Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 February 2014

393 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister of the Environment, Mr Durkan, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Carrier Bags Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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 five amendments. The amendments deal with the meaning of carrier bag and exemptions for carrier bags of certain materials, as well as requiring the Department to report on biodegradable carrier bags. Once the debate 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. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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 5. Members should note that amendment Nos 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive and that I will not call amendment No 2 if amendment No 1 is made. Amendment Nos 3 and 4 are consequential to amendment Nos 1 and 2. I will not call amendment Nos 3 and 4 unless either amendment No 1 or amendment No 2 is made.

I call Mr Allister to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:In page 3, line 25, after "any material" insert

", except bags made wholly or mainly of paper,".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 3, line 25, after "any material" insert

", except a bag made wholly or mainly of paper, hessian material, cotton, cloth or jute,".— [Mr Weir.]

No 3: In page 3, line 35, at end insert -

"( ) omit head (g);"— [Mr Allister.]

No 4: In page 3, line 35, at end insert -

"( ) omit head (i);".— [Mr Allister.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yesterday, the Finance Minister reminded us that it is always a prudent approach in legislation to not legislate unnecessarily and to do only that which is appropriate. I think that, today, we have an illustration of that aspect of legislating, because, in the Carrier Bags Bill, it seems to me that, thus far, the Assembly has gone further than it needed to go in addressing the mischief that the legislation was intended to address. A starting point, therefore, is to ask what mischief the Carrier Bags Bill seeks to address.

I do not think that you will find anyone in this House, at this stage, who would argue with the fact that plastic carrier bags have been a blight on our environment and community by virtue of their proliferation, their unsightliness, their persistence and the fact that they cling to hedges, wires and all sorts of things for months and years on end. In consequence, they make a pretty tawdry contribution to the environment. The reason they make that tawdry contribution to our environment is that they are, by and large, non-biodegradable. I suppose that, ultimately, everything is degradable, but the time frame involved in plastic bags degrading is such that they can effectively be regarded as non-biodegradable. Therefore, there is a certain logic or sense in saying that, if we want to tackle that mischief, we should tackle it by virtue of legislation that imposes a levy — a disinclination on people to use carrier bags — and, through that mechanism, we will bring down their use in society. And so it has proved to be.

However, when that legislation also, in my contention, unnecessarily overreaches itself to include other things that are eminently biodegradable, I suggest that it has gone too far. In going too far, I do not think that we do ourselves or our constituents any credit or advantage.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has outlined the case very well as to why single-use plastic carrier bags were legislated against in the first place. Will he take the point that perhaps the real reason behind the change now is that, because of the success of the legislation, the revenue obtained is substantially lower than the revenue that was expected and that this is simply an imposition or a tax to raise revenue? It is nothing to do with the environment, and it is nothing to do with cleaning up the countryside; it is all about raising the revenue that the Minister had expected to get from the carrier bags legislation that has not materialised.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member may well be right. I think that there is certainly stealth at play. I think that the legislation overreaches in its inclusion of all types of bags, and now the proposition is that a bag of any material can be defined and caught by this legislation. That, in itself, is legislating by stealth, as it were, in order to encompass and embrace things that were not in the original anticipated ambit. I think that it is probably true that, since the tax yield has been so disappointing, perhaps an opportunity is being taken to tax by stealth as well and to bring in more aspects.

When I talk to ordinary folk in the street, they tell me that they find it amazing and are resentful of the fact that it is proposed that we should pay a tax on all paper bags. Leave a paper bag outside on a day like today, and how long will it be there? It will, very quickly, by virtue of soaking up moisture, disintegrate and disappear; it is not akin to, parallel with or like a plastic bag, which will withstand the elements for years on end. It will degrade and, therefore, will not have the impact on the environment that other types of bags have. I feel that, by stealth, there has been an overreaching, an extension beyond a litter-control and pollution-control measure, to encompass all those bags.

The Assembly should revisit and rethink its stance on the matter. I am glad that there are signs that my amendment has already done that and caused some who were content, until now, with issues in the Carrier Bags Bill to revisit and rethink them. That is healthy and good, and I am glad that it has happened.

It is also relevant to consider the position elsewhere in these British Isles, because, of course, the first part of the British Isles to take any sort of step in respect of carrier bags was the Republic of Ireland. Its 2001 regulations, which have not been altered, and for which there is no proposal to alter, deal exclusively with plastic bags. Those regulations put a levy only on plastic bags that are not designed for reuse and which were sold for less than the stipulated amount. There, it was introduced primarily as a litter-control measure, and there is no proposal in the Irish Republic to extend the levy to paper bags. Of course, some, maybe the Minister included — I am not sure whether he is an economic unionist, as some in his party seem to be — but, by ideology I think that the Minister and certainly the originators of the plastic bag tax proposal, Sinn Féin, like to dream of aligning us more and more with the Republic of Ireland. Yet, here today, they wish to diverge; they wish to take us in a totally different direction. For once, I can say to the House that I think the Republic of Ireland has got it right. The Minister would do well to follow the example on the plastic bag tax that has been set in the Republic of Ireland and not overstretch, overreach, over-legislate and do unnecessary things, such as those that he wishes to do and, indeed has done, and which the House has done to date.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Although it is sometimes amusing to have such conversations as "You're a nationalist; you support the Republic. You're a unionist; you support the British", good governance should be at the heart of what we do. The rest of the UK has looked at the Irish example and said, "It was a good start, but we could and should go further". Indeed, it is moving in that direction. Should we not learn from the trailblazers, which, in this case, was the Republic, which did it first, but learn lessons from where it got it wrong?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member says that the rest of the UK is going further. That is a fallacy. Yes, Wales and Scotland have legislation akin to what is in this Bill, but England, the greater part of the United Kingdom, under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), has issued a consultation.

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

Might it not be the only part?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is certainly not the only part. I have every confidence that the United Kingdom will remain the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; I have every confidence of that.

Mr Agnew says that the rest of the United Kingdom is moving in a different direction. No, DEFRA issued a consultation — a call for evidence — in November 2013. That call for evidence is a proposal for a 5p levy on single-use plastic bags only, with an exemption even for biodegradable plastic bags. Far from the rest of the United Kingdom moving, as this legislation does, to encompass all bag materials that can be defined as a plastic bag, the largest part of the United Kingdom is, in fact, moving in a far more restrained manner with the DEFRA consultation being only for single-use plastic bags and with an exemption for biodegradable plastic bags. In that call for evidence, it is seeking to set a specification for a standard of biodegradability that would be set to meet the exemption. It is certainly not moving towards the direction in which this House has taken itself; it is quite the contrary.

Yesterday, the Minister issued to us all, in a rather extravagant use of paper, I thought, six pages, three of which are essentially blank. In that document, he suggested that the GB proposition is quite different, but, strangely, he did not mention the DEFRA proposition. It escaped his attention in setting out what he called a fact-sheet. I would have thought that a fact-sheet should start with the fundamental facts. If you are going to talk about the fundamental facts that pertain to the rest of the United Kingdom, how do you escape and avoid including DEFRA's proposals for England? The Minister treated us, however, to an exposition of what the UK Environment Agency thinks of the Government's proposals. This, of course, is the same agency that, in the past few weeks, has covered itself in discredit and to which we can give some of the thanks for the flooding on the Somerset levels because it would not allow them to be dredged and drained. It is, nevertheless, the Environment Minister's mentor.

The Minister tells us that the Environment Agency wants all carrier bags, such as he wishes, included in the English legislation. It may so wish, but that is most certainly not the proposal from Her Majesty's Government in respect of England. I was surprised that the Minister sought to avoid that and cover it up in that way. If the Minister was setting out a fact-sheet, he should have been more factual about the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom.

In that paper, he laboured much on the fact that huge amounts of energy, water, bleaches and other chemicals go into the manufacture of paper bags, exacting a heavy environmental impact. Is this, then, a tax on manufacturing? Is that what the Minister is pushing and promoting — a tax on manufacturing? Either this is a tax on bags, or it is a tax on manufacturing. Is the Minister suggesting that we head down the road of putting a tax on manufacturing in this country? Is he going to say to my constituents in Ballymena, who work in industries such as Michelin, the tobacco factory or Wrightbus, that, if those manufacturers are doing anything that is not environmentally perfect, they will be taxed? Is that the road that the Minister wants to take us down?

I thought that the Executive were supposed to have due regard for economic needs, interests and advancement.

Putting a tax on manufacturing is nothing to do with economic advancement.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, I will give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member accept that, if that is the principle behind the legislation, there is not an economic activity in Northern Ireland that will be exempt from the predatory actions of the Environment Minister? That includes activities such as primary production in agriculture, the extraction of stone and the growing, processing and even the sale of food because, of course, the transport of those goods will have the same impact on the environment. All of those activities are now in the sights of the Environment Minister, who wants to take us back to I do not know what kind of society.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I must say that it sounds very like it. If the Minister's first argument in his paper is for what amounts to a tax on manufacturing, that sets a very dangerous precedent for our economy. I really am surprised. I am even more surprised when you consider that, in fact, no paper bags are manufactured in Northern Ireland. We import the paper bags that we use. The nearest plant is in Scotland. So he wants to put a tax on the manufacture of paper bags that are not even manufactured in Northern Ireland. I think that the Minister has lost the run of himself.

It is time to rein in and think again about what the mischief is that we are trying to address and, therefore, what it is that we need to do to address it. His facts paper tells us that, based on the Environment Agency's life cycle assessment, paper bags need to be reused at least three times to have less of a carbon impact than a single-use plastic bag that is used once and thrown away. I have to say to the Minister that that almost sounds like an argument in favour of plastic bags. It really is going out of one's way to find arguments, when there are no justifiable arguments, to try to dress up a proposal that is an overstretch in legislation.

What of the economic impacts of this tax? The Minister knows, because I brought one of the companies involved to see him. He knows that, in Northern Ireland, we have a small service industry involved in the distribution of packaging. One of those firms is based in Ballymena, and the Minister had the advantage of hearing from Maxwell Packaging of the impact, maybe unforeseen or maybe not, of the carrier bag tax on its business. He heard how, already, it has had to lay off two people, including a man who had worked there for 25 years, because of the reduction in demand for paper bags. He heard how another company in Bangor, Kingsbury Packaging, had to close its doors with the loss of four jobs. He heard how William Montgomery in Belfast has also had to lay off two men.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Yesterday, we had a question for urgent oral answer on the redundancies in east Londonderry. Collectively and rightly, the Assembly said that it was terrible that people were being made redundant and that it would do all that it could to try to help that situation. Yet, if we do not adopt a sensible attitude today, the Assembly, through its own legislation, will potentially make people redundant. Does the Member agree that there is a tremendous irony in that, given the events of yesterday?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, I do. Sadly, the Assembly, by its stance to date on carrier bags, has made people redundant. The eight people whose redundancies I recited in the three locations in Northern Ireland have been —

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

When I finish this point. They have been made redundant by virtue of the stance already taken on carrier bag legislation. I say to the House that it is time to pause, reflect on what we have done and take the opportunity offered by this Bill to row back by excluding at least paper bags from the definition of a carrier bag caught by the legislation.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I certainly would not defend the Executive's record on the economy and employment, but is he suggesting that we should never legislate where it could mean a loss of jobs to any number of people, even if it is for the wider common good?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am sure that one can think of circumstances in which legislation may well be justified, but what I am talking about is cavalier legislating with no regard or thought and that needlessly puts people out of jobs. Is it really worth putting people out of their jobs to tick some box and say, "Aren't we the people to fight to stem the tide of destruction of the environment, because, my, oh my, we are going to stop the use of paper bags in Northern Ireland".

Has it really come to that? Are we going to fight our way out of a paper bag —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

A wet paper bag.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— a wet paper bag — in order to say that we have proven our green credentials? That seems to me to be what it is coming to. These are real jobs for people.

There is also a very important commercial aspect involved, because the average high street shop, which is suffering so much at this time, depends on branding, advertising and commercially promoting itself. The shop on the high street wants to give a paper bag to the customer, not just to accommodate the customer, but because on the outside of the bag is the company branding, so, when customers carry it down the street, they are advertising the shop from where they have just made a purchase. To commercial operations in shops, that is an important part of their own promotion. However, today, by virtue of a tax, people avoid taking the paper bag because they would have to pay for it. You have people literally carrying school uniforms and shoes out of shops. That in itself, I am told, is contributing significantly to a rise in pilfering in shops, mostly of smaller items.

We need to think beyond the simple proposition. If a shop is being deprived of the right to offer a paper bag free of charge, knowing that the return that it is getting is advertising, and instead has to ask customers, who already possibly think that they have paid too much, for another so many pence for the bag, a lot of them will not take the bag. The consequence is both a drastic decline in advertising on the high street for those companies and a drastic decline in revenue for the packaging distributors. That is what the Minister heard from Mr Maxwell. The run of a salesman centred on, say, mid-Ulster used to take a week because of the number of outlets that were buying bags, but it now takes two days, such is the negative impact on commerce and industry.

I say to the House that it is time to take stock and realise that, although the original motivation and ambition may have been sound, we have overstretched in the legislation. It is time to focus it on the mischief that we are addressing and to permit the sale, without tax, of paper bags.

I had a letter last week from a sweet manufacturing company here in east Belfast, pointing out how it relies for the sale of hard-boiled sweets, particularly in some types of shops, on their having a paper bag. Now, that is to be subject to a tax. For a kid who buys a 10p mix in a shop, if that is put in a certain size of bag, it will include an extra 5p tax. Is that really what we want the Assembly to be doing?

Already, the folly of including paper bags has had to be offset, to some extent, by a series of exemptions. If we have to exempt bags that carry unpackaged food and other things, would it not be simpler and common sense to exempt paper bags from the tax altogether? In the end, this is an appeal for common sense to prevail. We are not advancing any cause by including paper bags in the taxation under the Carrier Bags Bill. It is towards that end and for that purpose, Mr Speaker, that I move the amendment.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

On behalf of the Environment Committee, I welcome the Further Consideration Stage of the Carrier Bags Bill.

The Committee began its scrutiny of the Bill on 11 June 2013 and published its report on 26 November 2013. At the outset, I would like to say that there is no specific Committee view on the amendments in front of us today as they were not brought to members’ attention during Committee Stage.

On amendment Nos 1 to 4, the Committee did not discuss at great length the use of materials, other than plastic, that would be used to manufacture carrier bags. Members heard that the European Union recently adopted proposals requiring member states to reduce their use of lightweight plastic carrier bags. Those proposals go so far as to recognise the introduction of an outright ban under certain conditions.

On amendment No 5 — can I talk about amendment No 5 now?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Yes.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee’s scrutiny included consideration of the introduction of biodegradable plastic bags, although the Department indicated that the definition of "biodegradable" may prove problematic. The Committee considered the use of a grading system for plastic bags, similar to that currently in use to specify the energy-efficiency rating of domestic appliances. That would indicate the environmental impact of plastic carrier bags available from retail outlets. Accordingly, in its report, the Committee recommended that the Department consider the wider measures available to it to reduce the quantity of plastic bags in circulation and the inclusion of those measures in its overall waste management strategy.

Now, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I shall add a few words on behalf of the Alliance Party. First, it is important to remind Members that the Bill is about all carrier bags, not just plastic bags. The levy for single-use bags and low-cost reusable bags aims to discourage people from throwing away their bags after a single use, whether they are made of plastic, paper or any other material. Most bags that are made of hessian material, cloth, cotton or jute, as referred to in amendment No 2, are unlikely to be sold for less than 20p and would not be subject to the levy.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge this and will deal with it in my remarks. The Member said that most of those bags would not be under 20p. Consequently, by definition, does the Member therefore accept that some bags of that nature could be under 20p? Is there not an anomaly with regard to "bags for life", which, I am sure, all of us want to see pushed? We would have an odd situation in which at least some of those bags would be subject to the levy while others that are more environmentally damaging would not. That is certainly part of the specifics of the amendments that I will put forward.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I take the Member's point. I would certainly argue that the majority of those bags would be more than 20p.

We must recognise that every bag has a value and a carbon impact. We should all try to reduce waste — to cut greenhouse gas emissions — if we are to meet our Programme for Government targets. Paper bags, although recyclable and biodegradable, have a much higher carbon footprint than plastic bags in their production, transport, storage and disposal. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's plastic bags report states that a month's worth of paper bags results in carbon emissions of 5·52 kg, compared with 2·08 kg for a month's worth of single-use plastic bags. We can see the difference there.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member then accept that the logic of her argument is that, for example, Delta Print and Packaging, which operates in west Belfast —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to bring the microphone closer to him. On many occasions, we can normally hear the Member in the House. [Laughter.] However, this morning there is a failure to hear the Member.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

OK. Delta Print and Packaging, which operates in west Belfast, an area of very high unemployment, has turned itself into one of the most efficient packaging companies in the United Kingdom. Under her criteria, we should tax it out of existence in order to cut down greenhouse gas and reduce the pollution that results from the paper packaging of the boxes that they use for a variety of purposes. Is she really saying that that is the price that the Alliance Party is asking industry and employers in Northern Ireland to face?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am absolutely not saying that. Delta Print and Packaging is a wonderful company. I have worked with it —

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member for East Antrim should point to his own Benches, because, when this legislation originally came through in 2011, I think, it was the DUP's idea to include paper bags. It was not my idea at that time. It was the DUP's idea.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

There you are. What I was going to say is that — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take your guidance.

What I am saying is that, if we have such a massive amount — do not forget that, before the 5p levy on single-use bags, we saw millions of single-use plastic bags each year. My worry is that, if we replace single-use plastic bags with paper bags, we will see millions of them floating around and people throwing them away after use onto the street and into the environment, damaging our wildlife. We are not comparing like with like: if you are talking about going to give plastic bags to supermarkets, you are talking of giving each customer five, six or 10 plastic bags per purchase. We are not saying the same thing.

If paper bags are to be exempt from the levy, as I said, I worry that paper bags will be substituted for single-use plastic bags and we will see millions of paper bags each year being thrown away, many littering the streets and countryside. The exemption for paper bags defeats the purpose of the charging arrangements established in phase 1 last April and phase 2, which is intended under the Bill.

Amendment No 5 calls on the Department to prepare a report on biodegradable carrier bags within 18 months of Royal Assent. DUP members on the Committee were very much in favour of delaying the implementation of the levy in the Carrier Bags Bill from April this year to January 2015, making the argument that we needed a longer period for phase 1 to embed and for accurate data collection. The Committee certainly agreed with that and pushed departmental officials to make a departmental amendment. For the Department to produce, within 18 months, a report on biodegradable bags could equally be criticised as being too hasty.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I have to say — I will address this a little later — that there is a degree of confusion about a couple of the issues with amendment No 5. The Member is right in what she said about the DUP members on the Committee. Our argument was, I think, accepted by the Committee, and the Minister then took a reasonable approach to the time phases.

Following representations from retailers, we raised a specific issue about the burden that implementation would place on shops, particularly at the point at which any change takes place. At the end of the day, the mechanics of implementation are nothing particularly to do with the merits of whether the levy should be on one particular bag or another.

There is a provision in the legislation for a general review. However, this is quite specifically about biodegradability. There are issues around what counts as biodegradable and whether exemptions should be made specifically for biodegradable bags. As the Member is well aware, there is a range of exemptions in connection with that at present. This would focus in on a single issue; it would not prejudge the result of any report. It is simply about obtaining a report on the issue of biodegradability and the suitability. It is not tied in with the phasing in of implementation from January onwards. It is simply about producing a report. That seems to me to be a fairly common-sense approach. Even if the Member does not accept the exemptions put forward by Mr Allister and me today, surely she agrees that there is sense in having a focused report on the issue of biodegradability and its implications.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am sure that he is aware that the Bill already makes provision for a review of the charging policy and exemptions within three years. It should remain as it is.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way again?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The problem with this is that the two issues are being confused. The overall review covers a wide range of topics, including whether 19p is the right level at which to set the levy; what the implications of administration are for retailers; and the mechanics of how it is done, such as whether the money is being collected and spent correctly. Those are qualitatively very different issues from the issue of biodegradability and whether and in what circumstances biodegradability should take place. This would be quite a focused report, unlike the wider review. It is like comparing apples with oranges or perhaps paper bags with plastic bags.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

From the Minister's correspondence to Committee members, I know that the matter of biodegradable bags will be looked at within the review. I am sure that, if the Member asked the Minister to include that in the review in three years' time, he would do so. I am just concerned about the rush to have 18 months, when there is already provision in the Bill for a review within a three-year period.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I have been on my feet already, so I will try to cover the points that I have not covered in response to the Member opposite.

At the outset, I will say that I welcomed the proposals and the thinking behind them when they were initially introduced. To that extent, the amendments before us are not an attack on the Bill itself. I suspect that, when the legislation was brought forward in early 2011 and in respect of this Bill, I have spoken in favour of its principles at every stage, because I think that the House should unite around the arguments about trying to reduce the pollution caused by used bags in our society.

I am also willing to acknowledge that there have been beneficial effects as a result of the Bill and the regulations. It has led to a reduction in the use of single-use carrier bags, and the pollution of the environment as a result of the disposal of those bags has been reduced. Therefore, I accept the broad thrust. However, as Mr Allister indicated, we need, at this critical time, to take a step back, to pause and to be, if you like, critical friends of this Bill. We must ask ourselves whether the focus is really on what was intended and, however much we like or dislike the Bill, whether it can be improved. I believe that it can be improved, and, to that end, I will propose and support amendment Nos 2 and 5 in my and my colleagues' names.

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

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will give way in a moment.

I am also happy to support Mr Allister's amendment No 1. Amendment Nos 3 and 4 are essentially consequential amendments that, largely speaking, will depend on either amendment Nos 1 or 2 being made. If it ended up that amendment No 1 was not made but amendment No 2 was made, they would be equally relevant to our amendments. I give way to the Member.

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

I am very interested in what the Member says on behalf of the DUP, which is that you are in favour of the broad thrust of the Bill. However, I am also very interested in what Mr McKay asserted in an intervention not so long ago, which was that the DUP was insistent that paper bags be included in the legislation. I do not note any denial from the DUP Benches in relation to that proposition. I would be interested in Mr Weir clarifying whether the DUP was instrumental in supporting paper bags and whether there is now a U-turn by the DUP on that proposition.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I can speak only for my own position, and I am not aware of the DUP having insisted on paper bags. I appreciate that some Members who may have greater cognisance of the full range of events may be able to produce something; I am sure that Mr McKay might. So, I cannot deny it.

The point is that this is an opportunity for us to pause and see whether there are changes that could be made to make this better. I appreciate that Mr Allister was not here in 2011 when the legislation was passed. However, all the main parties here passed that legislation, and, if we got things wrong in 2011, we should be big enough to admit that we got things wrong. If there are changes to be made that can improve this and if that means a U-turn or changes in some of the detail, I am perfectly happy to say that we should do a U-turn. We should provide the best possible legislation. I mentioned yesterday that legislation is not the panacea for all ills, and there may be times when we overlegislate. However, if changes need to be made to the legislation, irrespective of any previous position, we should be mature enough to say that we should make that change.

It is undoubtedly the case that we did not, as an Assembly, get everything right in 2011, and it would have been very difficult for us to do so. The fact that we are faced with a second set of legislation shows that some of the assumptions that we made and the actions that we took in 2011 were not right. I will give one example, which the Minister, during a previous stage, and his officials have acknowledged. When the initial legislation was brought through, it was on the assumption that, while it would reduce the number of single-use carrier bags, there would be a very limited increase in low-cost reusable bags. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the projected figures were that it would lead to an increase of about 80%. It has turned out to be 700%.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Even worse: it was 70% and 800%.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Minister makes the point about the impact even better than I could. There was an assumption that we had got things right in 2011 and that the impact would have been a 70% increase in cheap reusable bags. It actually led to an 800% increase. Therefore, if we make assumptions about what the impact of particular changes will be, one of the issues is that we do not have an enormous amount of watertight evidence on which to suppose that.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the Member giving way. He makes a valid point around the increase in reusable bags. I am sure that other Members have witnessed this in their constituency: when you go to shop — I was with my wife in Lisburn on Saturday — I notice the number of people who shop with their reusable bag. On this occasion it was Tesco, which is the predominant supermarket in Lisburn. When we met them a couple of weeks ago, small retailers made the point to us that people go in and out of their shops with the single reusable bag, removing the limited ability that they have to advertise their own shop through the use of a paper bag. That impacts on their business. It would seem to indicate to the public, when you walk round Lisburn, that people only ever shop in Tesco, because that is the bag that they use. So there is a twofold issue that certainly impacts on small retailers.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I acknowledge that there is. I was making the point that the increase in bags was, to some extent, one of the reasons why we have the current legislation before us. The concern is that there has been a massive increase in what might be described as cheap reusables — bags pitched above the level of a single-use bag. The scale of that was clearly not envisaged or predicted in 2011. In the same way, to be honest, with a lot of this legislation, we need to have a degree of intuition about what is likely to happen.

As was mentioned, the purpose behind this — this is where we are in danger of losing focus — was to reduce the end-use pollution of discarded bags. Therefore, as has been mentioned, the Republic of Ireland's approach was to purely focus on plastic bags. At Westminster, although there has been criticism from the Committee, albeit not necessarily simply on the points raised today, the UK Government's legislation, proposed through DEFRA, will exempt biodegradable bags. So there has been a difference in approach on this.

I suppose that our amendments focus on biodegradability. I am sure that the Minister and others will make the point, which, to some extent, is addressed in amendment No 5, that, when we talk about biodegradability, it is not a simple matter of whether something is or is not biodegradable. It is an issue of degree in that regard. Although that is true and a lot of focus has been on paper, it is undoubtedly the case that there is a divergence in the levels of biodegradability. Comparing paper bags with plastic bags is like comparing night with day. The average paper bag biodegrades in one to two months. It may not be the few days that Mr Allister talked about, but it will biodegrade fairly quickly. The average plastic bag may take 10 to 20 years to biodegrade. If the purpose of this is to protect natural habitats and the environment from discarded bags and their disposal as a result of biodegradability, the Bill has a flaw that we are trying to tackle. It states that, if we are to have exemptions, a range of which are already built into this, surely one of the most sensible issues to look at is biodegradability. We should draw a distinction between a bag that perhaps takes 10 years to biodegrade and one that takes one to two months. That has a major impact on the environment.

Indeed, while some work has been done on plastic bags that could biodegrade more swiftly, at this stage even the best plastic bags — the ones that are oxo-biodegradable — will take on average at least six months. There is a qualitative difference between paper and plastic bags. I want to touch on two other issues regarding paper.

It has been indicated that the manufacture of paper bags has a greater impact as a carbon footprint. I fully accept that. However, it has been pointed out that it shows the extent of that argument that we have diverged from the original intention of the Bill. The Bill and its predecessor were never meant to be a tax on manufacturing, and, if we are to single out paper bags as worthy of a levy purely on the grounds of their impact on manufacturing, where does it stop? I am sure that some in the House will be very keen to have levies on manufacturing on the basis of its carbon footprint. I can almost see the Member in the corner licking his lips with delight and rubbing his hands at the prospect. One wonders how long the dole queues would be if that Member were to have his way and have those levies.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. We had a debate on climate change yesterday, and the Member bravely said to his colleague that he recognises that climate change is a problem, that it is caused by human activity and that we should take action. I think that those were his words.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Did he say that?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

He said that. He said, "Here is an action that we can take". It is not simply a tax. There are alternatives to plastic bags. It is not a tax on manufacturing. It is a tax on waste given that we have alternatives that we can reuse. It is not simply a case of saying, "Here is a product; do not use it because it is manufactured". We are saying, "Use a product and reuse a product". What action is the Member prepared to take on climate change?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

With respect, I will be guided by the Chair in that the wider issue of climate change may lie outside the purview of the Bill. At times, the Member uses the logic, "Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog". Indeed, because of his zealotry on climate change, he takes the approach that we should take whatever action is needed. However, I will agree with him on one point. The legislation is not about manufacturing. I am sure that the Member and others may, at some stage, want to put forward a proposition that creates levies on the grounds of manufacturing on the basis of carbon impact. I would resist that, but it is a debate for another day. Given that it is not about manufacturing, it is, therefore, a spurious point, and it is wrong to try to hang any taxation or levy on paper bags on the grounds of manufacturing. We should focus in on the end result and the original intention of both pieces of legislation, which is the impact of bags being scattered into the environment.

The Chair of the Committee, Anna Lo, said — she may have been speaking as an Alliance Party member at that point — that her concern is about the substitution effect. That has been raised in a different context in Committee. We do not have any evidence on how the Bill will work in practice, and I simply want to highlight that there is also a danger in the substitution effect that, if you knock out what might be described as mid-range bags, which is largely what this is targeted at, and the lower-level reusable bags, instead of people simply taking a position of moving towards a bag for life, there may be a substitution effect the other way in that people may go for cheaper bags at the low end of the market.

Substitution, as with all the aspects, is an issue of intuition more than anything else. The bulk of plastic bags will come from major retailers and supermarkets. It is highly unlikely that there will be much shift in any of the major supermarkets to a large number of paper bags. The consumer would not tolerate that, and I suspect that major retailers such as Tesco, Asda or Lidl will not be looking to provide a large number of paper bags. To me, that does not seem to hold water.

I will turn to the other aspects of the amendments. I completely agree with the Chair's analysis and with what the Minister said. They qualified that the materials mentioned in amendment No 2 are ones that, in the vast majority of cases, will be implicitly exempt because they will be above the threshold of 19p. I am more than happy to accept that, but there are at least two or three pieces of logic for an extension.

If we are to look at exemptions on the grounds of the material used, it seems a nonsense to say that we will not explicitly cover and exempt the very materials that everyone will agree, in the form of bags for life, are the most advantageous and the most reusable. The Member has quite rightly indicated that the majority of those are exempt, but what about the minority that are not? That could lead to a ridiculous situation, if, for example, a retailer that, for the purposes of PR or a desire to be environmentally friendly, wants to actively encourage its shoppers to use a bag for life, subsidises its bags for life for a period and sells them for, say, 10p or 15p. Those who proactively encourage the use of bags for life will be caught by the levy. However, if a retailer that simply wants to get rid of as many bags as possible ups the cost of a bag for life to £2 or £3, it will not be subject to a levy.

The reality is that, if we have a —

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will give way in a moment.

If we effectively preclude those who want to sell bags for life at a cheap rate to encourage their use and therefore levy them, we could create a situation that, again, stands the purpose of the legislation on its head. If we reach a point in the future where, through the mass manufacture of some bags, it is possible to bring the unit price down below 19p, we will again punish those who use the likes of a bag for life. However, those who perhaps use bags made from materials that will not be as effective will not be penalised. I will give way to the Member.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. In my view, he is seeking to resolve a problem that does not exist. However, even if we accept the possibility as he outlined it, why did he include bags made wholly of paper when those are included in Mr Allister's amendment? If he genuinely wants his amendment to pass, why did he not exclude the controversial paper bag and instead table an amendment that, I expect, would have received unanimous support from the Assembly?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am always glad to get some level of support from the Member. We believe that paper bags should be exempt and that there should be some level of differentiation based on biodegradability.

An issue that I forgot to mention is that, at the moment, there is rightly a range of exclusions, a lot of which are focused on paper bags. However, we do have an anomaly, which, I think, the Chair of the Committee raised at Second Reading. She said that if, for example, she were to buy a hot toastie in a bakery, she would get it in a paper bag and would not be charged for the bag, but if it were not heated, she would be charged. That can cause confusion in the system. There is a need to deal with that anomaly, and the best way in which to do that is to exclude paper as a whole.

Amendment No 5 in many ways stands on its own, separate from the other four amendments. As was outlined — it is a position that I readily accept — biodegradability is an issue of degree rather than the black and white issue of whether something is biodegradable. There are very big differences in biodegradability. It is also the case that, although there is what is called the European norm, which sets a particular standard for biodegradability, there is no direct legislative definition of what counts as being biodegradable. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposals is that they simply refer to "biodegradability".

I accept that we are not there yet with a pure definition of "biodegradability". That is why we have made the not unreasonable request of the Department to bring back a report on biodegradability as it applies to bags. The report will be focused. It will be of a different nature and will, from a qualitative point of view, be a different level of report from the wider review.

The wider review will consider in particular the impact of the levy on shops, for example. As mentioned, there have been different reports on the impact and how, for example, supermarkets have been impacted on compared with some small corner shops. That will be an important aspect of the review. It will also look at the mechanisms by which money is collected, whether we have set the targets correctly in terms of price and, presumably, how the money will be used.

However, this is a specific report looking at biodegradability. If we look at this on the basis of being focused on end-use impact, then biodegradability is a vital issue that lies at the heart of this.

I cannot prejudge any report that comes before the House, but it may well be that after 18 months the Department concludes that it is not in the wider interest or practicable to have exemptions on the basis of biodegradability. If that is the case, then those will be the findings of the report. However, it may point to a better way to look in detail at how we deal with biodegradability, which seems to me to be a particularly sensible route.

I say to Members to support all the amendments, but if, as it appears, there is a degree of blockage on the other amendments, at least consider amendment No 5, because it will shine a light on the issue of biodegradability.

If we simply go unchallenged as we move through this process and do not take this opportunity to pause, examine and listen closely to what is said today, and see whether we are in danger of moving away from the focus that we have placed on this issue in this Bill and in the 2010 Bill and say that the broad thrust is a sensible one, but we need to make adjustments and ensure that from the point of view of paper, and other materials as well, and if we do not pause for reconsideration and take account of what I think is a sensible approach, then we are in danger of simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Therefore, I commend the amendments to the House.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I rise to speak against the amendments. I have been through the Committee Stage on all this, and it always surprises me that we sit down and we take party positions. To be fair, I will speak in relation to the Member who moved the first amendment, but in relation to parties who have been on Committees and brought party positions and gone through all this, we now find ourselves back in the Chamber and those people are contradicting some of the things that were said. Maybe we should give consideration to Committee Stages of Bill in the future and try to tie those things up.

To be fair to the Member who brought the first amendment, he was not part of the Committee Stage. At first, I thought there was a genuine case in what he brought forward in terms of the businesses that he visited and the problems that they may have been facing. I thought, to be honest, that his angle of attack in relation to that amendment would be in terms of jobs. I certainly would have listened to that argument to see whether there was a major impact, but clearly that argument was not made.

There was an opportunity for the Member to have an input through the consultation process in relation to this piece of the Bill, but obviously he came late at it. I thought he was going to make an argument in relation to jobs and the possibility of losing jobs. Once he got into it, he said that the bags were not manufactured here and went on to the issue of taxing other businesses and everything else. I would have liked to hear the Member give more information in relation to that, because from the very start of all this I would have had concerns had it impacted on business. However, the impression and information I am getting so far, as well as through the whole phase of the consultation, is that that has not been the case.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes, certainly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am not sure whether the Member was here during my speech, but I devoted a considerable proportion of it to talking abut the loss of jobs there has already been in the packaging industry. I cited three firms, one of which is closed, and the other two which have had significant job losses. I talked about the impact on the high street and the branding loss to shopkeepers — a point that Mr Givan reiterated — so I think I laid out clearly the negative economic impact of this. Certainly, a key component of why we should be reconsidering this is because we are not exploiting the economic advantage to business but rather seeking to dampen that, and are losing jobs because of that. That is important.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for the intervention. I take on board what he said, and I will get to the branding issue in a minute. You said that jobs had previously been lost, but that was in the packaging industry. I got the impression that these jobs had been lost even before we brought in this legislation. That is what I am talking about. The jobs were gone before we introduced this legislation.

I will speak on some of the points raised by Members, but I want to go back to the essence of the Bill. It started out about plastic bags, and the big element of all that was the environmental impact. That is part of it, and I want to tie that into the debate. We thought that paper was the better way to go forward regarding paper versus plastic. I should not make it a paper-versus-plastic issue, to be honest with you. It should be neither; it should be about reusable bags and reusing what you have got.

When you look at the carbon footprint of the production of the paper bag, you have to ask yourself about the mitigation element and its biodegradability. You maybe use it once or twice. You have to weigh up how that balances and whether it meets the need. That is a question that has to be asked. I see Mr Wilson nodding his head. When he was Minister a number of years ago, Mr Wilson used what are a few very good terms regardless of whether you believe in the climate change stuff or what you want to do to try to reduce our carbon footprint. He used the terminology of good housekeeping, good practices and doing things the right way. Reusing bags is the very nature of what this is about.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

OK, yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

He mentioned reusing bags, and I will leave aside some of the arguments that he made. This legislation expands the scope beyond single-use bags to cover cheaper reusable bags. So, it slightly muddies the waters from that point of view. There is some merit in that. If he is making the argument to draw a distinction between single-use and reusable bags, surely he would be opposed to the legislation as a whole because it starts to cover some forms of reusable bags.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that we are trying to get the public to buy reusable bags. I will come to the issue of cloth and hessian that your amendment refers to, but that is the whole idea of it. That is where we are trying to get people to.

To be fair, I have listened. Other Members will speak after me, and I want to hear them talk about engaging with the public and the message that is going out. People have embraced the legislation. People are buying bags for life. As regards the DUP amendment, if we look at the carbon footprint for paper bags and then for cloth bags, it is certainly concerning and worrying. I encourage people to go down the route of proper bags for life. The whole idea and the whole mission is to try to achieve that.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I will let you in in a minute.

You cannot say that, just because the original legislation is not a certain way, there cannot be a next phase. To me, this is the next phase of the legislation. I will let the Member in.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I listened to the Member say that the public have embraced this. One of the reasons the Department gives in the explanatory document for extending the legislation is that, where bags for life were marginally dearer than disposable bags, people were purchasing them and then throwing them away. Rather than the public embracing the legislation, one will find that, in many ways, the public are still resistant to it and certainly more resistant to an extension that is done for the most cynical of reasons, ie, to raise revenue for the Department.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member was on the Executive when this legislation was agreed, so I do not know. There are certainly issues with the whole idea of it. What I am saying is that the original idea of the plastic bag levy has worked with the public. I will say this: it is the next phase, and that is what we are supporting.

I want to pick up some of the points that have been made. When the Member first introduced his amendment, he talked about bespoke paper bags. That is grand if they are brand bags; but surely, if it were the case that the branding is an issue — I take on board the current economic climate — in most cases, it should be up to the companies concerned to absorb that. If companies want to advertise and brand in that way, it is up to them to put that on offer. That is something that Mr Weir said earlier. That is the issue, if companies want to go down that route.

It is unusual for the Member to mention the Republic of Ireland, but maybe we, as a party, could absorb a paper bag levy, for the want of a united Ireland. However, that is something that we would have to discuss.

Let me move on to amendment No 5. We have built in a mechanism for review. This is somewhat disappointing. We have been through all this. This is now the second or third day, over a number of weeks, on which we have been through this legislation. Mr Weir was making the point that it was specifically about biodegradable bags. Maybe the Minister would consider, as part of the review, bringing that forward. The Minister can answer that point.

In finishing, let me say that this is not only about paper bags but about the environmental impact of bags in general. That is the way that this legislation should go forward. I do not propose to support the amendments.

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

Let me say from the outset that this Bill is a Programme for Government target, agreed by the Executive, scrutinised and agreed by the Environment Committee and also by the Assembly. Now, we are faced, at one minute to midnight, with these amendments.

The amendments are curious; in particular, those of the DUP are curious. To my knowledge, this issue was not raised as a live issue in the Environment Committee. I have only been on that Committee since October of last year, but, to my knowledge, the issues raised in these amendments were not in any way part of the discourse of the Environment Committee. And so the Environment Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail.

If I am wrong about that, let somebody tell me. I am quite happy to accept a correction on that. However, it seems to me — this is the essence of my criticism — that these amendments are politically opportunistic.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way? [Interruption.]

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

Mr Speaker, I have an embarrassment of riches here, because I have two Members intervening. I will take Mr Weir's intervention first.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I freely acknowledge that we did not raise these particular issues at Committee Stage. We raised others, which led to some degree of change, and we raised some concerns. However, Members have to get over the fact that there is the opportunity — either at Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage — for any Member to bring amendments. The notion that "How dare anybody bring an amendment to Further Consideration Stage?" is unjustified. That is what the stage is for.

I have to say that it ill behoves the party opposite to talk about being opportunistic and going against proper consultation, because, two or three weeks ago, the Minister, who was due to debate it on the Floor of the Chamber, withdrew the Bill in order to get an Executive opinion on it.

However, before there was an opportunity for it to be brought in front of the Executive and for the Executive to debate it themselves, he put it back on the agenda and debated it. The Minister may well have sent an email to other Executive colleagues, but that is not the same as debating it in the Executive. If we are going to make criticism about jumping the gun and including stuff that has not had the proper opportunity for debate, I think that that should apply equally to the Minister.

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

I am grateful for the Member's intervention. However, let me say, and the Minister will be able to address this himself, that the Minister quite rightly decided to consider the matters raised by Mr Allister, and he conferred with his Executive colleagues. That is how a good Minister — and he is a very good Minister — should deal with legislation.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

No, you made your points clearly and effectively.

The Minister took the right approach, which was to consult his Executive colleagues more widely. That is, incidentally, something that some of his Executive colleagues are quite insistent upon for other political reasons.

It seems to me that there is an element of political opportunism here. Members are quite entitled to table amendments at any stage, and I do not challenge that in any way, but it seems to me that the DUP amendments have been brought forward because Mr Allister brought forward an amendment on paper bags. Mr Allister is an assiduous constituency representative and, quite properly, when an issue of importance to a constituent and to a firm in his constituency was raised, he brought it to the attention of the Assembly. It is right and proper that he does that and that he tries to influence the Assembly by tabling an amendment. However, I do not understand why the DUP has attempted to imitate Mr Allister and his amendment.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

No, I do not think that I should. You made your points very well.

Amendment No 5 has been tacked on to the other amendments by way of window dressing because I do not think that it is anything of great merit. The Bill requires a report to be made to the Assembly within three years, and, although the amendment seeks to narrow that timescale to 18 months, I do not think that it is necessary. I think that it is, as I said, a form of political window-dressing.

Mr Allister is quite entitled to raise issues as a constituency MLA. I do not believe that the DUP pursued this issue in the Committee at all, and it is regrettable that it is now being used simply to try to match Mr Allister. The DUP is entitled to do that, but I emphasise that the Bill is a Programme for Government target agreed by the Executive and scrutinised and agreed by the Environment Committee and the Assembly. The objective of the Bill, and this is very important, is to change people's behaviour positively and to get them to reuse and recycle bags.

I noted carefully what Mr Allister said in his address to the Assembly on the amendments. He said that the mischief that the Bill was attempting to address was the tawdry contribution to the environment by plastic bags. He further said that the Bill was a litter control measure. That is not an adequate description of the legislation, which goes far beyond that. I prefer Mr Boylan's description that the essence of the Bill is the environmental impact that these bags have on our natural environment. It is not simply confined to plastic bags or their unsightliness. The Bill is much wider than that.

It is important that we consider all adverse impacts on the environment, including the carbon footprint. In discussing the carbon footprint, some Members said that that is not part of the essence of the Bill. I believe that it is. Given the impact that the carbon footprint of paper bags has on the environment, it is clear that they cannot be considered to be a harmless alternative to plastic carrier bags.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. If he takes his argument to its logical conclusion, I assume that, come the local government and European elections, the SDLP will not be putting up any posters or sending round any election leaflets, given the carbon footprint in producing paper, printing paper, and so on. Or is this another case of, "Shopkeepers, you do this, but, as political parties, we'll do something different"? That is the kind of hypocrisy that brings this place into disrepute.

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

I look forward to Mr Wilson supporting legislation —

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

Will the Member give way?

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

I want to take Mr Wilson's intervention. I look forward to Mr Wilson supporting any legislation that comes before the House on the prohibition of election posters and perhaps even the prohibition of his own election literature. In any event —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The difference is that I do not peddle that propaganda.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Your election literature? You do.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

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

I would not describe your election literature as anything other than information for the public; it is certainly not propaganda.

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

Mr Wilson accuses us of hypocrisy, but is he not a hypocrite in so far as he now describes the legislation as a cynical effort on behalf of the Department to raise revenue, yet when he was Minister of Finance, he boasted that this measure was part of an important revenue-raising effort by the Executive?

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

I thank the Member for his timely intervention, and I agree entirely with him. Mr Wilson, do you want to come in?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

My record on this legislation is very clear. When I was Environment Minister, I resisted it; when I was Finance Minister, it became a deal breaker at the end, which Sinn Féin pursued to get the Budget through. Of course, at the time, I warned that the revenue that we were hoping to get from the levy would not materialise if it was successful. Now, of course, we are reaping the benefits of that, and we are going to impose a further burden on shopkeepers and shoppers to raise the revenue that I knew would never be raised in the first place.

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

Well —

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. I wonder whether the Member recalls that the Department of Finance and Personnel very swiftly took £4 million from the Department of the Environment in anticipation of getting this levy.

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

Again, that is a very interesting and timely intervention. I am sure that Mr Wilson will consider that in due course.

I look forward to Mr Wilson's contribution to the debate. He has made a considerable number of interventions, but I would like to hear what he has to say of substance on the Bill.

As far as the Department is concerned, the levy is not and should not be regarded as a revenue-raising measure. No matter how successful it has been, it is not envisaged as being for that purpose. The moneys raised as a result of the levy are used for environmental purposes and make a very important contribution to the natural environment in Northern Ireland.

I will further address what Mr Allister said. When I heard him refer to the Republic, the phrase about the devil quoting scripture came to mind. He emphasised that the Republic's measure was much more limited than Northern Ireland's. That may be the case, but it seems to me that, given what has happened in the Republic, one can anticipate changes to its legislation in the near future. It would not surprise me were those changes to be similar to the legislation that we have here. The legislation in Scotland and Wales is, in the main, similar to our own. There may be some difference in England, but, nonetheless, we have the right approach, and it is important that we remember that. There is a commonality of approach throughout these islands, and the common objective is to protect, improve and conserve our environment, which is a very important objective.

It has been said that paper bags are effectively harmless. However, it should be emphasised that they are not harmless. It is important to remember that huge amounts of energy, water, bleaches and other chemicals go into the manufacture of paper bags, exacting a heavy environmental impact. It is also important to remember that paper bags are heavier and bulkier than plastic bags and therefore impose a greater transport burden, resulting in greater carbon emissions.

The Chairperson of the Committee has already referred to the fact that paper bags produce greater carbon emissions. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's report of January 2014 stated that a month's worth of paper bags results in carbon emissions of 5·52 kg of CO2 compared with 2·08 kg of CO2 for a month's worth of single-use plastic bags. Those are important facts. Members of the public may not realise that. They may simply think that paper bags are OK and have no impact on the environment. There is an impact on the environment, however, and they damage the environment. It is right and proper to try to control and minimise that damage. It is therefore very important that the substance of the amendments tabled by Mr Allister and the DUP be rejected by the House.

The Minister is correct in sticking to the original position. If he were not to do so, he would be going against the objective of the Bill, and it is important that we retain the original objective.

I have already referred to the review aspect of the DUP's amendment. I reiterate that I do not believe that it is necessary, and I believe that, to some extent, it is actually a distraction and a piece of political window dressing. I have sympathy with anyone who will be adversely affected by these measures.

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

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, indeed.

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

Surely the Member must be very disappointed that, while he is making a strenuous argument against paper bags, Mr Wilson on the Bench opposite is engaged in private conversation and is not listening to a single word that he is saying.

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

I think that, perhaps, that is not an uncommon occurrence in the House. I will forgive him for that, and I look forward to hearing what Mr Wilson has to say.

I think that there is an irresistible argument in favour of maintaining the integrity of this Bill and opposing the amendments that have been tabled by the DUP. I hope that the House will support the Bill.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this part of the legislation. It is quite interesting that, having got to Further Consideration Stage, most of the debate prior to today has been around the introduction of the levy itself and the amount of the levy, and very little has been about paper bags. I am quite happy to take that issue on. I fully appreciate that Mr Allister was not here in 2011 when the legislation was going through. It is quite interesting that, at that time, paper bags were not included in the legislation at the initial stage. They then became part of it. It seemed to get support from all sides of the House, or at least that was my interpretation. Maybe the amendment was tabled by Mr McKay; I may be wrong, and I am quite happy for him to clarify that. In response, Mr Alastair Ross said:

"In fairness to the sponsor, his amendments have addressed the other issue that was raised, which was that, to avoid the tax, retailers would simply swap plastic bags for paper bags. That way, they would get around paying the tax, and, in fact, the processing of paper bags could mean that they would have a worse impact on the environment than plastic bags. By changing the wording in the Bill, the sponsor has, at least, addressed that issue." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 63, p209, col 1].

I felt that that was broadly the consensus from most parties at that time around that value. I fully appreciate that things do move on, and it is obvious today that things have moved on. Mr Allister is praising the Republic of Ireland situation, and we hear the SDLP and others praising Wales from the United Kingdom. So, do not let anyone tell you that things do not move on in this place. They do, and this is a perfect example of it today. So, we do need to look at the concept as it emerges.

The reality is that, at this stage, I do not know whether the Republic of Ireland is right or Wales is right. That is the difficulty. I understand the issue of bringing forward a report, but, at this stage, I would have thought that the initial reasoning was still in place. In that 2011 debate, most of the arguments and discussions around paper bags were from an Assembly research paper of 23 February 2011. I am not aware of any further research or evidence since that on the paper bags issue. If there is more evidence and more detailed information, that needs to come forward. Maybe Mr Weir's proposal of a report is the way of doing that. I am not entirely sure that there may be other ways, but that may be a way of doing it. At this particular stage, I do not see the reasoning for changing the original position. However, I am happy to be convinced. At that particular stage, there was clear evidence and information that paper bags — I do accept that some people say that it is from the manufacturing and the transport — were environmentally damaging.

That is coming from me — the key to the environmentalist lobby in Northern Ireland.

Obviously, what I want to see is a proper, sensible outcome. I take Mr Allister's point on job losses and how it impacts on individuals and businesses, but any legislation that goes through the House has an impact to some degree on individuals, businesses, communities or families. Welfare reform will have a huge impact on the wider community. Every time an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) or another environmental designation is put on land here in Northern Ireland, it has a huge impact on the people who own that land. Those are only some of the aspects. The rating of a vacant property has a huge impact on the people who own that property. I am only using those as examples.

I listened to Mr Givan say that people were carrying Tesco bags around Lisburn. I have a number of reusable bags, bags for life or whatever you call them. They are only mine because my wife bought them, but what is hers is mine, and you know the rest. They advertise the local stores in our village because they decided to go and get their own bags that were appropriate, and they are selling them at whatever price they are. I will ask the wife how much they are.

Clearly, we want to ensure that we get the proper outcome. I am happy to see whether we got it right in 2011 or whether we got it wrong. Maybe we did. I know that Mr Weir and the DUP supported the proposals at that time. They have a right to change their mind — we all have that right — but, without the evidence base, I do not see why we should change our mind. That is the position that I think we should look at here today.

I want to ensure that the consumer gets the best deal. That is irrespective of whether they are purchasing the goods or, indeed, whether it is about protecting the environment. I believe that the initial reason for it was the protection of the environment and to make it more environmentally friendly. I have to say, before I give way to Mr Wilson, that I was always opposed to the suggestion that £4 million income would come to the Executive. I never thought it would happen. I always felt that we were arguing that case on the wrong basis. I will give way to Mr Wilson.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I listened very closely to the arguments that he has been making, but the debate has moved on. The Environment Minister has moved the debate on. Does the Member agree that it is very alarming that the Environment Minister's defence of the legislation is now that the manufacture would be harmful, that cutting down the forests for making paper bags is detrimental to the environment and that the transport of the bags is detrimental to the environment as well? If those are the arguments that are now emanating from the Department of the Environment, that puts in the sight of the Department of the Environment almost every economic activity on which Northern Ireland depends. Indeed, I suspect that he has not even consulted the Agriculture Minister, who, of course, through the Forest Service, is cutting forests down all round the place for fence posts etc. Has he now got her in his sight as well?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Mr Wilson for that intervention. Of course, coming from a farming community, I would oppose anything that would stop fence posts being made. I do not know what else you would make them out of except timber. There is obviously a point, and Mr Wilson makes the point well. I have not heard the Minister of the Environment suggest that that will relate to other aspects of business or the wider economy, but it is obviously an argument that Mr Wilson makes.

Anyway, to conclude —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

OK, I am happy to give way.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member seems to be saying to the House that he is not persuaded that anything has really changed since 2011, but I draw the Member's attention to the detail of clause 9. It seeks to introduce a new regulation 3 to the 2013 regulations. The existing regulation 3 applies only to single-use carrier bags. This legislation, through clause 9, seeks to substitute existing regulation 3 with a new meaning of "carrier bag", which says that:

"In these Regulations "carrier bag" means a bag of any material".

It is no longer a definition of a single-use carrier bag; it is a definition of any carrier bag, of any material, which includes recycled paper. A carrier bag made of recycled paper is now to be included in the definition of "carrier bag".

The Member should reflect upon whether or not nothing has changed. I respectfully suggest that a lot has changed and that the noose has been tightened by this legislation.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Mr Allister for that. Of course matters have changed in that respect. That is why the legislation is coming forward. If matters had not changed, and we were not talking about other bags rather than just single-use carrier bags, we would not need the legislation at this time. It has changed in that respect.

The point I was making is that nothing has changed that I know of. I have no more information or evidence beyond the Assembly research paper. In fairness to Mr Wilson's point, that Assembly research paper did make the case around transport and trees and all those issues. That is what the debate and agreement was around at that time.

To go back to Mr Allister's point, of course the definition of the type of bag that will have a payment on it is changing now. However, I say respectfully that the 20p limit was reduced from the original 40p limit, and any paper bags manufactured are going to be much more expensive than the cheap plastic bags. I assume that the paper bags are more expensive. We currently have a number of exemptions for paper bags, especially for chemists and hot food. As I said, I am open to listening to the debate. If people can demonstrate the evidence for why it has changed since 2011, I am perfectly happy to listen to that.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Unsurprisingly, I rise to speak against the amendments that are before us today. As Members have already mentioned, it is four years since I introduced the Single Use Plastic Bags Bill, as it was originally. Of course, during the legislative process, that became the Single Use Carrier Bags Act 2011. My fellow Member for North Antrim Mr Allister referred to the fact that originally it was meant to align with the South. That is actually true because the measure had been introduced in the South and was a great success. It was a simple idea. That is why we brought it forward here.

To be fair, the former Finance Minister, when he was Environment Minister, consistently opposed the concept. I remember that Mr Boylan and I brought forward a motion on the issue. He kept that position consistently throughout. However, that cannot be said for other DUP members. It was the DUP that pushed for paper bags to be included in the legislation. I believe that it was a good idea. I believe that that party was successful. Indeed, Mr Elliott quoted Alastair Ross's response to my speech, in which he said that he was concerned:

"retailers would simply swap plastic bags for paper bags",

and:

"the processing of paper bags could mean that they would have a worse impact on the environment than plastic bags." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 63, p209, col 1].

Therefore the arguments that were put forward by the DUP at that time actually swayed the House to include paper bags in the legislation. I find it highly rich that the DUP is trying to attack the Alliance Party and others on the reference to paper bags in the legislation.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am still at a bit of a loss. Neither Alastair Ross nor anybody else in the DUP put down any amendment of that nature. If my memory serves me right, with regard to swaying the House, as he puts it, the House agreed those particular things unanimously. I appreciate that Mr Allister was not here. He can somewhat keep his hands clean on this particular point. It is not as though there was a closely fought position on any of those issues: I am not aware of any amendment that we put down in connection with that.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

The former Finance Minister referred to the fact that an agreement was made. At the time, Sinn Féin made quite sure that it was a priority. Between us and the DUP, we came to an agreement. That was one of the issues that the DUP came to us about. Very publicly in the Chamber as well, it referred to the fact that paper bags should be included. There were radical changes to the Bill that I introduced at that time because we successfully agreed that that should go forward through regulations and there was support across the House for that.

At the same time, I had the option to put forward the Bill in such a way that it would be for single-use plastic bags and that the money that was raised from a levy on plastic bags would go to the Department of the Environment. That was changed to carrier bags as a result of some of the arguments that the DUP put forward at that time. We and the rest of the House were more than happy to go with those arguments. I remember Danny Kinahan, for example, raising the issue at the time. To be fair, he was very consistent in saying that paper bags are four times worse for the environment and should be included in the legislation.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I know that the DUP is sometimes accused of being a Broad Church by some of its critics, but I was not aware that it had encompassed Danny Kinahan as one of its members.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thought that I said that he is an Ulster Unionist Member. Perhaps you picked me up incorrectly.

The levy has been a great success. The sky has not fallen in, as many predicted. The number of bags in circulation has reduced radically. I know of many retailers in my constituency, in places such as Ballymena and Ballycastle, who say that the levy has been a success for them and agree with its implementation. Some of them may have had concerns before the legislation was introduced, but now they find that they have less to spend in bringing in carrier bags and that the administration system is quite easy to deal with.

Generally, the public have been supportive. Their shopping behaviour has changed radically. If the DUP and TUV amendments were to be adopted, that would create confusion among the public about which bags they will and will not be charged for. I do not agree that we should row back and undo one of the most progressive pieces of legislation that has come through the Assembly to date.

The legislation obviously has big benefits for the environment. There are fewer bags in circulation, and people are less likely to throw bags away. We see fewer bags and less litter in hedgerows, on beaches and on the streets in places such as Ballycastle, Portrush and Newcastle. Of course, the measure has been widely welcomed in those places, because people working in the tourism industry do not want tourists to see litter on the streets. The removal of so many plastic bags — the Minister referred to the statistics that have been released — will obviously impact on our image as a clean, green place for tourists.

The 2011 Bill changed the law to allow for the payment of a charge to the DOE. Many communities have benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds in total. The less money that is raised through the levy, the better it is for the environment. However, in moving forward, it is important that any moneys raised go to environmental purposes and the community rather than being swallowed up by the centre. We want to get to a point at which people are not continually buying reusable bags.

The Member for North Belfast is right: I believe that the DUP is being opportunistic in bringing forward its amendments. At least the Member for North Antrim has been consistent in his position for quite some time. We have heard little or no reference to paper bags from the DUP previously. Indeed, the former Finance Minister took £4 million from the DOE budget at the time and said that the levy would raise that money to make up the shortfall. In his contribution today, he has also been found wanting.

I brought forward a private Member's Bill that required the Finance Minister's consent at that time. So the DUP, at all levels, was involved in the legislation. I accept Mr Weir's point about having the opportunity to change your position, but he cannot deny that his party was very influential in changing the Bill, which the House agreed with.

The public believe that the levy is one of the success stories of the Assembly. It has been referenced in the media as such. In 2011, the DUP successfully argued that paper bags be included in the legislation. That is why they are there. They should continue to be in the legislation, and, judging from contributions in the House, they will remain there. Therefore, I oppose all the amendments and urge other Members to do so.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her assessment of cattle markets charging £150 for cattle that have moved more than four times. (AQO 5627/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am aware of the markets proposing to make the charge from early April, and I am gravely concerned about how the new policy could impact on farmers. I am particularly concerned about the impact of changes to pricing structures on beef finishers who have bought store cattle earlier in the year under the conditions prevailing at that time. Many farmers have houses full of finishing cattle brought through in good faith and were unaware that these charges were to be imposed. It is not fair that they should be penalised by changes in the pricing structure being introduced before the animals are out of the system.

Yesterday, I sought a meeting with the Meat Exporters Association (NIMEA) to ask it to rethink its proposed changes because I, like other Members of the House, want to see a strong, profitable red meat sector here in the North. That can only be achieved if farmers see a fair return for their high-quality traceable produce. I understand that the NIMEA board met this morning, and a new proposal on the issue is now on the table. It is currently discussing it with the farming unions and the marts, but I am hopeful that a practical solution to the issue can be found.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I appreciate that the Minister has updated the House on the meeting that took place this morning. However, the sceptic in me wonders how this came about in the first place. How confident are you, Minister, or what interventions can you make to prevent such a charge being put in place, given that you said in your fulsome answer that you perceive that there will be an effect on farmers when finishing beef? What do you believe can be done to prevent any unnecessary charges being passed on?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is fair to say that farmers have made decisions based on current practice and pricing. So, when they bought cattle for finishing, they made those decisions not knowing that there might be changes to the pricing structure further down the road. That is the case that I made strongly to NIMEA yesterday. I made the association very aware of the fact that this is not something that it can just bring in at short notice without informing farmers, who could then make business decisions based on their own needs and what they want to do. That is the case that I put forward to them. As I said, they have indicated that there is a new proposal now on the table. We look forward to seeing that new proposal. I very much want to be in a position where I can, hopefully, come out and say that we welcome the decision that they have taken. However, until they make that public, I will not be able to do that. We all share the aspiration for a very profitable red meat sector, and, if we are going to continue to help that sector to grow, things like this cannot come at the last minute and impose changes on farmers. So, we look forward to the outcome of the NIMEA decision, and, hopefully, it is a positive one.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does this have anything to do with DARD applying new rules?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No, this is absolutely a commercial matter between the cattle keepers, the abattoirs and the major meat retailers. As I said, I have challenged NIMEA on its decision to bring forward the new pricing structure at this time, particularly given that farmers have made conscious business decisions not knowing that this would be in place. So, let us wait for the outcome of the NIMEA decision, but it is absolutely nothing to do with DARD in this instance. It is a commercial decision by the meat exporters.

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

What is the Minister's view of the possibility of having the live export trade of cattle from Northern Ireland to parts of the world such as the Middle East, given that farmers are curtailed to seven meat plants, which is regarded as a monopoly position in respect of beef processing?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can give the Member an assurance that I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we exploit all trade opportunities for the local industry. It is very much at the core of the Going for Growth strategy, which we have published alongside the industry. At the core of that is growing export sales by 60% and exploring all markets that are there.

The Member will be aware that I have been to China, and we are actively exploring other markets. It is key that we work in partnership with the industry to exploit the markets that are there and work to secure export certificates from those governments and take away any barriers that there may be to trade. That may be around disease status and other issues that we need to look at. So, I think that there is a combined effort, and I will work with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in that regard to make sure that we can access all markets that we wish to get into.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am told that the Minister recently viewed the process of logging movements online on the animal and public health information system (APHIS) at Dungannon farmers' market. Does she recognise that moving cattle to market and then back to the farm counts as two moves, and is she minded to look again at the implications and financial penalties that will be faced by farmers for such moves?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said in the earlier answer, I am not in favour of the decision that NIMEA has taken. I think that business decisions have been taken by farmers as a result of not knowing that the changes would come into play. However, it is important that we establish what a farm residence is, because that is the issue in what counts as a movement. So, the move into and out of a mart will not count as a movement, nor, for example, will a movement to a show. That having been said, however, farmers make the best business decisions. They also care about the welfare of the animals, so they are conscious of not having too many movements. As I said, I have made the case strongly to NIMEA, and I hope that it makes a positive decision based on the best interests of those in the farming community who have taken business decisions based on current structures and not on something proposed for the future.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the test and vaccinate or remove study of badgers. (AQO 5628/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Substantial work has been completed to progress the TVR project. As you know, that will involve the testing for TB of live badgers, vaccinating and releasing the test-negative ones and removing the test-positive ones. This approach has the support of the vast majority of stakeholders, as it avoids killing TB test-healthy badgers. The design of such a study was complex, and there were several key steps to be carried out before any work could commence with badgers on the ground. The first step was to instigate statistical modelling to identify the optimum location for and size of the study and how long it would need to run. The information obtained from the modelling was positive. It suggested that, in the longer term and assuming no perturbation occurs, TVR would help to reduce the level of TB in badgers and cattle.

Members will also be aware that badger sett survey work was under way in two 100 square kilometre areas in County Down that have high levels of TB outbreaks in cattle, coupled with a high density of badgers. I am pleased to advise that the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) has now completed that survey work. The agreement of farmers to their land being surveyed has been excellent, with over 80% of each area being surveyed. This is a very good outcome and exceeds our original target of 70%. Findings from the badger sett survey work and the modelling were used to perform the project design. Officials are finalising the project design and, in the coming weeks, they will provide the ARD Committee with a presentation of the detail of the project.

I remain committed to taking forward the TVR project, and officials are working to have this in place so that intervention can commence on the ground shortly after the end of the badger closed season in mid-May of this year.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her answer so far. It appears that the badger population is high at the moment, given the roadkill that you see. Tests in some areas have taken place. When does the Minister consider that testing will be rolled out across the Province? Will she make the results of the pilot schemes public in the not-too-distant future?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I say, we are working our way through all the stages of the process, of which there are a number to complete to get us to the point of being on the ground with TVR. It is complicated and is not being done anywhere else, including England, Scotland, Wales and the South of Ireland, and it is even almost unique in Europe. We want to make sure that we get it right. The modelling work has taken some time to get right, but we are keen to get on the ground sooner rather than later. We have completed excellent badger sett work, which lets us establish the badger population in the areas that we are surveying. We will continue with that work, but I am absolutely committed to making sure that we keep the ARD Committee up to date with progress on our journey to getting TVR rolled out.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí. Will the Minister give us an update on the establishment of a strategic partnership to deal with this important issue?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. I hope to advertise in the near future for a chair and members of the new strategic partnership group. The group will be tasked with developing the longer-term strategy to eradicate TB in cattle across the North. It is intended that, within 12 months of being established, the strategic partnership will produce this strategy, which will embrace and address all the issues, including TB compensation. The group will also future proposals developed by my officials, which will further strengthen our TB programme. It will ultimately report to me, and I will keep in touch with the ARD Committee.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí. An bhféadfainn fiafraí den Aire cad is féidir linn a fhoghlaim ó na críocha sin atá saor cheana féin ó ghalar na heitinne sna ba? What can we learn from countries and jurisdictions that are already disease-free that will help us?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that TB is a seriously complex disease and that multiple factors contribute to it, and no one has established the reason why they do or do not have it. You can look towards Scotland, which does not have the disease, towards what we are trying to do in the South and towards what is being done in England and Wales. Everybody is taking a different approach because nobody has the simple solution or the quick fix to deal with a disease that is very complicated. That is why the work that we are doing will be key in adding to the pool of research and investigatory work that is going on in other areas. I am always keen to learn best practice from other areas that do it well. Unfortunately, nobody can say why they have it or do not have it. That is what we are trying to deal with. This work will be key in adding to the research pool, and AFBI is working diligently on research. Through combined efforts, we want to get to a position, at some time in the future, where we eradicate the disease, because that will open up so many more trade opportunities for us.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I should have advised Members at the outset that questions 4, 11 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the number of single farm payments issued to farmers. (AQO 5629/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

To date, 96·16% of single farm payment claims have been finalised since the opening of the payment window on 1 December 2013. The Department set its highest payment target ever for December 2013 at 85% and significantly exceeded it by finalising 90% of claims. More farmers received their single farm payment in December than ever before. In November 2013, I announced that 95% of claims, including the majority of businesses subject to inspection, would be finalised by the end of February 2014, and that target has also been exceeded. I can confirm that 400 farm businesses that were subject to an inspection carried out using control with remote sensing were paid in February. The value of single farm payments made so far is £255·92 million, and it is a vital element of farm income. The significantly improved payment performance this year is a welcome boost to the farming industry and the wider rural economy. My officials are working to finalise the remaining claims as quickly as possible.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer and update. The Minister knows — it has been well rehearsed — about the frustration because of delays in payments, especially among farmers who were subject to remote sensing. Can the Minister provide any update to those farmers on the trading of entitlements and when they will be able to do that? A date of 2 April has been set, but will she extend that deadline today to ease the frustration and confusion?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am grateful that, today, the ARD Committee will, as the Member is aware, consider a statutory rule. We will need to legislate to give us a longer period to allow people to make decisions on whether they want to trade their entitlements. If the Committee agrees that, I will be in a position to announce that in the next number of days. It is key that we allow farmers the opportunity, post 2 April, a little longer to make those business decisions because they will be key for them in the future. Given that there are so many changes with CAP reform, there is angst out there about what is the best thing for individual farmers. So, I will give the ARD Committee its due process, and, if the Committee is content, I will be happy to announce that in the next number of days.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Can the Minister tell us more about the future development of the land parcel identification system (LPIS)?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

DARD and Land and Property Services (LPS) are continuing to work together during 2013-14 to further enhance the LPIS mapping system by adding additional features and reviewing maps using the new aerial photography. The LPIS mapping system is also being enhanced to include data from on-the-spot inspections and other remote mapping information such as control with remote sensing data. The refinement of the LPIS mapping system is essential to enable DARD, as a paying agency, to comply with the EC regulations. The system will require ongoing maintenance to help DARD to mitigate the risk of future EU disallowance.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

While the Department has made significant improvements in the distribution of single farm payment, can the Minister understand the disappointment, particularly among our senior citizens, when they have not received their payment?

Will the Minister consider an extra effort so that those senior citizens who live alone can get their entitlements?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can absolutely give the Member that assurance. I have made considerable efforts. The figures speak for themselves, in that, over the past two years, we have been four months faster in making payments than ever before. Over 96% of people now have their claim.

As I always say in the House, I recognise that those who have not yet been paid want their payments as quickly as possible so that they can pay their bills and be content. That is totally acceptable. I assure the Member that I intend to have all those people paid, as I have said, as quickly as possible. Officials are working on that as we speak and will continue to do so. We have put significant resources into making sure that we finish off the tail of inspections and deal with all the other issues that are still to be dealt with.

Some people are still in the system as a result of probate and, perhaps, as a result of a death in the family. About 300 of those cases are being dealt with, and they are obviously very complicated. However, I can definitely assure you that my aim is to continue to improve things and that we will be in an even better position next year and will make the majority of payments in December.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In her answer to Mr Swann, the Minister referred to the percentage of single farm payments that have not been paid. I think that she said that it was about 4% or 5%. Will she tell us what that represents in real cash terms, bearing in mind that those cases are mainly concentrated in the two areas of south Tyrone and north Antrim?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have an exact figure, but we are talking about £9 million. About 3% of single farm payments have not been made, and some £255 million has been paid out. As I said, I am not dismissive. I understand the feelings of those who are waiting to be paid.

We are working around the clock to get those payments out as quickly as possible, and I give that assurance to anyone who is waiting for their payments. We are four months faster than ever before, and we will be even faster next year.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the progress made on the flood defences at Beragh, County Tyrone. (AQO 5631/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am pleased to advise that the design of the scheme to protect the dwellings and the grounds around the GAA clubhouse in Beragh is complete.

The flood alleviation scheme is out to tender, and Rivers Agency expects to award the construction contract in March. Completion of the scheme is anticipated by spring 2015, which I know will be welcomed by those who have been directly impacted by flooding in this area over the past number of years.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her reply. I also thank officials from the Rivers Agency who have been very helpful with the matter. Will the Minister confirm what the next steps are and restate when the project will be completed?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The design of the civil engineering works to adequately protect an area is very complex, and it takes a bit of time to work up a design from when flooding first occurs. That being said, extensive work has been done with residents and all the local groups to make sure that what is put in place is fit for purpose.

With the Member, I visited a number of residents in the area who have been flooded time and again over the past number of years, and he will know the distress that that has caused. I am delighted and content that local people have been kept informed about the development of the scheme and that the Rivers Agency has worked very closely with them to make sure that they are up to date with everything that is going on.

We are about to go out to tender, and the works will be completed by spring 2015. I know that the residents will be waiting for that. While we are designing a scheme we do not just leave an area vulnerable; we have taken forward work in other areas, particularly the removal of the railway bridge and river maintenance work. That work has been ongoing to try to protect people until the scheme comes into play in spring 2015.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Before I call a Member to ask a supplementary question, I want to ensure that the question is about a relevant constituency issue.

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

I will try my best, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the advancement of a scheme such as the one in Beragh and the expectation that it creates in people's minds about dealing with flood defences, will the Minister assure us that DARD and the Rivers Agency will put adequate resources into flooding schemes in general?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely. All schemes are dealt with on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. There are competing priorities — there always will be. Do I have enough money in the Rivers Agency budget? Do I want more? Absolutely, and I will continue to bid for more. At present, a number of schemes have been designed, and we have the funding to take them forward, which we will do. Should more funding become available, the Rivers Agency can always take it and move schemes forward.

We must remember that flood alleviation schemes are not designed overnight. Even with Beragh, it takes time to be able to put together a scheme that is fit for purpose. However, I will fight my corner strongly for the agency to have enough resources to take forward any necessary schemes.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Will the Minister draw comparisons between Beragh and other areas, such as those I have written to her about?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I cannot do that during Question Time today, but I am always very happy to respond to the Member when he writes to me about any area. As for comparing Beragh with other areas, every flood alleviation scheme and everybody's needs will be different, and each scheme will be assessed based on those issues. They will also be based on a cost-benefit analysis and whether we can do it. If the Rivers Agency identifies an area as a priority, I am happy to fight my corner for such a flood alleviation scheme to go ahead.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the current outbreak of Japanese larch disease in Woodburn forest, Carrickfergus. (AQO 5632/11-15)

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

12. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her assessment of the tree disease Phytophthora ramorum. (AQO 5638/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 12 together.

This plant disease is caused by a fungus-like pathogen whose scientific name is Phytophthora ramorum. It is more commonly known as sudden oak death after its effect on North American oaks. I hasten to add that its effect on our oaks is much less severe, but it remains a serious threat to Japanese larch and some common species including ash, beech, rhododendron and bilberry.

The significance of Japanese larch is that it produces large quantities of infective spores that have a capacity to spread the disease widely. The main element of our control strategy has been to fell symptomatic trees and other epidemiologically associated trees because of the risk of latent infection.

Since the first confirmed finding in larch in 2010, we have felled over 700 hectares. We know that we have approximately another 360 hectares to fell as a result of survey work in 2013. Those surveys confirmed that the disease is continuing to spread and that, in addition to the core areas of infection in Counties Down, Armagh and Antrim, new scattered infections have been found throughout the North.

The prognosis for Japanese larch is poor, and it is likely that this important tree will disappear from our landscape and have a detrimental impact on the conservation of species such as red squirrel. However, it is important that felling of larch continues in order to reduce the risk of infection spreading to other common tree and shrub species.

Given that the disease has spread so quickly in larch, I have asked officials to re-evaluate our policy options for its control. It is important to note that the disease is not harmful to people or animals, and visitors remain welcome in all our forests.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

Woodburn forest and its hinterland have been decimated by the disease. Is the Minister telling us that the disease is not under control, and when does she envisage such times arriving?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The policy has always been to work towards research to eradicate and contain the disease, particularly forests that are trying to contain it by felling. Over the past number of years, wet weather and wind in particular have led to an increase in the spread of the disease, and there is also a wide range of spores. Rhododendron is common, and it will carry the disease, so a combination of reasons has led to a significant spread.

Our current policy is around research. The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) is doing work on containment and eradication. As I said in my original answer, I have asked officials to re-examine the policy to see whether it is still fit for purpose, given that the disease has spread so significantly.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Does she feel that she has enough resources to deal with and address the plant health threat?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In tackling the tree disease incidences, DARD has benefited from additional resources for the Forest Service because it has specialist skills and machinery. Based on that experience, the permanent secretary and I decided to allocate responsibility for all plant health matters to the chief executive of the Forest Service. That will ensure that policy and implementation are led by a senior civil servant with an appropriate professional qualification.

In recognising that the threat of plant disease and pests appears to be increasing, the Department intends to increase the scale of resources devoted to plant health. A project is under way to transfer existing plant health functions to Forest Service, agree an organisational structure for the new unit, prepare operational plans and develop a business case for additional resources by April 2014.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Given the history of that tree disease at Woodburn forest, including instances in 2009 and 2010, is the Minister content that the current signage providing information on biosecurity measures to visitors is enough action to prevent the spread of the disease, or can she do more?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is important that we, particularly councils, Forest Service and us, work together on messaging, because biosecurity is key when it comes to all plant health issues.

We have some excellent signage. We have even been working with mountain-biking groups, which are made up of people who use our forests regularly. The key messages are simple things such as washing the wheels of your bike, washing pram wheels and washing your boots. We continue to work with stakeholders collectively to make sure that we get very clear and recognisable messages out.

The messaging that we have done has been very effective. However, we always keep it under review. Another stakeholder meeting is coming up over the next number of months, and one of the items for discussion will be whether there is anything else that we could be doing to promote the message. I am very grateful for the work that councils have done on access to council land. They have also been very good at getting a very strong public message out there.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Gregory Campbell is not in his place for question 7. I call Basil McCrea.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what discussions she has had with the Minister for Regional Development regarding keeping rural roads accessible for farmers and rural dwellers following the recent wet weather. (AQO 5634/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have had no discussions with the Minister for Regional Development on keeping rural roads accessible to farmers and rural dwellers following the recent wet weather. Maintenance of the roads infrastructure lies completely within his remit. I welcomed his action to supplement the existing snow-clearing arrangements by encouraging farmers, agriculture contractors and other owners of suitable equipment to apply for a contract that would put in place additional assistance for the winter.

I can advise that, if the situation escalates similarly to the previous severe winter weather, when many rural roads were completely blocked by snow and ice, DARD has a major emergency response plan that provides the overarching framework for the central management and coordination of the Department’s involvement in such an emergency. DARD also has a range of plans in place to deal with specific emergency and business continuity situations. Those have been developed over a number of years and are regularly and rigorously tested to ensure that they remain fit for purpose.

If an emergency situation is likely to affect the North of Ireland's infrastructure, including the delivery of public services, OFMDFM will convene a meeting of the Civil Contingencies Group. During emergencies, the membership of the group will be tailored to the particular needs of the situation, and additional support organisations will be invited on to it, as appropriate.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

The Minister will be aware that winter comes around with remarkable regularity. Does she engage in pre-planning discussions before the winter months and say, "This is what we are going to do", rather than make just the emergency provisions that she outlined?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will go even further and say that, funnily enough, winter comes around every year. As I said, I engage with the Minister for Regional Development when required. I have done that in the past. I welcome the fact that he has engaged farmers and local contractors to clear roads, particularly in rural areas. The gritting services that go around the main roads perhaps do not get into rural areas. I am particularly keen that those services always be expanded.

My own Department has held a whole range of meetings, particularly to prepare for winter, given the winter that we have just came out of. We have engaged in winter preparedness at College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) level. We have the Fodder Task Force. We have a whole range of things. I can assure the Member that I know when winter is and that I do my job carefully.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

If we have the same extreme weather that we had last March and April, will the Minister, as part of her contingency and emergency plans, contemplate asking the RAF for the Chinook helicopters to give support for a longer period this time? Will she also contemplate calling in the Territorial Army (TA) to try to save some of the stock, given how much perished in the snow last year?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member is trying to make a cheap political point. As I said at the time, I am very happy to invite our neighbours in for help whenever we need it. I do not have a problem with that. I will invite in whomever we need at the time.

Last year we had support from both the Irish Government — which provided helicopters — and the British. I am very grateful for that support.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Who was the cheapest?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We can get into the issue of cost, but there you go. For me, it is about dealing with an emerging situation. I was not shy about asking for help and I will not be shy in the future, if help is needed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That is the end of listed questions, and we move to topical questions.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on cruelty to horses in Clogher valley in my constituency. (AQT 782/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am aware of the concerns regarding the welfare of horses near Clogher in County Tyrone. An investigation is being carried out by council animal welfare officers. Councils have responsibility for the enforcement of the powers under the Welfare of Animals Act 2011in respect of non-farmed animals, which obviously includes horses.

The councils' animal welfare officers have been very active in dealing with this issue and have taken a range of actions to address it, including the seizure of over 20 live horses. The Welfare of Animals Act provides strong powers to deal with a person responsible for an animal who fails to meet the needs of the animal to the extent required by good practice, or who causes that animal to suffer unnecessarily. The maximum penalty for any person who is convicted of causing unnecessary suffering is two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

Veterinary Service is investigating the presence of horse carcasses, as DARD is the competent authority for the disposal of animal carcasses under the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) Regulations 2011. The responsibility for the disposal of fallen animals lies with the occupier of the premises or the person considered by DARD to be in charge of them.

I can confirm that DARD has served a notice on the owner of the premises requiring that the horse carcasses be removed from the premises, and the date of expiry of that notice was Monday 10 February. The carcasses are in an area which makes their disposal difficult, due to the inaccessibility of it to vehicles and the wet condition of the ground. Given that the owner failed to comply with the notice by the expiry date, DARD is now taking steps to remove the carcasses, but that may take a bit of time, given the location, the weather and the shape of the grounds. As an investigation is ongoing, that is as much information as I can give the Member by way of an update.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her response. Is she content to meet me and the Ballysaggart Environmental Group to discuss the issue locally?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely. As I have said, it is the responsibility of the local welfare officers but, as there is now a DARD investigation, if the Member thinks it helpful, I am happy to meet her in her constituency.

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

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in the light of our colleagues in south Down relaying to us the very difficult situations being experienced by fishermen in Ardglass, Portavogie and Kilkeel, whether she recognises the hardship being experienced by our fishermen due to the bad weather, and to update us on any discussions she has had or will have with representatives of fishermen. (AQT 783/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am acutely aware of the financial difficulties faced by many fishermen, skippers and crew members. It has been a particularly trying time. This time of year is not the traditional fishing season, but the weather has prevented any activity at all from taking place. I am meeting a delegation of fishermen this afternoon, and we will discuss their plight. I commend the local charity for the work that it has done to support fishermen through this time of need. In the meeting this afternoon, we will discuss thoroughly the issues that they are experiencing and what can be done in the time ahead.

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

The Minister's last remark underscores the plight of these fishermen. They are having to turn to charity to aid their lives. What measures can the Minister put in place, given that there is a change in the season experienced by these fishermen? Can she entertain any permanent or more consistent support schemes, given the situations that they face?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that, last year, the Executive made a hardship payment to fishermen of about £400,000, which was obviously welcomed at that time. As I said at that time, it is important that we look at the long-term challenges for the industry. Year on year, the weather is getting worse and it is going to be difficult, not just for fishermen, but for quite a number of sectors. So there are challenges, and there are longer-term challenges.

Today, I am happy to meet the fishermen to discuss the challenges that they face at the moment. We will do that in a thorough manner. There are quite a number of issues which the fishermen want to talk about today, and I am keen to do that, explore the issues and see what can be done.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to join him in welcoming the Justice Minister’s announcement that he will take forward his private Member’s Bill, through an order to the House, to see her Department’s central investigation service inspected and audited by Criminal Justice Inspection. (AQT 784/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have a problem with any legislation coming forward to this House and it being fully discussed and debated by all parties. That is just democracy.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister find her central investigation service fit for purpose? Does she have any intention of reviewing its memorandum of understanding or service level agreements with other Departments or arm's-length bodies to enable it to have a remit outside Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and Scotland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I know that the Member has a keen interest in the issue. He raises it with me time and time again and asks plenty of questions about it. I am not aware from other Departments of any issues. The unit's practices are thoroughly examined and it is audited. I am content with the work that it is doing. When legislation comes forward, and if it proposes changes, I will be happy to consider them in the round. If it is in the public interest, I do not have a problem with considering that.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in the light of the fact that the Clipper Round the World Yacht Race will be coming to Derry in June, to outline what steps Loughs Agency has taken to improve tourism along the River Foyle. (AQT 785/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am delighted that the race and the competitors will return. It was there last year, and it was a fantastic event. The award-winning Foyle marina, which was recently installed, will be a focal point for the race activities. I am aware, from a recent North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting, that the plans for the event are well under way, with the agency concentrating its resources on initiatives that will highlight the marine potential for the Foyle across the world, because we believe that we have got something to shout about.

The Loughs Agency and Inland Fisheries Ireland recently went to France with key partners to actively promote the island of Ireland as an angling destination in order to attract greater numbers of French anglers. A number of other shows are planned for this year to further develop the international markets.

Other events that the Member may be interested in that the Loughs Agency has been involved in from a tourism point of view include the Sail West project in association with Donegal County Council, which was an ambitious marine tourism project that brought many benefits to the region, from the development of capital works to the sharing of ideas and experiences with Scottish partners and the creation of the marketing brand MalinWaters. Significant improvements of facilities at Malin Head and Benone beach are also expected to increase visitor numbers.

The Loughs Agency is also continuing to work with its partners under the Cruise North West banner by developing unique visitor experiences to the Foyle area. Finally, the Loughs Agency is always keen to promote the Foyle area through radio, film and TV coverage. The agency recently worked with UTV, BBC and RTÉ on a number of projects that highlight Lough Foyle as a major potential tourism asset, which is ideal for water-based leisure activities. So, there is lots going on in terms of tourism potential on the Foyle.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer, which recognises that the Clipper has helped highlight the city and the wider region.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We can indeed. Given the fact that the next NSMC meeting coincides with the visit of the Clipper to Derry, will the Minister consider having that meeting in Derry city?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely. Last year, as I said, we had the privilege of holding an NSMC meeting in the Derry City Council offices, which overlook the yacht race, and we could see the boats coming in. We are very keen to go back again if the opportunity arises to have our meeting there and see at first hand how effective the Loughs Agency is in promoting what we have as a major tourism asset.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her view on the decision of local meat plants to cut the price of cattle that have four or more movements in their lifetime by £150 a head. (AQT 786/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member may not have been in earlier during Question Time when I dealt with this issue, but I am happy to go over it again. I met NIMEA yesterday to discuss the issue. I made a very firm case that this was not appropriate and that it was a decision that had been taken forward without informing farmers of the changes to the system. Farmers had made business decisions, bought in cattle and taken their decisions based on the current pricing structure.

It is very unfair of NIMEA to bring forward proposals at this point in the year, when people are getting ready to bring them for finishing. I have made that case very strongly to NIMEA. I am aware that it has a new proposal on the table today and is discussing that with the farming unions. I look forward to that being a positive decision, hopefully, and something that is welcomed by the industry.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Is there anything else that the Minister can do to help and alleviate the situation for the beleaguered farming community on this matter?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is a particularly bad time for NIMEA to bring forward these proposals, given the fall in beef prices. We all want to have a sustainable red meat sector in the future. Part of that sustainability, and what the Executive can do, is wrapped up in the Going for Growth strategy. I am keen that that is discussed at the Executive, sooner rather than later, and that we can get agreed the proposals that have been put forward by myself and Arlene Foster, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. That will be the key tool that will allow the Executive to support the red meat industry going into the future.

There are obviously challenges with the fall in meat prices. Those are market conditions and outside everybody's control. Hopefully, consumer habits will change, demand will increase and, in turn, prices will increase. That will be a better day for the beef sector.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she plans to meet the fishing industry to discuss the hardship that is being experienced, particularly in Ardglass. (AQT 787/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. This afternoon, I intend to meet a group of fishermen who are coming up to impress upon me the conditions that they have been working under in the past number of months. It has been a particularly difficult time for the fishing community, particularly given the bad weather that there has been over the past number of years. It makes it very difficult for them to make a good start, and it takes them until the end of the year to catch up. Yes, I will meet them this afternoon to discuss that.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you for that answer. Do you think that the catches will improve as the season progresses?