Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 June 2013

395 contributions from 53 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. We visited Beijing last week at the invitation of Vice-Premier Madam Liu Yandong. This followed her successful visit to Belfast last April. Since her visit, Madam Liu Yandong has been promoted to vice-premier of the People's Republic of China, with overall responsibility for education, health, culture, science and technology. We were delighted to be able to secure a meeting with her, and, in fact, we were the first Ministers from this part of the world whom Madam Liu Yandong has agreed to meet since her promotion.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank president Li and her colleagues from the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries for their hospitality and for helping to manage the diplomatic protocols involved in Government-to-Government visits. The association is also responsible for identifying and inviting foreign Governments and Ministers to China as part of a long-term relationship.

During our meeting, president Li issued an invitation to our Minister for Agriculture, Michelle O’Neill, to lead a delegation to an invitation-only Sino-European conference in China later this year. Members will be aware that there is enormous potential for our agrifood sector and agricultural sciences in China, and we see this as an important step in the process of getting our goods and services into China.

The visit also enabled us to build on our successful visit to Shanghai and Hong Kong last November and has left the Chinese authorities in no doubt as to our commitment to building and maintaining a strong relationship with their country. It was also a pleasure to renew our friendship with Madam Liu Yandong and to open up discussions in her new role as vice-premier. At our meeting, the vice-premier confirmed that the Chinese Government welcomed our visit last November and viewed this as a strong commitment by us to developing a mutually beneficial relationship with China. It was also confirmed that China would respond positively and practically to this commitment. A number of areas were discussed, including trade and investment, education exchanges, health, science and sustainable development partnership work. We will discuss the opportunities in these sectors with the Ministers responsible and agree on how they can best be developed.

Our talks confirmed that China wants to see a strong relationship developing with us and that we should be more active in promoting trade, agrifood, tourism, education and technology partnerships. China is such a vast country, and its new Government are pursuing a policy of expanding the country’s economic growth and urbanisation to other regions. We have been asked to consider how we might get involved with some of those regions.

We had discussions about a focused regional partnership with a number of specific regions, and we will continue those conversations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also discussed the potential for opening a bureau representing our Executive in Beijing, and we will explore that with Executive colleagues in the near future.

We met the deputy foreign affairs Minister, Song Tao, who also confirmed that our visit in November was seen as a demonstration of our desire to build a mutually beneficial relationship with China. He confirmed that China, in turn, values that relationship and wants to make progress towards a number of pragmatic exchanges. Minister Song was aware of the peace and political process that we have been through here. He outlined one of the Chinese Government’s foreign relations commitments to building a peaceful world, encouraged us to continue to share our experience with other countries and regions and said that China wanted to hear more about that work in the future. Our talks also considered a range of other issues, including political development, the economy, culture and security. That, again, highlighted the many regions in China with different characteristics and opportunities for future work.

A key focus of our future work with China will be to promote economic benefits, and we met the director general of the Ministry of Commerce, Sun Yongfu. We discussed a number of issues, including removing barriers and bureaucracy in trade, which would lead to economic benefits and jobs that, in turn, would help to improve relations between countries and regions.

China is an important and growing export market for our local companies. This market is currently worth in excess of £110 million to us in exports by companies to China, and it sustains valuable employment. China spends trillions of dollars on importing goods and services, and we are, therefore, determined to increase our levels of trade, increase our share of the market and raise our profile there generally.

At our meeting with director general Sun, a number of sectors were identified as being of particular interest, including agrifoods, animal husbandry, food safety, software, engineering and services. We are also looking at investment, and we have invited the Ministry to consider bringing potential investors to Belfast later this year or early next year. There are also now over 80 million Chinese tourists each year, and we need to get more of them to visit us here. That means that we have to be more proactive in creating awareness and in promoting our brand in China in the future.

Education is important in developing links with countries and has the potential to contribute to our economy, technology and health objectives. We met the Minister of Education, Yuan Guiren, and we know that there are around seven million Chinese university students keen to study abroad. We discussed how we could attract more of them to come and study here. We have two internationally renowned universities, and we want to help them to get more access to Chinese overseas scholarships. The Minister also stressed China’s desire to get more people to acquire vocational skills and said that they were very interested in the work of our colleges here. Our education system is something that China has started to examine and wants to learn more about. I believe that we can facilitate that with an expansion in education exchanges.

Throughout our discussions with Ministers, it was made clear to us that China needs to know more about what we can offer. We need to do more to get our message out in China. That requires Ministers and other stakeholders to visit China about specific issues and to try to get some of the 80 million Chinese tourists who travel the world to visit us, to get more of the $50 trillion the Chinese spend on imports and to attract some of its $9 billion in overseas investment. We are determined to continue working with the Chinese Government and their officials to ensure that we can capture a significant slice of those markets. Following our visit, we are encouraged by the growing relationship that we have with China. We hope to further that relationship, and we will discuss with our Executive colleagues the possibility of opening a bureau in Beijing and developing regional links for future trade opportunities.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the deputy First Minister for a detailed and very positive account of the trip. I also assure him that there will be at least one Executive Minister who will enter those discussions on the possibility of opening a bureau in a very positive frame of mind. Perhaps the Minister could expand his thoughts on that bureau — budgets, timing, personnel and potential impact on Programme for Government targets.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that all Members here, particularly those who have travelled to Washington, where we have a bureau, and to our office in Brussels, appreciate the importance of having those facilities, not just for the purposes of Members from here who are visiting but for building up important contacts in the United States and in Brussels. Given that it is accepted that China is an economic powerhouse and will probably, in a few years' time, be the largest economy in the world, it would be absolutely remiss of us not to consider the opportunity of having a similar establishment — a bureau — in Beijing. The First Minister and I, who were accompanied on our visit by junior Minister Bell, have had our own discussions about how essential we view it to be. We are tasking our officials to deal with all the issues that you correctly raised in your question in relation to personnel, funding, cost and premises. That work will be taken forward in due course.

One thing is absolutely certain: this is a vital step to take. In our relationships with Madam Liu Yandong, it was clear that she was very deeply affected by her visit here last year. She was the person who invited us to go back. During our meeting, which was supposed to have lasted something like 50 minutes but in fact lasted nearly an hour and 20 minutes, it was clear that the woman is very focused and engaged. She made what, we think, are some important suggestions about how we can further strengthen relationships, and we will explore those, particularly in the context of the Chinese Government's determination to invest large amounts of funding into areas in the north-east of China, some of which, she actually suggested, it would be good for us to partner with. A bureau would be vital in taking that work forward.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement he has made. I think we all realise that the potential opportunities in China are enormous for a small country such as ours. He referred to the possibility of opening a bureau in Beijing, and we already have a holding in Shanghai. Will the deputy First Minister look at other out-offices, if they are necessary, in such a vast country, so that Northern Ireland may further benefit?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, we have been very proactive in Shanghai through Invest over the last number of years. The Member is absolutely right: China is a huge country. For example, one of the provinces that were mentioned to us by Madam Liu Yandong that, she believed, we should focus on has a population of something like 60 million people. The scale of that is absolutely enormous. We are very confirmed in our view that the next first step has to be to explore, as quickly as possible, the prospects for opening a bureau in Beijing. From the implementation and setting up of that we can then take forward an exploration of, first, who will man or woman that office and who will take forward the work of exploring the opportunities that clearly are there in different regions of China in a much more joined-up way.

I know that some commentators have been critical of the visits to China, but one thing is absolutely certain: if you do not go there, you do not count. When we were there it was obvious that there is a massive focus from Europe on getting into China and getting a foothold. Of course, we learned while we were there that the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, is due to visit in a couple of weeks' time. Everybody is focused on the opportunities. As the Chinese said to us, what they were impressed with was the fact that, after going to Shanghai and Hong Kong last year, we actually went back again this year. It is only then, when you continue to visit and build up relationships, that you are taken seriously. That will be very important work, but the next big step for us is to open up the bureau and then explore the opportunities in other parts of China.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an LeasChéad Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the deputy First Minister for that statement. As someone who has visited China, I know that there is huge potential for the North and, indeed, the 32 counties of Ireland for markets and for increasing our trade.

You mentioned the agrifood industry. Marketing is a very important part of that, and, with Ireland having such a clean, green image, will you elaborate on that? It would be useful for the Assembly to hear about it.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Everybody here knows how important the agrifood industry is. It is a hugely important part of our exports, and we have big potential for developing that further. The recent announcement by our Agriculture Minister and our Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment at the RUAS Balmoral show that they hoped to increase the number of people working in the agrifood industry by something like 15,000 over the coming years clearly shows that the industry is up and running big time and is one of the big successes of what is a central plank of building our economy.

We discussed that with Madam Liu Yandong and spoke about the prospects for imports of milk products, chicken and agricultural services such as animal husbandry and food safety. We were delighted that, at our first meeting in Beijing with the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, an official invitation was handed across the table to us for our Agriculture Minister to visit for the purpose of a very important Sino-European conference that is taking place in September.

China also places a huge emphasis on food safety. We emphasised our commitment to public health protection through the collection of accurate food chain information and the implementation of food hygiene regulations in meat plants and cold stores. Not so long ago, as Members may recall if they cast their mind back, there was a massive food scandal in China around the issue of powdered milk for babies, which had profound implications for babies' health in China. This is an area in which we have a particular expertise, and we want to interest the Chinese authorities in it.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an LeasChéad-Aire chomh maith. I thank the deputy First Minister. I wished him and the First Minister well when they went on their trip, and I hope that it proves productive and fruitful, particularly for our export markets.

The deputy First Minister and the First Minister met Director General Sun Yongfu to discuss removing barriers to and bureaucracy in trade, which could lead to economic benefits and jobs. What might those barriers and difficulties be? Are they at this end or at their end?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is clear from the discussions that we had with the people at the Ministry of Commerce that the major barriers are at their end. We want to explore with them, over the coming period, how we can deal with the standards that they have put in place for food imports.

Our big focus has to be on ensuring that we move forward in a way that meticulously examines the difficulties that are presented by the standards that they deploy, not just for food products coming from here but from other destinations throughout the world. It is obvious that the Chinese authorities, in recognising that links between us can be further strengthened by increasing imports, particularly of an agrifood nature, know that there are issues that currently prohibit the importation of some food products to China. We want to explore what those are, what the difficulties are and how we can dismantle some of the barriers. In the conversations that we had, there was an openness to exploring that with us.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

In what way will improved links between universities in Northern Ireland and China help to develop our economy? Have the First Minister and deputy First Minister raised with the Chinese Government any concerns about human rights and religious freedoms in China?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members are aware that, when Madam Liu Yandong came here last year and started her world tour in the North of Ireland, that was a very significant decision on her part. It sent a very important message to us, as did the visit by the then vice-president of the People's Republic of China, new President Xi. On her visit, her big focus was on education and on increasing relationships between Queen's University, the University of Ulster and Chinese universities.

A very large number of Chinese students are educated at Queen's University and the new University of Ulster. All of that enhances and undoubtedly brings much-needed funds into the universities and is, therefore, very important to the economy of university life. The opportunities presented by the opening of the Hanban/Confucius Institute at the University of Ulster are apparent to all of us. The Chinese are very conscious that, in Europe generally, there is a big debate around the teaching of foreign languages in schools, particularly at primary school level; that is no less true here. In the last while, increased interest has been generated in all our schools in the need to teach Chinese, given the importance of the Chinese language to world trade and so forth.

I was able to inform the Chinese authorities that my grandson, who is 14 years of age, is due to go to China in July with a cross-community football team that takes in a school from Coleraine and his own school in Derry city. The opportunities for building educational links are clearly there. It is obvious that the Chinese recognise the importance of the Chinese language being taught in our schools not just at secondary but at primary level. We are exploring further opportunities with the authorities of Queen's University and the new University of Ulster along with the Hanban Institute. There will be a debate about how we can further accelerate the teaching of Chinese in our schools, because the opportunities that that presents for young people to get jobs and do business in China are there for all to see.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Many thousands of Chinese visitors and tourists come to the United Kingdom, particularly London, throughout the year. Will any steps be taken, through Visit Britain and the United Kingdom tourism agencies, to ensure that, when those people come to London, they also come to Northern Ireland?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is an important point. I outlined the figures in my statement: each year, something like 83 million Chinese people travel overseas and spend huge amounts of money. There is an opportunity for all tourist organisations, including Tourism Ireland, to attract the Chinese to this part of the world. That is something that we are very focused on and will further discuss with the relevant Departments. We are agreed that we need to do more. The Titanic brand, for example, is huge in China, but not a lot of people in China would know that the Titanic was built in Belfast. Madam Liu Yandong was deeply affected by her visit to the new centre in Belfast and to the Giant's Causeway. It is clear that she is prepared to assist us in the promotion of these important tourist attractions.

I did not answer the second part of Chris Lyttle's question on human rights. During the meeting, that issue was raised by us in relation to the Dalai Lama and human rights generally. It will not come as a surprise to anybody in the House that the Chinese Government representatives are very assertive about their independence and how they handle those matters. However, we felt that it was our duty to raise those matters during our serious attempt to build up important relationships. We also raised those issues during Madam Liu Yandong's visit last year. The First Minister and I had discussions with her, and the First Minister raised the issue of religious freedoms. The opportunity was presented to her to explain what China was doing on many of these matters.

It is obvious that Chinese society is opening up to the world, given the number of people who visit there. It is absolutely spectacular to see what is happening in places such as Shanghai and Beijing and the commitment of the Chinese Government to ensuring that the growth that they are experiencing can be used to bring people out of poverty, particularly in areas outside the big centres. They make a very stout defence of all that. What we have to do and, no doubt, what other leaders do when they visit is to build up economic and important political relationships that will lead to the recognition that there is a big world out there that places great emphasis on the need for the protection of human rights.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an LeasChéad-Aire as an ráiteas sin. I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. What trade links with China have improved since your trade mission in November?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The food and drink trade mission in November was hugely important. The First Minister and I, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Agriculture Minister visited the Food Hotel China exhibition. The return of that will be in November 2013. The eight exhibitors at Food Hotel China 2012 reported potential sales of over £8 million from the event. All are now actively pursuing those opportunities, including plans to appoint distributors and to set up sales offices in China. Several companies returned to the market to follow up leads, and work is ongoing with the Invest office in Shanghai, which is seen by businesses as having a pivotal role in developing those opportunities. It is also important to stress that businesses — some 350 businesses have visited China in recent years — consistently make the point that ministerial involvement with China boosts their prospects of increasing trade. We ignore that sentiment from the business community at our peril. They believe that, if Ministers support their work, they are taken much more seriously. That was clear during our visits to Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I congratulate the two Ministers on their success in gaining access to the top politicians in China and the opportunity to discuss a range of issues with them.

There is still a barrier for Chinese visitors in coming to Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and it is because we are not in the EU common visa system. Has the deputy First Minister or have the Executive had discussions with Westminster about joining that system? If not, Chinese visitors will come to the Europe and go to a number of countries and leave out the UK because they will have to apply for an extra visa.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you for your question. The Member's name came up once or twice during our visit, because we are very proud that somebody who comes from China is part of our Assembly. We made that point on a number of occasions. They were surprised to hear that, but it was a source of great pride for us to be able to say that you are a Member of the Assembly.

As I said, 83 million Chinese people travel overseas each year and, in doing so, spend something like $1·3 billion. We would like some of that spend each year. Britain and Ireland were granted approved destination status in September 2004 and July 2005 respectively, and that allows Chinese tourist groups to travel for leisure purposes. A UK tourist visa from China costs £84, and a Schengen visa, which covers 27 countries, costs £50. Processing time for a UK visa is approximately 15 days, and a Schengen visa takes five to 10 days. The visa waiver scheme introduced by the Irish Government in 2011 has made access to Ireland much simpler and less expensive for those Chinese visitors who already hold a valid short-term visa for the UK under the scheme. They therefore no longer need a separate visa. To attract further tourists, we, too, absolutely need to consider further what more needs to be done to make access to our part of the world easier for Chinese tourists.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on maintaining very strong focus in this area. The deputy First Minister mentioned the focus of the Scottish Government. What is the scale and extent of the Irish Government presence and engagement there? My question is informed by the Brussels experience, where the Irish Government have a very significant lobbying presence.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It will not come as any surprise to the Member to hear that the Irish Government also have a very significant presence in China, and Enterprise Ireland has been working away with huge success, I think, in China in recent years. We are very fortunate that Michael Garvey, who has now joined our operation in China, has had the experience of working extensively with Enterprise Ireland, and the wealth of knowledge that he will bring to our operation there will be invaluable. We had a lot of very detailed discussions with the Irish ambassador to China and the British ambassador. Declan Kelleher, who is currently the Irish ambassador — although he is due to move shortly to take up an ambassadorial position in Brussels — was very helpful in giving us his sense of what works and does not work when building relationships in China. It suffices to say that our difficulty is that, for many years, the relationships with China were handled by the British Government in London. The First Minister and I have decided, with the support of our Executive colleagues, that we need to visit those places and not leave it to others to speak on our behalf, or perhaps not speak on our behalf, as may be the case in some circumstances. In that regard, we are playing catch-up to the Irish Government operation, and the lessons that we have learnt in our recent visit will stand us in good stead as we further develop our relationships. That is why we think that the establishment of a bureau in Beijing will be of huge importance and will send a very powerful statement to the Chinese Government that we are there to stay, not just as people who are visiting but as people who want to do business with them, and we will speak for ourselves, as opposed to having others speak, or not speak, for us.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement and his answers so far. He has already touched on it, but will he expand a bit on the good work that the Confucius Institute at the University of Ulster does in expanding the links across the world between Northern Ireland and China?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I and junior Minister Bell visited the headquarters of the Confucius Institute in China, the Hanban institute. It was absolutely enlightening to see the way in which it is developing relationships not only with this part of the world but with many other regions throughout Europe and other parts of the world. It recognises the importance of education and understands the importance of cultural links.

It was obvious from Madam Liu Yandong's very successful visit to the University of Ulster at Jordanstown, which was attended by the First Minister and me, that it places a huge emphasis on education and on the teaching of the Chinese language. As we go forward, we will increasingly recognise, through the establishment of a bureau in Beijing, the importance of strengthening our relationships on all fronts, not only in the agrifood sector and by political links but, vitally, in the context of education. It is obvious that the links, particularly with the University of Ulster, both at Magee and Jordanstown, can be further strengthened and built upon.

It was very interesting for me to learn that the Hanban and Confucius approach is not just about building relationships with the universities. Yes, that is a big priority and a big focus, but their big priority is getting people to recognise the importance of teaching Chinese at primary-school level and at secondary level in schools. They absolutely understand that, when people go to China, it is much easier for them to communicate if they can do so in the Chinese language.

The other interesting fact was that, in the meetings that the First Minister and I were involved in with the different agencies, interpreters were there. Even though some of the Ministers we were speaking to had very good English, they insisted on speaking in their first language. So, this is about culture and their traditions and the way that they do business, and there was an important lesson for us in that in so far as we, increasingly, have to recognise that, if we want to trade with China on the level that we wish to do so, we really need to ensure that, in the time ahead, our education system meets the needs of businesses that will go there.

China is a vast country, and it is one that you have to get to know. You have to recognise the traditions that are there. The Chinese place a great emphasis on personal relationships. For them, it is about family. They like to speak about their family and ask about yours. I suppose that it is much like what happens in the United States of America, where we are told that, increasingly, most business carried out by top executives is done on the golf course and not in the executive rooms.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I apologise for missing the beginning of the statement. Given the sheer vastness of China compared with Northern Ireland, can the deputy First Minister give details of any discussions that took place about building regional links outside Beijing and Shanghai?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely. One of the most interesting aspects of our meeting with the deputy premier, Madam Liu Yandong, was her focus on the areas outside Beijing and Shanghai. As I said earlier in an answer to another question, she placed a particular focus on three provinces in the north-east, one of which she mentioned specifically and has a population of something like 60 million people.

So I think she is very keen and interested to have us focus our attention on those three provinces. She made that point particularly in the context of making it clear that the Chinese Government were going to put huge investment into areas that they consider in need of extra support in the time ahead. The argument was that we should be building our links with those areas and that business opportunities would present themselves as a result. So the answer is yes, and the area that she focused on was the north-east of China, and three provinces in particular.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Improving our trade links with China is something in which I declare a personal interest. It is the largest pork-eating country in the world and, almost two years ago, we in Northern Ireland exported half an aeroplane full of live pigs to China on account of the excellent genetics of those animals. However, leaving that personal story aside, the deputy First Minister talked about the huge potential for exports to China. Will he confirm whether any targets will be set for such exports in the near future?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The target is to dramatically increase what we export. Over the course of 2010-11 and 2011-12, we exported something in the region of £230 million worth of goods. Obviously, we want to increase that total. It would be wrong for me to say that we will set a particular percentage as a target, but given that we are in our infancy in building international political and business relationships at governmental level, it would be fair to say that, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, we might be in a position to set a target.

As the Member well knows, the difficulty about setting targets — this is probably the reason why the question was asked — is that if you set the target and do not reach it, you will be open to criticism in this House. However, it is a fair question, and given that we are looking to increase trade between our part of the world and China, we certainly want to increase very substantially the exports that we send there, compared with the past couple of years. However, £230 million is a huge amount of money. The more that we export to China, the more jobs there will be here.

Executive Committee Business

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

I beg to introduce the Carrier Bags Bill [NIA 20/11-15], which is a Bill to amend the Climate Change Act 2008 to confer powers to make provision about charging for carrier bags; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Members may take their ease for a few moments while we make a change at the Table.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill [NIA 12/11-15] do now pass.

I begin by paying tribute to the staff of the House, particularly those in the Bill Office and Legal Services, and the parliamentary draughtsmen for the exceptionally efficient and professional way in which they performed their duties in respect of the Bill.

Whatever happens with the Bill, I have acquired a very high regard for the work level, ethic and sheer professionalism of the Bill Office staff and those involved in those matters. In the almost two years or so that this Bill has been in the offing, I still have no idea of what the personal view of any of the staff that I engaged with is on the merits or otherwise of this Bill, and that is how it should be. They have conducted themselves in an exclusively and entirely professional manner. I want to pay tribute to their expertise and the manner in which they shared and dealt with that. In one sense, it may not have been the easiest of tasks because they were dealing with an MLA who felt he knew something about the law and who had certain ideas about how certain clauses should be expressed and what words should be used, but they were very gentle with me. They nudged, edged and cajoled in the direction of the wording that was appropriate to all parliamentary expectations. A very sincere word of thanks to the staff.

I also thank Members from different parts of this House who have assisted in getting the Bill to this point. I am very conscious that I am but a single voice in this House. I am very conscious that others do not share my politics, and it is a tribute to Members that so many rose above that to address the principles and the aspirations of this Bill and to see it thus far. I trust today to see it to its ultimate destination of moving on to the statute book. I sincerely want to thank Members of this House for the gracious manner in which they have dealt with this proposal and for the support, even on some very protracted and tedious voting sessions at various stages, which seemed to go on forever. I want to place on record my appreciation in that regard.

Much of the public focus on this Bill has centred, perhaps predictably, on the content of clauses 2 to 5, but I want to take a moment to remind the House that this Bill does significantly more than is contained in those clauses. The Bill also introduces other innovations relevant to special advisers that I think will make good law.

I will just say a word about the relevance and significant part of special advisers (SpAds). They are in a unique position in the governmental arrangements in that, whereas they acquire the status of senior civil servants — and salaries and pensions to match — none of them, by virtue of the special arrangements, is appointed on the merit principle that applies to appointments to the Civil Service. That is not to say that some and many of them are not meritorious; that is to say a fact, that they are not subject to the merit principle in their appointments. To date, there has been no proper statutory regulation in respect of special advisers such as I think the public in general would expect, so I think it is right that clause 6 of this Bill introduces the requirement, which exists elsewhere in regards to special advisers, that the Department of Finance should annually produce a report on the number and cost of special advisers, because they are, of course, all publicly paid from taxpayers' money. I think that it is right — indeed, I have heard no one dissent in respect of clause 6 — that the public are entitled to know how many special advisers there are and what they cost the public purse.

I think that it is also right that clause 7 should put their code of conduct on a statutory basis and that it should form part of their terms and conditions of employment. I equally think that clause 8 is necessary to put their code for appointments on a statutory basis and to require all to be subject to vetting. Those are valuable, necessary steps taken in the Bill to add to the transparency and the accountability that would be expected in respect of individuals holding such public posts.

We then, Mr Speaker, have clause 9, which removes the anomaly whereby you, Sir, have the right to appoint a special adviser. I say "anomaly" because since the Assembly Commission introduced the office of adviser to the Speaker, a post engaged and employed by competition on merit, the justification and the need for a Speaker-appointed political special adviser has evaporated and it has been defunct in consequence of that. However, if we are looking at the subject, it is right that we remove that anachronism; hence, we have clause 9. Again, I heard no one dissent from any of that during the passage of the Bill.

I turn now to the clauses that have attracted public attention — clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5. Fundamentally, the Bill is about righting a great wrong. Those who agree and those who disagree with the Bill know that the appointment of Mary McArdle in 2011 caused great public unease for many, great disquiet and great debate but, above that, great hurt in particular to the family of her victim. She — Miss McArdle — would be convicted for her part in the murder of the gentle Mary Travers as she came out of her place of worship on a Sunday morning as an attempt was made to wipe out all the family who were present, presumably because her father had dared to serve in a public duty post as a magistrate in this land. This House knows and this community knows that that appointment, gratuitous, selective and deliberate as it was, caused immense hurt, anxiety, and re-traumatisation for the Travers family. Therefore, the Bill is about the very simple message that, in respect of such families, never again will such re-traumatising of a victim's family be permitted.

The Bill, first and foremost, is about righting that wrong and about saying that never again should it happen to anyone else. It does that by declaring, in the opening subsection of clause 2:

"Subject to subsection (2) and section 3, a person is not eligible for appointment as a special adviser if the person has a serious criminal conviction."

Serious criminal conviction is, of course, defined in clause 5 as meaning the application of a sentence of five or more years.

The Bill initially stopped there, but the Bill, in its final form, does not stop there. The Bill now embraces points of concern that were raised from legal commentators, from politicians, and from those who sifted and explored the Bill at various fora, not least in the Committee for Finance and Personnel in this House. The Bill, therefore, has imported, through clauses 3 and 4, what could be called appeal mechanisms for anyone affected who finds that they have a serious criminal conviction but already holds or aspires to hold the position of a special adviser. It affords, through an appeal to an independent panel established by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the right to be heard and the right to make their case within the criteria set out in clause 3. If dissatisfied with that outcome, in consequence, they have a further right of appeal to the High Court.

Those are important provisions in the Bill, and those provisions are there to stretch to meet points that were raised in the discussion and debate of the Bill. They set criteria that, I think, are fair and are good law. They say to someone, whether they are a rapist, a fraudster or a convicted terrorist, that if they expect to hold that very special position at the top and heart of government, public society expects that, in respect of their crime, they will have regret and remorse and will show contrition. They will have assisted police as a token of that in the solving of those crimes, and their victims will have a say, as they ought to have, on the fact that they are to be elevated on taxpayers' money to such a unique and pivotal role as that of a special adviser. I suggest that that is a balanced, rational and reasonable approach.

I will move now to refute some of the gross misinformation and falsehoods peddled in respect of this Bill. Indeed, in recent days, in shrill desperation, particularly from Sinn Féin, we have seen an increase in the peddling of those falsehoods. One of them is that the Bill is not compliant with human rights law. Well, there is an answer from a far better source than me in that regard, and that comes from the Attorney General. He raised issues that I listened to and responded to. The nature of that response gave rise to his letter of 22 May, which I want to read into the record. In response, he said to me:

"I expressed some concerns to the DFP Committee when I spoke about the Bill as first introduced, particularly in the context of article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I see from the Further Consideration debates and from some comments in the press that it may be thought that those concerns still exist. It is important, therefore, that my views on the Bill in its present form are clearly understood."

He goes on:

"As a result of the amendments made during its passage and, in particular, the existence of an appeal mechanism, which breaks the inevitable and fixed link between an historic conviction and an adverse consequence for employment, I am content that the Bill in its present form would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. You will appreciate that my views on competence are not to be construed as a statement of whether or not the Bill is, in policy terms, a good idea or not. This is, of course, the central issue, which is properly a matter for the Assembly."

On the issue of the Bill's compliance with human rights expectations, however, the Attorney General could not be clearer. Given his powers under section 11 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to refer to the Supreme Court any legislation that he has concerns about in that regard, it is quite clear from that letter that he has no such concerns and will, therefore, be making no such referral.

I trust that that letter is a considerable comfort to those who genuinely raised issues of human rights compliance. Some raised them not as genuine concerns, I suspect, and to them, doubtless, the letter is but a paper exercise. To those who genuinely raised concerns, I trust that that letter will properly help to allay those concerns and enable them to see the Bill in its proper light.

We had it peddled that the Bill will open the door to the persecution of former prisoners in teaching, nursing and doctors' jobs — in a whole raft of publicly paid positions. That is utterly, indisputably wrong. The Bill applies exclusively and only to SpAds, a coterie of 19 people. It has no application, can have no application and will have no application to anyone working as a nurse, a doctor, a teacher or anything else. In an attempt to defame the Bill, that is the sort of nonsense that has been spread about. I want to nail that firmly today.

I heard it mentioned on public radio that a Mr Thompson — not the broadcaster but another gentleman — said that the Bill did not apply to convicted soldiers. If a soldier served only two years — I think that there was mention of the name of Private Thain and others — the Bill would not apply to them. That is absolute nonsense. The touchstone and test is not the amount of time that you serve but the sentence that was bestowed on you. If the sentence was five years or more, whether you are a terrorist, a soldier, a rapist or anyone else, the Bill applies to you as a serious criminal. So, let us dispense with that lie that was peddled about the Bill.

It was then said that the Bill discriminates against those whom they call ex-political prisoners. It does no such thing. The Bill applies to all and every serious criminal who obtained a sentence of five years or more, whether that person is a rapist, a fraudster or a terrorist. It applies equally, as it should, to all criminals.

Sinn Féin has, of course, shown itself to be concerned about only its own prisoner elite, as it has been rightly called. It is not this Bill that picks out Sinn Féin's prisoner elite for special attention. It is Sinn Féin's penchant for rewarding such terrorist convicts that makes them central through the publicity for the Bill. However, the Bill itself does none of that, because it applies — without discrimination and without distinction — to all serious criminals.

Of course, the real problem that Sinn Féin has with the Bill is that it cannot, and will not, accept that those who were convicted of terrorist offences were criminals at all. That is the real nub of the issue. The Bill, however, properly makes no such distinction. It says, "Whoever you are, whoever you were, whatever you were about, you are caught by the Bill if you breached the criminal law and obtained a sentence of five years or more." It is as simple as that.

It was said that the Bill is vindictive. No, it is not, Mr Speaker. It is not vindictive to say that serious criminals should not be employed out of the public purse in such pivotal, central roles. It would be unconscionable to say that they should be. I have heard no one say in any debate on the Bill that the rapist who violently violates a woman should be excused and elevated to a top post at the top and heart of government. I have heard no one say that. Sadly, however, I have heard people say that if you violate a woman — an innocent bystander — with the shrapnel of a bomb that rips her chest apart, and she dies, the person responsible can, and should, be elevated to the position of a SpAd. Mr Speaker, that the rapist and the terrorist should be elevated to such posts are both unconscionable propositions. That is the simple but fundamental and immutable truth to which the Bill clings, and it is the right thing to do. It is good law, I suggest, to say that.

How can it be right, in the name of conscience and all that is right, that those who are guilty of cold-blooded murder, for example, are to be rewarded with such a post by their political friends because they claim that it was done in pursuit of a political cause, but someone who is that rapist, that fraudster or that domestic killer is, by some different moral compass, to be excluded? If there is a moral compass at play, and there should be, it has to apply with equality and unanimity to all serious criminals. That is the case regardless of whether the person is someone who, for the pursuit of financial gain, kills, or whether the person is someone who lurks to pick up the guns after a murder and take them away, or whether the person is someone who sits and detonates a bomb in London and who was, in the words of the coroner, knowing, seeing and understanding of the fact that there were innocent bystanders who were going to be caught up in it. Whichever crime it is, it is a crime that deserves the same response. It is unconscionable to treat a crime differently.

Therefore, I have to say about Mr Paul Kavanagh — his "pity me" interviews in which he says that the Bill is vindictive and will rob him of his job — is that he is a man who robbed at least three human beings of their lives, including a woman who was out shopping and a young Irish lad who was walking past a barracks. The judge had this to say of Mr Kavanagh: he showed not a shred of compassion for his victims.

Some people would come to the House and say that it should make a special case for such people; that they should have a free pass to the top and to the heart of government, and that they should have access, as senior civil servants, to every paper, effectively, that a Minister sees; be party to every decision that a Minister makes, and give advice on all those issues. I will say it again: it is unconscionable that such people should be rewarded in that way, not because they are convicted of a particular crime, but because, like all the rest of those whom the Bill covers, they have been convicted of a serious criminal offence. That is the essence of the Bill.

I have heard it said that Jim Allister does not want prisoners to have jobs. That is not true. Prisoners can find jobs. They should find jobs. This particular coterie of highly paid, publicly funded jobs are not those to be tarnished by the presence of serious criminals. If Sinn Féin wants to employ such people, that is a matter for that party. Let it pay for them out of its own deep pockets. Do not let it expect and plead victimhood if it is denied the right to pay for them out of the public purse and pocket. Those people are no more entitled than the rapist, the fraudster or any other serious criminal.

I believe that the Bill is important for another reason. In its own way, it is a landmark in how it approaches and deals with victims. It affords victims the right to be heard. For the first time, it elevates their right to a platform on which account must be taken of them. It stems the tide that hitherto has flowed unrelentingly in favour of the prisoner elite. It is right that we should do that. I trust that the passage of the Bill today will mark a significant victory for innocent victims — all victims — and that, for once, we will see something done to stem the tide that hitherto has flowed so strongly in favour of the prisoner elite.

Legislation that is set by a moral compass and respects victims is good law. It is the constant pandering to the "pity me" refrain of the criminal that is bad. I trust not only that the House will respond by passing the Bill but that, in the future, we will build on this small step to honour and respect the innocent victim in our society. The Bill shows that we can move to address the needs of innocent victims, without the political world falling in. It is time to do more of that. I trust that the Bill will be a catalyst to that end. It is, in itself, the right thing to do.

I could not conclude without paying public tribute to an individual whose courage has been indescribable in the face of gross and crass insensitivity shown to her family. I refer to Ann Travers. With immense courage and disarming conviction, she took to the media when that gross appointment was made, and stood up tall and told it as it was. Particularly in recent days, she has been the object of some scurrilous abuse. It is no surprise where that came from. This House — this community — owes a huge volume of gratitude to Ann Travers, who has done more than most politicians to raise awareness of an issue. She stuck by it courageously and relentlessly, even in the face of great personal difficulties with her health. That is a badge of the integrity and strength of the lady. This House — this community — owes a tremendous debt to that lady, who spoke with such compelling candour, honesty and persistence on behalf of all innocent victims. That is why, outside this House, I have said that, whereas the Bill must officially be called the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill, I trust that, in common language, it will, if passed, become known as "Ann's law". That would be a tribute in itself to Ann Travers, her family and the tremendous courage that has been shown.

I commend Ann's law to the House.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak first as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which undertook detailed examination of the Bill at Committee Stage. In response to its call for evidence, the Committee received over 860 written submissions, which included over 830 signatories to an online petition opposing the Bill. Members heard from the Bill's sponsor on two occasions and received legal advice from Assembly Legal Services. Key stakeholders also gave evidence, including Department of Finance and Personnel officials, the Attorney General, NIACRO, the Commission for Victims and Survivors, the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission, Ann Travers, Coiste na nlarchimí, Tar Isteach, and a number of academic witnesses. Members also heard from Nigel Hamilton and the late George Quigley on the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister employment guidance on recruiting people with conflict-related convictions, which aims to fulfil commitments to ex-prisoners in the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement.

From the evidence provided, the Committee identified a number of key themes and issues, which were examined in the detail of our report. Those included the lack of an appeal mechanism; consideration of the needs of victims; compatibility with human rights requirements; commitments under the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement; and transparency on arrangements for special advisers. Unsurprisingly, there was no consensus in the evidence on the majority of those themes and issues. Similarly, the Committee failed to reach consensus on all the provisions of the Bill, as introduced to the Assembly, during its clause-by-clause scrutiny, with some clauses and the schedule being agreed on a majority basis.

Subsequent to the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, a number of amendments were made at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. It should be noted that the Committee has not had an opportunity to consider or reach a position on any of those amendments or on the Bill as it currently stands.

Speaking from a personal and party perspective, Sinn Féin opposes the Bill. It opposes the discrimination that it introduces. It opposes a man from Derry losing his job today because the SDLP wants to get one over on Sinn Féin. The SDLP supports this Bill. Last week's political car crash was nothing more than an attempt at posturing, and everybody knows that. The mask slipped yesterday. The leader of the SDLP stated that there is a hierarchy of victims. He said that the SDLP consulted victims, when it clearly did not. Clearly, it has consulted victims of the IRA — victims of republicans — but it did not consult with a number of victims' groups, including the victims of Bloody Sunday. Given all of that, when it comes to the SDLP, IRA victims are at the top of that hierarchy and everyone else comes second.

We have a petition of concern, and we have 29 signatures on it, and it is now with the Business Office. It is not too late to do the right thing, to stop this discrimination and to stop the undermining of the Good Friday Agreement. The public know that those against the Bill will sign the petition of concern. They know that those for the Bill will vote for the motion, and they know that those who abstain or vote against the Bill without signing the petition of concern are not really against the Bill and are posturing.

One thing you can be sure of, a Cheann Comhairle: we in this party will never give in to Jim Allister and the anti-agreement unionists who want to reintroduce conflict — who have reintroduced conflict, as we have seen on the television screens and heard on the airwaves in the past week, where victims have been set against victims. They set victims against ex-prisoners. That is what has taken place. Jim Allister wants to turn the clock back. That is why the SDLP should defend the Good Friday Agreement and stop this anti-agreement legislation.

Jim Allister first appeared at the Finance and Personnel Committee in September last year. This piece of work took up a lot of time and effort, and we should have been focused on other issues. We should have been focused on the economy, finance and the Civil Service rather than on a Bill that introduces discrimination.

At that session, Jim Allister made reference to NIACRO having flagged up that it was wrong to place these kinds of barriers. NIACRO was right. He also compared the Bill to the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1956. Mr Allister referred to a clerk who was in post and had a conviction before the Act was made and, under the law that was introduced, was disqualified from acting. However, this predated human rights legislation that has applied in more recent years.

Also at that session, Dominic Bradley referred to the argument that a wave of emotion is not a solid basis for bringing forward legislative change. That is also right. The implications for wider society need to be thought through.

Part of the Bill sponsor's rationale was that a special adviser is a high-profile position, but many of us could not name Nelson McCausland's special adviser, Edwin Poots's special adviser, Arlene Foster's special adviser or Alex Attwood's special adviser. If you were to ask members of the public, they would not know their faces or their names. It suited the political agenda to deem this "high profile".

It is the thin end of the wedge. If Jim Allister could get his way, he would try to send all the prisoners who were released under the Good Friday Agreement back to prison. That being the case, of course he would not mind if they lost their jobs as teachers, doctors, bus drivers, council workers or politicians. What if Jim Allister brought forward similar legislation that was aimed at Jennifer McCann, a political ex-prisoner, Raymond McCartney, a political ex-prisoner, Gerry Kelly, a political ex-prisoner, Pat Sheehan, a political ex-prisoner and Martin McGuinness, a political ex-prisoner?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Before the Member demonstrates his ignorance any further, is he not aware that all those matters are not within the ambit of legislation in this House? They fall within the ambit of Westminster legislation. Therefore, it would not be possible, no matter how inclined I might be, to take any of those steps in the House. So, perhaps the Member would like to desist from spinning a web that merely exposes the falsity of his position.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

The Member makes my point. If the House had the power to take away all those politicians who represent people in their communities, the Member would do it. We all know that. The Member has an unhealthy focus on Sinn Féin. He also has an unhealthy focus on trying to reintroduce conflict in our communities, and that needs to be opposed.

SDLP Members are so eager to get one over on us that they would facilitate the sacking of Sinn Féin members whom they work with. The SDLP meet and work with Paul Kavanagh. How many SDLP MLAs who would sack Paul Kavanagh today have sought his opinion and his views, even though they have worked with him for many years? Have they simply hidden away like they have from certain victims' groups over the past number of weeks?

The SDLP needs to think carefully about what it is about to do. Each SDLP MLA — I emphasise the word "each" — has an opportunity to stop discrimination being introduced in the House. This is Jim Allister trying to bring the old Stormont into the new Assembly and to reintroduce real discrimination. You do not sit on the fence when it comes to discrimination; you do not sit quiet. If you do, you facilitate discrimination. Once you facilitate discrimination, as it is proposed today, there is no opportunity to undo it.

The actions of each SDLP MLA will go on to the public record and will form the detail of the history of this place in future years. As a public representative, I certainly would not want my children and people in my community to come up to me in future years and ask why I stood back and did nothing whilst anti-agreement unionist politicians sacked somebody from Derry, simply on the basis —

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

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Yes.

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

Why did you vote against — Mr Speaker, may I ask why the Member voted against the retrospective amendments that were placed, if he is so adamant about sackings? Amendments were made. Amendments were on offer, and they were supported by Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party. The Member and all his crew voted against them. Surely to God, he owes us an explanation.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I will explain: it was because the Bill, as the SDLP would have amended it, would still have been prospective.

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

You voted for retrospective —

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Do you want me to answer the question? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order; the Member has the Floor.

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

He voted for retrospectivity.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

The Bill, as the SDLP would have changed it, would still have applied to political ex-prisoners, had they applied for a special adviser's post. So, it would still have been retrospective. It would not have been retrospective for Paul Kavanagh and his post, but it would still have facilitated discrimination, and we do not vote for discrimination. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not debate across the Chamber; let us have it through the Chair.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Discrimination, a Cheann Comhairle, touches a raw nerve within nationalism and republicanism. At the first Committee Stage appearance that he made, Jim Allister said that his Bill:

"is prospective; it is not retrospective."

But it is. Paul Kavanagh has already been appointed, so this will apply to past special adviser appointments as well as to future appointments. Jim Allister said that the Bill "bases new legal consequences" on "a past event". So the Bill is about going into the past, changing legal consequences and tailoring them in such a way that the effect, in reality, is on only republican ex-prisoners.

The Attorney General, to whom the Member referred, was also before the Committee in the early stages. He referred to Jim Allister's reliance on the prior legislation that I referred to, which removed employees already in post. He highlighted that such legislation predated the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular the provisions that deal with retrospectivity. The Attorney General's concerns, at that time, stemmed from article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He said:

"it prohibits an increase in penalty or the imposition of a heavier penalty than was available at the time."

And that still applies. A "heavier penalty" is being imposed on Paul Kavanagh by sacking him from his full-time job.

The Attorney General also said that you have to look at the Bill's "purpose and its severity". The purpose, he said, "does loom large" over the Bill. He continued by saying that it is based on the idea that a number of parties do not want certain people with convictions in the past being in this role.

There was also some discussion regarding the possible referral to the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General said of the Bill as it was then drafted:

"For the sake of argument, and just to illustrate the point, let us look at clause 3(2)(b). The Supreme Court might say that there is a problem with retrospectivity and take out the words 'before or'."

The Attorney General said:

"That would leave the clause reading: '(2) This section applies whether the person — (b) was convicted after the coming into operation of this Act.'."

He went on to say that if those changes were made — that is, were the Bill to be made to apply only to those convicted after the Act came into operation — it:

"might well be saved in European Convention terms."

That change was never made. There are still question marks over the Bill based on the comments of the Attorney General on the European Convention on Human Rights.

NIACRO also gave evidence to the Committee, represented by Pat Conway and Anne Reid. NIACRO's position is that people with convictions should not be discriminated against, especially with regard to access to employment. It promotes the principle and practice that employment aids resettlement and reintegration. The representatives said that people with conflict-related records should be considered separately from others. They referred to two pieces of legislation: the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NI) Order 1978 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order (NI) 1979. For over 20 years, NIACRO has argued that those two pieces of legislation should be reviewed because they are a barrier to resettlement. That is because they are open to interpretation by employers, usually in a negative way, and the list of excepted jobs has increased significantly. Very few conflict-related convictions are considered spent under those pieces of legislation.

In NIACRO's view, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's voluntary guidelines on recruiting people with conflict-related convictions have simply not worked, essentially because they are voluntary. The guidelines were supposed to be applied to conflict-related convictions. NIACRO made it clear that any such instrument for conflict-related convictions needs to be enacted in legislation. It is NIACRO's view that the Bill is potentially incompatible with section 75 and the Good Friday Agreement. NIACRO does not support the retrospective elements in the proposed legislation. Appointments should be made on the merit principle, and there should not be a blanket exclusion of any particular or specified group.

NIACRO also emphasised the need for a wider discussion about addressing issues of employment and conflict-related records, as happened in South Africa. The representatives said that, in any society emerging from conflict in which there are prisoners' issues, those issues need to be dealt with. They argued that, in any conflict, the issue of prisoners must be addressed, and not to do so does not assist in concluding the conflict, no matter where it is. It struck them that perhaps the Bill had been predicated on political opinion rather than on whether somebody presents a threat or a danger to society.

The Member for South Antrim Mitchel McLaughlin commented during that evidence session:

"It is conflict-related legalisation, and it represents the conflict continuing ... it is not an example of conflict resolution."

That is why the passing of the Bill should worry us all. People will be punished under the Bill on the basis of the findings and conclusions of a severely flawed legal system. The Bill legitimises the conclusions and findings of a system in the past that introduced internment, forced people to sign confessions for acts that they had nothing to do with and protected the RUC and the British Army from even receiving a sentence of five years or more. The SDLP is right — it is a flawed Bill — and it should block a Bill that legitimises the flawed justice systems of the past.

There is no mention in the legislation of unsafe and very dodgy convictions that have taken place. Many of the convictions to which the Bill will apply are still in the process of being overturned for being wrongful and false. I refer to the case of Charlie McMenamin, who was 16 when he was arrested at his home in Derry in March 1978 in connection with the killing of a police officer. He was questioned for two days without an adult or a solicitor present. He was forced to confess to conspiracy to murder, several firearms offences and membership of the youth wing of the IRA. He was beaten, threatened and kicked to the ground in order to secure that confession. A medical exam took place in the middle of that interrogation that showed that his hair had been ripped out — his hair had been ripped out — but the interrogation was allowed to continue. There was clear evidence of that in court. There was also clear evidence that he was 75 miles away when the incident occurred, but the prosecutors still pressed the charges.

Charlie McMenamin went to jail and got a record that, in later years, hindered him in finding employment. It was not until 2007, 27 years later, that the conviction was overturned in the courts. It might not have been overturned in the courts had Charlie McMenamin not pursued his case to overturn that miscarriage of justice. He could still have had that record hanging over him, and it would have applied under the Bill.

Eamonn MacDermott was arrested in 1977. He was abused and beaten, and he signed a confession because he was so desperate to end those beatings at the hands of the police. At the trial, the judge rejected his defence that the confession had been beaten out of him. He was jailed for life and served more than 15 years. If that case had not been quashed, Eamonn MacDermott would have been discriminated against under the Bill.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Surely the Member understands that clause 2, which uses the phrase "a serious criminal conviction", inevitably refers to an extant conviction. If a conviction has been overturned, a person does not have a conviction. The two gentlemen who were acquitted on appeal would be unaffected by the legislation because they do not have a serious criminal conviction.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

For 27 years, in the case of Charlie McMenamin, that would not have been the case. We know that there are still cases that have not been overturned. Therefore, the Bill will apply to those cases. The Bill, because it is reliant on the findings of a flawed legal system of the past, also ensures that those who fired the guns and killed 14 people on Bloody Sunday are not banned from being special advisers. The Bill protects those —

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

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Yes.

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

The Member talks about people being tortured and having confessions beaten out of them. People who were alleged to have been informers were found on the border with a black bin bag over their head, having been shot through the back of their skull. What appeals mechanism did they have?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I have made it clear that this conflict involved many parties — the UVF, the British Army — [Interruption.] Are you going to let me finish the point?

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

The IRA never murdered —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

There were many parties in the conflict; the IRA, the UVF, the UDA, the British Army, the RUC.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Do you condemn the IRA?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Do you condemn the RUC?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Do you condemn the IRA?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

There are those who sit in the Chamber who served in the RUC, the UDR and the British Army. Those organisations were part of the conflict.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Yes.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I had the honour to serve in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have never killed anybody. I do not have a conviction for killing anybody. However, the person who brought this whole thing about was there when Ms Travers's sister was callously murdered. She did it. She is guilty. She is guilty as sin. I, as a serving RUC officer, was very proud to serve in the RUC. Unlike some Members of the House, I say that I served in the RUC. I served in the RUC from 1977 until 2001. I am unlike some Members over there, who will not admit how long they served in the IRA. There are people sitting over there who know murderers who have never been convicted. Get your facts right. There are people sitting over there who know people who were killed and know who killed them. Get them to stand up and admit their deeds here today.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to examine the Member's comments. I, too, served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary for 30 years. I never murdered anyone, nor was I ever convicted of any offence. Some of the language that the Member has just used is deeply and grossly offensive. I ask you to examine that language, because I think that it is unparliamentary and not to be used in the House. I have served the House well in what I have had to do since I was elected to it. Mr Speaker, please examine those remarks as they are offensive to me, Mr Hussey and others in the House.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. Let me read the Hansard report and come back to the Member directly. Let me say to the whole House that we are getting slightly away from the Final Stage of the Bill. I ask Members to connect their remarks to the Final Stage of the Bill. As Members will know, I will allow them some latitude in and around all these issues. However, please let us get back to the Final Stage of the Bill. Members should make sure that they are able to connect whatever remarks they make in the House very clearly to the Final Stage of the Bill.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I say that because this Bill is aimed at republican ex-prisoners. [Interruption.] That is quite clearly the case.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber. Members should be reminded of the language that they use in the House, especially at the Final Stage of a Bill. Allow the Member to continue.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

No.

This Bill is aimed at republican ex-prisoners. Any time that you try to discuss wider victims issues concerning the RUC and the British Army, the response is, "Oh no. we cannot talk about that. The focus is on republican ex-prisoners." Is this the way to deal with our conflict and ensure that we do not return to conflict? No, it is not. We need a holistic solution that looks at the needs of victims as much as ex-prisoners. We need to find that agreement.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I will not take any more interventions, thanks.

The focus needs to be on that and not on one or two particular cases, although those cases are just as legitimate as any other.

Queen's and the University of Ulster gave evidence at Committee Stage. Rory O'Connell, one of those who gave evidence, discussed article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He said that people could regard the Bill as having an element of punishment in it and the purpose of retribution, and that that steers us back to a possible problem with article 7. There had been discussion about the right to seek employment and how that forms part of the right to a private life.

He said that the issue had become quite lively in the European courts and human rights case law. He said:

"The European Court of Human Rights' reasoning is that, for many people, the forum in which they develop relationships with others is, frequently, employment and to exclude people from wide areas of employment may affect their private life."

Reference was also made to the case of Cox v Ireland:

"people who had been convicted under the Offences Against the State Act in the Special Criminal Court could not be employed in the Civil Service for a period of seven years."

That was found to be a breach of a right in the constitution to earn a livelihood.

The Human Rights Commission had serious concerns regarding the European Convention on Human Rights and UN standards, stating that the European Court had said:

"the law should not exclusively serve the process of retribution or revenge."

The question was raised whether this was a retroactive penalty that would trigger violations of article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Professor O'Flaherty said:

"the key question is this: is the prohibition a penalty? If it is a penalty, we have a problem; there is a clear violation. Is the primary purpose or a prominent purpose of the prohibition punitive? If the answer is yes, articles 7 and 15 are engaged."

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

No.

The Human Rights Commission highlighted the United Nations document on the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners and quoted a paragraph from it:

"The duty of society does not end with a prisoner's release. There should, therefore, be governmental or private agencies capable of lending the released prisoner efficient after-care directed towards the lessening of prejudice against him [or her] and towards his [or her] social rehabilitation."

Professor O'Flaherty then said:

"So, you need to ask whether the Bill is consistent with the UN standard minimum rules".

It clearly is not. Clearly, there are question marks over the Bill. When I questioned the Human Rights Commission about the guidance from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, it was firmly of the belief that that guidance was compliant with international standards.

Ann Travers and Catherine McCartney gave evidence to the Committee. That was a very worthwhile and moving evidence session. Ann said that the first she heard about the special adviser's appointment was when a BBC researcher rang and asked her about it. It has had an impact on her health. Like many victims, of all groups involved in the conflict, Ann seeks the truth of what happened. There is only one way of doing that. Is it through this Assembly? Is it amongst all these parties? It needs to go somewhere else. There needs to be a truth commission. There needs to be an agreed way of dealing with these issues. Otherwise, the kind of legislation that Jim Allister has brought forward will come back again and again and will rake up old sores and wounds and create conflict and arguments between victims of different organisations during the conflict. That will go on and on and would not serve anyone any good at all. There needs to be genuine and full buy-in to such a process from the groups involved. That is a choice that we have: to take either a progressive or regressive approach to the past.

Nigel Hamilton and George Quigley came before the Committee. They discussed the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's guidance, which they were involved with. I had not met George Quigley before; he was a fascinating individual and a great thinker. I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation that he gave to the Committee. The Good Friday Agreement was the genesis of the guidance, as they said at the Committee, and it was based on the need to deal with ex-prisoner issues. Both men chaired a working party with representatives from loyalist and republican ex-prisoner groups, the trade unions, the CBI and Departments, especially the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Finance and Personnel. Both were surprised at the range of issues and blockages to reintegration. Ex-prisoners were not being accepted for jobs because they had a record; they could not get taxi licences; they could not adopt children; and they could not even get insurance for homes and businesses. There was no co-ordinated approach to the authorities and no co-ordinated effort by the authorities to address the need to integrate or reintegrate.

A task force was set up for the regeneration of greater Belfast, and it was chaired by John Simpson and Padraic White. It reported strongly that the ex-prisoner issue should be decisively tackled. That eventually led to the working group in question being set up. George Quigley was astonished that there were some 30,000 ex-political prisoners, and the figure could be higher. He said that, if you grossed that to include immediate family members, it would be over 100,000 people. I realise that that had to be a very important component of the peace process. He was impressed by the ex-prisoners and their obvious desire to move on and to contribute to shaping a new future for everybody. He summed it up very well. I will just quote this:

"So, I asked myself whether it was sensible to deny them the opportunity to contribute and whether it was reasonable for society to expect them to espouse peaceful democratic means to shape the future but, at the same time, refuse them any place in that future, assigning to them the role of permanently idle onlookers and outsiders with all that that would mean later for opportunities for their families and the next generation."

The work of that group resulted in the development of a principle ensuring that an ex-prisoner with a conflict-related offence will be able to compete with other applicants for employment on a totally level basis, with the employer making his or her decision solely on the basis of the applicant's skill and experience.

The OFMDFM guidance discusses what should happen if there were a conviction and the employer considered that it was or could be materially relevant and manifestly incompatible with the post in question. The guidance was very clear that the onus of proving material relevance lies with the employer. It also makes it clear that the seriousness of the offence is not in and of itself enough to make a conviction materially relevant. It also underlines that only in very exceptional circumstances will a conviction be relevant. George Quigley considered that a good, principled start in what he believed was a very important and necessary journey, and the Member's Bill undermines all that work.

In some areas where the conflict was particularly focused, the treatment of ex-prisoners is a very significant issue. George Quigley also discussed the issue of victims. He said:

"There are two issues to be dealt with in a very dedicated fashion in this society. First, what happens to the victims? I would argue that far too little has been done to deal with that question. It is absolutely scandalous that, at this stage, after the conclusion of the period of violence, we have still not addressed adequately the emotional or material needs of victims. Some cases are an absolute disgrace to our society. I think that that has got to be dealt with, just as much as any other issue. Secondly, there is the issue of ex-prisoners. I am not sure that bringing the two issues together helps the resolution of either."

He is right: not enough is being done for victims. That is a disgraceful situation, but bringing the two issues together in this way will set back our peace process. That is the aim and raison d'être of the sponsor of the Bill. It is to set back the peace process and to set back the Assembly. If we are to have a stable society, there are certain issues that we simply have to address. Both the issues of victims and of ex-prisoners are critical. How can we move forward in a way that results in the past never being repeated? That needs to be the key question, and there does not need to be conflict between addressing the issues of ex-prisoners and of victims.

We also had representation at Committee Stage from ex-prisoner groups and representatives. The ex-prisoner groups, of course, oppose the aims and objectives of this Bill. An Coiste and Tar Isteach urged the MLAs at the Committee not to support it, first, on the grounds of equality and citizenship and, secondly, on the grounds of a shared future. They emphasised this point: a shared future for everyone, including ex-prisoners. The Alliance Party recognised this point, and it voted to defeat this Bill at Second Stage. Judith Cochrane the Member for East Belfast rightly stated that no conventional senior civil servant would be comfortable with the power and status of a special adviser that is temporary compared with conventional Civil Service jobs. She said:

"as legislators, we must be careful about making law on the basis of an individual case." — [Official Report, Vol 77, No 6, p48, col 1].

That conclusion was spot on. She said:

"As we endeavour to move away from our dark past and seek to build a brighter future ... we will be faced with many issues that have the potential to cause hurt and pain, and legislation will not always be the answer. Instead, we, as elected Members, must be cognisant of the impact that our decisions may have and ensure that we approach matters sensitively and respectfully. It is for those reasons that we will not be supporting the Bill's passage". — [Official Report, Vol 77, No 6, p48, col 2].

She was right about the potential of this Bill to cause hurt and pain.

In the past week, we have seen victim argue with victim about this. Is the Bill worth that? Is the Bill worth a man being sacked, as will be the case? Of course not. In particular, victims of the British Army, of the RUC, of collusion and of British Government decisions have been hurt by this. The Bill is not holistic; it is focused on republicans. As Jim Allister said, he would prefer Paul Kavanagh to be in jail. He would get the Assembly to send all ex-prisoners back to jail if he could. In that same Second Stage debate, Steven Agnew of the Green Party said:

"the past cannot be allowed to be the shackles on the feet that lead us to the future. If we continually drag ourselves back into the debates of the conflict, that is precisely what we do." — [Official Report, Vol 77, No 6, p55, col 1].

Victims across the board were not consulted on this by the SDLP. It is quite clear that many victims of state violence were not consulted, and, therefore, their anger is understandable. Thomas Quigley of Tar Isteach was before the Committee. Tar Isteach is an ex-prisoners' group that was set up by ex-prisoners. It works in north Belfast with ex-prisoners, relatives of ex-prisoners, victims and the youth of that area. It services some of the most disadvantaged areas in the North. Ex-prisoners in Tar Isteach work in those areas to provide services on welfare rights and in regard to counselling and to provide youth programmes. They also work with former loyalist prisoners and the police. They make a positive contribution to their community and, therefore, to society. They also carry out a great deal of research. One piece of research found that 75% of the ex-prisoners that they work with are victims themselves. They have had relatives — mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters — killed by state forces or loyalists. They have come through conflict, and now they want to improve society. They want to work for their communities and to play a positive role. That role can be challenging. Ex-prisoners have worked hard to move the peace process forward and to maintain it. They have been threatened by dissidents and those who are opposed to the peace process. So, this Bill — this discrimination — undermines those who are in favour of the peace process and the critical leadership that they provide in communities. That, in my opinion, is simply crazy.

The member of the SDLP effectively gave the two fingers to ex-prisoners across the North yesterday. The SDLP now has a hierarchy of victims. What is that hierarchy? Where are IRA victims, UVF victims, British Army victims or RUC victims? We do not know. We know that Paul Kavanagh is down the pecking order — that is, I might add, a rather distasteful phrase. What about the Bloody Sunday families, the New Lodge Six, the victims of the Ballymurphy massacre?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I will not give way. I include all those cases — Enniskillen and Omagh. However, I make the point that the focus, from both the TUV and the SDLP, is on republicans. There are victims of collusion who were republicans. Where do they stand? They include John Davey from Gulladuff, Gerard Casey from Rasharkin and Eddie Fullerton from Buncrana.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Howard Donaghy from Omagh was shot dead.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not debate across the Chamber.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Alex Maskey was a victim of collusion.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you make a ruling on whether it is right that Mr McKay chooses the names of particular victims or should he read out all of the almost 3,700 victims? I just want to find out.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members know that this is the Final Stage of the Bill as it now stands. Contributions should be made for and against the Bill. I have allowed some latitude in all of this, because these are very emotive issues. I understand that. However, it is vital that, as far as possible, Members link their remarks to the Bill and to its Final Stage. That is very important. Once again, I remind Members to be careful about the language that they use in the House. Please allow the Member to continue.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Alex Maskey, a Member of the House, was a victim of collusion. Does the SDLP consider him less of a victim, given that it has this pecking order? That should not come as a surprise because the SDLP dismissed collusion at the time that Alex was attacked and briefed the media that republicans had attacked him. Where is the SDLP in all of this? I do not know.

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

Do you know anything?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I know plenty.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

The Equality Commission also provided evidence to the Committee and said that, when someone has a conviction, the material relevance of that conviction to the post in question should be considered. That is very much in agreement with the thrust of the guidance from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Again, we see evidence against the Bill coming from the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement, which were critical in moving this society beyond conflict, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be too much to ask the Member to direct the House to the clause he is speaking to at the moment?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

In answer to Lord Morrow's point of order, sometimes it is difficult for Members to link what they say to a particular clause and especially to the Bill. It is important that, as far as possible, while I allow some latitude to Members, they try to link what they are saying and their contribution to the Bill, please.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is to assist some of us because we have got lost about where the Member is in the Bill. I was hoping that he could give us some guidance about what clause he is talking about.

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

That is because he has got lost.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

It is clauses 2 and 3. I will make the point again because I did not get the chance to finish. Again, we see evidence against the Bill coming from the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement and the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is all being ignored.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we confirm that the basic right of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to life? Will you confirm that for me because you seem to have forgotten that?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Points of order and interventions must also link to the Bill. Let us move on.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Peter Shirlow of Queen's University gave evidence to the Committee. We know this now, but at the beginning of his evidence, he said:

"It is important, at the outset, to say that there is no unified victims' voice. We have to realise that there are multiple voices regarding victimhood. That is crucial."

He made another point that is relevant in this case:

"One of the problems in this society is that the issue of victims creates so much noise that we do not get to grips with solutions, and we do not actually articulate and work our way through what would be progressive and meaningful for this society."

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

No.

Peter Shirlow said that the fair employment legislation needs to be examined, where it is enshrined that a person with a conflict-related conviction can be dismissed by an employer without any recourse. So, the SDLP is wrong to say that this precedent will not have a ripple effect: it will. Shirlow also discussed victimhood. He said that we have to be aware that victimhood is embedded in the loyalist community, in the republican community, in the prison officers' community and in the state force community.

It is not simply a black-and-white case of perpetrator and victim.

Peter Shirlow stated:

"One of the other important things that we found from our research was that one third of republicans and loyalists were intimidated out of their home."

He said about victims that the research shows that the vast majority of loyalists and the vast majority of republicans agree that civilians were victims and that those on the other side, so to speak, were victims of the conflict. He said that, in the republican community, former prisoners were twice as likely as other members of their community to state that the police, the British Army and prison officers were also victims of our conflict.

He continued:

"DDR is successful when it is based on inclusion. Any form of demobilisation, disarmament and rehabilitation works through inclusion and not by excluding people from society."

Shirlow stated that he believed in conflict transformation. He said that the Bill is quite clearly contrary to conflict transformation.

He also chaired the review panel on employers' guidance on recruiting people with conflict-related convictions and found very few in industry who wanted to perpetuate fair employment legislation that could disbar former prisoners. He added:

"If the Bill were to come into law, it would be another bar on those people, irrespective of many of the moral issues that are thrown up. If a constituency is prepared to engage, move forward and challenge itself, it should be included in society."

He went on to say:

"Within loyalism and republicanism, I have had conversations, through research, with many people who, in many ways, lick their wounds, and they are concerned because they feel either betrayed, forgotten or marginalised. In many ways, those people would not necessarily be sympathetic to dissidents in either section but would state uncertainties about their commitments and allegiances. Most people do not feel that for ideological reasons, but they say to me that they feel excluded from society. We are talking about a community in which 50% or 60% have told us in survey after survey that they have been turned down for jobs and have not had interviews when they have been the best person for the job. That sense of fatalism or frustration comes in.

I was speaking one day to a guy from a loyalist background who was in prison for five or six years. He would be affected by this legislation, and I do not think that he would ever end up being appointed. That man was in prison and joined the Christian Fellowship. When he came out of prison, he got a job with a gentleman who was involved in the Christian Fellowship and worked for 25 years in that man's place of work. He was promoted on multiple occasions, was a good citizen, ran a youth club and intervened in all sorts of youth activities in his community. The company went bust, and he could not find work. I understand the emotions of the McArdle issue, but a broad brush whereby everybody is the same is not conflict transformation. Are we seriously talking about excluding people such as that? Are we seriously talking about excluding a middle-aged person? That man cannot get a job. He has been a good citizen, but society tells him that he is not. A political maturity has to kick in, in many ways. To answer your question: prisoner groups go into schools and youth clubs, and they tell people that the allure of violence is wrong. The argument that loyalism makes is that you go to prison, you lose your wife, you lose your income, you come out, and you are put on the scrapheap. That work is crucial in diverting people away from conflict. It challenges the voice of those who are irredentist and want to take this society back to where it was. It is crucial, as are the voices in this room and elsewhere that condemn the dissidents and those who engage in that type of violence."

He later went on to say:

"We need to have the right framework to engage in a proper debate, and that framework has to work only if we do not go down the route of prosecuting people. That is the model from other societies that works. Many people here will decry the funding of prisoner groups and say that that was a great assault against the victims of the conflict. Other countries are now looking at that model. One of the problems in other DDR processes is that you fight the war, say to people that it is over and give them €50 for their Kalashnikov and say, "away you go". Those people go away and sit at home, and, a year later, say that they are still on the dole and not included so they are going back to war."

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

No.

He continued —

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

Which clause is this?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What clause are you on now?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Clauses 2 and 3.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You are no more on clauses 2 and 3 than I am.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

He continued:

"One reason why our process was successful is that it did things that were counter to what public opinion probably wanted. One of those was to fund the former prisoner model. We have a good model of transformation. At times, we do not realise that, but whatever we do on victims — of course we can point fingers — it cannot be based on a process of putting people back in prison."

A Cheann Comhairle, every December, I visit the grave of a party colleague Malachy Carey, who was killed by the Ulster Defence Association in Ballymoney. Malachy went to Crumlin Road aged 21 —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

No.

He was released from prison in 1987, and, when he was released, he was threatened by the RUC before he was shot in Ballymoney in 1992 as he waited for his girlfriend. It was among a number of collusion killings at that time.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I am listening intently to the Member, and I wonder where he might be going with his contribution and how he might link it to the Final Stage of the Bill. The Member needs to demonstrate to the House that he is able to do that.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

This is in relation to the arguments that are being put forward to try to get the Bill to pass by the DUP and the TUV. The sponsor of the Bill will know the individual who was prosecuted for that murder, and he did not raise his voice when that person was appointed as a publicity officer for the DUP in North Antrim where he was a member at that time. Therefore, I question the purpose of the Bill, given that fact. The purpose of the Bill looms large in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why I raise that particular point.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Was that person a SPAD?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have debate across the Chamber. The Member has the Floor.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Many people draw certain parallels between this place and South Africa. One report found, in South Africa, that the absence of a long-term, coherent, reintegration plan had a negative effect in respect of a high rate of suicides.

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

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

No.

Employers in South Africa were not keen to employ former combatants of that conflict, and the use of the term "combatants" reminded people of a time dominated by fear and suspicion.

Through employment barriers, many former combatants were unable to provide their children with secure and stable homes after the conflict had ended. So, the negative social consequences in that case, because of the barriers to employment, go much wider than the ex-combatants. They affect families, partners, children and communities. It is social exclusion. In South Africa, reintegrating ex-combatants is now a key element in building social cohesion.

Recommendations with regard to ex-combatants were made at an ANC national conference a number of years ago. Those were: the inclusion of ex-combatants' needs in the performance indicators for managers in the civil service; skills training; job opportunities; and an integrated approach to ex-combatants involving government, the private sector and civil society. That last point clearly runs parallel to the thinking behind the OFMDFM guidance that was applied on a voluntary basis here.

South Africa was not perfect. The peace process was not perfect.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What about the Bill?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

This is about clauses 2 and 3, for your information.

In South Africa, they realised that exclusion had a negative effect on society. Integration, not discrimination, helps to move society forward. A number of people have already made the point that if this Bill had become law in South Africa, Nelson Mandela, had he been in that post, would have lost his job. That would not happen there because they realise the importance of the reintegration of ex-prisoners — ex-combatants — into society.

In 2009, the United Nations introduced a policy for post-conflict employment creation, income generation and reintegration. The UN Secretary-General states in the foreword to the policy:

"For communities and individuals, job creation and regular income can provide the means for survival and recovery. They are also keys to reaching out to young people and reintegrating ex-combatants and returnees."

That United Nations policy recognises the crucial link between the employment of ex-combatants and peace-building.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I apologise but I must interrupt the Member as we move to Question Time and questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I ask the House to take its ease for a few moments. After Question Time, the Member can finish his contribution.

The debate stood suspended.

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

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

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what discussions they have had with the Minister of Finance and Personnel regarding the extension of the Defamation Act 2013. (AQO 4172/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have had no discussions with the Minister of Finance and Personnel on that matter.

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

That was a very brief answer, for a change, Mr Deputy Speaker. In relation to some of the elements of the 2013 Act, and in particular the growing trend of social media, does the deputy First Minister agree that there needs to be greater clarity to allow members of the public and others to understand the import of the 2013 Act?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There has been some commentary on that in the media over the course of, I suppose, the past couple of weeks. I think it is fair to say that, by this stage, there is not a party in the House that is not aware of the position of each of the other parties on the matter. All I can say at this stage is that I have not seen anything on the matter arrive from the Department of Finance and Personnel for the consideration of myself and the First Minister. So, in the first instance, it is the responsibility of the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Minister to deal with that matter, and, if thought appropriate, to bring it to the attention of the Executive for a decision.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the deputy First Minister. I want to push him on that last answer. Will he comment on the level of consultation, rather than research, that was conducted prior to the decision not to introduce a Defamation Bill? Do you consider that to be best practice within the Executive?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is very important to say that the Executive have not taken any decision in relation to a Defamation Bill. It never appeared on the agenda of any Executive meeting, and it was certainly never given to me, as deputy First Minister, for agreement to be reached between myself and the First Minister in relation to what goes on the agenda of an Executive meeting, as is normally the case prior to a meeting of the Executive. The reason for that is that I have not seen anything from the Department of Finance and Personnel on that matter.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their most recent visit to China. (AQO 4173/11-15)

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their most recent visit to China. (AQO 4176/11-15)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

8. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their most recent visit to China. (AQO 4179/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 2, 5 and 8 together.

Our mission to China was to further strengthen government-to-government relationships through a number of high-level meetings with Ministers in Beijing. We met with Madam Liu Yandong, who visited us last year and who has since been promoted to the position of vice-premier. Madam Liu has overall responsibility for science and technology, education, sports and culture, and sustainable development. Through her invitation to visit China, we also held meetings with the Minister of Commerce and the Minister of Education. Those meetings were extremely useful, and they enabled us to progress a number of issues that we hope will result in expanding trade opportunities for our firms and Chinese government investment in university partnerships.

With the support of the Chinese Minister of Education, we met the Hanban, the head office of the Confucius Institute, and discussed the possibility of future support to expand educational exchanges, partnerships and teaching of Chinese in schools, community organisations and business here. We also met the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss plans for developing the Executive's long-term relationship with China.

Throughout the visit we were supported by the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries. We believe that this relationship will lead to future visits by Ministers and other organisations to negotiate on a range of tangible issues that will benefit communities and businesses here.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answers so far. What steps are being taken to open further offices on mainland China? What steps are being taken to establish a Northern Ireland bureau in China, and what is the time frame for such progress?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Given my statement to the Assembly earlier, I think that people are aware that we have had an office in Shanghai for a number of years and we give serious consideration to how we can extend our ability to communicate and do business with the Chinese Government and businesses there. During our discussions, which I think were very beneficial and, potentially, hugely fruitful, the First Minister and I discussed the real option of opening a bureau, something akin to what we have in Washington in the United States of America and the office that we have in Brussels, which works within the European Union. We have come to a firm conclusion that it would be a sensible next step for us to open such a bureau; naturally, that would be in consultation with diplomatic services there, which have all been very helpful to us during our visits, the last one to Shanghai and Hong Kong and the recent one to Beijing. We had great support from the Irish and British ambassadors. In conjunction with them, we obviously need to work out what the cost of such a facility would be, how many people would be required to work in it and what office accommodation would be needed. It is a serious objective that we intend to pursue, given the success of the two visits to China so far and the fact that, even while we were there, more invitations were being offered to our Ministers. For example, at our meeting with the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, we were handed an official invitation for our Agriculture Minister to attend a Sino-European conference in China in September of this year.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I listened to a radio interview that the First Minister and deputy First Minister did from China last week. It seemed as though the media were more intent to talk about the cost of the trip than its value. It is very clear that those trips have an intrinsic value and bring investment and work back to the North. Does the Minister agree?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is no doubt that some people tend to focus on the cost of visits whereas, in fact, all the evidence has shown clearly that, in recent times, the people who most appreciate ministerial presence in China are those involved in the businesses that are trying to do business there. In recent years, we have had something like 350 businesses making trips to China and trying to build their connections. All of them have made it clear that they regard it as vital that there is ministerial support when they engage in China.

From our perspective, rather than getting into any wrangle with commentators and people who are looking for tittle-tattle, we need to focus on the big objective. What is the big objective? It is to increase our political, business and commercial relationships with China. Why do we want to do that? We want to do it because China is an economic powerhouse. There are real opportunities for us to move forward and develop that relationship in a way that will bring sustainability to jobs here and increase jobs here. It would be hugely remiss of us as political leaders if we took a decision not to engage with the Chinese Government on the basis that the air fares were too expensive. The reality is that it is a golden opportunity. We have a friend at court in Madam Liu Yandong, who is very powerful in the Chinese Government and who, during our conversations with her, certainly committed herself to working with us to ensure that we can take best advantage of the opportunities that are presented.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Minister referred to a meeting with the Commerce Minister and an invitation being made to the Agriculture Minister. In meetings that were held with Chinese Government Ministers, what discussions took place about removing barriers to the exporting of formula milk and meat products from Northern Ireland?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We had very detailed discussions on those matters. As I reminded the Assembly this morning, the Chinese Government had a very serious issue with baby food formula, which resulted in the deaths of babies and was a major scandal in that country, to deal with some time ago. I think that the Chinese Government know that we have, in our agrifood industry, one of the best and safest systems anywhere on earth, so I think that they are intensely interested in developing their relationships with us on the basis that we can deal with these matters. Naturally, because of the protocols involved and the obstacles, we have left them to consider those issues. No doubt, when our Agriculture Minister goes there in September, those discussions will be taken forward further.

There will have to be an opportunity at some stage in the not-too-distant future for our Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to visit for the purposes of negotiating how we can increase the numbers of our products exported to China. The opportunity is there, and we do not intend to miss it.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the roll-out of the signature project under Delivering Social Change. (AQO 4174/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Jennifer McCann to answer the question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Work on the implementation of the six Delivering Social Change signature programmes, which were announced by the First Minister and deputy First Minister on 10 October 2012, is advancing. Lead Departments are responsible for the development and implementation of the programmes. OFMDFM is responsible for the co-ordination and evaluation of that work.

The Department of Education is leading on the signature programme to improve literacy and numeracy levels in primary and post-primary schools. It is planned that 230 recently graduated teachers will be appointed prior to the beginning of the 2013-14 academic year to enable additional targeted tuition to be delivered.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has lead responsibility for two of the signature programmes: the provision of additional family support hubs, and support for parents. Those two signature programmes will enable the commissioning of additional early intervention support for families and parents experiencing difficulties.

The Department for Social Development is working in conjunction with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the programme to create 10 social enterprise incubation hubs. Some hubs will be established in currently vacant commercial premises and will offer a range of business advice and practical support to social enterprise entrepreneurs.

The Department for Social Development has been tasked, in collaboration with the Department of Education, to deliver 20 new nurture units in school settings. Plans have been developed, with the aim of having all the nurture units in place by the start of the 2013-14 academic year.

Finally, the Department for Employment and Learning is leading on the community family support programme. The pilot programme is to be scaled up and rolled out to areas of greatest need, where the levels of young people who are not in education, employment or training are highest.

Further details of specific aspects of each of the signature programmes should be sought directly from the lead Departments.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. I welcome the fact that every school is to get a numeracy and literacy teacher, which is extremely important. Will OFMDFM and the Department of Education ensure that those teachers are used for only that purpose?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes. From some of the discussions that have already been had, there is a view that the extra tuition that will go into primary and secondary schools will have a specific focus on raising the standards of numeracy and literacy. That will certainly be the focus of those teachers.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. Given the announcement about the signature projects and the more recent announcements about building a united community, does the Minister see a direct link between all those projects and Delivering Social Change?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The simple answer is yes. We are looking to join things up more. We have had many debates in the Assembly. I think that we all agree that the signature projects are trying to address poverty and deprivation. However, the signature projects will not do that on their own; they have to be incorporated into other government policy and programmes. So, I believe that the Delivering Social Change framework will act as a holistic framework, through which we can ensure that poverty, disadvantage and need will be tackled.

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

Will the junior Minister give a date or an indicative time when the social enterprise hubs will become operational?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As I said, quite a bit of work has already been done with the Department for Social Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to identify areas in the social investment fund zones in which to put the social economy hubs. I do not have a definitive date here, but work has been well progressed, and we will monitor it. I hope that those hubs will be up and running very soon. As I said, I do not have a definitive date here, but work has progressed in identifying where they will be, and we will monitor to ensure that it is brought forward.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the conclusion in the peace monitoring report number two which highlights an expansion of shared space due to changing demographics in electoral wards and a decline in residential segregation for the first time in a couple of generations. (AQO 4175/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The latest peace monitoring report recognises that we have already come a long way as a society, and the collective effort at a political, community and individual level must be commended. Work such as the peace monitoring report contributes to assessing our progress. It highlights progress to date and challenges for the way forward.

Residential segregation has diminished for the first time in a couple of generations. Data from the 2011 census shows that only 37% of electoral wards are now single identity, as defined by having 80% or more from one community background. This compares with over 50% having a single identity in the 2001 census. There has also been an increase in wards with mixed identity, where neither community has more than a 50% share of housing.

We welcome the reassuring evidence that we now live in a community in which our citizens are less likely to be victims of crime and in which racist hate crime has decreased and the fact that, for the first time in a couple of generations, residential segregation has diminished.

We know that there is still plenty of work to do, and the publication of the report also underlines where there continue to be challenges for all of us at an individual, community and political level. We will not shy away from these challenges, and we remain committed to building a united community by continuing to improve good relations across our society.

The new good relations strategy, which we published on 23 May, provides the policy context and framework for strategic actions, which, when implemented, have the potential to make a real difference to the lives of many communities by addressing the challenges identified in the peace monitoring report.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she give us more details on the new equality and good relations commission?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A key action of the good relations strategy will be the establishment of an independent organisation to provide advice to government and to challenge all levels of government in their performance in improving good relations.

The Equality Commission already fulfils a similar role in monitoring public authorities against the statutory duties in section 75. We will, therefore, establish an equality and good relations commission to change the roles and responsibilities of the Equality Commission to include good relations. This change has the potential for a significant impact on the Community Relations Council, which is a major administrator of good relations funding. So, aligned with the management statement for the Community Relations Council, OFMDFM will use the next planned review of the organisation to inform detailed arrangements for future funds.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Does the progress made on shared space suggest that there is potential for a much more ambitious approach to shared and mixed housing than is currently the case in the 'Together: Building a United Community' document?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Again, we aspire to have that shared and mixed housing rolled out. As I said in my first answer, there are indications in the peace monitoring report that that has moved forward. That has not happened as quickly or even as much as we would like, but our view, and, I am sure, that of all those in the Chamber, would be that we have more integrated housing, rather than some of the segregated housing that we do have.

However, we are dealing with realities. There is still a bit of a fear factor, where people like to live in their communities. Through the good relations strategy and the good relations statement that we published — the proposals — we are hopeful that we can change the mindset, particularly of our young people, to enhance the integrated housing that is there.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the junior Minister agree that the expansion of the shared space philosophy is not encouraged when we have, for example, protests peopled and supported by her colleagues in the Executive against the pursuance of traditional routes by the loyal orders?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Dialogue and discussion is needed to solve that issue. There are only a small number of contentious parades. However, the rights of residents are also very important. Many residents' organisations, in particular, have asked to have that direct discussion with the Orange Order, and, in some cases, that has been denied. I believe that the way forward in all of this is through discussion and through getting around the table and talking.

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

Question 5 has already been answered.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the functionality of the Maze/Long Kesh site during the Balmoral show. (AQO 4177/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

This year's Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) agriculture show at Maze/Long Kesh was a great success. The final visitor numbers are not yet available, but the chair of the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation stated that attendance had significantly increased from previous years, estimating that some 100,000 people attended the show over the three days.

Given the short lead-in time for the event, the provision of essential on-site facilities by the RUAS, its partners and the development corporation is commendable and without doubt helped to contribute to the success of the show. There were some frustrating traffic delays accessing the site, particularly on the first day of the event. However, through the combined efforts of those involved — the RUAS, Roads Service, Translink, our police service and corporation staff — those issues were significantly reduced over the remaining days of the show.

The success of the show highlights two important factors: first, that the site is now a viable development opportunity, primed and ready for investment; and, secondly, that we now have a development corporation that is capable of and committed to the regeneration of the entire site.

This first major event shows that there is still work to do, particularly on roads infrastructure and utilities provision. We can confirm that the corporation is working closely with the relevant agencies to deliver those essential services, which, in turn, will attract further investment.

We wish the RUAS every success at its new home, and we will continue to support the development corporation as it strives to deliver on its vision of regenerating Maze/Long Kesh.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Does he believe it to be vital that road infrastructure is in place as soon as possible to ensure that the site is more accessible in coming years?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member. Our Department has allocated £21 million in the current comprehensive spending review period for the regeneration of the site, including provision for essential infrastructure. To date, the development corporation has provided some essential internal road infrastructure, interim surfacing and an additional site entrance to help with the current levels of traffic there.

The corporation is commencing initial survey work and feasibility studies for inclusion in its detailed proposals for improving infrastructure linkages to the site, including a link to the M1. Decisions have not been taken regarding the preferred options for linkages to the M1. Extensive engagement with stakeholders and the local community will be undertaken before any decisions are made about changes to the external road structure. Those wider road developments are seen as absolutely key to the overall delivery of the site's regeneration. They will also help to attract further private sector investment.

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

I thank the deputy First Minister for his comments about the RUAS and the Balmoral show and I echo them. Is the deputy First Minister able to say whether the Executive would support the holding of the National Ploughing Championships at the Balmoral Park site, given that there are 300 acres there and it would be a major economic boost?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is no doubt that we are open to all ideas and suggestions. In the first instance, it is a matter for the development corporation, in conjunction with the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society, because it is the corporation's site and the decision is in its domain. There are precedents for events of significance to the island of Ireland taking place here in the North, including, for example, the Irish Open at Royal Portrush. I think that people are open to ideas and suggestions, given the huge success of the RUAS in opening the show at Balmoral Park. I think that, until last year, the figures showed some 80,000 people attending the show; this year, we saw in the region of 100,000 people. For a new site, that is absolutely amazing and gives us a clear indication that people regard this site as one of the most important for regeneration probably in the whole of western Europe. So, yes, we are open to all ideas and suggestions, but we must work in conjunction with colleagues, the RUAS and the development corporation.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

7. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of economic recovery. (AQO 4178/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is no doubt that our economy has come through a very difficult period over the past five years. We have seen some positive developments in the labour market in recent weeks, with announcements of the creation of more than 1,200 new jobs. For example, the major expansion project announced by the US insurance company Allstate will create 650 high-quality jobs over the next three years. The project will create software development, knowledge and business-process outsourcing positions across Allstate sites in Belfast, Derry and Strabane. Also, meat processing company Linden Foods announced expansion plans that will create 179 new production and managerial jobs in Dungannon. Lloyds Banking Group plans to create around 160 new jobs in Belfast, mainly in its anti-fraud operations. Other job news includes US payment technology company Merchant Warehouse announcing the opening of its first international office in Belfast, and that high-quality investment will create 70 new jobs in technology development and consumer support roles. Deloitte has announced that it will create 177 new ICT jobs at its technology studio in Belfast.

Although economic forecasts also predict a return to growth for the local economy this year, it looks to be too early for commentators to predict significant improvements in our unemployment statistics. The First Minister and I will continue to put economic recovery at the centre of our efforts to improve life here. We are working closely with the British Prime Minister and Treasury to ensure that they fulfil their financial commitments to stimulating our economy, and we will remain tireless in our efforts to attract overseas investment in and trade opportunities for the local economy.

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

I am sorry but we do not have time for a supplementary question. Time is up.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment when she first became aware that Power NI intended to increase its consumer electricity price by 18%. (AQO 4186/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My officials participate as observers in the electricity and gas tariff review processes on a confidential basis. My officials alerted me at the end of April 2013 to the likelihood of a price increase as a result of the Power NI tariff review, but that was subject to final analysis and a decision by the Utility Regulator. I was advised of the final decision on 20 May 2013.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she inform the House whether her officials were content with that process, what the implications of the price rise are for meeting the 40% renewables target, and the cost implications of that for the consumer?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is not a question of whether my officials were content or not. The Utility Regulator is charged with setting the price tariff, and he has said that he is content with the 17·8% increase. I note that other providers have followed that regulated price increase with increases of their own. We understand that the wholesale costs have risen, which is what led to the price rise. The rise presents a lot of challenges for many domestic consumers and small business consumers. The large energy users are not regulated in the same way; their price is dealt with through the single electricity market and in a competitive way. However, it presents us with a huge number of challenges, and I have asked for some work to be carried out in relation to the whole energy market to find out exactly where the costs are coming from so that my Department and the House can be better informed.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. I thank the Minister for her response. Will she give me some indication as to what steps will be taken by her Department and the wider Executive to ensure that vulnerable groups are not forced into deeper debt by increased electricity bills as a result of the price hikes by Power NI and other electricity providers?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Chair for his question. As I have indicated, I recognise that increased energy costs will be a significant burden, not least on the most vulnerable in our society. Power NI does, of course, offer discounts for customers who opt for online billing or payment by direct debit, as well as offering incentives for keypad customers. My officials will continue to work closely with colleagues in other Departments. As he knows, the Department for Social Development takes the lead on fuel poverty, and we have been working with it on a cross-sectoral fuel poverty partnership.

As well as that, we have, of course, been looking at ways in which we can bring natural gas to more customers throughout Northern Ireland, where it is economically viable to do so. That includes the current proposals for which the Executive have approved subvention funding of up to £32·5 million. That will give a wider choice to people living in Northern Ireland. As you know, gas does not cost as much as electricity, so people can choose. I think it is important that we give people the opportunity to make that choice.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. I understand that pricing is not the direct responsibility of the Minister, but will she provide the House with an update on how policies brought in by her Department help to provide consumers with greater transparency as to what they are paying in electricity costs?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is important that all elements are looked at. We need to look at the energy policy elements, and we are doing that at the moment. I think that it is a good time to do that because the strategic energy framework has been in place for a couple of years and, therefore, it is a good opportunity to see whether things are working in the proper way.

As the Member will know through the Committee, I have also asked the regulator to give thought to establishing a joint working committee to look at a wide range of issues, not least the pressures on some of our large energy users. I have asked him specifically to examine whether there are any structural weaknesses in the operation of the single electricity market and the extent to which it has delivered the most appropriate pricing structure for customers here in Northern Ireland.

I am very much looking forward to that piece of work by the Utility Regulator to give us some of those answers so that we can move forward and look at policy in that context.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what action the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Tourism Ireland are taking to market Carrickfergus Castle as a visitor attraction. (AQO 4187/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Both organisations promote attractions in Northern Ireland, including Carrickfergus Castle. The castle is featured in the 2013-14 visitor guide, which is produced in five languages, and it is included in the suggested itineraries in the Great Days Out for Groups guides. Tourism Ireland also features Carrickfergus Castle in market guides, websites and regular updates that are sent to key travel, consumer and media contacts in markets overseas.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the information on visitors in her answer. Given the very successful upturn in the film industry — I have heard some rumours locally — will she consider promoting the iconic heritage site as a potential film set?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am very pleased to tell the Member that, indeed, that is the case. As well as groups of travel journalists visiting Carrickfergus Castle, in April past a group from Germany spent a week travelling around Antrim and had the chance to experience Carrickfergus Castle for themselves.

The new creative industries in Northern Ireland are going from strength to strength. I understand that a new science fiction-based movie produced by Mark Huffam, called 'Our Robot Overlords' — aimed not at anyone in this House, but at the 14- to 18-year-old demographic — will be filmed at Carrickfergus Castle. We are delighted that that is the case, and again, it builds on the work that has been ongoing with 'Game of Thrones', the highly successful 'The Fall', a second series of which has now been confirmed and which will be filmed in Northern Ireland, and Universal's announcement that it is going to make a new version of 'Dracula' here.

There is a cluster building in connection with the creative industries, and we are delighted that Carrickfergus Castle is going to be one of the sites for a new film that is to be made in Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the news that some will benefit from the fantastic heritage of Carrickfergus Castle, but many believe that Carrickfergus and, indeed, Northern Ireland is not fully benefiting from the tourist potential that exists there. What is the Minister doing along with her colleagues in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Ulster Museum and its artefacts, local government and any other relevant agency to ensure that they work in partnership and maximise that potential in the tourist offering so that more people will go there?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As well as the list of organisations that the Member has read out, it falls on the Members of the legislative Assembly to be positive about their particular areas. I am very positive about the area from which I come, and I am sure that the Members from east Antrim are very positive about their area; I would like to think that that was the case.

Carrickfergus Castle absolutely provides us with a great focus for tourism in that area, but there is much more happening there. I am pleased to see the progress that has been made on the Gobbins path, for example, and the fact that the local council is proceeding with the project. The Member will know that, under INTERREG IVa, a considerable amount of money has been made available from my Department to see that path brought back to life. We very much look forward to that being something that will attract even more visitors to east Antrim on what is one of the most beautiful drives, from Carrickfergus right the way up to the north Antrim coast. We look forward to everyone promoting it in as positive a way as possible.

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

I remind Members that this question is about Carrickfergus Castle.

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

I tend to agree with the Minister that it is up to Members to promote their own areas. What is her assessment of the efforts to date in promoting Northern Ireland as a tourist destination?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Last year was a tremendous success for us with our ni2012 campaign. It was a great success in many ways, not least given that hotel accommodation has seen a 10% increase, which I think is a good barometer of the increase in tourism here. I hope that the official tourism statistics will be available on 6 June. We will see then what the official statistics show.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on her Department's actions to help the growth of the private sector. (AQO 4188/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is the responsibility of all Departments, through the commitments that they made in the Northern Ireland economic strategy, to help grow the private sector and rebalance the economy towards one in which a greater number of firms compete in global markets and there is growing employment and prosperity for all.

In my Department, considerable progress has been made towards the delivery of the key commitments that we made in the Programme for Government and the Northern Ireland economic strategy. From March 2011 to March 2013, Invest Northern Ireland promoted 13,870 jobs, supported projects that will secure over £780 million of investment, and provided support that will deliver £168 million of business investment in research and development. Over 40% will come from small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Executive subcommittee on the economy will publish its first annual report later this summer. It will set out progress against the delivery of the commitments that Departments made in the Northern Ireland economic strategy.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the only way that we can ensure economic recovery and private sector growth is through having access to the full suite of levers that will enable us to grow our economy?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The very short answer is yes. I very much hope that the Members opposite and those on this side of the House will continue to push our national Government to make sure that we retain our 100% selective financial assistance (SFA) coverage right across Northern Ireland. That has still not been confirmed by the Government, but we look forward to that confirmation coming in the near future.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give us an update on Invest NI's performance over the last two years?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. We have been very pleased with Invest Northern Ireland's performance against its targets, which were set by the Executive in the Programme for Government and latterly in the economic strategy. We have had 13,870 jobs promoted. We secured, as I said, total investment of £784 million against a four-year target of £1 billion, so we are well on our way to meeting that target. We have also secured total wages and salaries of £198 million. At the end of the financial year, we had created 2,699 jobs under the jobs fund; job creation is the key element of that fund. The four-year target for the jobs fund was 4,000, so we are well on track with that as well. That is a very important statistic.

The one statistic that we register concern about relates to exports. The concern is not about exports to the new markets that we are targeting, the so-called BRIC countries. In fact, there has been quite a good take-up in relation to exports, albeit I entirely accept that we are coming from a low base. We need to redouble our efforts regarding exports to our more traditional markets. We know that it has been a difficult time for companies, but we need more work to be carried out. As we all know, we have set our face towards an export-led recovery. Therefore, we really need to push very hard with that target.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Minister have any plans to bring forward a properly funded green new deal package to help job creation in and around the renewable energy sector?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That, of course, would be a matter not just for me but probably the Executive subcommittee because it touches not just my Department but, in particular, the Department for Social Development (DSD). As I said before, DSD leads on fuel poverty. We are doing a lot in and around the renewable energy sector. In particular, we are looking at ways in which we can be part of supply chains into that sector. Companies are looking for advice and assistance on that. We are very happy to give that advice and assistance, because we see that as a priority growth sector. We will continue to work with those companies.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Let me take the Minister back, if I may, to the exports issue. I believe that Invest Northern Ireland has achieved only 2% of the 20% target. Could she perhaps share with the House just what particular plan she has to improve that situation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that it is important that we look at the reasons behind why exporting has become difficult for those companies. It is, of course, because those companies have traditionally exported to their very close markets, such as the Republic of Ireland, and there have been well-documented difficulties in relation to that market.

There is also an issue in and around access to finance. For companies to be allowed to grow, they need access to finance. Unfortunately, that has not been as forthcoming as either I or the Finance Minister would like. That is why we are engaging at present in our second round of talks with the banks — we have just had another meeting today with one of those banks — and why Invest Northern Ireland has put in place a suite of access to finance initiatives, including, of course, the growth loan fund. That fund makes available to companies finance that is not secured but that offers them the chance to put their plans into place, because a lot of times they do not have the security but do have very good sustainable growth plans. That is why we needed that access to finance piece put in place.

So, it is about looking beyond and below why those companies have had difficulties exporting. Finally, we need to encourage them to look beyond their traditional markets. That is why we need to focus on bringing them out to markets like Brazil — where, as Members will know, I was two weeks ago — and places like Russia, where a trade mission from Northern Ireland is visiting this week.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on her efforts to stimulate inward investment. (AQO 4189/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Invest Northern Ireland continues to target high-quality inward investment in very challenging economic conditions. I will continue to provide whatever support I can to Invest Northern Ireland’s effort, whether that is meeting potential investors when they visit Northern Ireland or taking part in visits to overseas markets.

A number of recent high-profile announcements, including that of Merchant Warehouse, which plans to create 70 quality jobs, underline our competitiveness. The announcement that Allstate Northern Ireland is to create up to 650 high-quality jobs in Belfast, Londonderry and Strabane is further evidence of our ability to work with and help investors grow and thrive. Most recently, I had the opportunity to lead a multisectoral trade mission to Recife and Sao Paulo in Brazil. During the trade mission, I continued to cultivate trade and investment links and relationships first developed by the First and deputy First Minister during their visit to Brazil in March 2013.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her response. Given that Strabane business park is nearing completion for interested businesses and sits well along the border corridor, has the Minister had any discussions with her Southern counterpart in relation to maximising opportunities for investment on an all-Ireland basis?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I very much want to see businesses come and use the park. I have been past the new business park on a number of occasions recently on my way to Londonderry. We have completed the first phase of construction in the Strabane business park, releasing 16 acres of new service land to support economic development in the area. To date, we have received formal interest in the new land from five businesses. Of course, we will continue to work closely with them over the coming months to develop those growth projects further.

However, as to the Member's question, I would have thought that she would prefer that businesses come to Strabane as opposed to the other side of the border. That is my focus; I want to see businesses coming to this side of the border, to make sure that we get the benefit of those businesses here in Northern Ireland. I look forward to visiting the first firm that goes into the new Strabane business park.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

It used to be the case that Ministers did not come to the north-west. Thankfully, the Minister is one of the frequent visitors to the north-west. It also used to be the case that international sales reps of Invest NI did not come to the north-west, but they now do.

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

Is there a question coming, Mr Campbell?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes. Will the Minister give us any assistance on what is the best way to promote regional development? Is it to whinge and moan about it or to get on with promoting it?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Well, it is certainly not to whinge and moan about it — I can tell the Member that. I have made comments in the House today about being positive about the tourism potential for individual parts of Northern Ireland, and I replicate those comments about investment in particular areas of Northern Ireland.

Do Members really think that international investors will come to their part of the world if they are whingeing, complaining and saying that nobody ever bothers about them, or do they think that there is a better chance of that if they talk about the benefits, the skills, the people and what is happening in their area? Do they think that that is possibly a better way of getting international investors to come and look at their city?

I was absolutely outraged — I do not know why I was outraged because I have come to expect it from Radio Foyle in particular — about the outrageous comments that were made about Invest Northern Ireland over the past week. Invest Northern Ireland, and in particular Alastair Hamilton, have gone out of their way to promote the north-west of this country as a destination. Indeed, he took part in a hugely successful seminar in the Guildhall in London. He made sure that he was there to talk about the benefits of investing in the north-west. Last month, he also brought his international sales team from Invest Northern Ireland. That team comes back to Northern Ireland once a year to make sure that it is aware of what is going on. Where did it go? It went to the north-west, specifically to talk to stakeholders and large employers and to learn about the key messages that the city of Londonderry and the wider region had to offer to potential investors. That is the way to do it.

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

The Minister's time is up.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We should work with Invest Northern Ireland in a proactive and positive way.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

In what way is the Minister working with the Minister for Employment and Learning to ensure that our workforce has the relevant skills to avail itself of inward investment opportunities?