Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 October 2013

298 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made enquiries and have been told that only the Speaker's Office can help me with this issue, which relates to topical questions. My understanding is that we are now on the sixth consecutive week in which there will be topical questions. I also understand that 10 names are drawn for each Department and that there are topical questions for two Departments each day, which, according to my maths, makes a total of 240.

So, I have two queries, and I am not suggesting any impropriety at all. Could your office tell me how many MLAs have submitted their names for consideration on each occasion that topical questions have been on the Order Paper and how many MLAs have yet to be on the Order Paper once for any of those 240 questions? Thank you.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his point of order. I can supply those figures. The Business Office keeps the stats, whether they are for topical questions or questions for oral answer. This issue comes up from time to time. The Member will know that the system here is the same as that is used in other institutions. Sometimes, the scientific nature of how this operates can be difficult to get your head around. I am happy to supply any Member with the stats that we have already compiled in the Business Office.

Matter of the Day

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Tom Elliott has been given leave to make a statement on the recent murders and security alerts, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their places and continue to do so. I think that I probably repeat that statement more than any other in the House. Members must continually rise in their places if they want to be called. All other Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak. I will take no points of order or interventions on this piece of business.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Business Office for approving the matter of the day and letting us make statements. It is unfortunate that we experienced two murders in 48 hours in Belfast and Londonderry in recent days.

The murder of Barry McCrory on Thursday was a huge setback for Londonderry, which, on the whole, has enjoyed a positive year, not least in its important role of hosting the United Kingdom City of Culture.

We also heard the awful news of the killing of Kevin Kearney in north Belfast. His body was found last Wednesday afternoon. The police described it as a "callous and cold-blooded murder". I and the Ulster Unionist Party wholeheartedly agree with that interpretation and definition. I and my party's sympathies and condolences go to the immediate and wider family of both men and, indeed, to the communities that they come from. Many of us have witnessed such cold-blooded murders since 1969.

We have also had a series of security alerts that have caused chaos across the country. Major traffic disruption followed a security alert this morning at the Blacks Road off-slip in west Belfast. I am sure that many in the House found difficulties with that disruption. I, for one, found it a difficult journey to Stormont. A suspicious object, later described by police as an "elaborate hoax" was discovered on the M1 on Saturday and caused huge traffic disruption. Last Monday, another security alert caused traffic disruption.

We do not want to go back to the past. Violence is wrong: it was wrong in the past and is wrong now. It should be equally condemned now as it should have been in the past. I hope that the Assembly unites against the violence. I hope that it unites against the current violence, as it should have done against past violence and murders. Having spent three hours trying to get to Stormont today because of security alerts, and having listened to the news over the past week, I am no more convinced about a united Ireland than I was before.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On behalf of my party, I join Mr Elliott in expressing outright and unequivocal condemnation of the events over the past three or four days. It would appear that there are people who have not yet got the message. We have to send out that clear message. First, we have to say to the families of those who were brutally murdered that our sympathies, prayers and concerns are with them, their loved ones and their friends.

Those who perpetrated the acts in Belfast and Londonderry simply do not seem to understand that such activity not only does not advance any cause but makes no difference. The people of Northern Ireland's views will be the same today as they were four days ago. If anything, determination not to yield in the face of terror will increase as a result and not diminish. Therefore, whatever cause they purport to represent — be it dissident republicanism, stopping drug dealing or whatever other cause anyone may try to say was being furthered in the act of killing anyone — will simply not succeed.

There are two issues that must be brought to bear. The first is that the police need to do all that they can. If they need extra resources or extra manpower, they must get them to deal with the problem. We will support the police in endeavouring to get those resources. In addition, the wider community need not just condemn the attacks and murders, although we welcome universal condemnation. Condemnation is better than condoning and better than carrying it out. However, it needs to go beyond condemnation. Condemnation does not result in people being put in prison. Condemnation does not bring charges against those who have perpetrated this. What brings charges, and hopefully convictions, is the evidence. What leads to evidence is information from the communities in which these people reside. That is why, hopefully, we will call, in a united and determined fashion, for the entire community to give all its information.

Further to that, I hope that all those who have any information whatsoever with respect to the Claudy bomb incident will supply it to the police in order to bring to justice those who carried out that atrocity, as well as more recent ones.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I think it important that messages go out from all the parties in the Assembly. The first message should be one of sympathy to the relatives, especially those of Kevin Kearney and Barry McCrory who were shot over the last number of days. I remember that, a year ago, in north Belfast, Danny McKay was killed. If I remember correctly, he was shot by the same group which is involved in the killing of Kevin Kearney; yet, we still have to bring to justice the killers of Danny McKay.

I am slightly disappointed in that there has also been violence against Jemma McGrath. It is worth mentioning that as a part of this matter.

Pseudo-republican groups use some sort of veneer to hide the fact that they are involved in drug dealing, extortion, and taking money or backhanders from drug dealers. They then decide that they should kill others whom they accuse of the same thing.

As Assistant Chief Constable Harris said to the Policing Board, criminality is endemic in the UVF in east Belfast. Indeed, it has been involved in violence and rape. It is worth mentioning that there must also be condemnation of the violence that we have been watching over the summer. Within the ranks of these people, there are those involved in criminality. Information should come forward and it should be given to the PSNI. There should be no equivocation on any on that.

There is a responsibility on all political parties to stand up and speak, when possible with one voice, on all of this. The security alerts may seem to people to sit at a different level, but it is the same people who are involved in anti-community activity. Whether they are loyalist or republican, they need to get off the backs of the whole community.

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

North Belfast is no stranger to violence and, in particular, political violence. I come to the House straight from the funeral of Kevin Kearney. I was in his house last night and I witnessed, at first hand, the destructive impact of violence on a family. It tears apart the family and the extended family. That grief and horror remain with me this morning in the aftermath of the funeral.

The IRA, whoever they are, have claimed Mr Kearney's death. They have no right to judge anybody, and they certainly have no right to kill anybody. One of the things that the family spoke to me of last night was their hurt, not just in relation to his death, but also in relation to the allegations associated with his life. The family believe that those allegations in the media and press generally are in some way an attempt to justify what happened to him. The family feels very hurt in this situation. We should take that into consideration and the media should take that into consideration.

I make no judgement on this man's life, but I do make a judgement on those who killed him. They have absolutely no right to take away any life. And no organisation, in the past or present, has any right to take away anybody's life.

That reminds us of our need to be constructive in our politics so that the destructive activities of these organisations, particularly this organisation, will not impact negatively on the stability of this institution, our politics and the sustaining of peace in this region. We should strengthen all our efforts to make our politics as constructive as possible in order to bring about the peace that the Kearney family deserve.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On behalf of my colleagues, I add our condemnation of the two murders that happened last week and express our sympathies to the families of Barry McCrory and Kevin Kearney. They were dreadful murders. Those who took their lives have no right to claim the right to do so. It is utterly bizarre that, last week, people claimed the right to carry out murders to deal with what they alleged were relatively minor crimes. The agencies of the state have the responsibility for dealing with such matters. No individual or small group has a right to take the law into their own hands in any such way.

As Mr Elliott highlighted, we have also witnessed a number of other serious events over the past week. We saw the attempted mortar attack on Strand Road police station in Londonderry. We saw a variety of attacks with hoax devices and devices of various sorts left in a way that caused disruption. One of those was targeted at my colleagues' East Belfast Alliance Party office, run by Naomi Long MP, Judith Cochrane and Chris Lyttle. All of those are attacks on this society as a whole. The latter was very particularly an attack on the democratic process. That is why it is right that, this morning, we should be united in condemning such attacks.

As others have said, we also must encourage anyone who has any information that could assist the police to come forward and provide it. Whatever motivation is claimed by these thugs and terrorists, whether unionist or nationalist in background, they have no rights to take those actions. This Assembly is where the people of Northern Ireland decide their future; not thugs on the street. That has to be the message that goes out from all of us together. Let us ensure that that is the message, that we work together in a constructive way, and that we collectively provide the support that the police need. We should thank the Police Service and the army technical officers for the work that they have carried out in recent days. We should ensure that politics lives up to their work.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is right that the Assembly speaks with one voice and says very clearly that we stand for the rule of law, not the law of the jungle. That is what we have witnessed over the past week. Individuals have had their lives taken by those who are carrying out what is, in their mind, a form of vigilante summary justice. That is wrong. People should be brought before the courts. That is where judgement should be brought to bear, not at the barrel of a gun.

The disruption has been an attempt to take away from the good news for this community of the investment conference and the work that has been done. Obviously, there has been an attempt distract from that. I do not believe that it has but, nevertheless, it has provided a negative backdrop. This morning, people disrupted communities by leaving a vehicle, which led to a motorway being closed. Although some may think that that caused inconvenience to people, it causes more than that. In my constituency, where the traffic was blocked on the motorway in both directions, we have only a midwife-led unit; we do not have an acute A&E. When people need emergency treatment, they must go to Craigavon or the Royal. Therefore, lives are put in danger when motorways are closed. It is not something that people should take lightly.

It is right that we condemn violence from wherever it comes in our community, whether it is those who claim to be republicans, or those who disgrace the Union flag by carrying out any attack under the banner of loyalism. That is why I support last year's Lord Mayor of Belfast, Gavin Robinson, when he made it clear that the UVF needs to be taken on, particularly in east Belfast, where it is doing damage to the community. So, wherever it comes from, the violence needs to be condemned, the information needs to be provided to the authorities and people need to be brought before the courts, where proper justice can be administered to those individuals, who care little about our society. Let this place show that, although there are difficulties, we will keep working together to try to resolve those difficulties. I caution Members who talk up crises in our institutions to not feed the individuals who want to try to bring this place down.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I wish to start by expressing my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives.

Moving on, there is a danger that we are drifting back into the 1970s. When you hear of the deaths of people and the universal condemnation and about traffic disruption, all of these things give a sense of an inevitable but unwelcome slide to the places where we do not want to go. Following on from the speech by my colleague Mr Givan, the issue is about more than platitudes. There is something of a danger of everyone uniting to condemn bad things when the real issue is about actions speaking louder than words. This Assembly, collectively, has a responsibility to defeat by its actions the men of violence and those who would drag us back. The most significant thing that I heard Mr Givan say — and I join with him — is that we have to take on paramilitaries from all sections, including specifically the UVF in east Belfast. There is no place for this type of organisation or this type of activity, because it will take Northern Ireland to a place that it does not want to go to. I join with other Members in saying that we must unite against the threat of paramilitary violence from whatever corner.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I join in condemning these recent horrendous murders. They, of course, are on a par with many such murders that we saw through the years, when those who thought that they were above the law, and, indeed, who asserted that they were the law in certain communities, thought that they could take unto themselves the right to summarily execute others. That was what we saw last week in this city and in the city of Londonderry. That was utterly wrong, just as it was utterly wrong when it happened in the past, under whatever aegis it happened.

It is quite clear that what was perpetrated in those two murders came right out of the Provo template of how you suppress your own community and show yourself to be feared in that community. That, of course, is something that we lived with for decades, courtesy of the Provisional IRA. These murders, following identically that template, are, sadly, on a par with them. They are no better and no worse and are equally hideous in every respect. Wherever the terrorism comes from — under whatever flag, loyalist or republican — it is utterly, utterly wrong.

The disruption that we have seen today and last week is, of course, also part of the template that we saw in the past, where the hoax bomb was used to bring disruption, to bring economic hurt and to starve and to create a reputation in respect of this Province, all to do it economic damage. I wonder how much the disruption this morning will cost our economy. I hear how readily the PSNI trips figures off its tongue about how much peaceful protest costs at Twaddell Avenue. I would like to know how much the protest of today cost this economy. Some people seem to be disinterested in that but very interested in what lawful protest might cost, courtesy of the absurd decisions of the Parades Commission.

I deplore the murders and deplore the destruction brought to this Province by those who ape those who did it in the past.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I had the pleasure and privilege on Friday to be in the Great Hall to meet and talk to delegates from across the world who had come to Northern Ireland at our invitation. That is the message that we here collectively need to send out, support and back. The message that we have for those whom we are talking about is quite clear and has been said by every Member who has spoken so far: there is no place for you or your likes in our society. That is the message that we are able to give because we are here.

Within that message, surely we are also acknowledging the choice for the public to decide. Is it not better that, warts and all, and whatever disagreements that we may have — and I agree with Mr Givan that there is no crisis — we are able to be here and to stand up and speak against those who are trying to destroy what the people who came here on Friday were trying to contribute? That seems to me to be the best message. I am sure that during the course of the day, as there have been over the weekend, there will be proper tributes to what happened on Friday and Thursday at those meetings about our economy and investment, and rightly so. The message has to be clear from here. No crocodile tears, Mr Speaker. Those people are an evil and need to be brought to book and to jail.

I will finish on this. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who bring so-called intelligence into this House or onto the airwaves and tell us that they know who they are. If they know who they are, why do not they not tell the right people to go and get them?

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

I want to be associated with the majority of contributions made in the House this afternoon. It is very important that we speak with a united voice in condemning such acts of violence. As Mr McCrea said, how we act and give political leadership in moving this society forward is more important. I also want to be associated with Mr Givan's comments in relation to the brutal shooting of Jemma McGrath in east Belfast by the UVF. It is long past the time that the police and others tackled those organisations and told it like it is.

We need to see a concerted effort from the community to assist the police, because we all know that the community is best placed, working alongside the police, to bring those people to justice. Therefore, I want to be associated with those calls for anyone with information to assist the police in their inquiries.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First of all, on behalf of Sinn Féin I send our condolences to the families of Kevin Kearney and Barry McCrory. Barry McCrory is a native of Derry city, and the family is known to me in city life. It is very important today that we are mindful that there are two families in the midst of a very grief-stricken situation. Kevin Kearney was interred this morning, and Barry McCrory's interment will take place in a short number of days.

It is very important that we bear that in mind. Too often, in these types of situation, the grief of families is relegated, as people run to microphones or the Assembly to indulge in "whataboutery".

In Derry on Friday, when the people of the city stood together — I know that you were there, Mr Speaker — we sent a clear message. The underlying message was that there is no issue confronting our society that cannot be dealt with through peaceful and democratic means. Due process is in place, and, in the main, people value and adhere to that. It is very clear that people are cooperating with the PSNI on all aspects of crime that confront our community. We should send out that message today. I caution people who would come here and use these tragic deaths and the grief of the families to score very crass political points.

Ministerial Statement

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to inform Members of my intention to launch a public consultation on the future delivery of consumer representation in Northern Ireland following a review of the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.

The Executive, in their 2011-15 Budget, committed to undertake a review of arm’s-length bodies to ensure that ministerial priorities and statutory commitments continue to be delivered in the most cost-effective manner. The review of the Consumer Council and the consultation on the future delivery of consumer representation in Northern Ireland are a continuation of the process of ensuring value for money in the use of public funds and the delivery of services to the Northern Ireland public.

In October 2012, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) commissioned an independent review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the council’s consumer advocacy role in Northern Ireland is delivered by the most appropriate body or bodies, structured and positioned correctly within government or otherwise, operating efficiently and effectively, and fit for purpose in moving forward with the Executive’s consumer and wider economic aims. The review took account of the changing consumer landscape in Great Britain and the views of a wide range of stakeholders. I am now in receipt of the report setting out the review’s conclusions and its recommendations for the exercise of the consumer representation function in Northern Ireland.

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

The report recognises that the council has been responsive to consumers and effective as an organisation. However, it concludes that the political and consumer landscape has changed significantly since the General Consumer Council was created in 1985. The council was last reviewed in 1999. It is important that we periodically review public sector organisations to ensure that they continue to fulfil a need and that we take account of changed circumstances. We now have locally accountable government in Northern Ireland, post-devolution; the existence of numerous local and regional advice bodies; a Utility Regulator to protect consumer interests in the energy and water sectors; an effective Trading Standards Service for Northern Ireland; and much greater retail competition on the high street. In that context, the report concludes that the continued existence of the Consumer Council might no longer be essential to consumers or the most cost-effective mechanism for consumer representation in Northern Ireland. However, the report recognises that the council provides certain functions in relation to the regulated industries that are not currently exercised by another body but must continue to be exercised.

I have considered the report findings and now wish to consult on the most appropriate model for the delivery of consumer representation in Northern Ireland, recognising the very different political and consumer context that we now enjoy. I am seeking views specifically on the following options: the continuation of the current Consumer Council model of an arm’s-length body to represent consumers; the establishment of an independent consumer representative body outside government; or the abolition of the council and transfer of the consumer representation role, including the regulated industries role, to an existing non-government advice body or bodies. Consultees may, of course, identify other potential options for consideration by my Department. Members can access a copy of the consultation document and the review report on the DETI website. A copy has been made available in the Assembly Library.

I commend the statement to the Assembly.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. I wish to place on record that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment provided a written response to the review on 31 May, and it is included in the Simpson report. In its response, the Committee said that it was content that the Consumer Council provides an effective and efficient service and that, to date, no concerns had been raised regarding the council's remit and structure. Essentially, it if ain't broke, why fix it?

In relation to the changed circumstances that the Minister referred to, there is one major changed circumstance that is affecting virtually all our constituents, and that is the recession, and I have to pay tribute to the role of the Consumer Council in regard to its work on many consumer-related issues ranging from banking and fuel to the most basic, and that is food. Mr Simpson's report, which was commissioned by her Department, recommends the virtual role of the Consumer Council being handed over to Citizens Advice. Will the Minister give us an assurance as to how much credence she will give to that report, and how much weight her Department will give in relation to the consultation exercise; in other words, that we are not going through a charade of a consultation and that the main driving agenda is the Simpson report?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Chair for his comments. The Committee engaged in writing with the Simpson review, and I am sure that that was taken into account in his work. As the Chair will know, and we have had the opportunity to briefly discuss the matter this morning, all the arm's-length bodies are subject to periodic efficiency and effectiveness reviews. As I said, the last one on the Consumer Council was carried out in 1999, so I felt that there was a need to have this review take place, and it will form part of my consideration — only part of my consideration — of where we go next. I am putting this out to as wide a consultation as possible. I look forward to hearing from consumer groups. I look forward to hearing from all the different stakeholders right across Northern Ireland as to not just how they interact with the Consumer Council, but in relation to effectiveness and efficiency, taking into account the changed political landscape and the changes that have occurred in the rest of the United Kingdom. So all those issues will have to be considered when I look at the final issues, which, I hope, will be around January 2014.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. How does the Minister see the consultative role of the Consumer Council on issues such as energy costs and water regulation being managed in the future?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That was one of the issues pointed out by Mr Simpson. He said that although there are now quite a few bodies dealing with consumer issues — the Chair has already mentioned Citizens Advice, and there are other bodies — the statutory role of the Consumer Council will have to continue in some manner or another. I would be very interested to hear from people who use the Consumer Council, particularly in relation to the statutory role on water or energy, to come forward with ideas as to whether they are happy with the way in which it is done at present, and if they are not, what other ways can we look at performing that statutory role. No matter what model is picked after the consultation, we still have to have that regulatory role fulfilled. Therefore, that is something that will continue regardless of what model we go for.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement and for providing the Chair and me with an advance copy of the report and for briefing us this morning on her statement. I agree with some of the findings of the consultant's report, particularly with regard to the lack of technical expertise in the Consumer Council, but does the Minister agree that there is a role for a government-funded body to challenge and scrutinise the Executive and the Assembly's policies on regulated affairs such as energy policy and fuel poverty?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Consumer Council has often challenged not just my Department but the Department for Regional Development about those regulatory functions. That will continue, regardless of what model we choose after the consultation has finished. That must continue. We must have a body to bring forward complaints, particularly in relation to regulated industries. That is a legislative commitment, and, therefore, it has to continue. The big question for me, and indeed for the consultation, is whether the Consumer Council is the right body to take that forward into the future, given the changed landscape and all the other issues in the Simpson report.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I also thank the Minister for her statement. She refers to certain functions being carried out by the Consumer Council that need to be continued. How will that happen? Will she identify those functions?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Those are the functions that we have been talking about. In particular, there still needs to be regulatory functions for Northern Ireland Water. There still needs to be a regulatory function for all the energy matters that the Consumer Council has been dealing with to date. Those functions will have to continue, regardless of whether the Consumer Council is here.

The Chair, I think, made reference to the fact that Mr Simpson sees Citizens Advice as maybe being able to deal with those issues. I cannot be as dogmatic as that because, obviously, there will be procurement issues involved with anybody coming forward to provide those services. That is what the consultation is about. It is about identifying alternative models or whether the model that we have is doing the job well enough to continue with that job. I have been very clear that I am not recommending one option or the other. I am simply asking for views from the wider public not just on Mr Simpson's report but all the other issues that have been identified in the consultation.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I have not had the benefit of seeing the review report yet because, as of an hour ago, it was not available on the DETI website or in the Library. However, from the Minister's statement, I can see the general direction of travel. Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Parliament has done a similar and possibly more wide-ranging review and that its conclusion appears to be that a model very similar to the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland might be the way to go for Scotland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am aware of the work that has been undertaken by the Scottish Parliament. That consultation happened during the summer, so it was carried out concurrently with, or towards the end of, Mr Simpson's piece of work. That review is also in the context of an independent Scotland, so, as you can imagine, it is very heavily weighted in a particular way. It also goes much wider than the work of the current Consumer Council. It looks at the work that is carried out by other advice agencies in Northern Ireland. So although I am aware of that Scottish work, and I am sure that some consultees will want to draw it to my attention, we should be aware of the context in which it was carried out.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Given that the review took account of the changing consumer landscape in the rest of the UK, will there be an opportunity for her Department to scrutinise and investigate best practice models throughout Europe and the world?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In the terms of reference, we very much wanted Mr Simpson to look at the current operating context. Given the changing political atmosphere in the devolved region of Northern Ireland, we also wanted him to look at the other UK Government agencies, the other devolved Administrations and what was happening generally. There is a requirement for us to take that framework into account when we are looking at our consumer protection and consumer advocacy; that is what Mr Simpson has done in his report. As I said, other developments, particularly the Scottish Parliament's piece of work, will, no doubt, come up in the consultation responses. We will consider those as well.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Can she tell us the difference that she sees between options 1 and 2, which are mentioned in her statement?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will go back to my statement because I need to make sure that I am saying the right thing. Option 1 is the continuation of the current Consumer Council, which is an arm's-length body of my Department and, therefore, accountable to my Department. It gets its funding from my Department. Option 2 is the establishment of an independent consumer representative body, which would be completely outside of government. It might get government funding and it might be able to access other funding outside of government, which would, of course, be an advantage for that organisation. It would, of course, be completely independent from government and, therefore, not open to the allegation of being influenced by the fact that it is a departmental arm's-length body.

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

I note that the Minister's statement refers to how the Consumer Council has been responsive and effective. My colleague and Chair of the Committee also referred to how it was viewed as an efficient organisation. I am sure that that passes some tests. I also understand that the organisation has helped to put £300,000 directly back into consumers' pockets in the past year. Is this really not about silencing the Consumer Council and, by extension, the consumer voice? In these times, should we not have a greater, rather than a diminished, consumer voice?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is absolutely not about that. I explained the context for the review. The organisation has not been reviewed since 1999. It is incumbent upon Ministers to review their arm's-length bodies not only because it was pointed out in the 2011-15 Budget that it is something that every Minister should do but for very good practical reasons, such as testing their efficiency, effectiveness and value for money, and the changed political landscapes. So I completely and absolutely dispute that allegation.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that. Are there any financial implications in the consultation's remit?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the work that Mr Simpson carried out cost in the region of £20,000. Obviously, costs will be associated with the consultation, because it may well be the case that we will go out and have workshops in connection with the consultation to engage with the wider public. Of course, officials will be engaged in that work as well. So there will be financial implications, but, as I have tried to make sure is the case throughout the review process, those will be kept to a minimum.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister said that she is seeking views on a body outside of government for the new role. Will, or should, that include a social enterprise model? Are there other social enterprise models of that character anywhere else in the world?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are not being prescriptive about what will come along in the Consumer Council's place, if we decide to replace it. It may well be the case that we will want to look into the social enterprise model. Again, I am not being prescriptive in the consultation. I think that it is important that we are as open as we possibly can be. Obviously, there is the Simpson report, which people will want to consider, and they will also want to consider the overall changing consumer landscape in the United Kingdom. I think that it would be wrong for me to say, one way or the other, which I think is the best model moving forward.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. I have not read the report yet, but I look forward to reading it. The Minister's reaction to Mr McKinney's question suggested to me that she was protesting too much. I know that the Minister might find this hard to take, but is she, in fact, adopting a neutral role in this? Is she awaiting a genuine consultation or is there a fixed view in the Department that the Consumer Council should go and that Citizens Advice should take its functions?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The reason why I threw my arms in the air, Mr Deputy Speaker, was because it is very difficult to win in this circumstance. If I had been lukewarm in response to Mr McKinney's question, I would have been told that I had an answer that I was keeping back. Given that I was robust in saying that this was not politically motivated, I am told that I have been over-robust in the answer. The Member knows that I am a pretty straightforward kind of person. If I had had a choice as to what I preferred, I would have said it in the consultation. I am being as open as I possibly can be on this consultation, and I can say no more.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

How will oversight of the Utility Regulator evolve? At present, it seems that there are no structures to allow the regulator to report to the Minister's Department. Therefore, we have difficulties with, for example, who oversees the overseer when it comes to whether NIE and the system operator for Northern Ireland are keeping their licence conditions. Where is the oversight of the Utility Regulator going?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member has raised the issue with me on a number of occasions. To be clear, the Utility Regulator is funded by the Department of Finance and Personnel but is not an arm's-length body; it is entirely independent and is responsible not to a Department but to the Assembly only. The Assembly is the only place that holds the Utility Regulator to account. That is right, because the regulator should not be open to influence by any Department or, indeed, any Minister, because it deals with issues that should be completely independent.

If the Member wishes me to look at the matter along with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am quite content to do so. However, it is really a matter for him, because he funds the Utility Regulator, not me.

Executive Committee Business

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees that the provisions in clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 9 May 2013, dealing with the offence of unauthorised copying etc, of design in the course of business, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The motion deals with the proposed enforcement arrangements in Northern Ireland for two new offences to be introduced by the Intellectual Property Bill. The offences concern the deliberate copying in the course of business of a registered design. The subject of intellectual property is a reserved matter. However, the Bill’s proposed enforcement regime for Northern Ireland involves a change to the functions of my Department, which is a devolution matter under Assembly Standing Orders.

The purpose of the Intellectual Property Bill is to strengthen the protection afforded to the owners of intellectual property. One of the statutes amended by the Bill is the Registered Designs Act 1949. The proposed amendments to that Act would create a new criminal offence for the deliberate copying of a UK- or European Union-registered design and a related offence for anyone dealing in such products in the course of business.

The new offences will augment the existing protection for owners of registered designs that is available through the civil courts. They will also align the protection regime for such owners with that for owners of other types of intellectual property — namely, copyright and patent owners — where criminal sanctions already exist.

Under the Bill, it is proposed that in Great Britain, local weights and measures authorities will have powers to take enforcement action against those suspected of having committed either offence. The proposed enforcement powers for local authorities in GB are in line with the powers that they already have for existing intellectual property offences.

In Northern Ireland, my Department, through the Trading Standards Service, has the enforcement role for the criminal offences for copyright and patent infringement, mirroring the role of its counterparts in Great Britain. Given my Department’s existing role in protecting intellectual property rights, it is appropriate that it should take on the proposed powers in the Intellectual Property Bill. The powers to investigate alleged offences under the Bill are those contained in sections 27 and 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Those are the same powers that are already in use for copyright and patent infringement.

It is important for Northern Ireland that the Assembly pass the legislative consent motion (LCM), as it will allow my Department to help to protect the rights of existing registered design owners and ensure that such owners will have the same level of protection as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This strengthening of the protection for registered design owners will help to encourage businesses to innovate in the design field, in the knowledge that they are more likely to be able to protect their rights to such designs.

In the consultation that led to the Bill, design-owning businesses confirmed that enforcing their rights could be very time-consuming and costly and that it diverted resources that could otherwise be put towards business development. That can deter them from pursuing legitimate claims and can affect their willingness or ability to innovate.

The majority of respondents to the consultation agreed with the introduction of criminal sanctions for the deliberate copying of registered designs. It received support from small businesses, independent designers and the legal profession. Respondents said that it was rare to experience inadvertent copying and felt certain that design infringement was blatant and deliberate. It was felt that criminal sanctions would level the playing field between small and large organisations.

My officials in the Trading Standards Service consider that they will be able to take on the enforcement role of the new offences without the need for extra staffing resources or any other costs. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for the introduction of the Intellectual Property Bill LCM.

The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment considered correspondence from the Minister, which outlined the proposals and the need for a legislative consent motion, at its meeting on 20 June. Initially, there seemed to be some confusion over whether a legislative consent motion was required. The Westminster Minister’s position was that, as intellectual property is a reserved matter, the LCM would not be required.

The Committee considered further correspondence on the matter at its meeting on 4 July, which outlined in greater detail the reasons why the Department considered an LCM necessary. The Committee agreed with the Department’s view that, as the proposal will change the enforcement functions of the Department under the Registered Designs Act 1949, a legislative consent motion is required.

The Committee further considered the proposals at its meeting on 19 September. Some concerns were expressed that there may be scope within the Intellectual Property Bill for some large multinational companies to avoid corporation tax. However, the Committee received assurances from the Department and Assembly's Research and Information Service that there is no evidence that that might be the case. On that basis, the Committee agreed to support the proposals.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I support the legislative consent motion that is before us. It is imperative that we do all in our power to support and protect the interests of businesses. Intellectual property is an important matter and this will allow the system to operate more effectively and efficiently with increased legal certainty.

During the consultation, the majority of respondents agreed that enforcing their rights can be a very costly exercise, and the enforcement measure proposed in the Bill will provide them with more support and protection. I welcome the motion and trust that it will be of assistance to the business community.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

We have heard from the Minister and others that the purpose of the legislative consent motion is to ensure that the new pre-publication freedom of information exemption is extended to Northern Ireland. I congratulate the Minister for doing so. We know that freedom of information is a reserved matter, and because this issue has been taken forward in the Intellectual Property Bill in Westminster, an LCM is necessary.

It is fundamental that we offer sufficient protection to research information. Although the Freedom of information Act provides for a number of exemptions, this further exemption closes a loophole and is to be welcomed.

We must take all reasonable steps to ensure that we create the right environment for international research to take place. We must also ensure that we do not fall further behind the rest of the UK. We all want to see Northern Ireland as the leading part of the UK and, in fact, leading in Europe. Northern Ireland had the lowest number of patents applied for and granted of any UK region in 2010 and 2011. Those are worrying statistics, as they are important indicators of how well our economy is innovating. So there is much work still to be done in that area.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the legislative consent motion and trusts that the Minister will take further action to improve Northern Ireland's performance regarding intellectual property.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Members who contributed. Enforcement is not a reserved matter, which is why this issue came forward. It is right that we should air the issues in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I thank members of the Executive and of the Committee for considering the matter positively.

Questions were asked about corporation tax and the possibility of avoidance, but the provisions of the Bill are not aimed at addressing any taxation issues. The Bill seeks to raise the level of protection, particularly for small businesses. I commend Mr Kinahan's comments on the need to send out a very positive message that Northern Ireland is open for business and that, if people have design rights, they will not be abused. Knowing that rights will be better protected in the UK framework will make the economy more likely to innovate and create new designs. I commend the motion to the Assembly and thank Members for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees that the provisions in clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 9 May 2013, dealing with the offence of unauthorised copying etc, of design in the course of business, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

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

I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we wait for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, the Minister is on his way to the Building. I think that, given the incredible pressure that the Minister has been under with business over this past week and the many and various difficult issues that he is facing as we speak —

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

Order. I do not believe that that is a point of order. It is more to do with filibustering.

The Minister of Health is not in his place. I propose to suspend the sitting by leave of the Assembly for five minutes.

The sitting was suspended at 1.06 pm and resumed at 1.08 pm.

Committee Business

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 20 February 2014, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill [NIA Bill 28/11-15].

On Tuesday 1 October 2013, the Assembly referred the Local Government Bill to the Committee for the Environment for scrutiny. The Bill will provide the legislative basis for the reform of local government, including statutory governance arrangements, an ethical standards regime, council-led community planning, and the transfer of staff, assets and liabilities to the new councils.

The Committee has already agreed to call for written submissions from interested organisations and individuals and, in addition to signposting notices in the local press, stakeholders have been contacted directly. A number have already indicated their intention to respond to the Committee's request for evidence.

The Environment Committee firmly believes that it is essential that all stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment on this Bill. It is a huge Bill, not just in terms of the number of its clauses and schedules, but in its enormous significance for local government. We need to give it the scrutiny that it deserves.

The Committee's public call for evidence does not close until 12 November 2013, and we anticipate a high volume of submissions. After considering these, the Committee plans to invite respondents to take part in a stakeholder event so that members have a wide opportunity to explore the views that are expressed. The Committee will also wish to bring its concerns to the Department for its response.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Committee believes that it is essential that it is afforded the time to fully exercise its scrutiny powers in relation to this lengthy and highly significant piece of legislation. I ask, therefore, that the House supports the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill to 20 February 2014. I can assure Members, following discussions with the Department, that this extended date will not delay the progress of the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 20 February 2014, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill [NIA Bill 28/11-15].

Private Members' Business

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

Order. The next item on the Order Paper is a motion on public consultation. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes that public consultation is an important component of government policy formulation and decision-making; recognises that it can strengthen links between government and the public and, particularly, the community and voluntary sector; expresses concern at the disparity in costs associated with consultation across government Departments; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to define best practice.

It is my pleasure to move the motion. Let me begin by declaring, I suppose, a form of interest in public consultations because, in a previous career, I profited from them. On a number of occasions, a Department or, more likely, an arm's-length body — or a quango or non-departmental public body (NDPB), if you prefer — would contract my services as a facilitator of public meetings. In my world, it was a very profitable little line of work. However, there came a moment when I concluded that it could not possibly be deemed a profitable way to consult people. That moment came at the end of a consultation process that had been run by a government agency. I will not name it, because that would not be fair. What it did was all done in good faith, was very well organised and followed all published guidelines. However, at the final meeting in the series, which was in a fairly rurally based hotel, around halfway through our by now well-oiled presentation and consultation process, two women in the front row, who had arrived together, glanced at each other and left together. At that point, there were more of us consulting than there were members of the public being consulted.

The costs simply do not add up. There was not just the fee for the likes of me, but the hire of the room in the hotel, advertising in the local press, PR, marketing, mileage and £2·50 per cup of hotel tea and coffee. It just does not make economic sense. Yet the Government continue to do it.

Of all the public consultations over the past six years since devolution was restored in 2007, one of the most expensive was on the proposal for a programme on cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI). Again, I have no grumble with the idea that proportionate resources should be devoted to a proposal that is designed to impact on every citizen in the country. The problem is that almost nobody — well under 1% of the population — turned up for the public consultation meetings.

Worse than that, the sponsor Department, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), employed a consultant in the role of a peer reviewer to review other consultants employed by OFMDFM, and the peer reviewer came to the conclusion that the document that was sent out was not fit for purpose. In fact, she said that if it had been down to her, she would not have allowed it out of her office, yet it was allowed out to consultation with a cost to the taxpayer of £93,185·70. Money well spent? I suggest not, not least because CSI is now gone and has been replaced by Together: Building a United Community.

On the question of costs, I turn to the concern articulated in the motion regarding the disparity in the costs of consultation. I offer one example of that disparity. Having reviewed the published lists of consultations since 2007, I think that there is one glaring example. I admit to a little bias in this because I am passionate about education, so I make no apology for highlighting two consultation processes run by the Department of Education.

In the same year — 2008 — the Department consulted on two important areas: Irish-medium education and a review of literacy and numeracy. Irish-medium education may not mean much to me, but the 1998 Belfast Agreement states that it is important and gives certain assurances on it. I have no difficulty with the Education Minister consulting on its future, but if Irish-medium education is important to some, how much more are literacy and numeracy key issues for others?

I offer you two quotes from as recently as last Friday. Speaking at Titanic Belfast during the investment conference, Prime Minister David Cameron, in his salesman mode, praised the fact that we use:

"English as the global language of business".

At the same event, our First Minister, Peter Robinson, reminded the audience that our Executive put the economy as their primary concern.

So clearly, numeracy and literacy in the English language are key to our economic development. Why is it, then, that the Department of Education spent over twice as much — £46,447 against £22,827 — consulting on Irish-medium education as it did on numeracy and literacy? I know, and Members will recall, that the Minister of Education commented in a news release on that disparity in spending, but frankly, he protested too much. He claimed that it was flawed logic to suggest that he was not focusing enough on literacy and numeracy. Of course, that was before last week's revelation from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which, unfortunately for him, reviewed literacy and numeracy in the industrialised world and found that, for numeracy, our young rank eighteenth out of 24. I suspect that we are probably in the top two for Irish-medium education.

There must be a better way. I am sure that there are Members who are waiting for their chance to point out to me that, in calling for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to define best practice, I am in some way ignorant of the fact that there are several documents on that very subject, some published by OFMDFM. I say to those Members that I am well aware of the guidelines. In fact, I am taken with 'A Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland'. I will make two specific points and then a general point about that.

My first specific point is that there is no mention of the use of the internet and social media as a means of consulting the public. Yet all of us, or at least many of us, are aware of the power of Twitter, Facebook and all the rest to reach citizens who do not watch, listen to or read about politics.

My second point is that the document makes it clear:

"The Civic Forum is keen to engage with the administration".

I suggest that an update to the practical guide might be useful.

My general point is that guidelines are not rules, and neither guidelines nor rules necessarily define best practice. Experience is the missing element. Guidelines or rules plus experience make best practice. So, I call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to consider what represents best practice.

We can all agree that consultation is a good thing in principle, and we can all agree, if we are being honest, that there are things that we do not know. So, we should all agree that there is a huge value in reaching out to those who know the things that we do not. But what is the best way? On a case-by-case basis, how do we identify the people with the legitimacy to help us do what, I hope, all of us in this Chamber want to do, which is to make life better for our citizens? However, that is glib, because there is no tension there, and we need the tension between the politician whose desire is to make changes and, if I may say so, the instincts of the officials who 'Yes Minister'-like may pull in the other direction. It is representative democracy versus consultative democracy.

I hope that Members will join me in supporting the motion because I believe passionately that consultation is critical. Listening must be the foundation of a good democracy. Consultation can do great good by opening the door to those who know what we do not know to make life better, but it can also do great harm if the public suspect that we are simply using them.

A little while after the announcement of Together: Building a United Community, the son of CSI, I attended a public meeting in north Belfast. The 10-year plan for removing peace walls was the hot and heavy topic of conversation and, specifically, the fear of those in the shadows of the walls that the consultation process would be used to achieve the ends OFMDFM wanted. In other words, those citizens were deeply sceptical of the consultation process. That cannot be right, it cannot be good for democracy, and it cannot be a proper way forward.

I will finish with this thought. I attended an invitation-only dinner some months ago. The guest speaker was a very senior member of the current Executive, who spoke in praise of a lobby group and said that it knew to get in early with its views because it understood that if you wait until the consultation process begins, it is too late to have any real influence. Too late once consultation begins.

Let us commit today to making consultation real, relevant and a resource that helps to rebuild a connection between this Chamber, which is currently so remote on the hill, and the people we serve. I commend the motion to the House. At this point, I would normally say that I look forward to the ministerial response, but, as I understand it, although there are four Ministers in OFMDFM, none will respond. I take that as a sign of what they feel about consultation, and that saddens me greatly.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

My apologies for not being here for the start of the debate.

This debate deals with a modern-day idea and how it can be best used to inform legislation and to ensure that it is most effective in all the right places. It is a useful tool, as the motions states, to strengthen ties with the public and with the voluntary and community sectors. As a tool, consultation is of use only if it is carried out in such a way that it does not prejudge issues or work towards a desired outcome of those carrying out the consultation. Whether consultation is done by questionnaire, focus groups or online means, it must provide accurate and useful information.

The current Department of Education consultation on funding seeks yes or no answers and is not the best informative use, in my belief. A quantity of information is not always better than quality information. It is essential that the Assembly and Departments involve the public in consultations to prevent allegations of the Assembly ignoring public wishes. However, that must be done in a manner that results in accurate, balanced and useful information. I believe that there is much knowledge to be gained from the voluntary and community sectors, especially since they are increasingly becoming the delivery agent for some services. They know best the information required to legislate, and so consultation with them is vital. It is advisable, therefore, that enforceable guidelines are developed and put in place, but it must be an Executive-agreed decision.

I also feel that, as a result of the various forms of consultation, guidelines for each form should be agreed so that everyone is clear about how each form of consultation process is carried out. Perhaps outside input from our universities can help produce guidelines for high standards. I also urge that a cost-benefit-analysis factor is included in the guidelines so that costs, which are very important, can be controlled and finance is not wasted in what is an important process for informing government.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. Sinn Féin will not formally oppose the motion.

Public consultation, under section 75, is a legal requirement in developing policy and legislation, along with other statutory obligations and instruments. At the heart of the Executive's commitment to openness and inclusivity is consultation.

While concerns have been raised about the cost of consultation, having little or none will not serve the needs of the people. In fact, policies having to be put right because they do not work due to a lack of consultation will only cost the Government more.

Democracy means the strength of the power of the people. A democratic society is one in which ordinary people have a say in how it is run. We have to ensure equality and fairness for all our citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender, political opinion etc. Human rights must be protected for all our citizens, and Sinn Féin is committed to efficient government that is cost-effective. However, equality and representative safeguards cannot be diluted in any fashion.

Consultation is an important action that we can take to make our society more inclusive. It is important that we are socially aware, are of the people and understand the problems and issues that are faced by community groups, NGOs and other groups that we are not part of. That is crucial.

In my constituency, I attended a recent consultation on the rural development programme. The people who were there represented a network or consortium of groups. For example, the umbrella group COSTA represents playgroups, regeneration partnerships, farmers, development groups, golf clubs, culture clubs, faith groups and disability groups. Those networks effectively represent hundreds — arguably thousands — of people in our community. But, not all will attend a consultation event. In that context, it is worth bearing in mind that an organisation, like COSTA, that attends a consultation event will have had a series of pre-consultations at which the main umbrella group elicits the views of the networks and articulates those views at the main consultation event. A consultation such as that will allow all stakeholders to have an input and to help shape the future of all aspects of rural life, from the provision of basic services, such as the lack of broadband in rural areas, bus routes, farming issues, right through to educational and health facilities.

It is important to note that every consultation will be different. Every case should be based on its own merits. Appropriate guidance on taking the correct steps should be taken in each case to ensure that people are given a chance to put forward their views.

The Equality Commission has set out seven guiding principles for consultation. It states that the consultation should begin as early as possible with affected individuals and representatives; consideration should be given to whether face-to-face meetings, small-group meetings, focus groups, discussion papers with the opportunity to comment in writing, questionnaires or internet discussions are best; consideration should also be given to the accessibility of the language; and the format of information must be considered to ensure that there are no barriers to the consultation process.

The Equality Commission also recommends that specific consideration be given on how to communicate information to children and young people, people with learning disabilities and ethnic minority groups. Finally, consultation must be a meaningful and genuine attempt to give people their voices; it should not be a tick-box exercise. Consultations must all meet their statutory and equality obligations, not least those in section 75. It is hard to understand why the motion highlights the community and voluntary sector, because all sector stakeholders on a relevant issue are equally important.

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

Features of life in this part of Ireland, which are now embedded in the law, are the practices and approaches that create a more inclusive society. Whilst the practice of consultation is a way to hear what people have to say, the objective and ambition has to be to create a more inclusive society. Consultation and the legal and other requirements for it are only an expression of that.

I remember that, after the negotiations on the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, there were further negotiations to put the ambitions of the Good Friday Agreement into law through the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That was particularly the case with negotiations on clause 75 in what was then the Northern Ireland Bill. That was all done to bring about this ambition and aspiration of having an inclusive society.

I welcome the motion, because I think that it creates an opportunity to put on the record in the House examples of where consultation — whatever the cost of consultation, Mr Nesbitt — is badly needed and where it is not living up to the desired requirements. Let me give you these examples. In his speech, Mr Nesbitt referred to the Civic Forum. Given that the Civic Forum is still referred to in the practical guidelines, Mr Nesbitt hinted that those guidelines should be updated in some way so that material can be redacted from them. Maybe not; you can come to me on that point.

The reason that I raised that point is that we are in the early stages of a process involving Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan, whereby those who are being consulted are in dedicated and substantial ways inputting into the Haass/O'Sullivan process. Three weeks ago, there were already 100 e-mail submissions to the talks process for Haass and O'Sullivan to hear and through which to consult wider society about where those talks might go. It is my view, given that Mr Nesbitt referred to the Civic Forum, that it should be convened and convened now to further capture wider society's views on the critical issues of flags, emblems, symbols, shared space, dealing with the past and parading.

If we believe in the spirit of the motion on the importance of consultation, we should express that in substance by reconvening the Civic Forum to further capture wider society's views on the critical issues of how that society is shaped.

Secondly, a statutory obligation falls to bodies as part of life in Northern Ireland. Mr Nesbitt will be very aware of that. It applies, in particular, to the role of the Victims' Commissioner in her advice to government arising from consultation with the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). Mr Nesbitt was not able to chair the Committee for the First Minister and deputy First Minister last week, but the Victims' Commissioner gave withering evidence about the level of consultation that is ongoing between her and the VSS and the quality of that consultation to inform the Victims' Commissioner about what was going on in the funding of victims' services.

So, here we have a requirement laid down in law, under statute, for the Victims' Commissioner to take advice from others on how victims' issues are being addressed. Yet, she was withering in her evidence to the Committee about the meetings that she has had and the information that the VSS conveys to her in order that she fulfil her statutory function. Her concern was such to the point that, in the middle of September, the Victims' Commissioner went to "formally alert" — her words, not mine — the VSS about concerns that some had about the relationship and flow of information. If we are to truly value consultation —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way to the Member. If we are truly to value consultation, let us see proper consultation between the VSS and the Victims' Commissioner so that the concerns about which she — rightly, in my view — formally alerts the VSS are not repeated.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I assure him that I was listening to the evidence from my sickbed on my laptop. In terms of proper communication, in his previous guise as a Minister, when there was the much-faulted OFMDFM power grab of planning powers in the Planning Bill, was he consulted? Have the public been consulted? Are that proposal and those amendments consistent with the consultation generally in the Planning Bill?

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

To answer the question, the First Minister and deputy First Minister told me what they might do, then they did it without any consultation with the Executive or further consultation with me. As I understand it, there was not even consultation with Sinn Féin and the DUP before the First Minister and the deputy First Minister decided that somehow planning would be best served if two people, unfit to fulfil planning functions in the North, took responsibility for it. That proves a point.

The Sinn Féin Member who spoke previously referred to the requirements for consultation and how those should look and be shaped. Perhaps the Minister of Education will take that on board when it comes to consultation with the community on the common funding formula. It was announced in June, and since then, last week and this, two consultation exercises are being carried out in the community, one in Omagh and the other in Belfast. Is that consultation, Ms McGahan, or is it not?

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

The Member's time is up.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I support the motion. I share Mr Nesbitt's disappointment at not seeing a Minister from OFMDFM here to respond to Members.

Public consultations are essential to show openness and inclusivity; to promote democracy, by involving the public in the decision-making process; and to ensure that we make the best policy possible. I accept that there will be a range of cost across consultations, dependent on the level of public interest and the need to hold public consultation meetings.

However, if we are to ask the public for opinions, the very least that we can do in return is listen to what they say. We cannot allow consultations to be mere tick-box exercises. The prime example of that from my Committee, the Committee for the Environment, is the Planning Bill. I am afraid that Mr Nesbitt has taken my thunder in that respect. Around 98% of the responses to specific clauses of the Bill were against their introduction. What did the House do in response? Did it delete the clauses or amend them to better reflect public opinion? No. Instead, we voted to speed up their introduction.

Another issue that I constantly bring to the Chamber is the sexual orientation strategy. Consultation on that document ended in 2006. It received many responses, and what has happened since? Nothing. On 18 June 2012, in response to a question for oral answer, junior Minister Bell assured the House that it was OFMDFM's:

"intention to bring forward proposals for a revised sexual orientation strategy, including a full public consultation, by the end of 2012." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 75, p320, col 1].

We are now at the end of 2013 and are still no further on. I learned from my colleague Chris Lyttle that the Committee for OFMDFM has been waiting for a departmental briefing on the matter since February.

Those are just two examples of when we have asked the public for opinions through consultation and then subsequently ignored them. Is it really any wonder that public confidence in politics and politicians is so low? It is worse still when we do not bother to ask for opinions at all. Again, I refer to the Planning Bill. Two major amendments were made, designed to take powers from one Department and rights to appeal decisions from the public. Those were dropped in at the last moment, without any public consultation whatsoever. I commend the many thousands of people who took the time to tell us what they thought of the Planning Bill through the Amend the Bill campaign. Again, however, their views were not taken on board by the House.

I would welcome guidance from OFMDFM on best practice for running a consultation. I would welcome it even more if we could have any confidence that that Department would follow it. Can we really believe that a Department that failed even to consult with its colleagues around the Executive table about a strategy as important and cross-cutting as Together: Building a United Community will properly consult with the general public?

Consultations are not about just transparency; they help Departments and us, in our role as legislators, to identify gaps in policy. They give experts in their field the opportunity to voice opinions and advise on potential solutions that we could very well have overlooked. I recognise that a consultation is not necessarily an end in itself; however, it offers a chance for voices not always heard to have their say on matters that will affect their lives.

I support the motion. I welcome any definition of best practice forthcoming from the Department, but only if it is genuine and will be followed and implemented as it should be.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I state at the outset that the DUP is committed to ensuring that meaningful and purposeful consultation is a key component in gauging the views of all sectors and, importantly, members of the public.

I have no doubt that some consultation is not meaningful or purposeful and that it fails to connect with the very people from whom various Departments need critical feedback. This draws a question about whether the actual consultation process needs to be better at providing shorter time frames for a response, documentation that is simpler and easier to read and earlier engagement with key stakeholders, which has been stated, especially during the policy planning process.

It is fair to say that, if you look at the expenditure and the method of consultation across various Departments, we have moved on greatly from the days of just having a paper-based exercise. OFMDFM has already published a practical guide to policymaking, which was created in consultation with businesses, trade unions and the community and voluntary sector. The guide clearly lays out best practice and new methods for helping to bring forward policy initiatives and consultation in line with various sectors and industries. That is also backed by the concordat between the community and voluntary sector and government, which recognises the sector as a valued partner in contributing to policy development.

The motion brought by the Ulster Unionist Party today calls on OFMDFM to define best practice. I am uncertain about whether that will have any impact on the cost of consultation, or whether it will create similar levels of costs across all Departments. As I have stated, government already has a number of consultation guides, strategies and processes in place that give unequivocal roles in best practice when it comes to consultation.

The biggest complaint coming from many sectors is that they are suffering from consultation fatigue. That reinforces my earlier point that we must try to target the key stakeholders at the earliest juncture. The problem is that consultation costs money, but it is money worth spending if the process is meaningful and purposeful, with beneficial outcomes in policy development. It is not helpful to compare costs in different Departments and the differing number of consultations. Most people accept that certain Departments can have more policy initiatives in any given year. That is underlined when you witness that the Department of Finance and Personnel has the fewest number of consultations and spent no finance during 2010-11 due to the small amount of policies that can be developed from that Department.

Introducing more policies and best practice guides, as well as creating a standing advisory panel on consultations, which was called for by Mr Nesbitt, would go against what the people want to see on the streets. It would create further layers of needless bureaucracy and introduce —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not recall recommending a standing advisory committee.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My apologies, Mr Nesbitt.

It would create layers of needless bureaucracy and introduce more governing documents. That is out of touch with what the public and private sectors are looking for from consultation. It just shows how we can easily lose touch with various sectors.

I strongly believe that the consultation process can be improved, but it does not require more guiding documentation. The consultation process could be quicker, but creating a further level of bureaucracy will certainly not help to speed up the consultation process. Consultation will cost money, and various Departments will be required to spend more amounts than others due to the number of new policies and key stakeholders that they must consult.

More consultation on policy development work could be done at Committee Stage. I am sure that all parties have a view on that. It seems that more could be done during that stage in the process to engage with more stakeholders, thus creating a better outcome for all concerned. It also means that, if there are concerns about the money, cost, and, importantly, the strategic direction of consultations from a Department or Minister, the Committee is there to hold to account those who have responsibility for those matters.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Several things strike me about the motion. One difficulty with it is that, effectively, it criticises the way in which the parties in the Government consult. Every Member who has spoken so far belongs to one of those parties, so you are, effectively, criticising yourselves for the way that you carry out public consultations. The motion refers to costs, but the important question is not about costs but value for money, and whether consultations provide information that will shape public policy and decisions, and make a real difference. The frustration that I hear on the ground about public consultations is the suspicion among the public that the policy has already been decided and that the consultation is mainly designed to fit it; not the other way around. We are not using our public consultations to shape policy and inform the Assembly, Departments and Committees. That is the problem.

Cost should not be the issue, but value for money. We could name, as many Members have, various consultations, some of which have proven very worthwhile and others that have not. We are at the stage where we are consulting on everything, so we have to look at value for money and effectiveness. Do we need to consult on absolutely everything? When do we listen to consultations? That takes us back to the old chestnut that people keep feeling that they have been ignored. We have only to look at the news in the past few days about the ban on blood donations from gay men. When you look at the responses to any of the relevant consultations, what the Assembly has said on the issue and what the Health Committee has said, you see that there is no correlation with that policy. When you look at what the court has said on the issue, you see that there seems to be no correlation with the response of the Minister.

All those things feed into the problem that, sometimes, we are consulting for the sake of consulting, and paying no real or meaningful attention to the responses. It is unfortunate that the motion is not better worded to take account of the importance of the value-for-money aspect or consideration of whether a consultation is necessary. A Department that carries out public consultations does not always get it right and has had decisions overturned by the courts.

It is, of course, disappointing that, to cap it all off, there is no ministerial response to the debate to say whether we are improving the system, whether we can change it, or what we can do. There is a complete lack of interest from OFMDFM in the issue.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank my colleague and party leader for proposing the motion. Consultation is one of the key areas of our work in this institution, and it is very disappointing that we have no ministerial response, no junior ministerial response, and that very little interest has been shown in the debate. Consultation is vital. I am concerned about the fact that the Sinn Féin Member who spoke thought of opposing the motion, and I am also concerned that it will become clear that the DUP does not feel that there is any need to review the motion. As DUP Members listen to what I say, they will see why we feel that there is a need for a review and why there is a need to keep the cost element of the motion in mind when doing so.

We are meant to be listening to the electorate all the time, and consultation is one of the best ways of doing that. As has been said, if you wait for a consultation, in many cases you are too late because the Government will already have decided what is going to happen. The Belfast Agreement gave us consensus government, opposition through Committees, and policy-making and consultation through those same Committees. However, the actions of the two main parties have, in time, as good as neutered this institution and its ability to be in touch with the public and, in many cases, to take action. I think today's lack of ministerial response proves that to be so.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

No, I would like to keep going, thank you.

My party leader has clearly put the case for a clearly defined best practice, so today we call on OFMDFM to do so as soon as possible. Those of you who have read your packs will see that you have a Cabinet Office set of guidelines, NI Direct government services tips, and seven consultation criteria produced by the business, enterprise and regulatory reform body, so there is plenty of advice there. We even have guidelines produced by OFMDFM in its 'Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland', yet we still do not seem to follow it all. The concordat between the voluntary and community sector and the Northern Ireland Government, which is also in your packs, hardly mentions or hints at consultation at all.

We need best practice and we need it to be defined. We then need to see it turned into action, not just by Ministers and their Departments but by Committees and councils, as everybody adopts and puts those principles into practice. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will ensure that OFMDFM will see today's debate and respond.

I am sure that all of you, when in council or in other businesses, have been to consultation meetings where council staff have sat in a community hall and nobody has turned up. They have ticked the box and done the advertising, but nobody bothers coming. That is what we want to avoid. We should look at who we consult with. The Committees do well, but they need to regularly refresh their lists and call for different input. That is something that all of us here should continually do. I suggest that we should try to think outside the box as to who we are not remembering. Maybe we should do that twice a year.

It will be no surprise that I will concentrate on education. We have already had good examples of how poor consultation has been on planning and the sexual orientation strategy, but there are many cases that have gone wrong or that show that consultation is not done right in education. If we look at how we send out the message, we must use all forms of media, including digital, snail mail, advertising, newspapers and everything. The common funding consultation is about the only thing that the Minister and his Department have got right, although the questions that they ask, both of youths and of children, are all designed to get a set answer.

If we are thinking of whom you consult with, whether it is teachers, parents, parents-to-be, youths or children, as I have already mentioned, we do not bother with businesses. In fact, we have not bothered with all the other people who will be involved, like the grandparents. We must think of who we are consulting with. When involved in the debates on absenteeism, it became very clear from the brief that Departments and boards, if they do have good lists of governors and schools, do not have a good mechanism for consulting with them. There was certainly no evidence of any system of consulting properly with parents. Every Department must look at how it has its communication system set up so that it can consult properly.

We must also look at the message itself. The message must be intelligible and should be put out in such a way that we can all understand it. Think of the bulk of paper that we all get and must understand in our Committees and how hard it is. Look at all the acronyms. We need good grounding. So when it comes to a consultation, it needs to be done in such a way that those whom you are consulting understand what they are being asked.

Look at the common funding consultation that is ongoing. At the moment, the home page no longer even refers to the consultation. The consultation does not have a direct link to the common funding formula report from Sir Robert Salisbury, which is the absolute key to that consultation. If you look at how that consultation was done and its timing, you will see that it was announced just as the school holidays started, after everybody had left their school. I sent an e-mail to every single school raising the concerns around the common funding formula suggestion of how cuts should be put in place in 670 schools. I got 10 replies by the end of the summer, to a nice short e-mail; they are now rolling in daily. That absolutely proves that timing is essential. We must not put out consultations when everybody is on holiday. We must make sure that the guidelines show when people are able to consult and respond.

We all know that the Education Minister has said that consultation clogs up the system, and we will keep repeating it. However, it is because it is treated in such a way that, of course, it clogs up the system. If it was done properly, quickly and flexibly, and if the systems were in place, we could actually listen to the electorate. We must not be too rigid; flexibility must be built in to consultation. It might be that, in some cases, you want to consult only for one or two weeks, because decisions might be needed that would save the electorate the cost of the closure of a school or of trying to keep it running for longer than is necessary.

If you talk to people in various Departments, they will tell you that they do not want quantity in responses but quality. So questions must be designed in such a way that we get a good, clear answer that helps us make better decisions. If you look at the common funding formula consultation, for children and for youths, you will see that they are loaded. That is the sort of thing that we should avoid.

On the Education and Skills Authority, we had a consultation on an entirely different Bill. When the new one came here, which we quite rightly opposed, I wrote to every school. I got 159 replies — well over the 10% needed. Of those, 88% said that they were not content with the level of consultation, and the 12% that were content were all from CCMS. I think that that tells us something.

If you talk to the public, you will find that most of them see consultation as being run by government as a tick-box exercise, as many have said, used by the Department or the body to justify what they have already decided they are going to do. No one feels that government are actually interested in hearing their views, taking into account their concerns or varying the policies that they are meant to be consulting on.

We need a sea change in how we consult. We need OFMDFM to review the consultation system. Use the guidelines that are there, make them better, get them to the Departments so that people actually follow them, monitor the process and make it happen. Let us ensure that this House actually listens to the people.

I support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes that public consultation is an important component of government policy formulation and decision-making; recognises that it can strengthen links between government and the public and, particularly, the community and voluntary sector; expresses concern at the disparity in costs associated with consultation across government Departments; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to define best practice.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of Mr Justice Treacy’s judgement on Friday that said that Minister Poots’s decision to ban blood donations from gay men was “irrational” and in breach of the ministerial code, what steps the First Minister, as the DUP nominating officer, will take on the matter. (AQT 201/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Unlike a lot of people who commented on the issue, I read the judgement several times. He does not say that a decision to ban blood from men who have sex with men (MSM) is irrational. He said that the irrationality came from banning it in Northern Ireland but allowing a small quantity to come in from outside Northern Ireland. That could be rectified if the Minister so chose. He had, however, two other grounds, both of which the Executive will have to look at. The first relates to the constitutionality issue and whether the Minister had the power to take such a decision. I suspect that, no matter what the Department might ultimately decide and whether it appeals, the Department of Health in Great Britain might appeal the issue because there are devolution issues at stake as to whether the powers that are given to the member country can be devolved to the devolved regions, which was assumed to be the case. That is a separate issue that has to be considered.

With regard to the decision being in breach of the ministerial code, the provisions were included during my party's negotiations. They have been discussed on a number of occasions at Executive meetings, and we have taken advice from time to time from the Attorney General. There has been a general Executive view that if we were to carry it to the level to which Mr Justice Treacy carried it, everything would come to the Executive. There would be no spending or individual decisions by Ministers, and everything would have to come to the Executive Committee.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The First Minister's time has almost gone.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There would be major difficulties in doing that, and the Executive will have to look at the issue. However, it is clear that any significant major decision that is controversial should come to the Executive Committee, but no member of the Executive Committee asked for that to be discussed.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept and agree with Judge Treacy's ruling on the matter?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Are you trying to get me into trouble? Those matters can be considered by people from a legal background. If a Department does not agree with the judgement, it can appeal.

With the ministerial code, I was more content and felt that the Lord Chief Justice's ruling on that matter was sensible, in that he said that if there were a controversial or significant matter, it would be raised at the Executive Committee. That meant that only nuclear issues would come to the Executive rather than every single issue. If every single issue were brought to the Executive, no Minister would be able to take a decision on his or her own. Before people start cheering from the rafters, they should think about the ramifications of the judgement.

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

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they agree that the ongoing protest camp at Twaddell Avenue is causing major concern and what they hope jointly to do to resolve the situation for the people in that neighbourhood. (AQT 202/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have no doubt that there is disruption to people in the neighbourhood and additional pressure on the PSNI because of the extra work. However, in this country, we defend people's right to protest peacefully and lawfully. As long as protests are carried out peacefully and lawfully, those of us who are part of a democratic institution should be content to support people's right to protest.

As regards what we are doing about it, the deputy First Minister and I brought in colleagues, namely the leaders of other parties. We recognised that there are some outstanding issues in relation to parades, flags and the past that need to be resolved. We, therefore, came together and agreed that Dr Richard Haass should facilitate and chair an all-party group that would look at those outstanding issues. Those are the very issues that are at the heart of the protest campaign at Twaddell. I urge everybody to remember that they have to uphold the rule of law. They have to cooperate with the PSNI, and they have to abide by the conditions that are laid down. However, I protect people's right to protest, providing that they do it lawfully and peacefully.

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

I thank the First Minister for his answer. The Haass talks process has started. However, the business community in Belfast is very concerned that there might be more protest parades in the city coming up to the festive season. What words of encouragement can he give that protests will not end in disruption and cause havoc for shoppers and retailers?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I sympathise with the traders in Belfast, in particular, who had a very bad period around Christmas last year. We talk about rights. There are, of course, competing rights. There is the right of people to carry out their daily business, whether that is in businesses or carrying out commercial activity in the centre of Belfast. People carrying out protest activities have to take into account the rights of others and of the wider society. I have heard of some proposals to hold protests leading up to the Christmas period. I hope that people will reflect on the damage that that would cause to Northern Ireland and to traders in Belfast. It would potentially lead to a loss of jobs. The protest in Twaddell Avenue will not have that impact, but it is a possible outcome if protests were brought into the centre of Belfast.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to update the House on the highly successful investment conference that was held in Belfast last week. (AQT 203/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member has used the two words that sum it up: highly successful. Of course, the ultimate success will be measured in outcomes and our ability to tie down jobs and investment in Northern Ireland.

The deputy First Minister and I have now been involved in three investment conferences. There was one back in 2008, then the Washington investment conference, which was kindly organised by the United States Administration under then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and now this one. We are both agreed that, in the contact that we have had with investors, this was by far the most successful conference that we have had.

The response was very positive from those whom we spoke to at the dinner at Hillsborough Castle on Thursday evening. I noticed that the BBC talked about wining and dining, and so forth. I have to say that it is that kind of networking that really gets a connection with businesspeople. It is an opportunity to find out what projects various companies are looking at and, therefore, how we might fit into their needs and requirements. At that dinner, we spoke to a number of people — the deputy First Minister at his table, and me at mine — who are looking at Northern Ireland as a possible place for investment. It was encouraging to find out the next day that a lot of companies that had Northern Ireland on their shortlist were indicating that Northern Ireland had now leapfrogged to the top of their shortlist. That indicates how successful the investment conference was.

The deputy First Minister and I went down to Invest Northern Ireland's offices this morning to thank the team who worked so hard. We gave due recognition to Alastair Hamilton —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister's time is almost gone.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

— and his team for the preparation and work that they carried out.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. During the Prime Minister's visit, did the First Minister have an opportunity to raise with him the issue of the much-needed DVA jobs in Coleraine?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes. When I was down in Coleraine to meet the workers, I gave them an assurance that I would raise it with the Prime Minister.

The deputy First Minister and I spoke to the Prime Minister about that in the private meeting that we had with him. We presented him with an aide-memoire that gave background details of the case. He indicated that, while there is a consultation going on, he cannot make any definitive remarks but will make contact with us closer to the time when a decision is being taken.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what measures they have in place to ensure the appropriate level of cooperation between the Victims and Survivors Service and the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure full compliance with all statutory requirements. (AQT 204/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for that question, because I have noted that some remarks have been made more recently on that subject, as, no doubt, the Member has. In the Department, we have arranged to bring together the victims' service and the Victims' Commissioner with some of our own people, and we will talk over those issues. Hopefully, we will get them resolved. Action, therefore, is under way.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Are the Department and the Minister satisfied that the needs of victims and survivors will be acknowledged and addressed as a result of the measures adopted by the Department?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

These are the issues that must be constantly under review. None of us should be complacent on these matters. If there are specific issues that the Victims' Commissioner wants to raise — I understand that she made some comments during a Committee hearing — we will want to hear about the areas in which the commissioner feels that the service has fallen short, and we will be happy to talk with the service about how those needs can be met, if there are shortcomings. We are in no way complacent. We do not believe that we have yet reached the level of perfection that would allow us to sit back. Constructive criticism is something that none of us should run away from. Let us see what the issues are, and let us see how we might resolve them.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, following the First Minister’s comments at the beginning of topical questions, to indicate to the House what implications Mr Justice Treacy’s judgement could have on Executive business. (AQT 205/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I noticed that one comment that was made was that, on the foot of Mr Justice Treacy's judgement, everything that is in the in tray of any Minister will have to be transferred to the departmental in tray of the deputy First Minister and me. That is not a position that we want to find ourselves in. Obviously, we have to work out where the bottom line is with regard to what it is important for the Executive to deal with. Any other Executive will deal with major issues. On the basis of Mr Justice Treacy's judgement, we would have to deal with every funding application and the decisions that the Education Minister, the roads Minister or the housing Minister might make on where they will have schools, hospitals, houses, roads etc. Those are issues that we have left at departmental level. Of course, even lower-level issues would have to be decided by the Executive Committee, so it would be a considerable burden on the Executive if we were to go down that route.

Of course, we always knew — the law is very clear on it — that decisions that are controversial, significant or cross-cutting should come to the Executive. I thought that we had an understanding that, if any of the Executive members believed that something fell within those categories, they should ask for those matters to be brought to the Executive. Of course, it is not just the Executive who will have a role in these circumstances: not only do we now find that the public, through the courts, would have a role, but, of course, the Assembly has a role. Any 30 Members can require an issue that they believe to be controversial, significant or cross-cutting to come to the Executive as well.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his reply. I will tease that out a little bit further: is the First Minister indicating that there are implications following the Treacy judgement specifically about issues of concern in education, which are very rife in the community at this time, around the future of the Dickson plan and the common funding formula?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not believe that the Treacy judgement has any additional impact on those issues, because I think that was already required under previous judgements. Several judgements have been given in and around the ministerial code and the requirement to bring material to the Executive. The Treacy judgement goes beyond anything that we have had to date, and that is why the Executive have to look at the issue. Clearly, whether it is the common funding formula or the Dickson plan, those issues are controversial. There is no doubt about their controversy. They are also cross-cutting and, therefore, would have to come to the Executive anyway.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That ends the period for topical questions. We will move on to questions for oral answer to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the review of the Office of the Attorney General. (AQO 4764/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member is getting a double dose today.

In 2010, the Executive agreed that, in addition to his wider constitutional and legal functions, the newly appointed Attorney General should act as chief legal adviser to the Executive and Departments. At that time, it was also decided that aspects of his legal adviser role could be reviewed after a period of operation.

In 2012, in our capacity as joint chairmen of the Executive, the deputy First Minister and I invited the Rt Hon Dame Elish Angiolini, who had particular relevant experience as a law officer in a devolved Administration, to carry out a limited review. The review was to examine the arrangements for Ministers and Departments seeking and handling legal advice, as well as the balance between the Attorney General's role as a chief legal adviser to the Executive and his various statutory responsibilities. Dame Elish conducted her review over the summer and autumn of last year, and her report was delivered to us within the agreed timescale in October 2012. We have since sought the views of our main legal officers, including the Attorney General, on the report and its recommendations. We are now considering policy options arising from the report and from our legal officers' views.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the First Minister for that detailed response. Given that the Attorney General's appointment is for a four-year term that will end in 2014, what arrangements have been put in place for either the reappointment of the current Attorney General or the recruitment of a new Attorney General?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I have already had discussions about the matter. I think that we have a fairly settled view, but we have procedures to go through before such an outcome is announced. The procedures are under way, and we hope to be able to make an announcement within weeks.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Given that the Attorney General questioned the legitimacy of the challenge to Justice Treacy, which we have been talking about, and felt that there was no need to bring the issue to the Executive, is there some sort of schism between the Executive and the High Court?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not think that there is any schism between the Executive and the High Court. The Executive and the Assembly have to act within the law. That is a requirement that is placed on us all. Of course, as the Member will know, the law is often open to interpretation. I suspect that another judge on another day might have given a different view on some of the issues in the Treacy judgement. Such is the legal system. That is why barristers have grown so rich in the past. The reality for us is that we have to deal with the judgements as they come down, and, of course, the Executive will comply with any judgement from the courts.

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

Given the current Attorney General's inclination to join in Supreme Court cases, European Court cases and, indeed, cases involving the alleged scandalising of a judge, do you think that, in retrospect and given the review that you referred to, the role that the Executive gave to the Attorney General in July 2010 was too generous and now needs to be constrained?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that the Member has put his finger on one of the key issues: there is the difficulty with, at one and the same time, the Attorney General being the adviser to the Executive and, on the other hand, having the role independently. His independent role has on occasions required him to take actions against the Executive. We will not deal with what the outcome of that may have been, but it is clearly one of the issues that Dame Elish has looked at, that we are looking at and that will form part of any proposals that we bring to Executive colleagues.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what investment opportunities and benefits have been identified during their programme of international engagement. (AQO 4765/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Our international engagement has initiated a number of potential opportunities that we hope to announce over the coming months. More generally, our direct intervention has helped open new trade markets for local companies in China and secure the participation of a number of Chinese companies in the hugely successful investment conference last week. We were also delighted to see that our meetings in China with key stakeholders have resulted in the expansion of the Confucius Institute to a number of classrooms throughout Northern Ireland. We continue to engage with officials from the Chinese Government on a number of projects, and, as was publicly revealed last Thursday, the Executive are advancing plans to establish a new office in the Chinese capital, Beijing. We hope to be in a position to provide more details on that in due course.

Our visit to New York last month provided an opportunity to strengthen relationships with existing investors and to seek to begin new relationships with potential ones. We also extended an invitation to the investment conference to a wide range of business executives. Our visits to North America over a number of years have produced real and tangible benefits. We have consolidated relationships with some globally recognised brand names, including, for example, Universal Studios and HBO, who continue to invest in the Paint Hall and the Titanic Studios in Belfast. More specifically, our meetings with the senior board of United Airlines directly helped to address its concerns over UK air passenger duty (APD) in Belfast. By securing the devolution of APD to the Assembly, we helped to maintain the long-term commitment of United to its hugely important transatlantic flight. It is the only direct route from Belfast to the US, and it is of significant strategic importance to us in realising our foreign direct investment (FDI) potential. Our meetings with the top management teams in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and senior executives at Cowen International Ltd, on the —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The First Minister's time is almost gone.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

— back of much hard work by officials from Invest Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington, culminated in both companies committing significant investment packages in Northern Ireland.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his detailed reply. In my constituency, we have seen the outworkings of some of the benefit of that, given the ongoing filming that is taking place in places such as Ballintoy and the Dark Hedges. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is following the lead of the Executive —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Do I detect a question?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

— in going to China. Indeed, he is in China this week. Will the First Minister indicate to the House what future investment trips the Executive are planning to expand on the success already achieved?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As far as the Executive as a whole is concerned, I know that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has just returned from South Africa and had a very successful trip there. Next week, the deputy First Minister and I will be in Boston and Chicago, and in December we will be in Japan.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am sure that the First Minister sees himself as the First Minister of all of Northern Ireland. With that in mind, does he have any concerns that, in the past year — 2012-13 — 80% of the FDI visits to Northern Ireland were to the Belfast constituencies? For example, 54 visits were made to East Belfast and a mere four to North Antrim. How does the First Minister see a more level playing field for foreign direct investment being created across Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am glad that some of the job announcements over the past number of days have been for areas west of the Bann. There were two announcements in Omagh, and, at the round-table meeting with the Prime Minister and a number of potential investors, people to my right and my left were talking about bringing jobs to the Londonderry area.

Attempts are being made by Invest Northern Ireland to spread the jobs, but these are private sector employers that will make their own decisions about where it is best for them to be on the basis of a lot of logistical issues. We are dealing with financial and business services, and it is unquestionably the case that many of them are gravitating to the Belfast area. That is one of the issues that has led the Executive to look at, for instance, where public sector jobs that are perhaps more mobile should be situated.

There is no reluctance on the part of Invest Northern Ireland to encourage businesses to go to where the people are. Ultimately, the labour force is an essential part of it. If the skills and the people are there and the rest of the logistics are in place, Invest Northern Ireland can put forward a much more credible case.

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

I thank the First Minister for his answers thus far. I totally agree that the jobs announced last week for Omagh by Telestack and Terex Powerscreen were very welcome. Given that the Canadian commissioner to London said recently that direct flights from Belfast to Canada were crucial and given that Bombardier has announced increased jobs, what are the prospects for having those direct flights reinstated?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Ultimately, those are matters for the airlines and the airports. When we have been asked to speak to an airline company, we have done so. I know that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has spoken to airlines in North America, and the deputy First Minister and I spoke to airlines during trips to the Middle East. We will continue to do that, but, ultimately, the package has to be put together by the airport to bring them in, and the airline has to be satisfied that the customer base will be there for that purpose.

Like the Member, I am delighted that Bombardier has announced another 250 skilled jobs, and that is first-class in terms of getting jobs that go beyond the income medium. During a recent trip to Montreal, the deputy First Minister and I visited Bombardier and met many people from Northern Ireland who were working out there. When I spoke to Pierre Beaudoin, the chief executive of Bombardier, during the conference, he indicated that there was real desire on the part of people from Northern Ireland who have gone to Canada to come back to Northern Ireland, now that the jobs are in Northern Ireland. You will see that trend occurring much more over the coming days.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what plans they have for the further development of the Crumlin Road Gaol, Belfast. (AQO 4766/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Crumlin Road Gaol has proven to be a significant success, attracting 85,000 visitors in less than a year. The next phase of the development is the boutique distillery and restaurant, and work will start on that project later this year. We continue to consider options for other parts of the jail, including B wing, D wing and the wardens' cottages. The jail's development and its success in creating local employment opportunities and enhancing community confidence are practical examples of the Executive's commitment to the regeneration of north Belfast.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he outline the job opportunities for young people from deprived areas?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As I understand it, there is already a close relationship between the community organisations in the area and the management of the jail regeneration. I think that regular meetings take place. I think that about 30 jobs have been created through the tours and the conference element of the jail, and there is the potential, I believe, for about 60 jobs for the boutique distillery. All those jobs are capable of being filled by local people. Obviously, employers will remember employment law and do it on the basis of merit, but I suspect that there are jobs that will easily fit the abilities of people in the local community.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister. Given the successes that he celebrates with regard to the jail, does he have any regrets — personal or professional — over the sale of the courthouse for £1?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The two are connected underground, and one could see a strong case being made for how they could have been combined into one project. For that reason, I understand that a task force is looking at what might be done to regenerate the courthouse, and I believe that DSD officials and others are looking into that issue. Major investment will be needed to carry out the work, and I suspect that the longer it is left derelict, the costlier it will become. It is owned by the private sector, albeit at what one might describe as a giveaway price. However, I was not involved in that and, therefore, I cannot comment on how sensible the sale was. I will comment if it ends up being sold back to the Executive at a much higher price.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for his answers. What is his evaluation of the success of the Crumlin Road Gaol in its first year of operation as a tourist attraction?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have visited the jail on several occasions for conferences and, for instance, a 'Game of Thrones' event. People who are not from Northern Ireland went around the jail and were blown away by its potential. As I indicated, 85,000 people have gone through the jail during its time as a tourist attraction — probably many more before that. That indicates that we are probably ahead of the target. I think we had a target of 90,000 for the first year; at 85,000 with two months to go, I think that we will exceed the target. Those numbers speak for themselves.

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

I welcome the First Minister's supportive comments. In fact, I have seen him many times in the jail. [Laughter.] Does he believe that enough effort is being put into publicising this tourist project? Will he give further backing to raising its profile?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Clearly, with the statistics that I outlined, the targets are being met and, therefore, they must be doing something right. I was shocked when one of my special advisers told me that Crumlin Road Gaol was the number one tourist destination on TripAdvisor on a list that included Titanic Belfast. I do not know whether that says something about the people who use TripAdvisor, but it indicates that a large number of people feel that the jail is a good attraction and worth going to see. I hope that this question will gain coverage that will give the jail additional advertising.

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

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the reasons for the delay in producing the next action plan for the 'Ten year strategy for children and young people in Northern Ireland 2006-2016', given that the 2008-2011 action plan has expired. (AQO 4767/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The current 10-year strategy will continue until 2016. Work to further the aims of the strategy is being taken forward through the Delivering Social Change framework, which seeks to address the linked issues of poverty and improving children's lives.

Through Delivering Social Change, we are moving away from long lists of existing activities towards smaller numbers of cross-cutting and more strategic objectives. Those are additional to existing work across government. In support of that development, the 'Children and Young Persons Early Action' document, published on 14 November 2012, takes full account of the principles of the 10-year strategy for children and young people, including the high-level outcomes. It identifies the key priorities for children and families over the remaining years of the 10-year strategy. The document identifies five priority work programmes and has been developed to assist key stakeholders in delivering programmes and initiatives.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire sóisearach as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the junior Minister for his answer. Will he outline the five priorities in the new action plan?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I could go through each of the priorities in turn, but the critical thing for us is to directly improve the lives of individual children.

We are looking at improving children's educational outcomes and health. What we are looking at in a broader sense is to ensure that children have the best opportunity to raise themselves out of poverty.

I will give one example of that because I cannot break down each of the five priorities in detail in two minutes. One thing that we know — and, as a teacher, the Member will appreciate this — is that children with five good GCSEs can raise themselves and, in many cases, their families out of poverty. One of the most strategic actions that we have taken is to ensure that children who are sitting on D or E grades in literacy and numeracy can get the additional support that can transport them to a position where they get a GCSE pass and, thereby, to where the educational evidence is leading, which is to a future that allows them to have sustainable jobs with reasonable pay.

I understand that we have some 250-plus additional teachers coming in to support children. They will be in place by December. That, in essence, encapsulates what we are doing in the Delivering Social Change project.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The junior Minister's time is almost up.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I could talk about transitions, integrated delivery and joined-up planning and commissioning. However, we can have those conversations at a later stage.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the junior Minister for his very detailed answer. In fact, he is now getting the chance to expand on what he was just talking about. Can he expand on the actions that have been taken on children and young people in the Delivering Social Change project?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Well, you have early years and early intervention. You have literacy and numeracy. You have the transitions. You have the need for integrated delivery and joined-up planning and commissioning. In recent days, the most significant of those was the OFMDFM launch of Bright Start, which is the Executive's project to deliver affordable and integrated childcare. It sets out the broad direction for the childcare strategy and names, through 15 key first actions, the main priorities that were identified during the research. The importance of that is that it is a £10 million investment by OFMDFM directly into early years and childcare. That is the bright start. What does that mean? It means that hundreds of jobs will be created through social enterprises and that work will be made available in the childcare sector. It aims for 8,000 young people to have either a new or existing affordable childcare place. I say "new". The vast majority of those 8,000 childcare places — some 7,000-plus — will be new. That will allow many parents to re-engage with the employment market. We have also looked at the quality of the childcare. It will allow many children to get that hand up as they proceed into their future education. The Bright Start project is, probably, in my view, one of the most exciting initiatives that we have taken. It is cutting edge in leading the way in social enterprise and childcare practice.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I note that two people have asked a question of the Minister. We got very little detail on what the policy will actually do to improve the education and health of children or parents' re-engagement. Could we have more detail, not just on Bright Start but on how things will work over the next 10 years to actually help children?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am not sure that the question is a fair reflection of the level of detail that I have gone into specifically. Delivering Social Change focuses on where need actually exists. I have given two specific examples. The first related to literacy and numeracy. We were told to ensure that children had a foundation in literacy and numeracy in primary school and, then, that those children got the opportunity to obtain a pass at GCSE level, which would, in effect, be a passport for them to a better educational future.

The second key point that I outlined was on the issue of childcare. That £10 million will create hundreds of extra jobs and, critically, allow social enterprises to look at how those childcare places can be facilitated, specifically by providing flexibility, ensuring affordability and ensuring that placements are in areas that families can directly access. Those are the details of new policies that are directed to meet the need that the research base has shown us and that friends and families who are in direct need of childcare have asked us to provide. Seven thousand opportunities for new childcare is a level of detail that we have not had before. This new and exciting initiative is the pinnacle of the whole Delivering Social Change framework.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the sexual orientation strategy. (AQO 4768/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

As outlined in Together: Building a United Community, we are committed to publishing a sexual orientation strategy. A consultation document that will inform public consultation on the strategy is under consideration in the Department. That strategy will be published once the consultation process has been completed.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I note that the First Minister did not answer the supplementary question posed by my colleague Ian Milne and that he attempted to divert away from the key issue of equality for the gay community. I wonder whether the junior Minister will share with us why, given the delays in bringing forward this strategy, the DUP is so resistant to rights for the gay community.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that the premise of the Member's question is somewhat significantly flawed because she is asking questions of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the last time I looked, the deputy First Minister was from your political party, not the Democratic Unionist Party. Let me be very clear: the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is committed to respecting the human dignity and worth of every one of our citizens.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

In light of the junior Minister's answer, how does he feel that fits with having an Executive of 11 Departments that are headed up by 11 permanent secretaries, all of whom are male? There is not a single female amongst them.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I can look in particular to my colleague Arlene Foster, who has done an outstanding job in her role. Her work and that of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in recent times, and the profile that she has taken forward, just show what can be achieved in Northern Ireland when we work together. In recent times, somewhere in the region of 2,000 new jobs have been created in Northern Ireland. Without breaking any commercial confidentiality, I know from listening carefully to what the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister and the First Minister have said that there are many companies, that the confidence is there, and that, in addition to those 2,000 jobs, we are confidently looking at hundreds, going into thousands, of new jobs being created.

Of course, the obvious point from the Member about the number of Departments is that it is a question of "Physician, heal thyself", because your party created that number of Departments. At that time — the record is clear — the Democratic Unionist Party looked to have more efficient government, but it was your party that created it. Can you tell me who your party's female Minister was then? Oh, that is right — you did not have one. Is that right? OK. In this current position, you still do not have a female Minister. So, on that question, it really is a case, sir, of "Physician, heal thyself".

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on the establishment of the statutory transition committees. (AQT 211/11-15)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Fortunately, I am sitting close enough to Mr Lunn to hear the question. He is looking for an update on the situation with the establishment of statutory transition committees (STCs). My predecessor issued guidance on the formation and nominations to the new STCs at the start of July, and the recommendation was to select nominees through either d'Hondt, Sainte-Laguë or single transferable vote. Importantly, that was to be based on the 2011 council election results and, therefore, reflect the democratic will of the communities that they were supposed to represent. It was deemed that guidelines would be more appropriate than regulations at this stage as some of the voluntary transition committees went beyond the three methods that I outlined to accommodate power sharing and to encourage good practice and fair representation. However, the guidelines have subsequently been ignored by a few councils. The vast majority have complied, but the offending councils are Lisburn, Castlereagh, Ballymoney, Coleraine and Strabane, and they have also dismissed subsequent correspondence from me on the issue.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. It seems incredible that the body that produced the legislation — namely, this body — to set up the new councils could not enforce a decent system of representation for the transition committees, but I understand that the Minister does not have the specific power to do that through any of the three systems that he mentioned. Does he have any other way of putting pressure on those errant councils to do the decent thing and produce proper representation?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Lunn. I have sought further advice from officials and, indeed, legal advice on how we can resolve those irregularities, if you wish to call them that, and ensure that all councils comply so that STCs can be properly constituted and get on with the important business that they ought to be doing. I have also written to political party leaders urging them to speak to their colleagues on councils to emphasise to them the importance of displaying political maturity and putting the needs and democratic wishes of the electorate ahead of selfish party political needs.

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

2. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he has received any correspondence from the statutory transition committees in relation to open competition for chief executives. (AQT 212/11-15)

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Department of the Environment.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Maginness. That is handy because the question is on the same subject.

I received correspondence from two STCs and a number of councils on the matter, so I have written to all statutory transition committees and all councils to clarify the position and address their concerns. My predecessor took the decision to use open competition to fill the new chief executive posts, taking account of employment law, 'A Compendium of the RPA Guiding Principles, Code of Practice and Guidance Notes' published by the Public Service Commission and OFMDFM, and legal advice that indicated that these were new posts. Some statutory transition committees and councils have concerns that current chief executives could claim for unfair dismissal if they are made redundant because of the decision on open competition. Legal advice confirmed that the current chief executives do not have a legal right to be considered for those posts in a closed pool. Therefore, a claim of unfair dismissal as a result of this decision is not defensible. Indeed, the position is quite the contrary. The new chief executive posts must be filled by open competition, in accordance with statute, as that is now legislated for in the statutory transition regulations that the Assembly passed on 2 July.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. He has given certain legal reassurance to councils and statutory transition committees but can he assure the House that the advice that he has received and has given to councils will be upheld?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The open recruitment for the new posts must proceed in accordance with statute. The statutory transition committee regulations set in law that the recruitment has to be by open competition. As I said, it would be unlawful to use any other method.

The only potential for legal challenge would be as a result of a failure to adhere to the recruitment process. That process will be overseen by the Local Government Staff Commission and will meet all employment best practice and legal requirements. Independent assessors have also been appointed to ensure that the process meets these requirements.

All STCs will be made aware of their responsibilities in relation to recruitment, and panel members must partake in compulsory training prior to sitting on any selection panels.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment, in light of last week’s environment forum, whether he can identify his key policy priorities for the time ahead. (AQT 213/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist; déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall freagra a thabhairt uirthi anois. I thank the Member for his question and will try my best to answer it. Regrettably, I was unable to attend the environment forum last week; I was at a prearranged conference in Scotland on climate change, which was very important. While there, I met with my Scottish counterpart, Paul Wheelhouse MSP.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

How big was your carbon footprint?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My footprints are big enough — [Laughter.] — as are the footsteps I have to follow in.

I have particular policies. I have had feedback from that forum. The forum is a very important way of drawing on experience, knowledge and opinion from across the North on a range of issues. My policies centre on different things: I have a very wide remit, as you are aware. I am keen to increase further the speed at which planning applications are processed and, hopefully, approved. I look forward to working with businesses and communities to achieve those results. I would like to reduce the amount of litter on our streets and, by increasing recycling, the amount of waste we are sending to landfill.

To do those things, we have to increase our engagement with the public in order to get them to have more respect for, and to play a greater role in, their immediate environment and, therefore, the wider environment. The conference that I was at in Scotland was on climate change. Obviously, that issue presents us with huge problems —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister's time is almost gone.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— and is also a key priority of mine.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am glad to hear that one of his key priorities is the speeding up of planning approval. That has to be a key priority, particularly with strategic projects. Will he update the House on the state of play on planning approval for the three stadia in Belfast?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist eile. It is very important that we speed up the planning process. I said that I would like to speed up the process for approvals, but, hopefully, we can create a system where consensus is reached before an application is even submitted. That method was applied to the stadia application in Belfast, and it yielded differing results. On the one hand, there is Windsor Park, where the pre-application community consultation flushed out quite a few problems and resulted in no objections when the application was made; on the other hand, Casement Park has been quite publicly subjected to other objections. I have met with objectors to that project and, in the coming weeks, I will meet with the Ulster Council, which is the proposer of that project. I am very hopeful of getting an outcome that will be acceptable to both parties, and I would like to do so quickly.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he accepts that any decision on shale gas extraction should be based on the best possible scientific evidence and that if the evidence were satisfactory, it could have an extremely positive impact on our limited energy supply and might help us to reduce fuel poverty. (AQT 214/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree entirely that any decision has to be fully based on evidence and science. That is why I am determined to gather all the information and evidence that I can on hydraulic fracturing before making a decision on any application. I must restate that, currently, there are no applications for fracking in the North.

My officials in the NIEA are working with their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland in an attempt to gather as much information as possible, not just from this island but across the world where we can look at the experiences of other countries. Obviously, some of those tell positive stories about the alleviation of fuel poverty. However, I am concerned that some of those victories are very short term, and we do not have any evidence of the long-term effects of hydraulic fracturing, either on the environment and countryside or on people's health.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I am very sympathetic to the Member. However, if he looks at the list of questions for oral answer, he will see that the question that he asked in topical questions is very similar to one on that. [Interruption.] Order. I will allow the supplementary question, and I will listen.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate that direction from the Speaker. I will pick up on the point. In his response, the Minister agreed that scientific evidence would be the basis of his decision. I just wondered, given that we have a lot of scientists at Stormont today in the Long Gallery, when the Minister will have gathered such scientific evidence and when he might be minded to come to tell us his conclusions?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to give an answer to that question. I will go back to my officials at the NIEA and see how their research is going. As I said, there is no application on my desk or that of anyone else, I hope, for hydraulic fracturing. When an application comes in, it will be subject to the full and rigorous planning process.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment what reassurance he can give to councils and statutory transition committees that DOE-driven recruitment for senior officers will not result in legal action being taken against them. (AQT 215/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I would probably give the same assurances that I gave to Mr Maginness a few minutes ago on the same topic. The position is quite the contrary. The only posts that we are talking about here are the new chief executive posts. I have given a directive that posts below chief executive level will not be subject to open competition, but the new chief executive posts must be filled by open competition in accordance with statute, as this is now legislated for in the statutory transition regulations, which the Assembly passed on 2 July.

There is a further concern about the failure to consult current chief executives on the method of recruitment and the potential for redundancy. As the current chief executives have no automatic right to the new posts, there was no requirement to consult them about the appointment procedure. There also seems to be the view that chief executives are being treated differently from other staff, as I outlined: that is not the case. The current chief executives will have the same statutory TUPE-type protections as all other local government staff.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment whether his Department has the power to issue guidelines to district councils on achieving equality or neutrality in relation to symbols and emblems. (AQO 4779/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Decisions on symbols and emblems are a matter for each council taking account of its duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the council's own equality scheme. My Department has no legislative power to issue guidance on the matter, as it does not have responsibility for the policy on equality of opportunity. The major modernisation programme that will be implemented over the coming months to deliver our vision for strong, modern community-focused local government provides a significant opportunity for elected representatives to address the issue, respecting all sections of the community. The reorganisation of councils represents a new beginning for local government here. The new councils and the councillors need to provide civic leadership for the whole community in the local government district.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he not see a role for the proposed Commissioner for Complaints in dealing with many of the issues?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I think that that would be a very busy role indeed. There is to be a Commissioner for Complaints; that was covered when we debated the Local Government Bill on 1 October. The Committee Stage of the Bill has been extended. I think that there will be quite a few amendments at that stage, and that will possibly be one. However, it will be done more through regulation than primary legislation. The issue of emblems is very sensitive and incendiary, and, whoever handles it, it must be handled as such.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Given the concern that many seem to have about equality and how everybody is treated fairly, will the Minister tell the House, on the current practice in local authorities and councils, how many of the councils that are controlled by nationalists adhere to even designated days on the flying of the national flag in Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Unfortunately, I do not have that information to hand, but I undertake to get back to the Member in writing with specifics. This is precisely the kind of debate that I do not want the Local Government Bill to get bogged down in and why I think, therefore, that it is not the best vehicle through which we can deal with the flags issue. Other fora have been set up to deal with such matters. There is the political reference group that my predecessor, Alex Attwood, set up, and there are the proposals from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which are now the ongoing Haass talks and from which I am hopeful of a positive outcome.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer, particularly given that his home patch is where leadership was shown through power sharing in Derry City Council generations ago. What protections will minorities be entitled to under the reform of local government?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her question, which I did not write, despite the reference to Derry. The Local Government Bill, which I introduced in the Assembly on 23 September and which passed Second Stage on 1 October, will introduce a system of checks and balances to protect the interests of minority communities in council decision-making. The proposed governance arrangements will provide for the introduction of a call-in procedure that will enable 15% of the membership of a council — that is, any six people in a 40-member council — to request the review of a decision in certain circumstances. It is proposed that a call-in will be used where the procedures used in reaching a decision are questioned or where there is an issue concerning the protection of political minorities in the local government district.

A further safeguard will be provided through the introduction of qualified majority voting, or weighted majority voting, for specific strategic council decisions, including decisions that have been the subject of a legitimate call-in. The support of 80% of council members present and voting will be required for a decision to be agreed. The decisions that will require a qualified majority vote will again be specified in regulations, and those will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure in the Assembly.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Does the Minister agree that, under the Belfast Agreement, Northern Ireland is a part of the kingdom for as long as the people of Northern Ireland so determine, that the only legitimate flag under the constitutional settlement is the Union flag and that that flag should therefore take precedence over all other flags?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, I am not particularly sure of the relevance of that question to the original question. As Minister of the Environment, I am much more concerned about raising standards than raising flags.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment whether any discussions are taking place between his Department and the developers proposing hydraulic fracturing. (AQO 4780/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My officials in both Department of the Environment (DOE) Planning Service and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency have previously met representatives from Tamboran and its consultants. The most recent meeting took place on 26 June 2013. At that meeting, Tamboran's plans to drill a deep bore hole to approximately 1,500 metres to obtain a core sample of the shale were outlined. It is my understanding that the purpose of the core sample is to determine the quantities of recoverable gas in the shale and that that will inform the commercial viability of Tamboran's project. As with previous meetings with Tamboran, my officials used the opportunity to reiterate that the Department of the Environment has a stringent suite of legislative, procedural and policy requirements that apply to such activities and that those will be robustly applied in the assessment of any planning or environment-related matters.

On the company's current exploration process, it was explained to Tamboran that there are certain permitted development rights not requiring planning permission for limited activity such as drilling bore holes or carrying out seismic surveys for a period of up to four months. However, it was explained that, if the exploration works are considered to require an environmental impact assessment, the current legislation makes it clear that, in such circumstances, permitted development rights do not apply.

My Department has not yet received any applications related to this proposed project. However, it is my understanding that hydraulic fracturing will not form part of any initial proposal. Any future proposals involving hydraulic fracturing will be required to carry out an environmental impact assessment.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that. I note your direction earlier, Mr Speaker, to Mr McCrea about trying to steal my question. I suppose that it is nothing new for Mr McCrea to try to steal something from me.

Has either the Minister or his officials had any discussions with the Public Health Agency (PHA) on hydraulic fracturing?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Discussions are ongoing with a range of people, groups and organisations on hydraulic fracturing. To date, I have not met the PHA. As I said, I have met quite a few groups, some of which are opposed to and one or two of which are in support of hydraulic fracturing. I thank the Member for the idea of meeting the Public Health Agency and undertake to do so in the coming months.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Does the Minister agree that, although the US economy has received a huge boost through fracking, we in Ireland and the UK are very different from the USA, which has a huge hinterland in which to explore fracking? Here, any site that we explore will be very close to urban areas.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Ms Lo. I agree entirely with what Ms Lo said. There have been benefits — albeit, in my opinion, short-term benefits — derived from hydraulic fracturing in the USA, but we are not blessed with the same geographical expanse. There is a distinct difference between the USA and Europe, and the way in which fracking is viewed in both continents highlights that perfectly. There is already huge opposition to fracking here in the North, despite the fact that, as I have said, there is currently no application. I assure Ms Lo that any application that comes will be fully scrutinised and rigorously upheld against planning policy. It will have to satisfy me or, I presume, whoever is the Environment Minister that it is 100% safe, both to people and, extremely importantly, to the planet.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

When the Minister took up his post he is on record as saying that fracking would not happen on his watch. Given that some of the applications are likely to be article 31 applications, is he saying that he has already made his mind up, or might some of them happen on his watch, causing his green friends to see red at the promise he has broken?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Wilson. I think what I said was that it would not happen on my watch easily, and I mean that well and truly. Any decision will require full scientific evidence. In my opinion, that scientific evidence is not there now, and I cannot see it being there in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I cannot see fracking happening on my watch.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I turn the question around? Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that, in the absence of full scientific evidence proving that hydraulic fracturing is safe for animals, people and the wider environment, he will not allow it to take place anywhere in the North of Ireland?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In the absence of such evidence, I can categorically give the Member that assurance now.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment how many road fatalities have occurred this year compared to the same period last year. (AQO 4781/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Police Service of Northern Ireland is responsible for the collection, recording and compilation of road casualty statistics, and a daily road traffic fatality update is published on the PSNI’s website. There have been 40 fatalities so far this year, compared with 32 at the same point last year and 44 at the same point in 2011.

The most recent published factors that cause road deaths and serious injuries are for 2012. They were as follows: excessive speed having regard to the conditions, which resulted in eight deaths and 92 serious injuries; inattention or attention diverted, which resulted in five deaths and 73 serious injuries; and driver or rider impaired by alcohol or drugs, which resulted in eight deaths and 59 serious injuries. Those are typically the key causation factors every year. My Department, within the framework of the Road to Zero campaign on road deaths, is taking actions to address all those issues, including, recently, the launch of a road safety campaign concerning the dangers of not wearing a seat belt.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Clearly, every fatality is something to be hugely regretted, as is the heartache that it brings to the families concerned. Compared with this time five years ago, we have made tremendous progress, but, obviously, it will concern the Minister that, compared with this time last year, the number of fatalities has increased. What assurances can he give the House that there will be a review of the communication strategy to ensure that it is effective and that the PSNI will target its resources in the areas where fatalities most often occur, which are rural roads as opposed to motorways?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. He hit the nail on the head: when we speak about statistics, it is easy to forget that we are talking about people who have lost their life and families who have lost their young ones. I take the issue of road safety extremely seriously and aim to build on the excellent work of successive previous Ministers in bringing down road deaths. There are many ways in which we can do that. Unfortunately, we have seen an increase this year. I am concerned that we have seen an increase in the number of cyclists who have lost their life this year. Therefore, I have instructed officials and we are looking at having a cyclist-specific ad or information campaign to increase awareness and reduce the likelihood of further accidents and fatalities. Last week, I launched an advertising campaign on seat belt wearing. That was based on evidence that, despite a huge improvement in recent years in the number of people in the North wearing a seat belt, over the past year or so we have seen more people not wearing them all the time. The advertising, education and information campaign run by DOE has proven statistically to be extremely effective: it gets into people's heads and stays in people's heads. I have no doubt that it has played and continues to play a major role in reducing the number of people losing their life on our roads.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the Minister aware of research carried out by the health-based organisation Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT) that points to a higher incidence of road traffic accidents in border areas? If so, will the Minister undertake to take a careful look at that research to inform the strategy for border areas?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an chomhalta as a cheist. I thank the Member for his question. I was not aware of that research. However, work is ongoing between my officials and our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland on the issue. One such piece of work will manifest itself in the coming months when I bring forward a Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill that will involve looking at the mutual recognition of penalty points and the equalisation of drink-driving limits in both jurisdictions. Those initiatives will play an important role in reducing the number of deaths on both sides of the border.

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

I am aware that this subject is difficult for the Minister. He understands perhaps better than most the impact that such fatalities have on families. Is he satisfied that the cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland — the Road Safety Authority in particular — is being maximised?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. I am content that the work being done between authorities on both sides of the border is good. I am content that it is beneficial. However, I am perhaps not content that it has been maximised. I bring to this job a determination that the benefit of such collaborative work is maximised, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that it is. The environment knows no borders. We share our air, we share our water and we share our roads, and I think that collaboration between me and my counterparts in the Republic is extremely important and is something that I will work hard on.

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

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the uptake of the Eco-Schools programme. (AQO 4782/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In Northern Ireland, the Eco-Schools programme is operated by Tidy Northern Ireland, which is an environmental charity. It has grown from a baseline of 96 schools participating in April 2007 to 1,021 as at Friday 11 October 2013. That represents 85% of all schools in Northern Ireland.

Eco-Schools is a pupil-led initiative and involves a whole-school approach. Eco-Schools work through a simple seven-step approach as they implement behavioural change in the school and continually reduce their environmental impact. There are three levels of Eco-Schools award that schools can work towards. The awards criteria are closely linked to the seven steps. Schools can apply for bronze and silver award certificates, and the highest award takes the form of the internationally recognised Eco-Schools green flag. The Eco-Schools programme is one of continual reduction of the school’s environmental impact, therefore, the green flag award requires renewal every two years.

There are 10 topics for Eco-Schools to choose from: litter, waste, energy, transport, healthy living, school grounds, biodiversity, water, climate change and global perspectives. Schools are not expected to address all 10 topics but would identify topics to be studied according to their own requirements. In order to achieve the green flag, schools are required to study one major and two minor topics.

I recently wrote to the 180 schools in the North still not involved in the Eco-Schools programme to encourage them to join. 2014 will be the twentieth anniversary of Eco-Schools, and I hope that we can achieve 100% take-up during the year. I encourage all MLAs to look at the uptake of Eco-Schools in their area.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister's time is up.

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

Thank you, Minister. You have written to the schools, but what else can be done by your Department to ensure that there is 100% uptake?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have written to the schools that have not taken part in the Eco-Schools programme so far. Eco-Schools is the world's largest education programme, operating in 55 countries and involving 13 million schoolchildren. More importantly, Eco-Schools demonstrates actively that economic benefits can result from improved environmental behaviours. For example, there are now two schools in Northern Ireland — Ulidia Integrated College in Carrickfergus and Fairview Primary School in Ballyclare — that send no waste to landfill. That has come about as a direct outcome of work done through Eco-Schools. To that effect, DOE communications has developed a marketing communications plan to encourage the remaining 191 schools to join the programme. That is in tandem with work being done by the national operator Tidy Northern Ireland and its delivery partners.

I was about to say, before I ran out of time at the end of the last question, that I will take this opportunity to encourage all MLAs to look at uptake in their constituency and see whether they can help somehow and encourage schools to take part. I will certainly be to the fore in doing that, as, I think, Foyle has the worst uptake so far.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Ms Brown for her question. This programme is extremely important in educating young people, which, itself, is extremely important. However, the real value is not only that it educates young people but that those young people go home and educate their parents. I am sure that those of us with children have been lectured by a child at some stage over what bin we should put what rubbish into. That is the beauty of this scheme, and that is why it is yielding such good results.

The current grant paid to Tidy Northern Ireland to deliver Eco-Schools is £85,000, which equates to 28p per pupil. That is considerably lower than in other jurisdictions. In Scotland, it is 60p; in Wales, it is 93p; and in the Republic of Ireland, it is £2·16. I will look at how more funding can be secured for this project, particularly as we go into the 20th anniversary year, to try to push for more schools to take it up. I see using the money generated by the carrier bag levy as a possible way of doing that.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's comments on funding. If that comes about, it will be richly deserved. I also welcome his obvious enthusiasm for the scheme. To take it a step further, is his Department considering anything that might give schools additional incentives to participate and invest in this? Might any greater rewards be offered to schools that are already involved — for example, a super prize for the super school? I am not usually all that keen on green flags, but in this case I am; maybe there could be a super green flag.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr McNarry for his question. What we should do, and are doing, is to get teachers, principals and children from schools that are in the programme to speak to those that are not. There are benefits for schools; not just environmental benefits but economic benefits. Schools have seen their energy bills go down as a direct result. I have pointed out two schools that now send no waste to landfill and are, therefore, seeing savings.

I am interested in looking at how we can incentivise this. I believe in good, healthy competition, whether it is in respect of tidy schools, tidy streets or something else. Those are the kind of things that we need to restore civic pride in society and get our streets cleaned up again.