Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 June 2012

297 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a point of appreciation of your good self for securing the clock at that end of the Chamber. It is most beneficial for those of us who sit at the back of the Chamber, and particularly for members of the public who can now look down and see how the time is going in case they need to leave the Chamber. It is completely in keeping with this House. Well done. Thank you.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: It is not very often that Members of this House make a point of order to congratulate the Speaker on anything. Thank you very much, Mr Gardiner.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order falls a little short of congratulations, but I empathise with and support the point made by Mr Anderson.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

: Gardiner.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

: Mr Gardiner; indeed, sorry.

I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker. Last week, in a landmark judgement, an industrial tribunal found direct religious discrimination by an Executive Minister. How do we debate that matter —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

: — and avoid it being swept under the carpet —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member should take his seat. The Member is out of order, and well he knows it. That is not a point of order. It is a bogus point of order. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us move on.

Members, before we begin today’s business, I wish to advise the House that I have received letters from Mr Pat Doherty, Michelle Gildernew, Paul Maskey and Conor Murphy giving me notice that they intend to resign as Members of the Assembly with effect from noon —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

: Hear, hear.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: Order. With effect from noon on Monday 2 July 2012. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: I call the Minister of Education to move the motion on behalf of the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 25 June 2012.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 25 June 2012.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: As the motion has been agreed, today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm, if required.

Ministerial Statement

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. A Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom ráiteas a dhéanamh leis an Tionól maidir leis na pleananna atá agam le haghaidh infheistíocht chaipitil don tréimhse atá romhainn. Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the Assembly on my plans for capital investment in the coming period. Tá a fhios agam go gcuirfidh gach aon Chomhalta, chomh maith le gach scoil agus gach pobal ar fud an Tuaiscirt, spéis ann. I know that the subject will be of great interest not only to Members but to schools and communities across the North.

In my September statement, ‘Putting Pupils First: Shaping Our Future’ , I set out a programme of actions to ensure that we have a pattern of provision that delivers a high-quality education for all children. Those actions included the completion of a viability audit to identify schools evidencing stress, and the initiation of area planning work to determine the future pattern of provision in each area. At this point, it is estimated that it will be the final quarter of the current financial year before the first plans are formally adopted.

In my statement in September, I made it clear that area plans will eventually be used to identify the priorities for capital investment going forward. I also said that I would need assurances that any project approved for capital investment was consistent with the overall provision needed in an area. At that time, I indicated that the former investment delivery plan would be set aside. However, I stated that those projects and others could come forward again if, when tested, they remained a priority within the proposed future provision.

My capital budget over the remaining three years of the budget period is £104 million this year and £108 million next year, and it steps up to £184 million in 2014-15. With the process for planning and approving newbuild projects often being long and protracted, it is clear to me that decisions are needed now to influence capital expenditure in 2013-14 and 2014-15.

The needs for capital investment far exceed the funding available. As much as I would like to be in a position to fund everything that needs doing now, I must work with the budget that is available to me. That means that difficult decisions will need to be made on future investment plans. To ensure the most effective use of the capital budget, I am implementing a four-strand approach to new capital investment. I will deal with each strand in turn.

The first strand of my capital investment plans for the coming period involves advancing a number of newbuild projects. I am today announcing investment of £133 million in 18 capital projects, including five special school projects. The intention is that the new school build projects will potentially be on site in the final quarter of the current financial year or early in the 2013-14 financial year. In identifying those projects for investment at this time, I wanted to be assured that they have been future-proofed and remain a priority for investment. I, therefore, instructed my officials to draw up an interim process to identify suitable projects. This is a pragmatic approach that will ensure an effective use of the capital budget. I want to stress that today’s announcement in no way implies that other projects will not be considered at a later stage.

As a result of the process that I have set in place, the new capital school projects that I am approving for investment are: Coláiste Feirste, Belfast, to the value of £11·9 million; St Clare’s Convent and St Colman’s Abbey Primary School, Newry, £6 million; St Joseph’s Convent Primary School, Newry, £5·8 million; Dromore Central Primary School, £11·4million ; Eglinton Primary School, £2·5 million; Tannaghmore Primary School, Lurgan, £6 million; Ebrington Primary School, Derry, £4·5 million; Foyle College, Derry, £19·6 million ; St Teresa’s Primary School, Lurgan, £3 million; Victoria Park Primary School, Belfast, £4·9 million; Enniskillen Model Primary School, £5·7 million; St Mary’s Primary School, Banbridge, £5·1 million; and Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagain, Belfast, £2·5 million. I want to make it clear that approval of these projects is subject to each school complying with any terms and conditions that are set down by my Department and their securing the necessary approvals and clearances.

The second strand of the capital investment strategy involves establishing a number of projects to be advanced through the planning and approval processes. I have already referred to the time lag between deciding to proceed with a project and commencing construction. As a consequence, there is a need to ensure that there is a programme of potential projects being advanced through the various stages. Therefore, as with the capital projects announced today, a process has been established to identify a number of projects for which funding would be provided for planning. It is my intention to announce in the autumn a list of projects that can be taken forward.

I turn to the third strand of this capital announcement. In my statement in September, I made it clear that my reduced capital budget over the coming years does not allow me to consider a newbuild in every case and that we need to do more with the existing estate. I also made it clear that we have too many schools for the population we serve and that steps need to be taken to reshape the estate to better meet the needs of our society.

In response to those points, I am announcing the establishment of a new school enhancement programme. That programme will make available funding of up to £4 million for any project that is aimed at refurbishing or extending schools. Priority will be given to projects aimed at supporting amalgamation or rationalisation. Initially, up to £20 million will be available for that programme in 2013-14, with the option of increasing that in 2014-15 depending on the number and quality of proposals.

For those schools not announced at this time, however, the new enhancement programme offers an opportunity to add to and improve existing facilities. That may prove to be a more accessible and pragmatic option. Details of the programme will be released in the autumn together with a first call for potential projects.

A Cheann Comhairle, tá mé ag iarraidh plé anois leis an cheathrú snáithe, an snáithe deireanach den fhógra seo maidir le hinfheistíocht chaipitiúil.

I turn to the fourth and final strand of my announcement on capital investment. That covers investment in special schools. Since taking on the role of Education Minister, I have visited schools in each and every sector of education provision. The common factor in every sector has been the clear need for considerable investment in infrastructure. I have been particularly seized of the need to ensure we support the most vulnerable in our system. No one visiting our special schools could remain unmoved by the needs of the children attending those facilities. I would dearly like to be able to advance every deserving case immediately. However, with the limits of the funding available to me, I am determined that we make progress with a number of cases.

Therefore, the process for building three special schools will be advanced: Belmont House Special School, Derry, will be allocated £7·4 million; Rossmar Special School, Limavady, will be allocated £6·4 million; and Castle Tower School, Ballymena, will be allocated £21·8 million. In addition, an options appraisal has been carried out over recent months, looking at the most effective use of the former Balmoral High School facility, which will be vacated by St Colman’s over the summer months. Although further work will be required on finalising the business case, the preferred option is for St Gerard’s resource centre to be the long-term tenant of that facility.

I also remind Members that Arvalee Special School in Omagh will be taken forward as part of the Lisanelly campus project. Lisanelly campus is a unique project and an opportunity to develop a state-of-the-art, innovative and shared education campus to serve the needs of almost 4,000 children in the Omagh area. Delivering on that is a commitment in the new Programme for Government, and I will prioritise taking forward that exciting opportunity.

That represents an investment in special schools of over £44 million. I stress, as I did for the newbuilds announcement, that I am approving work to advance the business cases and design work necessary for those projects. However, I emphasis that those will be priority projects for funding.

I want to make it clear that my Department’s strategy for capital investment in the coming years will be shaped by area planning. I have authorised the education and library boards to begin the consultation on the post-primary area plans on 5 July 2012. The extended consultation will run until 26 October 2012; a full 16 weeks. That will give ample time for the public to read and reflect on the proposals before responding. The boards will be writing to schools to notify them of the launch date before they finish, which, for most of them, is the end of this week.

The capital investment proposals that have been announced today are consistent with and grounded in an area-plan approach. That is a pragmatic initiative to ensure that the capital funding available can be used most effectively. This is a good news story, and children and young people have been central to the considerations. A modern education environment is essential to raising standards and reshaping education provision.

This is also good news for the local construction industry and the economy, representing investment of almost £173 million, which will help to create and secure jobs in a sector that has been badly affected in recent years. I have, therefore, tasked my officials to ensure that the projects I announced today are moved forward with urgency.

I realise that, for every school I announced today as progressing, there are as many that need investment. The Budget settlement the Executive were presented with limited the funding I have available and prevented me from progressing all the schemes I would have liked.

Mar fhocal scoir, a Cheann Comhairle. I have taken clear and decisive action to ensure that we effectively use the capital available in the next number of years and maximise the benefits for children across the North.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: Before I call the Chair of the Education Committee, Mervyn Storey, I point out that a number of Members, quite obviously, given the importance of the statement, want to make a contribution. I ask Members to be brief as they come to their question, and hopefully we will get in all Members who want to make a contribution.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

: It is always welcome when an announcement is made on capital investment in our education system. I particularly welcome the announcement on special schools. I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Ballymoney High School.

In relation to the Minister’s announcement on special schools, I do not think any of us in the House could but feel challenged if we visit our special schools. I pay tribute to those particularly at Castle Tower. I am delighted that the principal of Castle Tower, Mr McFeeters, is with us in the Public Gallery to hear the announcement. No one could but feel challenged, and the Minister did come, at my invitation, to visit the school some time ago to see the needs and challenges that that school has.

I ask about two issues in relation to the Education Committee. Will the Committee receive further information about the school enhancement programme, its detail and how schools will be able to access it? Secondly, some time ago, a review was carried out of the capital projects in education. That resulted in schools being designated compliant, partially compliant or non-compliant. Some schools deemed compliant will see that their names are missing from the list. I draw particular attention to Ballymoney High School and Rainey Endowed School, Magherafelt, which were linked for a newbuild project. Will the Minister explain how those schools, which were deemed fully compliant, have somehow mysteriously disappeared off his capital investment list?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: The latitude ends with the Chairman. Members will know that Chairs of Committees have some latitude when responding to a Ministerial statement in the House, but that is where it ends.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: In relation to the Chairperson’s last point, they have not disappeared off any list. Today, I brought forward a list of schools that are ready to go forward in the last quarter or the next quarter of the financial year, so we can spend the moneys in the time we have. There are very many deserving schools on lists in the Department of Education, and I would like to be in a position to build all those that are sustainable and viable. Unfortunately, we are not in a financial position to do that but I indicated in my statement that I will be returning to this subject in the autumn. As the planning process moves forward in the Department of Education and with the managing authorities and boards of governors, I hope to be in a position to announce more schools.

The Education Committee will be fully briefed on the school enhancement programme and on the detail of my statement. The school enhancement programme was put in place to allow area planning to take place through amalgamations and the need for the enhancement of schools’ fabric. Previously, minor works programmes ran to the value of only £500,000. I am now bringing forward a programme worth up to £4 million, which can make a significant difference to the schools estate or an individual school, so I hope to move that forward.

The Member is absolutely right about our special needs schools. We have many excellent special needs schools in respect of the buildings and the contribution of staff and parents. However, there are a number of schools the fabric of which are completely unacceptable, where the teachers and the parents have rallied through many difficult circumstances to provide excellent care and education for the young people. It is now time for government to step up to the mark and provide the necessary fabric, particularly in the schools that I have announced today. I know that there others, and I hope to get round to them as well.

Today’s news is good news for special needs education, and I assure the Member that no school has fallen off the capital build list.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement. It is to the Minister’s and Sinn Féin’s credit that the party is prioritising funding for the most vulnerable people in the education system. In particular, of course, I echo the Chair of the Committee in welcoming for the £21·8 million for Castle Tower School.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: I encourage the Member to come to the question.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

: That is something that I have raised constantly with the Minister over the past year. The other impact of his statement will be on work for the construction sector. When will these works begin, and when will employment in the construction sector be regenerated as a result of this?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: I would like to see the work commence on these projects as quickly as possible. My officials will work with managing authorities and boards of governors to ensure that we move forward. We have a limited time frame in which to spend the funds that are available to us. One of the unfortunate realities of Government spending of significant amounts of money is that, rightly, much rigour and attention is paid to how that money is spent. That also means that it can affect the urgency or speed at which a project can move forward.

I would like to see the new school build projects that I have announced today being on site towards the end of this financial year or in the early part of the next financial year. The internal planning processes for the special educational needs schools that I have announced today are further back. I am not talking about planning that has to be passed by councils, I mean ensuring that business cases and economic appraisals are in place. I believe that we can move them forward rapidly as well.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

: I thank the Minister for his announcement and I hope, as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Education, for a little bit of latitude. We welcome any spend on schools, especially on special needs schools and anything that leads to a single, shared education system. However, it is a major blow for those that were expecting to be on the list but are not on it, such as Parkhall Integrated College, which is a split-site school and has already spent over £1 million on its design.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

: I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

: I am just getting there, Mr Speaker. The school has been waiting for 10 years. Are we going to see a list of these schools in the autumn, and a list for the future, so that schools can plan and see into the future when they are going to be rebuilt? It takes three or four years to redesign, and it has been a major blow to schools such as Parkhall Integrated College.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: I suspect that as Members rise to ask me questions they will mention a significant number of schools that are not on my list, which is perfectly understandable. I acknowledged in my statement that, despite the fact that this is a good news day for the schools that have been provided for, many schools will be disappointed.

From ISNI 2, we are now short £650 million of capital expenditure. That was cut from our Budget by the British Government; they slashed the Budget of the North. I am down by £650 million that I should have had to build new schools. If I were able to stand here today and announce newbuilds under that programme of work, no one in the Chamber would be disappointed. However, we have to put a process in place and work with the capital funds that we have.

I will make another statement in the autumn. Area planning is ongoing, and I wish to be in a position to give further clarity to schools in the autumn. There are many core schools that will continue to be core schools in the future, even though they are not on this list at present. That does not mean that they will not be built in the future. Along with my Executive colleagues, I will attempt to secure as much funding as possible for newbuilds.

We are where we are today. Let us get this programme of work up and running, and, in addition to this announcement, I assure you that there will be further developments in the Department for announcements in the autumn.

Seán Rogers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the newbuilds. It is great news for all those who are associated with those schools and for the severely pressed construction industry. However, I am disappointed; there are many other deserving cases in South Down.

My question is to do with the school enhancement programme. We are in the midst of a recession. Two things that would help us to get out of it are education and innovation. Last week, we saw a great education event in the Odyssey. What consideration is the Minister giving to the refurbishment of science labs as part of the school enhancement programme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: The school enhancement programme will provide an education infrastructure for schools to provide the curriculum. I am not going to say what is needed in any individual school or sector. My Department will write to schools in the coming days to outline the enhancement programme for them. We will brief the Department of Education, and schools will then make a decision about what use they may wish to make of the school enhancement programme. The provision of science or any part of the curriculum that will assist us in developing a modern economy and giving our young people the skills base for a modern economy will all be core moving forward. Let the schools come forward with proposals, and we will judge them against the criteria that will be laid out.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

: I completely welcome the statement. It is a good news story, as the Minister said. Obviously, I welcome the funding for Dromore Central Primary School in my constituency. Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagain is at the bottom of the list. It has the worst conditions in which I have ever seen schoolchildren being educated, and the Minister agrees. The funding for that is really good news. I ask the Minister to comment further on the school enhancement programme and the mention of amalgamations or rationalisation. How does that contrast with his comment about capital investment in the coming years being shaped by area planning? Which comes first?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: The enhancement programme will not come into play until the financial year 2013-14. By that stage, area planning will have significantly advanced; I announced today that area planning will go out to public consultation on 5 July until 26 October. That will give me and my officials time to study the responses and announce a way forward. That will be in early 2013, so the school enhancement programme kicks in just in time for that amalgamation and rationalisation process. It also gives confidence to the schools and the public that the plans will go out and that they will be backed up with investment. We can move forward with confidence that, where schools need to amalgamate, there will be money to facilitate the young people so that their education takes place in a modern, well-built and well-secured environment.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

: I broadly welcome the Minister’s statement. It is important that children come first when making such decisions. I am particularly pleased to note the Minister’s continued support for the grammar school sector and his award of a £19·1 million grant to Foyle and Londonderry College. Although the Minister stated that other projects may still be considered at a later stage, will he clarify what process he used to select the schools that were announced today?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

: As I was making my decisions, I did not take into account the nameplate on any of the schools. I built on the basis of need. Foyle College has been discussed in the Chamber. I have received cross-party delegations in relation to Foyle College, and I have been impressed by the presentation from the local MLAs and the school. I visited Ebrington Primary School when I was in Derry several months ago, and I was impressed by the fortitude of the school principal, the board of governors and the pupils, who want to move forward. We have assisted them in that regard today.

I asked my officials to examine our schools lists and what required to be built. I relied on the information that they had from boards and managing authorities to prioritise schools going into the future against the need to ensure that they were viable and sustainable and against the amount of money that we would have in future and the timescale in which to spend it. They came back to me with the list that I announced today. I am happy for my officials to brief the Education Committee on that matter in more detail and to assure the public that each school has been announced today on the basis of future need. I know that other schools that are not on the list are also in need.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I very much welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly in relation to the schools in my constituency of Newry and Armagh. St Joseph’s Convent Primary School was my first school. That may be an indication of how old it is and that it needs to be replaced. I declare an interest as a governor of St Colman’s Abbey Primary School, which I also attended. St Clare’s Primary School, which is one of the oldest primary schools in Ireland, is literally falling down.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I urge the Member to come to his question.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Those schools have been disappointed in the past. I ask the Minister to reassure us that they will be dealt with as quickly as possible and that there will be newbuilds.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I did not realise that we had schools that old in our estate; that is worrying. [Laughter.]

The schools have been brought forward and examined by my officials on the basis that they can and should move forward in the short term. I am not saying that hiccups may not develop in the processes as we move forward. However, my colleague Caitríona Ruane, who is sitting beside me, made an announcement in August 2010 about, I think, 13 schools that were hothoused and moved forward. All those schools are now either complete or on the verge of being complete. I see no reason why we cannot have the same process in respect of the announcements that I have made today.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Like the rest of the Members, I warmly welcome this announcement. I also welcome the £11·4 million that you are spending on Dromore Central. That school originally got approval in 2004. The site was purchased, plans were passed, but then funding was pulled. Given all that, can the Minister give the House the clear assurance that building will actually start in the last quarter of this year as indicated? The school is in a horrendous condition. When I was speaking to the principal, he told me that, even today, three classes had to be relocated due to difficulties with the building. Thank you, Minister.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I emphasise what I said to the Member who spoke previously. There are many, many schools on lists whose hopes have been raised and dashed over time. One of the reasons why I came forward today with 12 or 13 schools and the special needs schools is that those are schools that I am confident I have the financial power to build and that are advanced enough in the process to build. I do not want to raise expectations of schools. It would have been quite easy for me to come here today and announce twice the number of schools. However, I would not have been confident that the second half of that list would have been built during my tenure or that we would have had the finance to build them. I want to see the schools announced today on site in the last quarter of this financial year or the first quarter of the next financial year. They have to move forward; that is key. My officials are aware of the need to move forward on these matters.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I also thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure that the schools that are lucky enough to have been announced are delighted. I welcome the fact that three of those schools are in Upper Bann. I welcome, in particular, the £5·1 million for St Mary’s in Banbridge, which was well overdue. Now that these projects have been announced, can the Minister detail the next step and outline what resources or greater assistance he will offer schools to work towards greater sharing of resources, in respect of both buildings and staff?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The next step is that there is a very busy period ahead for my departmental officials, managing authorities and schools’ boards of governors. There will have to be a combined push in the time ahead to get these school builds on site. My appeal to schools and everyone else is that the key to success in these matters is this: keep it simple, keep it straight, and keep moving forward. You will always find obstacles in the way of a new school build, or perhaps somebody will come up with a brighter idea halfway through the process. I say to these schools to go ahead with what you have planned, move forward and allow us to provide the new available resources to you.

The next steps are that I am continuing discussions with my officials and area plans are going ahead. I want to be back here in the autumn. We are going back through the list to see what schools we can move forward at the next stage, confident that they are core schools and will be sustainable into the future. We will match that against the time and the finances available. We are also conscious that we have to plan capital infrastructure going into the next budgetary period. At the end of this period, the Department of Education cannot say that it has no plans for the future. If we did that, we would not be allocated any funds, whoever is in the ministry the next time, and we would have no funds for new school builds. That is where we are with that.

As regards shared education, I hope to be in a position in the next couple of weeks, or sooner, to announce the membership of the shared education advisory group, as outlined in the Programme for Government. I want that group to go out and challenge the sectors, my Department, the Ministers and the politicians in the Chamber to talk about and debate shared education and to look at the perceived and real obstacles in its way. Let us then move forward with an informed report delivered by that body.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister and welcome his announcements today. I am sure that you will agree, a Cheann Comhairle, that it will be welcomed across the constituency of Foyle, and I am glad that the decisions were not made with nameplates in mind. Will the Minister agree that the funding for Foyle College in particular will be very welcome and will be strategically important because it will open up lands for the further expansion of the University of Ulster at the Magee campus?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes. My primary responsibility is to ensure the development of education in early years, primary and post-primary, and my decisions to allow Foyle and Ebrington to move on also gives great opportunities for the further enhancement of the Magee campus in Derry. That is a further welcome announcement in Derry, which has, over the past period of time, through its MLAs and representatives, made its voice heard around the Executive table and elsewhere. As a consequence, investment continues to roll into the city.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. Fáiltím go mór roimhe, go háirithe roimh an infheistíocht in earnáil na Gaelscolaíochta. I very much welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate all schools that have been successful, including the Irish-medium schools, Coláiste Feirste and Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagáin. I also congratulate St Clare’s —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

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

— St Colman’s, Newry, and St Joseph’s, Newry. I also welcome the £20 million for the school enhancement programme. What is the Minister’s estimation of the current backlog in schools maintenance?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is anything up to £200 million. Over the past number of years, we have continually invested in the school maintenance backlog, and at times people could be forgiven for thinking that a losing battle was being fought. However, we are making investments, and I recently approved the budgets for our education and library boards and ring-fenced £27 million for school maintenance. I continue to talk to the Finance Minister and my Executive colleagues about school maintenance and bidding in the monitoring rounds. There is competition from all Departments for funds, and we try our best. In fairness to my Executive colleagues and the Finance Minister, they are trying their best to give money to education for school maintenance programmes, but I hope that the school build programme that we announced today will reduce school maintenance costs. If we were not to build at Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagáin in north Belfast, for instance, the Department and the education boards would be faced with £600,000 of school maintenance for that project. So, it is best to move forward with a new school build there. I am aware that, in St Clare’s in Newry, significant money has been spent over the years as we try to get land deals agreed, and so on. There is absolutely no point in spending further school maintenance money there; let us build a new school. Thankfully, we are at that position, and we will continue to attempt to secure money for further school builds and school maintenance into the future.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Mr Cochrane, his staff and the pupils at Dromore Central Primary School will be delighted to hear today’s news. What terms and conditions, as mentioned in the statement, are likely to be necessary to gain approval and secure movement?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

They are largely bureaucratic measures such as economic appraisals, business cases and planning. There is no further stipulation than that. I will not bring forward any further measures by which schools have to abide or agree to. It is the usual bureaucracy that government has to work with when dealing with significant amounts of public funding.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement and congratulate the Minister on the programme. I congratulate him on the £21·8 million for Castle Tower School to enable the children of the glens who have special needs to receive their education. I declare an interest because my daughter is a pupil at Castle Tower School. Will the Minister set out why he has prioritised special needs education?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is because I have had the good fortune of visiting many special needs schools across the North since I came into office and, indeed, when I was a member of the Education Committee. No one could be anything but moved by the circumstances that some young people are in with their educational needs, despite the devotion of their parents, family members, schools and teachers, which, undoubtedly, improves those young people’s lives. As a Government, we have a responsibility to assist the most vulnerable in our society, and, sometimes, you have to make a firm statement in that regard.

I do not believe that we, as a Government and as an Assembly, can stand proud and say that we have provided the best for the young people at Castle Tower. I believe that we are now in a position to do so, and that is why I have prioritised special educational needs schools. There has been a building programme in the past. When you are involved in government as a Minister, it is, at times, frustrating that you cannot always do the things that you want to do immediately. You have to put programmes and processes in place, and you have to move projects along, sometimes at a snail’s pace. I am fortunate that I can now announce these special needs schools. A considerable amount of preparatory work is still to be done to bring them to a conclusion, but I am confident that we will bring them to a conclusion and provide them with newbuilds.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was interested to hear the Minister say that, in one school, the maintenance costs were so high that the prudent and proper thing to do was to replace it. It is understandable that he should do that. I thought that some of the schools in my area would have fitted that criterion very well. I am thinking of Devenish College and of Fivemiletown Primary School, which have been on the list for a considerable time. I suppose that we will have to wait for the next statement from the Minister to see how they fared. Can he comment on those two schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am reluctant to comment in detail on any individual school that is not on the list, because I do not have all of the details. If I did, I would be sitting here with binders and binders of information. I mentioned the £600,000 that would be needed for maintenance at Bheann Mhadagáin because that was one of the factors, but it was not the only factor. We can be confident that Bheann Mhadagáin will be a core school in north Belfast for generations to come, so it is the right thing to build it and move forward. I am not saying that either of the schools that you mentioned will not be core schools in the future. They are not on the list today because we are not in a position to make an announcement on them, but I assure the Member that we will continue to interrogate all of the information around each school and that we will move forward each school when it is possible to do so.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, I add my words of commendation to you on Castle Tower. I visited that school and was thoroughly moved by the need for it to be developed in the way in which the Minister is developing it. However, Minister, I point out your failure to recognise any integrated school in this plan of attack to improve our school estate. I particularly bring to your attention the 212 pupils and staff who are involved in —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

— Corran Integrated Primary School in Larne. When will that school receive similar attention to the attention that some schools have received attention today?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his comments on Castle Tower. The commendation should be to the local representatives in the area and to the members of the board of governors of Castle Tower, who have stuck by that project and insisted on it moving forward. It is not the case that I have paid attention solely to the schools that I have made announcements about today. I assure the Member that the details of each school that is moving forward for a newbuild have been thoroughly interrogated in the Department of Education. I want to be in a position to announce that all the schools will be built, and I am sure that all Members want that. However, we do not have the money to do that. I can navel-gaze on the point that I do not have the money to build all of the schools, or we can look forward and build a number of schools with the money that we have available, hope that further funds become available in the future and work with my Executive colleagues in a bid to advance new school builds. I assure the Member that each of the schools that he has mentioned has been analysed. We will continue to analyse all of the schools, and, when I come back here in the autumn, I will advance further projects. I give the caveat that there will also be schools that will be disappointed at that time. Unfortunately, that is where we are at this time.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his statement, but I must express my disappointment that no schools in mid-Ulster are on his list. I refer specifically to the Rainey school, to which the Committee Chairman also referred, which was deemed fully compliant quite some time ago. Next year, that school will celebrate 300 years. How long will the Rainey have to wait for its newbuild? Will he assure me that he will communicate directly with the school to make sure that nothing is outstanding and that it will be included in the autumn announcement?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said in answer to a Member who spoke previously, I do not have in front of me the details of all the schools. However, I reassure the House and it should be confident that where all schools are in current planning has been fully interrogated, and we are satisfied that the list that we have brought forward contains schools that can move forward in the timescale that we have set out. Any Member is more than welcome to write to me about any individual school to seek further information and clarity about where the project stands. Is there anything else that a board of governors or a managing authority should be doing? I am more than happy to clarify that with members. In fairness to my officials, they regularly engage with schools on their planning and preparation for new school builds.

The other key factor to note from my statement is that we have opened up again the new school builds programme. It was closed down for a period until area planning was allowed to advance and we had assured ourselves of our budgetary position. It is now opened up again. Plans will be progressing. Schools will be progressing through the system. All that we have to assure ourselves of is that a school is sustainable, viable and compliant with area planning into the future. Those are the broad criteria that schools will have to satisfy. The Member is more than welcome to write to me about any individual school, and I will clarify its position.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the investment in education and the construction industry in Northern Ireland. Glenwood School in my constituency and Springhill Primary School in neighbouring West Belfast have been on the list for some time. We hear honeyed words about what government is going to do about the massive socio-economic and educational problems that face the greater Shankill, yet nothing seems to happen about the development of two new schools on those sites. Will the Minister please advise the House and people on the Shankill where those schools sit on his list?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am more than happy to correspond with the Member in detail on both those projects, but I will say this: schools, managing authorities and boards of governors are presented with a number of obstacles before a new school build takes place. Anybody who has moved forward with a new housing development or a new house knows the problems faced in securing a building. Try multiplying that by 50 when you are talking about dealing with significant amounts of public funds, particularly in areas where amalgamations are taking place or there are proposals to move forward in that manner. A lot of the debate starts with the issue of how we secure the needs of individual schools. When you get past that debate, you get to the debate about how we amalgamate schools. You get past that debate, and then you get to the debate of where we are going to build the school. You then have to identify the site, agree a price for that site and move forward on all those things.

Many of the school projects that we have discussed here today are somewhere in that system. I encourage local MLAs to use their experience of and influence on how government works to engage positively with boards of governors and advise them on the way forward. Sometimes, that advice has to be blunt. That is just the bottom line. In a process of negotiation, you always reach the point of decision-making, and I encourage schools to reach decisions quickly. If I have firm proposals and plans in front of me that include site identification, it is my job to match that plan against the money that we have moving forward.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire, agus cuirim fáilte roimh a ráiteas inniu. I welcome the Minister’s statement about the new school builds and the boost that they will give to the construction industry over the next couple of years. I particularly welcome the investment in Coláiste Feirste in my West Belfast constituency and the announcement that St Gerard’s Educational Resource Centre will move to the site of Balmoral High. I am sure that the Minister can attest that I and my colleague Paul Maskey have lobbied him at every opportunity.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Is the newbuild for Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagáin, taken in conjunction with the investment in Coláiste Feirste, an indication of the Minister’s continued commitment to Irish-medium education?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Each proposal stands on its own merits, but it is clear that Coláiste Feirste and Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagáin are core schools going into the future and that the Irish-medium sector is a strong and growing sector in our education system. We have a responsibility to back that up with investment.

Another Member talked about the conditions in Ben Madigan, which are totally unacceptable, and a decision has been made to move forward. Coláiste Feirste has a long history of providing education in the west Belfast area. It is our only post-primary school in the Irish medium sector — the only meánscoil. Everybody can be confident that it will be there in the future. Government now have a responsibility to back that up with investment. My announcement today is assurance that the Government have backed that up with investment.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire arís as ucht a chuid freagraí go nuige. I thank the Minister for his announcement. It will be of great benefit to the constituencies and schools that he mentioned. Going through the areas that have been listed, I note that Tyrone seems to be absent altogether. Could the Minister provide me with some detail on Holy Trinity secondary school? I visited Edendork Primary School on Friday, a school of very high standards and good —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to finish.

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

Will the Minister, at some stage, provide me with details about those newbuild projects?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member will be aware that Lisanelly is in the heart of Omagh, which, I believe, is in the heart of Tyrone. My colleague Barry McElduff reminds me of that quite often. I am aware of both projects the Member referred to. With regard to Holy Trinity, we await the conclusion of area planning and the discussions that have to take place in the Catholic sector with regard to that area. I am aware that media and private discussions are ongoing on all those matters. I am aware of most schools that Members have mentioned. I would like to be in a position to move them all forward. There are issues around each of the projects. If the Member wishes to write to me about Edendork or Holy Trinity, I will give him more details.

As I said repeatedly to Members, I want to be in a position to make a further announcement in the autumn to move projects forward, regardless of what county they may be in.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Although I welcome the news of the process to build a new replacement school for Rossmar Special School in Limavady, which I have lobbied for, I am disappointed that the Mullburn and Harpur’s Hill schools rebuilds in Coleraine has not been included in the Minister’s statement. Will those schools be included in any future building programme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Thank you for your comments in relation to Rossmar. I am aware that the Member has lobbied, as have other Members, for that school. I think that he has mentioned it every time I have stood here, which, in fairness, is his right. With regard to the other schools that he mentioned, I refer him to my previous answers. I do not have all the details in front of me today, but I am confident that all schools have been thoroughly interrogated to see whether they are ready to go within the timescale that I have set out today. If they are not on the list, they are not ready to go within the timescale that I have set out. They are not at one or other stage of planning; they are not at one or other stage of other concerns around viability or sustainability. None of those comments is specific to the two schools the Member mentioned. That is a broad generic answer on all schools. If the Member wishes to write to me, I will engage with him about both schools.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. There will be much celebration in my county of Fermanagh at the plans for a newbuild for the Model, but there will be equal disappointment for Devenish College. I also welcome the clarity in the area planning process and the timeline that has been put in place. For those schools that are still involved in the area planning process, will any further funding be available for those schools that have not yet reached the end of the process and will move to the next stage on 5 July?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Area planning is a living process; it is ongoing. The proposals are going out to consultation on 5 July, and schools, parents, pupils and communities should engage fully in that process and make their views known. I am not sure whether funding will be available for those schools. Is that in response to consultation or is it in response to infrastructure or with regard to maintenance? Any school that has specific needs and was not mentioned today should be examined by its education board or its managing authority, and if money needs to be spent on that school, we will have to match that against the budget available in the maintenance and other programmes. I would like to think that schools will avail themselves of the enhancement programme. I think that it is an exciting new proposal, which will facilitate the amalgamation of schools going into the future, and I hope that all schools will study very closely the information coming from my Department and make their decision about whether the enhancement programme is a facility of which they wish to avail themselves.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Like others, I welcome the statement on one hand but am disappointed on the other. I have listened to the language used by the Minister in relation to maintenance backlogs, viability and sustainability, and he has asked Members to write to him. Rather than write to you, can I ask you for an assurance? In some of the responses about schools that you have given my colleagues, you mentioned such criteria as maintenance. I want to take Parkhall as an example. Continually, we have problems with water running in and —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Please come to your question.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

— with fire alarms, the split campus and the fact that it is the only controlled school in the Antrim area. Can the Minister give me an assurance about when a new school will be built on the site, given that it has had cross-community support from all political parties in that area?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The comment I made about maintenance was in respect of the specific issues relating to a deciding factor around a school moving forward, and not the deciding factor. The North Eastern Education and Library Board has published a consultation document on the way forward for schools in that area. It includes a proposal for the future of Parkhall. Originally, it was proposed that it would be for 11- to 16-year-olds; the new proposal suggests that it should be for 11- to 19-year-olds. I await the outcome of that consultation, the responses to it and its outworkings. Following receipt of those, we will move forward on a decision on when we will be in a position to announce funding for a newbuild at Parkhall.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the newbuilds, particular for Ebrington and Foyle, which have been waiting for a long time, and the Model in Enniskillen. Obviously, Devenish is a huge disappointment. On that point, does the Minister accept some allegations that, instead of putting capital funding into some schools, it is a mechanism of closing them by stealth?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No, I do not accept those allegations. Certainly, that is not the methodology of my Department with regard to these matters. A series of outstanding questions on the future provision of education in the Fermanagh area still need to be answered. I believe that those can and should be answered through the area planning process. Various schools in the area are at different stages of planning. I am aware that a number of schools have, in recent times, submitted economic appraisals, etc. All of those will be taken on their own merit. There is certainly no agenda in my Department to deal with schools through stealth.

I have put my views on the record: we have too many schools in our society. However, I am not in a numbers game. Each school should be judged on its own merit, and each school should be judged on the basis of area planning and provision going into the future. That is the question that should be asked in Fermanagh or anywhere else.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am disappointed at the lack of progress for Ballymoney High School, but I greatly welcome the overdue developments in relation to Castle Tower special school in Ballymena. Can I press the Minister on that? He has set aside £21·8 million. He has said that his commitment is to advance the business cases and the design work necessary for those projects. Obviously, £21·8 million is for more than that. Can he assure us that the delivery will happen within this budgetary term and that that money will be spent in providing the new school? What is his best estimate of when that long-overdue project will be completed?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Today, I have announced three special educational needs projects in these circumstances. Arvalee will go onto the Lisanelly site and St Gerard’s will move to Balmoral. I have set out my stall today on what I believe should happen in the future.

The most recent estimated cost of providing a school at Castle Tower was £21·8 million. Therefore, I have set that aside as a budgetary commitment. I do not believe that all of that money will be spent in this budgetary period; I believe that such a project will go over two budgetary periods. However, I believe that what I have set out today is a commitment from the Department of Education that Castle Tower will be built, and that there is a requirement for it to be built. The timescale of that depends on a number of factors, such as business cases, economic appraisals, planning and land. I encourage local representatives in the north Antrim area to involve themselves in all of those matters, to give guidance and assistance to the school and to keep pressure on the Department of Education and other managing authorities to make the building a reality.

I offer assurances today that I am committed to building Castle Tower School. Money is being set aside to complete it, because, as has been said in recent days, it is the right thing to do.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas inniu. I thank the Minister for his statement. Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagáin has been mentioned about six times so far, which is a sign of the work that is being done by the parents and teachers there to lobby many parties as well as the Minister. The word “vocation” is very seldom used these days, but it describes the type of work being done there. In respect of all 18 schools, I notice that you said that in the last quarter of this year and perhaps into next year all pre-build processes will have been gone through, so are we talking about turning sods?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes, the project is to turn sods in the time ahead. Each school will throw up complications, and unexpected developments always take place in any planning process, no matter what you do. However, my view is that we have to be in a position to start turning sods. As I said in response to another question, the key to success is to keep it simple and to keep focused on what we want to achieve, which is the provision of new school builds. At every stage of every project, somebody always comes up with a brighter idea or an idea to do something different, which will include a, b or c. It is the right of schools to bring that on board, but if a, b and c are going to delay the project, I would personally advise against it. My advice to all the schools is to let us get your schools built and get your pupils into suitable accommodation, and the Department of Education can move on to providing newbuilds to the other schools that have not been mentioned today.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for the clarity and detail that he has given today, although I note that no schools in North Down are being progressed at this stage. The Minister will be aware of the needs of Central Integrated Primary School, having recently visited there. He will also be aware of proposals for the restructuring of the school estate in Holywood.

Turning to the schools enhancement programme, schools that may have hoped for a newbuild may now, given this announcement, think that the schools enhancement programme is a way forward. Will the Minister give us detail as to whether schools that avail themselves of the schools enhancement programme will find that detrimental to a future application for a newbuild?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It would depend on the circumstances pertaining to each project. If you were to spend £4 million on a school project, you would have to seriously think long and hard before you would move to provide that school with a newbuild in the near future. There is a wide range — between £500,000 and £4 million — available under this project, so each circumstance would have to be carefully thought out, and there would have to be a sound business case as to whether you would do that. However, my Department will be providing more information to schools in the time ahead, and boards of governors and managing authorities will have to make decisions on the best way forward for an individual school.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That ends questions to the Minister on his statement. I want to say a word of thanks to all Members who co-operated this morning. All Members who wanted to make a contribution were able to do so.

Executive Committee Business

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to introduce the Business Improvement Districts Bill, which is a Bill to make provision for business improvement districts and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to introduce the Criminal Justice Bill, which is a Bill to amend the law relating to sex offender notification, sexual offences prevention orders and human trafficking and to provide for the destruction, retention, use and other regulation of certain fingerprints and DNA samples and profiles.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That the draft Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide (2007 Act) (Commencement) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

This motion covers the commencement of certain provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. It is an important subject, as the objective of the provisions I propose to commence is to help to prevent deaths in custody and detention. The Corporate Manslaughter Act extends across the United Kingdom as a whole. Most of it came into operation in April 2008, when the new offence was commenced for all but one set of circumstances. Those are the circumstances in which someone’s death occurred while he or she was in custody or detention. When the Bill was in Parliament, it was decided that providers of custody and detention services would be given an extended period of three to five years to make the necessary preparations. The equivalent provisions were commenced in Great Britain in September last year, and I would not wish the legal protections available in Northern Ireland to be any less than those in England, Scotland or Wales.

The proposed commencement order will mean that from 3 September this year, the offence of corporate manslaughter will apply to deaths in custody and detention in Northern Ireland. It will apply to deaths in the custody and detention of the Prison Service, police custody, court detention cells and the juvenile justice centre. It will also apply in the health service to secure accommodation for young people and patients detained under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. Furthermore, it will include custody in the detention facilities of the armed forces and the customs and immigration wings of the UK Border Agency. My proposed commencement order will, therefore, cover all such facilities in Northern Ireland.

The new offence of corporate manslaughter has a number of important elements. It is committed when the way in which an organisation’s activities are managed or organised causes a person’s death and amounts to a gross breach of duty of care owed by the organisation to the person who has died. So the focus is largely on the managerial actions of the organisation’s senior management as a whole rather than on those of individuals, particularly those further down the organisation.

As Members will appreciate, the offence is complex. Basically, it is about failures of organisation and management, depending, as I said, on a gross breach of duty of care. As it is the body itself that would be prosecuted, the main penalty available on conviction for such a serious offence is not imprisonment but a fine. Courts also have powers to order the guilty organisation, first, to remedy the faults linked to the death, and secondly, to publicise not only its guilt but any fine imposed in any remedial action ordered. I stress that the Act does not alter any of the duties of care owed; indeed, there would be no point in setting standards that our custody and detention providers simply could not meet. The Act does not place any additional regulatory burdens. Rather, by removing a barrier to prosecution, it aims to get organisations to work harder to prevent deaths under their care.

I also point out that the offence of corporate manslaughter applies not only to private companies but to Crown bodies, and, exceptionally, there is no Crown immunity from prosecution for the offence. The proposed commencement order will mean that the relevant custodial organisations will, for the first time, face the potential of prosecution for deaths in their custody.

Along with custody providers across the UK, we have been preparing for the provisions to be commenced in Northern Ireland. Each of our custody providers has carried out a risk assessment, identified areas for attention and implemented work programmes of management, training and infrastructure development. Indeed, each of them has been implementing an ongoing health and safety improvement programme. The Prison Service faces the biggest challenge. It has also been updating its procedures for preventing suicide and self-harm. Clear guidance has been provided to staff regarding corporate, establishment and individual responsibilities for the provision of care to prisoners. Since the devolution of justice, responsibility for commencing the custody provisions of the Act in Northern Ireland falls to the Department of Justice under the draft affirmative procedure in the Assembly. The relevant justice agencies have confirmed that they are now ready for commencement. The Health Minister, who has responsibility for secure facilities in the health sector, has also confirmed that the trusts are ready and that he is also content for the provisions to be commenced.

Members will acknowledge, as I do, that each death in custody is a profound tragedy, especially for that person’s relatives and friends. Some recent incidents demonstrate only too well the challenges that we face. In a number of her reports, the Prisoner Ombudsman has expressed her concerns, which the Prison Service takes extremely seriously — and so do I. It is vital that the Prison Service continues to learn lessons from the ombudsman’s reports by continually improving its policies, practices and facilities. I am determined that that process of continuous improvement is maintained.

Preventing deaths in custody has been, and will continue to be, challenging. Although I cannot guarantee that one day a prosecution for death in custody will not succeed, neither I nor our custody providers are complacent. The establishment of the new offence has already caused organisations to focus even more closely on their systems, procedures, facilities and training. They are much better prepared to prevent deaths in custody now than they were five years ago when the 2007 Act was passed. All of the organisations are continuing to invest in health and safety improvements.

I believe that the time is now right to bring that element into operation, and I therefore urge Members to support the motion.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, Tá mé ag labhairt thar ceann an Chathaoirligh inniu. I am speaking on behalf of the Committee, because the Chair of the Committee is unavailable. This is an issue that was discussed by the Committee. In June 2011, the Committee received an oral briefing by officials on the Department’s proposal for an affirmative resolution statutory rule to bring into operation that part of the offence of corporate manslaughter that applies to duties of care owed to persons in custody or detention.

The Committee generally welcomed the proposal, which will help to ensure that systems are in place to prevent deaths in custody, but there were a number of areas where members wanted further information and clarification. While noting that the Prison Service had conducted a risk assessment analysis and looked at its systems and procedures, the Committee raised questions regarding what implications there would have been in relation to deaths in custody in the past year if that Order had been in place. In response, officials highlighted the fact that, when the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill was going through the British Parliament in 2007, the view was taken that providers of custody and detention services needed time to prepare for the new offence coming into force. In preparation for commencement of the provision, the Prison Service had implemented work programmes on management, training and infrastructural development, and believed that it was as well placed as it was going to be for the Order coming in.

Following the briefing, the Committee agreed to seek the views of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, as the proposal would also cover young people in secure accommodation and detained mental patients. The Health Committee subsequently confirmed that it was content that the Health and Social Care Board and the trusts were in a position to comply with the proposed provision. On 13 October 2011, the Justice Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal to commence that part of the offence of corporate manslaughter that applies to duties of care owed to persons in custody or detention.

Members also sought further details regarding the practical application of the legislation and, in particular, how the Public Prosecution Service would take a case against an organisation such as the Prison Service. Who would it be taken against — the organisation, senior managers or individual officials? In response, the Department clarified that, in relation to the Prison Service, the Department of Justice is the entity that would face prosecution. It also indicated that individuals may not be prosecuted under the 2007 Act. It applies only to the relevant organisations, which can only be guilty of the offence if the way in which their activities are managed or organised by their senior management is a substantial element in the gross breach of the duty of care.

The Department has now laid the statutory rule and, noting that there have been no changes to the policy content since the proposals were submitted to the Committee and that the Assembly Examiner of Statutory Rules has no issues to raise with regard to the technical aspects of the rule, the Justice Committee agreed at its meeting on 7 June 2012 that it was content with the rule.

Having said that on behalf of the Committee, I have one or two brief comments to make on behalf of Sinn Féin. We obviously welcome the motion and the fact that the Minister is here today to table it. There was an obvious gap when the legislation was enacted, in that it did not apply to certain organisations. The idea of a five-year run-in was obviously accepted to give those organisations the opportunity to put the structures in place. Individual members raised issues around whether it would be individuals or the organisations. Members were reassured that, where organisations are subject to the provisions of the legislation, that does not and will not mean that, if there are individuals with individual cases to be answered, the legislation will be used as a cover-all to allow negligence to happen. In that respect, Sinn Féin supports the motion.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will speak very briefly. I join others in welcoming the legislation. As has been indicated, it has taken some time to put this together. However, speaking as a Committee member, I can say that it was important for the Committee to ensure that we got this right and that it was effective. Consequently, as the focus has been on the Prison Service, the Committee wanted to ensure that what needed to be put in place has been put in place to ensure that there can be compliance with this.

It is welcome legislation. It is important that, for any of those in custody, there is a duty of care. That should mean that there is protection of those in custody. Although the focus has been on those in prison custody, as was indicated, the Committee worked with the Health Committee to ensure that those in secure accommodation are also afforded that duty of care. From that point of view, this should incentivise various state institutions and bodies to provide the proper protection for individuals. In a serious way, that will be very useful.

There was consensus on the issue. It is legislation that, in certain ways, we hope is never used. We hope that there will be no need for it to be used. However, it is important that the protection is put in place. Some of the queries raised, particularly around who would be held responsible, were important. On some occasions, a death in custody can be attributed to the negligence of an individual. Often, however, the blame can be spread around. It is very difficult to have an action against an individual. That can act as a deterrent for people to be properly accountable. There can sometimes be system failures. Therefore, it is important that the body itself is held fully responsible. The responses we got were compatible with the purpose of the legislation, which will, we believe, provide a safeguard and shield to anybody in custody.

At this stage, on behalf of the DUP, I welcome the proposal.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

As one of the first to call for legislation for the offence of corporate manslaughter, I welcome today’s developments. My interest in the subject was kindled in 2005, when one of my constituents, a young man from the Lurgan area who was just starting out in life, tragically lost his life on a construction site. That needless death, and all the human suffering that came with it, was a watershed for me. From that day on, I was determined not to rest until effective corporate manslaughter legislation was in place in the Province. I dedicate today’s legislation to the memory of that young constituent. It may have taken seven years to get to today — indeed, everything in this place seems to take far too long, Mr Speaker — but at last, we are here.

Back in 2005, I said that fines alone are not enough to change attitudes in the construction industry. I make no apology for repeating that today. For people to take the death of workers on a site seriously, they have to feel that, individually, they will face a manslaughter charge. If they are proven to be negligent, juries should be asked to consider whether management failure caused or contributed to the death. On the basis of that finding, the Public Prosecution Service should determine whether individuals in the company should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

The average number of work-related deaths in Northern Ireland stands at 20 a year. The Assembly has a duty of care to its people. Where the construction industry, in particular, is concerned, that duty must be anchored in corporate manslaughter legislation that has teeth. I am pleased to contribute to the debate and to support the legislation.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for outlining the legislation today. The Alliance Party welcomes the proposed extension of the legislation to Northern Ireland. As has been pointed out, the equivalent provisions were commenced in the rest of the United Kingdom last year. Although we do not normally wish to slavishly follow England and Wales, it is right that steps are taken to ensure that legal protection in Northern Ireland is no less than that in the other United Kingdom jurisdictions.

I would like to highlight that this legislation will give courts the opportunity not only to find organisations guilty where appropriate but to order them to take appropriate steps to remedy the faults that caused death. In other words, this is not simply about finding organisations guilty, making information public and imposing fines; it is about ensuring that any steps are taken to make sure that those failings do not happen again. That, indeed, is to be welcomed.

The Justice Committee sought and received assurances that the various agencies in Northern Ireland are now ready for the legislation to be commenced. I am reassured that the system, from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety down, has approached the introduction in a measured and timely way. As the Minister outlined, the various custodial bodies have undertaken risk assessments and have made the necessary improvements to their health and safety regimes. In that sense, the legislation has already had an impact; indeed, Mr Weir pointed out that we do not really want to see this legislation having to be used for that area.

We must remember that we are talking not simply about the Prison Service but the health service, the UK Border Agency, the PSNI and others, so the challenge for each organisation is to make sure that the efforts that they have made to ensure their readiness for the new legislation is maintained and that this is not just a time-bound project that will end with the commencement of the legislation. I know that the Minister, through the safer custody forum that he chairs, will be maintaining vigilance on that.

As I said, the party welcomes the extension of the powers to Northern Ireland, commends the various organisations for the efforts that they have made in preparing for it and encourages them to maintain and renew the focus on preventing deaths in custody, which is a focus that the proposed introduction of this legislation has brought about already. We support the motion.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We welcome the motion and the introduction of the legislation. It has been some time in the planning, but, obviously, we are getting there. We also welcome the opportunity to give those institutions and organisations the chance to make sure that they are ready for it.

There is one obvious concern that I have, and that involves the arguments, discussions and debates that may take place, if the legislation is enacted, about the duty of care and the protection of those who are in custody and detention. Clearly, I am assuming that there may be test cases at the start of the process to establish whether those organisations have been too relaxed in their duty of care. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication about that and about how it might be dealt with at an early stage.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank all those Members who participated in this important debate. I must say in passing that it sometimes seems that we can occupy a full hour and a half for relatively irrelevant Back Bench debates, but something like this, which has a significant input to the law of Northern Ireland, attracts a relatively muted response. On the one hand, that is because of the good work that was done between my officials and the Committee, but, on the other, it is disappointing that so little is said now that the legislation has come to the House.

I thank Raymond McCartney, in particular, for his remarks on behalf of the Committee. I do not need to repeat the information that he gave about the detail in which the Committee examined the proposal, the lengths it went to with my officials to ensure that its questions were answered and the co-operative working that was done with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. All that, I believe, led to agreement in principle, because this is the right thing, and was seen to be the right thing, to do.

As Peter Weir said, it was, of course, correct that we took some time to get it right. That is because it is best that we get it right so that we can ensure that the legislation applies throughout.

I will make a couple of brief references to other Members’ contributions. Sam Gardiner referred particularly to a death in the construction industry. However, the proposals relate solely to custody, because provisions as far as they relate to employment deaths are already in place across the UK. Indeed, we have already seen a prosecution in Northern Ireland in that area.

I echo Stewart Dickson’s point that perhaps one of the most important things will be not just that the court can make a fine but that it can order that defects be remedied and that the organisation give appropriate publicity to the defect and the remedy. That as much as anything will help to ensure that things are done properly.

However, I have to say to Tom Elliott that, although I appreciate the point that he makes about establishing what the appropriate duty of care is, I hope that we will not see courts give judgements on that. Rather, I hope that what we will see is the organisations carrying out the duties that they have committed to, in the same way in which they, in their work over the past few years with the Department, have committed to ensuring that the provisions are in place so that deaths in custody do not happen. There will be difficulties in the future at different levels, but I believe that we now have all the agencies ready and prepared. There are clearly risks to an organisation such as the Prison Service, which has to deal with the limitations of its estates, the pressures that it is under with prisoner numbers and the changes that it is going through. However, I believe that those risks are measured, and the fact that the offence is focused on systems rather than on individuals and requires a gross breach of a duty of care shows that the Prison Service, like other agencies, is capable of living up to its commitments at the moment.

Bringing into force the custody provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 will not prevent all deaths from occurring, but they will act as a permanent, ever-present incentive to ensure that agencies improve the way in which they work and provide the best possible care to those in their custody. It is therefore time that we bring the standards in Northern Ireland up to the level of those that apply in the other two covered UK jurisdictions. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide (2007 Act) (Commencement) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That the draft Race Relations Order 1997 (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

The order was laid in draft form before the Assembly on 17 April 2012. It will amend the Race Relations (NI) Order 1997 by addressing the issue of direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality for European Economic Area (EEA) citizens and citizens of certain designated states in the matter of pay for seafarers. The order will remove the right of employers employing those seafarers to discriminate in their rates of pay on the basis on their nationality.

The amendments will prevent discrimination in seafarers’ pay where the seafarer is ordinarily resident here, in the EEA or in one of the designated states with which the EU has signed agreements on the rights of migrant workers. The legislation will apply where a ship or hovercraft is registered to a port here and the legal relationship of the employment of the seafarer is located or closely linked to here. It will apply to workers from here and the EEA and to designated state workers where the ship operates wholly or partly here or in adjacent waters, and where it operates wholly outside our waters.

The amendments are required to the 1997 Order to bring us into line with EU obligations and are based on a reasoned opinion that the British Government received from Europe. That stated that, as a consequence of sections 8 and 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and articles 10 and 11 of the Race Relations Order 1997, which allowed for differential treatment of employees, they had failed in their obligations under article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and article 7.1 of regulation 1612/68.

Article 11 of the 1997 Order allows for differential rates of pay to be paid to seafarers depending on the jurisdiction where they are recruited. These are regarded as indirectly discriminatory, and, although applicable irrespective of nationality, affect migrant workers, or the great majority of migrant workers. Our legislation is subject to article 226 proceedings under the treaty established in the EC, and accordingly, we need to change our Race Relations Order.

Formal consultation has taken place with the Equality Commission and with the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM). This is in addition to consultation that has been undertaken in Britain with all the main shipping bodies, including ones that operate here. The legislation reflects the outcomes of those discussions.

The amendments proposed meet EU obligations; however, we are aware that each state in the EU deals with this differently, ranging from protections for all nationalities to more limited protections for EU citizens. We also recognise that some members of the Committee felt frustrated that they have not had adequate time to assess the implications of this change in legislation. However, we need to meet our EU obligations and enact this legislation.

In order to address the concerns of members who feel there has not been adequate time to examine the issue, we have asked officials to report back to us within six months on how the issue is dealt with in other EU states, and on the implications of extending this legislation. We hope that will be brought forward within those six months, but in the meantime, there is a need to enact this legislation. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has spent some time considering this order. I will outline to the Assembly the scrutiny that the Committee has undertaken.

The Committee first considered the draft order at its meeting of 7 March 2012, where officials briefed the Committee that the order is required to ensure that Northern Ireland is not in contravention of EU law. The Equality Act 2010 has recently been amended to ensure compliance in Great Britain, as the Minister said. In the Department’s SL1 letter of 27 February 2012 and the initial briefing by officials on 7 March, the Committee was advised that the total additional cost across all affected employers in Northern Ireland was estimated at £733,000 per annum. Although some members expressed reservations about the additional costs to businesses, the Committee was mindful of the threat of enforcement proceedings by the European Commission and the desirability of removing the indirect discrimination in question. On that basis, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed rule subject to the view of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner’s subsequent report raised no issues with the proposed order.

On 2 April 2012, the Department wrote to inform the Committee that the estimated total increase in wage costs had been revised upwards from £733,000 per annum to £6·36 million per annum, or £159,000 for each vessel registered in Northern Ireland. The Committee considered this information at its meeting on 18 April 2012, and, given the scale of the increase in estimated costs, the Committee sought further clarification from the Department on what the real costs for the owners of vessels registered in Northern Ireland will be, including the fishing fleet, and any consultation with affected ship-owners here on the impact of the proposed changes.

At its meeting on 23 May 2012, the Committee was briefed by officials who indicated that they believed the figure of £6·36 million to be a much more robust estimate of increased costs than the previous estimate of £733,000. However, in terms of a more definitive figure for additional costs to affected businesses, they said:

“I think that we would have grave difficulty. It is quite clear that the calculations of the Department for Transport in London have all sorts of caveats built in to say that it is impossible to say.”

Officials also said that we were “on borrowed time” in the matter of infraction proceedings being taken by the EU.

Some members of the Committee saw the proposed order purely as a matter of protecting workers’ rights while other members were mindful that enforcing those rights may threaten the future of our fishing industry. I say “may” because nobody seems to know. All members of the Committee were naturally concerned about the risk of infraction proceedings and potential fines.

In that context, the Committee wrote to Ministers to request further information on the reasons why OFMDFM did not choose to extend protection to seafarers from all nationalities; on the estimated costs of extending the protection to all nationalities and how it was calculated; how other EU regions have complied with the treaty obligation in question; and the timescale for possible infraction proceedings. The Committee emphasised its concern about the risk of possible infraction proceedings and fines and requested the information for consideration at its meeting of 30 May. The Ministers’ response was available for the Committee to consider at that meeting, and departmental officials advised the Committee that, in relation to EU infraction proceedings:

“we are very close to infraction territory.”

The Committee was also advised that the increase in annual wage costs for extending protection to all nationalities, as opposed to EEA members and treaty states, was estimated to be £21·48 million. Officials advised that:

“OFMDFM decided, as did the Department for Transport in England, that a balance needed to be struck between the costs that we imposed on our domestic shipping industry and the rights of workers who were not EEA nationals or nationals of designated states. To have gone beyond what EU law strictly required would have resulted in Northern Ireland shipping being placed at an additional competitive disadvantage.”

The Committee discussed the desirability of protecting the rights of all workers and the possible effect that enforcing those rights and the more limited extension in the proposed order might pose to the local fishing industry in Northern Ireland. Some Committee members believed that a decision could be postponed while further time was requested from the European Commission to consult on the options for wider protection. Others were clear that they would not support wider protection when competing businesses in other states may not have to bear the costs involved in providing that level of protection. A majority of Committee members considered the risk of infraction proceedings and possible fines to be too great to postpone a decision and agreed to recommend that the draft amendment order be affirmed by the Assembly.

The Committee subsequently wrote to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to make them aware of the possible impact of the draft order on businesses within the remit of their respective Departments. The Committee also wrote to the Department to ask for clarification on what further steps officials intend to take in three areas. Those were the impact of the order on affected businesses in Northern Ireland; how other EU member states had complied with the relevant obligation; and whether protection could be extended further.

In conclusion, I think the process would have been improved if there had been more timely action, which would have avoided the need to legislate under the threat of infraction proceedings; more consultation with those directly affected; estimates of costs, across a range of options protecting seafarers from discrimination, that the Committee could have had more confidence in; and more information on how other regions have achieved compliance and on the level of protection across regions.

I now wish to speak from a personal perspective and to give my viewpoint. We were dealing with what was put to us as a pure rights issue and how, for example, you could justify telling two people who are doing the same job on the same boat that they would be paid different hourly wages. However, the draft order does not go far enough and does not include all nationalities.

Against that, there were those of us who realised that those rights come at a cost. I have outlined some of the costs, and it was put to us by officials at one point that, if infraction proceedings were launched, the fine would be in the order of 0·5% of the UK’s gross domestic product per day. That would have seen the block grant run out within a working week. That estimate was severely revised, but my point is that no truly robust figures, in which we could have total confidence, were put to the Committee.

The Committee proposes that we adopt the draft order. However, the irony is that a rights-based issue has been determined by a concern for money. That is not even the money that we propose to pay to seafarers but a fear of the money that would be taken off us by the European Union through fines if it were to launch infraction proceedings.

Finally, I want to emphasise again that much of it comes back to the timelines. This could have been done much earlier, the problems could have been identified much more quickly and solutions could have been sought in a timely manner.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement to the House. The Minister moved that the draft Race Relations Order 1997 (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved. As the Minister stated, the amendment to the order addresses the issue of direct and indirect discrimination by nationality in respect of seafarers who are EEA citizens or citizens of certain states outside of the EEA. The legislation will, of course, apply to ships that are registered in a port in Northern Ireland. However, it will also apply to EEA workers on ships that operate in our waters or neighbouring waters.

As colleagues on the Committee will recall very clearly, our national Government received this opinion in January 2011. Sadly, the United Kingdom has been negligent in its obligations under article 45. Article 11 of the Race Relations Order facilitated pay differentials, depending on the jurisdiction in which seafarers were recruited. There has been considerable consultation on the mainland and across the United Kingdom with UK-wide shipping bodies. There inevitably will be additional costs if we gilt-edge legislation. Those costs would be immensely damaging and prohibitive for the shipping industry. It is estimated that £29 million for the UK and somewhere in the region of £6·3 million in infraction costs may be incurred.

The DUP believes that the amendments are balanced in that they meet EU obligations and minimise the burden on our shipping industry. Some Members and some parties in this House would perhaps seek to go further. However, it is our view that going further would simply be gold-plating legislation that will render Northern Ireland fishing less competitive and at a greater disadvantage in the United Kingdom and across the European Union. It is the view of the Democratic Unionist Party that doing so could cost jobs, see fishing vessels repatriating to ports on the mainland and effectively destroy local ports like Kilkeel, Portavogie and Ardglass. There would also be huge implications for the food-processing industry. An example would be the prawn-processing industry in Northern Ireland, which exports prawn to places as far away as Japan and the Middle East. That, of course, would be totally destroyed if we were to go as far Europe wants us to go.

As OFMDFM Committee members will recall, and as I have mentioned, our national Government were aware of this serious breach of European Union legislation in January 2011, and nothing was done. Clearly, officials in OFMDFM sat on this issue for some 18 months, and we are now in danger of infraction proceedings. That is most regrettable, and it is simply not acceptable or good enough.

This legislation is necessary to bring us in line with EU law, but the DUP believes that the proposed amendment is a minimum. It always seems that the United Kingdom is very keen on maximising legislation to do with Europe to the nth degree and gold-plating or gilt-edging that legislation, while, ironically, those who are more pro-European in the European Union manage at times to get away with thumbing their nose at Europe and turning their back on legislation or protocols.

In short, we will support the amendment, but we will not go any further so as not to damage or disadvantage the Ulster fishing industry and, more importantly, those employed within it.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht agus roimh Jennifer McCann agus í ag labhairt don chéad uair mar ár nAire nua sa Seomra. I welcome the debate and Jennifer McCann, who is speaking in the House as junior Minister for the first time. It is good to have her here.

As other Members have said, the OFMDFM Committee — I speak as a member of that Committee — had major discussions on this issue. The Equality Commission, in its guidance for employers, states:

“The general rule is that when recruiting staff you should treat migrant workers in the same way as you treat local persons who apply to work for you.”

I agree with that statement. We should not have a situation where workers from some countries, whether they work on a boat, in a hotel or in a hospital, are paid less than workers who happen to be born in a country that is a member of the European Union or the European Union area. Our job is to protect vulnerable workers. Our job is also to protect our fishing industry, and the best way to do that is to have an industry that treats its workers fairly.

Many of our migrant workers are low paid, and in many cases they were employed as agency staff in their own countries. Department for Employment and Learning research in 2009 shows that there were 270 recruitment agencies in the North of Ireland through which more than 22,000 individuals were employed on a temporary basis. There are no accurate statistics on the breakdown of workers, their country of origin or immigration status. We know from research published in 2007 that an increasing number of migrants were seeking work in the North of Ireland through recruitment agencies, and a growing number of employers were recognising the employment of migrant workers as routine.

Research by the Equality Commission into the role of the recruitment sector in the employment of migrant workers found that many workers had different terms and conditions of pay, worked at the minimum wage and at irregular hours, had little job security and had language and communication issues. Research by the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM) found that 46% of respondents had experienced racial harassment. I suspect that that figure is much higher. Many of our migrant workers keep their heads down because they feel very vulnerable.

We have 535 full-time and 113 part-time seafarers employed in our sea fishing industry. We do not have a correct breakdown of that in our system. Some sources estimate that around 160 Filipino fishermen work in the North. Reports by the Law Centre and NICEM noted the physical and verbal abuse of migrant fishermen, extremely poor working conditions, poor and erratic payment, lack of safety concerns and coercion.

The EU race directive applies the principle of non-discrimination broadly without exceptions for agency workers. We made the point in Committee that we believe that all workers should be treated fairly, and the best option is for all non-nationals to be included, not just European Union area nationals. The Committee Chair gave us a rundown on what happened in Committee, but the issue actually went to a vote, with the Committee split down the middle. In fact, a member of the Chairperson’s party voted with us that we should go back to the EU to say that we would like to go further.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Member makes a valid point about the Division in Committee. However, the albeit late advice that we had on the order was that that stalling tactic could incur infractional fines. However, there is a possibility in the future of amending the legislation if there is a requirement for us to do so.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta. I thank the Member for that intervention. None of us wants infractions, and we do not want our hard-earned money going to pay infraction fines. I suppose the best thing would be to ensure that we do not deal with such legislation at a late stage. However, we believe that it is important that we come back within six months, and I welcome the junior Minister’s statement on that. We want a report in six months’ time. We want further —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Sorry, I have given way. If I could finish this point, I will be happy to give way. We want a report, and we want to see what other European countries are doing. I welcome the fact that the South of Ireland is including all non-nationals in its legislation. I want us to do the same, because I do not put a cost on rights. If it were your child or my child, we would not put a cost on rights. Our Members and I will engage with my Committee colleagues on the issue.

‘The Irish Times’ recently named Brazil as one of the fastest-growing economies. We hear a lot about the BRIC countries from all our Ministers, and Brazil has the biggest plus economic growth of the BRIC countries. The Brazilian economy is one of the fastest growing, and one of the reasons for that, I believe, is that the Brazilians are putting equality measures in place and measures to support families. I welcome that we are trying to do the same.

I am not approaching the debate in a negative way. I want to engage with my colleagues from all parties over the next six months so that we can take a good, hard look at this and have input into the report.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I welcome her comments about human rights. Some of us have been consistent in our support for human rights. She will remember that, at the Committee, we could not get clarification on the points that she has just mentioned about the protections given to workers by the Republic of Ireland’s Government.

Furthermore, the delay is nothing to do with the Assembly. It was because departmental officials — not politicians — sat on this for a year and a half. The Committee was left with a Hobson’s choice to either vote one week or the next; either way, we were going to be faced with infraction proceedings from Europe.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for that. Actually, the Committee did get information about the South of Ireland in time. I remember that Sinn Féin and the DUP asked for that information, and we got it. The information that we got was that the legislation in the South of Ireland covers all non-nationals.

We are where we are. I welcome the fact that some workers will have better conditions now, but I worry about people from other countries who have come to make their lives in Ireland. They work hard on boats, and I want to see that their rights are protected. Our party will do everything it can to ensure that that happens. I ask the other parties to work us in doing that, whether those workers are fishermen or fisher women, whether they are nurses or whether they are in the catering industry, etc.

I have no doubt that the Committee will discuss this issue at the earliest opportunity, and I look forward to that.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the introduction of the order by the junior Minister, and I am grateful to the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First and deputy First Minister for putting forward the Committee’s position on the order.

I, too, recognise the need for urgency on this matter in order to avoid infraction proceedings being taken by the EU, but I note with some concern that Mr Humphrey seemed to reduce racial equality to gold-plating, as well as his blaming of officials of the Department for which his party has responsibility.

I welcome Ms Ruane’s defence of equality for all migrant workers, but it begs the question of why her party did not use the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to act more comprehensively on this particular occasion.

I put on record the Alliance Party’s view that the Assembly needs to look further at extending the provisions of the order to all nationalities and I welcome the junior Minister’s commitment to report on the issue within six months. I look forward to giving further consideration to the issue at Committee level.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I speak not as a member of the Committee, but as outgoing chair of the all-party group on ethnic minorities. For that reason, I wanted to make a very short contribution to the debate.

First, I want to pay tribute to the junior Ministers, who have been involved in this matter. Having spoken to a number of ethnic minority communities in Northern Ireland, there is a general recognition that a positive approach has been taken. I accept that, on this issue, some misinformation has been passed around, particularly among officials. Although that is regrettable, we are human and these things happen. We have to accept that we are where we are in that regard.

This is an implementation of a European directive. It is right and proper that we follow that, and it would be very unwise of us to sleepwalk towards infraction proceedings on this issue. I fully support endorsement of the order.

I accept that there is concern about people from outside the European Union. A recent piece of research by the Filipino community in Northern Ireland showed that there are certainly concerns about the way in which employees in all sectors, not just fishing but many of the sectors in which Filipino workers are involved, were treated in relation to racism and so on.

We have to accept that legislation for legislation’s sake is not a wise way forward. I certainly do not endorse legislating in that regard. A more cross-departmental approach needs to be taken; there needs to be engagement with DEL and DETI. There has to be a mindset change around how we treat foreign workers. I am not sure that legislation will make all the problems disappear. In fact, it may add to the problem rather than assuage it. We have to accept that, historically, our ethnic minority communities have probably been the more quiet communities when it comes to raising their voice about issues, particularly around housing and employment. It is only now that we are starting to see people from ethnic minority communities coming forward and raising those very real concerns with us. We have to be very aware of what we are dealing with. Legislation is not the way forward. There has to be further engagement with employers to ensure that workers’ rights are ultimately being protected.

We also have to be very careful to remember that the migration targets and figures are set very much around the existing legislation. I would not want to see legislation being put in place that would force Her Majesty’s Government to look at the amount of immigrants that we are allowing in to the country. That would not be a particularly advantageous position to find ourselves in.

We have to be very careful when it comes to legislation. I encourage closer engagement with employers, particularly in the fishing industry. We should support them and ensure that whatever can be done to make sure that workers’ rights are protected is done.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. I thank colleagues and fellow Members for their comments today. We recognise the concerns that have been expressed by various Members, but we stress that there is no doubt that we will be fined by the EU if we do not pass the legislation.

We have taken on board the various points that were made by Members, and we will look at them closely and examine the implications of acting on them very carefully. Mike Nesbitt, the Chair of the Committee, highlighted the different views of the Committee. He talked about the Committee’s concern about the infraction costs. He also mentioned the other costs around extending the protection rights, and he commented on the problem with the timelines.

William Humphrey suggested that including other nationalities would cost jobs and would impact on the fishing industry as a whole. Caitríona Ruane outlined the view that the best way to protect the fishing industry is to treat workers fairly and to protect their rights. She said that the best option in that regard would be to include all nationalities. Chris Lyttle recognised the urgency of the order. He welcomed the commitment to come back here in six months to look at how we can take it forward, if that is possible. David McIlveen also supported the order. He mentioned the need for a more cross-departmental approach to the whole issue and closer engagement with employers.

Having listened to all the Members who spoke, we will take the issues on board. I commend the House for affirming the order, and I look forward to further positive progress on racial equality.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Race Relations Order 1997 (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill [NIA 7/11-15] be agreed.

There cannot be a single soul present in the House, whether here on the Benches or above us in the Public Gallery, who has not been touched by the agony of human suffering that has brought us here today. I can say with confidence that the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland have been moved by the experiences brought to light in recent years by the victims and survivors of institutional abuse. It is a difficult subject for many of us to comprehend, let alone stomach. It draws out differing emotions but never indifference.

The parties are as one on this issue, and the people of Northern Ireland are fully behind this Assembly and Administration in the search for a means to help those who have suffered so much for so long. Throughout this process, the advice and support of victims and survivors has been crucial to our progress. On behalf of the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Ministers of the Executive, I want formally to record our gratitude. I also want to thank Martina Anderson for her very significant efforts.

This Bill is specific to the inquiry into historical institutional abuse. To explain the Bill, I will start by saying a little about the inquiry itself. I will then talk about the provisions of the Bill, which are designed to facilitate the inquiry. In December 2010, the Executive established an interdepartmental task force to consider the nature of an inquiry and to recommend how it could be taken forward. The task force consulted victims and survivors, including at open meetings in Belfast, Londonderry and Armagh. It talked to people who had managed inquiries in Ireland and Scotland. Having considered the task force report, the Executive announced in September 2011 that an inquiry would be set up. Junior Minister Anderson and I remained in regular contact with victims and survivors as we refined and developed proposals for the inquiry and finalised its terms of reference. On 31 May, the First Minister and deputy First Minister laid a statement in this Assembly setting out the terms of reference for the inquiry and announcing the inquiry chair and four inquiry panel members. We are very pleased that Sir Anthony Hart, the former High Court judge, has agreed to chair and direct the inquiry.

The inquiry will have two main elements: an acknowledgement forum and the judicial inquiry process. The inquiry will make findings and recommendations on four issues. The first of those is whether there were systemic failings by the state or institutions in their duties towards those children under 18 for whom they provided residential care between 1945 and 1995, both years inclusive. In this context, an institution is any body, society or organisation with responsibility for the care, health or welfare of children in Northern Ireland that provided residential accommodation and took decisions about, and made provision for, the day-to-day care of children. The definition includes orphanages, children’s homes, borstals and training schools. It excludes boarding schools, holiday camps and other situations in which parents or guardians maintain responsibility for the care of children.

Secondly, the inquiry will make findings and recommendations on an apology; that is, who should make the apology and what the nature of the apology should be. The third issue is an appropriate memorial or tribute to those who suffered abuse. The fourth issue is the requirement or desirability for redress to be provided by either the institutions or the Executive to meet the particular needs of victims. The inquiry’s findings and recommendations will be thoroughly considered by the Executive, and the Executive will decide the way forward.

In our consultations with them, victims and survivors told us that they wanted the opportunity to recount their experiences of the institutions and for those to be heard, believed and acknowledged. That is why the inquiry includes a confidential acknowledgement forum. That will be an opportunity for victims and survivors to talk about their childhoods in the institutions, how they were treated and what they endured. Many victims and survivors never talk about their experiences. For some, not even their own families know their stories. For them and for all who come forward, talking to the forum will be a landmark in their life. The opportunity to talk, be heard and be acknowledged is hugely valuable. The acknowledgement forum also has other benefits, and analysis of information derived from its hearings will help to inform a judicial process of inquiry. The acknowledgement forum report, when published, will be a significant testimony.

The success of the forum and the value of the experience depends on the skills and insights of the listening panel members. That is why we are pleased that Beverley Clarke, Norah Gibbons, Dave Marshall and Tom Shaw have agreed to be the acknowledgement forum panel members. Ms Gibbons was a commissioner in the Ryan inquiry, and Mr Shaw led the Time to be Heard investigation in Scotland. Ms Clarke has wide experience of social work and childcare, and Mr Marshall is a consultant in the field of child safeguarding, investigation and management.

The inquiry will need to understand the conditions that prevailed for children here between 1945 and 1995. Inquiry panel members will also want to know about the legislative framework within which children’s care was delivered and about inspection and standards. There will, therefore, be a research element to the inquiry. The inquiry also includes a judicial inquiry process that will be led personally by the chairman. That will use information from the acknowledgement forum, research and other sources to build up a picture of what happened in the institutions. It is designed to be inquisitorial, and its end result will be a formal report to the First Minister and deputy First Minister giving the chairman’s findings and recommendations. At all times during the inquiry, whether during the acknowledgement forum or the judicial process, concern about victims and survivors, their experiences and needs are at the heart of the thinking.

I will now turn to the Bill. It has 23 clauses, of which 17 are substantive. So, it is relatively short. The Bill enables the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to establish and devote resources to an inquiry into historical institutional abuse. It sets out the expenses that OFMDFM may cover and circumstances in which funding may be withheld. OFMDFM is the sponsor Department for the inquiry, so the first thing that the Bill does is to give OFMDFM the power to establish the inquiry. Clauses 1 to 5 deal with all the practicalities around appointments.

The Bill ties itself very clearly to the inquiry by referring to the terms of reference that were announced in the Assembly on 31 May. It makes it clear that it is not about making findings of criminal or civil responsibility. The power to set up the inquiry is given in clause 1, and clause 5 indicates when the inquiry will end. Clause 5 states that the inquiry will end once it has produced its report and fulfilled its terms of reference. That having been said, it provides for the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly to issue a notice ending the inquiry earlier than this if it were deemed to be necessary. It sets how this should be done.

Clauses 6 to 10 bestow on the presiding member the powers that he needs to ensure the effectiveness of the inquiry. Clause 6 deals with procedure and evidence and sets the tone for the inquiry. It requires the chairman to have concern throughout the inquiry for the principle of fairness and to have due regard for the need to avoid unnecessary expense. It could be unnecessary expense to the public purse, but, equally, it could be to a witness or to anyone else. This means that fairness and cost are legitimate factors to be taken into account when the chairman is making and carrying out his plans for the inquiry. Every decision to hold a hearing, to call for evidence or to grant legal representation adds to the cost of the inquiry. Clause 6 allows the presiding officer to take account of cost in decision-making and to justify a decision on the grounds of cost. Clause 6 also provides that the chairman can take evidence under oath and, for that purpose, the chairman may administer oaths.

The inquisitional element of the inquiry is a public inquiry, and the public will have a legitimate interest in its proceedings. Clause 7, therefore, requires the presiding member to take whatever steps he considers reasonable to ensure that the public and the press can see and hear the inquiry proceedings. That having been said, there will be times when an individual’s privacy must be respected, so clause 8 gives the presiding member the power to make orders restricting attendance at the inquiry or any part of it. Similarly, he will have the power to make orders restricting the disclosure of information held by the inquiry. Unless the chairman includes an end date in an order to restrict the disclosure of evidence or unless he varies or revokes the order, it will continue indefinitely. However, after the end of the inquiry, circumstances may change so that the restriction is no longer needed. Clause 8, therefore, allows for OFMDFM to vary or to revoke restriction orders after the end of the inquiry.

The inquiry will wish to call witnesses to answer questions about the events of the time or to hand over evidence, and it is anticipated that they will do so. However, some may be unwilling to. Others may feel unable to because of confidentiality issues. Clause 9, therefore, enables the presiding member to issue notices compelling witnesses to come before the inquiry or compelling evidence to be given to it. It is an offence under clause 13 not to comply with a restriction order issued by the chairman or a notice compelling witnesses or evidence. Where there is non-compliance, only the presiding member may institute proceedings. Clause 13 also makes it an offence to deliberately do anything to distort, alter or conceal evidence that is likely to be of interest to the inquiry. This applies regardless of whether or not the inquiry is aware of the evidence. Anyone who is found guilty of an offence may be liable to a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which currently sits at £1,000, to six months’ imprisonment or to both. OFMDFM sponsors the inquiry, so clauses 11 and 12 set out OFMDFM’s responsibilities for meeting the inquiry costs.

Clause 11 enables OFMDFM to meet witness expenses, including compensating people for time lost if they are called to speak to the inquiry, for their travelling expenses and to cover legal expenses for certain witnesses. Clause 12 enables OFMDFM to deal with the expenses associated with running the inquiry. This will all be in the public domain, as clause 12 also dictates that OFMDFM must publish how much it has spent within a reasonable period of the inquiry ending. OFMDFM is not obliged to fund the inquiry if it is operating outside its terms of reference.

The Act will come into effect on the day that the legislation is commenced; that is, the day after it receives Royal Assent. However, the acknowledgement forum can start its work before that and is expected to begin in the autumn. This inquiry is expected to take three years from the commencement date of the Bill. It will take two and a half years to complete the investigative work and a further six months for the chairman to write the inquiry report, setting out the findings and recommendations. The inquiry ends when the report is presented to the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the terms of reference are completed.

It has been said that a major event in a child’s life is a major event in that child’s world and that, when adulthood is reached, whatever that event was will have the capacity to assume global proportions. I think that, in this particular case, that wisdom has been proved beyond all doubt.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I advise Members that we will have to interrupt the session at 2.30 pm for Question Time.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for those remarks. I will speak first as Chair of the Committee.

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has had limited opportunity to consider the Bill and, to date, insufficient time to determine its position on the Bill prior to the Second Stage debate. The Committee facilitated a briefing on the Bill from OFMDFM officials, which was done, at short notice, on 6 June this year. During that session, officials provided us with a first overview of the inquiry, the different strands of its work and how the Bill will facilitate the inquiry. Committee members also had an opportunity to ask questions, and I will leave it to individual members to comment on their questions to officials and the answers that they received at that first briefing.

During the Committee Stage, the Committee will wish to scrutinise in some detail the arrangements that are envisaged for this important inquiry. To that end, the Committee will be briefed by departmental officials tomorrow morning — the anticipated first day of the Committee Stage — on the consultation that OFMDFM carried out in preparing for the inquiry and in drafting the Bill. The Committee will also have an initial briefing on the Bill from the Assembly Research and Information Service . On 4 July, the Chairperson of the inquiry, Sir Anthony Hart, will come to brief the Committee, and we look forward to hearing from him.

In addition to wishing to hear about the Department’s consultation, the Committee has written to key stakeholders seeking their comments on the Bill. Once the Committee Stage begins, a notice in the regional newspapers will also invite comments on the Bill. We will request responses by 27 July, and, over the summer, we will schedule evidence sessions for the Committee’s meetings in September. In light of the evidence that it receives, the Committee will consider whether it will be necessary to seek an extension to the Committee Stage. That concludes my remarks as Chair of the Committee. As I said, to date, we have had limited opportunity to debate what is proposed.

I would like to say a few words as a Member of the House, and as a Member with some experience of victims and survivors; of their needs, their issues and their requirements of the House. I speak not just as a former commissioner in the Commission for Victims and Survivors. Before that, it was my privilege and challenge, as a journalist, to work in the team at Ulster Television that investigated Father Brendan Smyth and gave some comfort to some of the survivors of his abuse by giving them access to public services and, indeed, to the airwaves. It is a big challenge. For example, I interacted with one person who wished to go on television and have a media focus on what had happened to him, but he did not want to be identified. He wanted to use a false name and be filmed in shadow or from behind. He was brave enough to appear once on a live television debate, which included a Minister from the Irish Government and several others. He was prepared to sit in that live television studio with a camera shooting him from behind so that his face was not identified, trusting me to remember to use his false name — his television name rather than his real name — although, by then, I was much more used to calling him by his actual name. He had the bravery to appear and put his points to that Minister from Dublin and others who represented statutory services on both sides of the border. We managed to do that while preserving his anonymity and giving him access to all the services that you or I would wish to avail off as a citizen of this country.

There is a difference between being abused by an institution and being abused by an individual. When individuals are abused by an institution, they have nobody to turn to. When they are abused by an individual, who do they turn to? They turn to an institution; they turn to the state or an organ of the state, or some official body in which they have been encouraged since childhood to place their trust. That is the difference between abuse by an individual and abuse by an institution. It is an abuse of trust as well. There is nowhere there for them to turn to. Their world order is shattered. At the first hint that the institution is not there for them, that it is going to form the wagons into a circle, that it does not care about them as much as it cares about itself, victims often feel doubly victimised. They are victimised in the first place by the event or action, but then they are doubly victimised by the institution’s failure to address their concerns and to put its hands up and admit that it has let them down and that it is prepared to do whatever it takes, at whatever cost to the institution, to put things right.

I hope that we will put together a set of arrangements, an environment and a set of circumstances in the Bill that will allow those who have been abused and who wish to come forward to have trust in what is happening and to acknowledge that what is being put in place is transparent, that it is easily understood, and that it is something in which they can place the confidence that was shattered on the day that they were abused by an institution — an institution like the House, the Assembly and the Executive: we are all institutions. That process will begin with consulting. To that extent, I applaud the Minister and the Department for consulting to date. I hope that they continue to consult, and I hope that they continue to listen as we take the process forward.

We have some issues with the content of the Bill: for example, the fact that the terms of reference are not in the legislation but were delivered in a ministerial statement on 31 May, and yet the terms of reference can be amended in the legislation, as that power is given to the First Minister and deputy first Minister. My colleague John McCallister will return to some of that detail later.

We welcome the multi-strand approach proposed in the Bill to address the needs of the victims of institutional abuse. I particularly welcome the Acknowledgment Forum. Often, when we talk of victims and survivors, we talk of the benefits and the advantages of storytelling. There is no doubt that an individual can take great comfort from being able, in a safe and secure environment, perhaps for the first time in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, to have the facility to tell their story and, in common parlance, get it off their chest. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is not really the full benefit. Storytelling is of real benefit to a victim or a survivor only if there is somebody listening. So, when we talk about storytelling, we must make sure that it is done in such a way that it is listened to, respected and acknowledged.

As many of us know, a victim and a survivor often feel guilt. They think, “Why me? Why them? Why did I survive?” Sometimes, those issues can be played out in a body such as an acknowledgement forum.

I hope that the Bill will also set in place a process that will address all the issues, because victims of institutional abuse are no different from victims of any other type of abuse. Their needs are different; they are individual people; they are not an homogeneous group. They are grouped together simply because of a horrific set of circumstances that they share, and their grouping does not reflect personality traits or any other issue by which they would, otherwise, not have been bound together.

I hope that the Bill puts in place processes that address mental health and well-being issues. All of us can acknowledge how abuse by an institution could impact on mental health and well-being, as it could on social inclusion, because many victims and survivors of institutional abuse will live in isolation, because their trust and confidence in the state, the state’s agents and the other bodies that make up the country have been broken.

I hope that it also addresses the question of, what I call, lost opportunities, because the victims will have lost opportunities in relationship building with their families, friends, colleagues and society. There will be lost opportunities in education, which we can put right, if we put our minds to it, and there will be lost opportunities in employment. Let us not forget that that is not a historical matter only. The lost opportunities of somebody, who, otherwise would have been in a highly paid job and building up pension contributions, will carry on into the future and after the age of retirement.

I mentioned storytelling, and I think that that is key and critical to what we are trying to achieve.

Finally, there is a matter of compensation; a thorny matter perhaps, but the House should not deny the fact that some victims and survivors will consider financial recompense to be their key requirement. We must bear all those matters in mind as we go forward.

I look forward to further scrutinising the Bill in its further stages in the House and in the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members, as Question Time is due to commence at 2·30 pm, I ask you to take your ease for a few moments. We will return to this debate immediately after questions for urgent oral answer, which will follow Question Time. William Humphrey will be the first Member to speak when the debate resumes.

The debate stood suspended.

Justice

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

1. asked the Minister of Justice what plans he has to tackle the problem of agricrime in rural communities. (AQO 2224/11-15)

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

5. asked the Minister of Justice how many people have been charged, prosecuted or convicted for the theft of agricultural machinery in the last 12 months. (AQO 2228/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 1 and 5 together. Building safer rural communities is an important issue for my Department, and tackling the issue relies on strong partnership working across and beyond government.

I will shortly launch a new community safety strategy, which will outline the importance of partnership working, to support efforts to make rural communities safer through preventing and reducing rural crime.

Members of the Agriculture Committee and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials had the chance to consider the content of the community safety strategy before it went to the Executive, and their views have been taken on board. The newly formed policing and community safety partnerships will have a key role in local delivery of that strategy and in addressing local issues of concern. I encourage those affected by agricrime to take this opportunity to engage with their partnerships to ensure that their views and needs are reflected in local action plans, which are currently being developed.

Members will be aware of the range of local initiatives, such as Farmwatch and trailer and tractor marking schemes, which have been developed to prevent people from becoming a victim of agricrime. I encourage individuals to fully avail themselves of those services.

Statistics cannot be provided on the number of people who have been charged, prosecuted or convicted for the theft of agricultural machinery, as statistical data cannot identify thefts of specified items. However, the PSNI has prepared the following information: in 2011, quad theft amounted to 147 incidents, which is a decrease of 26·5% from 200 in the previous year; trailer theft increased by 5·3% in 2011, which is an increase from 514 to 541; and the theft of tools increased by 6·3% in 2011, which is an increase from 395 to 420.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he clarify what actions are being taken to reduce the risk to elderly people living on isolated farms, where the problems of agricrime are relatively high?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not sure that I agree with the Member that what he appears to be hinting at — attacks on elderly people — necessarily constitute agricrime. The reality is that people living in rural areas are less likely to be victims of crime such as burglary than those who live in urban areas. It is something like a third of the number compared with urban areas. There is no doubt that existing provisions being carried through by a number of policing and community safety partnerships in the way of provision of aids and alarms and in providing that sort of back-up assistance to more vulnerable members of the community is helping to reduce crimes against them and the fear of such crime.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am disappointed that the Minister had no statistics in regard to the number of people prosecuted or convicted. Given the fact that much of the agricultural machinery and equipment is taken by highly organised crime gangsters and sold across Europe and the Republic of Ireland, does the Minister believe that enough is being done to stop it?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree that there is a particular issue with the way in which statistics are compiled, but we currently operate on the basis of UK national statistics, which do not differentiate between particular types of goods subject to theft. I understand that discussions are going on at national level, so that may change in the coming years.

There is no doubt that there is a significant issue, particularly regarding some items of machinery, including tractors and quads, where organised crime is at work. However, there is also no doubt that the activities that we have seen in the way of marking of machinery are having a significant effect. In particular, those who own valuable machinery are putting trackers on them and, in a number of cases, we have been able to ensure that stolen goods have been recovered.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Does the Minister have any idea if those involved in agricrime are members of organised crime gangs? If that is the case, what is being done to target that specifically?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Hazzard has put his finger on it. While, undoubtedly, some small-scale issues may well be opportunistic theft, there is no doubt that more serious crime directed against valuable machinery is almost certainly done on an organised basis. That issue is being handled across the Organised Crime Task Force by a number of agencies in co-operation. One of the key issues is to ensure that those who own such agricultural machinery take the necessary precautionary steps to prevent its being stolen. Unfortunately, it is still the case that valuable, five-figure tractors are left sitting in farmyards with keys in the ignition. That is not a particularly smart move. Unfortunately, people need to realise that, while we should not exaggerate the number of thefts in rural areas, some of that valuable machinery is significantly vulnerable.

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

The Minister mentioned collaboration between agencies. Does he agree with me that the Neighbourhood Watch schemes are one way in which the PSNI and other agencies can become involved in raising awareness in rural areas? Will he outline to the House what steps his Department has taken to have a real input to that?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Dallat for the question. The recent development of the Farmwatch scheme in Omagh, which I helped to launch a few weeks ago, is a classic example of how what was the predominantly urban Neighbourhood Watch scheme can have particular applications. One of those who helped found that scheme, by good co-operation with his local neighbourhood policing team and a group of neighbours, had ensured that those responsible for a number of thefts of machinery, and who had travelled a significant distance into their area, were apprehended and suitably prosecuted. That is the kind of work that I hope to see going forward. It builds on the good work done by a number of community safety partnerships (CSPs) in the background to continue to promote that kind of activity through the new policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), and certainly the Department will continue to provide backup where appropriate. I have absolutely no doubt that the police will continue to be involved.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the Minister of Justice to outline the timescale for a review of sentencing for the murder of PSNI officers. (AQO 2225/11-15)

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

9. asked the Minister of Justice what plans there are to bring sentencing policy into line with that in Great Britain. (AQO 2232/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 2 and 9 together.

As I announced on 11 June, I intend to carry out a wider review of the legislation governing the determination of tariffs where the court has passed a life sentence for murder. The review will include, but not be limited to, the determination of tariffs for the murder of police officers.

I have asked my Department to give priority to the review, and initial work is already under way. While the review will include a consideration of arrangements in other jurisdictions, including England and Wales, my aim is not to replicate the GB model but to find a way forward that is right for Northern Ireland. The review will also need to reflect the findings of the Court of Appeal, which has been asked by the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the tariffs handed down to Wootton and McConville for the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll. That will provide the opportunity for the Court of Appeal to consider the sentencing guidelines for the determination of tariffs.

The recommendations of the review will be published for consultation as soon as I have had time to consider the court’s decision in the two cases referred to it, and to take the views of the Justice Committee in light of them.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Minister’s statement on that issue and the fact that the review will relate to Northern Ireland. There are some peculiar issues with regard to younger people’s sentencing. Does the Minister agree that this House could send that out as a very positive message to the PSNI, who are under a very real and serious threat? It would be a very good message that this entire House could send out to the members of the force that we really appreciate them, if we can speedily resolve this issue of sentencing over the murder of police officers.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly agree with Mr Craig that this House should send a message of support to police officers. I believe that that is what the response to the sentencing in the case of the murder of Constable Carroll did. It sent out a message of support from throughout this House and the wider community of support for the work done by police officers.

I am not sure, however, that we can necessarily deliver as speedily as some Members might wish. I believe it is appropriate to wait until the Court of Appeal has issued its determination in the particular case that we are discussing before the Department can move on and work to the wider issues. That is why I asked that initial work starts in advance of the Court of Appeal judgement, so that we can deal with it as speedily as possible to provide that encouragement.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree with me that perhaps the best way forward or the best model would be a sentencing council, which would bring both clarity and parity to all sentencing processes?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Raymond McCartney and I could go back two and a half years to discuss the potential merits of a sentencing council. I believe that the work being carried through by the Chief Justice and the involvement of lay members in his work on developing sentencing guidelines, backed up by the work that the Department is prepared to do, is capable of providing the necessary consistency and reassurance to the community that it would wish. I am reluctant to move forward on a formal sentencing council if it would not achieve any more than that work being done informally, given that there is always pressure on budgets, and that it has been estimated to cost almost £500,000 a year merely to establish a statutory council rather than have the work done that is being led by the judges at the moment, which would be reasonable. That having been said, I am on record as saying that we will see how it goes. I am prepared to reconsider the issue if concerns continue; however, we need to allow the Chief Justice to carry through the work that he has undertaken.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Minister, do you agree with me that there is widespread public disquiet about sentencing for the murder of police officers, and that public opinion needs to be taken very seriously? What steps does the Minister plan to step in his review to ensure that the public is fully informed about the reasons behind sentencing procedures?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Public concern needs to be addressed; that is why the review will be carried out in an open and transparent way. It will involve building on the work of the Court of Appeal in the case of Wootton and McConville, it will allow public consultation, and it will ensure that the views of the House, through the Justice Committee, are taken into account. It is also my belief that the work of the Chief Justice on encouraging lay participation should enhance confidence. We need to await the results of that work and ensure that we build confidence rather than second-guess a process that is barely under way.

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

Will the Minister elaborate on the sentencing group that the Chief Justice is organising? Specifically, is he engaging with that group, and, if so, how periodically and on what matters; and does he anticipate its engaging more directly with any Committee of the House?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McDevitt makes a fair point about how confidence is provided. The judicial sentencing group is a matter for the judges, with the lay involvement that the Chief Justice has agreed to. He has a programme of action that is looking at a range of options and which has already produced a number of guidelines, particularly in the lower courts, where there is a greater concern about inconsistency between the district judges in different courts. That is part of an area where there is already the opportunity to build up confidence and to ensure that we have transparent and open sentencing benchmarks. I should be very cautious, as Minister, of suggesting either that members of the Executive or members of the legislature should get too closely involved in work that, at that level, is properly the role of the judiciary. I will seek to develop a community engagement strategy, which, I believe, is part of the role of the Department of Justice, to ensure that we get a proper two-way flow of information on sentencing, which, I believe, will address the points that both Mr McDevitt and Mr McCrea have just made.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Justice what provision is made for the relatives of a deceased victim of crime to be kept updated on the progress of a subsequent court case. (AQO 2226/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Addressing the needs of victims and their families has been high on my list of priorities since becoming Justice Minister. Where a victim is unable to act for themselves, through injury or incapacity, the PPS and the Police Service will often work with the victim’s next of kin or nominated representative to ensure that the interests of the victim are properly represented. They will take all steps to ensure that the person they are working with is the most appropriate representative. The PPS and PSNI are also jointly working on a project to introduce a witness care unit in Northern Ireland. In establishing a single point of contact for victims and witnesses, the unit will provide information for those attending court and updates on how a case is progressing.

The witness care unit will also aid referrals to other organisations if a victim or witness requires specialist help. More generally, I am planning, later this year, to publish for consultation a new five-year strategy for victims and witnesses of crime, one of the key themes of which is likely to be improving communication with victims and their families. I have given a commitment that the proposed new strategy will be substantially informed by the outcome of the Justice Committee’s recent inquiry into services for victims and witnesses of crime, and I look forward to receiving its report later this week. I also advise Members that my officials are happy to discuss individual cases privately.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he give assurances that relatives of deceased victims of crime will be treated as the victim of the crime to ensure that justice is carried out?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am well aware of the particular point that Mr Robinson makes. It is a very serious point. There are difficulties in continuing to provide the services that would be provided to a victim to the relatives of a deceased victim, especially in a case where the victim has died from causes unrelated to any crime. However, if Mr Robinson has concerns about a particular case, I certainly hope that my officials can provide reassurance to him. We will see what can be done.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the Minister committed to bringing forward a victims’ charter? Is that likely to happen in the near future or is it on the long finger?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Since devolution, a number of initiatives have been taken forward around the services for victims. Indeed, work is under way at the moment. The range of work probably does need to be spelt out. However, I certainly hope that we will see the new victim and witness strategy published in draft in the autumn of this year and in place by the summer of next year. I am looking to place the victim code of practice on a statutory footing, probably in the Faster, Fairer Justice Bill, which is planned for next year. The work that has been ongoing will continue, because it is absolutely clear that there is a recognition that, in the past, we have not treated victims and witnesses of crimes as well as they should have been treated.

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

The situation in relation to victims seems to have improved as regards information and the general conduct of the prosecution towards victims. Is the Minister fully satisfied with the process? If not, would he consider the introduction of some sort of statutory improvements?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I suppose the only answer I can give to a question such as the one that Mr Maginness has just posed is that we can never be satisfied that we are doing as much as can be done. However, I believe that the direction of travel is a significant improvement on where we were a few years ago. For example, the guides I launched just after I became Minister — a guide for victims and witnesses and a specific guide for those who are bereaved by murder or manslaughter — are clear indications of positive work being done. The publication of the code of practice and the possibility, as I have just said, that we will put that on a statutory footing are indications that the Department is seeking to make the best possible arrangements for victims and witnesses to help them to overcome the experience they have had. In some cases, that is to enable them to give best evidence, but it is also to enable them to recover from the effects of the crime.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister of Justice how much money has been recovered over the last two years from people who received legal aid but were later found to have sufficient finances to fund their legal costs. (AQO 2227/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Legal Services Commission collected £271,000 in 2010-11 and £191,000 in 2011-12 by way of costs from litigants. Costs recovered include debt arising from revocations but also costs directed by the court and assisted persons’ contributions to legal aid. I propose to make new regulations before the summer recess to enable costs to be recovered from convicted defendants in the Crown Court, where such defendants are found to have had the means to pay for the costs of their defence.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Has the Minister any idea of the real outstanding moneys in this? Are there any estimates for what could likely be recovered? Why are sufficient mechanisms not in place to stop this happening in the first place?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The answer to Mr Elliott’s second question is absolutely clear: there are not sufficient mechanisms in place because, under direct rule, they were not given legislative competence. That is something that we are seeking to catch up with by the regulations that are now being made. At the moment, it is extremely difficult to assess what level of fraud there may be in the legal aid system and whether all payments are made properly. We are also looking at taking powers to allow, for example, the inspection of account books on the part of solicitors and barristers to ensure that the kinds of checks that have been identified as being required are put in place. The system we inherited is certainly not suitable at the present time.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister spell out how seriously he takes the issue of persons who deliberately try to fraudulently abuse the system while knowing that they would not qualify for legal aid? Can he also tell us what he is going to do to spell out a deterrent that would prevent people from doing exactly that?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Department and I clearly take extremely seriously any attempts to defraud public finances, whether that is through legal aid payments or anything else. It is clear that, at the moment, we do not have all the powers that are required to ensure that proper audits can be carried out, although we have the ability to carry out things such as inspection visits or to examine books in general rather than specific papers for particular cases. We are looking to take forward all those issues in the next available justice Bill, which, I believe, will help to stamp out the level of fraud that may exist.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, you detailed for us much of what will be done to deal with legal aid fraud. Can you assure the House that you will bring forward appropriate regulation in the next justice Bill?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly assure the House that I would seek to bring forward an appropriate level of regulation in the next justice Bill, but I cannot guarantee that either the Justice Committee, the Executive or the House as a whole will allow it to proceed. However, given what is being said by members of the Justice Committee, which includes my colleague and others, it certainly appears to me that there is a real need to ensure that not only should we continue the work that has been done on tightening legal aid payments, including the significant changes that have been made in criminal legal aid over the past year and the changes that are still to come in civil legal aid, but we should ensure that every pound that is spent on legal aid is spent properly. That is something that I believe the House ought to support, and I trust that it will.

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

6. asked the Minister of Justice what plans he has to address the needs of victims of human trafficking. (AQO 2229/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Department of Justice funds a package of support for all adult victims of human trafficking who are recovered in Northern Ireland. That package includes safe and appropriate accommodation, help with day-to-day living expenses, as well as access to healthcare, counselling and other specialist services.

The package is delivered by Migrant Helpline and its delivery partner, Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland. It is overseen by a stakeholder group, with representation from the Department, the PSNI, UKBA, Migrant Helpline, Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland and DHSSPS.

The Department of Justice’s other victim-centred initiatives, carried out through the Organised Crime Task Force, include a ‘Visitor or Victim?’ leaflet and poster, the Blue Blindfold campaign, which aims to raise awareness and encourage the public to report suspicious activity, and draft guidance on working arrangements for adult victims that the Department is developing with DHSSPS.

My Department is also working with Amnesty International to develop a multilingual leaflet for victims. It is working towards a communications strategy to change mindsets and to drive down the demand for goods and services from organised crime, including those offered by victims of human trafficking.

Support for child victims of trafficking is a matter for the DHSSPS.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra, agus tá ceist thánaisteach agam dó.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he assure us and give us confidence that, when the police release, as it were, the victims of human trafficking from captivity, they will be properly looked after and not subjected to the immediate threat of deportation?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly assure Mr Bradley that victims of trafficking are not subjected to the immediate threat of deportation. However, there are significant issues: in many cases, they will have families at home who may be subject to some sort of coercion by the gangs that are responsible for the trafficking. There are real problems when, even after a period of reflection, individuals cannot gain the confidence to give the evidence that enables us to proceed against those who are responsible for the trafficking. People frequently end up being returned to their country of origin because the evidence is not fully forthcoming. However, I do believe that the agencies treat the victims of trafficking as best they can, although the ongoing coercion to which victims and their families are subjected is a matter of real concern for all of us.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. Given the increase in human trafficking, coupled with the low conviction rate for traffickers, how does the Minister intend to deal with the practice and those involved in it? Should they face the full rigours of the law and be given appropriate sentences?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can assure Mr Lynch that appropriate sentences are given out when people can be subject to the rigours of the law. I have just said to Mr Bradley about the difficulty in getting people to give appropriate evidence, but I believe that good work is being done, particularly though the OCTF subgroup that is concerned with trafficking and immigration issues.

Extremely good cross-border work is being done, and good cross-channel work is being done with those responsible in Scotland, England and Wales. A joined-up approach is needed on the part of a number of Departments and agencies here and their opposite numbers throughout these islands, and there is absolutely no doubt that there is a growing public concern and demand that everything possible be done to stamp out trafficking.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister confirm what co-operation, if any and that he knows about, is taking place with other countries and their immigration authorities in a attempt to stop this corrupt practice?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that I cannot give Mr Copeland the details of what is going on. I know the level of co-operation on these islands among all the relevant agencies. When issues arise from elsewhere in the world, different things largely become operational matters for the relevant agencies here and overseas, and I cannot give many details on those practicalities.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

7. asked the Minister of Justice what protection and rights are offered to whistle-blowers within the criminal justice system. (AQO 2230/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can confirm that the criminal justice agencies comply with the Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Protections for whistle-blowers are in place as required under that legislation, which ensures that employees making protected disclosures in good faith in the circumstances described in the legislation are protected against dismissal and other detriment.

Criminal justice agencies have internal arrangements for raising issues of concern, and I strongly encourage members of staff to use those when any such issues arise. However, the legislation also allows for protected disclosure in some circumstances to an external body.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome his encouragement to staff. He will be aware that the former chief executive of the Office of the Police Ombudsman resigned in order to blow the whistle on interference in that office. We now find that senior PSNI members have tried to discourage trade union representatives from blowing the whistle on the policy of rehiring police officers, sometimes within days of their retirement.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member ask a question, please?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In light of the Minister’s earlier answer, does he have any comment to make on that?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Murphy for that point. In the context of the 1998 order, he needs to be careful as to how exactly he defines “whistle-blowing”. Where individuals have sought to raise matters outside the established structures, I am not sure that they necessarily qualify as whistle-blowers, and some of the wider points that the Member makes seem to be more about policy matters than whistle-blowing.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that much more support could be provided to staff who work in front line services in the criminal justice system?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not sure what Mr Swann is particularly hinting at. I believe that the current arrangements around whistle-blowing are adequate, but if he has particular concerns and wants to write to me, I will follow them up.

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

8. asked the Minister of Justice what actions he intends to take to ensure that the Northern Ireland Prison Service implements measures to prevent the misuse of prescription drugs within the prison estate. (AQO 2231/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I recognise the high level of substance addiction in the prison population. That addiction has often been developed in the community over many years. I also acknowledge the devastating effect that the misuse of prescription drugs in the prison estate can have.

Just like any member of the community, prisoners are provided with prescription drugs and are expected to behave responsibly. The South Eastern Trust is responsible for the delivery of healthcare in our prisons and has developed a policy of “in possession” medication. That policy is based on the equivalence principle, the notion that prisoners should have access to the same quality and range of healthcare services as the general public receive from the NHS.

Experience has shown that prescription drugs can be open to abuse in a prison setting, therefore, the Prison Service has a range of measures in place to address this problem. These include a drugs and alcohol treatment and counselling service; multidisciplinary case reviews; development of a revised anti-bullying policy; provision of individual safes for storing prescription medication; mandatory drugs tests; regular cell searches; the deployment of drugs dogs; and disciplinary action and removal from association with other prisoners where warranted.

The trust introduced in-possession risk assessments for all prisoners in September of last year. I can now confirm that both the trust and the Prison Service are fully committed to addressing the concerns raised in relation to in-possession medication, in particular, to consider supervised-swallow arrangements for certain categories of drugs.

Regional Development

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development whether the A6 dualling public inquiry is still scheduled to begin in the late summer. (AQO 2239/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am pleased to inform the Member that I approved the holding of a public inquiry into the A6 Londonderry to Dungiven dualling scheme. Letters will issue shortly to objectors to inform them that the inquiry will be held at the Roe Park Hotel, Limavady, during the last week of September and the first week of October 2012.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is there any report on the short inquiry that was held in relation to the Castledawson bypass? What is the likelihood of a bypass for Dungiven, given the high emissions there in relation to European standards?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for asking two supplementary questions for the price of one.

The public inquiry into the construction of the junction to connect the Annaghmore Road and Bellshill Road at Castledawson to the proposed A6 Toome to Castledawson dual carriageway was held, as the Member will recall, on 13 and 14 February 2012. I am pleased to inform him that the inspector has produced his report, which is being carefully considered by officials in Roads Service. I hope to make a statement on that report in the next few months.

I am aware of the concern in Dungiven and the local council area about the issue that the Member raised about fumes. I can confirm that it will be possible to bring forward the draft statutory Orders for the construction of the bypass at Dungiven ahead of and without compromising the future delivery of the remainder of that scheme. However, this is, of course, all conditional on available funding.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware that a number of landowners between the Dungiven and Claudy areas of the preferred route for the A6 are concerned about their properties and the land acquisition process. Is he satisfied that everything that can be done to try to alleviate their concerns has been done?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I confirm that there are some 122 objections to the entire scheme, with 11 letters of comment. Objections mainly concern landowner issues such as severance, loss of land and environmental issues. Therefore, I think it is important that we move to the public inquiry stage, which will give a further opportunity to concerned landowners and objectors to raise points of concern, not only with the inspector and his team but also with my officials, who will also listen carefully. I hope that we can work together to make progress on that very important scheme. I think that the scheme is accepted across this House and by local representatives as one that would benefit the local economy and people in general.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister agree that the ongoing delay in publishing the 2011-21 investment strategy will make it difficult for his Department to identify and prioritise additional capital funding projects, such as those along the A6?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question, and her interest in this scheme and in other roads matters in her constituency. Obviously, the production and agreement of the ISNI scheme will be of huge importance and relevance to my departmental budget and to those of Executive colleagues. Therefore, it is in everyone’ s interest that we move forward on it as quickly as possible.

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

I congratulate the Minister on his announcement to hold a public inquiry into the A6 scheme. I encourage him to write his name into history by also announcing the decoupling of the bypass at Dungiven. That is something that his predecessor failed to do, and the people of Dungiven would deeply appreciate it. It is the most polluted town in this part of Ireland.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question and for his invitation to pass into the annals of history on that issue. I can confirm that it is possible to decouple, which is an important difference from previous arrangements. If there are funding opportunities that can be availed of, it may be that we will carry forward that scheme. However, it is all dependent on finance.

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

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development what proposals his Department has to reduce traffic congestion in residential areas of north Belfast. (AQO 2240/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service has advised that traffic congestion in residential areas is usually caused by the high usage of available kerb space for parking. The normal means of dealing with traffic congestion of that nature is through the introduction of waiting restrictions. However, that is often contentious in residential streets, as such restrictions do not discriminate between residents and other vehicle drivers.

Where congestion is caused by non-residential parking, a more appropriate means of parking control may be the introduction of residents’ parking schemes. You will be aware that progress on the development and implementation of those schemes was delayed for some considerable time, as there was insufficient community support to allow them to be taken forward. However, following a number of reviews of some policy issues, such as the proposed cost of a parking permit, I believe that those contentious issues have now been largely resolved, and officials are working with local residents’ associations in several areas in Belfast.

The areas under consideration are those where the problems of commuter parking are the most serious and long-standing. Officials hope to follow up that work with the creation of similar schemes in other areas where a need has been identified. If the Member wishes to provide me details of any streets where he feels that congestion is a significant issue, Roads Service will be happy to consider what, if any, remedial measures would be appropriate.

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

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply. It is good news that there has been significant progress on residents’ parking schemes, and I wish the Minister well in bringing them about. In circumstances in North Belfast —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member ask the question, please?

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would the Minister consider extending those schemes to residential areas in North Belfast rather than just commuter routes?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the Member’s very positive response. I am genuinely interested in carrying forward the creation of residents’ parking schemes. I have recently held meetings with a large number of Assembly Members and local representatives in various parts, including one with my party colleague Michael McGimpsey and your party colleague Conall McDevitt on issues in South Belfast.

There have been problems in the past, and I hope that we will be able to overcome those. I think that an early success, even in a relatively confined area, may have the spin-off effect of other residents in other areas wanting to benefit from those schemes. It is on that basis that I want to see progress on residents’ parking schemes.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. Is the Minister aware that the Cliftonville Road in north Belfast is being closed for two months? There will be only one-way traffic on what is a main arterial route. Was there consultation with residents, community groups, black-taxi drivers or Translink? It is a very long road, it is a main arterial route and happens to be the safest way into Ardoyne, Marrowbone and Cliftonville. Closing such a long road will also affect people of a certain age.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. It may well be that he will have an issue about the Cliftonville Road and its impact on local parades in the coming marching season. That may not be the case.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I presume that that is not the road that is closed. [Laughter.]

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I have a bass drum that I can bring along if you really want it.

It is my understanding that NI Water is about to carry out works there or some kind of cabling scheme. The issue was raised earlier this morning by one of the Member’s party colleagues at a meeting with me on other issues. We are endeavouring to find out the detail of the closures and the impact on the local community. Obviously, work of this nature is important. It is not possible to make omelettes without breaking eggs, and there is always inconvenience. However, we will seek to establish the detail, and we will keep the Member acquainted with developments.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Will he confirm that the use of residents’ parking schemes to tackle traffic congestion could be applied not only in north Belfast but elsewhere in the Province?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question; he makes a very good point. We want to move to the implementation of parking schemes. Where communities want to make progress and can overcome issues, such schemes will have a very positive impact. Therefore, if the Member has suggestions or ideas, even within his own constituency, I am happy for my officials to look at them and seek to progress them.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the current connections between Belfast International Airport and the M2 motorway. (AQO 2241/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The programme of strategic road improvements has been identified as part of a process that has evolved over the past decade and is based on a number of key strategies and documents, namely the regional development strategy, the regional transport strategy and the regional strategic transport network plan, all of which were subject to public consultation.

The subsequent programme of improvements, which has been assessed against the five key criteria for transportation, focused primarily on the key transport corridors as identified in the regional development strategy and includes a significant number of priority projects. Schemes identified as part of that process have improved accessibility for passengers travelling to Belfast International Airport from across Northern Ireland and indeed from the Republic of Ireland. Those schemes also provide benefits for passengers travelling to George Best Belfast City Airport and the airport in Londonderry.

The recently completed scheme between Beech Hill and Cloghogue at Newry has completed the dualling of the A1 from Sprucefield to the Republic of Ireland, which has significantly improved access along the route to Belfast International Airport as well as to George Best Belfast City Airport. Accessibility to Belfast International Airport through Belfast has also been significantly improved following completion of the M1/Westlink and M2 works. Major dualling schemes are also planned for substantial sections of the A6 between Londonderry and Randalstown and for the A26 between Coleraine and Ballymena. That will provide greater accessibility for passengers travelling to Northern Ireland’s three main airports.

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to include an upgrade of the link to Belfast International Airport from the M2 in the roads programme. However, that can be reviewed when funding levels next permit an expansion of the roads programme.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer and look forward to that link between Belfast International Airport and the M2 being upgraded one day. Similarly, though, will he expand on the concerns for George Best Belfast City Airport and how he assesses the future for links to that airport?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. Roads Service has proposals to improve the A2 Sydenham bypass to provide three traffic lanes in each direction over a 2·5 km length between Tillysburn junction and the M3. That proposed improvement is an upgrade to the strategic highway network and provides improved access to George Best Belfast City Airport. As I stated in my original answer, passengers travelling to Belfast City Airport have also benefited from improvements to the A1 and, in future, will benefit from the proposed schemes on the A6 and A26.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. What assessment has been carried out on rail connections to any of the North’s three airports?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. The issue of a rail link has been considered over many years, certainly well before my involvement as Minister for Regional Development. A study undertaken as far back as 2006 on extending rail links to Belfast International Airport concluded that it would not be economically viable. It is estimated that passenger numbers at the airport would have to double from their current level for that to change. I am not aware of similar studies undertaken in respect of the other two airports, but we will check that and get back to you.

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

Pursuant to the last question, surely the issue of the report being accurate has to be raised because the railway runs along the end of the runway at Aldergrove airport and, therefore, it should not be wildly expensive to put a halt on it. It may be more expensive, though, to have adequate numbers of trains running. Worse than that, we have a railway line running beside the City Airport and —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I think the Member has asked his question.

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

Why can we not get a proper halt adjacent to the City Airport rather than two halts, one half a mile each side of the airport?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. The question that he poses has been reflected upon and considered. There are issues of costs and economic viability. Whilst it would be very desirable to have rail links to all Northern Ireland’s airports, the economics of it at this point simply do not stack up. The pragmatic arrangements of linking the road network effectively and safely into the strategic road network also provide additional concerns.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development how many pelican crossings across Northern Ireland are not functioning properly. (AQO 2242/11-15)