Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 September 2013

445 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I inform the House that the Marine Bill received Royal Assent on 17 September 2013. It will be known as the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to introduce the Local Government Bill [NIA 28/11-15], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to local government.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Assembly Business

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that I am the only Member who does this, traditionally. Due to the excessive heat in the Chamber this morning, would you be minded to relax the guidance on the wearing of jackets?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Yes; certainly. If Members are feeling the heat of the moment, removal of jackets is appropriate, so long as that is all that Members remove. [Laughter.]

Executive Committee Business

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees that the provisions contained in the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 9 May 2013, which deal with court rule-making procedures in the County Courts, the Magistrates' Courts and the Coroners' Courts, should be considered by the United Kingdom Parliament.

The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as its name suggests, deals with a wide range of matters relating to Northern Ireland. It makes a number of reforms in the excepted field, for example relating to donations and loans for political purposes, ending dual mandates between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons, and improvements to the administration of elections in Northern Ireland. This legislative consent motion (LCM), however, is concerned with only a very small number of minor technical amendments included in the schedule to the Bill that deal with court rule-making powers.

By way of background, court rules are a form of subordinate legislation that regulate the procedures that are to be followed in courts. They may specify, for example, how applications are made, requirements for service of documents or time limits. Generally, they are made by rules committees, each of which is composed differently but all of which include members of the relevant tier of the judiciary and representatives of the legal professions.

The role of my Department and the procedure for making court rules is dependent on the court tier to which a particular set of rules applies. My Department, for example, must allow or disallow County Court rules whereas it must agree Coroners’ Court rules and is a consultee for those for the Magistrates' Courts. In addition, rules for the High Court and the Crown Court are subject to the negative resolution procedure while others are not. The Justice Committee commented on those variances during the passage of the Justice Bill in 2011, and, as a result, my Department undertook to introduce amendments to the relevant legislation to align the procedures for making rules across all the different court tiers.

It would not, however, be possible to make amendments to all court rule-making procedures in an Assembly Bill, because rules may deal with both excepted and devolved matters. In various cases in which rules deal with an excepted matter, the Lord Chancellor rather than the Minister of Justice has responsibilities, or the Westminster Parliament, not this Assembly, has powers. Making amendments to the procedures for making rules that deal with excepted matters would, therefore, be outside the legislative competence of the Assembly, but it was nonetheless recognised that equivalent amendments should be made to the procedures for making both types of rules to ensure consistency. Theoretically, this could be done by splitting the provisions across an Assembly Bill and a Westminster Bill, but this would have been potentially confusing for the end user. From a legislative point of view, it would be complicated, could carry drafting and choreography risks and could lead to consequent delays in implementation. I therefore consider that it would be preferable to have the amendments carried together in a single Bill at Westminster, and Members will have seen that the Justice Committee’s report on the LCM endorses that view.

It is intended, therefore, that the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will include all the necessary amendments, both making court rules for which my Department has responsibility subject to the negative resolution procedure before the Assembly and making those for which the Lord Chancellor has responsibility subject to annulment in Westminster. It will also make my Department’s role or the Lord Chancellor’s, as appropriate, an allowing one for Magistrates' Courts and Coroners’ Courts rules, when such a role does not already exist.

I appreciate that the Assembly’s preference is to legislate on Northern Ireland matters when possible. That is well known to be my position also, which is why we are here as a legislative Assembly. However, in this instance, it seems sensible to keep these provisions together and not to split them. For the reasons that I outlined, I ask that the Assembly endorse the position of the Department and of the Justice Committee and support the contents and terms of the LCM.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am pleased to speak in the debate, given that the LCM will bring about changes to the court rule-making procedures, which will provide greater accountability to the Assembly and which is a result of the work of the first Justice Committee. The Minister of Justice outlined the purpose of the LCM and the changes that will be made to court rules.

I pay tribute to the first Justice Committee, which, during its consideration of what is now the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, questioned why some court rules, such as the County Court and Magistrates’ Court rules, are not subject to any formal Assembly procedure. When advised that the reason for the varying approaches to scrutiny was largely historical rather than based on logic or principle, the Committee took the view that changes to make all court rules subject to the negative resolution procedure would be a logical and consistent approach. The Committee, therefore, wrote to the Minister of Justice regarding harmonising court rule-making procedures so that the same level of scrutiny would apply to all court rules, and the Minister undertook to make the necessary changes to primary legislation.

Earlier this year, the Department wrote to the Committee setting out two options that it had identified for making the required changes. The first option involved an Assembly Bill and a separate Westminster Bill. Using two Bills, however, had the potential to create drafting and choreography difficulties. The second option involved including the entire provisions in a Westminster Bill, which would require a legislative consent motion. Although the Justice Committee is of the view that, when possible, legislative changes should be taken through the Assembly, on this occasion, it agreed that an LCM that would allow the entire provisions to be carried in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill would minimise the risk of error, avoid drafting and choreography problems and enable the provisions to be commenced as soon as possible. The Committee, therefore, supports the Minister of Justice in seeking the Assembly's endorsement of the legislative consent motion.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am grateful to all Members who took part in the debate for their detailed and lengthy contributions.

On a very serious point, at times like this, we debate some fairly narrow and arcane measures, which do not result in significant debate on the Floor, but I am conscious of the amount of work put into them by the Committee, working with my officials, as it considers a report on an LCM. It is another positive example of the engagement between the Department and the Committee. I am grateful to the Chair and other members of the Committee for the work that they put into this, even if it has not resulted in a lengthy debate this afternoon. I commend the proposals to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

Committee Business

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 13 December 2013 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Licensing of Pavement Cafés Bill.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee Consideration Stage of the Licensing of Pavement Cafés Bill began in June and is due to conclude on 1 October. A call for evidence came on 1 July and ended recently, on 13 September. Some 24 submissions were received. Although the Committee is broadly supportive of the Bill, more time is required to give adequate consideration and receive oral briefings from stakeholders. With that in mind, the Committee agreed to table a motion to extend Consideration Stage to 13 December 2013. On behalf of the Committee, I, therefore, move the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

Private Members' Business

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill [NIA 26/11-15] be agreed.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to bring the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill to the House today.

In August last year, I launched an eight-week consultation, which closed on Anti-Slavery Day. I wanted to make it as meaningful as possible for consultees, so, rather than merely consulting on some ideas, I took the unusual decision to consult on a draft Bill. That gave consultees the opportunity to respond to a concrete proposal and suggest similarly concrete amendments where they thought them necessary. It was an extremely useful exercise that has enabled me to significantly enhance the Bill. I am very grateful to all those who engaged with the consultation process and helped me to make the Bill the really robust legislation that I believe it is today. I should note at this point that, in June, I published a full response to the consultation process, and that is available on the website.

In my contribution today, I will provide an overview of what the Bill seeks to do and why it is so necessary. Like all Members of the Assembly, I believe that human trafficking and slavery are abhorrent crimes that offend against the inherent dignity of human persons. I believe that we need to take every step we can to tackle those crimes across our Province. To my mind, it is imperative that we have the best legislation in place to do so. That is the major reason why I decided to introduce a private Member's Bill. I want Northern Ireland to be a world leader in legislation on human trafficking and slavery. I want vulnerable men, women and children who are trafficked and exploited to be supported effectively, and I want the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes to be caught and punished.

I want the Assembly to lead the way. I want other countries to look with envy at our legislation and practice in this area. Too often, Northern Ireland has simply copied the legislation and practice of the rest of the United Kingdom. I want us to make use of the opportunities afforded by devolution to bring in the best legislation that we can possibly have.

I note the importance of the European directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. As many Members will be aware, I am not the greatest fan of the European Union. However, on this occasion, I have to acknowledge the value of this directive. In my opinion, it makes a number of effective proposals, which, if we choose to put them into law, would have a positive effect for vulnerable victims. Many of the proposals in the Bill directly seek to implement the directive into our law. In certain areas, the Bill deliberately goes beyond the directive, for reasons that I will explain a little later.

It is important to say at the outset that I understand that we do not have to do everything in a directive to avoid infringement proceedings. However, the choice that we face is whether to adopt a minimalist approach to the directive, doing the bare minimum necessary to avoid infringement proceedings, or whether to adopt a maximalist approach, where we seek to follow the spirit and the letter of what is a very good directive. I strongly take the view that, in this Province at least, we should seek fulsome implementation of the directive and, indeed, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the recommendation of the treaty monitoring body, GRETA, whose report I drew to the Assembly's attention in a debate last December.

I give credit where credit is due to the Minister of Justice. It is no secret that he and I disagree on the best way forward on human trafficking and exploitation. However, I thank him for introducing two measures in the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 referring to human trafficking and for his decision to create the effective NGO engagement group and to introduce an annual action plan. I acknowledge that. Those are all good measures, which I fully support. However, I must say that I do not believe that the Minister of Justice has gone far enough in this area. To my mind, he has been too timid, following his ministerial counterparts in England and Wales rather than leading the way. Indeed, where clauses 13 and 14 of my Bill are concerned, Northern Ireland has actually fallen behind England and Wales, which changed the law in those areas to become compliant with the directive.

The Bill that I am introducing consists of 19 clauses. Some additional clauses have been introduced following the consultation process. In my contribution, I will briefly outline what each of the key clauses seeks to do and some of the rationale behind them. Other Members will, I am sure, go into greater detail on particular clauses.

Clause 1 defines a human trafficking offence and a slavery offence. It is important to note that the Bill does not create new trafficking offences but rather works with the human trafficking offences that already exist. Human trafficking offences involve the intentional arrangement or facilitation of movement of people for exploitation. The slavery offence outlined in section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 makes it an offence to hold:

"another person in slavery or servitude"

or to have them "perform forced or compulsory labour". The inclusion of the slavery offence in part 1 of my Bill occurred as a result of the consultation process.

Clause 2 sets out when consent shall be deemed to be irrelevant for victims of human trafficking or slavery offences. The rationale for the clause lies in the fact that human traffickers or perpetrators of slavery offences may attempt to argue that the individual concerned gave their consent to the offence being committed against them. The Bill outlines a list of factors, such as the victim being a child, that would make evidence of consent or agreement irrelevant. The clause implements article 2.4 of the EU directive and article 4b of the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking.

Clause 3 considers the issue of aggravating factors with regard to the sentencing for human trafficking for sexual offences, forced labour and slavery offences. It will ensure that a judge, when sentencing an individual for the criminal offence of human trafficking or slavery, is mandated to consider certain aggravating factors. As a consequence of the consultation, a number of additional aggravating factors were introduced. The clause seeks to fulfil the requirements of article 4 of the directive and article 24 of the convention.

Clause 4 is a new clause introduced as a consequence of the consultation process. It sets out that there should be a minimum sentence of two years in prison for offenders convicted of any type of human trafficking or slavery offences. This would be the case unless exceptional circumstances justify a judge not implementing such a sentence. I decided to include this clause because I believe that it sends a strong signal that human trafficking and slavery offences are deemed to be serious crimes. To my mind, two years is a sensible level at which to set a minimum sentence for such a heinous act.

Clause 5 amends section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 so that additional definitions, including forced begging, are included in the Act to reflect article 2 of the EU directive. In its 2013 report, the anti-trafficking monitoring group highlighted a concern about the use of children for forced begging and benefit fraud in Northern Ireland. This clause will ensure that there is complete transparency of what is covered by the law, and, as a result, ensure that these forms of exploitation are addressed.

Clause 6 has been the focus of the vast majority of news coverage of my Bill. I have found that to be deeply frustrating because some of the media commentary has effectively pretended that my Bill is a single-clause Bill rather than consisting of 19 clauses. At the outset, I acknowledged that although article 18 encourages member states to take action to address demand for trafficking, this clause deliberately goes beyond the requirements of the European directive, in the sense that there is no express requirement to criminalise paying for sex. This clause substitutes a new article 64A of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. At the current time, it is illegal in Northern Ireland to buy sex from someone who is coerced. This recent amendment to the law was a positive move. However, problems have been encountered in attempting to prove coercion, which is resource intense and must be done within a very tight time frame. There has not been a single successful conviction under this offence in Northern Ireland, which suggests that it has not been effective. I understand that the Minister of Justice is proposing lifting the time bar on this offence from six months to three months. Although, that might —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Not just at the moment.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I think that the Member would wish to say three years not three months, as he has just said.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Right.

Although that may make the offence more workable than it is currently, to my mind, it is likely that it would not deal with the root of the problem that we face. As Finland has also demonstrated, caveated offences in this area are ineffective. Therefore, I believe that we need to go further and criminalise those who seek to purchase sexual services. To my mind, criminalising paying for sex would simplify the current law and make it easier to secure convictions that send a clear message to traffickers. This offence has worked on a practical level in other jurisdictions such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland. The logic behind the clause is clear. It seeks to reduce demand for sexual services, which has been a major driver for human trafficking in our Province. I will leave it to other contributors to the debate today to speak in detail on this clause, but I believe that it is a vital measure if we are to tackle human trafficking and exploitation effectively.

That approach was recommended by the all-party Justice Committee in the Oireachtas in its recent comprehensive report on prostitution. It is also supported by groups right across Northern Ireland.

I should add at this point that I was very pleased that Sinn Féin, at its recent ard fheis, voted to back the Turn Off the Red Light campaign in the Republic of Ireland, which has, as its central objective, criminalising the purchase of sexual services; I very much welcome that. I also pay tribute to Sinn Féin's Pádraig Mac Lochlainn TD and other members of that party for their role in taking a lead on this key objective in the Oireachtas Committee and beyond.

Clause 7 requires the Department to provide suitable training and tools to ensure effective investigation and prosecution of human trafficking offences. I believe that there would be no point in having effective legislation to tackle human trafficking and slavery if investigators and prosecutors lack the requisite tools and training to identify victims and prosecute perpetrators. The 2013 Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group report raised concerns about the low number of prosecutions brought in Northern Ireland. It recommended improved PSNI training to identify all forms of trafficking, especially forced labour and child trafficking, and that it should be ensured that training is mandatory for all police officers. Legislation is an effective way of ensuring that this happens and is recommended by article 9 of the European directive.

Clause 8 would ensure that no prosecution would be taken forward of victims of trafficking if they commit a criminal offence associated with trafficking under duress or if the victim were a child at the time. It seems apparent that if we fail to enshrine this provision in statute, we run the risk of potentially compounding one great injustice with another. As every Member here will acknowledge, victims of human trafficking already suffered gross mistreatment when they were made to work as modern-day slaves. It is utterly wrong that one of the first things that they experience once they have been identified by the authorities is prosecution for committing offences as a consequence of what they were forced to do by their traffickers. Some here may argue that guidance in this area is sufficient. I am not convinced that that is the case; I do not believe that it is sufficient.

It is important to note that even when the guidance for prosecutors on human trafficking is published and recommends not pursuing convictions in such situations, such guidance might not be followed, as has been demonstrated in England. The 2013 Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group report states:

"It remains the case in the UK that trafficked children are prosecuted for crimes they are forced to commit while being exploited and under the control of traffickers, while their traffickers go unpunished."

The GRETA report that I mentioned quotes evidence from the Law Centre about the prosecution and detention of victims of trafficking in Northern Ireland before it was established whether their participation in criminal activities was subject to coercion. All those pieces of evidence give me cause for concern about the treatment of victims of trafficking if they are charged with any offence that they were compelled to carry out. This clause will ensure that a trafficking victim arrested for a crime committed as a result of being trafficked will be protected from further investigation and prosecution.

Clause 9 uses the terminology first introduced at Westminster in 2012 to define a victim under the national referral mechanism so that it is possible to refer to victims in later clauses. A person is a victim of trafficking if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are a victim of trafficking using the definition of trafficking in human beings in the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and there has not been a conclusive determination that they are not. This clause does not effect any practical change to the national referral mechanism but allows the Bill to refer to services and other support that should be available for trafficking victims.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Mitchel McLaughlin] in the Chair)

Clause 10 outlines requirements for assistance and support. This clause is one of the areas where there has been a meeting of minds between the Minister and myself. The Minister has indicated that he is supportive of legislation and will await the outcome of the Bill. I am glad that he sees value in this clause, and I am happy to work with him to ensure that we get the right support and assistance to victims through clause 10. The clause is necessary as a consequence of the fact that although services are currently provided by Migrant Help and Women's Aid, they are not required by law, and without such protection, they exist simply at the pleasure of the current Administration. I know that the current Minister wants to keep this financial support available, but we do not know whether his successors in the post will also hold that view. It seems apparent that having a legal obligation to supply assistance and support for victims of trafficking makes it more likely that effective assistance and support is and will continue to be provided. It is also worth noting that the provision of proper assistance and support for victims of trafficking, including translation and interpretation services and legal counselling and representation, is one of the key emphases of the GRETA report to which I referred previously.

Clause 11 in my Bill is due to article 17 of the EU directive. That article sets out that victims of trafficking must:

"have access to existing schemes of compensation to victims of violent crimes of intent."

Clause 11 requires that the Department of Justice must, by order, set out how that is to be achieved and what assistance to do so is available. Having clear compensation procedures in line with the directive will help to ensure that victims of human trafficking will be able to discover easily how to claim compensation for what has happened to them. As many of us know, compensation for victims of crime can be incredibly valuable. Although it never makes up for what has happened to a victim, it provides some level of recognition for victims and helps them to get their lives back on track. It is vital for victims of human trafficking that it is clear how they can go about claiming compensation.

I appreciate that some in this Chamber believe that such a clause is unnecessary, but I believe that the evidence indicates that it is very much needed. Current measures have proven inadequate as, so far, very few victims have been successful in their claims. The sums involved are not vast. Last week, in response to a question for written answer, the Minister reported that one victim in Northern Ireland was awarded £30,000 in 2009 and another £22,500 in 2013. I hope that Members note that only two victims have received compensation from the Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme. In its most recent report, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group said:

"the current compensation avenues are ineffective in securing compensation for trafficked persons and do not fulfil the spirit of the requirement for compensation in the Convention or Directive."

The fact that only two victims have received compensation speaks for itself.

Clause 12 requires that child trafficking guardian be appointed as soon as a child is identified as a possible victim of trafficking, if there is no suitable person with parental responsibility available, and that meets the directive's requirements in articles 14(2) and 16(3). In essence, what a child trafficking guardian should do is safeguard the child's best interests and work for a long-term solution for the child. The responsibilities of a child trafficking guardian, set out in the Bill, reflect the UNICEF recommendations for that role. A key recommendation from GRETA is the provision of legal guardians for potential child victims of trafficking.

In the original Bill, I used the phrase "legal advocate" to describe that role. However, given the current debate around that role, I decided that it would be better if the term "child trafficking guardian" were used.

Trafficked children are particularly vulnerable and have no one person speaking for their best interests, which leaves them at risk of re-trafficking. In answer to an Assembly question that I submitted, the Minister of Justice reported that, between January 2009 and September 2012, eight trafficked children were cared for by a health and social care trust. Six of those children were allocated a guardian ad litem. However, it was found that three of them had gone missing. It is, undeniably, a much smaller problem here than in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the fact that three trafficked children, or 38% of those who had gone into care in our Province, have gone missing is a matter of huge concern to me. I am sure that every Member will agree when I say that every single child matters and that it is imperative that we do everything we can to protect these vulnerable children and young people.

Currently, children can be passed from government agency to agency, thus from official to official and, therefore, have to repeat their painful story over and over again. For the children concerned, that can be disheartening, exhausting and depressing, and it can be a factor in increasing their vulnerability to re-trafficking. The child trafficking guardian proposed in the Bill will provide a single point of contact, an advocate, for the child's best interest in all his or her interactions with the state, such as the health and social care trust, immigration authorities, and in any court proceedings.

The proposal for a child trafficking guardian does not come only from international organisations. In recent months, the introduction of a child trafficking guardian has been recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster and in the 'Still at risk' report, which was published by the Children's Society and the Refugee Council.

Clause 12 clearly sets out who can be a child trafficking guardian, their function, and states that they should be recognised by relevant agencies that work with the child. That recognition is vital if the guardian is to fulfil his or her role effectively. Given the low number of trafficked children in Northern Ireland, the cost of that provision would be low. Moreover, although clause 12 makes provision for paid child trafficking guardians, it also allows for trained volunteer child trafficking guardians. Such guardians would require fewer resources. I do not believe that the cost should prevent us from introducing such a change. It is important to note that, regardless of whether guardians are paid, they will receive equal training and will, therefore, be of equal quality and impact for the child.

I should add that I am very grateful to the Health Minister for his support with regard to clause 12. A few drafting changes might be required, but I am proud of the fact that, if the clause is passed into law, Northern Ireland will be the first part of the United Kingdom to introduce child trafficking guardians.

Clause 13 is a similar measure to regulations 3 and 4 of the Trafficking People for Exploitation Regulations 2013, which were introduced to make England and Wales compliant with the anti-trafficking directive by the April deadline. Any of us who have met victims of human trafficking will know that they have already been through a horrendous ordeal when they engage with investigators and prosecutors. Clause 13 seeks to protect victims — children and adults — from further stress and anxiety during the investigation and prosecution process by regulating the environment and the nature of the questioning they will receive. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice is keen to follow England and Wales in that regard and to introduce similar legislation in Northern Ireland. As is the case with clause 10, I am happy to work with the Minister to see this legislation implemented in the Province.

Clause 14 will ensure that all victims of human trafficking, whether for sexual or other forms of exploitation, are supported and protected during criminal proceedings against traffickers. In Northern Ireland, vulnerable witnesses are eligible for so-called special measures. Under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, victims of sexual offences are automatically entitled to such protection. This clause seeks to extend the provisions to victims of trafficking or other types of exploitation. Providing victims of trafficking with special measures in trial scenarios will make it much easier for them to act as witnesses in criminal trials.

Last year, the Minister responded to the proposal for the extension of special measures to victims of other forms of trafficking in my draft Bill by suggesting that it was not desirable or necessary. I am glad that, in light of the Westminster Government's decision, the Minister has changed course, and there will be equal treatment for all victims of human trafficking.

Clause 15 requires the Department of Justice to publish annually a strategy on:

"raising awareness of and reducing trafficking ... and slavery offences".

I appreciate that the Minister of Justice recently published an action plan on human trafficking, which, I understand, is to be updated annually. That is a positive step forward, especially considering the fact that the Minister introduced his action plan only after I proposed one in my draft Bill. However, it is still very welcome. It would have been better had it been placed on a statutory basis rather than simply relying on the whim of whichever Minister of Justice happens to be in post. Such a strategy would help to ensure that Northern Ireland is compliant with article 18 of the European directive and would be helpful in keeping the Department of Justice focused on tackling human trafficking and slavery and holding it to account if it fails to take effective action on this issue.

As a consequence of the consultation process, this clause now states that the annual report should be produced:

"in co-operation with non-governmental organisations and other relevant organisations."

That will tie in effectively with the excellent NGO engagement group that the Minister set up last year through his Department.

Clause 16 is an entirely new clause that was introduced as a result of the consultation process. This clause requires the Department of Justice to set up a new:

"independent body to report to the Assembly on the performance of this Act ... and on related matters."

Since I introduced my Bill, the UK Government have announced that they will look to introduce what is described as a modern slavery commissioner, whose remit could extend to cover Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales. I acknowledge that if the UK Government follow through on that commitment, it may provide a better way forward than having a Northern Ireland-specific rapporteur. I am very glad that they seem to have changed direction from their original stance that the work of the interdepartmental ministerial group was sufficient to provide effective scrutiny of the response of government agencies in this area. However, at present, no Bill has been published by the Westminster Government so I am minded to retain this clause until the UK Government clarify what they are seeking to do and specify the time frame in which they will do so.

I want to thank very much those who supported me in developing the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Northern Ireland Law Centre and the women's movement, particularly Gunilla Ekberg, Women's Aid and Ruhama. I am also very grateful for the support of the faith-based organisations that have backed the Bill, especially Cardinal Brady, CARE and the Evangelical Alliance. I particularly want to thank those who have been brave enough to come forward and tell their stories and encourage me to press on. Their input has been the most valuable, and they are the people whom the Bill is all about. The Bill is for them. For all those people and organisations and the many others I have not been able to mention, I am extremely grateful.

In closing, I want to be very clear that I do not naively move the Bill in the hope that it will be a magic wand. I do not believe in magic wands or silver bullets — I live in the real world. I move the Bill because I strongly believe that it will help to improve Northern Ireland's response to the heinous crimes of human trafficking and slavery. Although it certainly will not make things perfect, it will make things better. In so doing, it will also give us the most sophisticated legislative framework in the United Kingdom with which to fight these evils and make us a beacon of best practice, beyond that which is worth striving for.

I warmly commend my Bill to the House, and I will stop there. I look forward to hearing what others have to say. I think that we are in for an interesting debate.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee for Justice on what is a most important issue for Northern Ireland. At the outset, I commend Lord Morrow on his work and perseverance in developing this important legislation and congratulate him on its introduction to the Assembly. Human trafficking is a heinous crime that devastates lives and communities. It needs to be tackled from every possible angle.

I know that Lord Morrow has made this an issue of huge personal importance. It drives to the very core of what he wants to achieve in politics, which is, ultimately, as he has said to me, social justice for the most vulnerable.

I want to put on record my thanks and the thanks of my party for the endeavours that Lord Morrow has made to bring the Bill to the point that it is at now. I trust that the Assembly, as it takes on the responsibility for scrutinising the Bill, will take on the same personal perseverance and conviction that Lord Morrow has brought to it to this point.

The Committee for Justice received briefings on human trafficking and considered the issue regularly over the past 18 months, and it takes the issue very seriously indeed. When looking at the Criminal Justice Bill, the Committee made it very clear to the Minister of Justice that it wanted the strongest possible legislation on human trafficking introduced in Northern Ireland. When considering that Bill's provisions for dealing with human trafficking, the Committee was very concerned about the possibility that a conviction for human trafficking offences would attract a sentence of fewer than six months or a fine, and it felt very strongly that neither reflected the gravity of the offences. The Committee, therefore, pressed the Minister to make changes, and an amendment was tabled to make human trafficking offences indictable only, meaning that offences would be heard in the Crown Court, where the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years. The Committee was satisfied that that position more adequately reflected the seriousness of the crime and was pleased that the Assembly supported the amendment. That should go some way to making Northern Ireland a more hostile place for traffickers, but much more can be done.

In the evidence received during Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, it was clear that a number of the voluntary organisations felt that the Department had missed an opportunity to put into legislation additional human trafficking measures, particularly on the protection and assistance of, and support for, victims, including children; training; a requirement for an independent rapporteur; and the availability of proper investigative tools. In fact, one of the main criticisms of that Part of the Bill was that the Department adopted a minimalist approach in implementing the EU directive on human trafficking. As we have heard, that view is echoed by Lord Morrow, and he wants to change that approach through his Bill. The Committee recognised that there may be merit in making further legislative provision in these additional areas. Aware that Lord Morrow was consulting on a Human Trafficking Bill that covered such issues, the Committee agreed to give further consideration to additional legislative provision when his Bill came forward.

On 12 September, the Committee received a detailed briefing from Lord Morrow on the principles of the Bill and its various provisions. Departmental officials also attended the meeting and outlined the Minister’s position on the Bill, which, disappointingly, appears to be somewhat negative to say the least. Lord Morrow outlined to the Committee why his Bill is necessary to protect some of the most vulnerable men, women and children.

As he said today, he wants Northern Ireland to lead the way and for other countries to look at us as a model for tackling the scourge of human trafficking. He also wants — [Interruption.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Excuse me. Someone's mobile phone is disrupting the proceedings. It interferes with the electronic recording, so would you please switch it off immediately?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to persevere, hoping that it would switch off a little bit sooner.

As Lord Morrow said, he wants Northern Ireland to lead the way and for other countries to look at us as a model for tackling the scourge of human trafficking. He also wants us to adopt a maximalist approach that is in line with the spirit, and not just the letter, of the EU directive. Both objectives are admirable and deserve the Assembly's serious consideration.

The briefing provided Committee members with an opportunity to discuss the Bill's principles and provisions. Although a range of issues were covered, members spent some time discussing clause 6, which, as Lord Morrow highlighted, has attracted a great deal of attention already. I feel that Lord Morrow and his advisers put forward strong and compelling arguments and evidence on the adoption of clause 6, which would make it an offence to purchase sexual services. On the other hand, the Department of Justice’s objections to that approach appear to be based on the need for further research and evidence, which is something that officials could have initiated over a year ago when they first saw Lord Morrow’s proposals. They chose not to do so until now, which appears to me to be a move to try to kick this particular clause into the long grass. I will come back to that when I am speaking in an individual capacity.

Having said that, I am very pleased that, at its meeting on 12 September, the Committee agreed that it would support the Bill's getting beyond Second Stage. That will allow the Committee to get down into the detailed scrutiny of the Bill.

I have no doubt that, assuming that the Bill passes its Second Stage, the Committee will receive many comments and views on clause 6. I assure you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, that the Committee will look at every clause in the Bill, because every clause requires and is worthy of the scrutiny that a Committee in this place should give to it. So, we will look at every clause in close detail. Members have specifically indicated that they are keen to meet the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to discuss its report on a review of legislation on prostitution, in which it recommended adopting an approach that is similar to the Swedish model. That would be very helpful for the Committee's consideration.

I am sure that the Committee will want to undertake detailed scrutiny of the rest of the Bill, with the aim of ensuring that we put in place the strongest possible legislation in Northern Ireland on human trafficking.

I will now make some comments as an individual MLA. This is a moment for the Assembly to tackle what is one of the big issues for our society. This place is often criticised for not rising to the challenge. I believe that this is an opportunity for the Assembly to deal with those who are the most vulnerable in our community and to put into being a piece of legislation that will make a fundamental difference to how those vulnerable people are cared for and that, very importantly, will prevent people from being put into the positions that they have been put into through human exploitation of various forms.

It is a matter of social justice, and that is what is driving Lord Morrow and this party. It is about social justice and protecting those who are the most vulnerable in our community. In my maiden speech in this place, I indicated that those who are the most disadvantaged in our society would get the most attention from me, regardless of the spectrum that that disadvantage came from, whether it is poverty, education or health. Here is an opportunity for the Assembly to deal with those who are exploited, both through labour and sexual exploitation, and to do something for the most vulnerable.

We can treat the symptoms of what drives human trafficking, and it is right that we want to ensure that the best care is provided for victims and that we opened the SARC centre in Antrim so that those who have been raped can get the best services that we can provide. All those endeavours are the right things to do, but, in all of them, we are treating the symptoms. Alternatively, we can get down to preventing people from ever being victims in the first place. That is what clause 6 will do. Lord Morrow said earlier, and it is worth repeating, that, without clause 6, you are treating only the symptoms of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Clause 6 is what will make the fundamental difference to tackling that heinous crime.

In hearing evidence from the Department on why we could not have the clause, I was disappointed with its attitude. For a Department with a budget of £1·4 billion, some reasons given were as pedantic as this: the Department would be concerned about the cost implications, stating that it would need to find an unresourced allocation of £1·2 million or £1·3 million. The issue causes the Department concern. We can find tens of millions of pounds to plug a legal aid gap, yet £1·2 million or £1·3 million when it comes to dealing with something that would help the most vulnerable and exploited in our community is a problem for the Department.

I also found the commentary around the need for research concerning. The Bill was published a long time ago. Rightly, the Minister looked at it and said, "That is a good idea of Lord Morrow's. Let's have an annual strategy to deal with it, because that is a good thing. It is right that we put it into statute so that we are not dependent on the benevolence of the Minister of the time." That was welcome, but more needs to be done.

The justification that I hear from the Department and the Minister for why the issue is premature alarms me. We dealt with the Criminal Justice Bill. We put forward an amendment to make these types of offences indictable only. Lord Morrow published his private Member's Bill. The Committee indicated that it wanted the strongest possible legislation, not a minimalist approach to be taken. However, still today, some 18 months later, we hear that it is premature and that we need more research and evidence.

Why did they not do the research and seek the evidence when the Bill was published? I think that it is because they want to stall on tackling clause 6. This is what it is about: let us drag this out. If we drag it out, however, what happens? We lose the only legislative vehicle that will allow the Assembly to deal with the issue in this mandate . Perhaps the Minister will indicate later that he will introduce another Bill and have the time to bring it through the Assembly, but all the indications that I get are that there is no more time for the current amount of legislation that needs to come through.

When will the research that the Minister sought to bring to the attention of the Committee and the Assembly be completed? It will not be completed in time for the Committee to carry out its scrutiny of the Bill. In the absence of the new research, which will somehow indicate that Northern Ireland deals with such issues differently from the rest of the world, there is a mountain of research and evidence, and unless the people of Northern Ireland are somehow different from those in Sweden, Norway, across Europe and across the world when it comes to dealing with the sexual exploitation of women, children and men, why are we waiting? The evidence is there, and we need to move on with the issue.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member feel that there is sufficient evidence already present to support clause 6? Is he confident that the information is to hand? While he is at it, I ask him why he thinks that Northern Ireland should take a different stance from the rest of the United Kingdom on sentencing.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, I do think that the evidence is there. We need only to look to our nearest neighbour, the Irish Republic. There is an all-party report with a huge amount of evidence that was signed off unanimously. That is why the Committee for Justice is keen to meet with that Committee. This issue does require an all-Ireland approach, and I am quite happy for us to deal with that and take things forward.

I will make some progress on these issues. I will give way later in my speech, but not on this point.

The Member makes the valid point that where the legislation has been enacted, it has made a difference. In Northern Ireland, we know that our current legislation is not effective. When the Policing and Crime Act 2009 was implemented, there was a new offence of coercion. Not only has there been no conviction based on that legislation, but not even a single prosecution has been taken forward based on it. Therefore, the status quo is not working. In other countries, where they have developed a more progressive system to deal with the issue, legislation is having an effect.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He will be aware, as I am as a member of the Committee for Justice, that the difference between this part of the United Kingdom and others is that we have a land border with another member state. It was very clear in evidence given to the Committee that if we do not follow the action that the Republic of Ireland will, potentially, take through its all-party Oireachtas group on the issue and put in place legislation to protect people from human trafficking, what will happen is that, as in Scandinavia, the problem will be dumped over the border in Northern Ireland because we will have failed to act. The Republic of Ireland will be ahead of us.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

To echo that point — and it is not usual protocol — Rachel Moran is in the Gallery. She is the author of a book. She became involved in prostitution at the age of 15. Last week, she spoke powerfully to our party on the issue. She made the very same point that should the Irish Republic proceed with what now seems to be its intention, Northern Ireland will be exploited by those involved in human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of women in the Republic of Ireland. They will just move their business here. It was a powerful point that was well made. I encourage Members who have not met her and who, perhaps, take a different view, to meet someone who is a real victim; read the book and hear evidence from someone who has actually been involved in that type of activity.

I disappointed not only by the Department's response to that, but by that of the Police Service. Through Detective Superintendent Philip Marshall, the Police Service made highly unconventional and unwarranted interventions in the debate. I am pleased that Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris clarified the position over the weekend, because some of us were worried that the Police Service was sending out a very dangerous message that the issue was not a concern to it and that, in fact, it would legalise elements of what Lord Morrow seeks to address. I am glad that that issue has now been taken into hand. I trust that the PSNI, like the Department, will hear evidence as the Committee carries out its scrutiny work that will actually change the police's position, because I do not believe that they are a million miles away from where Lord Morrow wants the place to be in his Bill. However, they should recognise that we do not tell the police how to carry out their operational activities, nor do we tell the judiciary whether to find someone guilty. Therefore, the police will not tell us, as legislators, what type of legislation should come through the Assembly. That is a matter for the elected politicians who represent the people of Northern Ireland. Let us do that in the way in which we should do it, based on the evidence that already exists.

The other issue that, I think, is important to address is the fact that the primary motivating factor for human trafficking, and the offences around it, is the sexual exploitation of victims. In 2011-12, 73% of the victims rescued were sexually exploited. That is why clause 6 is so important to the Bill, because the primary victims of human exploitation are those who are then put into sexual servitude. That is why we need to deal with this point.

Now is the time for Members to act, to step up and to take — yes — big decisions based on the sound evidence that there is and exists, or they can baulk at the opportunity that is presented to them and put forward the flimsy excuses that the Department has put forward so far as a reason to try to block elements of the Bill. However, I trust that we will actually step up, that we in Northern Ireland will lead the United Kingdom on this and that we will also deal with the Irish Republic on it in a way that will, ultimately, make the island of Ireland unattractive to organised crime gangs that are profiteering from the abuse and misery of men, women and children through sexual exploitation and other forms of human trafficking.

I support the Bill.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht inniu. I welcome today's debate.

The Bill seeks to make further provisions to the human trafficking legislation that already exists. If there are gaps in that legislation, we should fill them to improve upon the measures that are in place and, where possible, to strengthen the laws.

Má tá bearnaí sa reachtaíocht arbh fhéidir iad a líonadh agus biseach a chur ar an rud atá ann cheana féin, ba chóir dúinn na bearnaí sin a líonadh agus an dlí a dhaingniú más féidir.

Make no mistake about it: human trafficking is an obscene practice and is one of the gravest abuses of human rights in the modern world. It is absolutely right that we use our best efforts to stand firmly against any form of violence and exploitation of people in our society, particularly women and children who, in the main, are the victims of human trafficking. Whatever we can do to eradicate it, we should do as comprehensively as possible.

As things stand, we can support the general principles of the Bill, the aim of which is to ensure that our framework for dealing with human trafficking is as robust as possible. We seek to address the crime of human trafficking via a three-pronged approach: prevention of the offence; protection of the victims; and prosecution of the offenders. A good amount of work has been done to address those issues, some of which has been legislative, and some of which has been done via administrative measures. There have also been campaigns aimed at awareness-raising among the public. We should always seek to improve our laws, whenever and wherever we can, to ensure that they are fit for purpose. We must remember that the nature of human trafficking is not static. The picture can be a rapidly changing one, making it very difficult to detect and to prove, so we need laws that have the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.

It is clear that more information and consultation are required on aspects of the Bill. Clause 6 in particular, which seeks to criminalise payment for the sexual services of a prostitute, has provoked an intense debate. There are some very different views and opinions — all of them passionately felt — within and beyond our society on the issues raised by that clause. Some question the inclusion of a clause on prostitution in a human trafficking Bill, saying that although they are often related, they are, nevertheless, two separate issues, that it is wrong to conflate them, and that they deserve to be treated to separately. Others, however, see them as part and parcel of the same thing, saying that it is right to join them together.

The truth is that we do not really know the actual extent or range of prostitution in the North of Ireland. We need to know what the implications are, particularly how it impacts on the women involved. We need to understand what it will mean for women involved in prostitution if they have to leave that form of labour. We need to ensure that we are putting protections in place to support women in every way. We need much more information on the issue —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am bit surprised at the way in which the Member has couched her argument that, before giving support to clause 6, she and her party want to see what impact the Bill is likely to have on the women, whether it would require them to give up their work and what alternative there might then be for them. Is she saying that if it turns out that the only way of women earning a living is through prostitution, whether it is forced or not, her party will then oppose clause 6?

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We will await the outcome of the research and the consultation, and, when we are in an informed position, we will come to a position on that. We want to state clearly that vulnerable women and children need to be protected in our society, and we will always support that. We are always against the exploitation of women and children and will always remain in that position.

As I said, we need much more information on the issue to make an assessment on whether changing the law on it will have the effect of reducing the demand for human trafficking. Some are convinced that it will and draw on evidence from places such as Sweden, whereas others disagree. We have evidence that says that the changing of the law in Sweden has dramatically changed the amount of human trafficking that takes place there, but there is also evidence that contradicts that. It is not a clear picture. We need to listen to all the evidence and not just one side of the argument. We have a responsibility to do that.

As a Committee, we clearly need to listen to as many views as possible on clause 6 and all other aspects of the Bill so that we come to a fully informed position. We will take evidence from a wide range of stakeholders and organisations so that we fully understand all the issues raised, and, throughout that process, we will put forward amendments, where required, to ensure that any legislation that might arise will be robust and appropriate. We have also been informed that the Department has commissioned research on prostitution, as has already been mentioned by other Members. We welcome that work and take the view that it will be valuable in helping to inform the debate. However, we need to ask this question: will criminalising payment for the sexual services of a prostitute help in the prevention of human trafficking? That is the vital question, because that is what the Bill claims that it will do, and we need to listen to all the views on that. We need to have evidence that it will have the desired effect.

Yes. OK, Basil.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member also accept that the evidence on the Swedish model that is cited by the proposer and supporters of the Bill is contested, that there are differing views on the efficacy of the action that is proposed, and that it is really important that, before we reach any particular decision, we have the full facts in front of us, and research is required?

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

Absolutely. I thank Mr McCrea for his intervention. That is precisely the point that I made earlier and I thank him for supporting that view. With that, I conclude my comments on the Bill.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr McGlone summed up some of the issues with the Bill. We are discussing the principles of the Bill today, and I welcome the work of Lord Morrow and the experts who assisted him in bringing forward the consultation. The consultation and its responses were very detailed. A number of people who have significant knowledge of this field assisted in developing the Bill to the stage that it is at today.

Human trafficking is one of the most concerning types of organised crime, given the nature of what is involved. That is illustrated through the four main reasons for trafficking: sexual exploitation; forced labour; domestic servitude; and organ harvesting. The extent of human trafficking is difficult to judge, but it has been estimated to affect between two million and four million people globally. I am informed that 97 victims have been recovered in Northern Ireland between 2009 and 2013, and that over half of them were trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Increased awareness is vital, and initiatives such as the Blue Blindfold campaign aim to address that. The fact that the Bill has brought a renewed focus on this area is to be commended.

Some concerning conclusions have been reached about trafficking in Northern Ireland. The Department of Justice's research paper from January 2011 states that Northern Ireland is both a destination country and a transit country for women who are being trafficked with a view to prostitution. A report compiled by Barnardo's and the NSPCC concluded that Northern Ireland was being used by human traffickers as a gateway to Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. That is even more concerning in light of the decision by Sinn Féin and the SDLP to block the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. The agency was specifically established to offer expertise in tackling organised crime such as human trafficking.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Quite happily.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am very concerned at the abuse of our position on the National Crime Agency. The focus needs to be on women and children who are being trafficked and affected by violence. I am very concerned to hear the Member's speech.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member may not like what she is hearing, but those are the facts. The Member may not like to deal in facts, but that is what I am dealing in.

I believe that the National Crime Agency has a huge part to play in stopping and prohibiting organised crime. Human trafficking is part of that organised crime, not only for sexual exploitation. There are also wider issues that concern not only women and children but all human beings.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am happy to give way to the Member.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member agree that it is not surprising that Sinn Féin would be embarrassed about the issue being raised? Since human trafficking is an international crime, only an agency such as the National Crime Agency can get to grips with the way in which the issue crosses international boundaries. If Sinn Féin was really concerned about the exploitation of women and children, it would not block the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, I believe that there has been some politicking by the nationalist parties in this process, which is, to say the least, concerning and disappointing. The PSNI will not be able to draw on the expertise that is available to other parts of the United Kingdom, so human traffickers will see Northern Ireland as a good place where there is an opportunity to do business.

Doing nothing is not an option. The minimalist approach taken by the Department of Justice in complying with European directives thus far is not a way to tackle the issue robustly. The fact that the Minister proposed only two primary legislative changes in response to the 2011 European directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims shows an unwillingness to take the initiative and lead.

Some clauses would, undoubtedly, improve the fight against human trafficking. I think specifically of clause 11, which sets out a requirement for compensation for victims. Clause 12 would introduce a guardian for child victims of trafficking if they were not in contact with a parent. That would certainly help to improve the situation of vulnerable trafficked children. Clause 13 mirrors articles 12 and 15 of the European directive in avoiding what might amount to secondary victimisation during police interviews. I am sure that anyone who is aware of the ordeal and trauma that trafficked victims go through will agree that unnecessary questioning and repetition should, of course, be avoided.

There has been opposition, not least from the police and the Department of Justice, to some aspects of the Bill. I hope that the vast majority at least accept, as we are here to debate today, the principle of the Bill. The argument from Lord Morrow is that it is necessary to combat the demand for sexual services. He cites Sweden as a jurisdiction in which similar measures are in place. As we have heard today, some of the arguments are up for debate. I, like others here, am quite happy to have that debate. We need to get that evidence base through the Committee and establish the proper facts of all aspects. We can then make a proper and reasoned judgement on which clauses might be unnecessary and where more amendments might strengthen Lord Morrow's Bill, particularly on the issue of people having only six months to bring a case of an alleged incident. We would like that period to be extended.

I would be grateful to hear the number of arrests made and the number of convictions secured under the current legislation dealing with sexual offences. Perhaps the Minister has that information. If the numbers are small, why does the legislation not work? Would this Bill improve it? If so, we need to implement it. If there are other aspects or amendments that can improve it, let us bring them forward. That is the idea of a Bill: we have a debate, we table amendments if we feel that they improve it, and we hopefully get to a conclusion.

Do we need further legislation in the area? My answer is yes, I believe that we clearly do. I hope that the Minister and the Department of Justice accept that as well. Do I support the broad principles of Lord Morrow's Bill to provide a more robust legal framework for tackling human trafficking? Yes, my party and I support that. However, there are concerns and a requirement for more evidence and information. I am happy to have that debate and discussion. Hopefully, we will progress improved legislation and an improved framework to help victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Although the headlines in the media today will be primarily about prostitution, this is a human trafficking and exploitation Bill. It has already been referred to by one media outlet today as a Bill on human trafficking and prostitution. That is regrettable, not least because it has the effect of taking the focus away from human trafficking in its totality. Human trafficking is a global issue that encompasses many other elements, such as forced labour, slavery, servitude and the extraction of organs and tissue. Those elements need to be considered in equal detail by the Assembly. They should not be clouded by an important issue that deals with prostitution. We would be doing a great disservice to those who are trafficked if this whole debate were about prostitution.

I pay tribute to party colleagues who have done a great deal of work over many years to address and raise awareness of the wide-ranging nature of human trafficking. That includes my colleague Anna Lo for the efforts that she has put in to setting up the all-party group in the Assembly and for the work that she has done through that group. I also pay tribute to Naomi Long MP for keeping the issue very much on the agenda at Westminster, and to the Justice Minister for the actions that he and the Department of Justice have taken already in the Department and through legislation and awareness campaigns to deal with these iniquitous problems. We welcome that Lord Morrow shares many of the concerns of Anna Lo, David Ford, Naomi Long and the Alliance Party as a whole. We also welcome that we can have this detailed debate about this issue in the Chamber and in Committee.

Most, if not all, of us who are standing up in the Chamber today will be wearing clothes or will be in possession of household goods that may have been produced by forced or slave labour, perhaps not in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, but wider afield. Human trafficking is a global issue that requires a global response.

My party colleague Anna Lo will deal specifically with clause 6, and, therefore, I wish to focus on a number of the other clauses that are in the Bill. Alliance is concerned that clauses 3 and 4 will have an adverse impact on judicial discretion. The Assembly has debated mandatory minimum sentences before, and I remain unconvinced of their effectiveness. When we remove judicial discretion, we are at greater risk of inappropriate outcomes. Our judges are best placed to take full account of the potentially broad scope of circumstances in each individual case. We already have —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I will.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I think that the Member knows that I am not one who is an enthusiast for minimum sentences, but, in fairness to the Bill, clause 4(2) preserves the right of the court to take a contrary view. It is not a mandatory minimum sentence; it is a discretionary minimum sentence in the sense that the court, if it thinks that there are exceptional circumstances to do otherwise, can use it. So, is that not quite different from a mandatory minimum sentence?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome Mr Allister's comments. I think that they prove the need for the detailed scrutiny that we will have in Committee on those issues. Where amendment is needed, we will have it, and explanations such as that which Mr Allister gave to us will be of great benefit. I am sure that a lot of that will be delivered to us by way of submissions.

Nevertheless, I believe that we already have sentencing guidance that makes it clear that anyone who is found guilty of human trafficking offences can expect to go to prison. In each case, a judge needs to be free to make the most appropriate ruling based on his or her assessment of the particular offender, crime, victim and circumstances. Even with an exemption for exceptional circumstances as contained in the Bill, mandatory minimum sentences allow for little or no such discretion. The use of sentencing guidelines are a more flexible and comprehensive way of allowing each individual case to be judged, and, on those rare occasions where there is a public belief that the sentence is too low, we are aware of the appeal mechanisms that exist to allow for referral for reconsideration of sentencing.

In addition to our concerns about the effect of minimum sentences, we are concerned about clause 4's equal treatment of children and adults. Children should —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Yes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know whether he is seeking some excuses on behalf of the Alliance Party for not supporting the Bill, but he keeps referring to his concerns about mandatory sentences. Maybe, in preparation for the debate, it would have been useful for him to have read the Bill. It has already been pointed out to him that clause 4(2) states quite clearly that:

"The court shall impose a custodial sentence for a term of at least two years ... unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so."

So, why does he keep wittering on about his concern over mandatory sentences? Is it just an excuse?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Far from it. What I am trying to emphasise is that it should be at a judge's discretion, rather than the discretion of the House, to set the sentence requirements in the Bill.

I am equally concerned that the Bill provides for equal treatment of children and adults. Children should not be subject to the same sentences as adults. We have a sentencing framework for children to assist the judiciary, and that framework is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are concerned that clause 4 is not in the "best interests of the child", as demanded by article 3 of the convention.

The overriding consideration of any change to the law must be to support the rights of children who are caught up in such horrendous circumstances, whether those children are stitching clothes, harvesting vegetables or working for unscrupulous and criminal gangmasters. It is vital that we look at those issues in more detail, and I look forward to dealing with those clauses in more detail in the Justice Committee.

We have concerns about the proposed limitation of judicial discretion in clause 8. We do not think that blanket immunity from prosecution for victims is wholly appropriate. There may be cases in which someone who has been trafficked gets involved in illegal activity, including the trafficking of others and the distribution of drugs. If that person has become involved in organised crime and has created more victims, it would be extremely irresponsible to deny a judge the option of considering that case on its own, individual merits. Current arrangements allow prosecutors the discretion not to prosecute when it is considered to be in the public interest, and in the interest of vulnerable individuals, where the discretion of the court and the Public Prosecution Service can direct them to a wide range of support services. Cases can be considered in the light of their specific circumstances. Clause 8 would remove the ability to do so in very difficult and complex cases, and it therefore demands more detailed scrutiny.

Turning to clause 16, it is absolutely vital that all relevant Departments and agencies be held accountable for how effectively they address and respond to human trafficking. We welcome the recognition of that in the Bill. We also welcome the news that the Home Secretary is planning to bring forward a modern slavery Bill, which would, among other things, establish a UK-wide anti-slavery commissioner, who would likely fulfil the role of an independent national rapporteur. We will need to see how that can and will be developed in Northern Ireland.

Organised crime is primarily addressed in the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom-wide agency. One of the reasons for that is the increased global nature of organised crime and a recognition that those issues are more effectively dealt with through international and national structures, with comprehensive local input. It is therefore a matter of deep regret that there are parties in the House that cannot see and will not sign up to the wider benefits of the proposed National Crime Agency. That is an issue that I will push strenuously, in order to make every tool available to us to combat the evils of human trafficking. It is irresponsible of others to tie our hands.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Yes.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Does the Member believe that there should be accountability arrangements for anyone serving in the Police Service in the North of Ireland? The National Crime Agency does not stand up to the standards of accountability.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

If the Member were a member of the Justice Committee, or if she had read the responses by the Chief Constable in that Committee last week, she would know that those measures of accountability are there and were vouched for by him.

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

Will the Member give way?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Yes.

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

The Chief Constable did not say that. He said that he was aware of the accountability issues that had been raised and that those issues need to be worked through. As I understand it, those issues are still being worked through. A satisfactory level of accountability has not yet been reached.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

He gave us further assurance on that, but we will have that debate in the Justice Committee.

Human trafficking is an element of organised crime, and a global issue. Arguably, it would be more effectively dealt with by local Departments, agencies and groups feeding into a structure that has a national resource, an international reach and an international perspective. Further, we have concerns about the compatibility of the functions of the model proposed under clause 16 with proposed UK-wide structures. Again, that is something that will require detailed scrutiny at the next stage.

Finally, today, Alliance is content to see the progress of the Bill at Second Stage, but we look forward to the detailed scrutiny that will follow in the Justice Committee.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am very grateful for the chance to contribute to today's debate. I warmly welcome the proposal and commend Lord Morrow for all his work and diligence in bringing the Bill to the Floor of the Assembly. I wholeheartedly support the entirety of the Bill. I strongly believe that it sets out an effective package of measures to support victims of human trafficking and exploitation in our Province and to punish perpetrators of those heinous crimes.

Today, I will focus on one particular clause: clause 6. The provision of clause 6 in the anti-trafficking and exploitation Bill is absolutely pivotal for the simple reason that, according to the figures from the National Referral Mechanism, the single biggest reason for trafficking to Northern Ireland is, sadly, the demand for paid sex; 73% of all identified victims in 2011-12. If that demand did not exist, the rationale for trafficking people here would be much more limited. To have an anti-trafficking Bill for Northern Ireland that did not address this principal would be to present a Bill with a massive hole in it.

At this point, some may say that they agree that we need to tackle the demand but that we are already doing so through article 64A of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, which states that it is an offence to pay for sexual services if the person in prostitution is subjected to force. That covers the demand for paid sex from anyone who has been trafficked and, indeed, the demand for people who have been pimped out but not trafficked. However, I am afraid that that provision has clearly proved ineffective. We have not had a single conviction under this legislation since 2009, although the recent trafficking prosecutions show that people have been forced into prostitution since then.

I do not deny that the 2009 change in the law was intended to be a positive step towards tackling the problem of trafficking and prostitution at the time, but we need to recognise that it has not worked. The offence has failed for two key reasons. First, it requires proof that the person from whom an attempt was made to pay for sex was coerced. That has proved difficult to prove. Secondly, the offence provides only a very short time within which to prove coercion. I understand that the Minister of Justice has indicated that he would like to raise the time bar for proving coercion from six months to three years. Although that would certainly be better than the current situation, it does not address the problem of making the offence easier to prove. Such caveat offences have proven ineffective in practice, as has clearly been illustrated by the experience in Finland. Consequently, I believe that it is incumbent upon us as legislators to put into law a statute that will simply make it an offence to purchase sex.

At this point, some might respond by saying that, while it may be true that the single biggest reason for trafficking to Northern Ireland is the demand for paid sex, many people in prostitution in Northern Ireland have not been trafficked. That point is raised as though it were a moral problem for the Bill, on the basis that it is supposed to be about just trafficking. However, that has never been the case. It is the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Bill. The slavery offences that it includes, for example, pertain to forced labour where there is no element of trafficking.

Where the sale of sex does not pertain to trafficking, it most certainly pertains to exploitation. Consider the facts. It has been illustrated that many individuals working in the sex industry enter before they have reached the age of 18 or even the age of consent. That is evidenced by a study conducted by Eaves, which involved interviews with 114 women working in the sex industry in both on- and off-street prostitution. The study found that 32% of those interviewed had entered the sex industry before the age of 18. Home Office figures reveal that homelessness, living in care, debt and substance abuse are all common experiences prior to entering prostitution. Research also shows that many of those in prostitution have suffered abuse or violence in the home, with as many as 85% reporting physical abuse in the family home. A staggering 80% to 95% of women involved in street-based prostitution are addicted to class A drugs. The Eaves study of women involved in both on- and off-street prostitution, which I referred to earlier, found that 83% of interviewees disclosed current or former problematic drug or alcohol misuse. Moreover, pimps often use drug dependency as a form of control. Professor Roger Matthews writes that street prostitutes frequently report that they work to support not only their own habit but that of their boyfriend, pimp or partner. In some cases, male drug users and dealers will seek out female prostitutes as partners since they make good customers and providers.

Prostitution is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world. The men, women and children involved risk physical assault, sexual violence and verbal abuse every day. At least 65 women in prostitution in the UK have been murdered in the past 18 years. I do not quote those figures to suggest that there are not people who would say that they choose to be in prostitution, but it is very clear to me that they are in the minority. Some people in this category are very articulate and are able to make their voices heard, but we should not forget those who do not receive the same level of publicity.

We face a choice: do we want a law that is defined out of primary regard for the privileged minority who charge very large sums of money or do we want legislation defined out of primary regard for the vulnerable majority? I am very clear: we must prioritise the latter, which is precisely what clause 6 does.

Clause 6 is what we need in this area. It gets right to the heart of the issue, and it does that by addressing the demand for human trafficking for sexual exploitation by making the payment of sexual services an offence. Trafficking is a business and, like any other business, it is built on the model of supply and demand. If we are truly concerned and wish to make a difference to the number of people being trafficked and exploited, it is paramount that we reduce the demand for paid sex.

In 2009, the Swedish national rapporteur stated:

"It has been discovered through wire tapping and surveillance that traffickers consider Sweden a bad market."

That comment was supported by Swedish estimates that between 400 and 600 women are trafficked there every year. Whereas, it is estimated that, in Finland, between 10,000 and 15,000 are trafficked into that country every year. Those statistics make clear that the Swedish approach of making it an offence to purchase sexual services is a powerful combatant to the evil of human trafficking. That power resides equally in clause 6 of the Bill. Lauren Hersh, who is New York director of Equality Now argues:

"To combat trafficking effectively, we must shrink the market, holding buyers and traffickers accountable".

Clause 6 addresses that demand directly, and it will make a real difference to the lives of vulnerable women, men and children in Northern Ireland. Carolyn Maloney, who is a Democrat member of the United States House of Representatives succinctly remarks that:

"the abuse will continue as long as we fail to address the demand side of the equation."

The abuse of men, women and children in Northern Ireland will continue if this House fails to address the demand side of the equation. We must have the courage to act now. Indeed, we are duty-bound to protect the most vulnerable in our society. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Human trafficking is a modern day form of slavery and, if William Wilberforce were to reappear in our society, he would recognise it as such and would be appalled at the extent to which human trafficking takes place throughout the world today. We are not immune to that as a society, and this island is not immune to that as an island. Quite properly, the European Union issued the anti-trafficking directive of 2011 to deal with that issue. It is commendable that Lord Morrow is trying to build on that directive and trying to create the best practice that we can have here in Northern Ireland so that we can be an exemplar in combating human trafficking. Therefore, the SDLP supports the principles of the Bill, and we look forward to it going to Committee where we can thoroughly scrutinise the individual provisions that Lord Morrow has drafted. It does not mean, of course, that we will agree with everything in the draft Bill, but we will seek to try to be as supportive as we can.

It also builds on the work of the Council of Europe, which has done great work on anti-trafficking. The convention of 2005 was an important milestone for that approach.

So, a number of European bodies are dealing with the issue.

We should be supportive of trying to get the best possible legal framework in Northern Ireland. The basic principles of the Bill — the prevention of trafficking, support for victims of trafficking and tackling the demand for trafficking — are worthy aims. I hope that the Bill can be successfully legislated by the House to support, deal with and address those aims.

I commend the sponsor Lord Morrow, in particular for the emphasis that he has placed on victims of human trafficking. The Bill, if it is implemented, will do much to advance the interests of victims. In particular, the special measures for victims who have to appear in court to give evidence will help and will give them the special measures enjoyed by other victims of crime in Northern Ireland. That is a very important step forward.

It is all very well for us to say that we support and have sympathy for victims, but we have to translate that sympathy into action. We have to be supportive of victims, because they are some of the most vulnerable people on the face of this planet. We have to show real compassion, but that compassion has to be translated into practical measures to support victims. The thrust of Lord Morrow's Bill attempts to do that, and that is very important.

We have to be robust on the prosecution of traffickers. There has been mention of clause 4 and the minimum custodial sentence. We have to look at that carefully. Mr Allister has said that it is not mandatory. I think that it falls between mandatory and permissive. We have to look at that to see if it can be better tailored. Nonetheless, we have to take a robust view of sentencing for trafficking. People who traffic commit the foulest of crimes. They must be deterred, and they must be punished when they exploit the most vulnerable people on the earth.

On the issue of reporting and compiling reports, it is important that we have a discrete Northern Ireland rapporteur who will report on what happens in our jurisdiction; that would be a good thing. It is all very well to say that there could be a national rapporteur or whatever, but it would be immensely valuable to have a local person to deal with the issues. That is contained in clause 16, and it is an important contribution to our efforts to understand and monitor what happens to the victims of human trafficking and the level of human trafficking in this jurisdiction. A local person dealing with that would be much better value than somebody at national level.

I move to some of the comments made by the Chair of the Committee and the Justice Committee meeting that took place the week before last on the matter. The Committee is very serious about dealing with the Bill in detail. Everybody has shown their willingness to try to reach a common view on the Bill. I hope that that works, because it is much better that we work together on this rather than divide. It would be useful if we had at least some conversation with those involved in the Oireachtas Justice Committee's consideration of the issue of prostitution.

That leads me to clause 6, which is probably the most contentious element of the Bill. I have said in Committee that my party and I have an open mind. We will address this issue seriously. We want to hear the evidence and to understand how other people feel about it. We want to hear from organisations that have a particular interest in the clause, and we will consider it on the basis of those arguments. We do not have a closed mind on it. It will be valuable for all of us to listen carefully to those arguments so that we do not prejudge things.

Lord Morrow puts forward a robust point of view, and I understand that. People must remember that the Bill is not simply about human trafficking but about the exploitation of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.

I will conclude there, Principal Deputy Speaker. It might be a timely conclusion from your point of view. I commend the Bill, and we support its principles. We look forward to scrutinising it and working with all parties to reach consensus.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

There have been some controversial issues with the Ilex board. Of course, it is important, from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's point of view, that this important body moves forward. A new chair and three new board members were appointed to Ilex on 16 September for a three-year term. Philip Flynn was appointed chair, and Gerry Mullen, Henry McGarvey and Aaron McElhinney were appointed non-executive directors. All appointees, prior to their appointment, indicated that they had not undertaken any party political activity within the past five years.

A competition to recruit a chair to the Ilex board was undertaken in 2012 but did not provide a wide enough pool of candidates, and, therefore, a further competition commenced earlier this year.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an an Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the First Minister for that answer and congratulate those who have been newly appointed to bring the necessary leadership to Ilex. Given the need for the recent appointments, has the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister any indicative time frame for the appointment of a much-needed chief executive?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is wrong for us to get into the business of giving precise dates. In the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, Ilex is a fairly frequent topic of conversation, given the deputy First Minister's particular interest in it. All I can say to the Member is that we will certainly appoint a chief executive as soon as possible. There is no dragging of feet or delay on the part of OFMDFM or its officials.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what is its expectation of the process and outcome of the Haass talks by December, given the First Minister's reported comments on their challenging nature and scope. (AQT 84/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I know that some people have sought to indicate that I was overly negative. We need to remember, first, why Dr Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan are carrying out this facilitating role. These are matters that we have spent many years discussing in the Chamber and in our parties outside it. The deputy First Minister and I were engaged in discussions on parades right back to the Hillsborough Castle talks. Indeed, before that, all parties in the Chamber discussed these matters but failed to reach any conclusions during previous negotiations.

Over the past 18 months to two years, there have been intensive discussions at the all-party committee that was set up by the deputy First Minister and me. Although a wide range of issues was agreed, three matters were found to be too difficult to reach agreement on at that time. The deputy First Minister and I committed ourselves to setting up a working group of some description, attempting to continue to work at these matters and trying to resolve them.

By their very nature, these are difficult issues that, thus far, we have been unable to resolve. I do not want to put any undue pressure on Richard Haass and his team by raising expectations. However, from our conversations with Dr Haass, it is fairly clear that he is absolutely determined to do what he can to facilitate agreement. I am glad that all parties that entered the discussions said that they did so in a positive manner. I can give an assurance that, as far as this party is concerned, that is the way that we will approach them.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for that comprehensive answer. Some parties have indicated that if no consensus can be found in the panel, Dr Haass will put forward his own proposals. What is your view on that approach?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Alliance Party and the SDLP in particular seem to have indicated that, if it was not possible to reach agreement in the talks, Dr Haass should bring forward proposals himself.

I would neither want to fetter in any way how the Haass talks should operate nor suggest what might happen in the event of failure. I think that we have to approach the talks on the basis of doing everything that we can to make them succeed. However, I think that we all know that if we want anything to stick in Northern Ireland, it is necessary for agreement among the parties. I see little advantage in Dr Haass putting forward his views if he was unable to get agreement on them during the talks process. However, he may find that approach advantageous if he runs out of time but, in an attempt to get a solution, sees areas where further work could be carried out and things could be looked at in more detail.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the new racial equality strategy will be published. (AQT 86/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will ask my colleague junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer that question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We have put a lot of work into the racial equality strategy, and our officials have been liaising directly with the racial equality panel and with wider representatives of the sector. The purpose of that was to refocus and refine the racial equality strategy. Following the last meeting of the racial equality panel, we are now at a stage when the draft strategy is nearing completion, and we intend to commence the public consultation exercise as soon as possible thereafter.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank junior Minister Bell for his response. When will the proposed crisis fund or emergency fund, which was promised in addition to tiers 1 to 3 of the minority ethnic development fund, be in place?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In line with the recommendations from an evaluation of the minority ethic development fund, we have, as the Member indicated, given an agreement in principle for a crisis fund element. That crisis fund element will be in addition to the £1·1 million annual budget. The size of that crisis fund is being examined and still to be decided. It is envisaged that the crisis fund will be delivered by a third party.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for its assessment of the performance of the National Asset Management Agency, given that there have been a number of media reports of the First Minister's criticism of that organisation. (AQT 87/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I saw some headlines that would have suggested that I was critical of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). In actual fact, I think that, according to its own guidelines, NAMA has performed exactly as one might have expected. It has been very helpful where Northern Ireland is concerned, in that it could have gone for a fire sale of assets here at an early stage. That would have been vastly damaging to the construction industry in particular and to our property market.

My complaint with NAMA was not about the organisation but about the fact that banks in Northern Ireland principally, but NAMA and the Presbyterian Mutual Society, are all holding on to very considerable assets that could be developed and, therefore, bring jobs to the construction industry. The fact that they are holding on to those assets is understandable from their point of view, in that they hope to maximise the amount of revenue that they might receive from their sale. However, it is considerably damaging to our ability to grow our economy and to get it moving again. That was my point. It was not a criticism of NAMA; it is doing exactly what one would expect with its fiduciary responsibility. We have to recognise that the banks, NAMA and the Presbyterian Mutual Society holding on to assets freezes development in Northern Ireland.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the First Minister for his response. Will he outline what he believes the solutions to the challenges could be?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

One of the solutions is for NAMA to do a little more of what it had been doing with one or two of the developments, where it introduced some of its own funding to develop a project. It is doing that with an office block in the Oxford Street area, and it is doing it with a housing estate in Dundonald. That allows NAMA to get a higher revenue return for the assets and ensures that the development takes place. It would be helpful if the banks were to do more of that. The other option, of course, is that some financial institutions or other organisations could come in, buy the assets off those organisations — the banks, NAMA or the Presbyterian Mutual Society — and build them out.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That ends the period for topical questions. We now move to oral questions.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their recent investment trip to New York. (AQO 4588/11-15)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

9. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what plans they have to continue to encourage inward investment. (AQO 4596/11-15)

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

14. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the key meetings they attended during their recent visit to New York and the resulting potential to help the economy. (AQO 4601/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 1, 9 and 14 together. Given their nature, I trust that you will allow me sufficient latitude to give the House as complete an answer as possible.

The deputy First Minister and I travelled to New York city on Monday 9 September to undertake a number of engagements to promote the Northern Ireland business message in advance of the economic conference that will take place on 10 and 11 October. We had been invited to be the keynote speakers at the Wall Street 50 awards dinner, which honours some of the most successful financial services executives in the United States. Around that invitation, we built a programme of meetings that allowed us to engage with existing and potential investors and to meet other key individuals. We met our good friend from Citigroup, Bill Mills, the chief executive officer in North America, and John Healy, Citigroup's IT senior group manager. Citigroup came to Northern Ireland back in 2004, with an original plan to create 375 jobs by 2009. The company now employs in excess of 1,200 people, and the Belfast facility is one of only four centres of excellence in the world, and the only one that Citi has in the United Kingdom.

We also met Duncan Niederauer, chief executive officer of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Duncan, like Bill Mills, is a good friend of Northern Ireland and a significant supporter of our inward investment drive. The NYSE employs some 300 people at its Belfast facility. Like Citigroup, the NYSE is a blue chip, internationally recognised company. Both companies confirmed that they would act as advocates for Northern Ireland at the October conference.

We called with Mayor Bloomberg at City Hall, where we discussed the investment conference and encouraged him to use his influence to seek participation by his contacts in corporate America.

We also met potential investors, and I am sure that Members will understand that I am unable to reveal their names for commercially sensitive reasons. We used that time to underscore our personal interest in developing relationships with investors and assured the companies' senior management teams of the Executive's continuing commitment to the economic development of Northern Ireland. We were delighted to receive a behind-the-scenes tour as guests of the World Trade Center memorial, where we met Marcus Robinson, the Belfast-based award-winning documentary film-maker, who has produced a work on the rebuilding of the centre following the 9/11 tragedy. We had the opportunity to meet Larry Silverstein, the New York businessman who is imaginatively developing the World Trade Center site.

Following the theme of regeneration, we visited Brooklyn Navy Yard to meet executives at Steiner Studios to look at opportunities to promote collaboration and film production in Northern Ireland. At the Wall Street 50 event — one of the most prestigious in the New York financial sector calendar — we addressed an audience of 250 financial services executives, highlighted the benefits of doing business with Northern Ireland and promoted the October investment conference. It is worth noting that the combined employment figure for the companies represented in that room exceeded 300,000.

In summary, the visit allowed us to extend an invitation to the economic conference to a wide range of business executives. Furthermore, it provided an opportunity to strengthen relationships with existing investors and begin relationships with new ones. It is our intention to continue to build on the good work that Invest Northern Ireland is doing in the US when we visit Boston and Chicago next month. Plans are also at an advanced stage for our visit to Japan before the end of the year at the invitation of the Japanese Prime Minister, whom we met during the G8 summit.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his comprehensive answer. What he outlines is the great success that we have had in OFMDFM's work with New York as a city. That was possible only because of the saving of the air passenger route to New York. That shows what success can gather from —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I urge the Member to come to his question.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

— successful air passenger duty policy. Is it not time that we dealt with air passenger duty in its entirety so that we could have more success stories such as New York throughout Europe as well as in America and ensure that we boost our tourism sector and local airports?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The issue of air passenger duty would not have been addressed had it not been for the visit that the deputy First Minister and I had with the chief executive of United. During that visit, it became clear what the intention of United was had that matter not been dealt with. Happily, the then Secretary of State and the Chancellor acted promptly and, at our behest, gave us a dispensation. If any further dispensation is to be given, I hope that it would be UK-wide so that we would not have to carry the cost of it. Voices are being raised across the United Kingdom urging the Chancellor to look at this issue because of the additional hardship that it creates.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The answer that the First Minister gave to the first question about the trip underpins the importance of trips to New York and other such places. What foreign direct investment will come to Northern Ireland as a result of his recent trips?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We have been enormously successful, and I pay credit to Invest Northern Ireland and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Arlene Foster, who has just returned from South Africa where, I believe, she got a very good hearing from a number of companies. It is clear that if you are not out there fishing, you will not catch anything, to use a term of the deputy First Minister.

Northern Ireland has been going out much more than ever and has gained the reward for that. That was recognised by 'The Economist' and in other statistics that showed that Northern Ireland is doing better than any other part of the United Kingdom in relation to the size of its population as far as foreign direct investment is concerned. It is recognised in us being able to bring more foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland than at any time in the history of Northern Ireland. That shows the value of devolution. We are, under devolution, able to bring more investment into Northern Ireland than those who acted as our proxies under direct rule.

It is not just a case of going out to find new investors, although we were talking to new and potential investors on this occasion. During those conversations, however, we build up the relationship that we have with companies that are here. We talk to companies already based in Northern Ireland about their plans to see what role we may play in them. During a conversation with one company, and I will not mention its name, we touched on a subject that it had not been aware of our expertise in, and discussions have started on the potential for us being a base for that company's work in that area.

It is important to have the network, build the contacts and have friends in those businesses with access at the highest possible level, so that if there are issues that they need addressed, they know where to go to get that done.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for his responses so far. I will continue the theme of attracting as many jobs as possible to Northern Ireland. To what extent will the New York trip and visit impact next month's investment conference in Belfast and help to promote Northern Ireland as a good place to invest in and grow business?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We got commitments from certain people who will be coming, if you like, to give testimony during the investment conference. On previous occasions, we found it hugely successful not to make the argument ourselves. It is far more appealing to a potential investor to hear what those who have already invested have found. A good example is a company like Allstate. It started with a small number of employees, built itself up and now has several thousand in Northern Ireland. It has reinvested over half a dozen times. If 70% of the companies that invest in Northern Ireland reinvest, that gives people a very clear indication that this is a place to come to. Here, there is a good message that we have a competitive regime with regard to costs for labour and property and also that we have a skilled and loyal workforce. That means that investors will have people who stick with them for long periods. The churn rate is such that there are considerable savings to their overall bottom lines.

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

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Did the Ministers have an opportunity to minimise the impact of the summer disturbances on potential inward investors?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Any unrest in the backcloth of Northern Ireland is clearly unhelpful to bringing investment here. I have to say that maybe it was because we set out in those discussions to indicate our view on those matters before people asked questions that the issue was never raised with us. That was probably because we caught the ball before it bounced. We indicated that there is massive stability in Northern Ireland compared with many countries and towns and cities in North America. If you were to compare the crime rate in Northern Ireland with that of major US cities, you would see that Northern Ireland comes out of that very well. It is the nature of the kind of violence and unrest that we have that gives it the news headlines. However, clearly, any unrest, violence, rioting, killing or injury is unhelpful to the message that Arlene Foster, the deputy First Minister and I have to pass to potential investors.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the First Minister for all that information. Maybe he could outline the interest there is in the economic conference here in Northern Ireland and any targets that he might have for that conference.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that it will be a very successful economic conference. Of course, the success of an economic conference is, I suppose, measured on its outcomes. The outcomes are not always known on the days of a conference or for some time afterwards. However, there is considerable participation and interest and many indications of willingness to take part in the various sessions of the conference and of people who will attend. Of course, it arises out of a very successful G8 conference in Northern Ireland. We have asked the embassies of each of those countries to give us assistance. I have to say that we have been helped very well, obviously through DETI and Invest Northern Ireland, by what was the Department of Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom as a whole and through its embassies. It is a joint enterprise. As Members know, the Prime Minister will be involved directly in the conference. That adds to its prestige, importance and attractiveness to people.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for his progress report on the Ministers' recent trip. Does he not recognise that it is quite unsustainable to keep presenting a united front when abroad and presiding over divisions and disunity when at home in Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We are part of a five-party mandatory coalition. I think that we need to be a little more mature about issues. We are not going to agree on every issue round the Chamber. There will be differences. What is important is that we manage those differences and that we recognise that that can be done only on the basis of respect for each other's position.

Of course it would be nice if we could agree on every single issue and could do so promptly, but that is not the case. When we go out to market Northern Ireland to the wider world, it is important that we sing from the same hymn sheet. That is not hard, because we both believe in exactly the same thing: we want to grow our economy, to encourage people to come here, to provide jobs and to ensure that the economy in Northern Ireland grows. There is no reluctance on my part or on the part of the deputy First Minister to exploit that to the full where we have common ground.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for a breakdown of how the United Youth programme will be rolled out annually. (AQO 4589/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The process of designing the United Youth programme is being taken forward by a design group specifically established to research and detail the proposals and costs for implementation. That will include how the programme will be rolled out. Officials from the design group have already engaged with stakeholders, and that process will increase over coming weeks. I am pleased to say that the proposal has been widely welcomed, and there is significant interest in and excitement about its potential. The design group has already undertaken considerable work and is expected to conclude in the next few months. The report will inform ministerial decisions on the way forward.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Bearing in mind that around 46,000 young people are without employment and that 10,000 places are being offered, can Mr Robinson indicate what the decision-making process is on the criteria for awarding those places? Will he also confirm that his office will take the lead in this matter?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First of all, it was because of our recognition that very considerable numbers are unemployed — he indicated that there are 46,000, but, as he will understand, that is a moveable feast — that we decided that this was an appropriate programme. Indeed, that is why we specifically indicated that the places should go to those in the not in education, employment or training (NEET) category.

I have to say that not everybody is as convinced as he and I might be about the number of people from that category who will want to take part. Indeed, some of the discussion has been about whether there should indeed be a further revision of who is entitled to take part in the programme if all the places are not taken up by those in the NEETs category.

The Department obviously has the overarching responsibility, but we are not a delivery Department to that extent. Therefore, we will look to other Departments that are more directly involved and that have staff available to look after the implementation.

Of course, the programme has three elements. The first element — this directly involves giving young people the opportunity to get jobs in the future — is a placement with a business enterprise so that they might become accustomed to getting up in the morning, going out to a place of work and seeing how business operates.

The second element provides more of a civic function, as they will become involved with some charitable, community or other organisation so that they can become better citizens.

The third element is that cross-community element. Unfortunately, many young people do not have the degree of interaction with people from a different community background. The programme will allow them to have that interaction, giving them a better understanding of the other people with whom they share this piece of territory.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

This has been a massively popular proposal. Will the First Minister outline the positive impacts that a programme of this nature and scale can have overall?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Member for his view on the positive nature of the programme. I have to say to him that, as this is a new project with very ambitious numbers, it may be that we will end up with a choice between a longer lead-in period, if we immediately go for 10,000 places, and a shorter lead-in period, if we want to scale it up and phase it in. Whichever is the case, I am pretty sure that it will be beneficial. It is beneficial to young people because they will have the opportunity to become engaged and involved in work, making them better rounded human beings. An employer will look at it as a positive element in anybody's CV, just as the Peace Corps, for instance, is viewed in the United States. If they see that somebody has gone through this programme, they will recognise that he or she is a more rounded individual. Of course, from a cross-community and good relations point of view, the fact that they have gone through a programme on the good relations aspect of our work is beneficial to the community as a whole.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can the First Minister provide more detail on some of the major companies that will support the programme?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I cannot give him that type of detail. The design group will bring us a report on that. I have gone out and about since the programme was announced and talked to the leaders of various organisations. For instance, the Confederation of British Industry indicated that it will positively support the programme and will encourage people in that organisation to do so. I have talked to people in community organisations who are very interested in the opportunity to get people involved in the work that they are doing and to get some help for that work. It is self-evident that the work on good relations will be helpful. Until the design team comes back with proposals, I cannot give him any further detail but I will do so when that is available.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the resources that have been allocated to support victims and survivors. (AQO 4590/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Since devolution, we have tripled the funding that is available for victims' and survivors' services and needs. In addition, we have undertaken a significant fundamental reform of provision and support for the sector, and that has been completed. That included agreeing a 10-year strategy, establishing the Victims' Commission, the subsequent creation of a victims' forum, the commissioning and obtaining of the new comprehensive needs assessment from the commission, and the establishment of a new streamlined delivery mechanism in the victims' service.

The new programme in place through the service addresses issues including health and well-being, social support and individual needs. It covers a wide range of key activities, such as help with chronic pain, disability support and education. Individuals will have a package of assistance tailored to their particular assessed needs. Additionally, the service is currently reviewing funding allocations with officials and the Commission for Victims and Survivors, based on information from recent needs-based assessments and from monitoring returns. That review will ensure that the service moves forward to the second year of its programme with appropriate funding allocations that are based on actual assessed needs of victims and survivors. Through the service, we are absolutely dedicated to ensuring that victims and survivors get the best help that we can provide.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the junior Minister for his answer. Has support for groups also been increased or does the funding represent an increase to individual victims only?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am pleased to say to the honourable Member that support for both individuals and groups has been increased. As I said, our focus was on ensuring that we had a tailor-made service that directly met the needs of individual victims. Many of those needs differ. Many people want an individual service, but we also know that victims' groups have done excellent work and demonstrated really good practice in helping and supporting victims. Therefore, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to those who have worked collectively in a group format with victims because, in many cases, that group format has facilitated a level of community support and allowed people who have experienced similar circumstances, difficulties and trauma to meet and share their experiences in a group setting. That group support has helped them to lead better and more productive lives and to deal with the trauma that they should never have had to endure in the first place.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the junior Minister account for the delays and difficulties experienced by some victims in their applications for assistance from the Victims and Survivors Service?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Member's premise is difficult. I find it hard to find something negative when we have tripled the funding that has gone into the sector, but that may be the case in his mind. We wanted to ensure that we had a responsive service that could look to the needs of individuals who wanted to meet and be assessed comprehensively in an individual setting. We also wanted to look together at the support that groups have received.

Anybody who looks fairly at what the programme has done in its three strands in the past, and what it will do in the future, will see a victim support programme that, particularly with health and well-being, to which £8·5 million has been allocated directly, contributes to the health and social care of victims and survivors through individual courses of treatment and/or care. The social support programme, to which £7·3 million has been allocated with the aim of supporting and maintaining the resilience of our victims and survivors, will assist in addressing the legacy of the past and building a better and a shared future.

I have issued a directive to my officials to research and find out what exactly I can do on that. They are drawing up regulations that will, hopefully, empower me to direct the councils to rerun the selection process using one of the three approved methods — d'Hondt, Sainte-Laguë or single transferable vote — to secure proper and proportionate representation on the STCs. That has to be run in accordance with the vote at the most recent council elections in 2011 to fully reflect the democratic will of the people in those areas. I am disappointed at councils that continue to fail to apply those procedures, as failure to do so is basically a blatant flouting of the democratic will of those people.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he would consider intervening in the attempt to close Exploris on the grounds that there has been no equality impact assessment (EQIA), no public consultation and no financial impact study. (AQT 93/11-15)

I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time. I wish him well for his term of office.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her congratulations and welcome. I look forward to working with Ms Lo in her capacity as Environment Committee Chair.

I understand that a final decision regarding the future of Exploris will not be made until Wednesday night, so it would be premature to comment until then. I have, however, asked my officials to meet council officials after Wednesday night's meeting to discuss the details. I have received quite a bit of correspondence on this issue over the past few days. The impact of the closure will be keenly felt by not only the thousands of schoolchildren who attend for educational visits every year but the local economy, with a great loss to businesses. That will be the case not just where the aquarium is situated but in Strangford.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Without proper consultation by Ards Borough Council, does the Minister accept that this is a case of maladministration and ask for a deferral of the decision?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Again, I will have to wait until the outcome of Wednesday night's meeting and the discussions between my officials and council officials. I do not believe that intervention should fall solely on the Department of the Environment. I mentioned the number of educational visits that take place to the Exploris aquarium. The Strangford ferry also relies on visitors to the aquarium. I believe that we could look at a collaborative cross-departmental approach or intervention. Again, however, all that is pending the outcome of Wednesday night's meeting.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment what progress is being made regarding Arc21 and recycling targets for Northern Ireland. (AQT 94/11-15)

I, too, welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, and I wish him well as he carries out his work for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister — I thank the Member for his question.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Not yet. Give him time.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

He is not the Minister yet. Hopefully, he will be some day so that I can ask him a question that he cannot find the answer for. [Laughter.] Arc21 is in the process of seeking a new proposed location.

There were difficulties around its planning application on the previous site. However, negotiations are now ongoing with my Department to find a suitable site for its gasification plant. Being from the Foyle constituency, I am well acquainted with the arguments and debate that surround such waste infrastructure. Unfortunately, however, I am also all too aware of the need for such infrastructure to help us to deal with the ongoing problems facing us as we attempt to deal with waste and reduce the amount of waste produced and then sent to landfill.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you very much, Minister. If the progress that you envisage is not made in the timescale that you envisage, will there be infractions for Northern Ireland, and at what level will they be?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There is a degree of urgency with how those applications are processed, and that is due to the threat of infractions and the resulting fines coming from Europe. That is why it is incumbent on us all to work together to address the concerns of those who are objecting to the plants before we face the prospect of real and extremely significant fines. I do not have the exact figures here, but they will have a significant impact on our ratepayers.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he has been briefed by Arc21 on new infrastructure investment. (AQT 95/11-15)

I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have not yet had a meeting with Arc21. I have met its counterpart that is dealing with the plant in my constituency, the North West Region Waste Management Group. I expect to meet Arc21 in the not-too-distant future, and I have spoken to other elected Members on the situation there.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the value-for-money aspect of any proposal be carefully looked at, that the location be carefully selected and that, in determining its capacity, the site be of an appropriate size, given the changing consumer values and new processes that are coming in, so that we do not pay for something that is excessive to our future needs?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes, I agree. It is imperative that those plants represent value for money. Although I have spoken of the danger and the real risks that are involved through the fines that are coming from Europe, with which we do not want to saddle ratepayers, it is important that we do not saddle ratepayers with a white elephant either.

Pam Brown (DUP, South Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the Cottonmount landfill site at Mallusk given ongoing residents’ concerns over odour pollution. (AQT 96/11-15)

I also welcome the newly appointed Minister to his position, and I look forward to working with him in my capacity as the new Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her question and congratulate her on her appointment as Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee. I look forward to working with her in that capacity. Unfortunately, I am not fully apprised of the detail of that specific issue. However, I will be happy to meet the Member and discuss it further at a later date.

Pam Brown (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I am seeking assurance for the residents of Mallusk that the inspections and monitoring of the Cottonmount site will be increased in the future. Therefore, I look forward to meeting you to discuss that subject.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I assure the Member that this site will be subject to the full rigours of Northern Ireland Environment Agency enforcement and monitoring to reduce or eradicate any detrimental impacts that this will have on residents in the area of the site.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Allister is not in his place to ask question 7.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

8. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he would be minded, as part of local government reform, to introduce a standardised regional policy of Union flag flying on designated days at all council buildings. (AQT 98/11-15)

I also extend my congratulations to the Minister.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. My predecessor raised flags — the issue of flags — at the political reference group meetings, in the context of the local government reform process. At its last meeting, in June, members commented that it would be sensible to give the First Minister and deputy First Minister's proposals — which are now the Haass talks — space to develop and see what happens about flags in the wider cultural context.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his response. In the event that the Haass talks process does not identify an appropriate solution, will the Minister then be minded to consider introducing a policy?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is certainly something that I will look at. However, I think it is important, at this early stage, when we are already facing difficulties in the establishment of statutory transition committees and trying to ensure harmonisation in the new STCs, that we do not bring an issue as divisive as that to the table unnecessarily.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes the topical questions. We now move to oral questions to the Minister of the Environment.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment what issues he will table for discussion at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. (AQO 4602/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in environment sector is scheduled for Wednesday 30 October, and work is continuing to finalise and agree the agenda for that meeting. It is too early in that process to confirm what that agenda will look like. However, I can reiterate what I said at the Environment Ireland conference in Croke Park a few weeks ago. Environmental issues such as water quality, waste management and air pollution — and their impacts — have no boundaries, and we must take a strategic all-island approach to harness mutual benefits both North and South.

The final agenda for the meeting in October will focus on those issues, and I am very much looking forward to working with Minister Phil Hogan to build on the good work that has already been achieved by the collaboration between the two Administrations.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I too add my congratulations on his appointment. Will he detail the cooperation between North and South on road safety?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Road safety is obviously an extremely important issue, but it is not something that would come up in the environment sector of the North/South Ministerial Council; it is for the transport sector, and it is something that I will raise at the transport sector meeting in November. I am currently working on the Road Traffic Safety (Amendments) Bills Nos 1 and 2. Those will look towards the mutual recognition of penalty points in both jurisdictions, which, again, is another step towards good, safe roads on this island, because, as we share our air and our water, we also share our roads. It is vitally important that we work together to ensure that accidents, casualties and fatalities on our roads are kept to a bare minimum, if not eradicated altogether.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I too congratulate the Minister. Will he provide the house with an update on the tyre survey report?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question and welcome it very much. Quite a lot of work has been done on tyres. It is imperative that we take all the steps we can to deal with waste tyres. I know that quite a bit of work has gone on between the jurisdictions, looking at how tyres can be recycled and reused to prevent them entering the waste stream, if you like. One such reuse would be for carpet underlay. It is incumbent on us to look at creative ways of doing things and that we do so together. It is also important that we tighten up enforcement and ensure that, for those who are disposing of tyres illegally — be they from the North and doing so in the South, or vice versa — there are severe and strict penalties to discourage such illegal behaviour.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I also congratulate the Minister and wish him well. I pay tribute to the outgoing Minister, who I always found to be very fair and sincere. Last week in the Assembly the Agriculture Minister came under repeated criticism for the lack of content in her statement and her responses. Minister, will you tell us the importance you place on enforcing all available law on the smuggling of fuel across the border? Are you satisfied that enough is being done, and, if not — or perhaps as well — will you include that in the NSMC meeting at the end of next month?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That is a relief. I thought I was going to come under criticism for the lack of detail in my responses.

Fuel laundering is not one of the areas mandated for discussion at the NSMC environment meetings, but it is an issue that I take very seriously. Just before he left office, Alex Atwood announced an extra £1·5 million of funding to pursue waste and fuel laundering criminals. I am making sure that that money is targeted at the worst offenders. It is vital that we face down organised crime on the island of Ireland, and by doing so protect our clean and green environment. The extra money will mean that we will have more people on the ground visiting sites, checking waste movements and investigating hauliers using illegal fuel, including looking very closely at their financial practices and computer records. It is important that criminals and organised crime gangs know that we are going to be looking for them.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline his Department's approach to planning applications for wind farms in areas of outstanding natural beauty. (AQO 4603/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin agus déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall freagra a chur uirthi anois. Policy RE1 of Planning Policy Statement 18 (PPS 18), which is on renewable energy, does not distinguish between areas designated for their significant landscape value, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), and other undesignated landscapes. Nonetheless, the policy requires that all renewable energy development, regardless of whether it is proposed in a designated or undesignated area, should not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenity or landscape character of that area.

To assist the Department in the consideration of wind energy applications, PPS 18 is accompanied by best practice guidance (BPG) and supplementary planning guidance (SPG) on wind energy development in Northern Ireland’s landscapes. The SPG provides broad, strategic guidance in relation to the visual and landscape impacts of wind energy development for 130 landscape character areas (LCAs) across Northern Ireland. Within each LCA, the key landscape and visual characteristics are identified. In relation to the scenic quality of an area, the LCA will identify whether any part is subject to designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty. An assessment is also made as to the overall sensitivity of the landscape to wind energy development. The SPG advice is taken into account by the Department as strategic guidance in processing planning applications for wind energy developments across the whole of the North.