Northern Ireland Assembly, 26 March 2012

276 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we begin business, I advise the House that I have received a letter from Mr Willie Clarke giving me notice that he intends to resign as a Member of the Assembly with effect from 12 April 2012. We wish him well. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The first item on the Order Paper is a motion on Committee membership. As with other similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion, and therefore there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Mr Alastair Ross replace Mr Sammy Douglas as a member of the Committee for Social Development. — [Mr Weir.]

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With permission, I wish to make a statement on the prison reform programme.

In my statement to the House in October last year to welcome the publication of the final report of the prison review team, I stated that the next six months would be critical to this programme of reform. I am clear that full implementation of the prison review team’s recommendations will take years, rather than months, and will require change across the system of government as well as within the Prison Service. However, I believe that the progress made in the past six months proves that the change we are embarked upon is transformational in scale and nature, is being tackled with pace and vigour and is irrevocable in its outcome.

The significance of this work and the benefits that it stands to bring to the whole of society in Northern Ireland cannot be overstated. It will bring benefits not only in creating a transformed, more efficient and effective Prison Service but, more fundamentally, in helping to shape and inform the approach that our society should take to those who offend against its rules by encouraging and supporting their rehabilitation. The reform programme, properly resourced and managed, has the potential to significantly improve public safety by reducing offending and the risk of reoffending, thus easing the burden in financial and human terms that crime places on our society.

The start we have made can genuinely give confidence that my Department’s response to the recommendations is positive and that the progress being made is real. I will today set out the steps that give rise to that judgement. As Members will know, I have also established an oversight group, which I chair, that will provide robust and impartial scrutiny of the performance of the reform programme as it moves forward.

The scale of change facing the Prison Service is unprecedented in its complexity as we seek to deliver transformational change against a backdrop of diminishing resources. Key to reform are the ongoing negotiations between Prison Service management and the Prison Officers’ Association (POA). I pay tribute to both sides for the constructive and businesslike way that they have conducted their discussions. At the outset, I made it clear that change was not something I wanted to do to our staff but that, rather, our objective was to bring about reform working with them directly as employees and working alongside their elected union representatives. It is, therefore, encouraging to announce today that, after several months of detailed and painstaking negotiations, the Prison Service and the POA have agreed in principle a way forward. It includes repeal of the current and long-standing framework agreement, to be replaced by a new staff deployment agreement.

On 1 April, NIPS will launch its new operating model, which will be rolled out in line with the introduction of new shift patterns over the next six months. Custody officer and offender supervisor posts will be introduced. Staff currently serving in support grades will have the opportunity to amalgamate into the custody officer role, and 200 new staff will be recruited as part of the ongoing external recruitment campaign. Staff will be appointed to those grades on new pay scales and with new terms and conditions of employment.

The current seven-tier management structure will be simplified to four tiers. That will greatly improve accountability, expand decision-taking responsibility and improve the work undertaken in the new grades. Staff throughout the service will have a clear line of progression with regard to advancement, and all staff will have the opportunity to obtain professionally recognised qualifications. Obtaining a certificate of competence and, subsequently, a licence to practise will be a requirement in order to secure continued employment, pay progression and promotion.

A new dispute resolution procedure and industrial relations procedural agreement will be implemented, supported by a new code of ethics. An updated and refreshed disciplinary procedure will also be developed and introduced by the summer of this year. As we proceed to implement change, we are committed to working towards releasing the remainder of the staff who applied for the voluntary early retirement scheme. That will, of course, take time, but I am confident that we will be able to do so.

The negotiations with unions have set the backdrop to much of the progress made in NIPS over the past six months. As is clear from the package of measures that has been agreed, much of this first phase has focused on laying the foundations for structural reform. It is equally encouraging to see the tangible benefits that this work is already bringing in transforming and modernising the way in which we manage our business. For example, the introduction of a centralised detail office has brought a greater degree of management control over the deployment of staff resources and is already improving regime delivery across all three prison sites.

Under the voluntary early retirement scheme, the first tranche of 151 staff will leave the service at the end of this month. The recruitment campaign for the new custody officer grade was launched last month, with nearly 5,000 applications received. Following a stringent and demanding selection process, the first recruits are expected to be operational by the end of this year.

Arrangements are also in place for the transfer of prison healthcare staff to the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust from next week, which will ensure, for the first time, that there is appropriate governance and accountability for the delivery of healthcare services in the custodial environment. Work is also well advanced to bring forward other major and fundamental structural change. NIPS is taking forward a number of important reviews, including reviews of catering, corporate services and corporate governance, which are helping to shape and inform both core and non-core operational delivery. That will lead to a more efficient and cost-effective service. An infrastructure manager has been appointed, whose remit includes the development of a prison estate strategy, which I plan to publish next month, and consideration of the future of the Prison Service’s data system, PRISM.

NIPS has conducted a further review of full-body imaging scanners, in line with a recommendation in the prison review team’s report. On the basis of that review, I intend to initiate a pilot of full-body imaging scanners as soon as the necessary authorisation for use of that technology in prisons is obtained.

NIPS has also been addressing concerns about equality and diversity reporting and has strengthened the role of equality and diversity committees in prisons.

The review team’s report was clear about the need to invest in the development of staff remaining in the Prison Service: a staying-on package, as Dame Anne Owers called it. Considerable progress is being made on developing our staff and preparing them for the challenges of working in a prison service with a changed focus, which will also underpin the much needed cultural reform called for by the review team.

Plans are well advanced for a new comprehensive training programme, leading to the award of a certificate of competence, that will upskill and develop custody officers to enable them to carry out their role competently and effectively. Similarly, a learning and development programme for offender supervisors is under development, which will lead to the award of a professional licence to practice. That will be accredited externally.

The Prison Service is also putting in place a new disciplinary system for uniformed staff that will include a new code of conduct and discipline, a new code of ethics and a new professional standards unit, which will set in place new arrangements to enable the Prison Service to better manage disciplinary cases and monitor the application of appropriate conduct standards for prison staff.

The prison review team recommended a holistic solution to reforming the entire prison system in Northern Ireland, not just the Prison Service. Work has been continuing across my Department to address the review team’s recommendations, most notably those relating to juvenile offenders and sentencing policy.

There has been good progress as a result of focused work between the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Agency to ensure that under-18s are only accommodated at Hydebank Wood when absolutely necessary. That has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of juvenile inmates. As at 20 March, only three inmates at Hydebank Wood were aged under 18, although legislative changes will be needed to fully end the practice.

I launched a supervised activity order pilot scheme earlier this year in Newry. It will run for six months before being evaluated, and steps are being taken to identify and establish a further location.

My Department is in discussion with the Justice Committee on the way forward following last year’s review of community sentences. I hope to announce proposals in the near future.

As the prison review team made clear, implementation of the necessary reforms cannot be delivered by my Department alone. Some of its recommendations involve a strategic realignment of the framework for tackling offending and reoffending and will require a cross-departmental response. With that in mind, I am engaged in a series of meetings with other Ministers. My Department has hosted strategic workshops to create a shared understanding of how the recommendations fit within the wider agenda of improving public safety and reducing the risk of offending and reoffending. That work is still at a fairly early stage but has led to agreement around three key themes. First, identifying and providing interventions to change the behaviours that have led to offending. Secondly, creating a prison system that is focused on enabling individuals to change as well on providing a safe, secure and humane system. Thirdly, delivering more effective outcomes through better joined-up partnership arrangements across government.

I am clear that there is still a considerable distance to be travelled, and I acknowledge the inevitability of encountering further challenges and obstacles that will need to be overcome as we move forward. However, I am confident that the journey of reform has begun, real progress is being made, and momentum is building. Although challenges remain, with the support of the Assembly, the reform process is, I believe, unstoppable.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I declare an interest: I have a family member employed in the Prison Service. First, I commend the director of human resources in the Prison Service, Ronnie Armour, and Finlay Spratt, chairman of the Prison Officers’ Association, for reaching an agreement in principle. Obviously, there is more detail to be implemented, which will require more work. It would be foolhardy not to welcome the agreement that has been reached in principle.

That said, I am sure that the Minister will agree that communication with staff is fundamental to any change programme. There is concern that morale is low and communication is not being properly filtered through to rank-and-file officers. Will he assure the House that there will be proper communication, particularly to those involved in the exit scheme? The Minister said that he is confident that he will be able to allow all those who wish to leave to do so. Finally, will the Minister also assure the House on an issue that has been touched on previously and that concerns the bumpy road that we are travelling on? Will he assure the House that the uniforms that will be issued to new officers and offender supervisors will be of the same standard as those that are currently issued to staff and that any change that may be talked about will first require discussion and approval at the Executive?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Committee Chair for his welcome. I have no problem at all in joining him in commending Ronnie Armour and Finlay Spratt for the positive and constructive way in which management and the POA have engaged in recent months.

The Member makes a valid point about getting communications through to rank-and-file officers. Unfortunately, when detailed negotiations are under way, it is difficult to communicate the full detail to everyone. However, I certainly trust that the agreement, which is agreed in principle and close to absolute finalisation, will need to be communicated as speedily and effectively as possible. Prison Service management will do that.

On the Member’s final point, I cannot give him any assurances on precisely what new uniforms for new officers will look like. That matter is under discussion. However, he correctly makes the point that the emblems and uniforms, as has been established in the Chamber in the past, will be controversial and will require agreement around the Executive table.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. I also welcome the Minister’s statement. I refer the Minister to the section about healthcare services. The Minister will be aware of the serious medical and mental health problems of Marian Price, who is being held at Hydebank women’s prison. Will he authorise Mrs Price’s immediate release to an outside hospital so that she can be treated for those problems?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us have questions to the statement. The Member is almost straying onto a different subject. If the Member can demonstrate that she is linking her question to the statement, I will be very happy to listen to her. It is really up to the Minister whether he wants to answer the question.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Ms McCann for her welcome for the statement. I can confirm that the healthcare needs of every one of our prisoners are now being managed by the South Eastern Trust, to which full responsibility will pass on 1 April. The Prison Service will take seriously any recommendations from the trust regarding the welfare and health of any prisoners.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I caution Members that questions need to relate to the ministerial statement.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I almost get concerned that you are directing your comments to me. I will do my best to ask the Minister —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

It is no reflection on you.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the statement and acknowledge that considerable work has been done. However, I want to tease out something from the Minister. You mentioned that, as of 20 March, only three inmates at Hydebank Wood were aged under 18 and that legislative changes would be needed if you wanted to change or end the practice. What legislation would be required? Do you intend to bring forward that legislation? Do you not accept that, while the general principle of not putting people aged 18 or younger in with older inmates is a good thing, some 18-year-olds may need special circumstances?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McCrea for his welcome for the statement. Today is a good news day for the Prison Service, and we should recognise that as we go into detailed questions. I thank him for recognising the work that has been done.

Not long after I became Minister, there were 20 or 21 under-18s at Hydebank Wood on different nights. I have the complete table if any Member wishes to ask me for it afterwards. That is now down to a very small number. I fully recognise that that small number includes those who require facilities other than those that can be provided in Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre.

The key issue for the Assembly will be whether it wishes to legislate in the future to remove the option for Hydebank Wood. Clearly, that can only be done if the facilities are available in Woodlands and if the Assembly wishes to legislate that way. However, I am fully conscious of points made by other Members about the necessity to remove, as far as possible, under-18s from Hydebank Wood. The historically low numbers that are there now is a sign of the good work being done by the Prison Service, alongside the Youth Justice Agency, to manage those young people better.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for the statement. He referred to creating a prison system that is safe, secure and humane. Clearly, the forced strip-searching that is ongoing in Roe House is not safe, and it is certainly not humane. The Minister also referred to the further review of full-body imaging scanners. He will be aware of how emotive that subject is, not just inside the prison but outside it. Will he outline to the House a definitive time frame and target for the introduction of that mechanism? Who does he need authorisation from?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Ramsey for that. He referred to the issue of full-body searching being emotive, and it certainly is. As far as I am concerned, the Prison Service in Northern Ireland, as in the other two jurisdictions in the UK, uses full-body searching, where necessary, in order to ensure the safety and security of prisoners and prison officers. It is clearly something that we wish to move away from when we can provide that security without full-body searching.

At this stage, I can give no timescale for the introduction of the technology that I wish to see piloted. However, I can give a commitment that, as soon as licensing is agreed on an application being taken forward for Holme House Prison in Yorkshire, it is my intention that Northern Ireland Prison Service will be able to make use of that technology to carry out our own pilot and to see how quickly it is possible to introduce alternatives to full-body searching. However, the necessity is to ensure the safety, security and welfare of prisoners and staff.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the excellent progress that has been made and for bringing us this six-month report. The Minister said in his report that it is clear that there is still a considerable distance to be travelled. What are the key milestones for the next six months?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I tempted to look at you, Mr Speaker, and say that is not what was in the statement.

I thank my colleague for his welcome. I highlighted a number of points that will come through in the next six months, such as further issues relating to structural reforms. I have already highlighted the fact that the implementation of the healthcare changes will happen next month. I suppose that qualifies. Reviews that are under way should report back on issues such as corporate governance and learning-and-skills training. The estates review is due back in the next few weeks and will be reported on to the House as fast as possible. There are other ongoing issues relating, in particular, to the new staff coming in. None of them is likely to be operational within six months, but I believe that we will see the first new recruits in training within six months, to be operational by the end of the year. There is a lot of work going on around developing the skills of existing staff, seeing that we manage prisoners better, introducing the new staff and allowing the exit scheme to progress, which is likely to be among the key focuses of the next six months.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I particularly welcome the fact that there has been agreement with the POA.

Certainty is key to the implementation of the programme in terms of its working well and in respect of staff morale. The Minister said that he was working towards the release of the remainder of staff who had applied for the voluntary early retirement scheme. What is the timescale for the second tranche of the voluntary early retirement scheme? If the Minister cannot answer that today, can he indicate when he will be in a position to produce a full timetable that outlines for the remainder of staff the timings for the full roll-out of the voluntary early retirement scheme?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Weir for a perfectly reasonable question. Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer it, on two basic grounds: first, the timing of exits will have to be commensurate with the timing of recruitments, to ensure that we maintain adequate staffing; secondly, part of the compensation package for officers who leave is compensation in lieu of notice. If we were to give individual officers notice, they would not be entitled to that compensation in lieu of notice. Therefore, while it is clearly unsatisfactory for some officers who would like a more specific date, it is not possible to give them specific dates. All that I can say is that we are working to ensure that we enable those who wish to leave to do so in an orderly fashion, commensurate with the needs of the service, as I highlighted.

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

Leadership will, undoubtedly, be critical in delivering the change programme outlined in the Minister’s statement. Does the Minister expect any other changes in the senior management of the Prison Service? When can we expect to have a new director for the Prison Service appointed?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McDevitt makes a reasonable point. It is certainly not my expectation, at this stage, that we will see any further significant leadership changes. The new change manager is familiarising himself and will be in post within a month or so to lead that aspect of the work. I am working with the permanent secretary of the Department to see how we can ensure replacement for the director general when Colin McConnell leaves at the end of May. I understand that the employment process for the permanent replacement, which is being led by the Civil Service Commissioners, is being fully considered this week and will result in an advert immediately after Easter. Obviously, however, there will then be questions, including things like vetting processes, about how quickly an applicant can be put in post.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle agus buíochas don Aire as an ráiteas seo. I thank the Minister and welcome his statement. I am sure that he appreciates that such a long statement will require more than one question. I welcome the fact that the director general will be in front of the Committee on Thursday, when we will be able to tease out some of the issues.

In his concluding paragraph, the Minister said that reform should be unstoppable. I think that that is the benchmark on which all of this will be tested. It is a bit disappointing that there was no direct reference to the change management team in the statement. Can the Minister outline what role it will play in ensuring that reform is unstoppable?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McCartney for his question. It is sometimes easy to overpersonalise things. Although I have certainly paid tribute to Colin McConnell and his work and will continue to do so, we will have the replacement change manager in post soon, as I have just said to Mr McDevitt. We are working on the replacement for Colin McConnell, and, as has been highlighted over the issue of negotiations with the POA, for example, Ronnie Armour has played a very significant role in that, as the appropriate director in the Prison Service.

We need to recognise the work that is being done by the team as a whole and not simply personalise it to one individual or another. It is my hope that we will soon have in place the full team that will continue the good work that has been done over the past six months. I said that the momentum was building and was unstoppable, and I believe that that is because of the good work I see being done by the Prison Service management — not by just one person, but the whole team.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. We speak here of offenders, rather than criminals; we must never forget the type of people for whom we are reforming. As he takes the reform package forward, does the Minister accept that keeping the outside population, never mind the prison population, on board is of vital importance? Does he accept that there is a lot of dissatisfaction, for instance, in the Prison Service itself, and that it appears to some that there is a lot of contradiction in the manner in which this is being taken forward? Some prison staff who have worked there for over 30 or 40 years are being told that they will not qualify or will not be able to pick up on the new regime and will have to wait longer. Does he accept that those people need to be shown respect and that those who want to leave the service can do so with dignity?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Lord Morrow for his comments on that. However, I thought that that was the entire intention of the package; that those who wish to leave are being allowed to leave with dignity. Clearly not everyone can leave on 31 March, but the documentation that individuals were supplied with made it clear that release will be on the basis of the needs of the service. I accept that some individuals who had hoped to leave early are disappointed that they cannot leave in the first tranche. However, if they had read the paperwork, they would have known that that was never going to be possible. As I have said, I believe it is important that we provide the best possible information to all members of staff and ensure that the work is done as speedily and efficiently as possible. However, that cannot simply mean that everybody goes on the exact date of their choosing.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I, too, welcome today’s statement. On page 5, paragraph 2, we hear about a new disciplinary procedure. The Minister is probably aware that I have been asking questions of all Departments on the number of disciplinary matters, to which his Department declined to answer. Yet I am told that there are possibly many more there than in any other Department. I am told that there is, therefore, quite a lot of disquiet. Will the Minister ensure that rank and file members of the Prison Service are able to be consulted about the new code of conduct and discipline without any pressure from above or the outside?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have to emphasise that management have a responsibility to manage. The new disciplinary procedures have been part of the ongoing discussions between the POA and Prison Service management. I think that that is recognition of the valid role that employees have, while recognising also that difficulties have arisen in the past in the Prison Service because management have not been able to manage properly. I am determined to see that, working with our employees, we get a better system for the future.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle agus gabhaim buíochas leat as an ráiteas sin a Aire. Did the Minister receive legal advice on the conditions that can be attached to enhance severance packages for prison officers? Did he read the advice or did he rely on submissions from officials?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I did not personally read legal advice on issues of the severance package. I think it entirely reasonable that, at times, Ministers read the submissions that they receive from officials. If the point Mr Lynch is making is about the potential re-engagement of prison officers, I can give him the news that of the 4,900 applications received by the Department for the new custody officer posts, one came from a serving prison officer.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I also welcome the statement from the Minister. I refer to the last paragraph, in which he said: “the journey ... has begun.” I pay tribute to the efforts of the Minister and his Department for where we have come to along that journey. Will he tell the Assembly when he reckons that that journey will finish and we will have a Prison Service for Northern Ireland that is second to none?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McCarthy for his point. The general line is that we are talking about a reform process of something like four years. However, I made it clear when I announced the outcome of the prison review team report that the first six months would be vital. That is why I am making this statement, at a little over five months, because six months comes during the Easter holidays, to emphasise that the journey is well begun. However, there will be a lot more work to do on the way.

I probably should tell the House that, a few weeks ago, I met my predecessor with responsibility for prisons, Paul Goggins, in Westminster. He told me that prison reform was one of the issues that direct rule left to devolution because it was thought to be too difficult. It is a tribute to those doing the work in the Prison Service, and to the collective way in which this House and the Department have worked alongside the Committee and others, that they have been able to tackle an issue that was too difficult for direct rule. That is an indication of the good progress being made.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give some clarification on the issue of uniform? If a new uniform is thought necessary, why is that? Can he give an assurance, in light of past controversy, that there is no proposal within the Prison Service to remove HMP or the crown from the uniform? If there is no agreement in the Executive on the uniform, does that mean that the existing uniform will prevail for all staff?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I thought that I had made it clear in my first answer to Mr Given, the Committee Chair, that the uniforms for new staff may be something different from those currently there, but we have clearly established in the Chamber in the past that the precise detail of uniform and emblems might be regarded as sufficiently controversial and, indeed, is regarded as sufficiently controversial as to require Executive approval.

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

I thank the Minister for his previous answers. I note that the patient Mr Armour and the redoubtable Mr Spratt have eventually reached agreement in principle. You said in your statement that it is an agreement in principle. Does that mean that further details need to be agreed, because you also said that, on 1 April, the Prison Service will launch the new operating model, which will be rolled out in line with the introduction of new shift patterns over the next six months? Is there final agreement on the detail and the substance?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Maginness for his positive comments. I am not quite sure whether it is purely the patient Mr Armour and the redoubtable Mr Spratt, though, perhaps, that may not be an inaccurate description of either of them. As I understand the measure of agreement that has been reached, by saying that it was “in principle”, I meant it was probably not covering the full detail of the agreement. As I understand it, there are a few minor bits of fine-tuning to be worked out. However, in essence, we have an agreement between Prison Service management and the Prison Officers Association on very significant and fundamental reforms that the Prison Service will operate in the future, negotiated willingly by those two gentlemen and others over a period of months in a way that will, I believe, provide the transformational change that we all wish to see.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I understand that six officers who did not meet the criteria have been allowed to leave the service in the first tranche. That, in itself, further demoralises the remaining staff when they see such discrepancies coming to light. I also understand that another 68 staff may be moving from a criteria 3 to a criteria 2 situation, which I would welcome. The remaining staff were told at a meeting in Maghaberry that they would be allowed to leave by the end of March, and the delay has totally demoralised quite a number of staff who had made arrangements to leave on 31 March. I know that the Minister has been pressed for an answer on this, but can I press him again to tell me and the House when he thinks that the staff who want to leave will be allowed to leave?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Anderson for his question. I have heard from a number of quarters that staff were told that they could all go by 31 March. I can simply tell the House that that is not what has been reported to me and that that is not what is conveyed in the paperwork that was supplied to all members of staff. Realistically, when 500 staff applied for the exit scheme, I do not think that we expected that they would all be able to leave on a single day.

Mr Anderson referred to the six officers who are being allowed to go and who did not meet the criteria. I regret that that is the position. That fault arose contrary to what was said in Saturday’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’: it arose when pension calculations were being done in DFP central pensions branch. When the Prison Service became aware of the error, arrangements were made to ensure that six other staff would be able to leave, and they were the next six who would have legitimately left. In a sense, six staff members have been advantaged but none has been disadvantaged. I have asked for all those pension calculations to be revisited to ensure that we are 100% accurate. It is deeply unfortunate that that error was made. However, it was not made by the Prison Service, and the Prison Service is seeking to remedy it as fast as can be. As I said earlier to Mr Weir, it is not possible to give a date when all staff will be able to leave, but I am committed to ensuring that those who applied for the exit scheme will be able to leave as early as possible, commensurate with ensuring an adequate staffing regime for the Prison Service.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the 1998 Act, regarding the recent meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in aquaculture and marine sectoral format.

The meeting was held in the NSMC joint secretariat offices in Armagh on Thursday 1 March 2012. The Executive were represented by Nelson McCausland and me, and the Dublin Government were represented by the Minister of State for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Fergus O’Dowd TD. This statement has been agreed with Minister McCausland and I make it on behalf of us both.

We welcomed the recently appointed Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission chairperson, Winston Patterson, and vice chairperson, Alan McCulla, to their first NSMC meeting and received a progress report on the work of the Loughs Agency from the chairperson and chief executive, Derick Anderson. Both Minister O’Dowd and I have made visits to the Loughs Agency and have had the opportunity to meet front line staff who have experienced attacks and abuse when carrying out their enforcement duties. It was, therefore, satisfying to hear of the positive effect on the agency’s field staff morale as a result of these meetings.

We were also pleased to learn that following my meeting with the Chief Constable of the PSNI and correspondence issued to an Garda Síochána Commissioner in relation to attacks on the Loughs Agency’s enforcement staff and volunteer river watchers, new and more formalised lines of communication between agency officials, the PSNI and an Garda Síochána are being developed.

We welcomed the success of the agency’s enforcement actions under the oyster fishing regulations, with a series of cases having a successful outcome in the courts. In 2011, agency staff dealt with 54 rod-related offences and 44 seizures. Agency protection staff also seized 161 illegal nets, 12 boats, 36 bags of oysters and two cars as well as various other items, including knives, balaclava masks and batons. Staff have dealt with 134 pollution incidents and taken 11 sets of statutory samples. Regarding environmental protection, the agency successfully convicted every individual or company that had caused a fish kill by pollution in the Foyle area in 2011.

The improvement in the oyster population of Lough Foyle was noted, and we encouraged the agency to continue to develop management strategies to consolidate and refine these improvements. We also noted the disappointing drop in sea survival of Atlantic salmon since the 1990s and welcomed the Loughs Agency’s action, following extensive consultation, in issuing a declaration suspending commercial fishing in Lough Foyle and the tidal Foyle and the restriction on angling carcass tags to help to improve the survival of Atlantic salmon.

We noted that the Loughs Agency, which took a lead role alongside partners from the University of Glasgow and Queen’s University Belfast, was successful in securing funding through INTERREG IVa for the integrated aquatic resource management project between the island of Ireland and Scotland, known as IBIS. The overarching aim of this project is the development of a common approach to the delivery of high-priority training, research and knowledge-sharing, supporting freshwater and marine resource management and policy, and the biodiversity that these ecosystems support. The total value of the programme, which runs from August 2011 to June 2015, is approximately £8 million.

We welcomed the presentation by the Loughs Agency on the Lough Foyle oyster fishery and oyster spawning assessment. The findings and recommendations from these annual reports allow the agency to use the evidence gathered to inform its decision-making in relation to regulation, policy development and enhancement works for the fishery. We were pleased to note during the subsequent discussion that the Loughs Agency was considering the introduction of revised regulations concerning both the minimum weight and size of oysters permitted for landing in order to help ensure a sustainable oyster fishery. The oyster sector had recently raised that issue with me.

We were also pleased to learn that active consideration is being given to promoting local oysters through an oyster festival to coincide with the planned Clipper Round the World Yacht Race in the Foyle in July. We also noted the development of a bird survey protocol for Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough that will be used to inform and update the Loughs Agency’s appropriate assessments as required by the EU habitats directive, which defines how Natura 2000 sites are managed and protected. The data collected will allow for informed assessments of how waterbird populations may affect or be affected by aquaculture activity in the loughs.

We heard at the meeting that the process of recruiting the third stakeholder advisory forum is progressing, and that the agency expects that advertisements inviting applications will be sent out in the near future. The advisory forum has been an important tool for engagement with the stakeholders of both the Foyle and Carlingford catchments. The recruitment of the third forum will ensure that all interested parties will be provided with the opportunity to put forward their views on areas of interest or concern.

We considered two recommendations concerning the Loughs Agency that arise from the St Andrews Agreement review. We agreed to refer the following recommendations for endorsement to the NSMC plenary meeting in June 2012. The first recommendation was for the Loughs Agency to establish and provide services to producer organisations for the development of marine products. The Council supported that recommendation and agreed that any legislative obstacles identified by the agency would be addressed by the two sponsor Departments. The second recommendation was for an amend­ment to be sought to the Magistrates’ Courts rules to enable costs that are awarded to better reflect the cost of bringing prosecutions. Although any change to legislation in the North of Ireland to provide for a fixed-penalty regime is a matter for the Executive, it was agreed that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) will keep under review the opportunity to amend the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 to allow for a fixed-penalty regime.

We welcomed the progress on delivery of the Loughs Agency’s legislation implementation plan; approved the Foyle Area (Greenbraes Fishery Angling Permits) Regulations 2012, which prescribe the fees payable to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission for the issue of Greenbraes fishery angling permits; and noted that further regulations will require NSMC approval later in 2012.

Finally, we agreed to meet again in aquaculture and marine sectoral format in June or July 2012. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon. She referred to the attacks and abuse experienced by front line staff in the Loughs Agency. She mentioned that lines of communication between the Loughs Agency and the PSNI have improved. Can the Minister elaborate on what else is being done to protect staff?

With the amount of legal activity that is taking place — the seizure of 161 illegal nets, 12 boats, 36 bags of oysters, two cars and various items that include knives, balaclavas and batons — are we tackling the issue or scratching the surface?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for the question. The reason I went to meet staff is that I am genuinely concerned that they have to carry out their jobs in difficult circumstances. I am pleased to say that the level of attacks on staff has greatly decreased, but that could be due to the season that we are in. Obviously, that would have to be monitored over a longer period to see whether some headway has actually been made. As Mr Frew said, significant work has been done to seize illegal items. Now that there is improved communication between the gardaí and the PSNI, that will, obviously, help things. The fact that we have also had a number of successful prosecutions acts as a deterrent. So, collectively, all those things add up and make a difference. Staff are delighted that levels are lower than they were at this time last year. However, as I said, we will have to keep that under review.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. Can she give us a flavour of the work that the Loughs Agency is doing on the marine tourism development strategy?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his question. The agency reported at the meeting that an application for INTERREG funding has been submitted for a project that involves the development of a 200-berth marina in Warrenpoint and the first stage of a similar development in Stranraer, including a new breakwater slipway and pontoon berths. The lead partner is Newry and Mourne District Council. The agency, Warrenpoint port, Louth County Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council are the other partners.

Those facilities will form the basis for a number of interactive projects between Carlingford lough and Loch Ryan and extend the necklace of marinas from the south and south-east of the island to the extremely attractive sailing opportunities between the north and west of Scotland, its islands and coast, and the north coast of Ireland. The aim is to provide day-sailing opportunities between the marinas and encourage visiting yachts and cruisers to explore Carlingford on their way north and, hopefully, west to the Foyle and beyond.

I hope that that gives the Member a flavour of the type of work that is being done under the marine tourism development strategy. I look forward to bringing forward many new, inventive ideas because they are constantly coming to the fore when I am out meeting groups.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I also thank the Minister for her statement. The success of the Loughs Agency, with improvements reported in the oyster population in Lough Foyle, stands in stark contrast to the failure of DARD and the Department of the Environment (DOE) to protect the horse mussel in Strangford lough. Can the Minister tell the House why, in one area, her Department seems to be improving, while, in another area, it is getting it so wrong?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The issue of the horse mussel in Strangford lough is not one that is discussed at NSMC aquaculture meetings. However, I can bring the Member up to date on that issue. DOE and DARD put a position paper to Brussels, but that was rejected. Europe wants more, and we are actively working up positions on that. I am also meeting fishermen very shortly, as people’s livelihoods in that area depend on pot fishing. We have to have a balanced approach and make sure that any move we make protects the interests of those fishermen and helps to restore the horse mussel. It is about having that balanced approach, and the DOE and I are actively working on that. We have a short time frame in which to convince Europe of our position.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement to the House. The number of incidents and threats against staff, particularly the staff of the Loughs Agency and volunteers, is very worrying. The SDLP condemns those threats. Will the Minister outline how many incidents have occurred in recent times? She mentioned that there have been some arrests. Will she detail how many arrests have been made and what help we, as Members, can give? This cannot continue to happen, and it is not reasonable to expect any staff member to work under those circumstances.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I totally agree with the Member: it is totally unreasonable for staff to go out to do their jobs every day and be under constant attack, with stones, batons and everything else thrown at them. As I said, we have made some improve­ments, and the fact that the level of those incidents is pretty low is encouraging. However, we have to keep the situation under control.

On the measures that we have taken, I have met the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Minister of Justice to discuss sentencing. Sentencing is also an issue and we want it to act as a proper deterrent. A combination of those measures will help to improve the situation. As I said, those incidents are at a low level. There have been three recent prosecutions and a number of others are actively being pursued. All those things will collectively make a difference.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister said:

“the agency successfully convicted every individual or company that had caused a fish kill”.

Were any of those convictions made against Northern Ireland Departments? The Minister also commented on the Loughs Agency’s action in:

“issuing a declaration suspending commercial fishing in Lough Foyle”.

There is a similarity between that action in Lough Foyle and what has happened in Strangford lough. Has there been any loss of employment as a result of that suspension?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The agency has advised that seven cases involving pollution incidents have been brought to court. I will write to the Member to clarify whether any of those prosecutions involved Departments. I can also give him details of the seven cases that were brought to court as they have been dealt with. The agency has also advised that there have been no pollution incidents that have led to any fish kills this year. That is positive.

I think that your other question was about compensation. Some compensation was awarded back in 2008 in the form of a hardship package to assist people getting out of salmon fishing. That was back in 2008 and before my time as Minister. However, that is the situation as I understand it.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I also welcome the Minister’s statement. Paragraph 18 of the statement refers to a recommendation to seek an amendment on the costs that are awarded. We should welcome that, and hopefully it will come forward.

I think that there may be a typing mistake in the statement as it refers to “north of Ireland legislation” rather than Northern Ireland legislation. This is the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will the Minister push forward an increase in fixed penalties to make them much harsher?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that it is important that penalties reflect what you are trying to do and act as a deterrent. If penalties need to be increased to do that, we will have to keep that under review. I met the Minister of Justice on the issue of fines and costs that have been awarded, and we continue to pursue that issue.

One of the recommendations that arose from the review of the St Andrews Agreement was that there should be joined-up thinking in relation to the recovery of costs and what it costs us to take cases to court. It is important that we continue to do that.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. What specific topics will be studied in the INTERREG IBIS project?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A wide range of topics will be included, but I will highlight four of them: first, the development of science-based management strategies for the environmental and commercial sustainability of native oysters in the context of local commercial production; secondly, the investigation of blue mussel production under different management practices, and helping producers to develop points of stock audits to better manage mussel crop and increase returns; thirdly, the monitoring of salmon migration in the Foyle to aid in achieving the objectives of the water framework directive and the habitats directive by providing information for effective management; and fourthly, with eel populations in decline, the early life history of eels is poorly understood, and the study will aim to address that issue. Those are the specific topics that the IBIS project will be involved in.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her statement. How many successful convictions have there been as a result of people being taken to court for their involvement in vicious attacks on Loughs Agency staff?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There have been at least three prosecutions, and a number of cases are under appeal. We have to await the outcome of those cases. There have also been a number of seizures, as I outlined in my statement and which Paul Frew picked up on. A number of avenues are being pursued.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the fact that the Loughs Agency’s enforcement actions are working, and the comment that it convicted every individual. However, I still find it amazing that a meeting that calls itself an aquaculture and marine meeting does not seem to have any representation from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL), DOE or even from tourism. Will the Minister try to invite people from those Departments so that the whole of the marine and aquaculture sector can be included?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The stakeholder advisory forum is a group that involves all stakeholders, whether they are on the fishing side, the angling side or are involved in tourism. It is made up of a wide range of people and it looks at all the issues around Carlingford lough and Lough Foyle. It is important that we exploit the tourism potential that exists in those areas. Some of the ideas that were discussed included having an oyster festival similar to the one that takes place in Carlingford and whether that could happen in Derry, perhaps tied in with the Clipper yacht race. A number of initiatives are being taken forward, and many stakeholders are represented on the forum.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the development of a bird survey protocol for Lough Foyle and Carlingford lough. Will the Minister give us some more details of the development of the protocol?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As you said, the agency has developed a bird survey protocol, and it has started surveying in Carlingford lough. The next stage is to roll that out in Lough Foyle. That will be done, in the first instance, by a masters student through the IBIS project. The information generated by those surveys will be used to update the agency’s appropriate assessments for the two sea loughs.

An appropriate assessment must be carried out before an aquaculture licence can be granted or renewed and it is required under article 6 of the EU habitats directive. The existing avian data is insufficient for use as an indicator for the interactions between water birds and aquacultural activity, so supporting data is needed to bring the aquaculture sector into compliance with the habitats directive. Additional information is needed on the distribution of water birds, with particular attention to protected species and the abundance and assemblage of water birds and their interactions with aquaculture. There is a lot of information to be gathered, but the IBIS project will be key to making sure that it is delivered.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The closer you look at this statement, Mr Speaker, the more alarming the whole thing becomes. The Minister said that lines of communication are being developed between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána.

It is disappointing to discover that we are only at the development stage. We have not developed them yet, but we are trying to develop them. She then went on to tell us that 161 illegal nets were seized. How many prosecutions were there as a result of the seizure of those 161 nets? When you ask how many is every, you either get a figure of seven or a figure of three. That is very disappointing, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that she has about a million miles to go on the programme yet before we get to any degree of satisfaction. What new steps are being taken to bring those cases before the courts? She tells us that 161 illegal nets were seized. How many prosecutions have there been?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As I said, I have made it a priority, and it is a priority of Loughs Agency, to protect the staff as they are out doing their job. Absolutely everyone condemns the attacks. Previously, I have outlined the initiatives that have been put in place. Of course, there already was communication between the gardaí and the PSNI, but, with specific reference to this issue, there needed to be improved lines of communication, so I welcome the fact that some sort of more formal protocol for engaging around the specific issues of poaching in this area and protecting staff is going to happen.

As you rightly said, 161 illegal nets and 12 boats were seized. There have been 44 seizures and 54 rod-related offences. There is a list as long as your arm of seizures and prosecutions. I am quite happy to write to the Member and give him the detail of prosecutions that have been made as a result of those 161 seizures, but, as I said, there have been three successful prosecutions and a number of prosecutions are under appeal, which we will have to continue to pursue. It is important to me that the staff are protected and that we do all that we can to ensure that they are protected as they do their job.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will press the Minister a little further on paragraph 8, where we read of 161 illegal nets, 12 boats and two cars being seized. Was that in 2011? Are we now to understand that, in all of that, no prosecutions have been made relating to those items or that there have been three prosecutions? It has been quite confusing. The Minister has come to the House and said that she will have to write to Members, but could she not have foreseen that one of the prime questions that would be asked would be about the number of prosecutions that have been made so that we can get a handle on whether or not there has been any success in dealing with those issues?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I said that there have been three prosecutions and a number are under appeal, so that may lead to a different number. The prosecutions were for oyster fishery breaches, and we have to continue to pursue those very successfully. We have to continue to ensure that we drive out the illegal activity that is happening there, but that will take a combined effort between the PSNI, the gardaí and the Loughs Agency. The Member who spoke previously asked how many prosecutions resulted from the seizure of 161 nets. That is what I said I would write to him on, and I will do so.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been confusion right around the House about what exactly the Minister’s statement is really saying. Is it in order for a Member to request at the end that the Minister place all of the information that she has alluded to in the Library so that Members have access to it?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have listened to what Lord Morrow has said. It is a matter for individual Ministers how they might answer Members’ questions on any statement and what they might do after making a statement to the House.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that it is order for a Member to request the information? It is a matter for the Minister whether or not he or she deigns to provide it.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Yes, of course. I agree with Lord Morrow that it is up to any Member to request whatever information they want from any Minister, here or anywhere else in the Assembly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, do you agree that we are in a very unsatisfactory position? The statement and the questions on it have finished, and we have been told about three prosecutions. We were then belatedly told that they, in fact, relate to oyster fishing, and we are left in the dark about whether or not the 161 illegal net seizures resulted in any prosecutions. Is it not a most unsatisfactory situation that we have questions on the statement and still do not know those basic answers?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his point of order. I am sure that the learned Member will know the avenues that he should travel to try to exercise his right further to get information from the Minister. The Business Office is always there to advise Members on a way forward on any issue.

I ask the House to take its ease as we move on to the Second Stage of the Superannuation Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Superannuation Bill [NIA 6/11-15] be agreed.

The object of the Bill is to amend the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to remove the need for trade union consent to introduce detrimental changes to the current terms of the Civil Service compensation scheme for Northern Ireland and to introduce new requirements for the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) to report on the consultation it engages in with unions with an aim to reaching agreement on such changes. The Department of Finance and Personnel has authority to make and maintain pension and compensation schemes for Northern Ireland civil servants under article 3 of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.

The main schemes for civil servants made under the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 are the principal Civil Service pension scheme for Northern Ireland and the Civil Service compensation scheme for Northern Ireland. The Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 requires that the Department shall engage in consultation with trade unions representing civil servants on any proposed changes to the schemes. Under article 4 of the 1972 Order, the Department is also required to secure the consent of the trade unions representing civil servants for any detrimental change that would have the effect of reducing the level of benefits payable under the schemes.

The Civil Service compensation scheme for Northern Ireland determines the levels of compensation paid to members who are made voluntarily or compulsorily redundant. It should be noted that, in addition to Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) staff, a number of other public bodies are also members of the scheme.

The Northern Ireland Civil Service pension and compensation schemes operate on the basis of parity with the equivalent schemes in the home Civil Service, which are made and maintained by the Cabinet Office under the provisions of the Superannuation Act 1972, which, in Great Britain, is the equivalent of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Although public service pension policy is a transferred matter, it has been a matter of practice for many decades that the schemes for civil servants in Northern Ireland have been virtually identical to their equivalents in Great Britain.

The Bill introduces amendments that have already been made to the Superannuation Act 1972 in Great Britain. Failure to maintain parity in this instance would result in civil servants in Northern Ireland who are made voluntarily or compulsorily redundant continuing to receive higher compensation payments than civil servants in Great Britain who leave in similar circumstances, which, of course, exerts additional pressures on public expenditure in Northern Ireland.

Payments in the Civil Service compensation scheme for Northern Ireland are currently determined with reference to length of service and to the age of an individual. Under the provisions, payments are generally limited to a maximum of three years’ pay. A new compensation scheme for the Home Civil Service was introduced on 22 December 2010, and the maximum payable is limited to 21 months’ pay for voluntary redundancy and 12 months’ pay for compulsory redundancy. Those terms are considerably less generous than those currently available to Northern Ireland civil servants.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, introduced a Superannuation Bill in the House of Commons on 15 July 2010 to amend the provisions of the Superannuation Act 1972. That Bill received Royal Assent on 16 December 2010.

The Public and Commercial Services Union and the Prison Officers’ Association lost a legal challenge in August 2011 against the imposition of the new Civil Service compensation scheme in the High Court.

This Bill will enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to take forward secondary legislation to realign the rules of the Civil Service compensation scheme Northern Ireland with those of the Home Civil Service scheme.

On 7 July 2011, the Executive agreed the drafting of the Superannuation Bill, and its introduction to the Assembly was agreed on 23 February 2012. My officials briefed the Finance and Personnel Committee on the Bill, and I look forward to maintaining the constructive working relationship over the coming months.

I will now turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 removes the requirement in article 4 of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 that the Department of Finance and Personnel must obtain consent of the Civil Service trade unions before introducing a change to the Civil Service compensation scheme Northern Ireland that would have the effect of reducing a compensation benefit that may be provided under the scheme. That is accomplished by subsection (3) of clause 1, which inserts provision that the requirements for trade union consent will not apply in the case of a compensation benefit attributable to a voluntary or compulsory redundancy, except where the case is prior to the coming into operation of the amendment.

Clause 2 inserts a requirement that, where consultation is undertaken by the Department of Finance and Personnel on the provision that would have the effect of reducing the amount of compensation payment, that consultation must be conducted with a view to reaching agreement with the trade unions consulted. Subsection (3) of clause 2 specifies that the Department of Finance and Personnel must document the consultation that has taken place and the steps taken with a view to reaching agreement on a provision that would have the effect of reducing compensation benefit made under the Civil Service compensation scheme Northern Ireland. The Department will be required to lay a report before the Assembly that provides that information and states whether such agreement has been reached before a provision comes into operation.

Clause 3 states that, in the Bill, the “1972 Order” means the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Clause 4 sets out the title of the Bill and the provisions for commencement. Subsection (2) provides that clause 2, entitled “Consultation in relation to civil service compensation scheme modifications”, will come into operation one month after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The provisions in clause 1 will take effect on Royal Assent.

The Bill provides for fair superannuation arrangements for civil servants in Northern Ireland, aligning with arrangements in Great Britain, addresses age discrimination and promotes prudent public expenditure. I look forward to the support of the Assembly in taking forward the proposals.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for outlining the general principles of the Superannuation Bill and welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. As outlined by the Minister, the main provisions of the Bill are to amend the Superannuation Order 1972 by removing the requirement whereby the Department must secure the consent of trade unions to introduce detrimental changes to the current terms of the Civil Service compensation scheme and to introduce new requirements for the Department to engage with trade unions with the aim of reaching agreement on detrimental changes.

The Committee first heard from the Department on the proposed Bill in June 2011, following the becoming law of the Superannuation Act 2010 at Westminster. Although the policy on NICS pension and compensation arrangements is devolved, the Department has traditionally operated on the basis of parity with the Whitehall Civil Service schemes. The initial briefing on the proposed Superannuation Bill in June 2011 was provided in the context of ongoing legal proceedings that had been taken by the trade unions against the imposition of the new compensation scheme. That meant that, at that stage, the Department was in a position only to outline options for what action was required here. The legal challenges were subsequently unsuccessful, and the Executive proceeded to agree draft legislation in February 2012.

The Committee received a pre-introductory stage briefing from the Department on 7 March this year. As has already been outlined, the Superannuation Bill will provide for changes to trade union engagement and allow the Department to move to amend the Civil Service compensation scheme to align the amount of compensation that is payable to NICS staff and other members of the scheme with what is payable across the water. In other words, it caps the amount of compensation that is payable to civil servants to 12 months’ pensionable pay on compulsory redundancy and 15 months’ for voluntary redundancy. It should be noted that, under the current Superannuation Order 1972, such amendments to the compensation scheme can be made by DFP using subordinate legislation not subject to Assembly control.

The Committee has given initial consideration to the Bill based on the two briefings to date and has identified a number of themes and issues to be explored at Committee Stage. Members will wish to consider the Bill’s general impact, including the comparative benefits that are provided under the current scheme compared with the new scheme. The Committee will hear from a panel of trade union representatives at its meeting tomorrow, which will be the first opportunity to hear the views of the main stakeholders affected by the Bill. The Department has informed the Committee that the trade unions have been consulted and informed of the proposed changes, but they have not yet formally responded. It is important, therefore, that the Committee engage fully with the trade unions on the Bill.

The Committee will also wish to consider the overall consequences of the detrimental changes that the Bill will introduce to the compensation scheme. It will be important to consider, for example, the relative pay in the public and private sectors as a factor in introducing any detrimental changes. The Committee hopes to hear from a number of stakeholders in that regard.

In addition, the Committee wishes to explore further the assumption that parity must be maintained. The Minister outlined the reasons for maintaining parity in response to a recent question for oral answer, and the Department has also briefed the Committee on the perceived benefits of parity. The arguments for maintaining parity are largely based around the costs involved in providing more favourable benefits under the scheme locally and the associated administration costs of departing from the Whitehall Civil Service, such as the argument for establishing our own IT systems. The Committee has sought further information from the Department on the costs of departing from parity to inform its consideration of the issue.

As I already mentioned, amendments to the scheme can be made by DFP outside of the normal Assembly procedures for subordinate legislation. There is therefore a question over whether appropriate protections are in place for scheme amendments, given that the Bill removes the need for trade union consent. The Committee has queried with the Department whether the 1972 Order could be amended to require amendments to the scheme to be subject to Assembly control. The Department has confirmed that it would be possible to provide for that in the Superannuation Bill. I expect, therefore, that the Committee will want to give further consideration to the need for more Assembly control of future subordinate legislation as part of its scrutiny of the Bill.

Members have also recognised the need to consider any possible human rights and equality implications of the Superannuation Bill, particularly to do with the special statutory requirements that exist locally. The Committee will invite evidence from the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, and it will need to give the matter very careful scrutiny.

The Committee will take forward those issues and invite written and oral evidence from all stakeholders as the Committee Stage progresses. Given the sensitive nature of the Bill and the need for detailed consideration of its provisions, I expect that the Committee will wish to consider in due course whether it needs to request an extension of the normal time allocated to Committee Stage.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his officials for facilitating the Committee’s exploration of the issues to date. Members will continue that engagement during Committee Stage. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I speak in favour of the Superannuation Bill. The fact that we must keep parity has already been mentioned. A number of Members are aware that, last week, the Minister talked about ensuring that Northern Ireland remained on the same Civil Service pay as areas of Great Britain.

I feel that that is the case and, as such, we should look along a similar line in relation to the costs that could ultimately be reflected on Northern Ireland and the Assembly if we break that rule at this point. I appreciate that this is one of the issues that will be brought up tomorrow, when the Committee, as was said, meets the trade unions, which may well have concerns about some aspects of how this will impact on members who are being made voluntarily or compulsorily redundant and the time factor involved in the amount of pay that they will receive. I appreciate that the Bill provides for 21 months’ payment for voluntary redundancy and 12 months for the compulsory. The Chair mentioned 15 months; maybe there will be some clarification on that point, but I understand it to be 21 months for voluntary and 12 months for compulsory redundancy.

As far as the 1972 Order is concerned, I appreciate the need to look at how we use the funds that we have more proactively and ensure that we do not spend more than we have been allocated towards these types of arrangements. The Committee has already met departmental officials, and a number of our queries were addressed at that session. As it stands, I support the Second Stage of the Superannuation Bill. I appreciate that it will impact greatly on the final payment that will be received by those people who, due to the economic climate, will lose their jobs in the Civil Service. We must consider that, and, even though we say that we support the Bill, we do not want to see people losing money from redundancy payments. Unfortunately, you cannot have your cake and eat it, but we have to make these judgements, and as an Assembly we must support that.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on important legislation that has ramifications for a significant number of people in Northern Ireland. The Finance Committee has received briefings on a number of occasions on the Superannuation Bill. In effect, the Committee has been in limbo, as the corresponding legislation that was introduced in Westminster had been subject to legal proceedings, to which our Chairman has referred. I thank the officials for keeping us apprised of the situation up to this point.

I first want to deal with the legal challenge in GB. It was brought by the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Prison Officers’ Association against the changes to the Home Civil Service compensation scheme introduced as a result of the Superannuation Act 2010 at Westminster. However, the legal challenge was unsuccessful, and that has left the way open to move forward with the Superannuation Bill that is before us today, and subsequently to amend the Civil Service compensation scheme in Northern Ireland. The effect will be to bring Northern Ireland into line with what has happened in the rest of GB.

As I said at the outset, the legislation will have ramifications for a number of people in Northern Ireland. Statistics from the Department show that the Civil Service scheme, at 31 March 2011, had just over 34,000 active members and that last year, the scheme paid out more than £232 million in pensions and lump sums. Therefore, due to the sheer volume of people that the Bill affects, we approach it with sensitivity and a good deal of sympathy.

To deal with the issue in its broadest sense, the compensation scheme determines the amount of compensation and early pension benefits to be paid to staff who face voluntary or compulsory redundancy.

The key changes to the scheme include that staff leaving on voluntary redundancy will — I will say this for Mr Girvan’s information — receive a maximum of 21 months’ salary and those leaving through compulsory redundancy will receive a maximum of 12 months’ salary. I believe that, under the current system, members are entitled to a maximum of three years’ pay.

Moving on, I will look specifically at the Bill’s proposals. It is a short Bill, and, as the Minister said, it contains two main clauses. Clause 1 will remove the requirement to obtain consent from the Civil Service trade unions for reductions in benefits. However, that needs to be looked at alongside clause 2, which will augment the requirement on DFP to carry out consultation with a view to reaching agreement on any reduction of a compensation benefit. Clause 2 will also introduce a requirement for DFP to produce a report on such consultations. That report must be laid before the Assembly.

Overall, I believe that clause 2 means that trade unions’ views will be adequately taken into account, despite their consent not being needed. It is also clear that the Assembly can perform an important scrutiny role of any changes through consideration of the DFP report. At this stage, I am satisfied with the Bill’s general principles.

The issue that lies at the heart of the debate has been rehearsed in the House many times, and that is the issue of parity. The Minister and his officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel have made the decision that now is the time to introduce legislation to ensure that parity is maintained in that area. The Ulster Unionist Party supports that decision. There is little point in going over the detrimental effects that a divergence from parity with the rest of the United Kingdom would have on Northern Ireland. During the debate on welfare reform, we heard, and will continue to hear, of the financial consequences of doing that. Suffice it to say, however, it is an important avenue that we should not, and will not, go down. The Ulster Unionist position is clear on that.

It must be noted that the Executive agreed a paper on 7 July 2011 that outlined that the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 needed to be amended. The paper also agreed to remove the need for union consent and to introduce detrimental changes to the current terms of the Civil Service compensation scheme (Northern Ireland). It also agreed to introduce requirements for DFP to report on its consultation with unions with the aim of reaching agreement on any such changes. Therefore, it is important to remember that, as it moves through the legislative process, the Bill has received the Executive’s backing.

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

Go raibh maith agat a LeasCheann Comhairle agus tá áthas orm páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased to participate in this Second Stage debate. At Second Stage, we are charged with addressing the Bill’s general principles. In my view, one of its general principles revolves around how we deal with changes in transferred matters, which, in this case, means those financial issues that affect us as a result of legislation that has been introduced in Westminster.

As several Members said, parity is at the heart of the Bill. That goes alongside the breach of the social contract between unions and government, which has been part of compensation issues for a number of years now. Traditionally, there has been a tendency to follow parity. You could say that parity is the default position here, especially when there appears to be a cost to the Executive. However, in some cases, as in this one, we are not always given the exact figures and costings that are associated with breaking parity. In the case of this Bill, we are told that departure from parity will cost us more, but we are not told how much more. We are expected to make up our minds in a vacuum, without the necessary information being available. I wonder whether that is a good way in which to proceed. I think not, especially as this is such an important issue, which, as the Member who spoke previously said, has the potential to affect the lives of so many people and their families.

Apparently, the options were presented to the Minister and his view was that there would be a cost if we did not follow parity. We were told that there would be a cost to departmental expenditure limits and in the benefits payable to people, as well as a cost for different legislation and administration and, as the Chair of the Committee has said, for adjustments to the IT system. The question is this: how much, and could we afford the cost? Should we afford it? Without the figures, we do not know; we are in the dark. That begs the question: on what was the Minister’s view based? Did he have a breakdown of the options and the costs? Did he make a decision on that basis? Or did he simply come to the conclusion, without any figures being available, that there would be a cost? Yes, there may be a cost, but let us know what it is so that we can make up our minds on the basis of fact rather than on the basis of what we think the cost might be. On some occasions, the cost might be worth paying.

Neither was the Finance and Personnel Committee presented with figures to indicate costs. There is a telling line in the evidence given to the Committee during the departmental briefing on the Bill on 7 March. An official laid out the Department’s stall in relation to following or not following parity. Two issues were mentioned: the costs, for which, as I said, no figures were given, and mobility transfer across all public sector schemes. The official concluded:

“that is a link that we and the Northern Ireland Executive have chosen to maintain.”

As I said, it is a telling remark. According to that evidence, it is not the Executive alone who have made the choice to maintain the link with parity, which, of course, is their democratic right.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Since the Member seems to be making such a meal of the whole issue of parity, maybe he will outline to the Assembly, just for the sake of clarity and consistency, what line the SDLP Social Development Ministers, Mr Attwood and Ms Ritchie, took when it came to welfare changes that were devised in Great Britain but had to be applied by them as Ministers. Did they not let the word “parity” slip over their lips on quite a number of occasions in the Assembly as well? Or has the SDLP had a sudden aversion to the whole concept of parity?

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

I thank the Minister for his question. It is a very good one, and I am eager to answer it. If the Minister casts his mind back to the Executive decisions on this particular issue, he will recall that the SDLP Minister voted against it. [Interruption.] On previous occasions and in other instances, he may have supported parity, but the point that I am making —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is a good one. Thank you.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, please. Whatever your views on the pensions, you have to make your remarks through the Chair. Carry on, Mr Bradley.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point that I am making is that it may be advantageous to follow parity on some or many occasions, or it may not be. However, if we are to make those decisions, we must have the information, the costings and the figures that help us make up our mind. The point I am making, and I am sure that the Minister and Chair will take note of it, is that on this particular issue, we did not have such figures and costings. I hope that that clarifies for the Minister the point that I make.

In the evidence given to the Committee, it very much appeared that this was a joint decision taken by the Executive and officials in the Department of Finance and Personnel. We have to ask who really is in control. Politicians need to show clearly that it is they who are in control.

As was mentioned, the main provisions of the Bill are to amend the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to remove the need for union consent to introduce detrimental changes to the current terms of the Civil Service compensation scheme here and to introduce requirements for DFP to report to the Assembly on its consultations with unions with the aim of reaching agreement on any such changes.

Under the proposed changes, the maximum compensation payable under the new compensation scheme will be 21 months’ salary for staff leaving on voluntary redundancy and 12 months’ salary for those leaving under compulsory redundancy. There are two significant points to be noted there. The first is that there is now no requirement for agreement to be reached, just that consultation be carried out with the aim of reaching agreement. The second is that the Department and the Minister are required to report on their consultations and to lay that report before the Assembly. It is far from clear whether that gives the Assembly the opportunity to debate and vote on that report. I ask the Minister for clarity on that. Is it that a report will be laid in the Library and the Assembly will be presented with a fait accompli, with no power to reject the report or even to question the Minister on it, or will the report come before the Assembly in the Chamber so that Members will have the opportunity to question the Minister on it and, indeed, to vote on it? That is a very important matter and relates to the powers of the Assembly to scrutinise the work of Ministers and Departments.

If that is not the case, then this Bill presents the danger of undermining the scrutiny role of the Assembly, and we should be very unwilling to accept that. Under those circumstances, the Department and the Minister would have a free hand to change the compensation schemes at will without any accountability to the Assembly. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to that. I draw my remarks to a close and await the Minister’s response.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am speaking on behalf of the Alliance Party in the absence of my colleague Mrs Cochrane, who would normally speak in such a debate, but she is travelling with the Speaker this afternoon.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. Following the Superannuation Act 2010, which removed the requirement of the Superannuation Act 1972 for trade union consent to critical changes in the Home Civil Service compensation scheme in Great Britain, this Bill was crafted to complement and reflect those predetermined provisions and, significantly, to place Northern Ireland on a level playing field with regard to parity alongside our counterparts.

Taking into consideration the unpredictable and ongoing nature of the economic uncertainty facing our society, there is an evident and pressing need for us continually to revise and refine how we govern. That is equally applicable to the process that we employ in maintaining pension and compensation schemes for our public sector.

As touched on by other Members, the Bill primarily provides for amendments to the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, with the fundamental change relating to the need for trade union engagement when making changes to the Civil Service compensation scheme. Current legislation dictates that the Department must obtain the consent of the trade unions before it can make any adverse changes to the existing scheme. Under the new proposals, the historical requirement for trade union consent will be removed, meaning that the Department will be free to proceed with changes without requiring external approval.

Our trade unions play a vital part in the representation of public sector workers, and constructive engagement should be both pursued and encouraged. Although I have concern over the removal of the trade union consent as a requirement, additional measures in the Bill seek to redress the balance and ensure that due process and credence is given to the trade union voice.

As I have said, constructive engagement with trade unions should be both pursued and encouraged. In order to appropriately and comprehensively give trade union representatives their rightful place, new requirements in the Bill call upon the Department to report on the success and nature of the consultation it engages in with the trade unions, with a view to reaching agreement suitable to all sides.

In line with the amendments, the Department is required to bring a formal report before the Assembly. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s comments on how that report, which is on any proposed changes to reducing compensation levels payable to civil servants on redundancy, will be done. The introduction of such a requirement places responsibility on the Department and the Minister to be transparent and accountable in how they present information and engage in consultation.

Although the opportunity for greater consideration and scrutiny will arise when the Bill is brought before the Finance and Personnel Committee, I hope that all Members will take advantage of the time afforded to them before the Bill reaches its next stage in this Chamber and that both the Department and the Minister will give careful consideration to any concerns raised as and when they become apparent, bearing in mind that any changes to the provisions we afford our public services will impact on the processes by which we govern. We must give due consideration to the economic climate in which we operate, and, above all, we need to be able to justify and stand by our decisions.

The proposed changes not only seek to maintain parity and ensure our public servants have equal status with their GB counterparts, but in principle seek to take account of the prevailing economic winds. It is on those grounds that the Alliance Party offers its support to the Bill at this stage.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I will be brief. I support the Bill and look forward to its Committee Stage in the days ahead and the work that that will entail on what is an important piece of legislation.

Clearly, employment cultures change. More often than not, it is not just an annual salary that is taken into consideration when people set out on their careers. The overall package can be crucial, and elements within that are taken into consideration when someone sets out on a career path. Those elements are high on people’s list of priorities when they are applying for work and looking at where they will be in future years. Particularly in today’s economic climate, most people will look at the finer detail before taking their first step on the career ladder. Universities and colleges are training graduates and are playing an advisory role in identifying career-linked benefits.

With the parity issue in mind, I want to seek a number of assurances on some of the elements associated with the Bill as it prepares to advance to its Committee Stage, which, as the Chairperson highlighted, begins tomorrow. Will the Minister give us some detail on how any proposed new scheme would be able to protect the lower paid and limit payments to higher earners? As I stated before, the situation of the lower paid is important, so hopefully there is some protection in the scheme for them and people in that group will see that.

Given the issues that have, unfortunately, grabbed the headlines in recent times in other places, can we look at situations in any scheme where there is an opportunity for someone who has retired to regain their position in the Civil Service at a later date after a change of mind? What would happen to compensation payments when rejoining? Further to that, are there any issues there for the folk who fall into the partial retirement category? How would that impact on their situations?

With those points of clarification, I support the Second Stage of the Bill and look forward to the scrutiny at Committee level.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I find this a particularly difficult discussion for this Assembly, but I see it as a challenge. I very much look forward to hearing what the unions have to say tomorrow. However, I note that none of them, including NIPSA, has yet made a formal submission to the consultation. As we know, they have joined the legal challenge in London, and that reflects their general approach to negotiations. They prefer to align themselves with the direct negotiations with Treasury on pay rounds and are strongly of the view that that should be reflected in the parity application of any outcome of those negotiations. The unions may give some steer to the Committee tomorrow, and we will certainly question them on that. However, my understanding is that, notwithstanding failure to get a positive outcome from the legal challenge, the unions have not reconsidered their traditional approach — if I might use that term — of shadowing the pay negotiations at Westminster, which, generally, are then applied directly across.

Clearly, the issue for the Assembly and the Executive is how we find an approach that uses the powers that we have already and that reflects the position of the unions and the situation that applies elsewhere, in a way that the public can understand.

The public sector is the mainstay of our local economy in many ways, and any detrimental effect on its spending power is a factor to be considered. My sense of the debate thus far is that we have not been provided with sufficient empirical evidence of comparisons of pay grades in the public and the private sector. People may also argue that, under the arrangements that have pertained so far, in which we shadow the Westminster pay negotiations, there is a widening gap between the public sector and the private sector here and that those arrangements contribute to the imbalance in our economy. The Committee should take a long-term perspective on that issue, with a view to achieving what has been a very consistent priority for the Assembly and its Executive since the re-establishment of the Assembly at Stormont.

We have also discovered other issues. Westminster Departments tend to operate with an even greater silo mentality than Departments here. At least here there is access to the gene pool of experience and talent and an ability to transfer between Departments to take best advantage of it. I do not speak with any authority on the extent to which that is maximised, but at least it can happen. As I understand it, one Department at Westminster could be making civil servants redundant at the same time as another is recruiting. That seems to be a very expensive and wasteful practice, both in itself and of experience gained. Our Civil Service is at least ahead on that particular curve.

There is also an issue that arises from the arrangements and packages that have been negotiated. One report that I have heard about indicates that there are up to 1,700 civil servants who are simply too expensive to make redundant. They have such packages in place that the Civil Service cannot afford to make them redundant. I ask the Minister whether that situation applies here. I am constantly bemused by the fact that we have over 200 senior civil servants in what is quite a small region. While we are having this discussion, the question pops up of why we have so many and why we do not seem to be able to do anything about the excessive numbers. That should be one of the issues that we consider when approaching the question.

At the end of the day, decisions have to be made, and the Assembly should be allowed to have buy-in. I have serious concerns that simply laying an order will affect not only the immediate implementation of the new policy but any future amendments to it. The Assembly should make its views known in respect of that very clearly to the Minister.

I understand that there is a possibility that this will be addressed, and I strongly affirm my support for that. The Assembly should be consulted. There should be a process, and it is well within our gift of positive or negative resolution that each measure in respect of the introductory phase and any subsequent amendment to the scheme is brought back to the Assembly for consultation. That is in the interests of the Executive and the particular Minister concerned.

It is also in the interests of the Assembly to take a corporate view in addressing anomalies and inconsistencies that have developed over time or in terms of transfer from one type of government to another. This is an opportunity to put our fingerprint on it. I want to have robust engagement with the unions about the approach that they have taken up to now. There are anomalies that are not necessarily working in the broadest interests of the economy. However, their perspectives and their buy-in, if we can achieve it, are absolutely vital. Therefore, the measures of consultation in respect of the new scheme will be a crucial test, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about those points.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I support the Second Stage of the Bill. The Bill will ensure parity with the rest of the United Kingdom after the passing of the Superannuation Act 2010, which removed the requirement of the Superannuation Act 1972 for trade union consent on detrimental changes to the compensation scheme for the Home Civil Service in Great Britain.

The Department of Finance and Personnel has authority under the provisions of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to make, maintain and amend pensions and compensation schemes for the Northern Ireland civil servants and other employments listed at schedule 1 to the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.

The Bill removes the requirement that exists under the Superannuation Order 1972, whereby the Department of Finance and Personnel must secure the consent of trade unions to introduce detrimental changes to the Civil Service compensation scheme. Those provisions are contained in clause 1 of the Bill.

The Bill also introduces new requirements, contained in clause 2, for the Department of Finance and Personnel to report on the consultation it has engaged in with the trade unions, with the aim of reaching agreement on detrimental changes. Under the new requirement, the Department must lay a report before the Assembly describing the consultation process it has undertaken on the proposed changes that would have the effect of reducing the level of compensation payable to civil servants on redundancy. That is something that I feel is fair and more transparent, as the Department, in its consultations, will be held to account by the Assembly directly.

Recently, in the Chancellor’s Budget, the idea of regional pay rates for employees of the Northern Ireland Civil Service was floated. The Finance Minister is on record as opposing such a scheme, which would not only harm employees of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and its associated agencies but would result in unequal pay scales being introduced across the United Kingdom. In my opinion, that is not in line with the principles of fairness and equality.

For that reason and for ensuring equality, I support the Bill, which would see employees here treated no differently from employees anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If the Assembly retained the Superannuation Order 1972, we would only see additional superannuation costs having to be met by this House, meaning that the Executive would have to take money from somewhere else in order to pay for it. That is something that I cannot support. Members are, therefore, duty bound to ensure parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, as the Northern Ireland Civil Service is essentially Northern Ireland’s biggest employer, and, by doing so, to protect Departments from being hit with the large compensation payouts that would result from the retention of the current consultation exercise. Therefore, I support the Second Stage of the Bill.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The compulsion of parity means that this is largely an academic exercise, but it fills some time in the Assembly, although, judging by the interest in this debate, not a lot of time.

I am left wondering a little bit about the Minister’s belief in the Bill, because I note that his colleagues voted against its parent Bill, the 2010 Bill, when it was going through Westminster. The Minister does not appear to have voted; I do not know whether that was by accident or by design. No doubt he will tell us whether he was foreseeing this day, when someone like me might get up and rebuke him for wanting to lead us in a direction he had voted against. Certainly, his party and his colleagues in Westminster voted against the Superannuation Bill of 2010, but, today, they have been professing their support and belief in this Bill, which, to all intents and purposes, is identical. I am sure that there is a very compelling explanation for that, and I am sure that, at this moment, the inventive Minister is thinking about what that is, and we will hear it in due course. It is a point that is worth noting upon, particularly since he talked to us about clarity and transparency being so important. No doubt, we will have some clarity on that issue before the debate is out.

The pretence that clause 2 will afford consultation with the unions is quite farcical, because clause 1 makes it abundantly clear that you can consult with the unions as long as you like, but they have no veto; their consent is not required. Although the Department will, doubtless, go through the motion of consultation with the unions, in parallel with what has happened in another place, the reality is that, at the end of that process, the unions will be told, “We hear what you say, but this is how it is.” Clause 2 is much window dressing. As it was in the 2010 Act, so it is in the local Bill. We know much in the House about mutual vetoes and how one side can, sometimes, be forced to make a concession it does not wish to make, because if it wants progress on something else, it has to concede on that particular issue. In this case, however, there is no veto. The veto is with the Department and, therefore, the Department will simply go through the motions, hold the line and say, “There it is.”

The one area that concerns me the most relates to low-paid civil servants. We are making a distinct detrimental change in reducing the level of compensation from three years to 12 months in a compulsory redundancy. I am not particularly concerned about whether our overpaid senior civil servants and their compatriots, the overpaid special breed who are called Spads, are reduced to 12 months’ pay on exit, which, in the case of some Spads, might be a mere £90,000. I am not particularly concerned about them, but I am concerned about the low-paid civil servant who is earning maybe £17,000, £18,000, £20,000 or £21,000 and who, hitherto, after many years of service, could at least have had the cushion of a significant sum of money accumulated over the three year compensation. Now, in a climate in which employment is so difficult to attain, they find that all they will have is 12 months’ compensation. I suspect the Minister may well sympathise with aspects of that, but his Bill will drive that situation, if compulsory redundancies arise amongst the lower ranks of the Civil Service.

We all recognise — at least, most of us recognise — that the primary issue here pertains to parity. It is the compulsion of parity that will propel the Bill through, drives the content of the Bill and will enforce the Bill. However, in the context of recent speculation about parity pertaining to public pay and regional diversity, the House needs to be careful about how it plays fast and loose with parity. This House, in part, and this Executive have set the scenery for interference with parity, such as could come in respect of public pay disparity, by playing fast and loose with parity. When it comes to taxation, we have no allegiance to parity. We pander, and we demand change on corporation tax. We say that parity is not for us on taxation. Do not, therefore, be surprised if, in consequence, the Treasury says that, if we are not signed up to parity on income and taxation, we should not expect it to sign up to parity on expenditure. That is a concern: this House, sowing what it sows, could yet reap, in a far more ravaging sense, the demolition of aspects of parity in respect of public pay. For me, that is a considerable concern and one that makes the price that may be paid in respect of corporation tax an even greater one than looks to be possible at this moment.

There are issues. I look at the Bill and, knowing that it will be propelled by parity through the House, wonder why we simply did not do it by a legislative consent motion. I think we all know in this House that the Bill is going through. This Bill will be signed up to because of the compulsion of parity. However, we will, no doubt, go through the motions of debating it here, debating it in Committee and, at the end of the day, doing what could have been done by a legislative consent motion.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate. Despite the comments made by the last Member, I think that, although there have not been a huge number of Members in attendance, we have had an interesting debate with some very important points raised. I will seek to address all those points; I will not dodge any of them, including the point made by the Member for North Antrim.

I thank the Committee for the work it has done to date on this. I look forward to the work it will do at Committee Stage and the report that will come at the end of that for final debate in the Assembly.

I will deal with the general points that were made, referring to specific Members as I go. The point of clarity has already been made: for the voluntary redundancy scheme it will be 21 months, and for compulsory redundancy it will be 12 months. Indeed, the Member for North Down was trying to make me redundant — I do not know whether it was compulsory or voluntary — by answering the question that Mr Girvan raised on the issue.

A number of issues were raised about the Bill. The first was on the need for the legislation. Of course, there is the issue of parity and the fact that there will be costs associated with the Assembly, both in the cost of the compensation payable and the cost of administration. Mr Bradley made the point that, if we are going to talk about compensation and say that there are compensation costs, the Assembly should at least have some idea of what those costs are likely to be. As I pointed out in the intervention, that doctrine was not followed by the SDLP Ministers when they were in the same position. Mr Bradley pointed out that parity might be beneficial at times. Parity was very beneficial; it was a very beneficial argument for Mr Attwood and Ms Ritchie when they wanted to dodge any questions about why the SDLP was following the benefit and welfare reform line for the rest of the United Kingdom even though it was probably against their Social Democratic and Labour Party principles. They did it on the basis of parity. I do not remember costs ever being given at that stage. Nevertheless, I will outline the calculations that we have done for the cost of not maintaining parity. Apart from the administrative changes — I have outlined the IT system, communication etc — there will be the direct costs of the differences in the compensation.

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

Will the Minister give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me just give the figure. According to the calculations that have been done so far, under the old scheme — the scheme as it exists at present up to the three years — the cost would be £12 million if you were to make 100 staff redundant. Under the new scheme, it would cost £7 million. That is a difference of £5 million for every 100 redundancies. That is a rough calculation, and it contains a number of assumptions. However, it is a conservative value that we have attached to the parity costs.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. He alleges inconsistency in the SDLP’s approach to parity. How does he explain his party’s inconsistency on the Bill, voting against it at Westminster and promoting it here today?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I would have been a bit embarrassed to raise that point. If the Member is going to make a point, he should not steal it from the Member for North Antrim. I will address that point anyway, but the Member should be original in his thinking, for goodness’ sake. If he is going to think of criticisms that he wants to address —

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

Answer.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am going to answer it, but I need a bit of a lead-in. Just give me the time to answer it. If the Member wants to make points, he should at least be original. He should not go around stealing points from other Members in the Assembly, for goodness’ sake.

Let me address the question just in case I forget it and then find myself accused of trying to dodge the point. I thought that this point might come up, although I did not expect that so much research would have been done. However, knowing the thoroughness of the Member for North Antrim, I suppose I should have expected it. I did not vote on the issue in the House of Commons. The issue was live at that time, and it was coming to Northern Ireland, although, on other occasions it has not. As a party, we felt that there were issues that we would prefer not to see changed. There were some things in the Welfare Reform Bill that we voted against, and there have been some issues in the Budget in past years that we have voted against. Where we feel that the change can be made, we seek to make the difference by being there and voting on the issue. However, once the issue has been decided in the House of Commons and it comes to Northern Ireland, there are times when a view has to be made on balancing whether we continue to have a different regime that is costly or, having made the arguments and lost them, we simply implement the changes here.

The view that we have taken on this one is this: yes, had there been the ability to change the view of the Government at Westminster, of course we would have done that. However, having not succeeded in that, why should we then impose unnecessary costs on ourselves? Secondly — this is important — why should we continue with a regime that leaves Northern Ireland open to legal challenges, as some Members pointed out? One reason that changes were required was that the current system relates not only to the length of service but to the age of people who are made redundant. I do not think that it would have been long before we got a challenge on the grounds of age discrimination.

There is a three-year element to the system at present, as Mr McLaughlin said. The Member for North Antrim asked how the change will impact on the lower paid: the three-year rule also made it difficult — or too expensive — to make some people in the system redundant because of the level of compensation that would be required. There are good reasons why some of the changes need to be made, including practical benefits and to avoid legal challenges.

Members spoke about how the situation had changed from unions having a veto, where there had to be agreement, to a process of consultation. I take issue with the point raised by the Member for North Antrim, who said that he felt it right for that veto to be maintained — I see that he shakes his head — and that we were doing damage by removing it.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

My point was that the Bill is disingenuous by pretending that there is a consultation process that could have an effect, when in reality it is window dressing, given that the veto rests with the Department and no veto rests with the unions.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Perhaps the Member has clarified his position; I thought that he was opposing that aspect of the Bill. People have asked whether the consultation is purely window dressing. They have asked what the Assembly’s input will be when the consultation has taken place. Clause 2(3) of the Bill states:

“Before the scheme comes into operation, the Department must have laid before the Assembly a report”.

First, that report must show that consultation has taken place. Secondly, it must show the steps that we are taking with a view to reaching agreement. That is the purpose of the consultation: it must be genuinely undertaken in order to reach agreement. It is not a bit of window dressing. To ascertain whether that has happened, the report must include a clear statement of the steps taken to reach agreement with the trade unions and whether such agreement has been reached. I do not accept the point that this is simply window dressing.

Another point, first raised by Mr Bradley and then reiterated by other Members, concerns the role of the Assembly. So what if the report is laid before the Assembly? What role does the Assembly then have? The report will be for information after the consultation has taken place. It is not part of the consultation, but I do not need to preach to the Member what mechanisms are then available. Many reports are laid before the Assembly, and the Assembly has ways of dealing with them, either through Members’ questions or debates in the House or by referring them to Committees. I am sure that Members will be ingenious in finding ways of ensuring that such reports, when laid before the Assembly, have an opportunity for public airing.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. Considering that the changes are important and will have a serious impact on people’s lives, does he not agree that the Assembly needs much more accountability on the issue? Does he not agree that, given the protection that civil servants had previously, in so far as their unions had a veto, it would be appropriate that the report comes before the Assembly in the Chamber, is open to question and, indeed, is voted on? That would afford civil servants further assurance that their rights would be protected fully.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not sure what the Member is actually asking for. Is he now saying that the Assembly should be the body that negotiates directly with trade unions about levels of compensation? If that requires Assembly support before it can go through, he would actually be putting the Assembly directly in the line of negotiation. For example, if a report comes to the House and it shows that all reasonable steps were taken to reach agreement and it was not possible to do so, is the Member saying that, despite not having been involved in any of those negotiations, Assembly Members should have the opportunity to say that they do not believe that adequate steps were taken or that they do not like the outcome and, therefore, want a different outcome? The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there has been fair negotiation and that it has not been a case of walking in and saying, “There is the compensation scheme. Take it or leave it. Bye, bye”, and walking out again. The report must show that all reasonable steps were taken. Of course, the Assembly would have concern if it were shown that reasonable steps to reach agreement were not taken. That is the Assembly’s role. It is not its role to negotiate compensation levels.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. That is the exact point that I am making. If proper steps have not been taken to reach agreement, the Assembly has no power over it. The Assembly merely has a report laid before it. It has no power to reject that report.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I would have thought that we were actually giving the Assembly more input now. The Member well knows that, given the scrutiny that there would be of such a report laid before the Assembly, if it were seen that reasonable steps had not been taken, he and other Members would have lots of different opportunities, through Committees, debates on the Floor, questions to Ministers et cetera, to ensure that that point was made and highlighted. That is much more input than the Assembly has at present.

The third issue that Members raised was the protection of lower-paid staff. Mr Hilditch and Mr Allister raised that issue in their contributions. Mr Allister pointed out that, under current arrangements, those who are in the lower-paid group at least receive a maximum of 36 months’ pay if they are made redundant. I noted that he took the lower, compulsory redundancy figure of 12 months, rather than the voluntary redundancy figure, and said that, under the new scheme, the cushion is removed substantially.

I suppose that, first of all, there are two provisions. The first issue is that most redundancies that have taken place have been voluntary. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that there have been any compulsory redundancies for a reasonable period. We are more likely, therefore, to be talking about the 21-month limit than the 12-month limit. Secondly, under the new scheme, there will be a minimum pay level for which people will be considered, which is £23,000 per year or the part-time equivalent. So, to take Mr Allister’s example, someone on £17,000 a year would be treated as if they were on £23,000 a year, and, if they went for voluntary redundancy, they would get compensation of 21 months’ payment. Although there is a reduction in the number of months of compensation they would receive, the uplift in pay that they would receive would mean that the compensation payable would be more or less the same under the new scheme. They would receive an uplift in pay of over 33%, and the reduction from 36 months to 21 months is just over 33%. Therefore, the compensation should not be that different, and that will protect the lower-paid. At the upper end — I think that this addresses Mr McLaughlin’s point — compensation would be limited to a maximum of £149,820. Even if someone earns £160,000 a year, their compensation would be limited to that maximum. Therefore, there will be a pulling-back at the upper end of the scheme, and protection has been built in for the lower-paid. Part-time workers, who perhaps only work half a week, will receive a full-time equivalence-and their compensation will be worked out on a pro rata basis.

Mr Murphy and one other Member raised the issue of human rights. That was the subject of a court challenge in England, and the court rejected the human rights argument. It did not take the view that human rights extended to a veto over any provisions or that provisions had to be continued for those who had made payments in the past.

Mr McLaughlin and Mr Murphy raised the gap between wages in the private sector and those in the public sector. Mr McLaughlin pointed out that there was a widening pay gap and asked what implications that would have for the compensation scheme. I do not want to get into a debate about the gap between private sector and public sector pay in Northern Ireland. The whole point of Arlene Foster’s and the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s strategy to attract investment to Northern Ireland is to get private sector wages up. It is not about bringing public sector wages down. We do not want to become a low-wage economy in Northern Ireland, and I do not want to go down the route of debating the differences between private sector and public sector pay and how that should be reflected in compensation levels.

Mr Allister and other Members raised the issue of parity. I indicated that the costs require parity, and I do not think that we have been inconsistent on that issue. There have been occasions — for example, with air passenger duty — when we said that we wanted to have control over certain tax levels to manipulate certain variables in our economy. That is not a general attack on parity itself. I have made myself unpopular with Members by saying that we have to be careful when it comes to asking for separate arrangements for Northern Ireland. However, there are occasions when that is justified and we can show a specific, economic benefit from doing so. I do not believe that we have laid ourselves open to a charge of hypocrisy on the issue of parity.

I know that we are drawing close to Question Time. I thank the Members who took part in the debate and welcome the support that the Bill has received to date. I understand that Members have raised very genuine issues, some of which, I am sure, I have not convinced them about at this stage. However, there will be other opportunities to do that. The Bill will now proceed to Committee Stage.

The Bill is short and targeted. It is vital because it seeks to ensure that there are fair and affordable superannuation payments for members of the scheme in Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill’s Second Stage to the Assembly.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As the Minister has pointed out, Question Time begins at 2.30 pm. There have been indications that there may be a Division. I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The Question on the Second Stage of the Bill will be put directly after Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair) —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Questions 2, 3 and 14 have been withdrawn.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the recommendations contained in the report of the interdepartmental working group on wildfires. (AQO 1620/11-15)

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

I thank the Minister for his question, which is particularly timely, given the good weather of the past week and which is forecast for the coming week. There is a particular obligation upon all who use the countryside to ensure that there is no reckless or deliberate behaviour in the next period to ensure that last year’s events are not replicated. As the Member is aware, I convened an interdepartmental group to look at the issue. It has now reported to me, and that has been useful. As a consequence, I have now written to my colleagues in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), the Department for Regional Development (DRD) and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) to propose a strategic wildfires forum, borrowing from the model in Scotland and in parts of England, to ensure that measures are taken to mitigate risk in the future.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. What resources will be made available to fully implement the recommendations in the report?

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

Resources are already directed towards ensuring the protection of natural habitats. For example, nearly £250,000 is given to the Mourne Heritage Trust in an effort for it to, among other things, protect the habitat of the Mournes, and it has been doing a very successful job. Similarly, I have made it clear to officials that funding for the equivalent group in the glens should be forthcoming to enable it to assist in the management of the habitats in the glens of Antrim and the Causeway Coast generally. Under legislation that was passed by the Assembly last year, other public bodies have an obligation to protect biodiversity in areas where they are responsible, and I hope that other organisations and other Ministers will protect all of that as we go forward. More than that, people have to be more responsible. There may be a need for by-laws on the use of campfires and barbecues. There may be a need for councils to provide greater wardening services, and there may be a need for proper and controlled burning in areas at risk. In all of those ways, beyond resources, the problem may be addressed.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

What actions does the Minister envisage in advising people in the peatland areas, where there is a particular issue with fires?

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

First, in some places at some times, there will be a need for controlled burning. If there is going to be controlled burning, it should not be in areas of blanket bog and it should not happen during the season of ground-nesting birds. It should happen in a way that mitigates carbon emissions and does not interfere with water quality and catchments in the area. If those standards are deployed, controlled burning might be appropriate, but it should not be appropriate in areas of blanket bog, given the value of the bog for diversity, given that it retains carbon and given the damage that burning would cause to the natural habitat.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Minister is probably aware that the Committee met the group, and we looked at the recommendations. We very much welcome the report. The first recommendation was for the protection of a strategic wildfire management plan. When will that be produced?

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

It will be produced if I can get buy-in from ministerial colleagues. It would be somewhat unilateral — although I am minded to act in that way at times — if I were to convene a forum without having those responsible for the farming industry and the fire and safety agencies in the room. So, subject to the views of the relevant Ministers, a wildfire prevention plan and a forum will be created to borrow from best advice in other jurisdictions and to apply our own minds to manage that going forward.

Ultimately, it seems to me that, if the Assembly can pass legislation for national parks and then deploy resources to follow national park designation, we will have a further mechanism to protect areas of diversity through the national plans framework to ensure that what happened in and around this time last year is not replicated in future years.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members, I remind everyone not to have conversations during Question Time. If you want to have a conversation, please go outside the Chamber. I certainly wish to listen to the answer and hear the questions that are being asked.

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

Go raibh maith agat a LeasCheann Comhairle agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a chuid freagraí go dtí seo. I am grateful for the information that the Minister gave on the investment in the conservation measures in the Mourne. Can anything further be done to protect areas such as the Mournes and the Ring of Gullion? Is there scope, in some cases, for cross-border co-operation on that issue?

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

I thank the Member and acknowledge the many good organisations, not just the heritage trust in parts of the North, including those in Slieve Gullion. I was recently in Camlough, and I passed by the lake. There are organisations there that are funded by government and by local councils and are doing mighty work in managing the area and in creating tourist opportunities and local employment. The more groups that are formed to manage our habitat, rivers and lakes, the better the management of the natural assets, which are such a wonder of this part of the world, will be. On the far side of our national parks legislation — if that is the mind of the Executive and the Assembly, and I trust that it will be — the opportunities for a cross-border national park arises capturing the Cooleys, the Mournes and Slieve Gullion. That would make a very big statement about the quality of natural assets on this island and about the opportunities for jobs in tourism going forward.

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

4. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on his discussions with publicans and bus operators in relation to curbing irresponsible practices involving alcohol. (AQO 1623/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. I acknowledge that the Minister for Social Development is bringing forward regulations on irresponsible drink promotions further to the legislation passed by this Assembly last year, and I acknowledge that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is also bringing forward minimum unit pricing proposals. Further to the initiative taken by Michael McGimpsey and me last year, a model has been adopted by the London Government in the past number of days to take other issues off the front page.

The Assembly, through the various Ministers or otherwise, needs to bear down on irresponsible actions, be it by those who sell drink in on-sales or off-sales or those who allow drink, especially excessive drinking, on buses or coaches. Those issues clearly now need to be addressed. In my meetings with the bus and coach operators and the nightclub owners, I said very firmly that the public, media and political spotlight is now very much concentrated on them and their activities. There are many good bus and coach operators, and there are many responsible sellers of drink, both in off-sales and on-sales. A small number are clearly on the wrong side of the law, and their irresponsible practices now need to be curbed. I will be bringing forward various proposals, both in respect of entertainments licences and bus and coach operator licences, in the near future.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he say whether any further consideration has been given to any other measures that might help to alleviate the problem? I agree with him that there are many responsible bus operators and, indeed, publicans and nightclub owners.

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

I acknowledge the last comment. There was one coach operator at the meeting recently who had a booking for a coach to take people to an underage disco. He said at the time of the booking that he would insist that there was no alcohol for sale. When he turned up to collect the underage people, another bus turned up and offered its services to those young people, with alcohol to be consumed on the bus. That is the sort of irresponsible behaviour we have on one hand and the sort of responsible behaviour on the other.

How do we take this forward? When it comes to the irresponsible nightclub owners, there should be a capacity, through the Department of the Environment (DOE), to build more rigorous terms and conditions into entertainments licences when those are issued. At the moment, DOE issues model terms that guide local councils on what should be built into the body of a licence. There should be a capacity, through my Department, to build into the model terms more demanding requirements on nightclub owners when it comes to the sale and consumption of alcohol in those premises. I intend to bring that forward in the near future.

Similarly, when it comes to coach and bus operators, is it credible that those who travel from point A to point B do so listening to disco music and having disco lights? Is that a safe mode of transport? Is that an interference to the bus driver? Does that not carry risk to those on the bus and to those who are using the roads? Those are the sorts of issues that we are drilling down on in order to determine if there are requirements that we can build into the PSV regime —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister’s time is almost up.

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

— that will see bus and operator licences more rigorously enforced.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given that the proposed new legislation might apply only to bus and rail stations, what measures in relation to alcohol and antisocial behaviour might be put in place to apply to park-and-ride bus shelters and stops?

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

The rules, if there are any changes to them, will not just apply to stations. They will apply to the buses and coaches themselves; those, at least, that are operated for commercial benefit. At the moment, when a PSV bus goes in for approval and checking annually, there are requirements laid down in respect of the PSV licence. It may be possible to build some restrictions into that licensing regime in respect of what can and cannot happen on a bus.

Similarly, when it comes to the consumption of alcohol on buses, which is not allowed, the law may need tightening up so that any bus driver or operator who allows the consumption of alcohol on buses that they have offered for commercial use may, like people who may consume alcohol on buses, be vulnerable to the law and be guilty of an offence. All of that will come down to enforcement. That is why the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) has been conducting — I have instructed it to continue to conduct — targeted enforcement operations against bus operators who, according to local intelligence and evidence, may be engaging in practices that see excessive amounts of alcohol being consumed on buses, with all the health and welfare risks that arise.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister detail what discussions he has had with publicans and the taxi industry to help to curb irresponsible drinking and subsequently to lead to safer travel home?

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

I thank the Member for her question. As I indicated earlier, following the recent attention around these issues and tragic events that have occurred, I convened two meetings. One was with nightclub operators and was attended by about 45 people, and the other was with coach and bus operators and was attended by about 25 people. There was a very quiet mood at the meeting with the nightclub owners. I think that the operators in that room, who may have been subject to some public comment recently and may be prima facie in breach of the law, knew that, as I indicated earlier, the political, media and public spotlight was very definitely trained on them. The message that they received from me, from Pubs of Ulster, which has provided great assistance in this issue, and from the superintendent of the PSNI in Belfast who is responsible for that end of the business, was very clear: there will be greater enforcement, there may well be more laws, and entertainment licensing regimes may well be upgraded. Nightclub owners, especially one or two of the big ones in and outside Belfast, need to realise that they have to get their house in order. The law will be amended and there will be greater enforcement to ensure that their houses are in order.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment what consideration Planning Service gives to a local council’s opposition to a planning application. (AQO 1624/11-15)

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

I thank Mr Robinson for his question. In two or three years, the situation will be very different to the one that prevails at the moment. In two or three years, on the far side of the review of public administration, local councils will have the responsibility to determine planning applications, save those of a strategic nature, which will be retained by DOE at a strategic planning level. In the future, as I have said very often, a big challenge for local councils will be that they will be the planning authority and will have to make decisions on the vast majority of planning applications. It will be a big challenge to local councils to ensure that they fulfil the standards of being a planning authority rather than continuing as they have before, legitimately, as a group of planning lobbyists in respect of planning applications that come before the council.

When it comes to the current role of a council in a planning application, under the law, the Planning Service has a duty to consult, and the views of the council will be a material consideration. Under current practice, a weekly list of applications is provided to the council. If councillors object to one that is proposed for streamlining, it will be withdrawn from the streamlining list. Councillors can have planning applications deferred for office meetings, and, in exceptional circumstances, for site meetings. On rare occasions, subject to certain rules, there can be a referral to the management board. Councillors and councils may feel that their views are not fully taken on board, but there are adequate opportunities under the law and in policy for those views to be taken on board by the Planning Service.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

In the meantime, can the Minister assure the Assembly that council opposition to a planning application is given full and proper recognition by planners? There is a belief among the public that that does not happen in some cases.

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

I thank Mr Robinson for that question. It may be that, behind the question, there is a particular matter that he is anxious about. He has repeatedly raised with me the issue of an application in the Limavady Borough Council area, and he has been very diligent in doing so. I intend to visit the site because it is a unique planning application in the Northern Ireland system. As a consequence, it might be legitimate for me to view the site in question. However, no works are ongoing and there is no licence live for that site.

Even though a council may unanimously be opposed to a certain application, it may be the case that the environmental health department of the very same council has not indicated any view of opposition. The council may be opposed, but the environmental health department may not have indicated its opposition. However, I reassure the Member that, certainly as long as I am Minister, a unanimous council opposition should have a significant bearing on the thinking of the planning office when it comes to a final determination.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister. Perhaps he could add a little more clarity on how his new planning legislation will ensure that future council decisions are fair and equitable to all. How will they be reviewed by the Planning Service?

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

I thank Mr Nesbitt for his question and wish him the best of luck this weekend. It may not be welcome news to Mr Nesbitt, but I wish Mr McCallister all the best for this weekend as well. May the best man win.

The Member’s question is an important one. Given the history of planning in some places in a previous phase of our history, there is a strong need to ensure that planning is transferred with all appropriate checks and balances. Whoever the Environment Minister is, and from whatever party, they must ensure certainty that checks and balances will prevail in a council planning application, not least because, given the charged history of planning and that it will be the single greatest function to be transferred to councils, we need to make sure that planning is done in a credible, fair and proper manner. That is why forthcoming legislation will lay down ethics requirements around the conduct of councils and councillors. Standards will be laid down for applications that should not be considered by a council but by its officers, given a potential conflict of interest. Requirements will be laid down, whereby a group of councillors —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister’s time is almost up.

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

— will have the power to call in planning applications to ensure that things are fair and seen to be so.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister assure me that councils’ views on any marine planning application will be taken on board and will not be overridden by those of outside bodies?

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

I presume that the Member is going back to the issue of the Crown Estate. As I indicated in the Marine Bill’s Second Stage debate, and particularly in reply to Mr Allister, the legal ownership of the seabed remains with the Crown Estate. However, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, marine management out to 14 nautical miles was passed to the devolved Administration. Therefore, whether it is marine planning or in respect of any land-based application, responsibility falls strictly to local authorities. Yes, there will be consultation with all appropriate organisations. Yes, I have advised the Crown Estate, the devolved Governments and those in London and Dublin that I intend to develop a marine plan. I am obliged to do that, and it is good practice, given that we share the water known as the Irish Sea. However, decisions in respect of these matters will be taken by domestic authorities.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he will consider imposing penalties on developers who fail to complete building works after prolonged delays. (AQO 1625/11-15)

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

I welcome the question and agree with the sentiment behind it. As I will try to demonstrate, I will work towards agreeing, as fully as I can, with its ambition.

Developers submitting planning applications and getting planning permissions at the same time as leaving to rack and ruin, decay and decline, sites that have not been developed or have been abandoned during development is an issue that we need to address. That is why, on the far side of the ongoing work to mitigate the appearance of a number of sites in Portrush and Portstewart, I intend to call in a number of developers who continue to trade when, in my view, they have let sites, one of them a listed building, go into decay and decline at the same time as they make legitimate representations for planning approval in respect of other developments.

So, although at this stage I may not be going as far as imposing penalties for failure to complete building works on developers who continue to trade, I intend to put the spotlight on developers who continue to trade and who fail to complete works to ensure that they step up to the mark going forward.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his response and for his assurance that he is with me on the principle behind the objective of the question. Given his proactive approach to the matter thus far, would it be possible for him to ascertain over the next 12 or 18 months those areas across Northern Ireland where there are problems with developers who have sites but who neglect them, fail to look after them and do not do any of the repair or refurbishment work on them that their planning applications from councils require? Will he do that work and monitor the situation closely over 12 or 18 months and then bring action to bear against those developers?

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

I hope to bring action to bear against those developers and others before 12 or 18 months. On Thursday night, I had a long conversation with a representative of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). Given that 5% of NAMA’s assets are in the North of Ireland, I asked that organisation to scope out and identify where those assets are and to determine whether it could step in to deal with the decay and dereliction of sites that have been left, not developed or only partially developed. So, the issue is not just for developers but for NAMA, the banks and the administrators. Having spoken to NAMA, I intend speaking to those groups of people and to the developers in the near future.

In the prevailing economic circumstances, and in situations where sites are going into decline and developers are continuing to develop, I believe that the focus should be on those people. That applies whether the site in question is in Portrush or Portstewart, on the Lisburn Road in Belfast or in Derry ahead of 2013 and in general. I believe that attention should be brought to bear on all those matters.

The intervention in Portrush and Portstewart is a pilot scheme, but it is one that I hope the Executive will endorse more widely. Our built and natural environment are important, but our natural environment is damaged when the built environment in areas of beauty such as Derry and the north coast is prejudiced by the failure to protect, secure or otherwise develop sites. Consequently, by either going after the developers who are in the wrong or by the Executive intervening to provide money to help those areas of the built environment that are in decay, I hope that that can become a policy that can be rolled out over the next number of years.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister tell me what moneys institutions are holding in bonds for unfinished developments? Are those bonds accruing interest?

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

I would be delighted to interrogate that question in my conversation with NAMA and others, so I will come back to the Member on that.

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

I know that many people in Portrush and Portstewart will welcome the Minister’s response. He may recall a recent visit to a site at Strand Road in Portstewart that has lain undeveloped for over 30 years. Are we to assume today that the residents of that area may, at long last, have a solution to an eyesore that has scarred one of the most beautiful parts of Portstewart for 30 years?

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

I thank the Member for his question. I am aware of the site, and I have visited it in the past number of weeks. Given my many journeys to that part of the world and to Portstewart in particular, I have been aware of the site for a very long time. It is appalling that any developer could leave that site for a year, never mind a decade or, allegedly, two decades. The site overlooks the Portstewart beach and is next to the Portstewart golf course, where, no doubt, many people will come to play in the months before and after the Irish Open in Portrush. To leave that site in that way is an indictment of those who did so. If it is the case, which I have to determine, that a developer owns that site, or if there are any other sites in any other part of the North that a developer owns that are left to go into decay and dereliction while those developers are legitimately asking the Planning Service for help with planning applications, I think that those individuals and companies have questions to answer.

That is part of the reason why I have convened a meeting in Portstewart and Portrush to have developers and developers elsewhere answer the hard questions raised by Mr Dallat.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the current position on the way forward for pharmacy services. (AQO 1635/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I informed the Assembly in my statement on 13 March, I remain strongly committed to establishing a progressive and sustainable way forward for community pharmacy that will make better use of that group of skilled and dedicated professionals to help improve the health of the population and provide high quality advice and support to patients and the wider community.

I also announced to the Assembly on 16 March that an additional £8 million in funding for 2011-12 has been released and is available to support new services, improve premises and support the staffing of community pharmacies, particularly in rural and deprived areas. In reaching that funding position, I have had to proceed on the best evidence available. I now call on Community Pharmacy to agree to participate in the surveys that my Department will now undertake and provide the further information that is needed to move forward. The longer that information is withheld, the longer it will take to arrive at an agreed solution.

As outlined in the proposals contained in ‘Transforming Your Care’ the opportunity is there for community pharmacists, as they will be playing a much greater role in the future in providing front line care in the community. However, it follows that reimbursement and remuneration need to be modernised to promote and support that new vision and those new opportunities. It is a model based not on prescription volume and products supplied but on health outcomes for patients and working as members of an integrated primary care team.

I have agreed that the most recent court judgement should be subject to appeal because of its wider effect across government. However, I repeat my call to the representative body of community pharmacy contractors to engage with my Department and the Health and Social Care (HSC) Board to seek agreement and a way forward that will recognise and support the new and evolving role of community pharmacists in delivering improved services to patients and being fully involved in the new world of reformed health and social care services.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat a LeasCheann Comhairle agus buíochas don Aire as an fhreagra sin.I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline what steps he has taken to engage with community pharmacists? As I am sure he is well aware, they believe that the deal falls short of what they had originally anticipated.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I agree that it falls short of what was anticipated, albeit, perhaps, what was anticipated was not correct in the first instance. I have instructed officials to continue to engage with Community Pharmacy Northern Ireland (CPNI) representatives on the way forward, particularly in respect of how we do things in 2012-13. The negotiations were very much about what has already happened in 2011-12. We had a very short time frame in which to do that. However, there is a huge opportunity to move forward together and make proper use of our community pharmacists in helping us to deliver ‘Transforming Your Care’ and giving them the requisite amount of money for the service that they provide.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Has the extra injection of money which he announced a couple of weeks ago for community pharmacy been released into the system yet?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Some £8 million of additional money, over and above what was on offer to pharmacists, was announced, and £7 million of that has been distributed at this point. The other £1 million could be distributed quickly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his earlier answers. Will the Minister reveal to the Assembly the cost to his Department of the two recent judicial reviews relating to community pharmacy?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Of course, the judicial review was not taken by me but by the CPNI, and we were responding to that. As I understand it, the costs were something in excess of £150,000.

However, that needs to be set against the estimated savings made as a result of the drugs tariff now being in place. The drugs tariff was not quashed or overturned by the court, and now stands. It is estimated that savings could be in the order of £12 million to £20 million. So, it is good news that the drugs tariff does stand, and it will be good news for Northern Ireland plc because it means that there is more money to be spent in other areas of health as opposed to buying expensive branded drugs, and will allow us to use generic drugs better.

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

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether he plans to make a statement on the outcome of the business services transformation programme, given that it is a matter of urgency for administration staff working in health and social care. (AQO 1636/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The consultation period for the proposed business services transformation programme ended on 29 February 2012. I have since had meetings with political and staff representatives to discuss the proposals. I am now considering the responses received and points made as well as seeking further information. I will announce my decision in the near future.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister accept that there is great concern and anxiety in many locations across Northern Ireland regarding those proposals, and does he further accept that the impact is adversely affecting one section of the community in women?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I accept that there is a considerable level of concern. I would have thought that there was not so much concern in Omagh, considering that was one of the sites chosen. Perhaps the Member is calling for us to change our minds and maybe put one of the facilities elsewhere. At this stage, however, we are giving consideration to everything. I have met staff representatives with local politicians and I appreciate that a lot of the people affected are women, particularly younger women, and it is not necessarily that suitable for a lot of them to travel. Nonetheless, all those things will be taken in the round as we arrive at a final decision on that issue.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister give an assessment of the scope for efficiencies in administration and management in the health service?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I personally think that it is substantial. In this particular case, the savings that we will be aiming for as the years transpire will take us to around £17 million per year. We should not ignore that, because if we spend that sort of money on administration we do not have it to spend on hip replacements, accident and emergency or new cancer drugs. If Members are here today saying, “You should be spending that on administration as opposed to any of the other things”, I am afraid that I will have to disagree with those Members. I will be standing by my election manifesto commitments in disagreeing with those Members who want to spend health money on administration. I want to spend it on healthcare.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for his answers. Taking on board the points that the Minister raised in response to this question, will he outline if and when he became aware of the possibility that the proposal could have implications for the equality agenda?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

An equality impact assessment was carried out during the process. That is being revised as the consultation results have come in. We take cognisance of all those issues. We are not looking for compulsory redundancies in the first instance. I encourage those who it does suit to go and take the offer of voluntary redundancy. However, we will look at all the issues. We will seek to ameliorate things as far as possible and treat our staff with appropriate care and dignity because we recognise that the staff are good staff, and that we are in a position of flux and change, which is never a nice position for people to be in. Nonetheless, I have to be driven by ensuring that we maximise what we get for our spend on healthcare. That is not in administration, which is a necessary element of healthcare nonetheless, but we need to ensure that it is as efficient as possible.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how his Department is promoting healthy eating and physical activity in areas of high social and economic deprivation. (AQO 1637/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The recently published framework for preventing and addressing overweight and obesity in Northern Ireland, entitled ‘A Fitter Future for All’, clearly recognises the links between deprivation and inequalities and rates of obesity, participation in physical activity, and eating a healthy, nutritious diet.

While taking a population-wide approach, the framework seeks to focus particular action in areas of deprivation. In its role in driving forward the implementation of the framework, particularly in the context of addressing disadvantage and deprivation, the Public Health Agency explicitly focuses on communities in greatest need. It has invested significantly in supporting communities and building capacity at a local level to ensure their active participation and engagement in promoting positive health and well-being and tackling health inequalities.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware that, particularly in the schools estate, many of the premises are based in working-class areas. Has he had any discussions, or are any planned, about the role that sporting facilities and the schools estate could play in combating obesity, particularly among young working-class people?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I believe that every Minister is a Minister for health and everybody has a responsibility for the health of the population. In order to move things forward, I have had discussions with other Ministers, including the Minister of Education, who is in control of the schools estate, and the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, who is responsible for sport. The more that we can make better use of those facilities in our schools, particularly at night-time, so that people can benefit from having such facilities and being able to use them, the better.

The more that we can invest, the better, because you will have a number of people involved. For example, in east Londonderry, we have a skipping for health programme in two schools: Ballysally Primary School in Coleraine and Drumachose Primary School in Limavady. We also need to be looking at things like Cook it!, inspiring communities to get active together, cardiac rehab programmes in schools and health promotion in homes.

So, there is a lot more that can be done, and we should be encouraging schools and health organisations to work together to have a better-educated public, particularly when it comes to our young people.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the recent debate about the visibility of cigarettes on shop counters, has the Minister considered any proposals to ensure that fruit and other healthy snacks are more prominent at locations where customers queue, particularly as, at those locations, they are surrounded by confectionery — sweets and crisps — and so on?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

First, that is not an area that I have responsibility for. Secondly, it is not an area in which we can dictate to businesses how they should conduct their affairs. I encourage people to eat more fruit and vegetables and be active. The Public Health Agency is doing courses of work, and there will be a greater focus on working-class communities to ensure that the health inequality that exists is improved and that its trajectory, which has been widening, is changed and we move to a situation where, because you are born in a certain part of Belfast or a certain deprived area in Northern Ireland, you are not more likely to die considerably earlier than someone who happens to live just a few miles further up the road.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Go raibh maith agat a LeasCheann Comhairle agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an méid a dúirt sé ar an cheist seo go dtí seo agus ba mhaith liom an cheist seo a chur air. What mechanisms are there to maximise and co-ordinate interdepartmental co-operation on this issue?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I indicated, I have had a number of meetings with other Ministers, and I have further meetings set up with them. Last week, for example, I was with the Minister for Social Development, having had previous meetings with him on issues that cross the boundaries. I will be having meetings in the coming weeks with other Ministers to develop a government programme to respond on these issues. One area that is particularly important is education, because poor educational outcomes and poor health outcomes very often go hand in hand.

We are participating in discussions with, for example, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Department of Education and Sport NI to develop the level of physical activity in schools. A wide range of meetings are taking place, and they will continue.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action is being taken to improve the lives of people with learning disabilities and their families. (AQO 1638/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Improving services for people with a learning disability remains one of my highest priorities. Through continued implementation of the Bamford action plan, my Department, in collaboration with other Departments and agencies, is working to deliver improvements across a range of learning disability services. These include the ongoing resettlement of people from learning disability hospitals into community settings, improved access to more flexible and appropriate respite provision and day opportunities, and support through the transition to adulthood.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer and for how he prioritises those with learning disabilities. Will the Minister outline what is proposed under the Compton review, as there have been issues with people moving into the community and with day care cover?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The health and social care review report presents a compelling case for change and explains why our current model of health and social care services is not sustainable into the future. In setting my vision for the future of health and social care services, my overriding concern is to drive up the quality of care and improve outcomes for patients and clients and ensure that they have the best possible experience in every aspect of their care. Key to that is promoting prevention and early intervention measures with the overarching objective of avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions.

I also fully recognise the need for greater productivity from the resources available to us, particularly in times of austerity. The learning-disabled community has a huge contribution to make to society in general. Last week, I attended a conference held by the Patient and Client Council, which helps to establish other facts as regards how we provide support and care.

The Minister for Social Development is being particularly co-operative in supporting communities and ensuring that we get significant assistance in meeting the Bamford commitments of having appropriate homes for people who have a learning disability as opposed to them being in hospital.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, parents across Northern Ireland will be reassured to hear today that helping those with learning difficulties is one of the highest priorities for you and the Department. It is a hugely emotive, delicate and sensitive matter. Does the Minister envisage any difficulties this year with people with learning difficulties leaving school and looking for care in the community?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Historically, there has been a problem. It is a major challenge to have adequate places for the number of people who leave school and receive support in, for example, adult resource centres and, indeed, those who want to continue to use adult resource centres. One of the issues is that, because we are much more successful in supporting people, people with learning disabilities are living to considerably older ages and, consequently, need the services for longer. That poses a challenge to us, and it is a question of how best we can address that challenge. However, we recognise the valid point that the Member makes.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

What level of short-term respite care provision is available to the families of those with learning disabilities in Northern Ireland, and does it meet current need?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Respite care is certainly an important issue for us. The Health and Social Care (HSC) Board works quite closely with the trusts and seeks to make significant improvements to the availability and flexibility of respite care. That has to be particular to the needs of parents and carers. I regard respite care as a significant investment that pays us a significant dividend. If we do not support carers and they fall ill themselves, that will create a much greater burden for us in respect of the care that has to be provided.

As a Government, we could never replicate the care that carers provide. I put on record once again my appreciation of the work that they do. We will seek to provide appropriate respite, where possible, while recognising that it will not always be possible to meet everybody’s needs.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what policies or protocols are in place in accident and emergency departments to enable staff to deal effectively with alcohol-related incidents. (AQO 1639/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department takes staff and patient safety very seriously. Each HSC trust operates a robust, zero-tolerance policy, overseen by a senior director. The policy requires the provision of a working environment where employees can undertake their duties without fear of abuse or violence from any person, including those who are under the influence of alcohol. Patients who attend A&E departments under the influence of alcohol, and who are violent or aggressive towards members of staff, are removed from the premises by security staff or the PSNI and may be subject to prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

In October 2010, schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was commenced. It was designed to deal with low-level antisocial behaviour in hospital premises. The schedule provides authorised officers in HSC trusts with the power to remove from hospital premises persons who cause nuisance or disturbance to HSC staff.

In addition, I am meeting the Minister of Justice on 16 April to discuss further how the problems caused by people who threaten staff and patient safety can be addressed and to consider possible areas of mutual collaboration between Departments.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that reply. First, I want to make it clear that I am in no way suggesting that people who have taken alcohol should not be given treatment in accident and emergency units. However, I want to make the point that there is a widely held public view that people who have taken alcohol and are abusive when in A&E units are given preferential treatment, which is of great annoyance to people who are waiting in a queue, sometimes for quite lengthy periods.

I make that point because I recently heard some health professionals basically admit that, at times, to solve the problem of a nuisance being created —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I think that the Member has made his point.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

— by people who have drink on board, they are brought in and treated ahead of other people who have been waiting patiently. No pun intended.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am glad that the Member has raised the issue. Very often, the media and the press will focus on failings in the health service, but they do not focus very much on the abuse of the health service. The Member has highlighted where one area of abuse has taken place. I lay down a challenge to the media to go to an accident and emergency department on a Friday or Saturday night and see the abuse that our staff have to take from people who come in looking for help and who then abuse the people whom they are seeking the help from.

I get sick of people who constantly carp and criticise the health service when there are people out there who are abusing it, and they ignore that level of abuse. It is a shame on the media and the press for not taking that case up better.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sure that everyone in the House will agree with the Minister that it is not acceptable that members of the health service, and particularly those on the front line, be abused in any way. Has the Minister or Department put in place any additional security measures over the past few years to deal with issues of alcohol-fuelled disorder? If so, does he have any idea of how much those measures are costing the health service?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Through the zero-tolerance strategy, we have more detailed recording of incidents, and those figures will reflect the difference between incidents that had malicious intent as a cause as opposed to the health condition of the patient. We need to recognise that most of the cases come from people with mental health issues, and such incidents do not take place in accident and emergency departments. There are other problems.

We also have a more significant role for the trusts’ communication teams to play. They should be represented on any group in trusts. We are also engaging with staff who have been subject to physical or verbal abuse to learn from their experience and to understand the issues faced by front line staff.

We have done some work with England, and, in 2009-2010, the total number of incidents recorded there was 56,718, and the total cost of violence against staff was estimated at £69 million. In Northern Ireland, the number of incidents recorded was 8,186, which, if compared on a proportional basis to England, equates to around £10 million a year.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

What discussions has the Minister had with ministerial colleagues in relation to cheap alcohol promotions?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am having ongoing discussions with Minister McCausland, in particular, on the issues around cheap alcohol. Interestingly, I found in a newspaper at the weekend an advertisement by Lidl for 2-litre bottles of strong cider discounted to £1. That is shameful. There was another advertisement from Asda promoting its cheap alcohol. Those supermarkets do not seem to get it. They are participating in the destruction of many people in our community and destroying the lives of people and their families, but they continue to do it. Then they complain when the Government suggests that we should have a minimum price for alcohol. I am glad David Cameron has come on board and is supporting it.

I also had, and am continuing to have, discussions with Minister Ford about having an on-the-spot fine for people who abuse our medical staff. If we can fine people £60 for parking six inches over a white line, I do not see why we cannot introduce fines for people who abuse our hospital staff.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the need for services for children from nought to five years to be consolidated and better co-ordinated. (AQO 1640/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The planning and commissioning of children’s services, including those for children from nought to five years, has recently undergone considerable restructuring to ensure a more integrated approach, and I am content that that will provide consolidated and co-ordinated services to meet the needs of children.

The restructuring is borne out in the work of the Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership (CYPSP), which is chaired by the Health and Social Care Board and whose members come from a wide range of agencies, including the Public Health Agency, the Department of Education, the PSNI, the Department for Social Development and the voluntary and community sector.

The CYPSP has produced a draft strategic plan to improve the well-being and realisation of rights of children in Northern Ireland in relation to the six outcomes for children identified in the Government’s 10-year strategy for children and young people. By collectively assessing a range of information on how children are doing against the six outcomes, the structure will enable the identification of priorities and influence where common investment is needed. That co-ordinated planning and commissioning process harnesses the added value from each member agency, ensuring services are targeted, and facilitates joint commissioning.

At departmental level, I am working closely with other Ministers and Departments, particularly the Department of Education, which has responsibility for early years. I am fully committed to continuing that collaborative approach.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his response. Can he elaborate on the role he envisages the family nurse partnership playing in that regard?

The Minister has highlighted the role of the Department of Education. Does he agree that when the Department is looking at any issue around schools, he needs to ensure collaboration with the Department of Health? Will he elaborate on Knockmore Primary School, for example, and on whether any decision in respect of those special units should be taken in very close consultation with the relevant health trust?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Supporting families and children through early intervention and prevention is, and will continue to be, a priority for my Department. That is reflected in such policies as Families Matter and the interventions supported under that, such as the family nurse partnership and family support hubs. It is our intention to roll the family nurse partnership out further. We can see the benefits of that, even at an early point.

The Member mentioned Knockmore Primary School. Speech therapists who work for the South Eastern Trust are very clear that they can provide the best possible service under the existing structure. If we move away from that structure, we may, therefore, be undermining that. However, I understand that there may be a strong case presented for some of the facilities to move to some of the further away parts of Northern Ireland. Nonetheless, it is clear that our speech therapists are doing a very good job in that facility, and that needs to be maintained.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline his plans to tackle waiting lists, including trolley waits, at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast. (AQO 1641/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In the commissioning plan direction that was issued to health and social care on 29 February, I have set challenging targets for the delivery of health and social care services, including the requirement for higher levels of performance within emergency care departments.

I expect the HSCB to work with the PHA and the trusts to ensure that those targets are met. In addition, the current situation in some of our emergency departments is unacceptable. I expect to see a significant improvement in performance. I have asked the Health and Social Care Board to provide a robust plan of immediate actions to secure improvement.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That ends Question Time to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two.

Debate resumed on motion:

That the Second Stage of the Superannuation Bill [NIA 6/11-15] be agreed.

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 74; Noes 12.

AYES

Mr Allister, Ms M Anderson, Mr S Anderson, Mr Bell, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Ms P Bradley, Ms Pam Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Copeland, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dickson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mr Ford, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Gardiner, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr G Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Ms Lo, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCallister, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Mr McElduff, Mr M McGuinness, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr McQuillan, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wilson.

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

NOES

Mr Agnew, Mr D Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Mrs D Kelly, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McGlone, Mrs McKevitt, Mr A Maginness, Mr P Ramsey.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr McDevitt and Mrs McKevitt.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Superannuation Bill [NIA 6/11-15] be agreed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the draft Rates (Deferment) (Revocation and Savings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Either the Health Minister thinks that he has got a new job here, or he is trying to take mine.

I will briefly set out the background to the rates deferment scheme before I address the reasons why the regulations are before us today. As Members may recall, the rates deferment scheme for owner-occupier pensioners was introduced in April 2010, having come out of the 2007 Executive review of the domestic rating system. The scheme provides a payment choice for pensioners, allowing them to defer the payment of rates until their death or the sale of their property. It was intended to provide a further option for those who are asset-rich but income-poor, those with a modest or fixed income and those who are not eligible for means-tested rates support.

The scheme allows pensioners and their partners to roll up their rates bills at a concessionary rate of interest and is subject to a number of conditions. The property must be the sole or main residence of the owner-occupier pensioner with at least 40% equity in the property and have a capital value in excess of £50,000. The scheme is not one to enter into lightly. It is certainly not a quick-fix payment solution; rather, it involves a long-term commitment that could last for more than 30 years.

I stress to Members that deferment provides a payment choice. It is not a relief, nor does it provide free money. A cost is also attached to it, both for my Department and for participants. In the last Assembly, the Finance and Personnel Committee considered that, even if only a small number of pensioners were to benefit, the choice of deferment should be made available to them. Similar views that it would be a useful option to offer pensioners were expressed during the consultation and in that Assembly. Others viewed the scheme as a death duty or expressed concern about the scheme’s cost and revenue implications. In light of that and prior to its introduction in 2010, I stated that I wanted a scheme that not only was effective but attracted sufficient and manageable numbers. As a result, I gave a commitment that, in a couple of years’ time, I would conduct a thorough evaluation of the scheme to examine how many people it helps and how effectively it provides value for money. Given the novel nature of the scheme, that was intended to allay the concerns of some Members. It also reflected the fact that, at that time, it was impossible to predict the level of interest in and the uptake of the scheme. My Department has now undertaken an evaluation of the scheme having sought the views of key stakeholders and the Finance and Personnel Committee.

While set-up and running costs have been lower than was originally anticipated, take-up has also been much lower. In fact, the figures have been disappointingly low despite the strenuous efforts of Land and Property Services (LPS) to promote the scheme, which included a section in the leaflet that was posted out with rate bills in 2010-11. In addition, a deferment factsheet and detailed guidance booklet was made available. LPS also refers to the deferment scheme at outreach events that it attends, which has generated interest. Despite that, over the past two years, only a handful of ratepayers — 21 in total — have deferred their rates. Even the number of people who have shown interest in the scheme and requested an application form or an illustration of what the deferment debt could be for them is in the low hundreds. It is not possible to know exactly why applicants decided not to proceed. However, I consider that a key factor will have been a lack of appreciation of the financial implications with regard to the amount of debt that could accrue over the deferment period, which could be up to 30 years. There is also the impact on a person’s equity in their property. For example, deferring rates on a property with a capital value of £400,000 could result in deferred debt of £140,000 over 20 years. That is a significant sum by any standards, even with a modest interest rate of 1%. It should also be remembered that, even without interest, the rates on such properties would be in excess of £70,000 over the same period, which is not an inconsequential sum.

Although the lack of applications has been a concern, looking forward, I believe the relative cost of the scheme to be a more serious issue. The annual running costs of the scheme per participant are extremely high relative to the sums of rates that are deferred, and that is largely down to the extremely small numbers involved. In addition, given the financial and legal implications of the scheme, the initial set-up costs were high. For example, my Department had no choice but to obtain advice from the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) on debt projections and establishing an actuarial debt model. As one member of the Finance and Personnel Committee, who at the time was supportive of the scheme, put it:

“it will be a relatively costly scheme for the Department to administer. If take-up turns out to be extremely low and the costs are significant, it may be necessary to determine whether it should be continued.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 49, p118, col 1].

Unfortunately, I think that we have already reached that point.

In saying that, I readily admit that I was never an enthusiastic supporter of the measure. Although it was introduced as a result of the consultation process undertaken before my time as Finance Minister, I agreed, as a member of the Executive, to allow it to go ahead for a trial period, hence my commitment to undertake an early evaluation. As part of that process, my Department looked at a number of options, including continuing with the current scheme or amending it. The hope was always that higher numbers would avail themselves of deferment so that the administrative costs per individual would be as low as possible. The administrative costs of the scheme per participant have been around £1,400 per year over the two-year period, and the sums of rates deferred have been in the region of £1,500 per participant per year. Therefore, the cost of running the scheme was nearly the same as the sums of rates that were deferred yearly.

Therefore, the scheme has unfortunately turned out to be ineffective. It does not provide value for money for the Assembly, and, as a result, I do not believe that we can, hand on heart, support its continuation. It falls into the “nice to have” category, but, given the extreme pressure on public expenditure, that is not good enough. For that reason, I intend to close the scheme with effect from 1 April.

Although no applications —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Should I assume from the sad saga that the Minister has outlined that this was some hare-brained scheme from a direct rule Minister, or did someone else think this up and implement it?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Had he been listening, the Member would have realised that it came out of the 2007 review of rates that the Executive undertook. I do not agree that it was a hare-brained scheme by any means. It was a means of trying to help to address the issue of those who lived in expensive properties but did not have a great deal of income. The hope was that there would be a much greater uptake, but, as I have outlined to the House, only 21 people decided to participle. I am not sure whether that was because of people not wanting to eat into the equity in properties that they perhaps hoped to leave to their family or simply because of the scheme’s requirements, including the need to have 40% equity, the property needing to be of sufficient value and the costs that could accumulate over 20 years. As it turned out, what was a well-meaning and genuine attempt to address a problem did not work out.

We should not forget that, at the time that the measure was introduced, a huge debate was going on about those who lived in large houses, whose family had left, who did not have a great deal of income and who could not afford to pay the massive rates on their property. I think that the Assembly sought to be innovative in trying to address the issues that arose as a result of that difficulty.

As it turns out, it would not be the first innovative measure that the Assembly has tried. In fact, a few months ago, just after the Budget, I agreed that some of the rates measures that we had provided for the so-called green homes had had such a low uptake that we should stop doing that as well and use the money for the warm homes scheme and other schemes that would help to reduce heating bills. I do not agree with the Member that it was a hare-brained scheme. It was a well-meaning attempt to address a problem that did not work out as had been anticipated. For that reason, I intend to close the scheme. Although no applications will be accepted —

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

Will the Minister give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I will give way, and I hope, at least, that the Member, on this occasion, will make an original point and will not just copy the Member for North Antrim. He is getting into a terrible habit of doing that, and there is no point in repeating and recycling points that someone else has already made. In fact, the Member for North Antrim may start charging him if he continues to steal points from him.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not think that one occasion can indicate a habit, but I will take his advice and I will be wary in the future.

Will the Minister explain the situation of the 21 current participants? Perhaps he mentioned it and I may not have heard it. Will their participation in the scheme be protected?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member was reading my mind. I was just coming to that point. I will answer it because it is very important. People entered into what is a long-term commitment and did so in good faith. They paid substantial upfront legal costs as well, and the Member is right: it would be remiss to simply abandon those people. Although no applications will be accepted after the end of March, I assure Members that those who are currently deferring rates will be unaffected by the change. They will continue to be able to defer rates until such times as they die or, alternatively, sell or transfer their property.

I also consider that it may be more effective to redirect the administrative savings from the closure of the scheme into Land and Property Services’ wider relief take-up strategy of targeting relief towards those most in need, which has the aim of increasing the take-up of reliefs such as housing benefit, rate relief and lone pensioner allowance, which reach a large number of pensioners. For these reasons, I ask Members to support the revocation of the rates deferment scheme, with savings provisions for current participants, and I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, through which and, indeed, his responses to interventions he has answered quite a number of points.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel received a briefing from officials on 15 February 2012 on the evaluation of the rates deferment scheme for pensioners. The scheme, as has been outlined, allowed qualifying pensioners to defer payments of rates at a preferential rate of interest until the time of their death or the sale of their property. Members heard that the take-up level of the scheme was much lower than anticipated, with only 21 agreements entered into in the two years in which the scheme was in operation. In addition, the administrative costs of the scheme were considerable, relative to the sums of rates deferred. The Minister said that the average amount of rates deferred was £1,500 per person per year, while the average administration cost was £1,400 per person per year. The scheme, therefore, did not appear to be effective or to provide value for money. The Committee was advised that, as a consequence, the Minister proposed the scheme’s closure with effect from the end of the current rating year.

The Committee noted that savings provision will be made for cases where an application is made to the Department before 1 April and a deferment agreement in respect of that application entered into before 1 October 2012. Provision is also made to protect partners and surviving partners of people who have entered into a deferment agreement; that is the point to which the Minister just referred.

Following the evidence session, the Committee agreed that it was content with the Minister’s proposal to close the rates deferment scheme for pensioners from 1 April 2012. The policy proposals contained in the statutory rule were subsequently considered by the Committee on 22 February.

On 14 March, the Committee formally considered the statutory rule that is before the Assembly today, together with the accompanying report from the Assembly’s Examiner of Statutory Rules, which raised no issues by way of technical scrutiny. The Committee agreed to recommend that the Rates (Deferment) (Revocation and Savings) Regulations (NI) 2012 be affirmed by the Assembly, and I support the motion.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

As a member of the Committee, I was fully involved in the discussions and the negotiations, and I am quite happy to support the motion.

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

Go raibh maith agat a LeasCheann Comhairle agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an méid a dúirt sé cheana féin.I thank the Minister for the explanations that he has given. The time has come to end the scheme. Given that the running costs outweigh the benefits to older ratepayers and that there are only 21 participants, it does not make sense to continue with it. I agree that the sensible thing is to bring the scheme to an end, and I am happy that the Minister has clarified the fact that the existing 21 participants can remain in the scheme. I am happy to support the motion.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank all of the Members who contributed to the debate. The interventions raised Members’ points on the wisdom of the scheme originally, and I have answered those as well as Mr Bradley’s point about protection for those who are already in the scheme. I hope that I have given assurance to Members on both of those issues. I thank the Committee for its work in looking at the regulations, and I trust that Members will show the necessary support for the order. Although, generally, I do not favour restricting the options available to ratepayers, in this case, it is hard to justify the continuation of the scheme for new applicants. Therefore, I commend the order to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Rates (Deferment) (Revocation and Savings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

These regulations are made under the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 and increase the compensation payable under the Act to persons diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma or, if the person has died, their dependants. The increases under the order maintain parity with the corresponding scheme operating in Great Britain. I will outline briefly the purpose of the scheme. Mesothelioma is an asbestos-related cancer of the lung or abdominal linings. It is a unique disease. It has a long latency of 20-plus years. It is rapidly progressive and invariably fatal, with death occurring within 18 months of the onset of illness.

The scheme provides financial support to vulnerable people and their families within a matter of weeks, without the need to establish an occupational link or, indeed, any causal link. The introduction of the scheme means that many people who were previously not eligible for help, for example, those who were unable to pursue a civil claim or to claim a lump sum under the pneumoconiosis scheme now have access to financial help for this terrible disease. Sufferers of mesothelioma are eligible for a payment, regardless of whether they were employees, self-employed or, indeed, never worked, provided they have not already received a compensation payment from another source.

These regulations increase the amounts payable under the mesothelioma scheme by 5·2%, in line with this year’s uprating of industrial injuries benefits from April 2012. The amount payable to a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis will be increased from £77,506 to £81,536, the same maximum that can be paid from April 2012 under the pneumoconiosis scheme.

The increase in the amounts payable ensures that the compensation provided under the scheme maintains its value and continues to support those in need. I am sure that Members across the Assembly will be happy to support the regulations.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for tabling the debate on the regulations this afternoon. On behalf of the Social Development Committee, I want to make it clear that the Committee considered the matter on 23 February 2012 and again at its meeting on 8 March and was content to give its approval to this regulation on mesothelioma, which, as the Minister has said, is to ensure that victims of that disease get a lump sum — or, if they are deceased, their relatives do.

This disease is a cancer of the thin membrane that lines the chest and the abdomen, and, as the Minister has said, it can be latent for up to 30 years, in which case the companies that may have been responsible for an unsafe environment are often out of business. So, this regulation will ensure that such a payment can be made.

It should also be noted that, from April, the increase in most benefits will be based on the consumer prices index, and a number of members of the Committee were concerned at potential reductions in that. However, as the Minister said, this year, under the CPI, the increase will be 5·2%. Members of the House may wish to give some attention to that in the time ahead. The Committee is content that the statutory rule be confirmed by the Assembly.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Like other Members, I am dealing with a constituent who suffers from severe chest problems that are directly related to mesothelioma problems picked up in his former employment, and I want to stress to Members how difficult life can become due to that awful condition. Anything that can be done to ease the impact on the everyday quality of life is welcome, and I concur with the Minister that we must make sure that people who suffer from it are properly compensated.

I also want to use this opportunity to urge those who engage in DIY to ensure that they at least use a mask that will cover their mouth and face when drilling in case there are unidentified asbestos sources in their work or at home. I urge Members to support the motion to ease the lives of people and their families in a practical and welcome way. Therefore, I support the motion.