Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 February 2014

379 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday we learned of a letter that the Minister of Finance sent to his ministerial colleagues only — a letter of alarming facts and figures, which the House is so far unaware of. Subsequently, the letter was leaked to the media by obviously at least one Minister. Is that not a breach of the ministerial code? How seriously do you view the matter?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

If you have information, you can bring it to the attention of the Speaker's Office, and we will then consider the matter. I have to say that it is something that I am completely unaware of as we speak. So, if you can supply that information, or, indeed, if you have done so already, it will be considered in due course.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Further to that point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, just for your information, the information that I bring is very much in the public domain. I am very surprised that no one from the Bench that you sit on listened to the news last night.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The latter point is not a point of order. The Speaker's Office will take its own counsel on the matter.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order. I want to refer back to the statement that the Health Minister made about the situation in our emergency departments. The House may recall that, yesterday, I directly asked the Minister whether there had been any deaths in consequence of or related to trolley waits and delays in the hospital. The Minister ducked the question and did not answer, yet this morning on the radio, we heard from Dr Tony Stevens that there may have been as many as five deaths in connection with that. Surely the expectation of the House is that, when Ministers come to the House and are asked questions, they should frankly and openly supply the information that is requested, rather than duck the issue. Is that not a reasonable expectation in the House?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I remind the Member, and Members generally, that, on 26 January 2009, the Speaker gave a very clear ruling that it is not for the Chair to judge whether a Minister is giving a satisfactory answer. If Members are not satisfied with an answer, they should be persistent with the Minister and table further questions, which I recommend to the Member.

It is not the job of the Chair to make judgements on answers, and I addressed that point last week. I will not take any more points of order on these matters. Members have recourse if they are not satisfied with the response from a Minister or, indeed, with subsequent disclosure, and they know how to follow those matters up in their own diligent fashion.

Ministerial Statement

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety wishes to make a statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement concerning the future of organ donation policy in Northern Ireland.

In April last year, I announced the key measures to be taken forward by my Department in developing its organ donation policy. In July 2013, I launched the NHS Blood and Transplant’s (NHSBT) new UK-wide organ donation and transplantation strategy, ‘Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020: A UK Strategy’. The strategy was developed by NHSBT in collaboration with all UK Health Departments and all those involved in organ donation and transplantation, including professional bodies, patient groups, transplant surgeons and the wider health service. The overall aim is to match world-class performance in organ donation and transplantation. The strategy does not propose that soft opt-out legislation should be introduced as a UK-wide policy. The strategy proposes that three groups — society and individuals; NHS hospitals and staff; NHSBT and commissioners — need to act for the strategy to be successful and achieve the desired outcomes. Support action from government, professional bodies and the voluntary sector will be essential, too.

In addition to the actions set out in the strategy, at my request, the Public Health Agency (PHA) has completed a major survey to test local public opinion on organ donation. The findings of that survey will be addressed by a public information campaign, which the PHA will launch on 12 February. The campaign is aimed at encouraging people to let their family know whether they wish to donate their organs at the end of life. The aim is to increase public awareness of organ donation and the number of donors. Following the campaign, the PHA will conduct a second public attitudes survey into organ donation later this year. When the results of that survey are known, I will be better placed to reach a decision on what further action might be required, including whether we need to move forward with statutory measures on organ donation policy.

For the past six years, Northern Ireland’s organ donation policy has been driven initially by advice from the UK organ donation task force (ODTF) and, since June 2012, by the Northern Ireland Committee for Organ Donation and Transplantation (NICODT), a group comprising commissioners, DHSSPS officials, clinicians, NHS Blood and Transplant, local regional collaborative members and the voluntary sector. In January 2008, the ODTF made 14 recommendations addressing the obstacles to organ donation throughout the whole of the UK, aiming to increase donor rates by at least 50% by 2013. During that time, there was considerable investment in organ donation. Clinical leads and specialist nurses were appointed in each trust, donation committees were established and regional collaboratives developed to share good practice and provide a platform for shared learning. As a result of the developments, and the dedication of the staff involved, the 50% increase in donation was reached by the UK as a whole. Northern Ireland exceeded the target by increasing donation rates by 82%. That is rightly an achievement that we should be very proud of, but we cannot be complacent as more still needs to be done. Currently, around 160 people in Northern Ireland are actively waiting on a transplant and, unfortunately, around 15 people die in Northern Ireland each year while waiting for a transplant. Having achieved, and indeed surpassed, the aims of the ODTF, in July 2013, I launched a new UK-wide organ donation and transplantation strategy, 'Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020: A UK Strategy'. The strategy was developed by NHSBT in conjunction with the four UK Health Administrations. The overall aim of the strategy is to match world-class performance in organ donation and transplantation.

Last year, I announced that I intended to initiate a public engagement process to establish attitudes towards organ donation to inform my decision on the future policy for organ donation in Northern Ireland, including the possible introduction of an opt-out system for organ donation, if necessary. This work was taken forward by the Public Health Agency and consisted of a public attitude survey and focus group meetings. It was to be followed up by a widespread media campaign. The results of the PHA's public engagement process were published in October 2013. In response, I stated that I wished to consider the report in detail before making my decision on the future of organ donation in Northern Ireland.

The PHA's public engagement process involved a representative sample survey of 1,012 members of the Northern Ireland public and 16 focus groups with key stakeholders, such as charities, people on a waiting list, those who have had a transplant, donor families and health and social care staff. The results of the work highlighted that with regard to organ donation and registration on the organ donor register (ODR), 84% of respondents supported the idea of organ donation. However, support was lower for the idea that we should all register for organ donation, at 55%, or that it is unacceptable not to donate your organs, at 26%. More than a third, 36%, of respondents were not aware of the ODR. Knowledge about organ donation was generally low among respondents, who answered, on average, three questions out of seven correctly.

Four factors were found to drive respondents' attitudes towards organ donation, of which spiritual or traditional beliefs, such as that the body should be kept whole for burial, was the main one. That was followed by medical distrust; for example, "If I sign an organ donor card, doctors may take away my organs before I am actually dead". There was the "icky" factor; for example, "I do not like the idea of my body being cut into when I have died". Another factor was the perceived benefits; for example, "Organ donation is the gift of life for whoever receives it". Seventy-eight percent of respondents said that they would be willing to accept an organ if they needed one.

Seventy-eight percent of respondents agreed that it is important to discuss organ donation wishes with family and/or friends. However, only 38% had done so, and only 43% thought that their family or close friend would actually know their wishes. Just over half of the respondents, 52%, said that they knew the donation wishes of their wife, husband or partner, and fewer knew the wishes of their parents, 32%; siblings, 27%; children, 29%; or close friend, 26%.

Eighty-eight percent of those who said their family or close friend would know their donation wishes thought that they would agree with those wishes. However, that fell to 29% when they did not think their family or close friend would know their wishes. This suggests that people may be less likely to discuss their donation wishes with their family or close friend if they are concerned that their family or close friend would not agree with their decision.

What can be done to improve organ donation in Northern Ireland? Stakeholders felt that it was important to normalise organ donation. Informing the public by providing correct information and dispelling myths was considered essential. There was unanimous support across all stakeholder groups for a well-resourced and sustained public information campaign to raise awareness of organ donation and make it a cultural norm.

The soft opt-out/presumed consent debate has been happening. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they would be in favour of changing to a soft opt-out/presumed consent system. However, when asked whether they agreed with the statement that, "Everyone should be presumed to be an organ donor unless they register a wish otherwise", fewer, 49%, agreed, indicating that there is some confusion about the idea.

With regard to stakeholders, support for soft opt-out/presumed consent was higher among organ donation charities, transplant recipients, those on the transplant waiting list, and the British Medical Association. Those who were less supportive of the proposed legislative change believed that now is not the right time and raised concern about public readiness. Concerns among stakeholders about the introduction of soft opt-out/presumed consent included the possibility of feeding into medical distrust — public perception of a conflict of interest for medical staff when considering end-of-life care — a general feeling that people would not actively seek out an opt-out register and fear that use of the ODR, which would still be in operation, may decline.

That means that more families could be in a situation of not knowing their loved one’s wishes, so decision-making consent among donor families could become more difficult. The pool of potential donors could reduce from the current situation whereby all families are asked to consider donation if medically appropriate, whether their loved one is on the ODR or not, to one whereby only the families of those not on the opt-out register are asked.

Other concerns included the following: losing the notion that donation is a gift; creating public confusion that stops people opting in; and the issue becoming a political football. There are general concerns that the gains made in Northern Ireland over the past six years could be lost if the public are not fully in favour of a change. Some stakeholders said that they had changed their opinion from being supportive of the proposed legislative change to becoming more cautious about implementing it at this time. Finally, 43% of respondents felt that more can be done with the current opt-in system before changing to soft opt-out/presumed consent.

Following on from the public engagement, tomorrow, the Public Health Agency will take forward the next phase of the work that I announced last year, which is a major public information campaign aimed at tackling the obstacles identified to organ donation in Northern Ireland. A major theme of that will be letting your family and friends know of your wish to become an organ donor after your death.

As I have publicly stated, making a decision on any legislative change for organ donation is not one to be taken lightly. The last place that we want to be is, in seeking to do the right thing for the right reasons, actually doing the wrong thing. Making such an important decision warrants taking sufficient time to assess the available evidence and reach a final decision on the long-term future of the service. Part of that evidence will be to see how the public respond to the information campaign that is about to be launched. I will also follow closely the view of the professionals and will be cautious about legislative change without clear clinical support from those with expertise of working day in, day out in this field.

There is much more to consider here than simply whether or not we proceed with legislation. We also need to look at how we further improve awareness of the organ donor register, organ donation in general and highly sensitive issues such as how to encourage people to discuss their wishes with loved ones. Those areas must be given further impetus and the response of the public carefully considered if I am to arrive at a properly informed decision on the future development of policy on organ donation in Northern Ireland.

In the meantime, I urge all those who have not already done so to join the organ donor register and to discuss their wishes with friends and family. Our shared aim is to reduce the numbers of people on the waiting list for life-saving organs by increasing the numbers of families who consent to making healthy organs available for transplantation.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that increased public awareness, education on the key issues and the further development of transplantation services through UK-wide action is the right way forward for organ donation in Northern Ireland at this time. I will be happy to continue these discussions with all who have an interest in this important issue later this year, after I have had an opportunity to consider the further survey of public opinion following the PHA’s public awareness campaign. Thank you.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement. He outlined that 84% of respondents supported the idea of organ donation and that 55% supported the idea that we should all register for organ donation. However, the opt-out debate is not about registering in as opposed to opting out. We should all advocate public awareness, but given that, specifically, Wales has adopted a two-pronged approach through legislative change and a public awareness campaign, is the Minister simply stalling legislative change? How will he give guarantees now that a soft opt-out system or any legislative change will be advanced in this mandate?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not against soft opt-out legislation. We are dealing with something that is hugely sensitive, and I am of the opinion that a person's organs belong to the person. They do not belong to the state; they belong to the individual, and it is for the individual to make the decision. However, if we go down the soft opt-out route, it may well ensure that more lives are saved by increasing organ donation, but we have to do that on an evidence basis. The evidence base in Sweden, where the soft opt-out was introduced, is less conclusive. Spain has seen a significant benefit, but that did not come immediately after the soft opt-out was introduced; in fact, it came many years later and after public information campaigns. Therefore, we need to work more closely with the public to make them more aware of the benefits and importance of organ donation and the importance of discussing those matters with their relatives. We then need to go back to the public to see whether we can get a more confirmed view. We have public consultation for garnering the public's views on these matters before the Assembly makes decisions. That is why we have had this extensive consultation and why, given the confused responses from those who participated, we need to have a further extensive consultation.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Minister is aware that there has been a significant increase in the number of live kidney donors. Does he see that as an option to try to make up the gap between the demand of those requiring organs and the number of those prepared to donate?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We have a target of 50 live kidney donors annually, and that has been surpassed in recent years, which makes Northern Ireland one of the leading countries in the field of live organ donation. We need to congratulate our staff for the excellent work that they have carried out. However, that will help out only with kidneys, and there is a range of other organs that can be donated. It is important to drive up the number of people who donate organs when deceased. So there is a course of work that needs to be continued.

A huge success story is the increasing number of people, up to 82%, donating organs. Much of that is down to the excellent work of our specialist nurses in organ donation. We have six specialist nurses based in the Belfast Trust, and they provide excellent support for families going through the most traumatic period in their life, which is losing their loved one. They do things in an incredibly sensitive way, and that has enabled us to increase massively the number of people who are donating organs. We need to consider that in all of this, and we need to ensure that we can develop it further, because I think that we can make further ground in increasing the number of organs donated.

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

Does the Minister accept that the statistics in the consultation responses are sufficient for action of a legislative nature? One startling statistic that underscores the point is that 15 of the 160 people currently on the transplant list may not survive their wait. Therefore, for them, every day is a delay.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The statistics demonstrate that there is massive confusion. They certainly do not give us a clear pathway. I encourage the Member to read through the statistics. The fact that 15 people die each year should be a major incentive for us to act. The truth is that many of the organs that are obtained in Northern Ireland are not used in Northern Ireland.

If we are to make a real impact on the 15 lives that are lost each year, we need to do it across the United Kingdom, because we are part of a pool of organs that exists in the United Kingdom. Therefore Northern Ireland is leading the way in driving up organ donation. We need to get other parts of the United Kingdom to move as quickly as Northern Ireland. That is where the real benefits can be obtained across the United Kingdom, not just in Northern Ireland. It is important that we work with our colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales to ensure that we maximise organ donation, to ensure that many more people benefit from organ donation as a consequence, and to ensure that we make a real impact on those numbers — the 160 who are waiting on the list and the 15 lives that are lost each year. That is something that we are absolutely committed to doing.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, your statement proves one thing in the House today: the personal commitment of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister means little. You can survey an issue to death; meanwhile people continue to die. Will you give a commitment to the House that, when you know the results of the second public survey, which, I gather, could be up to a year away, you will bring a soft opt-out system before the end of this mandate? Or, perhaps, you will commission another survey, followed by another survey, followed by yet another survey.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not know what the outcome of the second survey will be. I did not dictate people's responses in the survey; we asked people questions, and they came back with answers. I know that organ donation is hugely important to the Member and that her family has benefited personally from it, as has mine. My uncle was one of the earliest recipients of a kidney transplant in Northern Ireland and is still alive today as a result. I could have benefited further from organ donation for my mother who died early of liver disease, in spite of the fact that she never drank. However, she did not have the opportunity to get that. This issue is very important to me personally, as I want to save lives through organ donation.

I am not against the proposals that Mrs Dobson, for example, has produced on soft opt-out; it might be the right way forward. However, it is important that we educate the public and bring the public with us on those issues if we are to take what is a very significant step. It may be the right step, but, at this moment in time, I do not have the powerful evidence base that I think we should have to move ahead.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The issue of organ donation has been with us for a very long time. I am disappointed that we seem to be going for more time. Of course, we want to make the right decision. I welcome the statement's indication:

"The overall aim is to match world-class performance in organ donation and transplantation.".

However, the statement also says, as has been mentioned, that 160 people are waiting for a transplant; therefore urgent decisions are required. Can the Minister advise whether his Department is looking at the success or otherwise of what is happening in other places where soft opt-out is in operation? Given that, will the Minister give the Assembly an assurance that an early decision will be forthcoming?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I already have mentioned Spain and Sweden. Wales has introduced legislation but is not enacting it until late in 2015, I believe, so we will not have any evidence base arising from that. This is not about creating inordinate delays. In fact, we will continue to drive up the numbers who donate organs over the time in which we are doing this work. I am absolutely confident of that. One of the benefits of the proposals on both pieces of legislation is that they have created debate, and public awareness is now much higher than it was. So there has been significant benefit.

However, it is important that the public are more engaged and that they have those conversations with their families. I ask Members this: have they had those conversations with their families? Many people have not had that conversation and do not know the wishes of their loved ones, and, as a consequence, when the worst possible thing happens and that leads to the death of a loved one, people are in a confused state. We need to keep getting a message out there that will help remove confusion and help bring clarity to the situation and, consequently, we can save more lives.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What does international evidence say about the opt-out systems for organ donation?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Internationally, as I indicated, Spain has driven up organ donation quite significantly as a result of soft opt-out legislation, but that did not happen until public information and education was driven up, which was quite a number of years after the legislation was introduced. Sweden has not had the real benefits that it might have expected to derive as a result of introducing soft opt-out. So, in that respect, it is patchy. We really need to focus on how we can maximise organ donation in Northern Ireland but also in the pool that we receive organs from, which is right across the United Kingdom. It is very important that we work very closely with our colleagues across the other UK regions to ensure that many more organs are donated at a UK-wide level. We have a population of 1·8 million people, and the organ donation pool has a population of 60 million people. So, if we make a 100% increase and they only make a 10% increase, that is not as significant as it could be. We need to work closely with our colleagues across the UK to ensure that the increases take place on a UK level and, consequently, the benefits are maximised. Matching livers, hearts and other organs is very challenging, and that is why we really need more organs to come in from the wider pool, which is the UK pool, as opposed to from Northern Ireland.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo.. I thank the Minister for his answers to date. Quite recently, on a number of occasions, I have heard an MLA in the Assembly make the point that, when a Department or a Minister wants to kick something into touch, they ask for more evidence. Given the evidence-based campaign led by Joe Brolly, is this a case of looking more evidence or are you simply kicking the ball into touch? By the way, the MLA was Jim Wells.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Well, I cannot argue with Jim Wells. I am not interested in kicking this into touch. I am interested in getting the best outcomes. People can either judge that as genuine or not. I sincerely believe that we should encourage more people to donate their organs. It is a hugely sensitive issue, and we need to be very careful in how we manage the public and not take the public for granted. We carried out an extensive survey and asked a wide range of questions, and it demonstrated that the public are not as well informed as we want them to be. Immediately, on the back of that, we are engaging in a public information campaign, and as soon as that concludes, we will take a further evidence base. If that gives us the nod to go ahead, I will be very happy to proceed with it. It is not about holding things back.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It was a robust exercise. It certainly questioned a wide range of people across Northern Ireland. The work carried out met all expected standards. The process involved a statistical representation of the population of Northern Ireland, which indicates that it is a truer reflection of the thoughts of the whole of Northern Ireland than it would be had it included just those people who may be exercised to respond to an individual consultation.

I plan to repeat the public attitudes survey later in the year following the public awareness campaign, so I hope to establish whether the campaign has the desired impact of increasing awareness and understanding of organ donation issues. That will allow me to make a decision on the future policy for organ donation in Northern Ireland. I encourage people to read the statistics that the Public Health Agency produced. They are very interesting, indicating that there can be a community and religious difference when it comes to organ donation. For example, people from the Roman Catholic community are less inclined to have their organs donated than people from the Protestant community are. There are issues that we may need to discuss further to ensure that people feel more comfortable, even in their faith, that the right thing to do is to help others to live after they die.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the statement, and I have no doubt that the Minister is honourable in his approach. It is clear from his language that the matter is a very emotive and sensitive one. I share the concerns of a number of Members about a delay of another 12 months. As the Minister said, it will mean that another 15 families will lose a loved one. Given that we regularly get statistics from the Department, what research or study has it carried out into how many lives would be saved if presumed consent were introduced?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I state very clearly that, if soft opt-out were introduced today, and, indeed, if we drove the numbers up, we would still not save the life of 15 people, or anywhere near that number. We should not confuse that. Nonetheless, we should make an effort to save the life of as many people as possible. If the strategy saves one or two lives, it is very important to the one or two who are saved. Let us be very clear about that. However, I want to go after the 15. I want to maximise the number of lives saved. What we do in Northern Ireland and what other parts of the UK do will help us to achieve that. Therefore, we will work closely with others to drive forward the campaigns and ensure that they have as good success as we are having in driving up the numbers of people donating organs. As I indicated before, we have achieved success thus far, but we have not, by any stretch of the imagination, plateaued. There are massive opportunities for us to increase the numbers further.

Not proceeding straight away with soft opt-out legislation will not stop us from increasing organ donation at this point and ensuring that more lives are saved in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. If others can keep pace with us, that will certainly ensure that lives are saved here as a consequence of organs being donated in other parts of the UK and coming to people who live in Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I, too, welcome the Minister's statement, but he said little in it to assure those who may have personal concerns about organ donation. The soft opt-out proposals include a register so that those who have concerns can ensure, for the first time, that their wishes will not be overridden by others, as can happen at present. Will the Minister explain why he did not explain that in his statement?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

One of the issues identified was that, for people not on the organ donor register, new problems will be created as a result of the legislation. Consequently, there are issues for them. There were also issues for people who are on the organ donor register who indicated that they believed that their donation is a gift. They said that, if the Government decided that they owned the organs, they would remove their names from the register and not donate their organs. That is a relatively small number of people, but it is a couple of percent of those who are on the organ donor register.

So, not everybody takes kindly to the notion of the Government saying, "Organs belong to us". That is because people believe that organs belong to them. We need to work on that to ensure that people are more conformable with the fact that the organs that they donate after their lives have been lived will help others to live a full and healthy life. I think that it is most important that we continue to get those messages out to the public, that the public in Northern Ireland are widely receptive to our proposals on organ donation and that more and more people sign up to donate organs.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. There has been considerable focus on what has been done in countries outside the United Kingdom, such as Spain and Sweden. However, all of us in Northern Ireland live in Her Majesty's United Kingdom. With that in mind, will the Minister advise us of the English view of the soft opt-out approach?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Members may be interested to know that I met David Cameron when he visited Northern Ireland just over two years ago. I was not in this position very long, and I asked him what his opinion was on organ donation, as I was somewhat inclined to go for the soft opt-out option. Mr Cameron made it very clear that neither he nor Andrew Lansley was sympathetic to that option, and it would appear that Jeremy Hunt is not particularly sympathetic to the proposal. Indeed, the previous Labour Administration were not particularly sympathetic to it either. That alerted me to the fact that, we could go down a particular route, but we would not get the changes that we would want by having a massively increased organ donor pool. That is because the largest body of people who would contribute to that pool would not engage in it.

As with my English colleagues, my Scottish colleagues said that they would find it difficult to recommend changing the current opt-in system, as they have seen a significant rise in organ donations of around 63% in the UK as a whole since 2007-08. That level is predicted to increase to 68% by the end of this financial year. There has also been an increase of 33% in organ transplantation over the same baseline years. Those rates continue to rise.

So, England and Scotland do not seem inclined to go down this route. Wales has done something different, but it has not been demonstrated at this point that it will increase the organ pool. We will do our thing and develop our policies. However, it is important that we develop our own policies on the basis of qualitative information. This is not an emotive issue; rather, it is about having factual information at hand that can demonstrate that we can make a real and tangible difference.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I commend the Minister for taking a sensible decision on this sensitive issue. Two things jumped out at me from the PHA consultation. First, a third of people are still unaware that there is an organ donor register, and secondly, the more that people learned about presumed consent, the more that they were opposed to it. Indeed, over 50% of respondents to the consultation were opposed to presumed consent.

Does the Minister agree with the transplant specialists and the consultants who work closest with potential donors that the opt-out legislation would be unnecessary and could be counterproductive? I cite the fact that the 1979 Spanish legislation that introduced presumed consent there has never been enacted and that presumed consent legislation in places such as Sweden, Norway, Chile and Brazil has been counterproductive and they have worse rates of donor donation than we do in the United Kingdom.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If we put our minds to it, we could probably do it better than a number of the countries named. Nonetheless, it is absolutely correct to say that the closer you get to intensive care units and specialists who deal with people at the end of their life, where most organs are obtained, there is greater reticence and reluctance to go down the route of soft opt-out. The BMA indicated that it supports it, but the closer you get to the doctors and clinicians who deal with the people who provide us with most organs, the more reluctance you find. It is important that we take cognisance of what professional people tell us and say.

As I indicated, we have six specialist nurses in organ donation in the Belfast Trust. They do a fantastic job. I spent a full afternoon with them and the consultants in the departments. I came away with the view that we should proceed on these matters very carefully. We should not take things for granted or make assumptions, and we should operate on the basis of evidence, fact and what can make an absolute, real and tangible difference. We need to deal with this in a way that is not around emotions but is on the basis of fact, and we need to stick rigidly to that.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister's statement. I have never made it much of a secret that I do not support legislative change to introduce presumed consent, but I do support what the Minister says in respect of conversations with family members and the need for people to get on the register. However, people need to do that based on their own mindset rather than a legislative change to state-own organs, as it were.

Does the Minister accept that if the presumed consent soft opt-out legislative change is brought about, it could result in people going the opposite way, as he said, in removing themselves from the register? Would having the legislative process changed not be more detrimental to the number of organs coming into the system than giving people the choice?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When Mr McCrea goes one way, that normally encourages me to go in the opposite direction. We are probably looking at a relatively small number removing themselves from the list, with greater potential for increased numbers joining the list. However, that is not something that we should easily ignore, and we need to reflect on the fact that people who willingly indicated that they wished to have their organs donated are indicating that they would remove their names. We should not ignore that in how we do things.

It is absolutely important that we continue to drive upwards the number of organs donated. We can make a significant impact on that. The public awareness raised by the work that Joe Brolly, for example, has done, and the work that Alastair Ross and Jo-Anne Dobson have done, has been beneficial. Let us be clear about that. However, we can and should do more to continue to improve the number of people on the organ donor register.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I have no doubt that he is sincere in what he is attempting to do, but I sense, by the nature of the questions, a great deal of frustration and impatience in the House about not getting on with some legislative initiative à la the outline Bill that Mrs Dobson presented to the House. The delay of a year in the public consultation is something that people have found unacceptable. Can the Minister speed up that process? Does he accept that, unless a concrete proposal is given to the public, the public will not make up their minds in a decisive and influential way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I accept that the latter part of that argument has a lot of strength. Regarding the pace of the process, we are starting the public information campaign tomorrow, so that obviously cannot happen sooner. We can look to see whether we can hasten the process. When I took up my position, I was more inclined towards soft opt-out than I am now. My view is a consequence of speaking to a lot of key people who are engaged in the delivery of the service and provide care and support for those who are at the end of their lives.

I encourage people to research the issue themselves. Do not take my word for it. Go and research the findings of the PHA yourselves, talk to those who are engaged with people who are at the end of their lives, particularly those in intensive care units, and arrive at your own conclusions. Do not let me try to influence you on this. My position has changed, although I am not necessarily opposed to the soft opt-out option. If we are to get there, we should do more work to bring the public with us and ensure that those in the medical profession who deal the most closely with people who are at the end of their lives are with us as well.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I want to leave no confusion: I want my organs to be donated when I die. I also would like to dispel some of the myths that the Minister set out. Your body does not stay whole after you die: it rots and your organs will rot unless they can be kept alive by keeping someone else alive.

The Minister said that we need to increase the pool across the UK, but surely if we introduce soft opt-out and make it work, we can make it harder for England and Scotland to resist such a change.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I said that I have no religious opposition to this, but I have to respect people who say that they do. That is an issue for them. Most of the people were not of my faith, so it is not something that affects my electorate to the same extent either. You still have to show respect for people's views and give them consideration. I can make that decision for myself, and I did so many years ago, long before I was a politician. For one reason or another, others have not made that decision or have not made their decision clear.

It is very important that we encourage people to have those conversations with their families. I confess that our conversation was more recent: it is probably something that we should have done years ago. Everybody wants to donate, should the situation arise. I suspect that, if more people had the conversation, more would be content in the knowledge that donating organs can make a real difference.

People who I know very well lost their very young child relatively recently. They decided that their child's organs would be donated, which saved the lives of five other children. It is a massive comfort to them that, in spite of the fact that they do not have their little child, other children are alive as a consequence of them donating their child's organs. So, it is something that can bring peace and satisfaction to individuals who have lost a loved one. However, again, we need to be very careful that we do not take people and the public for granted and that we seek to bring the public with us on these issues.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I also thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what percentage of organs received by Northern Ireland residents came from Northern Ireland donors?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

One hundred and sixty organs were donated in Northern Ireland over the past 11 years, of which we received 22·4%. Around three quarters of the organs donated will go to other parts of the UK, and less than one quarter will stay in Northern Ireland. As I said, the real benefits here will be through ensuring that England, Scotland and Wales drive up their organ donation in significant ways. If they are not to go down the opt-out route, how can we ensure, and encourage them to ensure, that those numbers go up quite dramatically? That will involve our liaising closely with them, which may or may not be assisted by our doing our own thing. We will give consideration to that at some point.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for the very sensitive way in which he has handled this emotive issue this morning. I am certainly not ideologically opposed to Mrs Dobson's Bill, and I commend her for her work in taking it forward and the public debate that it has created.

Everyone in the House wants to do the right thing and wants organ donation levels to increase. I am registered and have had the conversation with my wife and family about what could happen to me. We want the best evidence to guide us, and I have had conversations with nurses who work in intensive care units in Belfast who have told me how difficult the conversations can be with families at the end-of-life stage. To that end, has the Minister been able to identify the way in which families approach the issue when they are in this tragic state of having to consider these issues and having those very difficult conversations with clinicians?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Families can approach the issue in different ways and, because the view has not been expressed to them, will not do it and will err on the side of caution. It is hugely unfortunate that there is an issue of medical distrust, but some people have the notion that doctors and medical staff will not do as much to save lives if they think that they are going to receive their organs. That is wholly and completely wrong. That is the perception among a minority, but, nonetheless, a significant number of people hold that view.

We need to be very clear with families that we will do everything that we can to save the lives of individuals who come into our healthcare system. Hospitals in Northern Ireland have the lowest mortality rates in the United Kingdom. Every one of our trusts has a lower mortality rate than the average in England, but we need to dispel that myth to ensure that people have confidence.

I cannot do very much to persuade people on the faith side. Others need to do that, and I would encourage them to do so, because lives can be saved as a result of people donating organs. More work can be done with families, and we can do work to help, particularly on the medical distrust issue. Others could assist us in some work, and I encourage them to do so.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Minister of the Environment has advised that he is not in a position to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Carrier Bags Bill today. However, as it still stands as an item of business in today's Order Paper, it will need to be disposed of formally.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I confirm that I do not intend to move the Bill to Further Consideration Stage today. Given the policy implications of the amendments tabled on Thursday 6 February, I wish to consult my Executive colleagues to seek reaffirmation of their commitment to existing policy direction. However, I stress that I remain committed to progressing the Bill through the Assembly and will seek to reschedule Further Consideration Stage at the earliest possible opportunity.

Not moved.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That the Health and Social Care (Amendment) Bill [NIA 27/11-15] do now pass.

As I said at Second Stage, the purpose of the Bill is to make a number of necessary amendments to the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009. There are two main amendments proposed in the Bill. The first deals with support services that the regional Business Services Organisation (BSO) can provide. The second covers functions that can be delegated to the BSO.

As Members will be aware, the Reform Act established the BSO and defined its role as being to provide or secure the provision of a range of support services to the Health and Social Care bodies listed at section 1(5) of the Reform Act. However, as currently framed, the Reform Act does not enable the Department to secure support services from the BSO, nor does it provide the Department with the power to direct the BSO to provide support services to three of the Department's arm's-length bodies: the Northern Ireland Social Care Council, the Northern Ireland Practice and Education Council for Nursing and Midwifery and the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board.

Clause 1 seeks to address the issue by giving the BSO the legal cover to provide support services to the Department and all the Department's arm's-length bodies. Clause 1 also seeks to provide greater clarity on the nature of the fraud prevention support service provided by the BSO. The counter-fraud and probity services unit in the BSO carries out a range of activities that include fraud investigation, fraud prevention and probity services. However, the Reform Act refers only to fraud prevention. Although it is felt that this definition covers the complete range of activities undertaken by the BSO, the Department has taken the opportunity to provide clarity on the definition by adding the words "fraud investigation" and "probity services" after "fraud prevention". I point out that this amendment does not alter the activity or scope of the services that are currently undertaken by the counter-fraud and probity services unit on the ground — they remain unchanged.

I move on to clause 2. Section 26 of the Reform Act contains a provision that enables the BSO to exercise those functions that the Central Services Agency had exercised immediately before its dissolution in 2009. However, the Reform Act does not currently permit the BSO to exercise any new functions relating to the administration of health and social care. What clause 2 of the Bill will do, therefore, is enable the Department to direct the BSO to exercise any new functions of the Department with respect to the administration of health and social care.

Clause 3 seeks to deal with the membership of the Health and Social Care Board, the Public Health Agency and the Business Services Organisation. The Reform Act currently provides the Department with the power to prescribe conditions for persons appointed as members of these organisations. However, the Department does not have the power to prescribe conditions for their chairs. Clause 3(6) provides the Department with a power to make subordinate legislation to prescribe conditions for appointment for the chair of the Health and Social Care Board, the Public Health Agency and the Business Services Organisation. I also wish to point out that the Department proposes to prescribe for chairs in similar terms as for members of these organisations.

The schedule to the Bill includes amendments that should originally have been made under schedule 6 to the Reform Act, which includes a number of blanket amendments to references to particular bodies in other existing legislation: for example, the name of health and social services trusts was changed to Health and Social Care trusts. Section 1 of the Reform Act renames the Health and Personal Social Services Regulation and Improvement Authority to reflect the correct legal title of the organisation, the Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority.

However, schedule 6 to the 2009 Act did not carry across the change to the title of the organisation into other legislation. For that reason, the amendments proposed at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule to this amending Bill seek to change the title of the organisation in other pieces of legislation. Finally, paragraph 3 of the schedule seeks to amend the reference to "personal social service" in the Carers and Direct Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 to "social care service".

In conclusion, I am sure that Members will agree that there is a sound rationale for the Health and Social Care (Amendment) Bill and that the amendments to the 2009 Act are clearly necessary.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill.

As the Minister said, its purpose is to make a small number of amendments to the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act 2009. The amendments are designed to correct oversights or anomalies that were contained in the original legislation rather than to introduce any new policies. Although the Bill is fairly technical in nature, the Committee welcomes the fact that it will result in more uniformity across the Department’s arm’s-length bodies.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on 24 September 2013. To ensure that there was enough time to scrutinise the legislation, the Committee sought an extension until 11 December. However, I am pleased to say that we finished a week ahead of schedule, thanks to the hard work of Committee members and the cooperation of departmental officials. The Committee received written submissions from seven organisations and, because the evidence was straightforward and supportive of the Bill, we chose simply to take oral evidence from departmental officials.

The majority of the groundwork on the Bill had been done by the Committee during the pre-introductory scrutiny phase. We had been concerned that the proposals in clause 3, which require that the chairs of the Health and Social Care Board, the Public Health Agency and the Business Services Organisation must satisfy prescribed conditions, were an attempt to prescribe new criteria on who could apply for the position of chair of those three bodies. The Committee was of the view that the appointment criteria for a chair should be consistent across all the Department’s arm’s-length bodies.

Departmental officials explained that clause 3 was aimed at correcting an error in the original legislation rather than at implementing a new policy. An oversight had occurred when the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act 2009 was made that meant that the chairs of the Health and Social Care Board, the Public Health Agency and the Business Services Organisation did not need to satisfy prescribed conditions. That was not the intention of the Department, as its view is that the chairs of all its arm’s-length bodies must satisfy prescribed conditions. Following the clarification provided by the Department on the matter, the Committee indicated that it was content with clause 3.

The Committee received written evidence from the Business Services Organisation and the Health and Social Care Board in support of clause 1, which gives the former legal cover to provide support to the Department and the full range of arm’s-length bodies. The Committee welcomed the clarification around the nature of the counter-fraud and probity services provided by the Business Services Organisation.

The Committee considered written evidence from the RQIA on the schedule to the Bill. The RQIA had suggested simplifying the wording of its title. However, during the oral evidence session with the Department, officials explained that RQIA’s full title — the Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority — needed to be used in the Bill as it is the organisation’s legal title. The Committee was therefore content with the Department’s explanation of the issue. To conclude, the Committee welcomes the Final Stage of the Bill.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

If bonuses are being paid to Ministers in the House, the present Health Minister would be due a very substantial payout. [Interruption.] Yes, the Finance Minister has also been very busy over the past few weeks.

At least 75% of the business in the Assembly this past month has been on health, and here we are again with the Minister on his feet several times.

I am glad to say that, on this particular occasion, he will get a very fair wind from Members, because the Committee discussed this piece of legislation at length. We took evidence from the Department, and, as the Chair said, there really were no problems with it.

During RPA and the whole review of the structures of health and social services in Northern Ireland, with the huge change that involved the abolition of the old trusts and boards and a move towards a more centralised and streamlined approach, it was inevitable that there would be a few gremlins in the system that needed to be ironed out later and that there would be a few pieces of drafting errors that had to be dealt with. That is very much what we are dealing with this morning.

Clause 3 brings into line what should have been there already in the criteria that are required for the chairs of various organisations. Knowing, as I do, the chairs who had been appointed under the legislation pre-amendment, I emphasise that this is no inference about their quality and ability. They are all outstanding individuals who have done a lot already in a short period to further health service provision in Northern Ireland. It is just a tidying-up exercise, and, indeed, despite not having this technically in the legislation, the Department has been adhering to good practice and has, in my opinion, got the right people. Apart from that, there is nothing contentious about this. There was cross-party support throughout the Committee. Following the consultation, everyone agreed that this should be given a fair wind. Therefore, as Deputy Chair, I support the legislation.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak at this Final Stage of the Health and Social Care (Amendment) Bill. We have discussed this in Committee some eight times. The main amendments that the Committee ratified are on the functions of the Business Services Organisation, as has been described. The Bill will allow that body to provide support services to all Departments' arm's-length bodies and to administer any health and social care functions on behalf of the Department of Health. It must be noted, as it has been, that this amendment Bill is merely a refinement of the original 2009 legislation and that it is in line with the purpose for which the BSO was established. The Committee feels that that is important, given that the BSO is currently providing services to arm's-length bodies without legislative cover.

Another key amendment is on the appointment of the chairs to three of the Department's arm's-length bodies. Those are the Health and Social Care Board, the Public Health Agency and the BSO. The Chair described the issue with the oversight in the original legislation, and the amendment in the legislation attempts to rectify that. Another key point as we discuss the legislation is that all the organisations that responded to the Committee's call for evidence were in favour of the Bill, and there were no objections to any of the clauses. The amendments are sensible and logical and refine the original legislation in a way that is agreeable across the spectrum. The Committee, and, by extension, the SDLP, is content that the amendments that were put forward in this legislation and that have been discussed will serve to correct the anomalies in the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act 2009.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Like other Members, during scrutiny of this new legislation, the Health and Social Care (Amendment) Bill, and while taking evidence from others, I can say that no issues were raised that gave me concern. Therefore, I am content that the amendments in the Bill are sensible. As others said, the Bill perhaps regularises some of the minor omissions that were in the original legislation when it went through.

The Business Services Organisation has the potential to bring about improvements and effectiveness and efficiencies in how the support services of a range of arm's-length bodies are delivered. By specialising, there is the potential to bring that efficiency about, but care has to be taken that we do not become overbureaucratic, that those efficiencies are delivered and that there are improvements in how services are delivered. Therefore, I continue to support that aspect of the Bill.

The widening of the definition of "fraud prevention" to "counter-fraud and probity services" seems to enable greater protective action to be taken to reduce risks and to minimise the risk of potential fraud in organisations. Therefore, that is a sensible adjustment, and I am supportive of it as well.

As to widening the governance of committee chairs to the same level as would exist for other members of boards of arm's-length bodies, that again seems to be eminently sensible, and, as others have said, it may simply have been an oversight when the original legislation went through.

I am therefore content that this Bill should be supported and I will continue to support it.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I say very briefly, on behalf of the Alliance Party, that I support and commend this Bill as it passes its Final Stage. This has been a fairly straightforward Bill, and, as a member of the Health Committee, I am happy and content to agree with the others and respondents to the Bill. I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in contributing to the Bill and its smooth passage through all stages. I look forward to its implementation.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is truly a privilege to be here to have listened to one of the best speeches ever made by Mr McCarthy. I thank him for that, and I thank the Members who contributed to the debate for their remarks.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Did you understand it all? Did you get the gist?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, I understood.

The Committee has done considerable work on this, and we appreciate that. It is largely a tidying-up exercise, as the Act left some gaps. It is important that that aspect was carried out. As Mr McKinney pointed out, it creates a greater degree of uniformity, which is something that needed to be done. Although this is not the most significant legislation that we will ever pass, it is nonetheless necessary. My officials met the Health Committee on various occasions to discuss the rationale behind the proposed amendments, and I appreciate the work that they have done in helping to increase the understanding of the necessity for this. I thank the Committee for so readily receiving that information. I will conclude on that, and I again express my gratitude for moving this legislation forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Health and Social Care (Amendment) Bill [NIA 27/11-15] do now pass.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Hamilton, to move the Consideration Stage of the Financial Provisions Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of amendments that deals with changes to the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and other technical issues. We will debate the amendments in turn. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If all that is clear, we shall proceed.

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 or 2. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group these clauses for the Question on stand part.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 10. Amendment Nos 6 and 7 are technical. The remaining amendments deal with rates in relation to landlord liability, information gathering and discounts. Members will note that amendment Nos 8 and 10 are consequential to amendment Nos 1 to 5, and amendment No 9 is consequential to amendment No 2.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move amendment No 1:After clause 2 insert

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I would like to convey my thanks to the Committee and its staff for their timely and helpful consideration of the Bill and associated amendments. Their extensive engagement on this Bill is very much appreciated.

Amendment Nos 1 and 2 deal with some changes that have arisen from the recent consultation exercise undertaken by my Department in relation to liability to rates in the landlord sector. Amendment No 1 revises the landlord liability provisions within article 20 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. It has the effect of removing the outdated and unnecessary article 20(1) frequency-of-tenancy criteria for the domestic rental sector in relation to properties with a value of £150,000 or less. The existing valuation threshold is not being changed.

The present criteria in article 20(1)(c) state that only properties in respect of which rent is paid or collected less then quarterly and with a value of £150,000 or less fall within landlord liability. In reality those sorts of tenancies are extremely rare if not non-existent, so the existence of the criteria makes no difference and only causes bureaucracy and confusion. The removal of the criteria has the support of landlords, as represented by the Landlords' Association, and tenants, as represented by the Housing Rights Service. It is also welcomed by Land and Property Services (LPS) as it removes red tape and the requirement on it to examine tenancy agreements.

Amendment No 2 serves to repeal articles 23 and 24 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The current article 23 provision states that if a landlord defaults, LPS can recover the rates due from the tenant. The other provision, article 24, relates to a power to allow the Department to step in and act as landlord should there be an issue of default. The articles have never been used and have been sitting dormant in the rating legislation. The Department deems the provisions to be unsuitable for use and legally challengeable. Again, that amendment also had support during our consultation.

Amendment No 3 clarifies LPS's ability to request effective dates for occupation under article 26 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The change is aimed at enabling the Department of Finance and Personnel to establish and maintain more accurate records for the purposes of rates collection and the correct backdating of bills. It addresses concerns that the existing powers available to LPS may be inadequate and puts that matter beyond doubt. It will not change LPS processes and practices but it will clarify its authority.

Amendment No 4 serves to extend the current discount allowed for early repayment of rates in relation to occupied dwellings to also cover unoccupied dwellings. That is a change that follows from the rating of empty homes policy introduced into the rating system by my predecessor.

Amendment No 5 provides for an adjustment of article 31C of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which currently provides for the small business rate relief scheme. Currently, article 31C only provides for a reduction in rates to take the form of a specified percentage. The amendment would allow such a reduction to also take the form of a specified amount if required. I am making that change in advance of a full policy evaluation in the next financial year to ensure that the Department has greater legislative flexibility to address the outcome of that review. It is not intended as a limiting measure.

Amendment Nos 6 and 7 are provisions for the Department of Justice. Amendment No 6 amends clause 3 of the Bill following advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules that, where a change is being put through to the Court Funds Rules (Northern Ireland) 1979 to allow interest rates to be amended by way of ministerial direction, that needs to be expressly spelt out. Amendment no 7 amends clause 6 of the Bill, where the Examiner of Statutory Rules has asked that the provision clearly shows that the power given to the Department of Justice to make regulations providing for the constitution, functions, procedures and financing of the Northern Ireland Police Fund and the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust are subject to Assembly procedures.

Amendment No 8 makes provision for the commencement of the aforementioned new rating provisions brought forward as amendment Nos 1 to 5. Amendment No 9 makes an amendment to the schedule to reflect the repeal of articles 23 and 24 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 given effect by amendment No 2. Amendment No 10 makes an amendment to the long title of the Bill to reflect the aforementioned new rating provisions brought forward as amendment Nos 1 to 5.

That concludes my comments on the proposed amendments to what is a technical and, hopefully, non-controversial piece of legislation. I am content to address any queries that Members might have when I sum up later, but I urge the Assembly to support the amendments before us.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Before I address the amendments tabled today, I first want to take a little latitude as Committee Chairperson to refer briefly to our scrutiny of the Bill. Financial provisions Bills, by their very nature, are generally considered catch-all legislation. Their purpose is generally to deal with routine, minor and non-controversial amendments to governing legislation or to regularise an existing practice. As such, the Bill contains provisions that are relevant not only to the Department of Finance and Personnel but to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Audit Office, the Department of Justice and the Department for Social Development. The Committee for Finance and Personnel, however, fulfilled a coordinating role in seeking and collating submissions from the respective Committees on the Bill's provisions in addition to considering evidence from departmental officials on provisions relevant to DFP itself. During a pre-introductory briefing to the Committee, members raised issues relevant to the Department for Regional Development, the Department of Justice and the Department for Social Development portfolios and referred those to the appropriate scrutiny Committees for further consideration.

I shall refer only briefly to the clauses relating to other Departments’ remits, as the Minister has previously outlined their purpose, and representatives of the applicable Committees may wish to contribute to the debate today. Suffice it to say, the Finance Committee was content, although it was mindful of comments from other Committees.

First, the Committee was content with clauses 1 and 2 as introduced, although it was mindful that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development did not have any concerns with those clauses. Secondly, following advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Committee highlighted issues with the technical drafting of clauses 3 and 6 as introduced, hence today's tabled amendments. Members sought clarification on the use of alternative short- and medium-term investment options for moneys held under the court fund and on the status of the police fund and the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust. Members were generally content with the clarification that was provided.

After receiving clarification from officials on the disparity of land disposal costs between transaction and administrative costs, as well as an indication from the Social Development Committee that it was content with the explanation given by DSD officials, members of the Finance and Personnel Committee were content to agree clause 4.

Likewise, following an indication from the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee that they were content with clause 5, members were content to agree that clause.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 deal with repeals, commencement and the short title respectively. The Committee was content with those as drafted and with the consequential amendments to clause 8, the schedule of repeals and the long title.

As I said during Committee Stage, members were informed of four new clauses that would introduce provisions for rating legislation falling within the direct remit of the Department of Finance and Personnel. As outlined by the Minister, the new measures will amend or repeal articles in the Rates (NI) Order 1977, known as the 1977 order. I do not intend to go over the purpose of those provisions. The Committee sought further information, including where any particular difficulties were posed by the absence of the new power to require an effective date of occupation and the estimated costs of extending the discount for early repayment of rates to unoccupied dwellings. Members were, however, generally content with the explanation.

The Committee was subsequently informed of another two repeals to the 1977 order: one would remove the reference to the frequency of collection of rent from consideration of whether a landlord is liable for rates on properties up to £150,000; the other would remove liability of the occupier for rates, should an owner default and remove the provision for rates to be recovered from tenants. Despite DFP officials’ assurance during a recent departmental consultation that the Landlords' Association and the Housing Rights Service supported those removals, the Committee did not have the time to gauge stakeholder views.

In January, after the Committee had completed Committee Stage, members were informed of one further amendment concerning a broadening of an existing power in rates legislation to provide the small business rate relief scheme. Officials explained to the Committee that that will ensure maximum flexibility in addressing the outcomes of the forthcoming policy evaluation of the scheme, which is due to begin in the spring.

Officials further pointed out that the current power is found in article 31C of the 1977 Order and allows only for percentage reductions in rates. DFP considers that to be too limiting and that an amendment to that power would allow reductions to be given as specified amounts as opposed to percentages. The amendment is listed before us today as amendment No 5.

Again, the Committee did not have the opportunity to report on that as the evidence gathering on the Bill had already been completed. Therefore, no agreed Committee position can be reflected here today. The Minister, in his concluding remarks, might wish to elaborate on the specific circumstances in which the specified amounts approach might be taken in future.

I would like to take this opportunity, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, to thank the other Committees for providing input to the scrutiny of the Bill and the officials, who were responsive to the requests of the Finance Committee and other Committees who requested clarification on issues raised by their respective members.

Although I welcome the early notification from the Department of some of the amendments being debated today, I will conclude by highlighting the Committee report's recommendation that DFP take steps to ensure that future financial provisions Bills are as fully developed as possible before their introduction to the Assembly.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I, too, support the progress of the Bill. In doing so, I want to comment on the common-sense approach taken to some of the amendments moved today. The one that probably stands out most allows the discount to be extended to those who pay rates on vacant properties. I appreciate that, if someone pays rates on a vacant property, whether it is occupied or not, they should be able to avail themselves of the discount, and this goes some way towards trying to address that.

Another very good amendment relates to the small business rate relief scheme introduced by the previous Finance Minister. As the Chair stated, the amendment includes a change to allow for a specified amount or a percentage. There was a bit of discussion in Committee on that matter and how it had been brought forward. It gives flexibility back to the Department to make some of those points. I look forward to getting clarification on the matter raised by the Chair.

Another vital point is that amendment No 7 brings under the same financial controls whatever is dealt with through the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust. I think that that has to be brought under the same controls as DFP has.

A lot of the amendments are of a technical nature, and, consequently, one leads on to the next. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 relate to landlords and tenants. I appreciate that the Minister has clarified that the Landlords' Association and tenants' rights groups are in favour of the approach. Although very few landlords receive payments less than quarterly — I would say that most like to receive payment more frequently — it will affect a small number of individuals. Therefore, it is important that we put that measure in place.

I am happy to support all the Minister's amendments in order to allow the Bill to progress to its next stage. The Bill has addressed a number of areas in previous years. This is a way of aligning it with some of the changes made in previous years, so that they and issues associated with the rates review can be included. It is not a move, as some might have thought at one stage, to remove the small business rate relief scheme; it is an opportunity for us to extend it and then look at it under the outcome of that review, which will take place within the next year.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

At this stage in the debate, there is not an awful lot more to say. I was surprised to hear Mr Girvan refer to common sense. That is a novel approach to things.

The Bill as it stands contains nine clauses, which, in common with such Bills, cover a wide range of issues for several Departments. Most of them are fairly technical in nature and were really designed to bring legislation up to scratch. We now have 10 amendments tabled to the Bill by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Amendment No 1 proposes a change to an article in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 on the rating of owners instead of occupiers in certain cases.

Amendment No 2 is intended to repeal articles 23 and 24 of the 1977 order. Amendment No 3 will insert a further new clause, which will give the Department of Finance and Personnel the power to require information.

Amendment No 4 deals with a discount on rates on dwellings and will insert new clause 2D. That is "D" for "donkey". Amendment No 5 seeks to insert new clause 2E, which deals with a temporary reduction of rates for specific — I love this old-fashioned word — hereditaments.

As the Minister said, the remaining five amendments are mainly technical and complete his list of 10 amendments on rates and miscellaneous matters.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I have no difficulty supporting all the amendments.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendments. Much of the detail has already been covered by the Minister and other Members, so I will keep my comments brief. However, I wish to highlight a few points about the changes, specifically those to rating policy.

First, I welcome any changes that will provide greater clarity on rating legislation. I have had numerous queries from constituents in recent times, and proposed new clause 2A is a small step in the right direction. I assume that the amendment tabled by the Minister will be based on his priority of ensuring that rates can be collected in as seamless a manner as possible. However, I approach the amendment with the concerns of tenants at the forefront. Although I welcome the change, which will make all rented property with a capital value of less than £150,000 subject to compulsory landlord liability no matter at what intervals tenants' rent is collected, I argue that it potentially does not got far enough.

Letting agents are not currently regulated in Northern Ireland. I have seen many occasions on which a tenant has signed a lease that states that the rental payment is inclusive of rates, only to discover at the end of the tenancy that the landlord has not made the rate payments for the property. The tenant is then left with a liability because the property has a capital value of more than £150,000. Unfortunately, it is too late for the tenant to realise that the lease is not worth the paper that it is written on and that the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 trumps the tenancy agreement. That is of great concern, given that many tenants in the private rental market will have sourced their property via a letting agent who will have provided what they assumed was a lease that looked after their interests.

Even if the letting agent is also a regulated estate agent, the Estate Agents Act 1979 does not extend to letting functions. Therefore, tenants of properties with a capital value of more than £150,000 are left to rely on the good nature of their landlord to pay the rates to LPS if their tenancy agreement states that the rental amount includes rates. I hope to address that through a private Member's Bill, which is in its preliminary stages. However, I ask the Minister to consider making the whole process simpler in future by making landlords liable for rates, regardless of the property's capital value.

Amendment No 2 seeks to repeal articles 23 and 24 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order, which, we have been advised, have never been used since their introduction in 1977. I therefore have no problem supporting the amendment.

Amendment No 3, which will introduce new clause 2C, is technical in nature. We should support the amendment if it assists LPS in accurately establishing the period of rates liability.

Amendment No 4, which will introduce new clause 2D, will extend the early payment discount to the rating of empty homes. When the rating of empty homes policy was introduced in 2011, it was decided that the owners of such properties would not be able to avail themselves of the early payment discount. I am interested to know whether that original decision was as a result of the assumption that many of the owners were wealthy developers who should have been well able to pay the full rateable amount. However, we all know how slow the market has been in recent times, although there are signs that it is picking up. People who own properties would in fact like to sell them, instead of holding on to them to make money as the market rises. That small change to allow the early payment discount to be applicable to empty homes should, therefore, be welcomed.

Finally, where amendment No 5 is concerned, a range of measures is in place to support our small businesses. One of those is the small business rate relief scheme. An evaluation of the scheme is due to be undertaken this year to assess its effectiveness and to consider the need for longer-term support measures to continue after the non-domestic revaluation in 2015. New clause 2A will allow reductions for small businesses to be given as specified monetary amounts as well as percentages. That has the potential to do two things. First, it may help to budget for the cost of the scheme more accurately, and, secondly, it will ensure maximum flexibility in tailoring longer-term alternatives that are based on the outcomes of the evaluation of the scheme in the context of future economic conditions.

I support all the amendments that have been tabled today.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that Members will agree that the amendments were dealt with fairly efficiently. I am also sure that the Second Stage of the Budget Bill later today will be equally uneventful.

I thank the Chair, the Committee and its staff for the work that they put in to the scrutiny of the Bill and for their support of the amendments. I appreciate their flexibility and their understanding as additional amendments came to them, even beyond their formal scrutiny of the Bill. The Chair, Mr McKay, raised issues on amendment No 5. I assure him that this is an enabling power for small business rate relief. He asked me to predict circumstances for when it may be deployed. However, it is hard to predict such circumstances exactly. I do not want to pre-empt the review of the small business rate relief scheme, which will be carried out later this year. However, it is fair to consider that that evaluation might reveal moving a better scheme forward, which could be to have a set amount of a reduction as opposed to a percentage reduction. The Chair of the Committee and Members will be aware that the small business rate relief scheme was an intervention specifically for the recession. Like England and Wales, we here are due to end it in 2014-15. So, the review is being carried out now to see whether there is still a need for that or a revised scheme. Rather than going through a full legislative process later, I think that it is only prudent and sensible to have this maximum flexibility in place now and to be sensible well in advance.

Mr Girvan supported amendment No 4, which is on empty homes. I think that it is only right that the discount of 4% in rates for early payment is extended to empty homes, similar to the situation for occupied homes. To address Mrs Cochrane's point, although undoubtedly not having the discount in place will affect all sorts of people, for me, it is more an issue of fairness to extend it so that everyone benefits from the discount.

Mrs Cochrane also spoke about increasing simplicity in the rating system. I am very keen to see that happen. When you consider our rating system in Northern Ireland, particularly with all the various reliefs and allowances that we have added to it, you see that we have an incredibly complicated system. It is difficult for all of us in the House who legislate on it to understand it, never mind the people out there who have to deal with it day in and day out.

I already said that, after the current revaluation that is ongoing and the outcome of the small business rate relief scheme review, I will be keen to look at the totality of non-domestic rates, particularly with a view to trying to simplify the system. When you look at the whole suite of reliefs and allowances that we have, you can see that they are not easily understandable. I think that the simpler and more easily understood the system is, the better it is for all of us.

The Member will know that regulation of letting agents is an issue, first and foremost, for the Department for Social Development. Although I think that the issues that she raised are very relevant — they are certainly relevant to me for rates — she will appreciate that I hope that this is a technical Bill and not a piece of legislation to address those issues. However, I look forward to addressing them, either myself or through her Private Member's Bill that she mentioned.

In conclusion, I again thank all Members and particularly the Committee for their support. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to.

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Amendment No 8 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment Nos 1 to 5. Amendment No 8 made: In page 3, line 21, leave out "Section 5 comes" and insert "Sections 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 5 come".— [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Amendment No 9 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 2. Amendment No 9 made: In page 4, line 15, at end insert

"The Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 Articles 23 and 24.".— [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Amendment No 10 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment Nos 1 to 5. Amendment No 10 made:

In the long title, after "authorities;" insert

"to amend the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977".— [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Financial Provisions Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 32/11-15] be agreed. — [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Accelerated passage of the Bill through the Assembly is needed in order to ensure Royal Assent as early as possible in March, and, therefore, legal authority for Departments and other public bodies to draw down and spend the cash and use the resources in the Bill in 2013-14 and to ensure a smooth continuation of public services into 2014-15.

As the House is by now well aware, the preparation of the detailed Estimates and the related Budget Bill under consideration today is a difficult undertaking given the tight timetable involved. The Bill and the Estimates must reflect the latest financial monitoring position announced to the Assembly on 21 January, yet the Bill requires Royal Assent prior to the end of the financial year. It is no easy task, I am sure you will agree, to bring the Bill to the Assembly in that small window of opportunity. I am, therefore, grateful that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has confirmed, in line with Standing Order 42, that it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill and is content that the Bill may proceed by accelerated passage. I welcome and appreciate the assistance of the Committee in the matter.

I shall now briefly outline the purpose of the legislation before us today and draw attention to the main provisions of the Bill. The debate follows the Bill's First Stage yesterday, which, in turn, followed the debate and approval of the Supply Resolutions for the 2013-14 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2014-15 Vote on Account.

The purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to the 2013-14 spring Supplementary Estimates and to the 2014 Vote on Account, which have been laid before the Assembly. Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today. I do not intend to repeat the detail that I gave to Members yesterday. Indeed, in accordance with Standing Order 32, the debate, as you know, should concern itself with the content of the Bill, a point that I am hopeful other Members will have taken note of in preparation of their speeches. For the benefit of Members, and in accordance with Standing Order 32, I wish to summarise briefly the main features of the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the issue of £15,530,883,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in 2013-14. This is an additional £123,052,000 since the Main Estimates were presented last year. The cash is drawn down on a daily basis as needed from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, which is managed by my Department on behalf of the Executive. The Bill author also authorises the use of resources totalling £16,606,564,000 by Departments and certain other bodies, which is some £406,569,000 more than approved in the Main Estimates last June.

These amounts are detailed in part 2 of each spring Supplementary Estimate for 2013-14. In addition, the Bill revises for 2013-14 the limit on the amount of accruing resources that may be directed by my Department to be used for the purposes in column 1 of schedule 2. The limit includes operating and non-operating accruing resources, or, in other words, current and capital receipts and amounts to £2,366,007,000.

Under section 8 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, a direction on the actual use of the accruing resources will be provided by way of a DFP minute, which will be laid before the Assembly in March following Royal Assent of the Bill. Therefore, not only does the Bill authorise the use of resources, it authorises accruing resources, bringing the resources for use by Departments and other public bodies to almost £19 billion.

The sums to be issued from the Consolidated Fund are to be appropriated by each Department or public body for services as listed in column 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill while the resources, including the accruing resources, are to be used for the purposes specified in column 1 of schedule 2. The amounts now requested for 2013-14 supersede the Vote on Account in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, which was passed this time last year, and the Main Estimates provision in the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, which was passed by the Assembly in June 2013. The Bill also authorises a Vote on Account for 2014-15 of cash of £7,062,352,000 and resources of £7,545,788,000 to allow the flow of cash and resources to continue to public services in the early months of 2014-15 until the Main Estimates and the related Budget Bill are approved in June this year. The cash and the resources are to be appropriated and used for the services and the purposes set out in column 1 of schedules 3 and 4 respectively.

Finally, clause 5 authorises temporary borrowing by the Department of Finance and Personnel at a ceiling of £3,531,176,000 for 2014-15. That is approximately half the sum authorised in clause 4(1) for issue out of the Consolidated Fund for 2014-15 and is a normal safeguard for any temporary deficiency arising in the fund. I must stress to the House that clause 5 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power, but it does enable my Department to run a very efficient cash management regime.

There is little more that I can usefully add on the detail of the Budget Bill, but I will be more than happy to deal with any points of principle or detail that Members want to raise.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. As we heard, the Budget Bill provides statutory authority for expenditure as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2013-14. The Bill also includes the Vote on Account, which allows Departments to incur expenditure and use resources in the early part of the next financial year, 2014-15, until the Main Estimates are voted on by the Assembly in June.

Standing Order 42(2) states that accelerated passage may be granted for a Budget Bill provided the Committee for Finance and Personnel is satisfied that it has been appropriately consulted on the public expenditure proposals in the Bill. At its meeting on 5 February, departmental officials briefed the Committee and took questions on the Budget Bill, including on issues relating to a range of Departments. In addition to that evidence, the Committee has scrutinised each of the monitoring rounds during the current financial year, including the overall outcome across Departments and the position for DFP as a Department. In view of that evidence-gathering exercise throughout the year, the Committee was content to grant accelerated passage to the Bill, and I, therefore, wrote to the Speaker to inform him of the Committee's decision.

As I pointed out in yesterday's Supply resolution debate, the scale of the cumulative changes resulting from the normal reallocations through monitoring rounds combined with the in-year technical changes will, in some cases, have resulted in significant differences between the opening and closing resource and capital allocations of Departments. The Committee welcomes the engagement with the Department on those issues and during the quarterly monitoring rounds, and members will continue to prioritise that aspect of their work. I encourage the other Statutory Committees to continue to monitor closely the financial forecasting and expenditure of their respective Departments for the remainder of this year and during the next year to ensure that underspend is minimised and that Departments maximise the impact from available resources. In the meantime, for today, on behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.29 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety why the Ambulance Service is designated as an essential service rather than an emergency service. (AQO 5512/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have been advised that there is no legal definition of what constitutes an "essential" as opposed to an "emergency" service. The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS) is the emergency service of Northern Ireland's Health and Social Care (HSC). As such, it is considered to be an emergency service alongside the police and the fire service. While the police and the fire service are stand-alone services, our Ambulance Service is an integral part of HSC. I strongly believe that it should remain so. NIAS is more than just an emergency service. It provides essential clinical services and plays an important role in the wider urgent and emergency care system.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he consider re-evaluating the classification to bring it into line with services such as the fire service and the PSNI?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not see what difference it will make at this point. Perhaps people can argue that it will make an essential difference. The Ambulance Service is different from the Police Service and the fire service because it is a key element of our health and social care sector. For example, we have a medical director in the Ambulance Service. We have doctors in 999 rooms to take calls and assist people who fall ill. It is a different kind of service from what is offered by the police and the fire service. It is certainly something that we can give consideration to, but the arguments would need to be very well made that significant benefit will come from it.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister commend the Ambulance Service staff on their efforts at the Odyssey incident last week, particularly their use of front line doctor services at the scene, which saved a lot of congestion in the A&E services?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Ambulance Service, which was the first responder, provided an excellent service at the Odyssey. It dealt with a lot of people on site without bringing them to hospital. It was able to provide them with the support and care they needed. Indeed, it initiated a major incident, which was absolutely necessary and the right thing to do, given the scale of the event that was occurring and the possibility that it could have got considerably worse. It ensured that the hospitals were well prepared and well placed to deal with the numbers that came in. We were greatly assisted by the work of the Ambulance Service on the ground, which ensured that large numbers were dealt with without having to come to hospital. I cannot commend the Ambulance Service highly enough on its response in that instance.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Following through from the original question, I ask the Minister about the new car-style ambulances that are seen across Northern Ireland. Are they compliant with the specification of emergency vehicles?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The cars can get to the site quicker, so you have a paramedic who can get to the individuals quicker. Over 70% of people in Northern Ireland are responded to by the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service within eight minutes of making that call, which is quite remarkable given the geography of Northern Ireland. A lot of that is done by the cars. You have a paramedic there, who will very often get all the testing equipment and so forth and do the first response. If people need to be taken to hospital, the ambulances are very often quickly on the scene as well. It enables us, as first responders, to engage even more quickly with the needs of people.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action he is taking to promote better health in inner city Belfast. (AQO 5513/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Partnership working is vital if we are to effectively promote better health and tackle health inequalities. That includes working with communities, which are best placed to know their local resources, assets, issues and challenges. That intimate knowledge is vital in tailoring services and initiatives to address local needs and in finding solutions to those challenges. The Public Health Agency (PHA) works at a strategic city-wide level with Belfast City Council, and with other organisations through the Belfast Strategic Partnership for Health and Wellbeing, to coordinate actions for health improvement across the city. Members of local community organisations and area-based partnerships are key members of that partnership.

In addition, the agency is supporting actions at a more local community level through the investment of some £6 million, which is largely being channelled through the community and voluntary sector. One example is the east Belfast health framework that I launched recently. That will provide community-driven front line action and practical support for individuals in need and their families.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his comments. He mentioned the strategy that he announced. Will he be specific about the issues that he is addressing in the east of the city?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Public Health Agency funds five community-based posts in the East Belfast Community Development Agency and the East Belfast Partnership at a cost of almost £200,000 per annum. Work is being taken forward to ensure that the contracts that the PHA have are aligned with the five themes of the east Belfast health framework, and an action plan will be developed for 2014-15.

During 2012-13, the PHA funded work with the East Belfast Independent Advice Centre, which resulted in support for 236 people with mental health issues from disadvantaged areas. The support allowed them to access benefits that they were entitled to and generated an income for them of some £310,000. A number of organisations are being funded through Protect Life, and there has been recent additional investment to enhance bereavement support in the area. A local drugs and alcohol action plan for east Belfast was developed in November 2013 and specifies a range of actions to be taken forward in 2013-14.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on influenza vaccinations for children. (AQO 5514/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Last October saw the introduction of the first phase of the children's flu vaccination programme across Northern Ireland, with a live attenuated influenza vaccine Fluenz, which has been shown to provide greater projection for children than inactivated influenza vaccine, being offered to all children aged two or three years old and pupils in primary year 6. This vaccine was also offered to children in an at-risk group who are aged between two and less than 18 years of age.

Provisional data for the period up to the end of December shows that Northern Ireland has achieved the best uptake rates across the UK. For two- and three-year-olds, it was 54·3%; for children in P6, it was 80·7%. I express my appreciation to all who worked hard to achieve those uptake rates. I recognise the considerable effort required by GPs and school nursing teams to complete the seasonal flu vaccination programme within a very short timescale.

From the coming autumn, in addition to the routine flu programme, the children's flu vaccination programme will be extended to all preschool children aged two and over and all primary-school children. In the autumn of 2015, it is intended that the flu vaccination programme will be extended to include all children of secondary school age.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. How important does he feel that the flu vaccination is for young people?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Flu vaccination is a very important policy. Through it, we believe that we can avoid people needing to attend our emergency departments or being admitted to hospital as a consequence of the more serious symptoms of flu.

The provisional data for the flu vaccination programme for the period up to the end of December showed that Northern Ireland has achieved excellent uptake rates compared with the rest of the UK: 72·6% for over-65s, 72·3% for under-65s at risk and 51·4% for pregnant women. That demonstrates that people in Northern Ireland are getting the message very clearly that flu can be quite a serious illness and that they can do something to avoid it. Many people take that option. We are keen that more and more children take that option and ensure that they do not suffer the effects of flu.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

A response to a recent question that I tabled to the Education Minister indicated that almost 15,000 working days were lost among the teaching profession last year as a result of flu-related illnesses. Therefore, will the Minister consider working with the Education Minister to extend the flu vaccination programme to teachers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion and is something that I am happy to talk to the Education Minister about. We are targeting schoolchildren because flu is so common and so easily spread in that environment. We want teachers to be teaching and not sitting at home sick, and I am sure that they want to be teaching and not sitting at home sick, so if that is something that the Education Minister wishes to take up with me, I will be happy to liaise with him.

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

Will the Minister outline the stock levels of vaccinations and say whether they are subject to sell-by dates?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This year, Northern Ireland procured 546,500 doses of seasonal flu vaccine, so stock levels for the target groups have been reasonably good and have not proven to be an issue for us this year.

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

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the current availability of cancer drugs compared with England. (AQO 5515/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) has responsibility for commissioning all cancer drugs available in Northern Ireland. The HSCB and the NHS commissioning bodies in England are guided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in determining which cancer drugs should be routinely available. All NICE-approved cancer drugs that are routinely available in England are recurrently funded or available via a cost-per-case mechanism in Northern Ireland. The HSCB has a clear process by which unapproved cancer drugs can be made available to patients by means of an individual funding request setting out the clinical circumstances that support the request.

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

I thank the Minister. The cancer drugs fund in England takes a different approach for non-routinely available drugs and has granted NHS access to up to 38 drugs that are not available here. Will the Minister consider having a cancer drugs fund model here or approaching his Westminster counterpart to address the inequality?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I certainly will consider it. If the Executive and Assembly were to support me in doing that, I would do it very quickly. That would be done through charging something for prescriptions once again, as that would allow us to establish a specialist drugs fund for not just cancer drugs but other specialist drugs that are not regularly available.

That is the right thing to do. Any good socialist should want to do it, because those of us who can afford to pay for drugs would be ensuring that people who really need them but cannot afford them have the opportunity to receive them, and we would be saving lives. However, if people want to cling to another policy, that is entirely a matter for them.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

When it comes to the funding of those who need to go across the water for special treatment for cancer or other illnesses, will the Minister look at reviewing the process so that it is quicker, allowing people to get money and get over for the treatment as quickly as possible?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The process is carried out through the Health and Social Care Board. If the Member has identified particular problems and wishes to raise them directly with the chief executive of the board or me, we will pursue the matter. If it is an issue that Members in general have identified, I am happy to look at it.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

What work is going on with the managed entry of new drugs?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Health and Social Care Board is refining and further developing the processes for managing the entry of new medicines to ensure that they are more effective and more clearly understood by patients, their representatives and clinicians. Guidance should be issued shortly.

Access to effective treatments for the population of Northern Ireland, including access to cancer drugs and other specialist medicines, is an important priority for me and the Department. I am determined to explore every avenue open to me to deliver increased access to specialist medicines and other interventions.

If a lot of research and work has gone into developing new procedures and drugs, the public want Northern Ireland to be at the forefront of delivering on that. We are somewhat constrained in so doing, and I suggested to the House earlier that we have a means of getting around that. I ask Members to think very clearly about what we are suggesting to them. There is a real possibility of making a difference to people's lives and of saving many lives as a consequence.

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

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on his plans for the future of the addiction treatment units in Omagh and Armagh. (AQO 5516/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A public consultation by the Health and Social Care Board on the future model for tier-4 addiction services closed on 24 January 2014. The board is considering all responses received and is finalising proposals on the appropriate model of service provision, which will take account of the wider need of the overall Northern Ireland population and seek to improve outcomes for clients. The board hopes to complete that work by the end of April 2014. Therefore, no decision has been taken at this stage on the future model or on the location of any service.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his response. In light of his answer, can he advise whether the addictions unit that was planned for the new local enhanced hospital in Omagh could be jeopardised as a result of any proposed changes to addiction services that may be centralised across the region?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Again, I am less interested in buildings and locations than I am in outcomes. The course of work that we are looking at would see many more people being treated in the community. Therefore, the locations of the buildings are less of an issue for us. However, we are engaged in a consultation process, and we are drawing feedback from that and collating it to identify the way forward. So, we are not at a point of making decisions. Members can lobby and seek to influence at this point, but there is a course of work that needs to be carried out before we arrive at a decision.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers. My specific interest is in the future of the addiction treatment unit (ATU) in Omagh. Does the Minister accept that it is not feasible, given the rurality of counties Tyrone and Fermanagh, to expect people to travel outside those counties for addiction treatment services? What is needed is a new configuration that divides the North into three regions as opposed to two.

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

Can we have a question?

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Yes. The question is this: does the Minister accept that it is not feasible for people who live in rural areas in Tyrone and Fermanagh to travel beyond that subregion to access these essential services?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is something that I will pay attention to, unlike previous Ministers, who decided that they did not need a hospital in Omagh and chose to close it. Mr McElduff did not seem to have that great of an influence with Minister de Brún, his own Sinn Féin Minister, on that occasion. He did not deliver for the people of Omagh on that occasion. Thankfully, since the DUP came in, a new hospital has been proposed for the town of Omagh and has started to be developed. We will look at all these things very seriously in seeking to ensure that Omagh gets fairer treatment under the DUP than it got under Sinn Féin.

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

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many serious incident forms, detailing incidents when patient safety is compromised, have been submitted by staff in the accident and emergency department and the acute medical unit at the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Mater Hospital in the past 12 weeks. (AQO 5517/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Health and social care organisations are required to routinely report serious adverse incidents (SAIs) to the Health and Social Care Board. There are specific criteria that determine whether an adverse incident constitutes an SAI. Any adverse incident that meets one or more of the criteria should be reported as an SAI to the Health and Social Care Board within 72 hours of being discovered.

Fewer than five serious adverse incident forms detailing incidents where patient safety has been compromised have been submitted by staff in the emergency departments or the acute medical wards of the Royal Victoria Hospital or the Mater Hospital in the past 12 weeks. In line with departmental policy, information on specific numbers is not routinely published if the number is fewer than five. That approach is taken to maintain patient confidentiality.

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

I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the ongoing difficulties, particularly in the Royal, would the Minister not express some concern or even surprise that only five serious adverse incident forms have been received?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I said fewer than five, so it could be considerably fewer than that. This morning, we all learned, including me, of five serious adverse incidents that have been reported over the past 12 months, from December 2012 to November 2013. In those instances, it has been indicated that the medical response could have been better had more doctors been available. Those are serious questions that we will all be seeking answers to in the time ahead. It will probably be difficult to reveal all the answers because we are dealing with a relatively small number of people and patient confidentiality issues will arise. There may be issues that the coroner will have to take a look at to identify and ensure that matters were dealt with appropriately.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Extended waiting times at our A&Es can contribute to serious incidents there, as we have learned. Does the Minister accept that, with significant numbers of patients having to wait more than four hours, there is a risk that their health could have deteriorated from when they were initially assessed by the triage nurse? When will waiting times in Northern Ireland match those in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to reduce this risk?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I think that the waiting times that we have set are appropriate and that is why I have rigidly stuck to them. Over the past couple of months, and I know that a lot of politicians here like to run with the trade unions, we have had trade union representatives saying that those times are not reasonable and that they should be extended. I think that the evidence that we have seen over the past few days would indicate that the waiting times are not unreasonable and that they are a reasonable expectation for us to seek of our hospitals.

Throughout the course of this, we have sought to ensure that waiting times are reduced. I am glad that 12-hour waiting times, for example, have reduced to a third of what they were in the previous year, for example in December 2013. Considerable work has been done on that. We can do more and that is why I made the statement that I made yesterday. We must ensure that we adopt best practice wherever best practice is being applied and use the expertise that has delivered that to assist us in delivering better waiting times in Northern Ireland.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on accident and emergency department waiting times at the Ulster Hospital. (AQO 5518/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The South Eastern Trust has made significant progress in reducing the number of patients waiting for longer than 12 hours in the Ulster Hospital’s emergency department. In December 2013, 21 patients waited for more than 12 hours, which is unacceptable to me, but that compares with 286 patients in December 2012. In December 2013, 70·7% of patients were treated and discharged home or admitted to a ward within four hours compared with 68·8% in December 2012. I look to the Health and Social Care Board to continue working with the trust to make further progress on meeting my targets for emergency care.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister is aware of pressures on the Ulster and, indeed, on the Royal Victoria. We touched yesterday on the question of Antrim. Minister, bearing in mind the pressures that are on the Ulster Hospital, do you not consider it prudent to have a review there?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Should we have very strong recommendations flowing from a course of work with the Royal Victoria Hospital, we will want to look at the other emergency departments to ensure that they are operating as efficiently as they should be. Whether that would involve the full-scale reporting that we are currently seeking in the Royal remains to be seen. However, we will want to see that our hospitals across Northern Ireland are responding well. If actions are taken in the Royal that dramatically improve performance, we will want to see that dramatic improvement elsewhere. If that involves asking the team to do a course of work elsewhere, that is something that we will give consideration to.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers today. Bearing in mind the significance of the Ulster Hospital in the South Eastern Trust, what measures has the Minister put in place to deal with ongoing winter pressures?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Over the winter period, we made an additional £600,000 available to recruit extra staff and implement initiatives to manage the extra activity. We created 10 extra medical beds on the Ulster Hospital site and improved the flow and discharge of patients at the hospital. We are making greater utilisation of Ards and Bangor community hospitals as medical step-down facilities. We have 10 additional intermediate care beds in an independent sector facility; additional care package provision including physiotherapy and social work support; additional pharmacy support at the weekends; a rapid-response nursing service that will provide additional interventions such as intravenous antibiotics in clinic and domiciliary settings in the community; additional therapy provision for the community rehabilitation team; and additional allied health professionals and social work resources in Ards and Bangor community hospitals.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I notice that the Minister did not mention that he also closed the Downe A&E at weekends and in the evenings to help the Ulster. The Minister will be aware that 41% of patients seen at the Ulster Hospital are not from the South Eastern Trust area but are from the Belfast Trust area. What sort of pressure does that put on the Ulster Hospital?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member well knows that I did not close the Downe A&E at weekends, but he seeks to cause some sort of deflection. He knows that it was a decision by the trust. It was an operational decision based on safety, because they did not have the adequate number of doctors to provide the care and cover at the weekends. We all need to ask ourselves this question: why do we have such problems recruiting doctors to work in emergency departments? I have given people the answers, and sometimes they do not like those answers. Nonetheless, that is where we are.

As regards the fact that 41% of people who attend the Ulster Hospital do not come from the South Eastern Trust, it is important to remember that a large number of attendances at the Royal Victoria Hospital are by people from the South Eastern Trust. It is a bit of swings and roundabouts. Many people who live in the Colin area, for example, will not travel to the Ulster Hospital as the Royal Victoria Hospital is much more accessible; that is wholly understandable.

Many people in the Lisburn area will travel to the Royal Victoria Hospital before they will travel to the Ulster Hospital. Indeed, many ambulances take people to the Royal Victoria first because they are not going to drive past an acute hospital with a seriously ill person if that hospital is available to them. It is clearly not a case of the South Eastern Trust having to absorb a lot of people from Belfast and Belfast not absorbing anybody from the South Eastern Trust.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

8. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline his Department's strategy to reduce the high waiting times for community occupational therapy services in County Fermanagh. (AQO 5519/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is a nine-week access standard for all allied health professions, including occupational therapy. The waiting time has been improved progressively, moving from 26 weeks a few years ago to 13 weeks and then to the current nine-week target. Improving waiting times for occupational therapy services is a priority for my Department, the Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency.

In 2013-14, the Health and Social Care Board allocated an additional £165,000 non-recurrently to support the Western Health and Social Care Trust to reduce occupational therapy waiting times. Despite the additional funding, waiting times have increased during 2013-14. The Health and Social Care Board and Public Health Agency are currently working closely with the Western Trust to address the issue. Work is ongoing to establish the level of demand for occupational therapy services and the capacity necessary to meet such demand in line with my challenging nine-week access standard.

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

I am sorry that there is not time for a supplementary question as we have to move on. That ends the period of questions for oral answer. We now move on to topical questions.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how he will respond to the shocking news of the death of five patients at the Royal due to delays and waiting times. (AQT 701/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I had initiated reporting procedures prior to being aware of the deaths of those five people. I should make it clear that those five people died because they were seriously unwell. They attended the Royal Victoria Hospital. A serious adverse incident (SAI) report was compiled that identifies that there is a possibility that more could have been done and a possibility that not all five people would have died. However, we do not know that and we do not have the evidence to say whether it is or is not the case at this stage.

There are always deaths in emergency departments. The avoidance of preventable deaths is a challenge for all health services, and the speed of delivery of appropriate medical care is a factor. That includes ambulance response times, triage, diagnostic testing and the provision of clinical care, which are all essential in ensuring the best outcome for an individual.

I previously expressed concerns about the Royal Victoria Hospital. I am aware of the five cases that Mr Ó hOisín mentioned, and, although I do not have the specific details, I have asked my officials to ascertain whether the systems in place for learning are fully functional and to identify issues of concern.

It is important to reassure the public about the overall safety of these services. We know that, overall, mortality figures for Northern Ireland hospitals, including those in the Belfast Trust area, compare favourably with the rest of the UK. In fact, the average mortality rate in England is higher than those in any of our trusts across Northern Ireland. Let us be very clear about that: the public need to know that mortality is lower in hospitals in Northern Ireland than it is in England.

The serious adverse incident is a learning system, and it is important to note that not every case that is referred to as an SAI indicates that there has been any problem with the care that has been provided or with the patient or client. There are certain categories of death, for example, that must automatically be reported as an SAI. Members will understand —

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

Order. I presume that the Minister has asked for extra time.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have not, no.

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

Are you asking for it?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If I can have just half a minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would appreciate that.

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

Please continue.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Members will understand that great care needs to be taken in discussing individual cases and clients to protect their confidentiality. However, I want to assure Members that I have sought assurances from officials that all appropriate steps and processes were taken. It would be wrong to conclude, at this stage, that the outcomes in these cases were directly related to waiting times. Although we recognise that healthcare can never be 100% safe, we must also recognise that these were very sick patients with very complex cases and that they may have passed away in any case. It would also be appropriate for the House to express its sympathies to the families of those five people for their deaths.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister concedes that there is a possibility that more could have been done. Will he now apologise to those families? What can he do to instil public confidence?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I would certainly express my sympathies to the families, and I have done so in these circumstances. For all individuals, their case is the most important case, and we must never get away from the fact that healthcare is about serving the needs of individuals. We need to look into these cases further and identify whether failings on the part of the health and social care system were a factor in the deaths. That needs to be identified and avoided in other instances.

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

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to contrast the sad news of the deaths at the Royal with his comments in early January that the pressure situation at that hospital’s A&E was a one-off. (AQT 702/11-15)

I would also like to extend our sincere sympathies to those families who learned today that their loved ones may have died as a result of accident and emergency pressures at the Royal Victoria Hospital.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The discussion that we had in January was about what happened on three days. The issue that we are discussing now is about five incidents that occurred over a year. We need to be very careful and very sensitive about how we handle these things. I do not intend to engage in some sort of ping-pong about people's deaths.

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

I assure the House that neither will I, but it is our view that it is the sustained political and media focus that has led to these revelations, which might not otherwise have come to the fore. We conclude that the Minister either did not know or did know about the longer-term pressures when he was making his earlier remarks. Will he therefore agree with me that the public might be right to suspect that there was at least a disguising of the situation or, at worst, a cover-up?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This has been said in the House quite a number of times, and people can ignore it, but it is factual: I attended the Royal Victoria Hospital on the morning after the major incident was declared, and I spoke to staff, and I took my actions on the basis of speaking to staff — nothing else, nothing more and nothing less.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, on a very emotive and sensitive subject, to outline any discussions he has had with DRD, which is responsible for bridges, or the Public Health Agency in its role in bringing forward deterrents to young people who are considering self-harm, given the situation with Andrew Quigley, a young man from Derry who has been missing for four weeks after entering the River Foyle from one of the bridges, leaving Colette and his family heartbroken and devastated, and with the emergency services, North and South, along with Foyle Search and Rescue, trying to locate him. (AQT 703/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My officials certainly have engaged with DRD officials on making the bridges more safe. I do not suppose that, if someone is determined to take their own life, it is possible to always have a means of preventing them from doing that, but I certainly think that there are people who may be thinking about it, and, if there are adequate deterrents in place, it may well stop them. There is learning that we can take from other places, for example San Francisco, which has the Golden Gate Bridge, and so forth. I am very keen that my departmental officials will continue to engage with people in the Foyle constituency, with DRD and others, and I recognise the huge distress that it causes, such as to the family that Mr Ramsey referred to. I support him in the sympathies that he has expressed for that family.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will certainly pass on the Minister's comments to the family. Given his comments, would he be mindful to convene with DRD in a multi-agency approach? Foyle Search and Rescue is one of the main bodies that acts to try to prevent loss of life, and it has said that small structural changes could absolutely act as a deterrent at that moment to prevent someone from either jumping in or trying to jump in.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I assure the Member that I will make officials available. If he wishes to convene a meeting in the Foyle area, healthcare officials will not be found wanting in seeking to respond to the issues that he has raised.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how the number of key staff working in our local health service has changed since 2011. (AQT 704/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have the most recent figures for full-time equivalents in September 2013 compared with March 2011. The number of consultants, medical and dental, is up by 160, or 12%. The number of middle-grade doctors is up by 69, or 20%. Nurses and midwives are up by 531, or 4%. Nursing and support staff are up by 147, or 4%. Paramedics and ambulance staff are up by12, or 2%. Qualified allied health professionals are up by 317, or 11%.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Minister has indicated that, across the board, in a range of functions, staff numbers are up in the health service. What factors has he identified that mean that our trusts are still finding it challenging to provide services in a timely manner?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are certain areas where it is harder to attract staff. Surgery, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynaecology are all areas where we are finding it more difficult to recruit staff, and that needs to be made very clear. We also have particular problems in the Western Trust area, where it is more difficult to attract doctors than in the greater Belfast area. The smaller regional hospitals very often struggle to attract staff, as is the case, for example, in Lagan Valley, Downe and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Causeway. That means that we become more reliant on locum doctors. However, the figures that I cited show that, in spite of the financial pressures over the past number of years, we have continued to drive up the number of those providing the front line services to better equip the health and social care sector to respond to the obvious needs of the public.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether he agrees with the South Eastern Trust that the preferred option for Downe Hospital is a minor injuries unit or is he committed to the full restoration of 24-hour A&E services in Downpatrick. (AQT 705/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have instructed the South Eastern Trust to make greater efforts to recruit emergency doctors in order to provide a more extensive service. I asked the South Eastern Trust to produce a plan for providing support to the people in the Downe and Lagan Valley area in the meantime. That plan, which has been submitted to the Health and Social Care Board, will ensure that the vast majority of needs in the Downe Hospital area will be met in that facility while the trust seeks to recruit emergency doctors.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer. A connected issue is that people have no faith in the governance of the South Eastern Trust. Does the Minister have any plans to look at the governance structures of the South Eastern Trust to see whether they are fit for purpose?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We all have a role, particularly me, in holding the South Eastern Trust to account. The House has a role in that, as, indeed, have local authorities. It is important that trusts respond to the needs of local communities. The first elements of the provision of health and social care are safety and quality. The trust will always want and have to ensure that they provide those. If it falls short, it will be a matter of real concern to all of us.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the outstanding recommendations that were made following the procurement review at Antrim Area Hospital and a time frame for their completion. (AQT 706/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We had asked for a course of work to be done. In the past few weeks, I made a statement to the House that indicated that there were procurement issues. Although there was no evidence of fraud, there were certainly weaknesses in procurement. We are looking to close off those weaknesses and have a much more robust procurement scheme in the Northern Trust area.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he give us an assurance that those recommendations will be implemented across the trusts and that procurement throughout the health service will be open and transparent?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is certainly the case that we want procurement to be open and transparent throughout the system. The Business Services Organisation will carry out much of that work for trusts. Where trusts are engaged in direct procurement, we want everything to be done in a way that ensures that they have public confidence and deliver best value for money for the public.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the number of local jobs lost or deferred by delays to the planning process. (AQO 5527/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Planning can make a very positive contribution to the development of our local economy. That is why my Department gives priority to proposals that have the potential to bring investment to the local economy and create jobs, and ensures that the applications are processed to a decision as quickly as possible.

Performance across all categories of application has improved in recent years, and I know that strenuous efforts are being made to continue that improvement. However, I also acknowledge that more can be done, and that is why I announced in January a series of new actions to improve further our performance in planning. The actions include shortening and simplifying planning policy; continuing to implement key reforms such as initiating new development plan work; encouraging more pre-application discussions and pre-application community consultations; improving consultee performance, including in the NIEA in my Department; and improving customer service.

In May 2011, there were 60 live article 31 applications. Since then, 46 applications have been determined, five of which are awaiting the outcome of the appeals process, and one further application is scheduled for a public inquiry. Since May 2011, a further 11 new applications have been designated article 31, and five of those have been determined within the new PFG target of six months. That includes the application for the redevelopment of Windsor Park, where the applicant engaged with the Department and relevant stakeholders in a comprehensive pre-application process that included piloting pre-application community consultation and resulted in the submission of a quality application, a speedy process and a determination within 11 weeks.

I want to create a better environment and a stronger economy, and my aim is to create a planning system that works to achieve that.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. He has his own refreshing style of not answering the question about job losses, so I will have another go, if I may. I ask the Minister to detail any sensitive planning applications that he is discussing to transfer to OFMDFM or whether he is likely, or intends, to discuss such a matter with it soon?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr McNarry for the supplementary question. Any failure to answer it will not be a deliberate attempt on my part to avoid answering it. It will just be down to a complete lack of understanding of what he means. [Laughter.] I am the Minister of the Environment. My Department is responsible for making planning decisions. I am involved in no negotiations with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I am fairly certain that my Department is not involved in any conversations with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister around the transfer of any particular application, sensitive or otherwise. However, if there is a particular application that Mr McNarry would like to discuss with me — or with OFMDFM — I am happy to meet him at a later stage.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Will the Minister assure the House that, following consultation on the draft strategic planning policy statement, job creation and economic growth will be key elements in the planning future? Will he also bring forward some policies that will lead to sustainable rural communities?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist nó as na ceisteanna sin. I thank the Member for the questions.

Following consultation on the single strategic planning policy statement, yes, economic considerations will have a material weight in determining planning decisions. However, there is nothing new in that. Currently, considerable weight is attached to economic considerations when applications are being processed. However, that weight is not determining. Good planning is a balancing act between what is good for the economy and what is good for the environment. I do not believe that one should be compromised at the expense of the other.

Yes, sustainable rural communities is a very important issue. It is one that Mr Boylan and other Members have raised with me before. We spoke at length during a debate on rural housing earlier this month.

However, I know that rural businesses are also very important not just to Members but to the communities that they represent.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister have any plans to progress the Planning Bill, which he withdrew last year?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. I have answered similar questions in the Chamber before, and I will give the same answer that I gave to those questions. The answer is, quite simply, no. I made the decision not to move the Planning Bill. I made that announcement in the House on 22 October last year and cited sound reasons for doing so. Those reasons were procedural, evidential and legal. I must say that, anywhere that I have gone and any sector with which I have engaged in the aftermath of making that decision and announcement, the decision has been received well. There seems to be consensus outside the House — although maybe not inside it — that the Planning Bill, as amended, was not the way to go about improving our planning system.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí cuimsitheacha go nuige seo. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers to this point. I note with interest that, when talking about sharpening up the performance of planning, he made specific reference to the NIEA. It is with regret I say that that is one agency that keeps delaying the planning process through its performance and efficiency, as well as for no apparent reason. What specific measures will the Minister take to make that organisation much more efficient in its decision-making and in its liaison with Planning Service?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin. I thank the Member for that question. In the preamble or foreword to his question, the Member said that NIEA is "one agency". It is one agency. However, I am sure that, when dealing with NIEA, many Members think that it is a lot more than one agency. Weaknesses have been identified in the agency that fall back to the fact that it is constructed from so many different individual sectors, and there has been speculation and commentary to suggest that those sections work using a silo approach. That is something that was brought up again more recently in the Mills report on waste. When it comes to the processing of planning applications, that is something that causes great frustration to applicants, agents and developers, and indeed to objectors. It is something that I certainly intend to tackle. I have asked my permanent secretary, and, indeed, the chief executive of NIEA, to conduct a root-and-branch review of the agency with a view to improving its structure and performance. I look forward to bringing those proposals back to the Assembly.

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

Before we move on, I encourage Members please to be brief when asking questions. I also encourage other Members who are not asking questions to remain silent, please, so that I can at least hear the Minister.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he plans to amend the Local Government Bill to allow the use of the single transferable vote system for the allocation of positions of responsibility. (AQO 5528/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am committed to ensuring that positions of responsibility on a council, and positions on external statutory bodies on which the council is represented, are shared across all the political parties and independents that are represented on the council. Schedule 3 to the Local Government Bill makes provision for a council to select from either the d’Hondt or Sainte-Laguë formula methods or the single transferable vote (STV) approach to achieve that objective. The inclusion of options in the Bill provides flexibility for the political parties that are represented on a council to agree a method for sharing positions of responsibility that they consider most appropriate for their particular circumstances. If the political parties cannot agree the method to be adopted, by a qualified majority, the d'Hondt method is specified as the default position.

In order to mitigate the potential favouring of political parties with larger levels of representation on a council, the selected method for allocating positions will be applied at the start of a council term, following a local government election, across all positions over the four-year term of the council. Each position would be held only for a single year, unless a longer term of office on an external body is specified by that body. This will provide the opportunity, in line with the democratic process, for parties with lower levels of representation or independents to hold positions of responsibility.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he not accept that, if the intention of the legislation is to ensure fairness in the distribution of areas of responsibility in local government, d'Hondt does not and can never deliver that and that it can be delivered only by the use of STV as the preferred means of sharing responsibility in local government? Although the Minister has given a menu of available options, surely the default situation should always be STV.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Dickson for his question and supplementary. Indeed, I understand some of the concerns that he has raised. However, it is my belief, and I believe that it is one shared by others, that by running whatever method of selection that is chosen by a council at the start of a council term for every position over the four-year term at that stage, smaller parties and independents will get chances that they would not necessarily achieve or get even under STV should it be run annually, as is currently the set-up in most, if not all, councils. The reform of local government provides a tremendous opportunity to us all. It is vital that those parties and independents whom people vote for have the opportunities afforded to them that are available to members of larger parties. By running whatever formula a council decides on at the start of the term, those opportunities will be much more available than is currently the situation.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister's Bill anticipates that there may be control in a council by a cabinet system. Would that cabinet meet in secret? Has the Minister any concerns that, by reposing all power in such a small power bureau, the role of every other councillor would be vastly diminished and they would become mere spectators?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Allister for his question. The provision does indeed exist for a council to establish a committee-style form of governance. Last week, I attended the Environment Committee. The Local Government Bill is at Committee Stage. The Committee is diligently and thoroughly going through the legislation clause by clause. I found out to my expense just how thoroughly they were going through it when I appeared before them and they questioned me on many clauses and issues in the Bill, of which that was one.

It is certainly my vision that there will be no secret meetings unless there are details of a commercially or personally sensitive nature. All council business, where possible, should be open. That should extend to the cabinet of any council should it choose to go with the cabinet system. As it is, I am not sure how many councils will choose to do so. In response to Mr Dickson's question, I talked about selection of councillors for particular roles. I think that a cabinet, if a council were to go with one, would want a degree of continuity on that. I am not sure that what we have proposed on selecting councillors for positions would necessarily allow for that continuity.

There have also been questions about the membership of a cabinet, whether it would automatically include the chair and vice-chair, or mayor and deputy mayor, of a council and, if so, whether that would be an ex officio role. So, there are still quite a lot of —

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There is quite a lot of stuff left to look at, and the Committee will keep at it. I look forward to working with it to find as robust a system as possible.

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

I know that the Minister is a man dedicated to fairness and proportionality in local government. Will he outline the level of consultation he has had with stakeholders about the system of governance? In addition, what level of consensus was reached on that?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Maginness for the question. The provision of the three alternative methods for ensuring that positions of responsibility were shared was agreed by representatives of the five main political parties on the policy development panel, which was charged with the development of policy proposals on the governance arrangements for the new councils. That position was subsequently endorsed by the political parties represented on the strategic leadership board. There was significant support for this approach in the responses to the public consultation on the local government reform policy proposals launched on 30 November 2010.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Although it will ultimately be up to individual areas to agree, largely by consensus, the way forward with the methodology that they use, does the Minister acknowledge that, in circumstances where a large number of posts are to be appointed by a relatively small electorate — the number of councillors — the single transferable vote is not necessarily the best way of achieving that distribution of responsibilities?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Weir for his question. We intend to give councils a range of options so that they will be able to choose the system that will work for them. We should be not just empowering councils but entrusting them to make the correct decisions. However, should they not be able to make a decision on this, d'Hondt will be the default position, partially for some of the reasons outlined by Mr Weir.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the effects the future transfer of planning powers to local councils will have on current staffing levels in the Planning Service southern area planning office. (AQO 5529/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My Department is working to establish accurately the professional planning and administrative staffing complement required to ensure that an effective, fit-for-purpose planning service is transferred to local councils. In preparation for the transfer of planning powers, the Department commissioned a workforce planning model to estimate the number of planning staff required in each local council area. It was developed in 2011 in partnership with Fujitsu in response to a recommendation from the Public Accounts Committee that planning needed a mechanism to help determine the resources to transfer under the review of public administration. The workforce model includes administrative staff, from administrative assistant to deputy principal grades, and staff on the professional and technical side, from professional and technical officer to senior professional and technical officer grades, working in development management and enforcement. The staffing requirements for development planning work were excluded as that is not quantified on the number of planning applications received.

The workforce model will be rerun in April or May when the data for the 2013-14 financial year is available. That will provide more up-to-date figures and help guide and inform staffing decisions with the statutory transition committees. All staff transferring from the Department to local councils will transfer on the basis of TUPE-type arrangements, providing certain protections for staff, including their terms and conditions of employment.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his reply. When planning powers pass to councils, is it possible that we could, in effect, see several different interpretations of planning policy in Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Irwin for his supplementary question. I think that I heard a voice from the Benches saying that we might already do so. Planning policy is open to interpretation, so it is inevitable that we will see, as we do on occasion, different interpretations of planning policy. However, if there is a genuine concern among the public and elected representatives that the transfer of planning powers will result in huge inconsistencies in the application of planning policy across councils, I reassure them that that will not be the case. It is vital that the planning service remains consistent, regardless of who the planning authority is. The Department will retain an oversight role, will carefully monitor the performance of each council and the decisions made and not made by councils and will be ready, willing and able to step in and assist, should councils have particular difficulties in their interpretation and application of policy.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá ceist áirithe agam ar an Aire. What training and familiarisation will be provided for staff transferring from the Planning Service to the new councils in line with the transfer of powers?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist shuimiúil sin. Thank you for that interesting and important question. I have been asked a lot of questions recently at various forums, including in the Chamber, about capacity building around the transfer of planning powers, and all the focus has been on training for the elected representatives and councillors who will take on planning powers. I congratulate Mr McElduff on being the first representative to ask about the training that will be required for the planning staff who will move to local government as their new employer, and I assure him that I am considering the matter. The money that had been acquired by my predecessor for capacity building applies not solely to elected representatives. Funding has been set aside and programmes set up for the training of our planning officers and staff before their move to local government.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Currently, staff in the NIEA provide expertise and advice on environmental and built heritage issues to planners. What happens post RPA? Can those planners access services from the NIEA, or will councils have to pay fees?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Ms Lo for that supplementary question. An earlier question suggested that planners cannot currently access those services easily. The Environment Agency will remain a statutory consultee on many planning applications. I outlined earlier my intention to review the Environment Agency, its structure and how it operates, and I fully anticipate that it will be easier for planning officers, applicants and agents to access the NIEA throughout the planning application process.

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

Thanks to the Minister for his answers thus far. He talked about the training that would be available for staff. What assurance can he give me about the staff who transfer from the Planning Service to local government? More specifically, will he provide details of the protections that will be afforded to them?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Rogers for his question, which follows on from Mr McElduff's question. A transfer scheme is being developed by DFP for staff transferring to local government with their functions. That is from all Departments, and it obviously includes planning staff. It will be negotiated through the normal Civil Service management and trade union fora and will secure agreement from both sides. Within that transfer scheme, all staff will be afforded protections under TUPE, which provides protection for employees against changes to their terms and conditions of employment as a result of a transfer of undertaking. The Department is taking action to minimise the hardship and domestic disruption that may be experienced by individual staff who are transferred to councils. A staff preference scheme has been implemented, which identifies the locational preferences of all staff in planning, and the Department is working to accommodate as many staff as possible in their preferred location at the date of transfer to councils.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment why Craigavon Borough Council's application for dereliction funding was refused. (AQO 5530/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The dereliction funding scheme was introduced in March 2012 to provide councils with funding to enhance and improve the cosmetic and aesthetic appearance of an area, whether it is a city, town, village or neighbourhood. Since its introduction, £4 million has been allocated to councils by the programme.

In August 2013, I asked all councils to submit proposals in preparation for the October monitoring round. Some 16 councils submitted bids, but, as I was unsuccessful in obtaining funding at that time, councils were asked to revise their bids in time for the January monitoring round. At that stage, three councils withdrew their bids. All bids were assessed, and Craigavon Borough Council’s bid was placed joint sixth.

I was successful in obtaining £500,000 at January monitoring, to which I added £100,000 from my Department's funds. That allowed me to fund five of the 13 bids — one in full and four in part. This is a competitive process and, unfortunately, Craigavon Borough Council's bid was just below the cut-off point, as five bids were judged to have more merit on this occasion.

The dereliction intervention scheme has been extremely successful and will be a rolling programme that my Department will bid to maintain. I hope that Craigavon Borough Council will rebid for further funding when resources next become available.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his response. Can the Minister outline what plans he has to roll out further funding and when to areas like Craigavon, so that they too can enhance their environment, improve their economy and strengthen tourism?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Moutray for his supplementary. The dereliction fund, unfortunately, is dependent on how I fare at future monitoring rounds with my Executive colleagues. However, given the tremendous success and popularity of the scheme and the ever-growing demand for it, I have no doubt that Members will encourage their colleagues around the Executive table to support any future bid of mine for additional funding for the scheme.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. An dtig leis an Aire a chinntiú cé hiad na ceantair ar tugadh maoiniú dearóilithe dóibh agus cá mhéad? Can the Minister confirm what areas have been allocated dereliction funding and how much they have received?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist agus má fhanann tú nóiméad tá sé anseo. On this occasion, the successful bidders, of whom there were five, were Belfast City Council, which was awarded £220,000; Ards Borough Council, which received £111,000; North Down Borough Council, which received £102,000; Newry and Mourne District Council, which received £80,000; Newtownabbey Borough Council, which received £53,000; and — oh, there were six — Larne Borough Council, which received £39,000.

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

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

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

1. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he agrees with our colleagues Alex Attwood and Councillor Gerard Mallon that we should keep lamp posts and streets along the route of the Giro d’Italia free from election posters on 9, 10 and 11 May. (AQT 711/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. This is a very positive suggestion. The Giro d'Italia has a global audience of 775 million in 165 countries worldwide, with 200 participants and up to an estimated 140,000 spectators. It presents a huge opportunity to showcase the excellent tourism product that Ireland has to offer, with key tourist sites, including Titanic Belfast, the north coast and Armagh, being especially profiled. I regret that the race is not coming to Derry, but I think that the hills might have put them off. One constituent remarked to me that we had better get used to the "giro" not coming if Nelson McCausland gets his way. [Laughter.] There is a responsibility on all of us to present the best possible picture of Northern Ireland, and a small step such as this by political parties would reap much greater collective benefits for all people here. Therefore, just today, I have written to all party leaders asking them for their views and cooperation on a voluntary political agreement that will ensure that, for the three days of the Giro d'Italia in May when Northern Ireland is on the global stage, there will be a poster-free route. I look forward to responses from the party leaders and am hopeful that a positive political agreement can and will be found.

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

I thank the Minister for that lengthy answer. He can be assured of a positive response from me and the SDLP to his letter. Has the Minister given any consideration to reviewing the current legislation on the display of election posters, including the option of a ban?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Under the legislation as it stands, the DOE's Planning Service writes to all parties in advance of an election reminding them of their statutory obligations in displaying election posters, including positioning, road safety issues and removal within 14 days of a poll closing. Under planning law, no advertisement may be displayed without consent granted by the Department, but exemptions exist for election posters in advance of a pending election.

The display of election posters is a cause of annoyance for many members of the public, and political parties are reminded of that every time we have an election. They are also a headache for those of us who have to put them up and take them down, although I have been told that my days as a poster boy might be over.

I am very much aware of the issue and am willing to look at it. I have been considering a review of current legislation in advance of the media interest in this issue, and, as part of that review, I will examine a range of options, including a ban.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the effectiveness of the current legislation for alcohol consumption on public service vehicles. (AQT 712/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That is a topical question indeed. Current law states that it is an offence for a passenger to consume alcohol on a public service vehicle. This is contained in the PSV regulations of 1985. The PSNI advise that PSV regulations offences are very difficult to enforce, as they need to collect evidence that certain individuals consume alcohol on board a vehicle. My officials therefore put forward options to address that in a consultation last July, including the introduction of a restriction on the bus operator's licence prohibiting operators from carrying alcohol in their vehicles; the creation of a road traffic offence for operators of carrying alcohol in a public service vehicle; or doing nothing.

Responses to the consultation were mixed, and genuine difficulties were raised with each of the options. Operators highlighted the difficulties that their drivers can have in stopping passengers bringing alcohol on board and consuming it. A number of respondents commented that the only effective solution would be a total ban on the carriage of alcohol on public service vehicles. The creation of such an offence would be a matter for the Department of Justice, and I have recently discussed it with Minister Ford. Other respondents called for a repeal of the current ban on consumption, citing the fact that passengers can consume alcohol on the Enterprise, on ferries and on planes.

As a result of the responses to the consultation, I proposed a four-pronged approach at this stage. The actions are to commission communication activities to highlight the fact that it is illegal to drink on buses, as well as the road safety and passenger risks that it poses; to introduce a new licensing condition for operators that requires them to highlight to hirers that they cannot consume alcohol; to engage with DOJ on the extension of the current ban on alcohol carriage to the whole bus sector in Northern Ireland; and to continue to engage with DHSSPS, which is responsible for the new strategic direction for alcohol and drugs, as problems with alcohol —

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

The Minister's time is well up.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— consumption on buses form just one facet of the wider societal problems of alcohol in Northern Ireland.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive answer. I welcome the fact that he has been engaging with the Department of Justice. What kind of response has he received from it?