Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 November 2011

330 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Speaker’s Business

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

Mr Paul Givan has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The petition that is being presented today has come as a result of the draft proposal issued by the South Eastern Education and Library Board to close the mainstream part of Knockmore Primary School. Since that proposal was announced, it has generated a public outcry and has united that school and community even further, if it was at all possible to have even greater unity in Knockmore Primary School.

The primary school is a model of inclusion and integration of children of all educational abilities and religious beliefs, and the proposal to close the mainstream school in isolation segregates the school and fails to consider the indisputable impact on the 66 children in the special units. As a result, a petition was launched, and the public have demonstrated their outrage at what has been suggested.

In September, the Education Minister said:

“we must make sure that we support children with special educational needs”. — [Official Report, Vol 66, No 5, p260, col 1].

At Knockmore Primary School, they do exactly what the Minister said in the House in September. Therefore, the Department and the board should be proud of what they have achieved at Knockmore Primary School, and, quite rightly, in March this year, they agreed a restructuring of the special units and recommended that capacity should be increased because of the good practice and quality of teaching that takes place in those special units. As recently as this year, the inspectorate’s report said that the provision of education for children with special needs is very good and, across the school, ranges from good to outstanding, yet this school is faced with potential closure.

This proposal is wrong in that it comes ahead of the ministerial viability audit that the Education Minister has recently announced. What is needed is a comprehensive assessment for that catchment area, which would provide a proper evidence base on which to take sound decisions for that part of Lisburn.

The deliberate manipulation of enrolment figures for Knockmore Primary School, which segregates a school that is truly integrated, is what is driving this particular agenda, through a statistical analysis by the South Eastern Education and Library Board. The board is trying to create something that the school has never been. It has always been united and integrated. For the board to segregate it in such a fashion is unacceptable. Financially, the school has a surplus, which is projected to remain for the next three years. Therefore, there is no financial driver for the proposal.

In conclusion, the petition highlights how the partnership arrangement between the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and the board has worked. The board and the trust have an agreement that states that they are committed jointly to a continuous process of co-operation and partnership. They have not done that in this case.

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

The Member will have to draw his remarks to a close.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The petition demonstrates that what is needed is for commissioners to back off and allow the school to continue to provide educational excellence. The 9,000 people who have signed the petition are saying, “Leave our school alone. Let the children be given the best opportunity to progress, which they deserve”.

Mr Givan moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

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

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Education.

Ministerial Statement

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

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the thirteenth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in environment sectoral format, which was held in NSMC headquarters in Armagh on Friday 21 October 2011.

The Minister for Regional Development, Mr Kennedy, and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting, which I chaired. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Phil Hogan TD, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. The statement has been agreed by Minister Kennedy.

The Council welcomed ongoing developments in waste management. It also welcomed the closer working relationship between Departments to align policies where appropriate in areas of mutual benefit. Ministers received presentations on arrangements for dealing with food waste, including organic waste, where there are opportunities to do more on an all-Ireland basis given our mutual schemes.

The Council noted that environment Ministers launched the ‘Irish Recycled Plastic Waste Arisings Study’ jointly in September. The North/South market development steering group will now consider it. As I said to the House previously, only 30% of plastic waste on the island of Ireland is recycled. Of that 30%, only 30% is recycled on the island of Ireland. Those figures are not good. Clearly, there is a challenge for both Administrations to do more in that regard. The Council also noted the recent publication of a tender for a bulky waste reuse management best practice study and the first meeting of the quality protocols subgroup.

Ministers also welcomed ongoing progress towards implementing the EU landfill directive. The Council also noted that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is willing to engage with the Department of the Environment (DOE) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider current restrictions in the UK plan with regard to cross-border, trans-frontier, shipment-of-waste movements of mixed municipal solid waste from Northern Ireland to Ireland. That is an important matter. We have an unusual situation in which untreated waste can be moved from Belfast to Bristol but cannot be moved from Newry to Meath. There is some contradiction and tension therein, which could be interrogated further and worked through satisfactorily.

The Council welcomed the ongoing co-operation and sharing of experience between the DOE and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in the development of the DOE’s carrier bag levy project. I acknowledge the assistance of the Dublin Administration, as they have had longer, good experience of reducing the number of single-use and reusable bags and generating useful funds for central government. The model of practice in Dublin may be of assistance as we develop our model of practice here in Northern Ireland.

The Council noted that the removal of waste from a site at Ballymartin near Kilkeel was nearing completion and that work was expected to commence on a further site, if possible, later this year. Since the statement was agreed with Minister Kennedy, work at the Ballymartin site has been completed, and it is expected that initial work on the site on the Belfast Road, Newry will be taken forward in the very near future.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) is continuing to develop plans to deal with the remaining illegal waste sites, of which there were 13 in total, and is working closely with its counterparts in Dublin City Council. Ministers discussed and commended the joint enforcement actions being conducted by the competent authorities. Those actions are ongoing and, indeed, in the very recent past, the authorities, North and South, conducted joint enforcement action on illegal waste issues.

Ministers noted that the North/South working group on water quality is considering a range of water quality issues, including abstraction and impoundment controls, nitrates, shellfish waters, bathing waters, the scope for all-Ireland beach awards and INTERREG IVa projects, with a view to the formulation of a work programme for agreement at a future meeting.

The Council noted that the North/South working group on water quality is continuing to drive and to oversee the co-ordinated implementation of river basin management plans and associated measures under the EU water framework directive.

Environmental reporting and research issues were also touched on, and all three Ministers welcomed the ongoing work on a common set of environmental indicators, including web-based presentation and the planned publication of ‘Ireland North and South: A Statistical Profile’, which should be in place next year.

The Council noted progress by NIEA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in taking forward joint actions on research to support the implementation of environmental policy and legislation and welcomed further co-operation in supporting researchers seeking European funding for priority environmental research under the EU seventh framework programme (FP7), INTERREG and LIFE+ programmes.

That latter point is crucial, given that we all now acknowledge the scale of European funding, which is €50 billion for FP7, and other environmental funding under different programmes. The opportunities to exploit simply have not been taken by the Department and the Northern Ireland Government. We have a lot to learn quickly from our colleagues in the South. They have the inside track when it comes to European funding and have created architecture in government to maximise the opportunities to draw down funding. There are issues, and we need urgently to learn lessons for the residue of FP7 and for when eighth framework programme (FP8) commences in 2014. That six-year programme has €80 billion of funds available for research and development and innovation.

The Council agreed to hold the next environment meeting in February 2012.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee welcomes the Minister’s statement, and we are very pleased to hear that co-operation on environmental issues has been not only productive but very constructive. We hope that that will continue in the future. Will he confirm that when more responsibility for dealing with fly-tipped waste is passed back to the councils, they will not be required to deal with any hazardous waste?

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

I thank the Member for her question. As she rightly identified, constructive work is done on the environment on a North/South basis. That is why I find it increasingly frustrating that the St Andrews review of North/South mechanisms that was initiated in early 2007 has yet to publish its phase 1 report on existing North/South implementation bodies and co-operation. It is also frustrating that it has barely started, if at all, its phase 2 report on identifying opportunities for North/South developments going forward.

So, here we are in the eye of an economic storm, the scale of which we still do not know, given developments in Europe and beyond. Yet, opportunities to scope, identify and take forward North/South co-operation on a whole range of initiatives have barely been touched. If we cannot get our act together and get through the political fog that those North/South opportunities throw up, future generations on the island, both North and South, will live with the adverse consequences. It is a matter that needs to be addressed, and I am asking my Executive colleagues, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and the leadership of the Irish Government, now that we have a new Irish Government, not to waste a further moment. A moment will arise this Friday when we will have a further meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in Armagh, where those matters will have to be taken forward.

The Member identified that under recent contaminated lands legislation, new requirements for fly-tipping will be laid down. However, it is already the case that councils have significant responsibilities in the disposal of materials that have been identified in, for example, fuel laundering. So, councils already have responsibilities that will be extended to fly-tipping, as opposed to those areas of existing concern. However, it is clear that when it comes to working with councils on hazardous waste, the best advice and assistance will be provided to them to ensure that risks are mitigated.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I refer him to the item in the statement that deals with the repatriation of waste. It obviously highlights the particular advance that has been made on the Ballymartin site at Kilkeel. Can the Minister give us any update on the timescale for the full removal of the remaining 13 or 14 sites and whether there has been any progress on speeding that process up?

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

I thank the Member. I am pleased that he acknowledged the work at Ballymartin. That clean-up concluded at the end of October. Over 20,000 tons of waste and nearly 500 tons of leachate were removed. Fortunately, in that case, no chemical or hazardous waste was identified on the site. The task was immense, if at least less perilous, given that that no chemical or hazardous waste was identified. As I indicated, work on the Belfast Road, Newry site is due to commence in the near future. I know what the time frame for that is, but I do not want to comment further on it. However, I hope that during this calendar year, the waste at that site will be addressed.

I cannot recall off the top of my head, but I think that the original time frame for the repatriation of illegal waste at the 13 sites in the North of Ireland was up to 10 years. However, I will check that for the Member. That time frame has been agreed under a framework agreement between the Belfast Administration and Dublin, which, in this instance, is represented by Dublin City Council. That is the authority that is dealing with the Department of the Environment on this matter. There is no indication that there has been any slippage of that time frame, which may be implicit in the Member’s question, given that that arose in another significant North/South project in the past number of days. Hopefully, more certainty will be created in that matter going forward.

I refer to previous answers that I have given on the Floor. The time frame that was originally indicated continues to be that by which we will be judged. If there is any contrary time frame, I will come back to the Member.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he share some of the experiences, to which he referred in his statement, in relation to the carrier bag levy? Will he also indicate when he proposes to introduce that levy? What projects or legislation will be held up in the interim if the levy is not introduced?

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

It may not have leaked out yet, but, then again, those things are not meant to happen around the Executive table. Last Thursday, the Executive agreed to further legislation on carrier bags because the original legislation, which was passed earlier this year by the Assembly, had a limited mandate in that it was for single-use carrier bags. As we all know from shopping, reusable carrier bags are now commonplace. The evidence afforded to me confirmed that if we proceed as we will do — I will explain that in a second — with the single-use carrier bag levy, there will probably be a displacement. Rather than pay whatever amount for a single-use carrier bag, customers would choose to purchase a reusable bag at a slightly higher price.

The consequence of that would be that the intended revenue stream to government under the carrier bag legislation would not be realised, nor would the intended and more primary environmental considerations; namely, to reduce the number of carrier bags in circulation. The Executive agreed last week that further legislation would be brought to the Assembly, which would extend the carrier bag levy to all categories of carrier bags, single-use and reusable. It may well be that, in the fullness of time, by way of regulation, certain bags would be exempted. Those used by chemists, or by butchers for meat, may not be subject to the carrier bag levy, but that is for another day.

Independent of that, in order to create greater rigour around the law, I advised my Executive colleagues, and they, with a little hesitancy from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, agreed that the proposal in the original legislation that was passed earlier this year would still proceed independently of the new legislation on multiple-use carrier bags. The consequence of that is that the levy scheme for single-use carrier bags is intended to be in place by the 2013-14 financial year. The consultation to be concluded in respect of all that will provide a direction of travel towards that outcome.

There are still issues to be resolved. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is not being helpful to the devolved Administration in relation to the collection of that levy. It would be a simple matter for HMRC to use a computer programme to collect the carrier bag levy once it is introduced in the 2013-14 financial year. The Minister of Finance and Personnel is working with me to prevail upon HMRC to collect that revenue stream on behalf of the Northern Ireland Government going forward, but, at the moment, it is showing some resistance. There are major managerial, logistical and operational issues around the levy scheme, but I have created certainty around the single-use carrier bag levy scheme, and I hope to create certainty, through new legislation, around reusable bags as well.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am glad that we are going to have a chance to discuss what we are going to do about the carrier bag levies. However, I would like to ask about water quality. I am under the impression that we are not likely to meet our EU targets. I wonder whether the Minister had a chance to discuss best practice in ensuring water quality improvements with his North/South Ministerial Council colleagues and whether any actions on best practice were forthcoming from the meeting.

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

On the current pattern, we will be able to comply with the requirements of EU water directives. However, it may have been hinted at in the question that new EU water directives will be coming down the track in 2016. Whatever the standards that we lived by and were faithful to heretofore, the standards going forward are going to be more rigorous.

One reason why I convened water and beach summits over the past few months was to make the Government and those who have an interest in these matters acutely aware that although we should be doing more in the current phase to address water quality, we need to get together to discuss future demands on water quality.

The consequence of all that is that some of our beaches that attain a high status for beach water quality would fail on the far side of 2016. The consequence of the new water directive is that more demanding requirements may be made of the North in respect of septic tanks. As was touched on during Question Time last week, we, unlike in the South, have a good regime in place. Unlike in the South, we are not likely at this stage to be on the wrong side of infraction proceedings because of issues around septic tanks. I am acutely aware of the issue. There was a TV programme the other day on which a specialist was talking about global water issues. Basically, the issues are that some do not have enough, and although the West may have enough, there is an issue with quality.

As the Member will be aware, good work has been done between the North and the South on water quality. The river basin management strategies are evidence that now that the South and the North have strategies in place for all relevant river basins, we are working in a much more co-ordinated way. Ultimately, issues around the environment, water, wind and wave are such a shared and common resource and opportunity that the more that we work together and integrate what we are doing, the better that we will all be.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he give us some indication as to what plans he has for the further integration of waste policies and tell us about any discussions that he may have had in that regard with his counterpart in the rest of the country?

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

I thank the Member for his question. That is an example of how, if we can cut through the politics around North/South, the potential future opportunities are nearly unparalleled for any North/South developments. What should we be looking at? We are about to review our waste management strategy in the North. In taking forward a new waste management strategy, we should learn from best practice on these islands and identify opportunities for doing things together on this island. I previously advised the House of a joint North/South study on the use of plastic recyclates. As I said in my opening remarks, there is a quite disturbing figure when it comes to plastic recycling on the island of Ireland: we recycle only 30% of what we could, and 70% goes into landfill. Of the 30% that is recycled, only 30% is recycled on the island of Ireland, with 70% getting exported. There are opportunities on the island of Ireland to recycle plastics more and to recycle higher numbers of plastics that get recycled more. Work is being done, arising from ‘The Irish Recycled Plastic Waste Arisings Study’, to identify where there might be commercial or business opportunities on a North/South basis to deal with plastics.

When it comes to food, we intend, in the next number of months, to launch a programme about how the hospitality sector disposes of food and packaging waste. Much more could be done in that regard.

That should be done on an all-Ireland basis, because the Republic of Ireland has a green hospitality scheme that deals with the issue of food and packaging waste, and, clearly, there are opportunities for one to learn from the other to deploy best practice and to integrate where possible. Those are just three examples of the scale of the opportunity to take North/South action on recycling, waste disposal and waste management generally.

As we roll out the procurement strategy through the three procurement groups for the three sets of councils, in all likelihood, there will a need for some interim measures. As those procurements develop and get built and commissioned, in order to comply with EU directives, there may be some opportunity to dispose of some of our waste through mechanisms in the South. Ultimately, when the procurement plants are all commissioned, there may be greater opportunities on a North/South basis for trade in waste that cannot be disposed of in any other manner.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I shall draw the Minister back to item 8. Can he expand on the problems due to the present restrictions on cross-border movement of mixed municipal waste from Northern Ireland to Southern Ireland?

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

I thank the Member for that question. As I indicated in my opening remarks, given that we are, for now, separate jurisdictions, movements from the North to the South are deemed to be transnational or trans-boundary in nature. The consequence of that is that there are European requirements that do not allow untreated municipal waste to move from one jurisdiction to another without a scale of treatment being applied to that waste before it goes across the border. Given that we are, for now, a member of the United Kingdom, that rule does not apply. That is why I was able to say that you can move untreated municipal waste from Belfast to Bristol or from Newry to Norwich, but, if you were to move waste from Newry to Meath — a plant is under construction for the disposal of waste in Meath — it would require to be treated. The scale of treatment is not necessarily that demanding, but some level of treatment is required to ship waste between the North and the South.

It is a difficult issue, and, although we might look for an opportunity to accommodate the disposal of waste and waste management generally on a North/South basis, it will escalate to a European-wide basis. Because you are dealing with so many member countries of the EU, what might be a local remedy for an Irish problem may not be the right remedy for a European problem. Nonetheless, we are looking at, interrogating and scoping out the issue and seeing whether something can be done.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I also thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, your statement focused on illegal waste, but have any opinions been expressed on waste that was not deposited illegally? I am thinking particularly of Ballymena Borough Council. It was, at a time, issuing its own licence to lay waste in lands, and that waste has now caused contamination. More should be done about the borough councils to prevent the outfall of that being put upon the landowners.

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

That matter has not been flagged up before, and I am not aware of the situation in Ballymena. I am aware of situations around the North, including my constituency, where, in my view, the then local and regional government managed issues of waste disposal very casually. That may have led to contaminants being part of landfill. There was not sufficient regulation of how water and leachate came off those lands. I am not aware of the particular circumstances, but I will look at them. However, I am aware of other circumstances where the management of waste did not, in my judgement, live up to the standards that were necessary. That is why, as I have said on the Floor previously, I have advised officials that we will have a robust and, at times, uncompromising approach to the enforcement of environmental requirements when it comes to the application or removal of licences.

Without going into detail — these are live issues — there have been examples of consistent and absolutely best practice and the proper interpretation of licence conditions. There are businesses in the North that now know that there is a more rigorous and robust approach to ensure that the right standards are complied with when it comes to environmental law and environmental licences. If there are issues with respect to Ballymena, I would welcome hearing more from the Member.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. You referred to the waste management companies in one of your answers. Are you committed to maintaining the three large waste companies that we have, or would you, perhaps, move to one large company or another alternative? If you are minded that way, what would the future be for the large companies already in place to deal with waste?

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

I accept the argument that, although we may continue the good progress made in waste management and recycling in recent years, where there is a healthy story to be told, when the Programme for Government comes out, hopefully we will see a much more challenging target for recycling objectives in the lifetime of this Government and the period up to 2020-25.

Ultimately, however, I accept that, whatever the direction of travel may be for waste being recycled, there will be a need for alternative disposal. That is why we have procurement going on in respect of the three companies reflecting the 26 councils in the North. I am highly vigilant around that procurement process. It runs into hundreds of millions of pounds and stretches out over the next 25 years. Therefore, councils that are members of the three procurement groups and central government must be absolutely satisfied that all affordability and deliverability hurdles will be jumped.

I had a meeting with the waste management board just last week, at which the three procurement groups were represented, as well as their council sponsors. I made it very clear that I would continue to be rigorous and robust on the standards of affordability and deliverability. Although the direction of travel remains positive and the three procurement groups have moved at somewhat different paces, all three are nonetheless moving in a positive direction. I will robustly interrogate all that to ensure that the outcome reflects our waste needs, represents value for money and a price that the community and ratepayers in the North can afford and is deliverable with regard to planning and wider management issues.

I have said publicly that we need to see a single waste authority some time down the road. There has been scoping done on that. I have advised the procurement groups and the waste management board that that is my view. I believe that that is the right direction of travel. It will provide a more cohesive and co-ordinated approach to waste management strategy and produce efficiencies and better value for money. However, that is for another day, although that day may not be that far away. The issue for today is making sure that the three procurement groups fulfil the standards of affordability and deliverability. On that matter, I am sure there is a lot more to tell.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Further to his last answer, will the Minister outline what perceived benefits would come from a single waste authority? Will he also recognise that there is concern in the community that, of the existing three groups in the procurement process that is being followed, the ratepayers may not get the advantage or benefits that they should if the new contracts are being negotiated as of now rather than five years ago?

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

I thank both him and the Member who asked the previous question because, given the scale of the issues — the hundreds of millions of pounds that are involved, the length of the contracts and all the factors that I outlined previously — this really is a matter that requires vigilance at government level and at Assembly and Committee level. I very much welcome the questions and encourage more interrogation of me and by me when it comes to this entire project.

The reason for that is self-evident. When I was in DSD, there were 33 housing associations. I indicated that, given the particular character of local identities and housing needs in the North, there should be between 10 and 15 housing associations to best manage housing association stock and newbuilds. That would also reflect the need for better efficiency and greater value for money. I hope that that work is ongoing in DSD as I speak.

Similarly, with respect to RPA, people will be aware that I believe the right number of councils for the North is 15. That number reflects local identity and loyalties, and it is a good model for the future, given the indicative savings under the ICE programme. It is also more consistent with the number of Westminster constituencies that we will have. For good reasons, 15 councils reflects what we need in the North and the need for efficiency and value for money.

Similarly, with the waste authority, whilst the three procurement groups were a consequence of issues in politics a number of years ago, it seems to me that the better model is a single authority. I am not going to do anything at the moment that would in any way impede the work of the three procurement groups. However, on the far side of that and perhaps sooner rather than later, this is a matter that we need to address and conclude.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister was anxious to assure us that there has been no slippage in the repatriation of waste to the Republic. However, if we examine his statement today and compare it with his parallel statement of just two months ago, there demonstrably has been slippage. He told us in September that work was expected to commence on the further two sites in Ballymartin in August —that was taken from the July statement of the North/South body — on a site north of Newry in early September 2011 and on 13 sites further down the line. Yet, today, he tells us that work has been completed on only one of the sites at Ballymartin, the second one has not even been mentioned and there is some vague aspiration of starting work at Newry, which was meant to start in September. There has been slippage. Why has there been slippage in such a short period? Does that not bode ill for the overall plan of dealing with the outstanding repatriations?

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

I thank the Member for his question, which confirms, on the one hand, that you should beware the lawyer’s mind but, on the other, listen carefully to the politician’s words. The words that I used were “expected to commence”, because there are inevitable circumstances beyond the control of the Minister or government that can lead to difficulties with a site. For example, the Member will be aware that issues around farming, such as slurry spreading, over the past number of months have become more uncertain because of the weather. There are interventions beyond the control of government that lead to having to revise how you do a bit of political business.

Similarly, in respect of repatriation of waste from sites, I was cautious in saying “expected to commence”, because the principle on which we are moving forward is that we do not work on more than one site at a time. That is good practice because, when people began to dig at Ballymartin, we did not know if they might discover chemical hazardous waste. If there were material on the site that would put people at risk or peril, the management of that site might become somewhat different. Moreover, the scale of what you discover at any one site means that you have to manage it over a slightly longer period. Therefore, when I used the words “expected to commence”, I meant that we expected the work at the Newry site to commence in September. There has been some slippage, but not in the commitment that, subject to what people find when they start digging up that ground shortly, the repatriation of waste from the Belfast Road site in Newry is expected to commence and be completed in this calendar year. If that changes further because of circumstances beyond my control, I will alert Members, but I think that I have lived up to the principle that the work was expected to commence, albeit that I note the lawyer’s mind.

Committee Business

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members called to speak will have five minutes.

The Speaker has received a letter from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to say that, due to her attendance at an EU Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels today, she is unable to be present and junior Minister Anderson will respond to the motion on her behalf.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the latest announcement by the European Commission on financial corrections to be levied against the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; expresses concern about the potential effect on the Executive’s Budget; and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a full and urgent report to the Assembly on the extent of the financial corrections, the actions she is taking to address the issue of non-compliance and how, when and by whom these moneys will be repaid.

Before I deal with the content of the motion tabled in the name of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I want to acknowledge that Minister O’Neill is unable to be present to respond to the debate because she is in very important discussions in Brussels. Alongside counterparts from Scotland and Wales, she is meeting the EU Agriculture Commissioner to discuss the CAP reform proposals. She is also meeting the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Caroline Spelman MP. It is good to see our Minister pushing our views in a UK sense. Hopefully, she will push our agenda on future CAP reform along with that of the UK. I welcome that and the fact that junior Minister Anderson will respond on behalf of the Minister and the Executive.

The Committee was prompted to table the motion because of an announcement by the European Commission on 18 October 2011 that requires the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to pay back another £4 million pounds. The first component of the motion reflects that, and the second part invites the Assembly to express its concern about the potential effect on the Executive’s Budget.

There has been much speculation about the total amount of money involved, some of which may be unhelpful or inaccurate. However, it is clear that, even before the latest announcement, Northern Ireland had already incurred fines and disallowances of more than £60 million for administering farming subsidies incorrectly as long ago as 2005. Last month, the Committee questioned officials about the sums involved and did not get very satisfactory answers. There is no doubt that that led to the state of confusion that we are in today. The Committee was very concerned about those fines.

I want to draw attention to ‘Financial Auditing and Reporting: General Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland — 2011’, which contains qualified audit opinions on not one but two potential financial corrections that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development included, for the first time, in the 2010-2011 resource accounts as amounts due to be paid to the EU Commission. The report reveals that the Department calculated the risk to the European agriculture fund by examining 1% of single farm payment declarations. In submitting its report to the EU Commission, the Department assessed the risk to be in the range of £11·75 million and £18·38 million for the scheme year 2009. For the scheme year 2010, there has not yet been an EU Commission audit, nor has the Department been asked to calculate the actual risk to the fund for that year. Furthermore, as the Department does not know the Commission’s intentions for 2010 or 2011, it has concluded that it would be premature to include any amounts due for those years in the report submitted to the Commission.

At the meeting at which the Committee questioned officials, there was speculation that, aside from the not insignificant amounts of £60 million and £4 million that we heard about a number of weeks ago, there might be a further £45 million outstanding. How was that £45 million calculated? I believe that someone has taken the midpoint between the £11·75 million and £18·38 million that I mentioned; let us say that that is £15 million. They are basically hedging their bets. If you apply that over three years, you will get a total of £45 million. If that is government accounting, it is not as complicated as I thought. Perhaps the junior Minister will enlighten us today or the Minister will do so when she makes her statement next week. The question that I pose is this: if the Minister and the Department are on top of this, why are they still calculating £15 million year on year? Should it not be £15 million this year, £10 million next year and £5 million the year after? Is the problem getting better or worse?

Minister O’Neill’s predecessor made a statement on disallowance to the House in September 2010. The then Minister said:

“Since April 2005, over €4 billion has been disallowed across the EU”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 55, p223, col 2].

She also said that she had significant concerns about the heavy-handed approach being adopted by the European Commission and that the Commission might be overestimating the risk to public funds. The implication was that the issue was not peculiar to Northern Ireland; and I recognise and accept that fact. However, I believe that, especially in the very unstable financial circumstances prevailing across Europe, the Assembly and the Committee are absolutely right to be concerned about the potential effect that the financial corrections might have on the Executive’s budget.

If we are not entitled to the money in the first place, it is only proper that it is paid back. However, we should not have received the money in the first place. That is why the next part of the motion calls on the Minister to make a full and urgent report to the Assembly on the extent of the financial corrections. The Committee believes that, by bringing a full and urgent report to the Assembly, the Minister will be able to set out precisely how much money will have to be paid back and how much of it is to be returned because of non-compliance or disallowance; the extent of the fines or financial penalties included in the overall amount; and the scheme or schemes that the disallowances have been applied against.

Somewhat bizarrely and even though the disallowances and fines date back to 2005, I am led to believe that no money has yet been repaid. That brings me back to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report. In section 3, he questions the regularity of the Department’s accounts for 2010-11 because it included an amount of £19·4 million as due to be paid in financial corrections:

“to make good the shortfall in EU funding”.

There are rather chilling words at paragraph 3.3.18, where he says that that:

“therefore represents a loss to public funds which falls outside the Assembly’s intentions in relation to the proper administration of EU funding.”

The Comptroller and Auditor General:

“concluded that expenditure has not been applied for the purposes intended by the Assembly and is not in conformity with the authorities which govern it.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Department disagrees with that opinion. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General holds to the view:

“that the losses are irregular as funds have not been applied for the purposes intended.”

I mentioned the figure of £18·3 million for 2009, but I then said that the Department’s accounts for 2010-11 included £19·4 million to be paid back to the EU. I assure Members that I am not involved in some creative accounting to get the figures to go from £18·38 million to £19·4 million. Rather, there is the small case of the second financial correction that I mentioned earlier, which dates back to 2003-04 and relates to the bovine premium scheme. The Department is due to repay £1·01 million. The good news is that that is a one-off financial correction that will not be repeated, as the scheme ended in 2004.

Not unreasonably, the final part of the motion calls on the Minister to report on the actions that she is taking to address non-compliance. I am sure that the junior Minister today and the Minister next week will stress the work that is being done on mapping and inspections, and that is fair enough. However, I return to the Minister’s predecessor, who said in the House last year:

“The Department cannot rule out further corrections in respect of 2009 and later years, although our current work should militate against that.”

Nevertheless, as I said, officials are now calculating corrections of £15 million year on year. The former Minister went on to say:

“We do not expect any Commission decision on disallowance until 2011. Of course, we will seek to minimise it, both by bringing in new measures quickly and through negotiation.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 55, p224, col 2].

I hope that junior Minister Anderson will be able to report specifically on what new measures were brought in, when they were brought in and how effective they have been.

The motion was brought to the House to get clarity on the extent of non-compliance and disallowance, and I want to know how much money will have to be repaid —

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

Bring your remarks to a close, please.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

— when it will be repaid and by whom it will be repaid. I also want to find out, in detail, what has been done —

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

Your time is up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

— what is being done and what remains to be done.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. The issue is a concern. Any issue brought to the Assembly for which fines are incurred from Europe has to be a concern for us all. I would prefer the debate to have been held on a day when the Minister could be here to respond to it, as is the normal practice. Nonetheless, the Committee was concerned about going ahead with the motion today, fully cognisant of the Minister’s absence. I welcome the Committee Chairman’s remarks that the consensus on the Committee was that her attendance in Brussels was important for agriculture here and that that was where she needed to be. I look forward to junior Minister Anderson’s response in her stead.

As I said, this is an issue of concern. The context was the change in the EU’s method of paying grants, which were previously based on production. However, that led to butter mountains and milk lakes. In 2005, that changed to a single payment based on the land area being farmed. That was a huge change for the Department and for farmers right across Europe to administer. The maps that were then available to the Department had been produced by Ordnance Survey, and the eligible land was mapped on to those. That system was developed in 2005, two years before the Executive were reinstated in 2007. Concerns about the mapping exercise were raised by EU officials in 2006. That was disputed by the Department, and it was an ongoing dispute between the Department and the EU until 2007, when the previous Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development came into office. It was 2008 before the matter was elevated to the Minister as a serious problem between DARD and EU officials.

It was known that the change of system would come in in 2005. Therefore, questions must be asked about what preparations DARD made to accommodate the new system and about why, when the EU raised concerns about the maps that DARD was using and the land that it considered to be currently farmed, it took until 2008 to elevate the matter to a serious ministerial concern. I look forward to a response today and, as the Chairperson said, to the Minister’s return next week and a statement on the issue.

It became clear that there was going to be a dispute and, potentially, fines. The Chairperson made reference to why we should pay back the money. That would be fine if we were paying back only the money that we were not entitled to, but we are paying back 5% of £300 million of grants, when the dispute is about only £60 million of grants. The return on that is substantially higher than the overpayment that was incurred. That is an injustice that continues to be challenged through the European courts.

The mapping exercise for some 750,000 fields has begun. It should be brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible because, ultimately, that is the way to end the dispute between DARD and the EU and, subsequently, to engage with the EU. That was the three-pronged approach that was agreed by the Executive, the farming unions, the MEPs and the previous Agriculture Committee: engage with the EU, tell them what we are doing and offset the problems that had arisen. That approach should continue to serve us well as we try to put an end to this problem.

The levy is not confined to here. Levies have been announced for France, Greece and, I think, Spain. This week, a fine of £30 million was announced for Scotland. It is, therefore, a problem that extends across the EU. Nonetheless, our concern is the money that we want to have available to us, and we want to make sure that that is not being spent on fines in the EU. In that regard, we want answers as to why it took so long for DARD to catch on to the problem. We would like to see the urgency with which the issue is being dealt to be displayed in getting the mapping exercise right. We would also like to see continued support across all sectors in letting the EU know that we consider the fines to be disproportionate to the problem that has been created. Furthermore, recognition must be given to the work that has been done, with some degree of urgency over the past number of years, on the substantial exercise of changing the old maps, examining aerial photographs and the remapping of every field across the North for which a subsidy is being claimed. That is the area that we want to focus on.

I look forward to hearing answers today. The Committee is right to raise this as a matter of concern, because we scrutinise the functions of the Department. We want answers, and we want to see the issue being dealt with quickly.

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

Bring you remarks to a close, please.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We want to pull together to make sure that we get the quickest possible solution to the issue. That will enable us to get onto a proper footing with Europe and to put the issue to the side for all time.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I support the motion and the will of the Committee to bring this important issue to the House. A fine in the region of £100 million would be a body blow to Northern Ireland public finances and a bitter pill for our local economy to swallow at any time but especially in the present economic climate. The public will undoubtedly be extremely concerned at the potential scale of the fine that the Executive are facing as a result of DARD’s mismanagement of the single farm payment scheme.

At a time when the Executive are beginning the process of redistributing the £400 million that had been set aside for the A5 project, it is appalling to think that a large chunk of that funding could be paid back to the EU in the form of a fine instead of being put to use to make a real difference across Departments. It could go towards introducing measures to alleviate fuel poverty, especially among pensioners and the most vulnerable, and tackling the inequalities in our preschool system, for instance. A small proportion of the money could go into the agrifood sector, of course, which is one of the few growth areas in our economy. The money would offer massive potential in fuelling job creation and furthering economic growth in that sector. At a time of economic difficulty, we simply cannot afford to hand back money in this fashion.

In her press statement following the announcement of the Committee motion, the Minister said that the issue, which she described as technical and complex, required the co-operation of the farming industry. However, farmers have been co-operating with DARD for years on the issue and, as a result, have been penalised, often through no fault of their own. Their only mistake has been to place their trust in DARD and the farm maps issued by the Department.

DARD’s continued errors in the farm mapping system have led directly to long-running inaccuracies in single farm payments. Farmers are fed up with co-operating with the Department only to be given retrospective fines. I share the concerns of farmers regarding their long-running issues with defective mapping systems, and I understand how their reluctance to engage with the Department and their mistrust of it has developed over the years as it has repeatedly tried and failed to find a solution to the issue.

Members should note that the Department’s new and revised processes place the onus directly on farmers to carefully check their new maps, to identify any errors and to inform DARD. Any potential errors may still be of the Department’s making and could result in farmers once again facing heavy retrospective fines. The Department has not yet arrived at a solution that delivers a wholly accurate mapping system to allow it to correctly manage single farm payments.

Despite working on this issue since 2006, with the secondment of 60 staff from the Planning Service, the Department, through its new land parcel identification system, has yet to find a full and penalty-free solution to this issue. We have now heard that it may be 2013, if not later, before DARD’s maps are totally accurate in the eyes of the EU. I urge this Sinn Féin Minister to do what the previous Minister could not: forge a solution to this long-running failure and put an end, once and for all, to the heavy fines being levied on hard-pressed farmers and the Executive.

When the Minister makes her statement next week, I urge her to give a full and frank assessment of the scale of the fines that the Executive are facing. I also ask her to bring clarity to this issue to ensure that we never again face mounting fines of this scale and nature. The Minister must also identify the financial scale and potential impact of any future disallowances that we expect to cover at the expense of other investments. I support the motion, and I await with interest the Minister’s statement.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas le moltóirí an rúin seo. I thank the proposer of the motion, the Chairperson of the Committee, for bringing this very important issue to our attention.

In support of the motion, the simple fact is that the mapping errors came about because our farmers trusted DARD. They had no reason to question the accuracy of what the Department had told them about the measurements of their fields and holdings, and it was from those DARD-supplied maps that the farmers obtained the acreage that they copied to their first single farm payment application forms. There may have been some inaccuracies at the time, and I am not questioning that. However, I do not agree that farmers should be punished for those original mistakes. I also accept that there is an onus on farmers to ensure that the maps are accurate, but we must get real in some of these instances. Farmers simply do not have the technical instruments required to measure land or fractions of land nor do they have access to the information that satellites provide. DARD officials do have that information; they are provided with apparatus, which, I might add, is paid for by farm-owning taxpayers and which can provide the details and the minute measurements.

Potentially, the fines could top £100 million. We have heard that the Department has accumulated £64 million in fines over a three-period from 2005, and amid fears that they will impose a further £45 million of fines, EU auditors are now looking at the three most recent years. However, the Department has told us that a proactive approach has been taken, and although we are facing fines, the Minister has said that £82 million has been set aside to date. Mrs Dobson correctly asked where that money has come from. Is that money that would have been spent, as she said, on fuel-poverty measures or on our health service? Where would that money have otherwise been spent? Could it have been spent by the Department on flood alleviation schemes or on decentralisation projects that could have benefitted our respective constituencies?

The Chairperson referred to the C&AG report, and I remember sitting in when that report was debated. The report said that £19·4 million had been set aside by the Department, and it suggested that those moneys had not been properly applied for and had been set aside for purposes for which they were not intended. What will be the effect of those fines and the setting aside of moneys to pay for them?

The Minister went on to say that her Department was working proactively. It is unfortunate that the current Minister is not here to provide the detail of how the decision is to be challenged in the courts, but I look forward to the junior Minister telling us what legal clarity has been provided to date. The Department states that it is seeking legal clarity and, indeed, that it is regularly in contact with the European Commission. Those of us seeking to deal with the issue, and who are debating those matters today, are anxious to hear from the Minister what the European Commission is saying about them and what points she has sought to clarify.

If it is the case that the Minister and her Department are proactively addressing the issue, it is surprising that she has appeared to have inherited this whole matter from her predecessor, Minister Gildernew. We want a retrospective account of the proactivity that has taken place. In other words, what has been happening at the Department over the past years if it is only now starting to be proactive? We, the taxpayers and the farmers, will be made to pay the bill for this. Faced with the situation, what did the previous Minister do to resolve it during her tenure? If she has left the issue as a legacy for the current Minister, in what way are we trying to get through it? Other than the occasional media sound bite on the matter, there has been a distinct lack of clarity.

To pursue a legal challenge can also be costly. What stage are legal proceedings at? As I stated previously, I require the Minister to update us on those legal proceedings, legal advice and the degree to which she is bring proactive on them, given that there have been quite a number of years to deal with such matters. At the end of the day, we want to hear how this situation has come about.

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

Will you draw your remarks to a close, please?

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

Go raibh maith agat. We want to know how this situation has come about and the practical detail of how it will be resolved.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I declare an interest as a recipient of the single farm payment. Like other Members, I am extremely disappointed that the Minister is not with us in the Chamber to hear our debate and to answer some pertinent questions. I welcome the presence of junior Minister Martina Anderson, but she will not answer our questions. She will simply stand up to read a prepared script. It will be a very welcome surprise if she can go further than that. I understand, however, that the Agriculture and Rural Development Minister will make a statement on the subject of this debate to the Assembly a week today. Given the fact that she will be a week behind, and knowing our concern, the Minister will have a chance not merely to make a statement but to give real answers to the real questions that we will raise here today.

The Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and others have adequately covered the concerns of Members and expressed the absolute seriousness of this entire debacle. I call it that because it seems to me that, as time goes on, the demand from Europe grows bigger. I simply ask: when is it going to stop? Listeners to the debate will be forgiven for being completely confused by the millions of euro that we are talking about — a million here, four million there, 30 million somewhere else, and it goes on and on.

I understand that this disallowance saga started in January 2010. It started before then, but we were notified in January 2010 of a demand for the repayment — and here I go with more millions — of €34·45 million. On 15 July, the European Commission issued a further list of financial corrections amounting to €33·7 million. That brings us up to €68·15 million. We now face a possible further €45 million fine, which will bring the total to well over €110 million. That is outrageous. It is horrendous. In anybody’s language, such figures are shocking. As the motion reflects, the question is how did we get into this mess in the first place. When will that money be repaid, and, as others have asked, where will the £100 million come from?

In a statement to the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 9 November, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development stated:

“To date we have set aside £82m”

— to which Patsy McGlone referred —

“to deal with the fines up until 2009. None of that money has come out of any frontline service or any department budget.”

She also said that court action had been launched to challenge the fines, along with a massive operation to remap some 50,000 fields. Where will that £82 million come from?

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

I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he will keep me right on this. As I recall, DARD officials informed the Committee that the money to repay the fines would come out of non-spend in the monitoring rounds. That is what I heard them say.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention. Regardless of whether it comes out of non-spend or spend, £82 million will have to come out of somewhere. If it comes out of the Northern Ireland Budget, £82 million that have could be used in loads of other areas will be lost. Northern Ireland simply cannot afford to lose that amount of cash. We all know of many important outstanding local projects that could make good use of even a small proportion of that money.

In conclusion, the ordinary man and woman in Northern Ireland, on hearing of the huge fine, will simply ask why and how those huge errors happened in the first place? Who was responsible and why has no one or no departmental official been apprehended? Could the situation not have been avoided by catching on to what was happening before the auditors in Brussels were forced to impose such colossal fines on Northern Ireland? It most certainly should never happen again. I fully support the motion.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to comment on a very important issue for the farming community in Northern Ireland. I declare an interest in the matter as a farmer who receives a single farm payment. In my opinion, the issue goes right to the heart of the Department’s administration of the single farm payment since its inception in 2005. Mapping inspections and the unacceptably long wait for payments are a never-ending nightmare for farmers. I have lost count of the number of times that I have raised those issues with the Department. Yet, it seems that the process grinds ever slower, no matter how many times the issue is raised or how many promises are made about speeding it up.

From speaking to sources in the Department, I am aware of the fact that that part of DARD’s administration simply is not working. I believe that it is incapable of dealing with the tasks set before it; I do not use those words lightly. I am aware of inspections that were carried out early in the summer that have not yet been entered into the system, even though it is now mid-November. That is an unacceptable situation, and one that the Minister must address immediately. The farming industry is under enough pressure as it is. A message must be registered with the Minister and the Department that every week a payment is delayed is a week of uncertainty for the farmer concerned. The fact that fines are being imposed should not, I feel, reflect poorly on the farming community, which is weighed down with mountains of form filling, red tape and administration, on top of having to manage its animals and crops.

I believe that, in the main, many of the discrepancies were small and the auditors were certainly nitpicking. Having said that, given that I, on behalf of scores of farmers, have had close dealings with the Department on the issue for a number of years, it really does not come as a surprise that we are facing fines potentially worth millions of pounds as a result of investigations by EC auditors. On the one hand, we have the ever-present overzealous hand of Europe, where there are elements of red tape, and on the other hand, we have a Department that remains ill-equipped to administer single farm payments.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not like his choice of language in saying that the Department is “ill-equipped”. I think that it is too well-equipped. As a farmer, surely you accept that most of the farming community would say that the Department is more than well-equipped, given the ratio of officials to farmers. Given that mapping and the number of inspections that the farming community regularly tell us about are the problem, surely the responsibility and the embarrassment lie with departmental officials, and farmers have no hand at all in the issue.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I fully agree with him. That said, however, farmers will not allow themselves to be made scapegoats. That will not happen. As the Member said, the problem lies fairly and squarely with the Department and its lack of preparation in administering the system.

I will give an example. I know for a fact that, some weeks ago, up to 18 members of Veterinary Service staff were transferred to undertake inspections for single farm payments, and they took a training course that lasted a number of weeks. Some 13 or 14 of them had not done four days’ work on single farm payments when they were called back to the Veterinary Service. That whole process of training was a total waste of time as far as DARD was concerned.

The motion refers to how the moneys will be paid and by whom. I am sure that no one in the House today thinks that the agriculture industry should shoulder the burden of the repayments. That would not sit well with the industry.

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, and it is frustrating that she is not in the House today to answer these important questions. The Minister has notified the House that she will respond on 21 November. I look forward to hearing about her plans to address these important matters. Fines are a large issue, but we need real and immediate action by the Minister to ensure that the system is fit for purpose so that further corrections can be avoided.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. At an Agriculture Committee meeting, my party colleagues and I argued against the motion being tabled for today; other Committee members are aware of that. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand why the Alliance Party Member is irate at the Minister not being present today, when he was told that she would not be here today but would be on 21 November. I wonder which meeting the Member was at if he is irate today but was not irate at the Committee meeting.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

No, I will not give way. I am only up on my feet.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way? Will the Member allow a body to reply?

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

No, I will not give way.

The last Member who spoke mentioned his disappointment at the Minister not being here. However, let us be quite clear: the Agriculture Committee knew that the Minister would not be here today. Indeed, I welcome the Chairman’s comment, made with the backing of the Committee, welcoming the Minister being in Europe today, because she is negotiating on fisheries and CAP reform, which is what we want her to do. The debate is turning into finger pointing and speculation, so let us put that issue to bed.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

No, I will not give way. Please give my head peace.

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

Order, please. When it is obvious that a Member will not give way, no Member should persist. Continue.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. In my view, there are two possible reasons for the situation. We must look back to 2005 and ask what and who started all this. There is no point in people shrugging their shoulders and scratching their heads about who started all this. We need to find out who in DARD knew the full extent of the issue. If something in DARD needs to be looked at, let us look at it. [Interruption.] The Member should not point; it is bad manners to point.

We must find out who in DARD introduced this situation and who knew its full extent. We do know that it was only in 2008 that the full extent of it was pushed to the Minister’s door. We all agree that the fines from the Commission are far too high.

At present, we have money set aside to pay £80·6 million, £82 million or whatever the figure is. This is where the alarmism comes in. We hear speculation about £120 million or £130 million. Some of the words that were used here this morning were “could”, “might”, “unfortunate” and “possible”. There was not one word of assurance. We are dealing with speculation. We know that there are fines to pay, but we do not know how much is going to be paid for 2009 and 2010. I hope Members agree that that is all speculative. We heard one of the MEPs on television yesterday going down the same line. We need to be a united Assembly on this issue. If we want the Minister to negotiate these fines, we must be totally behind her, otherwise it sends the wrong message to Europe. These speculative figures give the farming community a bad name.

Members, I would like you all to agree that we have to find out what happened here, and we have to fix it so that it does not happen again. I totally agree with that.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I support the motion. It is regrettable that this Assembly is debating an issue that could see anything up to £100 million in disallowances being paid back to Europe. I have no doubt, as I listen to the debate, that the concern is the detrimental impact that that payback will have on the Executive Budget. It is unfortunate that the Minister, as other folk have said, is not in the House today to answer some of the questions that are being put to her.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not like to correct him, but he was not at the Committee last week when the discussion took place. There was consensus that what the Minister has to do this week is extremely important for the whole agriculture sector. I defend the Minister on that issue; record that if you wish. That is the first point.

The thing that annoys most of us about this — and I am sure that, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, you will agree — is that if this debate had not been tabled in the first place, there never would have been a statement from the Minister. You will accept that this is not a new issue. This problem has been around for months if not years, as we are now hearing. The only thing that triggered the Minister to make a statement next week was the fact that the Committee pushed to have this debate.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention; he is absolutely right. It is an issue that has been rumbling on for a number of years, and had the Committee not taken the initiative to push the Minister and bring a motion before the House today, it would have continued to rumble on and the Minister would not have set aside time next week to come before the House to make a statement.

I am sure that we are all aware that it was small technical discrepancies that led to the huge disallowance, and therefore it is imperative that a proper system is put in place now to minimise or to eradicate any future risk of financial corrections being levied against the Department.

This motion has not been brought to the House by the Agriculture Committee to embarrass or to criticise the Department, but the reality is that the Department must shoulder some of the criticism, some of the responsibility and some of the blame for the situation that we find ourselves in. As I said earlier, this is a matter that has been rumbling on for some considerable time, with the magnitude of disallowance increasing year on year. It is only right and proper that questions are asked of the Department and the Minister on this matter. Why were officials not up to speed with the proper regulations on the delivery of the single farm payment? Is it the case that farmers were not provided with the correct information from the inception of the single farm payment?

The continual drip feed of information to the farming community over the years has contributed to the entire mess. We heard earlier in the debate about the situation with the mapping system for farmers and the whole debacle around that.

However, one of the more pressing issues is the extent of engagement that the current Minister and her predecessor have had with the European Commission in lobbying and negotiating to have the level of disallowance reduced or perhaps completely eradicated. It appears that any engagement or negotiations to date have proved fruitless because the penalties have continued to increase. That is one reason why it is important that the Minister comes before the House and makes a clear and concise statement on this issue.

I know that the Department can and probably will point the finger at other countries on which penalties have been imposed and seek to justify its position in that way and satisfy itself that we are not alone in this situation. Irrespective of the situation other countries find themselves in, the reality is that this Assembly is faced with paying back up to £100 million to Europe. That money would have made a huge difference to our economy in Northern Ireland at this time. Other Members have talked about the difference that it could make in other Departments, and considering the difference that a small amount of that money could make to the agrifood industry, it behoves each of us to ensure that the Minister takes our position seriously, looks at this matter and sets in motion something that will rectify the situation and make sure that it does not happen again.

The Minister must now make a clear statement to the Assembly providing clarity on the severity of the financial contributions. In doing so, it is important that she defines how much is for fines and how much is for penalties.

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

Bring your remarks to a close.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

As well as that, she must take action to address the issue of non-compliance in the future.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

A clear message from this debate to the general public, and the media in particular, is that the farming community and the farmers themselves are not solely responsible for the fines that are being delivered from Europe. A bad misconception is being put out there that mismanagement of EU funding by farmers has caused the fines. So, we need to ask how this has been allowed to happen.

The motion addresses the issue of non-compliance to ensure that fines will not be a recurring theme, but the Commission has already advised that further disallowances for the scheme years 2007, 2008 and 2009 are likely. So this predates our current Minister coming into office, and I acknowledge that she is in Brussels today doing very good work on behalf of the agriculture industry, and I acknowledge that we were aware of that fact in the Committee. Although it predates the current Minister, it does not predate the current departmental officials, and we need to look there if we want to apportion blame or look for answers. In their report, the European Commission auditors identified weaknesses in the way that DARD administered the EU funding schemes. Ladies and gentlemen, there are enough DARD officials, but maybe they are not in the right jobs. Maybe they should be out in the fields and the farmyards, not sitting behind desks dreaming up more schemes and how to implement them.

Last week, a senior official from the Department told the Committee that the penalties in relation to countryside management inspections were due to overzealous inspectors who had given some farmers two weeks to rectify problems but later had to withdraw that instruction because the rectifying of those problems, such as planting trees in the middle of November within two weeks, would have gone against good guidance and common practice.

DARD has a lot to answer for. Mr Murphy said earlier that the Department knew in 2005 that EU funding schemes were changing, and I do not believe that DARD was in a position to administer a new scheme. It is unfair. Officials need further, better training in order to know how to implement those schemes on the ground.

I can cite one example that has been brought to my constituency office. It relates to field boundary restoration work under the countryside management scheme. In the DARD guidance booklet, there is a simple question on how far apart two fence posts need to be in order to meet EU compliance. That is not rocket science. In a single DARD information booklet, however, there are three different regulations as to how far apart those two posts should be. One diagram states that they must be 2·7 metres apart from edge to edge. The written instructions state 2·7 metres from centre to centre. It also states that one can comply with British standard 1722, which allows 3 metres from centre to centre. Therefore, if the Department’s instructions, which it puts in its pamphlets to guide its inspectors, are complicated, an inspector who goes out onto a farm with a measuring tape will not be able to comply with that guidance no matter what measurement he gets, because he will not know what he is supposed to comply with.

I believe that Mr McGlone referred to the mapping issue. Again, DARD states in guidance on its own website:

“To improve on-the-spot checks ortho-photography has been available to inspectors since 2008 and by 2009 all inspections were supported by ortho-photography to ensure that the standard required by the Regulations is observed.”

Inspectors still go out onto farms with plastic wheels to measure farm lengths, fences, gates and hedgerows. Therefore, as Patsy said earlier, if DARD inspectors do not have confidence in the ortho-photography maps that have been given as good guidance, what reassurance do farmers have?

The countryside management scheme and delivery of EU funding programmes have been a steep learning curve. DARD has been doing it since 2005. I would have hoped that it would have got there by now. We talk about future fines that are coming. What concerns me is that we are looking at further greening under the next CAP review. If DARD is not getting it right now, after six years, the Assembly has a lot to worry about and the farming industry has a lot to fear.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development’s motion does not portray some DARD officials as being at all effective and competent.

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

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I hope that, on her return from Brussels, the Minister will show not only that she is fit to challenge officials there but that she has the ability and strength to challenge her officials in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I can assure her that if she does not, the Ulster Unionist members of the Committee will.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will touch briefly upon the need for the debate, as other Members have done. It is an important debate. Differences of opinion related to when it would happen. The motion calls for the Minister to come to the Floor of the Assembly to give a clear statement on the issue. The Committee was made well aware that the Minister would give that statement next Monday. Sinn Féin would have preferred to have seen or heard the Minister’s statement first, and if the Assembly still felt that a debate were needed, it would have had the debate then.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will in a minute.

Earlier, Mr McCarthy said that he was confused and concerned about why the Minister was not in the House, yet he sat in the Committee and agreed that the debate should go ahead even if no Minister were present. I welcome that junior Minister Anderson is here. It could have ended up like the Peter Hain Assembly: we would be sitting here waffling to ourselves. The Member agreed that the Minister’s important business in Brussels would take precedence, and rightly so.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. Week after week, a lot of waffling goes on in the Chamber. Nothing constructive comes out of it. I welcome the work that I hope the Minister is doing in Brussels on behalf of the agricultural community. She will have a week to familiarise herself with all the concerns of Members on this side of the House. There do not seem to be many concerns on that side of the House.

Brother McMullan mentioned the £82 million and waffled it to the side. Does Brother Clarke not agree that the Minister will have an extra week in which to come back to the Chamber to answer the questions to the best of her ability and to satisfy not only us but the people in the community who want to know where the £100 million to pay back Brussels is going to come from? [Interruption.]

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

I remind Members to address other Members by their proper names. Those other terms may be for another place.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I share the Member’s concerns. At the end of the day, we are talking about public money; taxpayers’ money not just farmers’ money, and we all have a concern. We want to get a solution, and we need to move forward. That is what Members on these Benches are talking about. We need clear answers, and we need to know how we move forward to eradicate this problem for future years. With regard to who is going to give you the answers, Sister Anderson will do that.

This is a legacy issue, and, as I said, the ball was dropped under direct rule. This issue was lost under the Hain Assembly. There is a clear need to all work together to send out a clear message that we will resolve this problem and that we will look at the land mapping issue, which is of the utmost importance when the European Commission is looking for the answers.

For too long, DARD, or whoever, allowed certain aspects of farm mapping, such as laneways, gorse, scrubland, rivers and planning sites, to stay within farmers’ farm maps. Planning applications were passed for numerous sites on land, and farmers continued to claim single farm payment on that. However, I do not think that that was totally the farmers’ responsibility. In my opinion, the Department was not robust enough in dealing with that issue. However, we are where we are. We need to move on, and as the Member across the way said, CAP reform is upon us. There are many elements to CAP reform, including a change in the system from a single farm payment to multi-payments. It is important that we have a robust system for mapping, because there are extra responsibilities on the way, such as greening payments and young farmers’ payments. Therefore, it is very important that we have in place a robust management system.

I am confident that we are working away towards that. As you can imagine, about 750,000 fields need to be accurately mapped. That is a considerable amount of work. People have said that the Department had a considerable amount of time, and I agree with them. It should have been more in the Department’s thinking to get the task done urgently. It is not about dragging your feet, burying your head in the sand and thinking that the EU will not see it. As others have pointed out, the issues are the same throughout Europe. In Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Holland, the UK and Italy, they are being asked to pay up to €60 million. I support the motion.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Undoubtedly, this is an important issue for now and for the future. I have three points to make about the EU’s role, and I will then say something about DARD. First, I find it pretty rich that an organisation whose accounts have been in such a shambles that they have not been able to be signed off by the auditor for 15 years should be the body that is pointing the finger and raising issues with member states. If it had put its house in order long since, it would be coming to this matter with much cleaner hands. Secondly, there has been inordinate delay in the auditory processes of the EU, which creates its own problems and is a contributor to the fact that this has become a protracted issue.

It is within that window that I have some sympathy for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development here in Northern Ireland, because, as I understand it, whatever the signs in the wind were, it was not until 2010 that definitive findings indicated flaws and difficulties in 2004, 2005 and 2006. It was not until September 2011 that we had an indication of further problems up to 2007. It was that time lag of many years that, undoubtedly, made it very difficult for the Department to get ahead of the system and put in order what had been found to be wrong. In part, that is why there has been a delay in putting things right. The auditory process of the EU contributed to the difficulties that we are in now.

The third point that I want to make about the EU is that it is quite clear that what we loosely call fines are grossly disproportionate to the mischief found. I am sure that that will be an aspect of the case that is before the European Court of Justice. Sadly, of course, given the speed at which the European Court works, we are probably looking at another two years before we get a judgement. In the meantime, we have yet to find out what flaws the EU will find for 2008, 2009, 2010 and this year.

I will now discuss some of the issues that arise. The Chairman of the Committee spoke about money having to be paid back in fines, etc. Perhaps we have all spoken in those terms, but my understanding is that money is not actually paid back but is now held back by Brussels in respect of other area payments to make up the shortfall. If that is confirmed, may we be told whether that has already happened? As and when it does happen, where will the shortfall that it creates be made up from? How, in resource and capital terms, will that shortfall, which might amount to £100 million, be met? Perhaps the Department will consider, as a gesture of its regret about how it has handled the issue, forgoing the largesse that it intends bestowing on itself for new headquarters. That might be a suitably contrite contribution from the Department, given the mess that we are in over fines.

There are key questions. It is also regrettable that the Minister seems to lack the vision and enthusiasm to tackle some of those issues. I received a written answer from the Minister to my question about the latest tranche of £4 million of clawback. She states:

“My Department is considering if there is merit in contesting this disallowance. However, there are likely to be significant practical difficulties in doing so as the onus will be on my Department to demonstrate that the Commission has either been manifestly unreasonable in its approach or has erred in its interpretation of EU legislation. This is much more difficult”.

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

Bring your remarks to a close, please.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Member asks a very important question. The Minister clearly stated:

“To date we have set aside £82m to deal with the fines up until 2009”.

Does that not indicate that the Minister is not waiting for money to be withheld by Europe but has £82 million sitting somewhere, ready to hand over?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I trust that it is not end-of-year funding or we will lose it. I am puzzled about whether, if there is a legal challenge before the court, that has frozen the demand, or whether there will be a clawback in the meantime, despite the ongoing legal proceedings before the European Court. We need clarity on that. I doubt that we will get it today, nor would we have got it if the Minister had been here, because, frankly, she does not have a grasp of her brief at all, and we would have had read out to us what has been presented by the officials. Legions of questions need answers, and the sooner they are answered, the better.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. As a Minister who is very much on top of her brief, the Minister of Agriculture, Michelle O’Neill, welcomes this debate and regrets very much that she is unable to attend today. As Members will be aware, Minister O’Neill is in Brussels today, representing our interests at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council. She is holding discussions with the EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development on the recently announced legislative proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy.

Minister O’Neill recognises Members’ concerns on this issue; she has already declared her intent to make a statement on disallowance and compliance matters to the Assembly. I will address some of the concerns that were expressed in the House. The Minister’s intent to make that statement did not follow the motion being listed. In fact, it was the other way round: the Minister’s intent to make a statement to the House on 21 November was listed in advance of the motion being tabled. Of course, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is entitled to select whatever motions it brings to the Chamber. The Minister is now scheduled to make her statement on Monday 21 November. In it, she will provide an update on disallowance to date, the concerns identified by the Commission and the action being taken by DARD to address those, along with a timetable for implementation.

As someone relatively new to this subject, I have been listening intently to the points raised and welcome all the information that the debate has generated. Junior Minister Bell and I have responsibility for EU matters in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. However, that might be stretching the point. I understand that this is not the first debate on single farm payments. Indeed, my party colleague, the then Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle Gildernew MP MLA, made a statement on the disallowance of single farm payments to the Assembly on Monday 27 September 2010. In her statement, Ms Gildernew advised Members that DARD distributes about £300 million of EU money each year across the agriculture industry. To get that money, DARD and those claiming it sign up to a body of EU rules that place onerous requirements on both parties. Ms Gildernew also advised Members of the various audits undertaken by the Commission and the European Court of Auditors from 2006 to date and their likely outcomes.

The recently published disallowance was among those mentioned. Although, at the time, the total known potential disallowance amounted to approximately €72 million or £64 million, it was noted that further corrections for 2009 and later years could not be ruled out. It was highlighted that DARD was working to mitigate that, but to cover contingencies, budget provision of a further £40 million was being sought. Jo-Anne Dobson wanted to know whether the money had already been set aside. Without pre-empting Minister O’Neill’s statement, I would like to advise that, as at 31 March 2011, DARD has accrued liability of £64·9 million in its audited resource accounts, in addition to £11·2 million held for it by DEFRA. That amounts to £80·6 million.

Kieran McCarthy, Patsy McGlone and Jim Allister also asked where the money was coming from. In accruing the money, DARD has funded most of the actual and proposed disallowances that arose during the 2004-09 scheme years. That has been achieved, with DFP approval, out of end-year underspends from other Departments. In the main, those underspends would have been lost to our block.

Although that alleviates some of the financial pressures, it does not take account of any disallowance that might be applied for the 2010 year and further scheme years. DARD cannot rule out the possibility of further disallowances in years to come. However, at this point, any figure quoted would be speculative. There is still considerable scope for challenge and, indeed, for ongoing improvements in compliance, which would mitigate further disallowance.

I will clarify that as far as the handling arrangements are concerned, DARD does not pay the money back to the Commission, nor can it recoup it from the money that was paid to farm businesses, unless, of course, there has been an overpayment due to scheme non-compliance on the part of the farmer. However, at some point, the Commission will deduct those disallowance amounts that have been finalised and published from DARD’s request for money to cover single farm payments that have been made. DARD will then be required to cover the shortfall. As I explained, DARD has accrued the money to do so for the key known disallowances that have arisen during the 2004-09 scheme years.

I want to make a correction, because I know that people are, rightly, very focused on the figures. I said £64·9 million by mistake. That should have been £69·4 million, so I stand corrected on that. I want Members to take note of that in case there is any concern.

In looking at who is responsible, as Conor Murphy, Oliver McMullan and Willie Clarke said, many voices across Europe have been arguing that the Commission has been somewhat heavy-handed in all this. It is notable that many of the member states affected are not naturally regarded as countries that are lax in their controls. Tom Buchanan asked about negotiations with the EU. It is probably correct to say that DARD overestimated the scope to persuade the Commission to reduce disallowance.

It is easy for some to seek to blame the farmers, and it has been mentioned today that there are some concerns that that has been the case in some of the commentary that has been made outside. However, that is to miss the complexities of the controls that are bearing down on the farming community as a result of the Commission’s requirements.

Of course, where individual farmers have breached scheme rules, I know that DARD will seek to apply the rules strictly. It has been expending considerable resources in getting the message to farmers that they must claim only on eligible areas. Ultimately, however, we and many member state paying agencies have had to realise that although we firmly believe that the Commission’s approach is heavy-handed and disproportionate, the best way to minimise the disallowance being applied is to satisfy the Commission that its concerns have been met.

Paul Frew, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, Conor Murphy, Robin Swann, Willie Clarke and others asked about the measures that will be put in place to improve the farm maps.

A top priority in that regard relates to updating and improving farm maps in close collaboration with Land and Property Services, and the Agriculture Minister will have more to say on that when she comes to the Chamber next week.

From the first audit in 2006, DARD moved to challenge the Commission on its findings in some areas while improving its systems and processes in others. DARD will continue to challenge where it has reason to believe that it is appropriate to do so. It has taken a case to the European Court on a technical issue arising from the 2006 audit. Although that is likely to take time to progress, I am sure that Members will agree that, if DARD has been advised that there is a reasonable chance of success, it should continue with the case. As far as improving its systems and processes is concerned, DARD has already made improvements to on-farm inspections. It now uses aerial photography, and it made those photographs available to single-application claimants earlier this year.

I hope that I have provided some clarification and addressed some of the points made during the debate. As stated at the outset, Minister O’Neill will provide more details on the matter in her statement next Monday. Go raibh míle maith agat.

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

I thank all Members who contributed to this important debate. I also thank junior Minister Anderson for replying and responding as best she could to some of the concerns raised during the debate. It is important to note that, in his opening remarks, the Chairperson put on record the Committee’s appreciation of the fact that the Minister is on departmental business trying to represent the fishing industry in the North on the quota. We wish her every success. The last time that the EU gave any improvement to the North on the fishing quota, it was Minister Bríd Rodgers who, as Agriculture Minister, secured that improvement. Unfortunately, we have not had any improvement since, but, nonetheless, we wish Minister O’Neill well in her endeavours.

A number of Members highlighted correctly not only the concerns of the Committee but those felt across the agricultural and rural community about the impact that the fines and disallowances would have on our lives. Members wanted greater clarity on the shortfall, not only about how it was to be made up but about what detriment, if any, it would have for the plans of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in areas such as tackling rural poverty and dealing with rural childcare. We would like to know whether the disallowances and fines have had any negative impact on moneys earmarked in the past to tackle those problems. I do not see how any Department or Executive could sustain such a loss to their budget without that having a detrimental impact across a wide range of other departmental responsibilities.

In the Chairperson’s opening remarks, he mentioned the recent history and the Committee’s interest in the issue. Following the elections in May, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development was reconstituted with some new faces as well as some stalwarts of the previous Committee. In those early days, the new Committee was briefed on a range of key issues by the Minister and her officials. We heard about the historical legacy around disallowance and the focus on getting new maps. However, I, for one, was disappointed that, when the latest announcement about a further £4 million in disallowances was made, I only came to know about it through the media rather than through any of the briefings by departmental officials. I do not know whether those officials were as surprised as me; maybe they hoped that the Committee might miss that point.

It was at a recent meeting of the Committee, as I think the Chairperson indicated, that we learned of the additional £15 million year-on-year potential disallowance, which, as I believe the Chairperson highlighted, was an estimate based on a range of possible disallowances. It is because of the uncertainty around the situation that the Committee wished to have this debate.

I know that many Members from across the parties referred to the Minister’s intended statement next week. We certainly look forward to that, and she will certainly be better briefed on the concerns that Members articulated this afternoon and, hopefully, will give a very full response. As Members will know, there is limited opportunity with a ministerial statement to question the Minister on what she has said to the House. Therefore, it was important to have this debate, so that the whole range of concerns were given a full hearing. Junior Minister Anderson responded as best she could and gave answers to some of the concerns raised. However, we look forward to what Minister O’Neill has to say next week.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The motion asks:

“how, when and by whom these moneys will be repaid.”

Although I pay tribute to the junior Minister for being slotted in at very short notice, those three important aspects of the debate simply have not been answered. Until they are answered, I, as a Committee member, will not be satisfied.

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

Thank you for that intervention. I come now to Members’ remarks. Mr Allister stated that the audit procedures in the EU were an explanation of why we are so far behind. However, with regard to the who, what and where, some Members referred to it being a legacy issue that came under direct rule. I think that Mr McMullan referred to the waffle that prevailed in the Chamber at times today. Mind you, I suspect that some of that waffle was due to the absence of any Executive business. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not yet know because there is a drip-feed of information on the amounts of money involved. These are telephone number amounts of money. They are huge sums, and there were concerns that some of the money was being held back in monitoring rounds and then handed back over. However, as I understand it, the way the Executive approach their accounting mechanisms means that each Department is encouraged to overbid for the money it may be able to spend in any given time frame. So, the ability to have money set aside will be reduced substantially as Departments deliver on their projected spends. The Committee had concerns about whether that was good government.

Mr Murphy set out the timescale and some of the legacy issues around how this situation came about. That tied in somewhat with Mr McMullan’s reference to the Hain Assembly and the waffle that pertained at that time. Nonetheless, as other Members pointed out, since 2008 it has been the responsibility of Ministers here to get a handle on that. Many Members are not yet convinced that that has been achieved, particularly as we see the sum of money that we have to pay back growing. There is a lack of confidence among the farming community and concern that they are being made to pay the price. Mrs Dobson, for example, made it clear that the farmers used in good faith the maps that the Department supplied, and Mr McGlone said something similar. We know that it was up to the farmers to double-check those maps to some degree, but they relied on the technology that was available to DARD and thus used the maps in good faith.

Other Members raised issues around the level of disallowance and around money having to be repaid by some farmers. There is a lack of evidence where the evidential route is: it was based on maps that went back some time, and we all know how climate change has affected a number of farms, over the past couple of years in particular. If an aerial photograph is taken in November, potentially after torrential rain, it will look different to an aerial photograph of the same place taken in May. That is not necessarily the type of evidence that one would expect to be used in the modern age.

Mr Swann talked about the technology being available but questioned whether inspectors are up to speed on the use of that new technology. Other Members — Mr Buchanan and Mr Clarke in his intervention — talked about the number of inspectors per farm, saying that there were more inspectors than there were farms. However, Members are concerned that the inspectors are not trained well enough —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member bring her remarks to a close?

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

We have not yet heard that from the Minister.

I thank all Members who contributed. I am sorry that I did not get to refer to all Members’ contributions. This is a matter of huge concern, and we look forward to the Minister’s statement next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the latest announcement by the European Commission on financial corrections to be levied against the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; expresses concern about the potential effect on the Executive’s Budget; and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a full and urgent report to the Assembly on the extent of the financial corrections, the actions she is taking to address the issue of non-compliance and how, when and by whom these moneys will be repaid.

Private Members’ Business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the damaging effects of passive smoking; notes that children are particularly exposed to second-hand smoke; and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to work closely with the Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation, in association with a public awareness campaign, to ban smoking in cars carrying passengers under the age of 16.

I am grateful to Members who will participate in the debate. My party and I believe that this is an important debate. There has been some suggestion that debates such as this are not relevant for the Assembly when there are pressing issues to do with the economy. To me, it is very relevant that we debate this type of public health issue.

Smoking kills more people in Northern Ireland than drugs, alcohol, obesity and car accidents combined, so it is right and proper that the Assembly take the issue very seriously and have this debate. We must try to move forward and determine how we will address the scourge of smoking and particularly the exposure of young children to second-hand smoke.

There are several strands to the debate. The long-established health risks from smoking have been well known for many years. It has also been known for a long number of years the extra harm that smoke does to a young body that is still developing as opposed to the harm that it does to an adult. That is why the motion is very relevant and why it is crucial that we have the debate. Smoke and the diseases that it can cause and make children more susceptible to are seriously harmful, as is the cost, not only the financial cost to our health service but the cost to individuals who will struggle with health problems for the rest of their life. In many cases, their life expectancy is cut short. It is well known that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars or see a parent smoking regularly are much more likely to become smokers themselves. That is something that we should and must address. Over a number of years, we have had some success in addressing the scourge of smoking through a tobacco strategy and looking at tobacco controls and associated issues, and we need to build on that. Too many smokers still act irresponsibly around young children.

There are several areas that I want to examine. One of the main criticisms of this type of move is how it would be enforced. Most people are broadly in favour and supportive of it, but the big question is how it would be enforced. If we always considered that question, we might never legislate for anything. We need to work with the Departments of Health and Justice to examine what penalties there would be and how it would be enforced; that is where we have to begin. The police have said that they do not see a problem with enforcement. Looking at other issues that we have legislated on over the years such as seat belt wearing and car seats for young children, would anyone tell the Assembly that it has not made significant improvements to the safety of children and adults travelling in cars?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On the point about enforcement, is the Member aware that 40% of drivers wore a seat belt before the seat belt law was passed but the figure rose to 90% once the law had been passed? A 1985 report estimated that those changes prevented 7,000 deaths or serious injuries and 13,000 slight casualties. Does he anticipate similar improvements if we could do something about the prevention of passive smoking?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to my colleague for that point. Those are the types of argument that you hear when you want to legislate on something such as smoking in cars: that people act responsibly, that they would not do that and we should leave it up to the individual. Sometimes, the Government and the Assembly have to take that lead. We have to stand up and say that it is right that the Assembly legislate for this and it is right to send that very powerful message, as my colleague highlighted with the seat belt law. It is the same with seat belts and car safety seats for very young children. No one would dream now of bringing a baby home from hospital without having a proper car seat; in fact, I am not sure whether that is allowed. That is right and proper when you think of the damage that can be caused. The same argument can apply to this.

In wanting to progress with a private Member’s Bill, I approach the issue as someone who is broadly supportive of civil liberties. I do not like the idea of the nanny state. However, I do not think that it is right to say that we should not protect children who do not have a voice, such as a child of five years of age who does not know the risks of smoking and cannot tell a parent or adult that they should not smoke in the car in a confined space.

Some will ask what the point of the legislation is if we can ban smoking in the car but not in the home. The argument is that a car is a significantly smaller space than most people’s home. I send out the message strongly from here that, if you are a smoker, go outside and smoke; do not inflict it on your children and other family members. People talk about drinking alcohol in the home, but there is not the danger of fumes coming from alcohol in the way that they do from cigarette smoke.

I am all for encouraging people to act responsibly and to take personal responsibility, but sometimes the Assembly and the Government have to take the lead, such as in the very good example that my colleague Mr McCrea quoted about seat belt wearing. I feel very strongly about this issue, and I have spoken to the Bill Office about progressing a private Member’s Bill. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. It is an issue that has to be dealt with and faced up to, and it is one that we should all act on. From speaking to colleagues, I believe that there is very broad support for the measure not only in the House but among the wider public, who are saying that it is sensible that we take the issue seriously, legislate on it and do something to protect children from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. The consequences include an increase in infant sudden death syndrome, an increase in the risk of meningitis, respiratory problems and children going on to become smokers themselves. It is right and proper that we send out that message.

As I said, enforcement is not an issue. Think about the important public health message that it would send out. Think about what it would do for the Northern Ireland Public Health Agency’s message on smoking and what it would say to people about the dangers of smoking. We do not want anyone to smoke; ideally, no one in our society would smoke. However, at least grown adults make a conscious decision. They make the decision knowing all the risk factors, having seen all the health warnings on cigarette packets and having heard all the issues that have been debated. They can still make a conscious decision, albeit the wrong one. Children do not have that choice. That decision is effectively taken away from them by others who act irresponsibly and put them in a position where they inhale second-hand smoke in a confined space. There is an idea that, if you put down the window, you somehow cleanse the inside of the car, but most of us know that the smell lasts for days. We really welcomed the ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Those who frequent such places know that it had a huge impact. I ask the Assembly to support the motion.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Bring your remarks to a close.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I look forward to the debate on an important issue. I will bring forward a private Member’s Bill if the Government do not legislate on the issue.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is good news that the honourable Member for South Down will bring forward a private Member’s Bill, because he has a 100% success rate in that field.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Another press release.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I hope that he will not quote me on that in the local press.

There have already been light-hearted aspects to this debate, but there is also a deadly serious aspect. According to a written answer given by the then Health Minister Mr McGimpsey, last year, 2,300 people in Northern Ireland died as a direct result of smoking. The vast majority of those people died of lung cancer. Lung cancer is one of the most horrible, excruciatingly painful and dreadful deaths that anyone can imagine. Two secretaries of mine died recently of lung cancer. Both had been heavy smokers. I worked with both of those people, and what they went through was absolutely dreadful. We are dealing with something that can lead to a lot of very horrible deaths.

The other statistic that people need to remember is that 81% of smokers want to give up. They are desperate to give up. It is not a question of trying to force people to do something that they do not want to do. They want help to achieve their goal of being smoke-free. I am grateful to the Ulster Cancer Foundation for the stats, some of which are frightening. Each year, 300,000 children in the United Kingdom are referred to a GP as a result of the inhalation of tobacco smoke. That leads to 9,500 hospital visits per annum and a total cost to the National Health Service of £23·3 million. It is all so utterly needless.

I have no doubt that in today’s debate you will get those who will say that this is a terrible infringement of civil liberties, that this is the nanny state and that we are almost into a Nazi-type situation of forcing people not to do what they wish to do. However, we have been here before. We have heard those arguments with regard to the banning of smoking in pubs and restaurants — one of the best things that ever happened in Northern Ireland and one that I enthusiastically supported. When the smoking ban was obeyed with very little difficulty in a spit-and-sawdust pub in the west of County Mayo in the Irish Republic, it gave the United Kingdom confidence to follow suit, and a ban has been introduced in the four countries. We have not needed squads of enforcement officers calling at pubs and restaurants throughout Northern Ireland to enforce the ban. There has been a 99% compliance rate, and it has been voluntary. Once the legislation was introduced, smokers respected it, and they have not been smoking in pubs and restaurants. Indeed, how often do any of us read in our local newspapers about any pub or restaurant being prosecuted for allowing smoking?

If the legislation is introduced, as I hope it will be, either through the Minister or through a private Member’s Bill, I do not see police officers routinely stopping cars on motorways or dual carriageways to see whether there has been smoking or whether there is ash in the ashtray. It is more likely that large numbers of people will realise that it is illegal and will stop, and there will be enormous health benefits as a result. Equally, if someone is stopped for some other reason, perhaps for using a mobile phone or driving too fast, and the officer notices that he or she has been smoking, it may be added to the schedule of offences. However, I do not see it adding, to a huge degree, to the work of the Department of Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

We owe it to our children. Another alarming statistic is that second-hand smoke levels in cars can be as high as 10 times the concentration considered to be unhealthy by the American Environmental Protection Agency. That is a shocking statistic. It is unacceptable that we expose children — even children who may be being driven home from a hospital’s maternity ward — to that level of smoke. It must be stopped. I would welcome a ban, because I believe that we owe it to future generations.

All of this has a cost. We are in times of restricted budgets for the health service. Can we allow those who wish to give up smoking and need that impetus and encouragement to continue to add to the burden on our health service of having to treat the related conditions? The treatment is often very expensive and extremely serious. The sooner a ban is in place the better. I support the motion entirely.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order. As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Michelle Gildernew.

The debate stood suspended.

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 4 has been withdrawn and will require a written answer.

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

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the unallocated moneys designated for the social protection fund, the social investment fund and the childcare strategy in the October monitoring round will be ring-fenced and allocated without further delay. (AQO 721/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The social protection fund and the childcare fund will operate as Executive funds. They will require bids from other Departments and the subsequent allocation of funding to those Departments by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) on instruction from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). Spend from those funds is, therefore, dependent on Departments seeking the funding.

Our officials are working with other Departments to assess funding options and to identify potential initiatives, including how the social protection fund might assist, for example, those in fuel poverty. We are confident that the allocated budget for the social protection fund will be spent this year.

The social investment fund will operate as an OFMDFM-led fund, which requires full business case approval. We are working through all the necessary processes to make that fund operable without delay. The Member will be aware that the policy is out to consultation, which will end on 23 December. It is not possible to spend under the scheme until those processes are completed. Some £79 million of the £80 million fund will be allocated across years 2, 3 and 4 and, therefore, cannot be spent in this financial year.

The outcome of the public consultation will inform how the social investment fund will operate, including the arrangements for funding. However, we expect that successful projects will display a clear link to the fund’s four strategic objectives: building pathways to employment; tackling the systemic issues linked to deprivation; increasing community services; and addressing dereliction. We plan to put proposals on the development of the childcare strategy to the Executive later this year.

We are committed to ensuring investment in childcare, including the provision of additional funding in the current year, and we will carefully consider re-profiling funding in years 2, 3 and 4 in response to departmental bids.

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

I thank the First Minister for his reply. Given that the First Minister has now admitted that he has to surrender money from the social investment fund because of the delays in getting the fund off the ground —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order. I ask Members not to walk in front of another Member when he is on his feet.

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

Will I start again, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker? I thank the First Minster for his reply.

Seriously, given that the First Minister has to surrender funds that had been earmarked against the social investment fund, due to the delay in getting it off the ground, will he give a commitment to the House that there will be no more deserving funds to which to allocate that available money than the childcare fund and the other funds mentioned in my question?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Had bids for the childcare fund been made, I agree that that probably would be the case. We do not originate the schemes for the childcare funds; they come from the various Departments. Although initial consultation with the Departments indicated the amount that we should bid for, when we had the money and sought schemes, they did not come forward to the extent that we needed additional money for them. As is the case with any other money not used in the financial year, it goes to the centre. It will be up to each Department to make bids for the money and the Executive to decide the most appropriate use for it.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Does the First Minister agree that educational initiatives that tackle low level educational achievement and aspiration, particularly in failing groups such as young Protestant males, could get funding under the social investment fund?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I outlined in my answer to the question from the Member for South Belfast the four main themes that the social investment fund is intended to assist. It will be up to each of the zones to determine the priorities within their area, but in the consultation document, we gave a very clear lead on the underachievement in education and the lack of ambition in many parts of the community. The House is well aware that that is seen in urban Protestant males in particular. I hope that the proposals will come forward from each of the areas to address that clear need.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. The funds that the First Minister mentioned in his answer are all intended to address poverty and inequality. What, in his view, will be the likely impact on child poverty of the coalition Government’s welfare reform agenda, specifically as it relates to child tax credits and child benefit?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not want to steal the thunder of my colleague, who will answer a later question on child poverty. However, it goes without saying that if there are reductions in the amounts that are available under so-called welfare reform, it will have a detrimental impact. In reality, child poverty is family poverty, and if the funds that are available to those who have been receiving them are to be reduced, it is bound to be unhelpful statistically, quite apart from the unhelpful nature of those reductions to the families concerned.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A number of areas of Northern Ireland were brought together in the social investment fund. What criteria were used by the Department to bring those areas together? Why, in particular, were the north-west and the border areas put into one area?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is no simple answer to the question. There could have been more areas and they could have been composed in different ways. What we put into the consultation document made sense as an attempt to group areas that have roughly equal levels of deprivation, perhaps even increasing the area covered to ensure that that was the case. However, it is a consultation document, and if the Member has a better idea of a means of division, we are happy to look at it. I hope that the community sector and the third sector will look at the document to see whether there are better ways in which we can do things, not only by looking at the zones identified in the document but at the general proposals.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the process to appoint the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation. (AQO 722/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

A public appointment process to select a chairperson and up to six members for the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation is under way. I cannot comment in detail about the process, as it is ongoing, and although I have not yet had sight of the report, I expect to be given it in the next 24 hours. However, in a verbal report, we have been informed that the panel is concerned that, overall, the pool of appointable candidates does not have a sufficient breadth of relevant experience to cover fully all the responsibilities of the corporation. We will announce the outcome of the competition in due course.

The regeneration of the site has the potential to act as a social and economic generator, in line with our commitment to maximise the economic, historical and reconciliation potential of the Maze/Long Kesh site. Initial development of the two anchor projects will provide a catalyst to attract further investment and, we hope, thousands of jobs.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I know that the First Minister will agree with me that the site represents one of the best investment opportunities for Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is critical that we get the membership of the board right.

I am interested to know in what ways those who have applied, or the pool of candidates, have been deemed to be deficient. Furthermore, does the First Minister agree that Lisburn City Council has always been committed to the project and has always shown energy in working towards this development opportunity? Does he agree that it is very important that the board, as it is developed, harnesses that support and commitment from the council?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Any application process will bring forward those whom it is felt are appointable and will leave behind those whom it is felt are not. The difference in this case, and what has been indicated to us, is that although there are a number of people who are appointable, there is a requirement to have certain skills and competencies represented on the overall board. It is felt that the applicants are somewhat light on private sector, business and financial experience, and that is an area that we will need to look at.

We have some room to manoeuvre if we choose to do so, because although we originally sought a board of six members, we can increase the corporation beyond that. Therefore, we could advertise for further potential members. The deputy First Minister and I are strongly of the view that there should be council support and representation on that corporation, and I hope that we will look at that matter when we receive the report.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, deputy first principal Speaker. May I ask — [Laughter.] You will forgive me for a bit of job misallocation this afternoon. However, I thank the First Minister for his responses so far. Is he in a position to give us any further information on what the development corporation’s priorities may be?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There are clearly two significant projects, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that you are enjoying your new title.

The project that we are certain that we want to move forward with is the proposition that there should be a peace and reconciliation centre — call it what you may. We have applied for European Community funding from the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB). We should know the outcome of that, I hope, before the end of this month.

We are also very keen for the Balmoral agricultural show to move from Belfast to the more agricultural setting of Lagan Valley. That would be a strong anchor to the site, should the show choose to move and should we be able to negotiate an agreement. Again, we hope that those would form two key components to the site, around which it would be possible to build very significant business and commercial units and to generate literally thousands of jobs in and around that general area.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I, too, thank the First Minister for his answer. I want to draw his attention to a recent debate during which it was stated that the funding application to the SEUPB could be shared. Although he touched on that, will he give further information as to the mechanisms and the way in which that application may be brought forward?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, suffice it to say that we have submitted an application for the project as we envisaged it. We have not released that application publicly, because SEUPB is of the general view that such matters are confidential until the body takes a funding decision, at which stage we will, obviously, release details of the application. We have not sought to share it with anyone. Of course, the final decision will come later in the process. However, I hope that by the next time that I am due to take questions for oral answer, we will know where we stand with this issue.

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

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the consultation responses to the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy which purported that the 2005 ‘A Shared Future’ document was more cohesive in its vision for a shared society. (AQO 723/11-15)

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the responses that have been received to the consultation on the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy. (AQO 725/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

The consultation on the programme for cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) attracted 288 written responses and included a wealth of views and material gathered from 11 public meetings and 15 targeted sectoral meetings. Those were in addition to the information that was collected through the omnibus survey. Our priority now is to achieve political consensus on the range of issues that will enable a final document and an associated high-level action plan to be published. To that end, all parties represented on the Executive have nominated members to the cross-party working group. That group has been meeting almost weekly since Tuesday 27 September, with, I think, one exception, and it will meet more regularly if necessary.

The public consultation’s purpose was to garner wider opinion on the draft proposals, to enable all points of view to be considered and to draft the final version of the policy. The individual responses and the consultation analysis will inform the group’s work plan over the coming weeks as it seeks to agree on a strategic direction against each of the themes that have emerged.

I should, perhaps, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, have said that, with your permission, I intend to answer questions 3 and 5 together because they are on identical themes.

We recognise that the consultation process raised a number of important issues, which I can come back to. The good news is that we carried out a consultation, that we are listening to what was said in it, and that we are trying to tailor our document to provide something that will be really useful in taking forward good relations policy.

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

I welcome the junior Minister’s positive response. I certainly agree that the House needs good news about such issues. Is it not a sad irony, however, that the consultation found that the document drawn up by a direct rule Minister was more desirable than the one drawn up under the present Administration?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome and encourage your positive contribution. Junior Minister Anderson and I also welcome the very positive cross-party contributions that we have seen. This is not the time for point scoring. The Ulster Unionists and the SDLP had their chance to deliver a document but they significantly failed to do so. They could not even agree on a document that would go to the Executive. I appreciate that it is hard for them to see someone else come along and actually do the job, get universal agreement on that job — including agreement from the Ulster Unionist Party — and put it out for consultation.

It was important that we got to work on young people, for example. I worked as a social worker with young people for 21 years. The response from the youth sector was this: “You have, in parts, demonised young people. So what you need to do in your document is to reflect the positive contribution that they have made”. Was that a criticism? Yes. Was that criticism right? In my opinion, it was. Will the final document reflect what was in the consultation? It will. Will we have a better document than the one that we had before? Yes, and it will be better because of that constructive criticism from the youth sector, which also gave us a lot of encouragement. It may not be perfect, but half a loaf is better than no bread.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

It is probably good that the junior Minister left the Ulster Unionist Party on that principled stand over the CSI document. I congratulate him on continuing with his good work. Given Joanne Wallace’s response to the group and to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which my colleague chairs, and her criticisms of the document, how committed is he to redrafting the entire document?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that the paucity of the Member’s question is reflected in the fact that he has to go back to a previous century, but then maybe that is where his party actually is.

The reality is that the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP had an opportunity. What they needed to do was to get a document agreed by the Executive and put it out for consultation. Did they fail? They clearly did. Now, I do not want to shine a light on the SDLP on this point, because I know how difficult it is for that party when a light is shone on it. [Interruption.] The Member for South Belfast is shouting from a sedentary position. The reality for him is that we got a document —

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Nobody likes it.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We got a document agreed by the Executive. Mr McCallister is shouting, “Nobody likes it”. If that is the case, why did the Ulster Unionist Minister agree to it being put out to consultation? [Interruption.] So, the reality is that —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

— we need to get agreement on a way forward. You may joke, point score and fail, but the reality is that we need to get a document that reflects the good work that is being done on the ground. I see people in the Suffolk Lenadoon Interface Group coming together, which is in contrast to the immaturity that I see here. In my constituency, I see conflict murals coming down and images reflecting a positive heritage going up. I see children from my area meeting children from a different area, and the same thing is happening in Foyle. The community folks are well ahead of your simple point scoring.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his comments so far. Will he confirm that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sector was also contacted during the CSI consultation and that its views will be taken on board by the five-party working group?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am happy to confirm that all groups have been involved in the programme, which reflects the needs of all groups in all sections of our society. The programme for cohesion, sharing and integration will benefit everybody in our community, but its core focus must be on tackling sectarianism and racism. We want to build a strong community in Northern Ireland in which all people, regardless of their race, colour, political opinion, age, gender, disability or sexual orientation, can live, work and socialise in a context of fairness, equality, rights, responsibilities and respect. The House and the watching public will look at the Members who are trying to shout me down when I speak about fairness, equality, rights, responsibilities and respect. That is probably more worthy of Basil Brush than Basil McCrea.

The programme recognises the promotion of equality of opportunity as being an integral aspect of building a better future for everyone. That is what it is about and is what the community is interested in. Some communities are well ahead of us: progress is being made in Strangford, and I hear about what is happening in Foyle and in Belfast. We want not only to ensure that we have the programme but that we commit ourselves as a society to tackling hate crime and to developing a zero tolerance approach to all incidents that are motivated by hate and prejudice.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister confirm his and, indeed, this party’s commitment to building the long-held commitment of a shared future? Does he agree that all parties in the House should work together to ensure a final strategy for the benefit of all people in Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am more than happy to confirm not only the position of OFMDFM but the position of our party to a 100% commitment to a shared future agenda. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has put its money where its mouth is. We have not only talked about the programme but have issued the document and provided 30% additional funding despite cuts from the Ulster Unionists and Conservatives. We are interested in building a shared future and reaching agreement on shared housing. The First Minister has led from the front on sharing and integration. We also have a coherent consideration of the issue of shared space. As I said, I have just come from an event in the Bowtown community in my constituency. That community has removed symbols of conflict and is developing a positive youth agenda. Frankly, folks, in this House, we should get behind such communities rather than joke about them.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 4 has been withdrawn, and question 5 has been grouped.

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

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of whether the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ declaration that it is ‘inconceivable’ that the Westminster Government will reach their child poverty targets applies equally in Northern Ireland. (AQO 726/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Bell to answer this question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We recognise the links between achievement in life and issues of poverty. We are committed to the goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020. The Executive published their strategy in March 2011, and we are now finalising a child poverty action plan and outcomes model.

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

I thank the junior Minister for his response. The deputy First Minister agrees with me about the scandal and serious nature of the problem of child poverty. Given the pressing and difficult circumstances in which we live, what extra work can the Executive do to help to eradicate child poverty in Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Member raises serious points, and he raises them very well. I will not reiterate the work on the social investment fund and the social protection fund, nor will I run through each area of ministerial responsibility. However, I will give you the key area.

As the First Minister said earlier, child poverty cannot be considered outside of family poverty, and the way to lift people out of family poverty is with a reasonable wage. That will reduce child poverty. Critical to that will be proper employment and ensuring that young people are set up with the employability skills necessary to meet the market in the 21st century.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the junior Minister for his answers thus far. I am delighted that he mentioned the pilot scheme on reducing child poverty. Can he give us more details on that? What stage is the business case at?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We are all fully committed to tackling child poverty, and the public service agreement targets were included in the objective of working towards the elimination of child poverty by 2020 and the elimination of severe child poverty by 2012. The honourable Member asks pertinent questions as to progress against those targets. We are looking at a monitoring framework for life opportunities that was published on 14 October 2010. It provided an assessment of progress against the Programme for Government commitment to reduce by half child relative income poverty by 2010-11. The assessment was that child relative income poverty rates had fallen in comparison to the 1998-99 baseline.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will up-to-date, Northern Ireland-specific child poverty targets be included in the upcoming Programme for Government?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We are looking very seriously at how we can measure where our children are relative to other children in our United Kingdom. I am happy to write to provide the Member with specific details.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

7. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister why the regeneration plan, proposed by the Ilex company in Londonderry, is not mentioned in the draft Programme for Government. (AQO 727/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The draft Programme for Government has not been published. Perhaps the Member can explain on what basis he framed that question.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK. As a supplementary, then, can I ask whether the ‘One Plan’ is included in the draft Programme for Government? If so, have any funds been ring-fenced for its implementation?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We resent the fact that when we provide party leaders and Ministers with the officials’ draft of the Programme for Government, we have it being waved from the SDLP Back Benches and leaked to the BBC. That does not help to build trust within the Executive. Indeed, it crushes the possibility of having further iterations of that document spread more widely among Executive colleagues. The last 10 iterations of the Programme for Government that I have seen do include the ‘One Plan’, but it will be for the Executive to approve the Programme for Government, and when it is published properly in the Assembly, the Member will be able to ask questions on it.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

When are decisions likely to be made on issues that were among the commitments made in the original draft Programme for Government?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The intention for the present draft that we have been working on is for it to go forward to the Executive during the course of Wednesday. With the permission of the Business Committee and the approval of the Executive, we want the Programme for Government — and, indeed, our investment strategy and economic strategy — to be published on Thursday. That is subject to the caveats that I have outlined.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That concludes questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I remind Members that they must continually stand in their places if they are looking to be called for a supplementary question. It is not enough to indicate once and then sit down.

Regional Development

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what public transport services are available for people from Fermanagh who have to travel to Altnagelvin Hospital. (AQO 736/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member raises an important issue. I am very sympathetic to the needs of people in Fermanagh and other rural areas in accessing health and other services. Translink has informed me that it provides seven daily services from Enniskillen to Altnagelvin Area Hospital via either Omagh or the Ballygawley park-and-ride car park that are routed through Foyle Street, Londonderry. There are also seven daily services for the return trip. The average journey time from Enniskillen bus station to Altnagelvin Area Hospital and the return trip is around three hours using the Translink service exclusively.

However, we need to recognise the constraints that are faced in providing public transport solutions in rural areas, especially over significant distances and where there is a dispersed population. Nevertheless, because of the length of the journey time in that case, I have asked my officials to work with Translink to look at the possibility of using funding available from the rural transport fund to help to deliver a more direct service. I want to point out that members of rural transport partnerships in Fermanagh can also make use of their local partnership services to take them from their homes to Enniskillen or Omagh bus station and back again.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his positive response, particularly the fact that he has asked officials to engage with the matter. I have raised the issue with Ulsterbus on a number of occasions, and its response has been that it is not viable for it to introduce such a route. Will the Minister go back to Ulsterbus and ask it to look at the number of people who would travel from Enniskillen to Altnagelvin Area Hospital if an adequate service were put on, particularly taking into consideration people who have to be in Derry for an early morning appointment?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I can say that that would be and is an operational decision for Translink. Obviously, it is obliged to operate as a commercial company, and, as such, it has to consider providing a service where there is clear demand for it unless that service is subsidised directly. With that in mind, I am prepared to have that conversation with Translink.

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

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline any plans for better co-operation and co-ordination between the Roads Service, the Rivers Agency and Northern Ireland Water in relation to flood prevention and the response to emergencies. (AQO 737/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Through the Executive’s flooding incident line, my Department’s Roads Service, NI Water and Rivers Agency provide a co-ordinated response to calls for assistance from those who are affected during flooding events. The flood liaison group promotes co-operation and co-ordination between those organisations, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the local government emergency management group before, during and after flooding events. That group maintains and reviews on an ongoing basis a schedule of combined multiagency flooding hotspots to manage the risks that are associated with surface water flooding. That may include developing preventative measures, such as the design, guidance and promotion of sustainable drainage systems in addition to facilitating co-ordinated responses to emergencies.

The flood liaison group has developed best practice guidelines that provide a framework for the agencies involved to co-ordinate their responses to flooding incidents. That document establishes lines of communication and reporting across agencies. In addition, Roads Service and NI Water have advised that they are involved in the implementation of the Water Environment (Floods Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009, for which the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is the competent authority, with Rivers Agency in the lead.

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

I thank the Minister for his question. I really feel —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It was your question. I answered it.

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

Right, sorry. I thank the Minister for his answer and for putting me right there.

The Minister quoted a number of documents and all the rest to us. However, how long will it take to identify an effective and efficient strategy for co-operation across the agencies and to test it so that barriers that hinder flood prevention and a rapid response are identified and acted on? It used to be Belfast that flooded, and we managed to fix that to some extent. However, I had a nightmare when I looked at villages such as Beragh in Tyrone, for example, where flooding continues to happen. Can we ensure that such flooding never happens again?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Perhaps the lighting was bad for the Member, but the issue that he raises is important. A proper and co-ordinated response by all agencies is desirable, and I will play my part in that. It is important that we add to the list of agencies that I mentioned, because I believe that the Department of the Environment and even the Northern Ireland Environment Agency should have a role in all those issues.

As to the very regrettable and unfortunate recent flooding incident in Beragh and other places, Roads Service provided assistance at the time. It is evident that the flooding emanated from the river and that there were no issues associated with my Department’s infrastructure. However, it will facilitate any works to be undertaken by the Rivers Agency.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The question rightly points out that co-operation between the statutory agencies is important, but does the Minister agree that one agency missing from the list is the Planning Service? There needs to be increased recognition from the Planning Service of how development upstream of a flooding area can have significant adverse effects on areas susceptible to flooding.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for that well-made point. I want the Planning Service and the Department of the Environment generally to be more involved in the co-ordinated work of all the agencies.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What responsibility do statutory agencies have for flooding in undesignated watercourses?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will know, that creates a considerable problem because many areas that suffer from flooding, such as small rivers that burst their banks in excessive weather conditions, are undesignated courses. All agencies do their level best to improve the situation, and that working together seeks to improve the conditions. However, we will have to look to certain areas to provide a more comprehensive response to some of the localised flooding caused by such incidents.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development what plans are in place to provide footpaths at the Backaderry Road, Leitrim, County Down. (AQO 738/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

To make the most effective use of the limited funding available, Roads Service has an assessment procedure that compares and prioritises potential local transport and safety measures, such as the provision of footpaths at the Backaderry Road. That process takes into account a number of factors, including traffic volumes and collision history, and determines which are included in its works programme.

A recent reassessment of the Backaderry proposal indicated that it did not attract high priority in comparison with other potential schemes. On that basis, Roads Service advised that it currently has no plans to provide any new footpaths at Backaderry Road, Leitrim, County Down, but will continue to keep the situation under review. Although I fully appreciate the concerns of residents in asking for those measures, unfortunately, the number of requests for that type of work greatly exceeds the resources available to my Department.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Mind you, I do not agree with it. Hundreds of young people use the crossroads at that location to access GAA facilities and nursery provision, and there are businesses in the area. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look at the issue again and take into account the other criteria that I mentioned.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I understand the disappointment expressed by the Member. My officials and I are aware of the close proximity of sporting facilities and, indeed, the playgroup centre. However, surveys have been carried out over the summer and early autumn, and they indicated that the route was generally little-used by pedestrians on a day-to-day basis. A vehicle and pedestrian count carried out on a school day in September 2011 recorded only four pedestrians in the peak morning hour. With that type of background and those figures, it will be difficult for it to be carried forward at an early stage, which, of course, the Member would undoubtedly like.

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

What priority has the Minister given to the provision of footpaths and street lighting in rural areas in South Down? Will he have early discussions with Roads Service to ensure that the unique topography of that constituency is given proper consideration in the provision of infrastructure?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question. I can confirm that Roads Service uses an objective assessment procedure to determine inclusion in programmed improvement works. That helps to ensure that all requests are considered on a fair and equitable basis across Northern Ireland and that resources are targeted on schemes and at locations that are in the greatest need of improvement. However, I will write to the Member about recent provision in her constituency of South Down.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that, despite pleas by local residents using footpaths or roads, it is quite often the case that it is only after a serious accident or perhaps a fatality occurs on a busy road that Roads Service provides what the residents asked for in the first place?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question; however, I am slightly concerned at the message that it conveys. My Department looks at all applications objectively and in a fair and comprehensive manner, in an attempt to be as much help as possible in all cases. It is simply not always possible, because of the conditions or because of the available finance, for every scheme to be included. The Member should at least recognise that Roads Service officials all over Northern Ireland are seeking to improve their areas as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible. I know that he would not want to imply any criticism of their important work.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the findings of Exercise Watermill. (AQO 739/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Northern Ireland Water mock incident known as Exercise Watermill is one part of the overall process of implementing and validating improvements made since the events of last winter. The exercise was carried out on Wednesday 26 October 2011 and provided the company with the opportunity to test its procedures for dealing with an emergency. An external third party was contracted to monitor and evaluate Northern Ireland Water’s performance and is compiling a report on the outcome of the exercise. Northern Ireland Water has already provided initial feedback, purely from the company’s perspective, to the Regional Development Committee and, informally, to the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation and the CCNI.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his reply thus far. Exercise Watermill appears to have been useful in dealing with water shortage, but will the Minister advise what action he has taken to reduce the 80% loss of water that escaped from private property and caused the shortage in the first place?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. He will know, as do others, about the considerable promotional and advertising campaign that NI Water has embarked on this winter under the banner “Don’t wait. Insulate”. I commend that campaign to Members. It is geared not only at householders but at those in business and those with development sites, at which there were significant leakages and losses of water from the system last year, which affected the overall situation. We want to encourage everyone to play their part.

NI Water, having carried out the major incident preparation, awaits the draft consultant’s report, but, from its own evaluation, it has identified that the mobilisation of all teams worked well; that new information flow processes and the intelligent voice recognition (IVR) system were tested; that stakeholder communications and media handling capabilities were improved; and that the major emergency group headed by the CEO was highly effective in providing a strategic overview. I very much hope that, in conjunction with that and the winter awareness campaign, we can all play our part in limiting the potential for frozen and burst pipes.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

The Minister mentioned that the Committee for Regional Development had been briefed by Northern Ireland Water. We have not yet received a full briefing on Exercise Watermill. Will he confirm whether the Department is getting any further briefings from Northern Ireland Water? Furthermore, will he confirm that the Department will keep the Committee fully informed of its views on exactly what happened during Exercise Watermill?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Committee Chairperson for all the assistance that he and the Committee members have offered throughout the entire process. I want to continue to involve him and the Committee members as we enter the winter period. Northern Ireland Water has been implementing the recommendations of the Utility Regulator’s report and the lessons learned in the company. It has improved its website, and there is increased capacity from 20,000 hits a day to 200,000 hits an hour. It has increased the number of telephone lines at the call centre, and there are more dedicated lines for elected representatives.

Northern Ireland Water also has arrangements in place to quickly increase the number of call handlers in an emergency, including a spillover contract with a third-party call centre. A revised major incident plan has been drawn up. The company has doubled the amount of bottled water, making available a quarter of a million litres of water, and has increased the number of customers on the critical care register from 600 to nearly 2,000. There has been progress, which has been helpfully assisted and monitored by the Committee for Regional Development. We look forward to continuing that work.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Príomh-Leas Cheann Comhairle. For comparative reasons and to address any mistakes that may have been made, are there any plans to repeat Exercise Watermill?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The key will be the report from the independent consultants. We will avail ourselves of that and examine it in detail. We are now in the middle of November, and it could well be, although I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, that, because of real weather conditions, we could enter any type of emergency at any stage. It will be important to evaluate the results of the exercise that has recently been carried out and apply any lessons from that and any further improvements.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the main changes in drinking water quality as outlined in the latest report published by Northern Ireland Water. (AQO 740/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

In the latest report on water quality, for 2010, the drinking water inspectorate assesses that the overall quality of water provided by NI Water continued to improve from 99·79% to 99·86% compliance with regulatory requirements. That figure is based on more than 100,000 tests carried out across the water network. Considering only the tests at consumers’ taps, compliance increased from 99·74% to 99·81%. The level of microbiological compliance, which the Member will be particularly interested in, increased from 99·87% to 99·95%. The total number of reported events that may cause concern about water quality reduced from 55 to 36. Those improvements in overall water quality are the result of the investment in water treatment in recent years. However, we must continue to invest to maintain quality and address the condition of older water mains.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his very informative answer. Does he accept that the report shows continuing general improvement in the quality of water and indicates that we are meeting or are at least close to meeting the quality requirements that have been set? Will he give us some indication of how we perform against the rest of the United Kingdom?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his encouragement. The standards are important because they are European requirements. They are also important to ensure the quality of the water for our population. As the Member knows, water quality across the United Kingdom is compared using the measure known as mean zonal compliance (MZC), which is a comparator index that is calculated to best reflect the average quality of water at consumers’ taps across a geographical area. It was introduced in 2004. In 2010, mean zonal compliance in Northern Ireland was 99·81%. It was 99·77% in Scotland, so we are better. It was 99·96% in England and Wales, so we need to make some improvements to catch up with our counterparts there.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his comments about the quality of water. However, they will not sit well with my constituents in Ballymoney, given the fact that some 3,000 households have been without water for almost a week. Although I appreciate that there has been an improvement in communication between Northern Ireland Water and public representatives, which has been helpful, it is a serious problem for the households that have been affected. Will the Minister inform the House when normal supply will resume? It is a very important issue. Can he confirm or deny that another contamination of the water supply took place at the weekend that could prolong the reintroduction of normal supply to the very needy households in the Ballymoney area?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I genuinely sympathise with those who are affected at this time. A notice was issued to residents in the Ballymoney area on 9 November, advising them to boil water before drinking or cooking with it. I assure the House that Northern Ireland Water is taking all steps necessary to resolve the incident and return services to normal as quickly as possible. We hope that early progress can be made.

The Member will of course accept that public health has to be our paramount concern. Northern Ireland Water continues to work with the health authorities and the drinking water inspectorate to resolve the water quality issues. The advice to boil water will remain in place until Northern Ireland Water and the Public Health Agency are content that any risk has passed and that water quality meets the normal high standard. The Member is right, and I thank him for his acknowledgement that Northern Ireland Water has provided regular information updates, not only to customers through the media but to elected representatives. Alternative water supplies have been provided to vulnerable customers, including schools and those on the critical care register. The drinking water inspectorate will carry out an investigation into the causes in response to the incident, as is normal practice.

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

I declare immediately that I am not from Ballymoney. Many other areas are now concerned that a similar incident may happen there. Has the Minister got a timetable for ensuring that compliance will be stepped up further to avoid the type of inconvenience that was thrust upon those 3,000 people in the Ballymoney area?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. NI Water, in conjunction with the Public Health Agency, will take all necessary action and seek to resolve all issues. Safety of public health must be and is the priority, and that is taken seriously not only by NI Water and the Public Health Agency but by me as Minister.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Staying with the Ballymoney issue, surely it beggars belief that, in 2011, residents are still having to boil their water almost a week on from the problem having been discovered. The Minister referred to Exercise Watermill, but, in Ballymoney, it is “Exercise Water Boil”. Why has it taken the Department so long to get its act together, and has there or has there not been another incident of contamination?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member, and I understand the anxiety and frustration that he reflects on behalf of the people in Ballymoney. The current advice to boil water will remain in place until Northern Ireland Water and the Public Health Agency are content that any risk has passed and that water quality meets the normal high standard. Northern Ireland Water hopes to be able to make a further announcement later today on the improving situation.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of whether the production of an advice leaflet by Northern Ireland Water on dealing with frozen pipes this winter is an adequate response to this matter. (AQO 741/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The production of an advice leaflet to inform customers of how to prepare for winter is only one element of Northern Ireland Water’s overall programme of work, which has included improvements to Northern Ireland Water’s communications, emergency planning and increased alternative supplies, among other measures. A public awareness campaign has been initiated, involving TV, radio, newspapers, information leaflets and NI Water’s website, as well as other online outlets.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that answer. I have seen the public awareness campaign, and it is quite good. So, Minister, that is one feather in your cap. We are aware of last year’s difficulties, so are you doing any proactive work in targeting the constituencies, businesses and homes that suffered most during that frozen spell?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for her comprehensive vote of confidence in what has been achieved so far. It is important that, on a Northern Ireland level, we continue to get the message out. That important message is that we can encourage people to look out for themselves by insulating pipes, identifying where the stopcocks are and, perhaps, having emergency contact numbers available, not only for NI Water but for a local plumber.

I am pleased that elected Members have been part of that campaign. Recently, the Chair of the Regional Development Committee circulated to Members the hotline number so that they could report any leaks or problems. It is by working together in a collective and cohesive manner that we can best serve the entire community and deal with any issues that emerge.

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the contacts he has had with his counterpart, the Minister for Transport in Dublin, in relation to the recent announcement concerning the A5 road scheme.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister of Finance and Personnel and I met my counterpart, Leo Varadkar TD, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin TD, in Dublin on 2 November 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to emphasise the importance of the Irish Government’s investment in the A5 and A8 schemes being maintained.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will call Mr Pat Doherty to ask a supplementary question. After that, I will call each of the parties to ask a question.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his brief answer. Given the amount of work, public consultation and money spent so far on the A5, all of which led to a public inquiry, will the Minister assure the House that he is looking at a re-profiling schedule and not thinking of reallocating the moneys pledged by our Executive to it? Given that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have already met Taoiseach Enda Kenny, when will the Minister next meet his counterpart Minister in the South, Leo Varadkar?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I gently remind the Member and the House that I am the Roads Minister. Obviously, I will look at the range of options available for utilising funding within the tight time frames of the current budgetary period. It is also important to state that, as well as the A5 scheme, there is the position of the A8 scheme. That is a trans-European network route, and any delay to that would give rise to significant concern. I am aware that the First Minister and deputy First Minister met Enda Kenny in the margins of the inauguration of the president on Friday.

The Member may also know that a full plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council is scheduled for next Friday in Armagh. I do not wish to be a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I envisage some discussion on the issue not only in the run-up to that meeting, perhaps through officials, but at that plenary meeting

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Minister advise the House what contingent priorities he has in place for the redistribution of any surplus finances that could come from the Executive as a result of the withdrawal of match funding from the Republic of Ireland Government? Has he any projects that may be given priority in the redistribution of such finances?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

A number of schemes in the roads programme are sufficiently advanced to enable construction to proceed within the current Budget period, subject, of course, to successful procurement and the availability of finance. It is, perhaps, not that helpful to speculate as to where those are. However, I can advise the Member that any number of Members, when they meet me in the corridor or ring me, give me advice about where, and on what project, it would be good to spend money.

Of course, those projects include ones from all over Northern Ireland. As roads Minister, my commitment to the people of Northern Ireland is to enhance the road network all over Northern Ireland in a way that uses the resources made available to me effectively.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I have never quite understood why the A8 was linked to the A5, but will the Minister confirm that the A8 between Larne and Bruslee is the only section of single carriageway between the busy rural port of Larne and Cork?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Yes; the Member’s geography is spot on, there is no doubt about that. The A8 is a significant scheme, and its completion would be part of the completion of the Trans-European Network that has been long promised. So, I understand perfectly the Member for East Antrim raising the issue of the port of Larne, which is in his own constituency, and the importance of the A8 to the area.

In the wider context, as roads Minister, I am concerned that we maintain the confidence of the construction industry, and the road construction industry in particular, because there is, and will be, widespread concern. Therefore, it is incumbent on me to identify potential schemes and projects that can be carried forward to enable contracts to be let and to help ease the very significant pressure that a great many companies and firms are feeling at this time. I am in the business of assisting those companies and want to see improvements to the overall roads network throughout Northern Ireland.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement thus far in linking the A8 and the A5, given that they were part of a joint project. Does he accept that the funding from the Executive is earmarked funding and that it would therefore be very difficult to change it given the circumstances? Does he further agree that the Roads Service project team has advanced the planning and development stage to the extent that all it is waiting on is the green light?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question, and he is factually correct. Given that the A5/A8 scheme was an Executive priority, the moneys allocated against it, if they are to be re-profiled, will go back to the centre for reallocation. As roads Minister, I am indicating clearly that I will have projects that will be ready to have money spent on them.

It is important that we move quickly to reassure local companies and road builders generally and that we are not helping to put further pressure on those companies that face great uncertainty and that are seriously worried about the high numbers of people that they continue to employ and want to employ. So, I will indicate to the House, and have no shame in so doing, that I am in the business of bidding for money, should it become available, so that we can spend money on roads all over Northern Ireland.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

In respect of the situation in which we find ourselves, may I ask that you and your Executive colleagues work to ensure that none of the money that may have to be re-profiled as a result of the decision of the Irish Government ends up back in the hands of Treasury? I am sure you will agree with me and my colleague Mr Beggs that the A2 is also a priority.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I would have been shocked, if not offended, if the Member had not raised the A2. I understand the importance that he attaches to that project, as do other Members from the East Antrim constituency, including my colleague Mr Beggs.

There is a danger that some may not realise, perhaps including some political parties, the importance of being able to spend money in time and being able to spend money, particularly next year, effectively on the ground. The significant danger is that the money will be lost and will go back to the Treasury. I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland, least of all those in the road construction industry, would thank any political party, the Assembly or the Executive if that occurs. I am mindful of that, which is why I am actively looking at bringing forward projects that will spend the money, create jobs and give some comfort to that industry.