation to non-selective post-primary schools, the biggest policy that we have brought in to really bring about changes in how we deal with admissions criteria is the new transfer arrangements. What we want to do is make sure that schools become good local schools, so that children are not spending hours on buses every day, bypassing good local schools. The best way to deal with the issues of oversubscription and admissions criteria is to build a network of good schools, so that every school is a good school, and that is what I am doing.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Is the Minister aware that, following the problems with the primary sector in Bangor, children whose parents took the Minister’s advice and did not have them subject to any testing ended up with no schools to go to in the area and were offered places as far away as Glengormley?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

First, I applaud the parents who took the decision to not enter their children for breakaway tests. The best way to ensure that children are not disadvantaged in any way is for the schools that are currently doing breakaway tests to stop doing them.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

3. asked the Minister of Education, following the announcement that additional capital funding has been allocated to her Department in the Budget 2011-15, to outline the criteria that will be used to prioritise capital projects. (AQO 1325/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Cé gur éirigh liom £65·5 milliún punt sa bhreis de mhaoiniú caipitil a fháil, thar thréimhse ceithre bliana an bhuiséid chríochnaithnaithe leithdháilte, tá bearna fós ann idir an t-airgead atá de dhíth le clár caiptil na Roinne a sholáthar mar is ceart agus an t-airgead a leithdháileadh.

Although I was successful in securing an additional £65·5 million of capital funding over the four-year period in the final Budget allocation, a gap still exists between the capital funding required to fully deliver the Department’s capital programme and the amount allocated. The reduction in the capital allocation will require a comprehensive reassessment of how the limited capital funds available should be deployed on a strategic and prioritised basis to address the most pressing needs.

Moving forward, priority will have to be given to maintaining the integrity of the schools estate. I will also have to look carefully at the scope for bringing forward any new school projects in the next three years. In view of the current capital funding position, I am unable to provide a time frame regarding progress of any school on the investment delivery plan, but my officials will keep the relevant school authorities updated on any developments.

I have continually demonstrated that, when given the necessary resources, we can deliver much-needed new schools, which is evident from the excellent progress made in delivering the 13 projects that we approved for capital funding in August 2010. Indeed, I was at one of those schools today and I will be going to one in Bangor and one in Strathearn over the coming days, and another in Forkhill tomorrow.

What I am saying to the Assembly and to the Executive is: give us money and we will spend it. Members may be pleased to know that the other day we announced that there will be new schools for Lagan College, Belfast and Tor Bank special school. Those projects are proceeding, and that represents a further investment of £31 million. I will continue to press for additional capital development in the schools estate, because every penny that we spend on it is money well spent.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will be more than aware that I have raised in the past the need for a newbuild for Rainey Endowed School in my constituency. Will the Minister assure the House and the people who attend that school that that is a priority for her Department and that when money is available, it will be used to give that school a good building? Will she also update the House on Magherafelt Primary School and nursery unit?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

First, as the Member knows, a major capital project for Rainey Endowed was included in the Department’s 2004 capital programme. It was to be taken forward under PPP procurement, but that did not materialise for economic reasons, and the project was redesignated as conventional in September 2009. The economic appraisal is being updated, and, in the interim, the project manager will continue to prepare procurement documentation for the appointment of a design team.

In view of the current capital funding position, I am unable to provide a time frame regarding progress of the proposed scheme for Rainey Endowed School. However, I assure the Member that my officials will keep the school authority updated on any developments.

The Member will be aware that the Magherafelt High School project has gone ahead. His constituency has succeeded in getting a number of new schools, which I am pleased about. In relation to an update — I am just looking for it; bear with me — the North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB) has concluded the tendering process for the Magherafelt Primary School scheme. The NEELB estimates that construction work will get under way in late March 2011, with an estimated completion date of around November 2012. I am pleased to report that it and the other 12 projects are moving forward. It is something that we have really been encouraging and pushing, and it is good news for the Magherafelt community.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Is the Minister prepared to publish the criteria that she uses to prioritise capital projects?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

We have always published the criteria that we have used for capital projects. I have to deal with the Budget that the House and the Executive have agreed. Would I like more money for school builds? Of course I would. When money becomes available, I hope that all parties around the table will support extra money for school builds, as they did last August, when we managed to get more schools on site. Give me money and I will spend it. Of course we will publish how we move forward in relation to what schools go ahead.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. During her time in the Education Department, money was handed back as opposed to underspent: £86 million in 2007-08, £29 million in 2008-09 and £33 million in 2009-2010. Will she detail whether she now believes that it would have been more appropriate to have used some of that money to tackle the chronic capital underinvestment in the school estate, for example, in Antrim and the schools that we have there?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will send the Member the figures in relation to the amounts of money that we have spent on the capital programme. The Member failed to announce that significant amounts of money were handed back in the two years prior to my becoming Minister. Since coming into office, I have, in the past two years, spent 99·9% and, indeed, have secured further resources. That is why an extra 13 schools are on site or are going on site as we speak and an extra site has been purchased for Coláiste Feirste on the Falls Road. The Member should look at his figures. I will certainly ask my officials to send the correct ones.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I ask Hansard to check the accuracy of what the Education Minister said today about Rainey Endowed School in Magherafelt. I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Ballymoney High School. If I recall correctly, the Minister said that the project did not proceed because of economic issues. It did not proceed because her Department changed the rules. It was a joint project between Rainey Endowed School and Ballymoney High School. Those two schools have now been disenfranchised because you and your Department changed the rules in relation to PPP. A question was asked by a Member previously about publishing the criteria. People need to know what you base your judgements on rather than assumptions or whims of fancy, so when will that happen?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Member is entitled to his opinion of value for money and the economic reasons, but I do not share it. I stand by the answer that I gave.

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

4. asked the Minister of Education for her assessment of the facilities at St Peter’s Primary School, Collegelands, County Tyrone. (AQO 1326/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Amhail go leor scoileanna ar fud an eastáit, tá infheistíocht chaipitil de dhíth ar Bhunscoil Naomh Peadar.

Like many schools across the estate, St Peter’s Primary School requires capital investment. I am aware that the school lodged a proposal for a rebuild in 2003. However, like many other schools in a similar position, it is not one of the schools in the announced investment delivery plan. The school has lodged a number of minor works applications with my Department, and officials are liaising with the school to prioritise the work within the resources available.

I have continually highlighted the need for additional capital investment in the schools estate and ensured that any funds that we have been allocated are effectively used. Although we were successful in securing an additional £65·5 million of capital funding over the four-year period in the final Budget allocation, a gap still exists between the capital funding required to fully deliver the Department’s capital programme and the amount allocated as part of Budget 2010. Without significant additional funding, it is simply not possible to meet all the competing investment demands from schools. Difficult decisions need to be taken, and investment across the schools estate needs to be prioritised within the resources available. Unfortunately, that means that not all works that might be required or desired can be funded.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra a thug sí. Tá an ceart aici: tá an scoil seo ag iarraidh foirgnimh nua le roinnt blianta anuas, ach níl aon chosúlacht ar an scéal go mbeidh toradh ar an iarratas sin go cionn i bhfad. Ar bhonn sábháilteachta agus sláinte, tá iarratas istigh ar mhion-oibreacha ag an Roinn. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire an féidir leis an scoil bheith ag súil le toradh deimhneach ar an iarratas sin?

Mr Speaker, I will provide a translation if you so wish. The Minister is correct to say that the school has been seeking a newbuild for quite a number of years, and it appears that, because of current financial strictures and other reasons, it will be some time before that is realised. She is also correct to say that the school has lodged an application for minor works on the basis of health and safety. When will the Minister’s Department be in a position to respond to that request in a positive way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Ar dtús, is cúis mhór imní dom go bhfuair aon scoil laisitigh den eastát fógra mar sin.

The Member will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) served an improvement notice on the school in March 2010, which highlighted a number of health and safety concerns at the school. I am seriously concerned that any school in the estate should be in receipt of such a notice. I assure the House that my Department has taken the matter very seriously. On receipt of the notice, the Department and the Southern Education and Library Board (SELB) took immediate steps to assess the risks identified by the HSE to enable them to take immediate action. It is important to be aware that not all the issues raised in the notice required specific investment in the school and that some of them can be mitigated through the local management of issues.

The Member might be interested to know that the Department is considering not just one but six minor works applications.

Tá an Roinn ag amharc ar shé iarratas le haghaidh mion-oibreacha don obair seo a leanas ag an scoil faoi láthair.

They are the provision of additional storage; car parking and traffic management, which will require the purchase of additional land; perimeter fencing; the provision of a multi-purpose hall and additional classrooms; the refurbishment of toilets; and the replacement of heating systems. I cannot guarantee that those minor works schemes will proceed or otherwise until the overall minor works prioritisation exercise is undertaken. I assure the House that all minor works applications are being prioritised consistently and within the priorities that I set to deliver only those minor works that meet our inescapable statutory requirements, such as health and safety, fire protection and those under Disability Discrimination Act.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Today, a report about educational underachievement in working class Protestant areas is being produced, and the Education Committee will produce one later. Given the criteria that have been applied to Springhill Primary School and Glenwood Primary School in my constituency, will the Minister confirm —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should know that a supplementary question must relate to the original question.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

It does.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am happy enough to hear how the Member might link it.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister assure the House of her assessment of the facilities that have to be provided in Springhill Primary School and Glenwood Primary School, given the criteria that her Department have applied heretofore?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

It is a bit worrying that the Member has just discovered today that there is underachievement in both Protestant and Catholic communities. It may be that the Member was not listening, but I have been talking about underachievement on the Shankill Road, in north Belfast, west Belfast and in all the different areas of the North. It is unfortunate that Members opposite only now, after four years, realise the level of educational underachievement. It is very unfortunate.

In relation to the second question or comment made by the Member, we will look at all the schools on the investment delivery plan. We will ensure that we get as much investment as possible on the basis of need. The Member will be aware that one of the 13 schemes that we have brought forward is at Taughmonagh Primary School. I was delighted to attend the sod cutting there and receive a wonderful welcome. The people of Taughmonagh understand the importance of standards for all young people. They also understand the importance of the transfer debate and why Protestant children are being disadvantaged.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister be specific about what her Department has done to address concerns expressed by the Health and Safety Executive about St Peter’s Primary School, Collegelands?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin. Rinne comhairleoirí teicniúla na Roinne measúnú láithreach ar na ceisteanna a sainaithníodh.

On receipt of the notice from the Health and Safety Executive, the Department’s technical advisers carried out an immediate assessment of the issues identified. Minor works applications submitted by the school, aimed at addressing the issues, were examined and the following actions taken. Work on the water heaters to address the legionella risk caused by existing systems at the school has been completed. Work on the toilets has been completed. The SELB replaced the water tank, and the Department’s technical advisers consider that the issues of health and safety and the risk of fire from overcrowding can be mitigated by operating three lunchtime sittings. All other minor works applications for the school are awaiting the prioritisation exercise.

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

5. asked the Minister of Education for her assessment of the extent of the current maintenance work backlog in schools. (AQO 1327/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Is é an riaráiste reatha cothabhála le haghaidh scoileanna trasna an eastáit ná £299 milliún.

As Minister of Education, I have continually highlighted the need for significant investment in the school estate to tackle the high levels of maintenance backlog. I fought hard and successfully secured additional finance to address the maintenance needs of schools. I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that the school estate is appropriately maintained to prevent any unacceptable deterioration of the buildings and ensure that young people and teachers have a learning environment that is fit for purpose. In the past three years, £81·2 million has been spent on schools maintenance. This year, we secured an additional allocation to the education and library boards of £19 million for maintenance of the estate, bringing investment in maintenance in 2010-11 to £38 million.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. An dtiocfadh leis an Aire freagra a thabhairt domh ar an dóigh ar féidir léi an t-eastát scolaíochta a leasú agus buiséad níos lú aici?

Will the Minister please tell me how she intends to address a deteriorating school estate with a dwindling capital budget?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I plan to do that by securing further resources, and I look forward to the support of all parties in the House when I, or whoever the Minister of Education is, makes a bid at the Executive.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister, in her last few days in office, look at the maintenance backlog that exists in a number of schools in my East Londonderry constituency to determine whether matters can be addressed quickly there? In recent years, some of the schools have been in a deplorable state of repair.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will look at all the schools right across the North of Ireland to make sure that we re-prioritise the maintenance backlog. I have already explained the criteria that we will use.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister confirm that the maintenance backlog in her Department works out at roughly £1,000 a pupil? Indeed, if that is the case, does she agree that, as Minister for the past four years, she must take responsibility for that highly unsatisfactory situation?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will write to the Member with the numbers because, although my maths might be OK, they are not good enough to answer that question off the cuff. However, over the past four years, we have brought in a jigsaw of interconnected policies to bring about change. When I came into office in 2007, I inherited a system that was designed in 1947 and was past its sell-by date. We now have the new curriculum, Every School a Good School and a new Irish-medium review, and we have brought forward a raft of policies that interconnect. A lot of good work has been done, but there is, of course, more work to be done. We have also invested significantly in the schools estate.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

7. asked the Minister of Education to outline the benefits of the additional money that has been allocated to her Department in the Budget 2011-15. (AQO 1329/11)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Bhí mé buartha san fhómhair faoi chéad mholtaí an ghrúpa athbhreithnithe buiséid, agus mar gheall ar mo chuid iarrachtaí fuair mé £43 milliún sa bhreis ó thaobh airgid achmhainne de agus £72 milliún sa bhreis ó thaobh airgid caipitil de sa dréacht-bhuiséad.

I had been concerned about the initial proposals emerging from the Budget review group in the autumn, and, as a result of our efforts, we secured an additional £43 million of resource and £72 million of capital in the draft Budget. I continued to lobby hard for education, and we were successful in securing a further £114 million in current expenditure and £40 million for capital investment. The additional funding provided in the final Budget helps to mitigate the challenges facing education, particularly in the first year of the Budget period.

I am now considering the final allocation of the education budget for the next four years and, in doing so, I will do everything that I can to protect front line services and jobs and to make sure that the budget allocation for our children with special needs and our youth are protected. Following agreement of the final Budget, the Budget review group will continue to consider and, where possible, progress additional revenue-raising proposals. I will make a very strong case to allocate any additional funding that is identified to education.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Can the Minister tell us what her priorities have been in determining budgets?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Gan aon amhras, is dúshlán mór iad laghduithe an bhuiséid oideachais don earnáil oideachais ina hiomlán.

There is no doubt that the reductions in the education budget pose a major challenge to the education sector as a whole. In meeting that challenge, it is essential that the key issues are raising standards, delivering services to the front line and maintaining equality. In determining savings proposals, I have sought to protect spending on programmes that contribute most to the delivery of departmental priorities, drive up efficiency, reduce bureaucracy and eliminate duplication. I have also afforded protection to a number of important spending areas, including special education, extended schools, early years — in fact, we have increased the early years budget — and the extension of the eligibility criteria for free school meals entitlement. We need to ensure that our funding goes to the classroom and that we do not squander it on administration as has happened in the past.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

If there is any additional money, will the Education Minister look at the needs of the primary schools in the Newtownards area? Castle Gardens Primary School, Abbey Primary School, St Finian’s Primary School, Londonderry Primary School and the Newtownards Model Primary School could all do with an upgrade. Does she agree that upgrades of educational facilities help children learn better?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I agree with the Member that one factor in ensuring that we have very good standards is high-quality buildings. The key factor is leadership in our schools and the role of principals and boards of governors. However, I absolutely want our primary schools, not just in Newtownards but right across the North, to have high-quality buildings. We need area-based planning for the primary sector, because that is the best way to make sure that we have the correct number of primary schools for the number of children in an area and that each school is a good school.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Mr Paul Maskey, has given me notice that he wishes to raise a matter of privilege.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On 18 January, a draft report on the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry into performance and governance in NI Water was leaked to the media. The Public Accounts Committee commissioned an inquiry into the leak, but it was not conclusive. The Committee agreed at its meeting on 15 March that this was a matter affecting the privilege of the Assembly and decided that it should seek to have the matter referred under Standing Order 70.

I have written to you, Mr Speaker, to give notice of the detail of the matter at the first available opportunity, as the Standing Order requires. Accordingly, on behalf of the Committee, I move that the leaking of the draft report before it could be considered by a properly constituted Assembly Committee affects the privilege of the Assembly. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I ask that you refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges under Standing Order 70.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I can confirm that, in accordance with Standing Order 70(1), the Member gave me written notice of his intention to raise a matter of privilege and informed me of the details of the matter. I am content that the requirements of Standing Order 70(3) have been complied with and, therefore, the matter will be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That Standing Order 42(1) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Planning Bill.

When I introduced the Planning Bill in December, the Assembly set itself a major challenge. I was confident that we could meet that challenge. At Second Stage, I urged the House to drive forward the agenda for reform in the planning system to deliver what Northern Ireland needs, and that is what we have done. The Bill has been scrutinised thoroughly by the Committee, for which I commend it. The Committee has demonstrated what can be achieved, and I commend Members for the amendments that they tabled at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage.

I want the Bill to complete its passage through the Assembly before dissolution, and, as Members will be aware, the Final Stage has been scheduled for this Wednesday. However, the date for Final Stage means that there will be less than the five-day minimum interval required under Standing Order 42(1) between Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage of a Bill. To allow the Final Stage to proceed on Wednesday, which is the last scheduled plenary sitting before dissolution, the Assembly must agree to the suspension of Standing Order 42(1). That is the purpose of bringing this motion to the House today. Should the Assembly agree the motion and pass the Bill at Final Stage, it will complete a key step in the journey towards a new, reformed planning system.

I acknowledge that there is still work to do, but the passage of the Bill will allow the new Minister and Assembly to move forward with the extensive programme of subordinate legislation and guidance that will be needed to underpin the planning system. Consideration of the Bill is nearly complete. All the hard work has been done. Let us make it over the finish line. Therefore, I seek Members’ support for the suspension of the Standing Order to allow Final Stage of the Planning Bill to take place on Wednesday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Order 42(1) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Planning Bill.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That the draft Marine Licensing (Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 be approved.

I seek the Assembly’s approval for the statutory rule, which will provide an independent appeals mechanism to allow economic operators to appeal against marine licensing decisions and enforcement notices issued by my Department in its role as the appropriate licensing and enforcement authority under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The 2009 Act introduces a new system for licensing marine activities, which will replace licensing currently carried out under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The types of activities that are licensable include construction on the seabed, offshore renewable energy installations and dredging. The new system will apply across the UK from April 2011 and will require subordinate legislation to provide more details on appeals, fees, exemptions, civil sanctions and the registration of activities.

The statutory rules for fees, exemptions and registration of activities were made on 16 March 2011 using the negative resolution procedure. Approval of the draft civil sanctions Order is the subject of the motion that will immediately follow the debate. I am grateful to the Committee for the Environment and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their scrutiny of these draft regulations and the draft civil sanctions Order.

I turn to the content of the appeals regulations. The regulations make provision for operators who do not agree with a marine licensing decision or who have been issued with an enforcement notice under the 2009 Act to make an appeal to the Water Appeals Commission. There is no fee for making an appeal. The Water Appeals Commission was chosen as the appellate body because it is an independent body which has an efficient and effective appeals mechanism in place. Appeals will be determined in accordance with the commission’s existing procedures, which means that the set-up costs of the appeals system will be minimal and the cost implications of the legislation low.

Appeals against a decision not to grant a marine licence or to attach specific conditions to a licence must be lodged within six months. Appeals against decisions to vary, suspend or revoke licences or against the issue of enforcement notices must be lodged within 28 days. The legislation gives the appeals commission the ability to confirm, vary or quash licensing and enforcement decisions. That being the case, the draft regulations include an amendment to article 293(10) of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which established the Water Appeals Commission.

The regulations provide for an independent, transparent and cost-effective appeals mechanism, which, I believe, will provide economic operators and members of the public with confidence that the marine licensing and enforcement decisions made by my Department are balanced and robust. I ask the Assembly to approve the draft regulations.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee considered the statutory rule on 10 March 2011. The rule will introduce an independent mechanism for appeals to the Water Appeals Commission against licensing decisions and the issue of statutory notices created by the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

On 3 March 2010, members were advised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules that the rule contained a couple of errors, one of which altered the intended meaning of regulation 4. He suggested that that could be put right with a correction slip, thereby allowing time for the rule to be laid before dissolution of the Assembly. The Department provided a correction slip in time for the Committee’s consideration on 10 March. Members were content with the corrected rule.

The Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Marine Licensing (Appeals) Regulations (NI) 2011 be affirmed by the Assembly. The Committee has long called for the introduction of marine legislation to enable the North to catch up with neighbouring jurisdictions. Although we hope that we will see a marine Bill for the North introduced early in the next Assembly, the regulations are a small but welcome, step. I support the motion on the Committee’s behalf.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have little to add. The appeals mechanism and the new licensing system will benefit the whole of Northern Ireland with regard to the sustainable use of marine resources. I thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee for their support for the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Marine Licensing (Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 be approved.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That the draft Marine Licensing (Civil Sanctions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2011 be approved.

I seek the Assembly’s approval for the aforementioned statutory rule, which will provide a robust and proportionate alternative to prosecution for minor offences under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Order provides a mechanism in the form of fixed and variable monetary penalties that will remove any financial benefit that operators may derive from failure to operate inside the law.

Part 4 of the 2009 Act introduces a number of offences for which my Department, in its role as the enforcement authority, can prosecute. Although prosecution will, of course, remain an option for serious offences, there may be occasions when operators unintentionally cause harm. The introduction of fixed and variable monetary penalties will give the Department greater enforcement options and the flexibility to issue a penalty instead of pursuing prosecution. In some cases, that will be more proportionate to the offence committed and would mean that the operator would not have a criminal record as a consequence.

The draft civil sanctions Order introduces fixed and monetary penalties that are set at £100 for individuals or £300 for businesses to address low-level, technical or administrative offences, such as failure by an operator to provide information within the required time. It also introduces variable monetary penalties that do not have a fixed upper limit for more serious breaches or for instances in which an operator may have derived a financial benefit from non-compliance. The amount of variable monetary penalty will be the estimated financial benefit derived from the offence plus a deterrent element less the cost incurred by the operator. I am confident that that formula will help to ensure fair competition between economic operators. Those who act outside the law should not gain an unfair competitive advantage.

The Order makes provision for operators to make representations or, with regard to variable monetary penalties, to offer to undertake compensatory actions and for the Department to review the case before making a decision on whether to withdraw the penalty or issue a final notice.

It is important to note that the revenue from monetary penalties will be paid into the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland. That means that the Department will not benefit financially from this legislation. Appeals can be made to the Water Appeals Commission against final notices imposing fixed or variable monetary penalties.

My Department will consult on and publish guidance on its use of civil sanctions. That guidance will contain information on circumstances in which sanctions are likely to be used, how liability can be discharged, factors to be considered in calculating variable monetary penalties, the right to make representations and the rights of appeal. Therefore operators would be fully informed of the introduction of the alternative to prosecution. I ask the Assembly to approve the draft Order.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Department has informed the Committee that the Marine Licensing (Civil Sanctions) Order will increase the range of enforcement tools it has at its disposal. That is always to be welcomed. This rule will set up a scheme for fixed and variable monetary penalties, which are seen as a more proportionate alternative to prosecution. It will help to ensure the consistent protection of the environment and human health and the legitimate use of the sea. The Committee considered the rule on 10 March 2011, when members were content to recommend that it be affirmed by the Assembly. I support the motion on behalf of the Committee.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Once again, we seek to provide a proportionate and fair means of delivering sustainable development in the marine area. I thank the Chairperson and the Committee for their support in doing that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Marine Licensing (Civil Sanctions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2011 be approved.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 39(1) and 42(1) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Justice Bill.

Members will be aware that, at Further Consideration Stage on Monday 7 March, Lord Morrow moved an amendment to the Justice Bill to amend the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. That amendment was accepted by the Assembly and is now clause 104 of the Bill. Clause 104 deals with the use of shotguns by young persons. The clause allows a person under the age of 18 to use a shotgun in specified circumstances under the supervision of a firearms certificate holder who is authorised to possess such a shotgun.

In your ruling of 15 March, Mr Speaker, you declared that, as a result of that clause, it was your view that the Bill would be outside the legislative competence of the Assembly, since the clause is incompatible with Community law. It is incompatible with EU directive 91/477/EEC, as amended by 2008/51/EC, whereby firearms supervision, when on private land, must be by a person over the age of 18. Northern Ireland firearms legislation currently permits, in certain circumstances, the Chief Constable to grant a firearms certificate to a person aged between 16 and 18. Clause 104 could, therefore, permit a 16- or 17-year-old to act as a supervisor, which is contrary to EU law. Consequently, clause 104 will need to be amended before the Bill can proceed to Final Stage to bring it and, therefore, the whole Bill back within the competence of the Assembly.

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, for your ruling that the Assembly should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation by the holding of an additional amending stage of the Bill before it moves to Final Stage. Members are well aware that there is no opportunity to amend the Bill at Final Stage, so the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage is scheduled to take place immediately after this item of business. To allow the additional amending stage to proceed, the Assembly must agree to the suspension of Standing Order 39(1), since otherwise we would have to move straight to Final Stage.

Once the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage is completed and subject to Assembly agreement, the Bill will be brought back within competence and be in a position to proceed to Final Stage to complete its passage through the Assembly. Members will be aware that, to achieve that before dissolution, the Final Stage has been scheduled for this Wednesday. That will result in less than the five-day minimum interval required under Standing Order 42(1) between the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage and the Final Stage of the Bill. To allow the Final Stage to proceed on Wednesday, our last scheduled plenary meeting before dissolution, I, therefore, seek the Assembly’s agreement to the suspension of Standing Order 42(1).

Following a great deal of work by the Justice Committee and the Assembly, the legislative passage of the Justice Bill is nearly complete. We do not want that work to be wasted by one clause being incompatible with Community law and therefore taking the Bill outside the legislative competence of the Assembly and preventing it obtaining Royal Assent. It is, therefore, essential that we amend the Bill to bring it within our competence and complete its passage on Wednesday. I trust that I will have the Assembly’s support for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow that to take place.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 39(1) and 42(1) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Justice Bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call on the Minister of Justice, Mr David Ford, to move the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill.

Moved. — [The Minister of Justice (Mr Ford).]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members will have received a copy of the Marshalled List, which provides details of the single amendment tabled. The amendment seeks to render clause 104 compatible with EU law by clarifying that the supervising firearm certificate holder in the clause must be over the age of 18. I remind Members intending to speak that they should address their comments only to the amendment. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 104 (Restrictions on use of shotguns by young persons)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move the following amendment: In page 63, line 21, after “is” insert

“over the age of 18 and”.

As the House is aware from my comments a few minutes ago, the amendment has been drafted to bring clause 104 of the Bill back within the competence of the Assembly. Clause 104 was inserted by way of an amendment tabled by Lord Morrow at Further Consideration Stage. Although I opposed the amendment, the Assembly voted that it should be made to the Bill.

Clause 104 allows for the removal of restrictions on sporting shooting of shotguns for young persons. It allows someone who is under 18 to use a shotgun on private land or in an approved place under the supervision of a firearms certificate holder who possesses the shotgun. Members will recall that Lord Morrow argued that that would help young people to develop skills in the sport of shooting.

The competence issue occurs where a firearms certificate holder may themselves be 16 or 17 years old. That can occur in a small number of cases under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, whereby a young person aged between 16 and 18 may be granted a firearms certificate for the purposes of pest control or the protection of livestock on specified agricultural land, in which case the young person may be unsupervised. The intention of that latter provision is to permit a young person to assist on a family farm. Therefore, under clause 104 as currently drafted, a 16- or 17-year-old could, by virtue of holding a valid firearms certificate, supervise another person aged under 18 to shoot a shotgun. That might not be a difficulty where the possession occurs within an approved target shooting centre, but it would be a problem where the possession occurs on private land. In that circumstance, it would not be compatible with EU law. A European directive states that a person aged under 18 can only use a shotgun under parental permission or guidance, under the guidance of an adult with a valid firearms or hunting licence or within a licensed or otherwise approved training centre.

The amendment that I propose adds the requirement that an individual supervising a young person shooting a shotgun must be over the age of 18 as well as being a firearms certificate holder. Legal advice I have received on the matter indicates that that will bring the clause back within the competence of the Assembly. The amendment has been drafted to ensure that the clause is compliant with EU law and meets the intention of the Assembly at Further Consideration Stage.

Given the competence concerns relating to the clause that the Assembly’s legal team and the Attorney General expressed, I urge the Assembly to accept the amendment, to bring clause 104 back within competence and to achieve the Assembly’s intention as it was at Further Consideration Stage.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have said all that I want to say on this legislation. I understand why the Minister is back in the House, and I accept what has been said and why this has been done. However, I must emphasise that I am not doing that because I am, in any way, a Europhile. This is another example of those interfering EU directives that seem to probe into every facet and aspect of our lives and that we do not seem to have any say over. As I said, I understand why the Minister has come back to the House, why we are discussing the clause and the manner in which it has been done. Therefore, without further ado, I will stop, lest I might in some way give Europe some credibility that it certainly does not deserve.

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

I support the Minister’s amendment to clause 104. It is right and proper that the House supports the amendment, so that a deficiency in the legislation that the Office of the Speaker detected can be rectified. I assume that that deficiency is being rectified on the advice of the Attorney General as well. It is a happy coincidence that the House received both advices that will allow it to put right this defective piece of legislation.

At Further Consideration Stage, I expressed some unhappiness at Lord Morrow’s amendments. I felt that, irrespective of their merits, the amendments should not have been processed in the manner in which they were. I think that I was right in saying that. With the foresight that we had then, one was uncomfortable with the amendments, and, with hindsight, I now regard this particular amendment as foolhardy. This is not simply some technical problem introduced by the European Union; it is common sense that a young person of 16 or 17 should not be in a position to supervise another minor, which, as I understand it, would be the position if the amendment were not agreed. That goes to a point of substance rather than to a point of technicality, and it reinforces the original point that we should carefully scrutinise legislation in the House, particularly in Committee. It is important to re-emphasise that point.

We can all make mistakes, and we, as legislators, should be mindful of the duty and responsibility that we have for the health and safety of the public, particularly where firearms are concerned. I know that the firearms in question are not used intentionally to cause any injury or, God forbid, some fatality, but firearms are dangerous even in the strictest circumstances and under supervision. Therefore, we should be very vigilant and very careful when we address firearms legislation. In this instance, I do not think that we dealt with it either properly or carefully enough. However, the deficiency in the legislation was discovered in a timely fashion, and, on behalf of my party, I am happy to support the Minister’s amendment.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I, too, support the amendment. I will pick up on what Mr Maginness said: the system is working in rectifying the matter, but it goes without saying that this has been a very close shave. No doubt, there are procedural lessons that perhaps the Committee on Procedures may wish to reflect on for the next mandate, lest something such as this should happen again. This is a general comment and is not specific to the amendment. No matter how much effort goes in during the build-up to legislation, whenever amendments are proposed towards the latter stages, particularly given the bottleneck that we are in at the moment, there is always a risk of drafting issues. However, we found it, and we have the opportunity to rectify it today.

I do not want to go into the merits or otherwise of Europe except to say that I support Europe and see benefits from the guidance that the Commission and wider European law provides in what we are doing. However, irrespective of your view on Europe, this comes down to one issue: it is the law, and we have to ensure that what the Assembly does as a devolved regional legislature is compliant with the wider legal framework in which we operate. We are not masters in this matter, and we are complying with that requirement. The merits of what we are doing also make sense and tend to reflect what happens in other walks of life with respect to whether it is suitable for children to supervise other children. That is the only consistent way we can do things, so I am happy to support the amendment.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am grateful for the support from the three Members who spoke. For once in this House the Europhiles outnumber the Euro-sceptics by three to one, which can be only a good step forward.

As I outlined, the amendment was tabled simply to make the required change with the minimum possible impact on the intention of the House when it added that clause. I notice that Lord Morrow, who proposed the original amendment, accepts the reasoning behind the amendment, whether or not he is in the Europhobe minority.

As Alban Maginness highlighted, what we have seen at this stage is good, co-operative close working between my legal team and your legal team, Mr Speaker. Indeed, as Mr Maginness highlighted, the Attorney General has also been involved in helping to ensure that the amendment is entirely competent and meets the requirements of the House. I am grateful for Mr Maginness’s support and that of my colleague Stephen Farry in recognising that and the necessity that matters are dealt with correctly.

I was surprised at the lack of speakers. I would have thought that at least one member of the Ulster Unionist Party could have seen fit to make some sort of contribution. Perhaps they realise that they need to hit the election trail suddenly, I do not know. However, I read with considerable interest a press statement issued by the normally voluble Mr Basil McCrea in which he referred to what he described as the news that the Attorney General had to intervene to warn the Justice Minister of the contents of the Bill, which I think that you and I will agree is a completely erroneous statement, Mr Speaker. He also said:

“it appears that some people don’t appreciate that in this Assembly we are no longer playing at politics but actually making laws”.

I was fully aware of that. That was why, when the issue of the one-for-one exchange of shotguns, also proposed by Lord Morrow, came forward at Consideration Stage, I asked him not to proceed at that point so that we could ensure that that clause was competent at Further Consideration Stage. That was an example of the use of the procedures of the House carrying through correctly.

Unfortunately, what we saw was that this late amendment at Further Consideration Stage was not competent. However, I take it ill when a Member issues a press release criticising the Minister and his officials and does not have the gall to turn up in the Chamber this afternoon having made a completely erroneous statement. He and his colleagues did not express any dissent from the clause at Further Consideration Stage.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened intently to what the Minister has said and accept his words of congratulations on getting the amendments onto the statute book. However, I remind the Minister that Mr McCrea is not the only one who has been abused in the House, because another Minister was brought to the attention of the House this morning for abusing its procedures. He also did not have the courtesy to come into the House to take his place and take his medicine. I am talking about the Social Development Minister, just in case anyone is wondering.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am very conscious that we need to get back to the amendment.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will try to stick to the content of the Bill and comments that are directly related to the clause that is the subject of the amendment. However, in the absence of Mr McCrea, who is clearly hanging his head in shame elsewhere, there is little point in making any further points about him.

When a problem arose, at least Lord Morrow had the grace to accept that we were seeking to work things out as best we could. We have dealt with that problem in a positive and effective way between the Department of Justice and the Assembly officials, under your direction, and with the assistance of the Attorney General and some Members. It ill behoves other Members to go in for cheap electioneering when they could be here dealing with the real substance of the Bill.

That said, it is clear that the mind of the House, or at least the mind of those who have bothered to attend this afternoon, is that the clause should be amended to make it compliant with the EU directive. Whether the Euro-phobes or the Euro-philes win other arguments, at least we are all agreed on that this afternoon. I hope that we can now formally approve the amendment so that we can proceed to the Bill’s Final Stage on Wednesday.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Civil Registration Bill [NIA 20/07] do now pass.

The Civil Registration Bill, which comprises 35 clauses and two schedules, was introduced to the Assembly on 24 June 2008. That was followed by a process of scrutiny and debate, which has proved to be extremely thorough and productive. I record my gratitude, first, to the Chairperson and former Chairpersons and the members and former members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for their work in considering the Bill. Secondly, I thank all other Members for their contributions at the previous stages of the Bill’s passage.

The Bill is important and necessary legislation that will modernise the civil registration system in Northern Ireland so as to provide a service that meets the needs and expectations of today’s society. The provisions in the Bill include measures to: provide greater choice and more flexibility in registering life’s events; improve service delivery through a much wider use of IT; provide the choice of additional types of certificates, that is to say commemorative certificates and abbreviated death certificates; allow electronic sharing of registration information with Government Departments and nominated organisations; and allow greater public access to civil registration records to facilitate genealogical inquiry.

I tabled 15 amendments to the Bill at its Consideration Stage. No other amendments were tabled by Members, which just shows that they can change their minds. The Bill places no additional financial burdens on public expenditure in Northern Ireland.

I thank Members, in anticipation of their support, for ensuring that this important Bill clears its Final Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.