Northern Ireland Assembly, 18 March 2014

553 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we proceed with today’s business, I wish to inform the House that the Public Service Pensions Bill has received Royal Assent. It will be known as the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

Matter of the Day

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Seán Rogers has tabled a Matter of the Day. Before I call Seán, I want to say that it was with great sadness that we all learnt of the death of Lord Ballyedmond. He was a good friend of the Assembly, took a keen interest in its work and was a very active member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Business Trust. When he came here, he was always keen to listen and to learn about the work of the Assembly.

He was an entrepreneur who started from very humble beginnings, and Northern Ireland is poorer for his death. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wider family at this time and with the families of the others in the helicopter who lost their lives. I think it is important that that goes on the record. He was a true friend of this Assembly.

Mr Seán Rogers has been given leave to make a statement on the death of Lord Ballyedmond, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called they should rise continually in their place. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that there will be no points of order or discussion of any other issue until the item of business is finished.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to speak on this solemn occasion. I agree with every word you said.

When the news of the helicopter crash in Norfolk broke on Thursday evening, it seemed quite remote. However, before long, we all knew that two people from south Down had died, along with the pilots. While the whole island and further afield have been shocked by the tragic death of Lord Ballyedmond, his impact and that of his business enterprises, including Norbrook Laboratories and Ballyedmond Castle Farms have had major significance for the people of south Down, Newry and Armagh.

Lord Ballyedmond was a former member of the Irish Senate, and, since 2004, he sat as a Conservative peer in the House of Lords. Frequently, I saw his helicopter make its way home, up along Carlingford lough, and land at Ballyedmond, but, sadly, on Thursday night, it was not to be the case.

Lord Ballyedmond was born in Kilcurry in County Louth and attended the CBS in Dundalk. As you said, Mr Speaker, he started from very humble beginnings, but through his personal drive, determination and single-mindedness, he made Norbrook a world leader. Based in Newry, it is the only home-grown veterinary pharmaceutical company. It employs over 1,700 employees and exports to over 120 countries.

Lord Ballyedmond was one of the most successful entrepreneurs in Northern Ireland and, indeed, these islands. He brought high-quality employment opportunities to the country during its darkest days. He had faith in Newry when it was not the most popular place. During the recent recession, even many of our construction workers found employment on the assembly lines, the farms and other enterprises. Many families are so thankful to Eddie Haughey for having that faith in the local workforce. He made the difference between employment and unemployment and between having an income and living on benefits or emigrating.

This tragic accident has cut short the life of a man who still had a lot to give. The family circle will be numbed by such a loss. It was the spirit of the man that he was giving one of his workers — Declan Small from Mayobridge — a lift home rather than have him waiting for the flight on Friday morning. On behalf of the SDLP, I extend my deepest sympathy to Lord Ballyedmond's two sons and daughter, to Declan Small's mother, his three brothers and the wider family circle and to the families of the two pilots. May Lord Ballyedmond, Declan and the two pilots rest in peace.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We heard the tragic news just last week of the death of Lord Ballyedmond, Declan Small and the two pilots, and it was with a heavy heart that we took it all in. Lord Ballyedmond, or Edward Haughey, as many of us knew him, was a man who was immensely driven and very determined. A lot of that came from his childhood. As a young boy, he lost his father very young in life. His mother set aside what money they had to educate her children. After he left school, he went to America for a short number of years. When he came back, he started selling drugs out of the boot of a car. From that, he created the most profitable business in Northern Ireland, employing some 1,700 people. We can look at the contribution that Eddie Haughey/Lord Ballyedmond made to business, which was absolutely massive, but that only touches on a small part of the man.

Lord Ballyedmond was a very charitable man to causes that he saw to be worthwhile. He gave huge support to those causes and encouraged others of means to support such causes. That is an element of him that we should all remember at this time. He was also a man who wanted to see Northern Ireland progress, and he did whatever he could to sell Northern Ireland, because he had massive international contacts, to encourage others in business, to encourage this Government and Executive in respect of its international outreach and bringing business to Northern Ireland and creating opportunities for others. He was immensely generous with his time, skills, knowledge and contacts.

Northern Ireland is a much poorer place as a result of the loss of Lord Ballyedmond. I deeply regret his loss, and I express my Christian sympathies and that of my party to his wife, two sons, daughter and wider family. I trust that they will find comfort, even over the course of the days, weeks and months where that absent chair will be, and with the loss of such a close loved one.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I join other MLAs who have paid tribute to Lord Ballyedmond, Declan Small and the two pilots. It is a loss for their families and for south Down.

Lord Ballyedmond was a big supporter of education; he was a big supporter of jobs, and as mentioned earlier, jobs in the Newry and Mourne area. Obviously I did not share all his viewpoints. We had differences of opinion on a range of issues, but one issue that he was a big supporter of was the bridge at Narrow Water. Being from Louth and living in Down, he wanted to see the bridge crossing over. I obviously shared that with him.

It is a huge loss for his family, and for Declan Small's family, and I know that many in south Down are grieving because of the untimely death of the four people in the helicopter.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

There is still a great sense of loss and shock following the helicopter tragedy in Norfolk late last week, which claimed the lives of Mr Declan Small from Mayobridge, the pilots Carl Dickerson and Lee Hoyle, and, of course, Lord Ballyedmond of Mourne. It is a tragedy that will impact on all of those families, and lives will be changed as a result of it.

It is right that we take time to pay particular tribute to Lord Ballyedmond because of the public profile that he had and because of the support that he gave to these institutions and the encouragement that he gave to many Members, including me. I offer my sincere sympathy and that of the Ulster Unionist Party to the four families whose lives are now changed completely.

Lord Ballyedmond was a significant figure in Northern Ireland. From a zero base he built Norbrook into a world-renowned company. He was, I think, what Northern Ireland needs more of. He was a business entrepreneur — someone who created wealth and provided jobs, most especially in my constituency and, in particular, Newry. Lord Ballyedmond deserves recognition for what he achieved for Norbrook, Newry and Northern Ireland.

Uniquely, as we have heard, he served in the upper houses of both the United Kingdom Parliament and the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland. He was also a generous benefactor to many causes — our universities and colleges, and our museums. He also privately supported many other good causes and worked hard to bring people together, especially politicians and opinion-formers. He encouraged reconciliation.

I extend my sympathy and that of the Ulster Unionist Party to Lady Mary, his children Caroline, Edward Jnr and James, and I offer sincere condolence to all of the families of those affected by this tragedy.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Lord Ballyedmond and in recognising his important legacy to the political and economic life within these islands. I pass on my condolences and those of the Alliance Party to his family and to the families of Declan Small and the two pilots who were caught up in this very tragic incident. Certainly, all of them will be deeply remembered in our society.

His political legacy was unique, as has been outlined, but, in recognising that, it points to the respect in which Lord Ballyedmond was held across these islands. He was someone who could move in a whole range of circles, be well regarded in each and every one of them and make a contribution in each.

His ultimate legacy to Northern Ireland lies in the economic and business sphere. Norbrook Laboratories is a major employer in Northern Ireland and one of our most important businesses. In some respects, we can call it Northern Ireland's home-grown multinational corporation: it has a number of facilities not only in Newry but overseas, so Northern Ireland is, in turn, an inward investor in other parts of the world, particularly the United States.

As we talk a lot about the need for exports, it is also worth recognising that Norbrook is a leading exporter. Indeed, it has perhaps had the greatest impact around the world of any Northern Ireland business, given the wide range of customers and the number of countries touched by the very specialist nature of its veterinary medicine products. Such products are eagerly sought by a range of societies around the world. I fondly remember touring the facilities and seeing all the different packs being processed for all four corners of the world.

Lord Ballyedmond had a very keen interest in ensuring the future of his business. It is worth stressing that his legacy will continue in Norbrook, which will continue to flourish as a very valuable component of the Northern Ireland economy. Over the past number of months, he had been taking a very keen interest in ensuring that his workforce had the right skills to continue to service Norbrook's emerging business needs. In particular, we were in discussion with the Southern Regional College about the development of higher level apprenticeships in pharmaceutical technical skills. That demonstrates Lord Ballyedmond's vision and acknowledgement of emerging trends in our economy. He ensured that he was at the forefront of those developments. He will be a very sad loss to our economy and all of our society, but he will be deeply remembered for generations to come.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to Mr Rogers for tabling the matter of the day. I want to associate myself with the comments of colleagues. Edward Haughey, or Baron Ballyedmond of Mourne, made his contribution to our society from, as Mr Kennedy said, a zero base. He rose from that to build the company of international standing that is Norbrook Laboratories and create employment. As said, he based Norbrook in Newry, a city that many would have shied well away from in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. He had that commitment to Newry, and he employed on sites in the city some 1,700 people from a wide area, particularly the South Down and Newry and Armagh constituencies.

Thursday night's tragedy is a reminder how quickly any family — indeed, in this case, four families — can be thrown into grief. It reminds us all of the fragility of life. The family of Declan Small from Mayobridge in my constituency, the families of the two pilots and all their friends are in our thoughts and prayers. We must continue to remember them in the weeks and months ahead.

Colleagues have mentioned the variety of contributions that Lord Ballyedmond made to society, not just in the business world as an entrepreneur who exported products and world leader in the pharmaceutical industry but in the political sphere, where he moved from the Irish Senate to become a member of the House of Lords. He had a drive to build on peace and reconciliation and promote it wherever he could. I hope that that legacy, as well as that created by his business interests, will live on.

Our sincere sympathy goes to the family: Lady Mary, who is a relative of mine, Edward junior, Caroline and James. We are thinking about them and praying for them. In the days, weeks and months ahead, they will begin to feel the severe loss of Lord Ballyedmond and, when that comes to mind, they will know that many people in society and in this House are thinking about them, supporting them and remembering him at this difficult time.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I join in the condolences to the family of Lord Ballyedmond and, indeed, the families of the others who so tragically lost their lives in the helicopter crash. It is a reminder to us all, of course, that, whether we are rich or poor, death comes to us all in whatever circumstances.

Of Lord Ballyedmond, much has and can be said. He certainly has left a tremendous legacy through the remarkable company that he built from nothing. It is a case study in how an entrepreneurial spirit in the most trying of circumstances, such as we had for many, many years in Northern Ireland, can nonetheless succeed. It is a case study also in how private industry and investment has so much to contribute to the growth of our economy and how, within that, the focus on exports is very often the key to success of the magnitude that Norbrook Laboratories obtained and continues to obtain.

So, his legacy is immense, and I certainly wish to convey my condolences to his family, including his wife Mary, with whom I was acquainted in her years as a practising solicitor in the town of Newry. I did have the occasion to meet Lord Ballyedmond a few times during my service as an MEP, and he certainly had all the attributes that have been spoken about, which include his drive, his vision and his affable nature. It is a sad day not only for the Newry area but for all Northern Ireland that such an industrial giant, home-grown in this Province, has been taken from us. Our thoughts are very much with his family.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It would be hard to overestimate the importance of Edward Haughey to the economy of south Down, Newry and Armagh, and, indeed, the wider area. He was the ultimate self-made man. I spoke to people over the weekend who remember him going around Newry in a small van selling veterinary products out of the back of it on his own. To have gone from that to now employing 1,700 people and bringing £30 million a year into the south Down and Newry and Armagh community is a remarkable feat.

He was an entrepreneur with a capital E. Indeed, he was also a man who was tremendously loyal to Northern Ireland and to south Down and Newry. There were many attempts to try to lure his company out of Northern Ireland. Various inducements were made and rejected, and, throughout the entire time, he kept the bulk of his employment in Northern Ireland. I wish that many others had adopted the same attitude. He went on to make a name for himself not only in the economic life of Northern Ireland but, uniquely, he held a seat in the Irish Senate and, more latterly, a seat in the House of Lords.

He has made an inestimable contribution to the area but also behind the scenes in an unspoken way, and many people alluded to this. He also made very significant contributions to charity and to academia in Northern Ireland, sometimes without any mention whatsoever. There are many people who are grateful for his support and his tenacity.

I was first elected here in 1982, and I represented Newry, which was part of the South Down constituency at that time. Frankly, Newry, at that stage, was a basket case. There was always an undesirable competition between Newry and Strabane about which one of them was the most economically deprived part of the United Kingdom. It is no exaggeration to say that Edward Haughey single-handedly pulled Newry up by the bootstraps. That is because, as a result of his determination and investment in Newry, the formation of Norbrook and all the employment that that brought, other companies were attracted to the area, and the town is enjoying a relative prosperity that we could not have envisaged 40 years ago. We need more Edward Haugheys in Northern Ireland. We need more entrepreneurs to come in and do that. However, at this stage, I pay tribute to him and remember all the others who died in this tragic accident.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As Chair of the Assembly Business Trust, I express my great sadness at the tragic death of not only Eddie Haughey, who was one of our trustees, but the three others who died in that tragic helicopter crash. I was deeply shocked by his untimely death. He was a well-respected and significant member of the local business community whose influence was felt right around the world. His ruthlessness and vision were widely acknowledged by most people who met him. Although I did not agree with everything that he said, he certainly respected individuals who held differing views to his, and he never allowed political outlook to come in the way of a personal friendship or relationship with others.

Eddie was a member of the board of trustees since 2008, and he was an enthusiastic supporter of the trust. He was committed to encouraging much greater links between the local business community and the political representatives here, which is the whole point of the trust. He not only found the time to serve on the board since 2008 but participated in a number of events and actually hosted numerous delegations both in Westminster and at his offices in Newry.

The only time that I had the chance to meet him was when he hosted us last year in, I think, the private Members' dining room in the House of Lords. He was delighted to have the opportunity to host a cross-party grouping of MLAs and business members. He really shone in that arena where he was the host. People acknowledged that he was there hosting us, and he was given that role. As the Chair of the organisation, I was sat beside him at the top of the table, and I think that I had to tell him five times that I was a Sinn Féin MLA, because he just could not believe that a Sinn Féin member was sitting beside him in the British House of Lords.

As Alban Maginness got up to deliver what many saw as his maiden speech in the House of Lords, he paid a glowing tribute to the political representatives who had travelled over from Belfast to London. As Alban was paying tribute to the political members of the trust, Eddie nudged me and said, "You can't let him say that about you". I said, "But he said something nice", and then he said "Oh, that's all right then". After that event, Eddie was supposed to give us a tour of the House of Lords, but, unfortunately, we spent too long talking around the table and missed that.

I actually have a story that links Eddie Haughey and somebody else who passed last week — the great Tony Benn. Unfortunately, we are much the less as a result of Tony Benn's passing. As a result of Eddie not being able to give us a tour, Basil McCrea and I managed to track down Stephen, one of Tony Benn's sons, who was hosting an event in Westminster. He then took us on a tour of both Houses of Parliament, which was very enjoyable. They tried to coax me to go into the Chamber, but I would not do it, a Cheann Comhairle.

Eddie's enthusiasm and generosity will be sadly missed by all of us in the trust. On behalf of the trust, I take the opportunity to express my great sympathy to his wife, Mary, his daughter, Caroline, and his two sons, James and Edward. In my role as a member of the trust, I have got to know Edward and James through their very active support of the trust, and I can only imagine what a difficult and emotional time this must be for them on the loss of their father.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Speaker, thank you very much. There was certainly a palpable sense of shock in the Newry area on Thursday evening when the news of the death of Lord Ballyedmond, Edward Haughey — or, as he was better known around Newry, simply Eddie — came through.

I will begin by expressing my condolences to his wife, Mary, his sons, James and Edward, and his daughter, Caroline. I also express my condolences to his first cousin Patricia, who is my next-door neighbour. She told me of the great kindness that Eddie Haughey had shown to her and her family on the death of her mother just a couple of years ago. So, I suppose that is an indication of Lord Ballyedmond's kindness.

I also express my condolences to the family of Declan Small of Mayobridge and to the families of Carl Dickerson and Lee Hoyle, who were the two pilots of the helicopter.

Lord Ballyedmond started his business, as Mr Kennedy will remember, in Bessbrook mill. I suspect that the "brook" in Norbrook indicates his thanks to the people of Bessbrook for hosting his early endeavours. Since then, he made a tremendous contribution to the economy of Newry, south Down and south Armagh. As other Members said, he was tremendously loyal to the area and kept the core of his business there, employing 1,700 people. We could safely say that Norbrook is the main plank of the Newry economy and the main basis of employment in Newry. I know that his employees and their families were extremely saddened by the news of his death.

He was a man of vision. As Mr Farry said, he invested in research and development. He had a relationship with the school in which Mr Rogers and I taught: St Paul's High School, Bessbrook. He sponsored the science department there, and his aim was that more young people would take an interest in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects. Norbrook fostered a relationship with the Southern Regional College, emphasising once again the importance of the STEM subjects to our economy.

His charitable works have been referred to. One story that I heard was about a project taking socially disadvantaged children to America. One of the funders pulled out, and the whole project was in danger. Edward Haughey stepped in and made a substantial contribution to save the project and ensure that 40 children got to America. That is another indication of the practical, charitable goodness of Edward Haughey.

As I said, I express my condolences to his family and to the other families involved.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Like all of us, I was appalled when I heard of the accident last week. My sympathy and condolences go to the family; to Mary, Caroline, Edward junior and James, and, of course, to Declan Small and his family and to Captains Dickerson and Hoyle.

Many people today have spoken of his drive and determination and how he was one of the very top businessmen, if not the top businessman, in Northern Ireland. I think that the Assembly should look at some way of recognising that entrepreneurship, which we would like to see from many people. We should look at some way of forwarding that into the future.

I want to touch on three other areas that he was involved in. In the art world, he had a thirst for knowledge and wanted to know more and more, just as he did with historic buildings. When he took on a historic building, he restored it to perfection. He saved buildings, not just for himself and his family but for all of us. He was the same with art. He was a philanthropist; I know that he did great work in helping Hillsborough Castle with its art collection. We should thank him for that. He had just finished a term as honorary colonel of the Royal Irish Rangers. He took great time and interest in supporting everything that they did. We should remember that. At one event, when asking me how on earth I ended up in politics, we ended up discussing education. That same steely eye turned on me and said, "In education, we want pupils and students to come out entrepreneurs who can analyse, think for themselves and create". We should all follow that. That is what he wanted to see in Northern Ireland.

We will miss him. He did things in style. Nobody else did things in that way. You summed it up rightly at the beginning, Mr Speaker, when you said that he was a good friend, not just to the Assembly but to everyone.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

As a Member for Newry and Armagh, the constituency where he had his business, I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of Lord Ballyedmond in a helicopter crash in Norfolk at the end of last week. Lord Ballyedmond was an entrepreneur and a gent. He had a great interest in the Newry area and, indeed, the whole of Northern Ireland, and he was very supportive of the institutions here.

A couple of years ago, he invited the Agriculture Committee to visit his Norbrook factory in Newry. He showed a great interest and gave us a personal tour of the factory. After the tour and a detailed analysis of what went on there, we had our lunch in his family home. He gave of his time generously and showed a great interest.

My sympathy goes out to his wife, his two sons and his daughter. My thoughts and prayers and that of the wider community are with the family at this time.

Ministerial Statement

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, I will make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the 1998 Act regarding the 24th meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in aquaculture and marine sectoral format.

The meeting was held in Armagh on Friday 21 February. The Executive were represented by Minister Nelson McCausland and me, and the Dublin Government were represented by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Pat Rabbitte TD, and Fergus O’Dowd, Minister of State in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Minister Rabbitte chaired the meeting. The statement has been agreed with Minister McCausland, and I am making it on behalf of us both.

Ministers considered a paper on sectoral priorities and discussed other priorities in their respective sectoral areas. It was agreed that the priorities would be communicated to the joint secretaries in line with the plenary sitting decision of 8 November 2013. I stated that one of my key priorities would to bring forward an all-island aquaculture shellfish strategy.

The Council received a progress report on the work of the Loughs Agency from its chairperson, Winston Patterson, and its acting chief executive, John Pollock. Ministers welcomed progress made, including the Loughs Agency’s partnership with Co-operation Ireland in developing the Foyle river ambassadors citizenship scheme. The scheme uses the River Foyle as a focus to bring together young people from across the Derry City Council area in a personal development programme. Its aim is to promote the recreational and educational activities provided by the river. As well as getting leadership training, participants do angling, fisheries management, sailing and aquaculture. On completion, they act as ambassadors, publicising the Foyle as an important natural asset that supports a broad range of social and economic activities. It is a very commendable initiative, and I was encouraged to hear that the Loughs Agency is examining the prospect of rolling it out to Carlingford.

In addition, Ministers noted the agency’s precautionary measures introduced to contain disease within Lough Foyle and congratulated the agency on the successful delivery of an international conference on salmon stocking. We also look forward to the distribution of the film 'Atlantic Salmon – Lost at Sea', in which the Loughs Agency participated.

The Council also noted progress on the Loughs Agency’s financial statements for 2012 and 2013, the Loughs Agency’s corporate plan for 2014-16 and business plan for 2014 and the Loughs Agency’s pension arrangements.

The Council welcomed, and very much enjoyed, the presentation on the movements of Atlantic salmon in the River Foyle in response to man-made barriers. That is one of a number of applied research projects that the Loughs Agency oversees, in conjunction with the University of Glasgow and Queen’s University, and its aim is to help to protect aquatic resources across the North of Ireland and western Scotland. We noted the valuable contribution that those research projects will make to the management and development of the important Atlantic salmon fishery.

The Council recommended that the competent authorities in each jurisdiction consider jointly hosting an all-island aquaculture shellfish conference. I should say that that is an issue of particular interest to me. Such an event will help to focus and promote the shellfish sector throughout Ireland, and we agreed that plans will be taken forward by officials from my Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, alongside industry partners and others.

Ministers welcomed the report on the Loughs Agency's wide range of activities aimed at promoting and marketing Foyle and Carlingford loughs. Those included the Loughs Agency's participation in planning for the return of the Clipper Round the World Yacht Race to the Foyle this June and an all-Ireland marketing initiative to promote angling in Ireland at the major exhibition Salon de la Pêche in Clermont-Ferrand, France. That is an expanding dimension of the agency’s work, and we have encouraged the further development of such activities.

Other events that the Loughs Agency has been involved in include the Sail West project in association with Donegal County Council. That ambitious marine tourism project 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 a marketing brand, MalinWaters.

We learned that 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 to highlight Lough Foyle as a major tourism asset that is ideal for water-based leisure activities. The Council approved amendments to the Loughs Agency's pension scheme.

The Council noted the process for the recruitment of a chief executive of the Food Safety Promotion Board, Safefood.

The Council agreed to meet again in aquaculture and marine sectoral format in June 2014.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. After the previous ministerial statement on the North/South Ministerial Council in aquaculture format on 2 December, I raised the issue of the lack of a management agreement for seabed leasing in Lough Foyle. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is very concerned about that issue. On 2 December, I was told by the Minister that all efforts were being made to resolve it. She said:

"We hope to see some movement towards the end of the year to get that resolved. Obviously, we do not want it to slip any further." — [Official Report, Vol 90, No 1, p13, col 2].

Therefore, I am surprised that it did not feature on the agenda of the Council meeting on 21 February, six weeks after the end of the year. Can the Minister provide an update on developments on seabed leasing in Lough Foyle?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I want to assure the Member that I have given the Loughs Agency every possible support — my full support — in its attempts to finalise the management agreement with the relevant Departments in the South. I am grateful to Minister Rabbitte's officials for their efforts in helping the Loughs Agency to progress the management agreement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I assure the Member that a very positive meeting was held in Dublin on 23 January, which included inputs from all relevant Departments and the Office of the Attorney General on moving forward, particularly with regard to the jurisdictional issues that obviously exist. A number of possible solutions were proposed. They will be pursued and discussed with the Crown Estate. I hope that we will have something more concrete to discuss at the next meeting and will report back to the Assembly in due course.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. Can she indicate when there will be some outcomes from the research project involving the Foyle system with the University of Glasgow and Queen's University? Can she state whether she has had any discussions with energy Minister Rabbitte about the North/South interconnector, given the importance that it will have for Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will take the questions in reverse. We certainly had a bit of discussion on the interconnector. Minister Rabbitte clearly set out his position and outlined some discussions that he has had with Minister Foster, obviously because it comes under her remit. We had a discussion on the impact that it would have on society in general.

The research project was taken forward through IBIS. It was a really fantastic piece of research, which clearly shows the impact of, for example, weirs and other things on the salmon journey. They are putting all of that information together. Hopefully, that information will then benefit the wider systems right across Ireland and into Scotland. When they disseminate that information, people in other Departments will be able to see the impact of man-made structures, for example, on the salmon journey. It is key research. We are delighted to be associated with it. I believe that there will be wider benefits not only for Lough Foyle and Carlingford but the wider water systems.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I, too, thank the Minister for her statement. She has outlined and, indeed, encouraged further development of the agency's work into the realm of tourism. First, how will the success of that venture be measured with regard to its benefits to the Northern Ireland economy? Secondly, what is the agency's relationship with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board when engaging with and promoting tourism?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have been trying very hard to expand that role. The Loughs Agency is very well placed with regard to marketing what we have to offer, particularly when it comes to Foyle and Carlingford. It has been very successful. We want to promote and advertise what we have to offer right across the world, particularly when it comes to angling. The event that the Loughs Agency attended in France was very positive in getting what we have to offer out there to a wider audience. A lot of the other works that have gone on, particularly with regard to tourism around Malin Head and the Sail West project in association with Donegal County Council, have been key to promoting those areas and what they have to offer. So, we want to have a lot more of that. A number of other big events are planned for this year, building on the benefits that we achieved particularly from the Clipper Round the World Yacht Race, which visited last year and will come again this year.

There are ongoing discussions with all the key agencies, including the Tourist Board, and I encourage those. I think that it is important that the Loughs Agency thinks outside the box in promoting and advertising what positive natural resources we have to offer.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I, too, welcome the Minister's statement this morning. She talked about the all-island aquaculture shellfish conference. Will she outline her thoughts to the Assembly on how she sees that developing? She mentioned the shellfish sector throughout Ireland. Can she see an interest going further than this island?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am delighted that the Council recommended that we have a shellfish conference. I certainly feel strongly about that action point, particularly on the back of the difficulties with oyster disease in Carlingford over the past year, which the Member will be aware of. From speaking to the industry, I know that it is very keen for a focus to be put on it. Again, the conference will tie in very nicely with the work of the Agri-Food Strategy Board in looking at how we can help to grow each sector.

Some of the key areas that we will focus on at the conference are as follows: disease prevention and control; the need to focus R&D funding; best practice in biosecurity improvements; emerging EU issues in aquaculture; and other issues such as licensing of sites, financial support, environmental assessments and the review of the current licensing appeals process. We will then look at the growth and marketing opportunities for the industry. Arrangements are ongoing with officials, but we hope to have the conference early next year. As I said, I know that industry has been asking for such a conference, which will really help to put the focus and attention on it and help us to move forward in marketing what we have to offer.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister indicated that sectoral priorities were discussed and agreed. One of the priorities is to have an all-island aquaculture shellfish strategy. What are the other priorities, and why are they not listed here for scrutiny by the Assembly?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

They have been listed and discussed before. As far back as, I think, November last year, we discussed all our priorities. At the last meeting, we discussed taking forward an all-island aquaculture strategy, which the conference would feed into nicely. So, that is an additional sectoral priority. However, I am very happy to provide the Member with a detailed list of all the priorities that were previously identified at the November meeting.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement today. I particularly welcome the focus on the opportunities in and around Lough Foyle. Will she provide an update on the new chief executive position for the Loughs Agency?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The final interviews to select and appoint a new chief executive were held in Belfast on 28 February. A new chief executive has been identified, and the formalities to secure the appointment are under way. The next stage in the appointment process will be to secure NSMC approval, and work on that is well advanced. So, I very much hope that the new chief executive will be in post by 2 April 2014. My Department and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in the South have worked together on that process, and I am grateful to them for their efforts. So, hopefully, that position will be confirmed by 2 April.

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

Thanks to the Minister for her answers thus far. I welcome her statement. What is being done to ensure that our shellfish producers can compete on a level playing field/seabed? How can we compete with Scottish shellfish producers to ensure that we continue to produce the world-class product that we have here?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I totally agree with you. I think that that area has lacked focus in the past. I recently engaged with growers from Carlingford, whom you will be aware of, and one of the issues that they raised was about how we work together. From that grew the idea that we need to have a strategy, which we do not have, but which would obviously benefit the sector. As I said, the conference ties in very nicely with what we are trying to do in growing all sectors as part of the work of the Agri-Food Strategy Board. It will also be key in looking at how we market our all-island aquaculture. For me, one of the wins from the conference should be a clear direction on what we need to do. The success of that will be industry buy-in, which we have had to date.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you mentioned "precautionary measures" to manage and contain disease in Lough Foyle. What specific diseases are you concerned about in Lough Foyle, and what measures are being taken?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We had to close what is called the south-side bed. Bonamia ostreae is the name of the disease that particularly affects oysters. That is the disease that we are considering. At the recent NSMC meeting, we received a briefing from the Loughs Agency as to why, as a precautionary measure, it had to close down that bed.

We took the decision on the temporary closure based on scientific advice, in conjunction with talking to fishermen, because we had to close the season earlier than normally planned for. So, the reason for the closure, as stated in the public declaration at the time, was due to increased infection levels. We were talking about a 70% increase in bonamia. We worked with and continue to work with fishermen because it is important that they understand that, if there has to be an early closure, it is because we are going to protect the sustainability of the industry. There is certainly an understanding of that now. When it comes to next year and next season, we are working proactively with the fishermen if there are to be any of these types of closures as a precautionary measure.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. I ask the House to take its ease as we change the top Table.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister of the Environment, Mr Durkan, to move the 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 my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are six groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 20 to 35, 83 and 91, which deal with access to information and the code of conduct.

The second debate will be on the Minister’s opposition to clauses 3 to 9 and schedules 1 and 2, as well as amendment Nos 4, 5, 92, 104,105, 107, 108, 110 and 111, which deal with councillors' qualification, disqualification, vacancies and resignations.

The group 3 debate is on 30 amendments set out on the grouping list. They deal with governance, decision-making, appointments and transition to new council structures.

The fourth debate is on amendment Nos 36 to 47, 50, 51, 56 and 62, which deal with general powers and duties, community planning, general power of competence and performance improvement.

The group 5 debate deals with the 33 technical amendments to the Bill.

The sixth and final debate will be on amendment Nos 63 to 66, which deal with flags. A valid petition of concern has been tabled in relation to amendment No 63, which will therefore require a cross-community vote.

Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the question on each will be put without further debate. The questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 3, 6, 7, 20 to 35, 83 and 91. The amendments deal with access to information and the code of conduct for councillors. Members will note that amendment No 26 is consequential to amendment No 25 and that amendment No 30 is consequential to amendment Nos 28 and 29.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment No 1:In page 1, line 14, leave out "council’s code of conduct” and insert

"Northern Ireland Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 17, after "that” insert "from 30th April 2015”.— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 3: In page 1, line 17, after "available” insert "on its website and”.— [Mr Elliott.]

No 6: In clause 10, page 5, line 25, leave out "subsection (1)(f)” and insert "this Act”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 7: In clause 10, page 5, line 26, leave out "prescribed public body or other association” and insert "public body”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 20: In clause 46, page 25, line 37, leave out line 37 and insert -

"(7) So far as is reasonably practicable, a council shall facilitate—".— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 21: In clause 48, page 27, line 28, after "must”, insert -

"as soon as is reasonably practicable”.— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 22: After clause 48, insert -

"Audio recording of meetings

48A.—(1) So far as is reasonably practicable, a council must make an audio recording of so much of any meeting of the council as is open to the public and the recording must be available to the public at the offices of the council until the expiration of the period of six years from the date of the meeting and published on the council website until the expiration of the period of two years from the date of the meeting.

(2) This section does not apply in relation to meetings of any committee or sub-committee of the council.”.— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 23: In clause 49, page 28, line 18, at end insert -

"(6) A council must put on its website any document which is open to inspection under subsection (1).".— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 24: In clause 58, page 33, line 17, at end insert -

"(1A) Instead of, or in addition to, conducting an investigation under this section, the Commissioner may take such action as appears to the Commissioner to be desirable to deal with any particular case falling within subsection (1).”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 25: In clause 62, page 36, line 36, at end insert—

"(13) A person who is censured, suspended or disqualified by the Commissioner as mentioned in subsection (3) may appeal to the High Court if the High Court gives the person leave to do so.”.— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 26: In clause 62, page 36, line 36, at end insert—

"(14) An appeal under subsection (13) may be made on one or more of the following grounds—

(a) that the Commissioner’s decision was based on an error of law;

(b) that there has been procedural impropriety in the conduct of the investigation under section 58;

(c) that the Commissioner has acted unreasonably in the exercise of the Commissioner’s discretion;

(d) that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by the facts found to be proved by the Commissioner;

(e) that the sanction imposed was excessive.”.— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 27: In clause 63, page 37, line 29, at end insert—

"(9) A person who is suspended (or partially suspended) by the Commissioner by notice as mentioned in subsection (1) may appeal to the High Court if the High Court gives the person leave to do so.”.— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

No 28: In clause 64, page 37, line 37, leave out from "and” to the end of line 38.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 29: In clause 64, page 38, line 5, leave out from "and” to the end of line 8.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 30: In clause 64, page 38, leave out subsection (6).— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 31: In clause 67, page 39, line 23, leave out subsection (2).— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 32: In clause 67, page 39, line 28, leave out "Commissioner” and insert "Department”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 33: In clause 67, page 39, line 28, leave out

", with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel,”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 34: In clause 67, page 39, line 30, leave out from "may be prescribed” to the end of line 35 and insert

"the Department, after consultation in accordance with subsection (3A), considers appropriate.

(3A) The Department must consult—

(a) councils; and

(b) such associations or bodies representative of councils as appear to the Department to be appropriate,

about the manner in which the amount mentioned in subsection (3) is to be apportioned.

(3B) The Department may deduct from any grant payable under section 27A of the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to a council for a financial year the amount apportioned to it under subsection (3).”— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 35: In clause 68, page 40, line 11, at end insert -

"(5) Where a councillor who is suspended otherwise than partially or is disqualified under this Part is also a member of any other public body (whether as an external representative of the council or otherwise), the councillor is also suspended or disqualified from being a member of that body and any committee or sub-committee of that body.

(6) Any reference in this Part to a councillor being partially suspended from being a councillor includes a reference to the councillor being partially suspended from being a member of any other public body of which the councillor is a member (whether as an external representative of the council or otherwise) and the reference in subsection (2) to particular functions or particular responsibilities as a councillor includes particular functions or particular responsibilities as a member of that body.”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 83: After clause 123 insert -

"Council websites

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I propose to speak first to the amendments that I will recommend that the Assembly accept.

Clause 2 requires a council to prepare and keep up to date a constitution that sets out how a council operates and the structures that it has in place for decision-making. There are three amendments on the constitution of councils. The constitution of every council, as provided in clause 2, will include a copy of the code of conduct. As there will be only one code of conduct for councillors — the mandatory code provided for in clause 56 — I propose, through amendment No 1, to clarify this point and change the reference to:

"Northern Ireland Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors".

I have considered amendment No 2 from the Chair of the Environment Committee, which sets a deadline by which a new council must have prepared and agreed its constitution. I support the amendment, which will provide early clarity for ratepayers on how their new council intends to operate.

In addition, clause 2 provides for a council to ensure that its constitution is made available at its principal office for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times. Amendment No 3, tabled by Tom Elliott and Danny Kinahan, would compel a council to ensure that a copy was also placed on its website. The primary aim of requiring a council to prepare and publish a constitution is to underpin transparency in how a council operates and transacts its business. This amendment reinforces that aim, and, therefore, I am happy to recommend that the Assembly support it.

Amendment No 24 and amendment Nos 28 to 35 refer to the new ethical standards framework, which will be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. Amendment No 24 takes into account a recommendation made by the Environment Committee that provision be made for dealing with complaints about minor breaches of the code of conduct. I propose to amend clause 58 to provide the Commissioner for Complaints with the flexibility to deal with such complaints by taking whatever action is considered appropriate for resolving the complaints. That could include referring the matter for local resolution or referring the case for mediation. The commissioner will still retain responsibility for any case subject to this approach.

Mr Speaker, I now draw your attention to amendment Nos 28, 29 and 30, all of which relate to clause 64. This clause allows the commissioner to make recommendations to a council, arising from an adjudication, about the exercise of a council's functions or failure to observe the code of conduct. The council, in turn, must prepare a report on what action it proposes to take to address the recommendations. As drafted, the clause provides that the commissioner sends a copy of the recommendations to the Department of the Environment and any relevant Department. However, it may not always be obvious to the commissioner what the "relevant Department" would be.

I propose amending clause 64 to provide that any recommendations made by the commissioner, or any subsequent report produced by a council, are sent to my Department in the first instance for referral to any other Department as required. These amendments do not involve any change of policy but provide further streamlining of the procedure so that my Department will initially receive and, therefore, coordinate relevant recommendations from the commissioner.

Amendment Nos 31, 32, 33 and 34 seek to alter clause 67 to provide that the apportionment of the costs of the commissioner for ethical standards work will be determined by my Department after consultation with councils, rather than by the commissioner. The amendments do not alter the policy intent but seek to provide transparency that councils will be consulted on the manner in which the expenditure is apportioned as result of the top-slicing provision.

Amendment No 35 takes into account comments from the Environment Committee and will provide clarity on clause 68.

That clause will be amended to clarify that, should the decision of the Commissioner result in suspension and/or disqualification of a councillor, the suspension and/or disqualification will also apply to the councillor’s membership of any external public body on which he or she represents the council or is a member of by virtue of being a councillor.

Amendment Nos 6 and 7 make minor adjustments to clause 10 that will extend the definition of the term “external representative” to the whole of the Act. In addition, they will amend the reference to prescribed public bodies, thereby removing the need to specify them in regulations.

Amendment Nos 21 to 23, tabled by Ms Anna Lo and Mr Stewart Dickson, deal with accessibility to information. Amendment No 21 seeks to strengthen clause 48 to ensure that specified documents, such as council agendas, minutes, summaries and reports, are available on the council’s website so that they are available for all interested parties by requiring that action to be taken as soon as is reasonably practicable. Councils must not take months to publish the minutes of meetings.

Amendment No 23 requires a council to place copies of background papers on its website that support a report, or part of a report, that has been considered at a meeting of that council. That will allow anyone examining a report on the council’s website to appreciate the considerations that went into the preparation of the report.

Those amendments support my desire to improve transparency in the operation of a council and how it transacts its business. I recommend that Members accept those amendments.

Amendment No 22 introduces a new clause, which seeks to require councils, so far as is reasonably practicable, to make audio recordings of those parts of any council meeting, excluding committee or subcommittee meetings, that are open to the public. Such an approach can assist in providing clarity on the discussions that take place at a council meeting and help to support the new ethical standards framework by removing doubt over comments made by members in respect of other members. In supporting that new approach, however, I emphasise the so-far-as-is-reasonably-practicable aspect of the requirement. I do not want to place an unacceptable financial burden on a council regarding the costs of introducing the equipment necessary for the production of audio recordings.

Finally, following a recommendation by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and as a result of amendment No 91, I will amend the Assembly scrutiny required for subordinate legislation under clauses 51 and 51 to the draft affirmative procedure, whereby any regulations and orders require approval by resolution of this Assembly.

I will now speak to those amendments that I recommend do not stand part of the Bill.

Amendment No 20 was tabled by Ms Anna Lo and Mr Stewart Dickson. Clause 46 introduces new arrangements to ensure transparency in the operation of a council by making provision on the public’s right of access to meetings and information of a council. It also provides that there is no requirement for a council to permit the taking of photographs of proceedings or the use of any means for providing live reporting or oral reporting of proceedings. That maintains the current position provided for in the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.

However, amendment No 20 aims to reverse that position and seeks to require a council to facilitate, so far as is reasonably practicable, the taking of photographs at a council meeting and the recording or making of an oral report of the proceedings by an individual member of the public or even a councillor in attendance at the meeting. The introduction of such freedoms is likely to create difficulties for a council in its management of any arrangements to ensure that any actions by members of the public and media do not interfere with the transaction of the business of the meeting. It could also create difficulties in that information could be taken out of context, which could lead to complaints under the code of conduct or litigation, including those in regard to data protection issues. So, while I understand and sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment, I do not think that its practical implications have been considered. Therefore, I cannot support that amendment.

Three amendments relate to the provision of an appeals mechanism in the ethical standards process. Amendment Nos 25 and 27 seek to provide for an appeal to the High Court for any person who is subject to further action following either an interim report or adjudication by the commissioner if the High Court gives leave. Amendment No 26 sets out the grounds for any such appeal. I urge Members not to accept those amendments.

Any person who may seek to appeal the commissioner’s findings can use the existing judicial review procedure. The remedies that are available to a court in a judicial review in exercising its discretion include quashing a decision, declaring it to be unlawful, damages and injunction. The commissioner has obtained legal advice from senior Crown counsel that judicial review would be the appropriate means of challenging a decision of the commissioner and has liaised with the Human Rights Commission to confirm that judicial review would be appropriate.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Certainly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister also confirm that, although the Alliance Party amendments seem to be interested only in the rights of anyone against whom there has been an adverse finding, judicial review would also be available to a complainant who is unhappy with the commission's finding? Is that correct?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I confirm that that is the case.

In addition, my departmental legal advice supports the judicial review route. The House should also note that the provision of such an appeal process does not exclude the additional application of judicial review, which could extend the process significantly. That, in turn, could create uncertainty for the electorate during that period, uncertainty for any councillors who are involved in the case and who may wish to stand for office in the future and, more importantly, uncertainty for those persons who made the complaint to the commissioner. That could include other councillors and members of the public. This is an important consideration in the context of councillors’ time-limited appointments and the costs that may be incurred for the ratepayer. Undue delays before a final resolution could attract undue media attention to the issue, which could, in turn, call into question the framework's effectiveness.

Amendment No 26 relates to the grounds for an appeal. My Department's legal advice has indicated that the provisions in this amendment are similar to the grounds for judicial review. Therefore, I question whether anything would be added by introducing such an appeal process. I believe that the framework, as provided in the Bill, will have the necessary robust procedures in place to provide the fairness, transparency and confidence that such a process requires. I also remind Members, as I stated at the Bill's Second Stage, that the framework will be reviewed in three to four years' time. For those reasons, I do not believe that these amendments would improve the Bill. Rather, they would serve to replicate an existing procedure and make the effective implementation of the new arrangements more cumbersome.

Amendment No 83, as tabled by Mr Tom Elliott and Mr Danny Kinahan, seeks to introduce a new clause to provide for my Department to issue regulations so that all domain names for council websites are in a similar format. I do not consider that my Department should have a role in that, as councils must be provided with the independence to make decisions on domain names, just as they will make decisions on the name of their council.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

On behalf of the Environment Committee, I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Local Government Bill.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on 11 October 2013, and to ensure that there was enough time to scrutinise it fully and effectively, the Committee sought an extension of the Second Stage to 20 February 2014. There were 38 written submissions to the Committee’s call for evidence on the Bill. The Committee had a number of oral briefings from departmental officials, as well as from representatives of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe), the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO), Community Places, the Commissioner for Complaints, and Belfast City Council.

The Committee also held a stakeholder event at which all who responded to the call for evidence were invited to give their views on the Bill. I would like to place on record the Committee’s thanks and appreciation to those who responded in writing and to those who provided oral briefings for the Committee.

On 20 February 2014, the Committee completed its scrutiny of the Bill and published its report, which contained 13 recommendations. Most of those recommendations have been addressed by the Minister, either by the amendments tabled here today or by an assurance from the Minister that they will be addressed in forthcoming statutory guidance and subordinate legislation, and I thank the Minister for that. However, the few recommendations that remained outstanding required the Committee to table its own amendments.

I now turn to the amendments in group 1. During Committee Stage, the Department outlined to members how it was working with local government to develop the key documents, including the code of conduct that will form a council’s constitution, and which are to be put in place ahead of the establishment of the shadow councils. Departmental officials outlined the need for amendment No 1 to make it quite clear that it was the code of conduct specified in Part 9 of the Bill that must be included in the constitution. The Committee was content to support that amendment to clause 2.

Amendment No 2, also to clause 2, is a Committee amendment. The Committee welcomed the requirement in clause 2 for councils to produce a written constitution but expressed reservations that no timeline was specified for the publication of the constitution, particularly since the Department plans to provide a model constitution as a template. The Committee believes that a council should provide a constitution on a timely basis and at least by the end of the expiry of the period of the shadow councils. The Committee communicated those concerns to the Department, but the Minister indicated that he did not consider it appropriate to amend this clause so that councils are not pressured into publishing a hastily prepared constitution. The Committee feels that a specified time would act as an incentive rather than a constraint, and for that reason it agreed to bring forward an amendment to clause 2(2) to specify that a constitution should be available from April 2015. I commend that amendment to the House.

I have no comment to make on amendment No 3, as it was not considered at Committee Stage. Departmental officials explained the rationale behind amendment Nos 6 and 7 to clause 10, and the Committee was content to agree the clause, subject to those amendments. As Amendment Nos 20 to 23 were not considered by the Committee, I have no comment to make on them as Chairperson.

In its deliberations on clause 56, the Committee raised the issue of how minor complaints would be dealt with, and departmental officials agreed to refer that matter to the Minister. Members also asked that the Minister reiterate his intention for the role of the Commissioner for Complaints to be reviewed in three to four years' time. The Department’s proposed amendment would allow the Commissioner for Complaints to refer minor complaints to a council to be dealt with locally, and the Committee agreed that it was content with that amendment. I therefore support amendment No 24 on behalf of the Committee. I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that he still intends to carry out a review of the role of the Commissioner for Complaints in three to four years' time, as he has previously indicated. The Minister has just assured us on that issue.

In its wider consideration of the role of the commissioner, the Committee expressed serious concerns about the lack of an appeal mechanism in the Bill. The commissioner is enabled to investigate and adjudicate and to prescribe sanctions for any alleged breaches of the code of conduct, but no form of appeal against his decision is specified in the Bill. In his evidence to the Committee, the commissioner took the view that judicial review was an appropriate option for appeal, but the Committee felt that that was not only time-consuming but too limited in scope to be adequate.

In response to those concerns, the Department prepared an amendment to enable a councillor who is censured, suspended or disqualified by the commissioner to appeal to the High Court. The Committee agreed that it was content with the amendment and recorded that in its report. However, the Minister subsequently wrote to the Committee to advise that, following legal advice and discussions with the Commissioner for Complaints, he no longer intended to bring forward amendments to provide for an appeal mechanism. Some members were very disappointed in the Minister's change of heart, as they believe that the role of the ombudsman is intrinsically different when he acts as Commissioner for Complaints. As commissioner, he will have the power to investigate and adjudicate, and potentially administer severe sanctions, on a complaint made against an individual person, not against a corporate entity. That person's good name and career as a councillor is at stake.

The Committee believes that the suggested remedy of a judicial review of the commissioner's decision is likely to prove inadequate, as it takes into account neither excessive sanctions imposed nor a decision not supported by the evidence. Subsequently, the Committee decided to bring forward amendment Nos 25, 26 and 27 to clauses 62 and 63 to provide for a right of appeal to the High Court following a decision by the Commissioner for Complaints. However, I and another Committee member dissented from the decision of the Committee following the Minister's explanation.

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

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. This is a difficult issue, and the Member indicated, in her capacity as Chair, that the Minister changed his mind in a sense. Having listened to the Committee, he prepared a form of amendment and then, on receipt of strong legal advice, advised the Committee that it would not be appropriate to bring forward an amendment of that nature. The reason for that was that the position of ombudsman has a constitutional import. No decision of any ombudsman is appealable. There may well be judicial review, and so forth, but it is not appealable in the ordinary sense of the word. Therefore, the amendment was deemed inappropriate and verging on unconstitutional. Does the Member accept that?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, very much so. I am of the same view as the Member. I thank the Member for explaining the issue.

On amendment Nos 28 to 30 —

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I am very glad that Mr Maginness has explained it, but it is still not terribly clear to me what you, as Chair, are proposing. Amendments are coming forward that strong legal advice says are unconstitutional, and therefore you are recommending, on a personal basis perhaps, that we should not support them. Is that the position?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee decided, by majority, to put forward the amendments. I and Mr Maginness dissented from that decision as members of the Committee. It is quite legitimate for the Committee to put forward that amendment on behalf of the majority of the members. Like Mr Maginness, I think that this provision will undermine the independence of the ombudsman and that it may have unintended consequences if we set a precedent that the ombudsman's decision can be appealed to the High Court, rather than through the normal route of judicial review.

On amendment Nos 28 to 30, the Committee was informed by the Department that it proposed to make technical amendments to clause 64 to clarify that the commissioner’s report should go primarily to the Department of the Environment, rather than any other Department. The Committee was content with the policy underlying those amendments, although the wording was not provided before its report was agreed. I support the amendments on the Committee’s behalf.

Amendment Nos 31 to 34 were not brought to members' attention at Committee Stage, but departmental officials indicated that the Minister was prepared to reconsider the original apportionment of the commissioner’s expenses, in consultation with representatives of councils. The Committee welcomes his decision to bring forward the amendments to allow the Department to top-slice the total grant, rather than make apportionment to individual councils. As Chairman, I am content to support amendment Nos 31 to 34.

Moving to clause 68, the Committee asked the Department to clarify the position of a councillor who is disqualified from being a member of a council but who continues in an appointment to an external public body. The Department agreed to draft an amendment to make the position more explicit. The Committee is, therefore, content to support amendment No 35.

There is no Committee position on amendment No 83 because members did not consider it at Committee Stage.

Amendment No 91 makes clauses 51 and 54 subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. That was considered by the Committee under the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and members are content to support the amendment.

With your indulgence Mr Speaker, I would like to address the House in my capacity as Alliance MLA for South Belfast. I support the four amendments that Alliance has tabled to Part 8 of the Bill, "Access to meetings and documents".

Amendment No 26 would modify clause 46, relating to admission to meetings of councils, so that councils, so far as is reasonably practicable, shall facilitate photograph taking, oral reports and use of social media. Amendment No 21 inserts the phrase

"as soon as is reasonably practicable"

into clause 48, in respect of putting on a council's website any minutes and other documents for public inspection. In the interests of openness and transparency, the Alliance Party tabled that amendment to the provision about online publication of papers such as minutes and agendas.

Amendment No 22 adds a new clause 48A to enable councillors to make audio recordings of public meetings and make them available to the public. We believe that that is vital to ensure that the workings of local governance are transparent and that the expense will not be excessive. The Minister mentioned that he does not want a burden on councils, and I will comment further on the cost later.

Amendment No 23 addresses the inspection of background papers. If agreed, it would insert subsection (6) at the end of clause 49, which would read:

"A council must put on its website any document which is open to inspection under subsection (1)."

I want to set out our rationale for tabling those four amendments. It is of concern that too many of our councils operate in a way that is not open and transparent to local residents. Too often, councils seem to be convinced that it is better to keep decisions quiet and avoid too much fuss. A prime example of that is the existing Castlereagh council, which has asked journalists to leave and which regularly frustrates residents who are trying to observe council proceedings, even if they are not disrupting proceedings in any detrimental way. It is also crucial that people are able to access minutes, agendas and background papers online so that we can take advantage of modern technology to disseminate information more widely and quickly. Our amendments seek to make sure that that is possible and, taken together, will increase transparency and access to information.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. I wonder whether, in the general thrust of her discussion of the amendments, she will cover the issue of having a lot of council meetings in closed session. I think that, as far as openness and transparency are concerned, unless there are particular reasons for council business being held in closed session, it should be conducted in open session. Has she dealt with that or does she have an opinion on that?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I suppose that the audio recording that we suggest would help by providing more openness for members.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I mean no disrespect, but is it appropriate for the Member to turn around when speaking and address one other Member rather than the Chamber? It does not help, even from the point of view of hearing what is being said.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

It is a fair point of order. I know that the Member is not doing it deliberately. Maybe it is important to stress that all remarks should be made through the Chair.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I apologise, Mr Speaker, and accept the Member's guidance. The Member's —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Yes, words fail you.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

His opinion. His comment.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you would rule on a matter. I absolutely understand that all comments should be through the Chair, but does that mean that they should be to the Chair? It is part of debate that you can turn round and engage with people. Obviously, due respect must be given to you, Mr Speaker, but I am not sure that it is entirely inappropriate for the Member to turn round and acknowledge my point. Otherwise, I would be looking at the back of her head.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

It is a courtesy to the Chair. We also find that when some Members turn around it creates difficulties with the amplifying and recording systems. I can understand that Members sometimes naturally feel that they need to turn around when they get an intervention from a Member behind them. I am reasonably relaxed about it, but I think that it is important that, as far as possible, Members turn to the Chair.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. I appreciate the guidance from the Speaker. Of course, the Speaker knows that I have the greatest respect for him and that that was not meant to be a slight. I do like to talk to people face to face and look them in the eye. I am speaking to you, but he is behind me.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I can certainly understand.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. I think that closed sessions in councils should not be the norm. Public open sessions should be the norm, and closed sessions should be the exception, with good reasons for holding them in that way.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course. [Inaudible.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I know that you are not to turn round.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not turn the issue of Members turning around into a full debate. I appreciate that Members have to turn around for a few seconds. I do not think that there is anything wrong with that. Let us move on. We have an important Bill that we are trying to get through the House.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am sympathetic to the Member's amendment No 22, but I want to explore with her what her view is about the extent of its application. It is worded in terms of recording any meeting of the council that is open to the public. Surely, part of the problem with the Bill is that it anticipates that a lot of the actual, real decisions will be made in an executive committee of the council — not by, or in, the council at all. Does the Member's amendment at all seek to address meetings that are held in a Cabinet-style committee or elsewhere, or is she content that her amendment would only apply to full meetings of the council?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his intervention. We intend the audio recording to take place only in public meetings of the council. That is to avoid people saying, "I said that" or "I did not say that". That is a good record. If I may continue, Mr Speaker, I will explain a bit further.

Our first amendment, No 20, makes changes to clause 46, which can be read as prohibiting photography and real-time reports, including on social media. The current wording that nothing "requires a council to permit" such activities, in our view, is too stringent and too open to interpretation. We are proposing to reword that to require a council to facilitate anything that is "reasonably practicable". That is a common legal phrase and would allow the council to refuse to permit anything that is causing a distraction, such as flash photography, for example, or oral reports that are interrupting proceedings. The amendment turns clause 46 from a shield against public access to information into a sword for the public who wish to engage with the council.

Our next amendment, No 21, simply inserts the phrase:

"as soon as is reasonably practicable",

into the wording of sections about placing papers online. The reason for that is twofold. The first is that it will speed up publication. The second is that it should require minutes and background papers to be placed online before the meeting takes place.

Similarly, amendment No 23 requires that the background papers which are available to the public in council offices are also available online. In the modern age, the Internet gives us the opportunity to open up councils to the public in a way that was inconceivable in previous generations. We should take advantage of that. For the same reason, I am happy to back amendment No 3 from the UUP regarding online publication of constitutions.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Just before she moves off the point of amendment No 22, I refer her to new clause 48A(2), which states:

"This section does not apply in relation to meetings of any committee or sub-committee".

While the Member finds her place on that amendment, I will just say that I wonder why that restriction has been brought in. Why is it necessary to have that second subsection? If we are trying to have openness and transparency, surely it should all be open and transparent.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am still finding the place.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Ms Lo is looking at her papers. She will find that it is clause 48A(2) in the amendments. She might also consider, in dealing with the same point, that if we are to be open and transparent in the Internet world, as you were talking about, whether one needs to consider if members have to be present in the chamber, or could it be possible that they could phone in or be available by video conferencing, as we do sometimes in the courts? I wonder whether she has extended her openness to that point. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Ms Lo has found her place. I look forward to her response.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Our amendment is only about making audio recordings and publishing papers online. It tries to improve the process by putting information on the website as soon as reasonably practicable, before and after meetings, to increase transparency for members of the public.

Amendment No 22 is the most significant of the Alliance amendments on transparency. It requires councils to create and place online an audio recording of proceedings. There are a few things to stress about the amendment: it relates to meetings of the full council only, as I said earlier, and not to meetings of committees and subcommittees.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Ms Lo, the bit about it relating only to the full council was the point that I was looking for. You specifically exclude any meetings of committees or subcommittees. I was wondering why you felt that that was necessary, because, in the interests of openness and transparency, we should, perhaps, be doing all council business online and making it available for the public to observe what is happening.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, I understand the Member's point.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Lord Morrow may have a similar intervention.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Sure.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My intervention takes an opposite direction to Mr McCrea's. As one who has served on a council for some years, I feel that the amendment will not have the effect of helping debate and discussion; it will do the exact opposite. We need to keep in mind that we are talking about councils that regularly deal with community-based issues. I feel that, if this is introduced, councillors may well be put off. That is not in any way saying, Mr Speaker, that I am not for transparency, because I believe that transparency is essential. I do not think that the proposed amendment would add to it; I think that it would hinder and obstruct the effective working of a council. I ask Anna Lo to give that consideration when pushing the amendment, because this may not be the best way to go. I ask her to look seriously at that.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

First, I will address Basil McCrea's point about whether we should extend the amendment to committee and subcommittee meetings. I think that audio recording is a first step. There will be so many committee and subcommittee meetings that there may be a logistical reason not to extend. If we start with audio recording all public council meetings, where all of the decisions are discussed and further discussed —

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Ms Lo, for your comments. I heard Lord Morrow's comment that he thinks that audio recording might act to inhibit main council meetings. My experience of similar length, 32 years on Carrickfergus Borough Council, was the opposite. We were always a very open council. Despite many rows and arguments over the years, all of our meetings, to the best of our ability, were open to the public and the press. We never moved to the point of recording meetings, but I think that that is the next logical step. Amendment No 22 presents to the House an open baseline for the standard that we expect in our new local authorities. These are new local authorities that, hopefully, will be fit for purpose for many years.

I know that Ms Lo will agree that recording at least the main meeting of a council is a step in the right direction. I wholly agree with Mr McCrea that, subsequently, that should also include committees and subcommittees of those councils. It may even be that we can move that forward at Further Consideration Stage. This is about setting a baseline standard. It is a standard that the House meets daily. It is what is happening as I speak, and there is absolutely no reason why it should not happen in the new local government arrangements.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Before Anna Lo speaks again, I will say that Mr Dickson makes my point admirably. He started off by stating that the council that he belonged to was open and transparent. I have no reason to disbelieve that; I accept that. I am sure that he is not claiming that he brought all the transparency to Carrick.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

No.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I know you are not saying that, so do not get excited. However, the inference could well be that other councils are not open and transparent. Therefore, I think that it puts a shadow of suspicion where there never ever should be one. The few words that I said earlier put the case for not doing what Mr Dickson says should be done. Can he explain any way in which it has been very helpful in his council, bearing in mind that it was already so open and transparent in everything that it thought, said and did? I put that directly to the Member.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before Mr Dickson gets to his feet again, I make it absolutely clear that it is Anna Lo who has the Floor. It is her decision about whether she gives the Floor. That is just to clarify the position.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. It is healthy to have a good debate on the issues. In response to what Lord Morrow said, I think that, if councils are transparent, there is nothing to fear from recording the proceedings of meetings. It would also serve as a record for people to refer to later rather than having to argue about whether someone said something.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I have no real understanding of why Lord Morrow is concerned. We practice it in this Building. Very few of our Committee meetings are held in closed session — only very small sections of them when we are obtaining legal advice — and there is still a record kept for members. Why would we not want and welcome that openness and transparency in moving away from the idea of councillors in smoke-filled rooms doing some sort of deal? I know that the pro-smoking wing of the DUP has been extinguished, but I am surprised that they are fearful of that openness.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am grateful for the Member's intervention.

I will go back to what I was saying. I want to stress a few things about this amendment. It relates only to meetings of the full council and not to meetings of committees and subcommittees. However, as our Chief Whip said, we may consider extending it at Further Consideration Stage or have a look at it and then see about extending it at some other stage. It would not affect councils that currently make video recordings and place them online. They would be able to continue doing that.

The cost of audio-only recordings has been examined by some councils in England. The cost per year is hundreds of pounds rather than thousands. Canterbury City Council told us that it cost them only £160 to buy the audio equipment. So, the cost is not excessive in any way.

This is crucial, because it would no longer be acceptable that, if someone wished to follow their local council's proceedings, they could do so only if it is at a convenient time. For little cost, we can provide a service for residents and ratepayers that will increase transparency.

However, this amendment also fits in well with the other amendments in this group on the councillors' code of conduct. What better way is there to discover whether councillors said things, in the chamber at least, that breach that code than to have an audio recording of what was said? In fact, such a record of proceedings may encourage councillors to behave more appropriately. Most crucially, it sends a signal that the new councils cannot take for granted their responsibilities in transparency. It will be a signal that, in some areas, councils will now be mature, modern and open institutions, which they should be.

All these amendments are more important now than before, as our councils will be acquiring a whole range of functions of significant clout, such as regeneration, planning and local economic development. Those are hefty responsibilities, and they require a significant increase in scrutiny to ensure that they are exercised effectively, fairly and openly. Access to information should be a default position anyway, but it is all the more crucial now that we are investing significant new powers in our councils.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker, she thought that the proposals in the amendment were "unworkable". Why are they unworkable? Surely, as Ms Lo outlined, recording equipment is very cheap, and we can manage it. Why is it unworkable?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak at this Consideration Stage of the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the Committee staff, the departmental officials and all those who took part in the Committee consultation process and gave evidence. I think that there were some very telling contributions and a lot of participation.

I do not intend to speak for long, but there are a couple of amendments that I would like to air some views on. We had the opportunity at Committee, which other Members would not have had as they are not part of the Committee. They will get their chance over the next two days to air their views. I want to pick up on one or two major ones that came up. There are other issues being brought to the Floor today that came up in the Chamber, and it is every Member's right to bring those back to the Chamber.

On a couple of points of clarity, I welcome amendment Nos 1 and 2 on the Minister bringing forward clarity on the code of conduct and the issue of a council having to produce the constitution by April 2015. The other issue brought up and discussed by Ms Anna Lo is the audio. In principle I agree with it and do not have any issues with it. There may be an issue of a burden of cost, and the Minister has relayed that in his contribution. Maybe the Minister will consider supporting councils in installing an audio system. Maybe he will give his views on that. There is a cost factor, but in principle I do not see an issue with the audio recordings.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Certainly, yes.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

From my understanding, you buy the equipment for as little as £150 or £200 and just turn it on. We put things online now so often, so I do not think that it would be too costly. The super-councils with the bigger budgets should be able to manage that without a problem. Moreover, it is only for the full councils, which is only once a month.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Thanks very much for that. However, there is recording equipment and maintenance that goes along with it. That is my only concern on that matter, but I am content to support the amendment. I do not intend to support amendment No 20 on the photographing. I welcome amendment No 24 and the clarification from —

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Certainly, yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I am just curious. The Member said that he would not be happy to support the issue about photographs but did not give a reason why. Why would we not have openness and transparency? We have video all the way around here. Why should we not have maximum transparency to see what is going on, unless it disrupts proceedings?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

To be honest, it is a fair point, but I think that audio recordings of any council meeting are sufficient. I take on board the point that Mr Morrow made about the recording of information —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Leaving aside the issue of the audio recordings, which I will touch on later in my contribution, is the distinction not between amendment Nos 20 and 22 in that regard? Mention has been made of the fact that, in this Chamber, we video proceedings, as, indeed, happens in a lot of Parliaments or Assemblies. I cannot think of a single elected body where anybody who is viewing it is allowed to snap photographs. For instance, anybody coming into the Public Gallery today will have been asked to remove any mobile phones or photographic equipment, and it is the same anywhere else. If they were to facilitate that, there would be nothing to stop a member of the public coming in and taking photographs all around them during a council meeting. Sometimes — I have seen this happen and there had to be interventions — it can be done in a malevolent fashion and can act as an intimidatory factor on those in the chamber. From that point of view, although I certainly have problems with amendment No 22, I think that the case against amendment No 20 is even stronger.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for the intervention. I certainly agree with him in this case. It does not happen here, but some of the comments that Lord Morrow made earlier were supportive of that in council as well.

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

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes.

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

The Member is being most generous. Sometimes, if people take photographs, they could be used to misrepresent the situation in a chamber if someone has had to leave to take an urgent call, for example. We already have a lot of openness in our local authorities. Minutes are available in public libraries after each meeting, and a lot of stuff is now on the Internet. We have already seen conflict and people being intimidated in some council chambers. I do not think that we need any further tools to misrepresent people doing their official duties.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Once again, I thank the Member for her intervention. I will get started at some point. I agree with you: photographs certainly can be used to misrepresent people.

Perhaps Mr McCrea's intention is to make all his contributions today through interventions, which I do not mind. That may be his plan of attack.

Some of the amendments are consequential. However, I certainly would like to have the debate. We have a number of legal people in the Chamber. An amendment has been brought forward that relates to an appeal to the commissioner. There is a judicial review process, but we are concerned that this has come about. Most of the issues brought forward have been around a challenge to a statutory body. We are talking here about an individual who may not have the means to bring forward a judicial review. I am open to suggestions, but I wonder, Minister, whether consideration has been given to something along the lines of having an investigative part and then an adjudication process. Maybe that is open for discussion. I feel that, as we set into and bed down a new system of councils, we do not know what the outcomes will be or what will take place. In bringing forward a new system, there needs to be a wee bit of flexibility until it beds down and we see how the whole process works. There are consequential amendments to that, but I would like to hear other views on how we deal with a process that could impact on a councillor.

We have discussed a lot of these things in Committee. There is only one other amendment that I want to touch on, and that is amendment No 83. I think that it should be up to councils to consider domain names. The debate came up in Committee. Selecting a domain name should be down to councils. We are, after all, transferring powers to empower councils, and amendment No 83 is one example of where councils would be able to use their influence on how they want to go forward, promote their areas and get the message out to their constituents in the new council format. I will not be supporting that amendment.

As I said, we have discussed most of the issues, so I am content, having given my views on those amendments.

The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.

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

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Maybe the Speaker should not have warned people that I was up first after the break, but I do not intend to speak for too long on this section of the debate.

We all owe a debt of thanks to the current Minister, Minister Durkan, the previous Minister, Alex Attwood, and all the officials who worked tirelessly to ensure that we got to this point. Many told us that we would not get to this point and that RPA was never going to be delivered. Although it sat on the shelf for far too long, once the SDLP Ministers came into office, the process moved very quickly. We are finally at the stage where we will have elections to new councils and there will be a whole new era in local government. The SDLP, obviously and loudly, had reservations around some of the decisions that were previously taken by the Executive around the number of councils and everything else, but we are absolutely committed to delivering on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for change in how we operate councils and interact with the public in local government.

When we mention change, we should be mindful of the people who have retired recently or who are retiring as councillors right across the North. I was a councillor for six years, but in very different times to when some of my colleagues served. Being a councillor in this part of the world was a difficult and, at times, dangerous job, and many paid the ultimate price. It is important that we acknowledge those people when we look to the future. However, we look to the future with great hope. The Bill, the processes around it and the way in which councillors take up the challenge should enshrine not only in law but in people's minds a more ethical, open and inclusive way to run local government. That is what the Bill and many of the amendments aim to do. It is an exciting time for anybody who will stand in the elections in May and will take up the challenge to get the new councils up and running. We should all embrace that as an exciting opportunity for the North of Ireland.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I acknowledge the praise that he has given to his party colleagues the Minister and former Minister. He is right: a lot of people, myself included, were a bit sceptical that this might not happen, but it is going to happen. Is the Member confident that, at the end of it, the savings that were supposed to happen when RPA was initiated many years ago will come about?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I encourage Members to return to the debate on the amendments that are in front of us.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that bit of latitude. I wanted to make some remarks at the beginning of my contribution.

I hope that we can achieve the savings. As we said a number of years ago, it should not have taken RPA for people to start looking at how they do local government better. There were loads of opportunities in improvement, collaboration and efficiency (ICE) that councils could have been working on together to reduce some of their costs. Some did that very well, but others not so well. However, there is a real impetus to ensure that we get value for money for our local ratepayers.

Perhaps the Deputy Speaker will allow me one more bit of latitude. This is very important legislation. The last section of the debate will be about flags. The media are completely and utterly obsessed with that section of the debate. We need to be mindful that this legislation is much more important than that issue alone. This is a once-in-a-lifetime change to how we do local government; it is not a flags Bill, and it will not be a flags Bill by the time we finish.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will, yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

On that point — I have no doubt that we will come to flags later in the debate — does the Member feel that, given that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, we are actually ready for this debate? There are a lot of amendments that have not been before the Committee. A lot of things will be dealt with in secondary or other legislation. Is the Member confident that we are ready to deal with it?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I ask Members to come back to this amendment. We have now reached this stage of the Bill, and we are here to discuss and decide on individual amendments. There have been other stages of the Bill for wider issues to be discussed, and, ultimately, at Final Stage, Members can discuss wider issues and whether they are in favour. We are here today to speak about the amendments that are in front of us in the various groupings, so I urge Members to come on to those amendments.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With regard to your point about the debate, I ask you to rule whether it is in order for the Minister to have tabled amendments that have not yet been before the Committee. There are other issues, but I seek clarity on that particular position.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That is a matter for the Minister to deal with. He will speak at the end of this section of the debate.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thanks for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Committee was informed last week that the Minister had received conflicting legal advice. It was on the basis of the latest legal advice that a lot of those amendments came in. To be honest, great work has been done between the Committee and the Department. There have been many hours of debate and discussion on a lot of these issues. Of course, some issues have been brought by Members from different parties that were not discussed at the Committee. That is not ideal. However, it is still the Member's right to table amendments. He would have had that right equally.

We need to park the issue of flags. All the members of the political reference group agreed that RPA was not the vehicle for dealing with that. It has to be dealt with in a separate process. It would have been better had it been dealt with before Christmas, but we are where we are.

With regard to the amendments that are in front of us, one of the main thrusts of the review of local government has to be about openness and transparency and ensuring that people are accountable for the actions that they take in local government. A lot of the work on the code of conduct is around that, and it is what some of the very good amendments deal with in particular. They will allow councillors to be open to more scrutiny. That can only make sense and be good for the political process.

Although we have difficulty with photography and those issues, which have already been thrashed out, the issue of audio recordings is one that we can live with very happily. We have to ensure that we do not place an undue financial burden on councils, but it makes sense in this day and age to allow the public to engage with their councillors in a very different way from what was maybe possible in the past. The onus is then on councils to make their debates interesting and useful. Sometimes we get very worried and worked up about —

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I refer to clause 50(1), which states:

"Sections 46 to 49 apply in relation to a committee or sub-committee of a council as they apply in relation to a council."

Given that the Member has just supported audio for councils, does he feel that that clause should be supported in the main Bill, which of course is contrary to amendments that have been tabled by the Alliance Party? In other words, if you think that audio is appropriate for a main council, do you think that clause 50 should apply in that regard?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I cannot find the clause now, but the thrust of my view and that of the SDLP is that openness and accountability should apply everywhere. It should apply in full council, in committees and in executive meetings. Anybody who has been a councillor understands that we have to have a balance around this stuff and there are issues of commercial sensitivity. I sat on a staff committee in Derry City Council for a number of years. Those meetings were private, as they should have been. It was right that they were private and confidential. However, where possible, we should err on the side of openness and transparency. I think that that position is shared right across. I do not see any difficulty with opening up other meetings within council to that kind of scrutiny, with the caveats that I suggested.

I will end my contribution on this section there. I hope that we can have a fruitful and not-too-long debate through the rest of the next couple of days.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Clearly, the Bill has come a long way. I think that it is only 14 years since the proposal to start it off was made, back in 2000. However, we are where we are at this stage.

I would like to put on record my disappointment that the Bill came forward at such short notice last week and that Members and parties only had a day and a half to table their amendments. I have already relayed that to officials, but I just wanted to put it on the record here.

I want to touch on a number of matters in this specific group of amendments, the first of which is about the Ulster Unionist Party amendments. Our first amendment, which is amendment No 3, provides that a council's constitution must be available on its website. There seems to be widespread agreement on that. I take the Committee Chair's point about the need for other things to be available by electronic means and on the website, which her party is proposing. So, there seems to be pretty widespread support. I also support those things being available in as many ways as possible, and, obviously, a website is one way.

Our second amendment, which is amendment No 83, does not seem to have the same widespread support in the House. It provides for regulations for standard website names and domains. Clearly, what the Ulster Unionist Party wants to do here is have a consistent approach to website and domain names. That is important. It is easy for people to get in contact with us at the Assembly by email. A lot of people now know that the Northern Ireland Assembly website address is niassembly.gov.uk. It would be extremely beneficial and helpful if all councils had a consistent approach. It would make the lives of people on the ground much easier when they wanted to contact councils or individual councillors or, indeed, to find out information from a website. There is no use putting information on a website if it is not easily accessible, easy to get to and easy to manoeuvre to through the website. That is our main reason for wanting to do this: it is about simplicity and consistency. I know that, even at this stage, some of the transition committees have already started to put forward website names and domains, but I do not think that that is helpful until there is a consistent approach. I hope that Members can see their way to coming round to support this.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I certainly support his approach to this. Does the Member agree that it would be a pity if we had a scattergun approach to domain names? Generally, across the UK, there is a high level of consistency, and the only reason to shift from that would be for particular political reasons. The concern is that a lot of people who search for a particular council and its services etc look for a standard approach, as do tourists and visitors. If one or more councils had a domain name outside the UK norm, that could disadvantage tourism and trade in their area. People would be less able to find that domain. It would be a pity if people were prepared to play politics with domain names to the detriment of their area.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that. Obviously, people are using this as a political issue, which is unfortunate. The people who will find difficulties are tourists, businesspeople, those who want to invest here and, indeed, the general public and ratepayer. They are the people who deserve the service and who will find the most difficulty. Consistency is vital.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thanks to the Member for giving way. I am no expert in search engine optimisation, if that is the correct term, but has the Member any evidence to suggest that consistency in council websites has any impact on tourism? I imagine that, if you put, for example, "Derry City Council" into Google, you will find it.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member will appreciate that we do not have any hard evidence at this stage, but there is plenty of anecdotal information in the form of people trying to access what they are looking for. You only have to try that yourself to establish that a consistent approach makes things much easier to find through search engines, and that is clear for everyone to realise.

I will move on directly to amendment Nos 20, 21, 22 and 23. As Ms Lo said, amendment Nos 21 and 23 concern putting more information on to websites and making information more easily available. The Ulster Unionist Party is quite happy to support them.

We have some difficulties with amendment No 20, particularly with privacy issues and the significant onus that it puts on councils, especially on photographs. It could lead to members of the public taking photographs at will in council chambers. I cannot remember who said that, but it may have been Mr Weir in an intervention. I am concerned about the outworkings of that and how it would progress. We have difficulties with that amendment.

Moving on —

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, I am happy to give way.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I understand the Member's point about photographs being taken at will. However, he is aware that events in this Chamber are being streamed live on the Internet for people to see. Would that be acceptable? Obviously, there is no intrusion. Would that find support from the Ulster Unionist Party?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I assume that Mr McCrea is supporting his being seen as much as possible through whatever means. His point that the Northern Ireland Assembly is streamed live is correct. I am not so sure that each council would want to go that far. That brings me to amendment No 22 on audio recording. Indeed, you could have visual recording as well. I have some sympathy with this. However, I have concerns about some aspects of it, including the financial. Ms Lo said that the equipment would cost only about £150. For a number of reasons, I am always sceptical about such figures being thrown out. One reason is that I very much doubt that, for that amount, you would get audio equipment that could record all councils and make the recording available on disk. You then have other costs, such as secretarial and administrative costs. I am aware of audio equipment costing huge amounts, and not just in the region of just £150. So, before we insist on councils doing it, we should get a much better costing, but I am not averse to it.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, I am happy to give way.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Look at some findings. In England, the conclusion was that it would be only a few hundred pounds, and you could start with whatever equipment you want to buy. We were told by Canterbury City Council that it can be as cheap as £160 to buy equipment now. I am not into equipment, but there is a simple device that costs only a few hundred pounds a year to maintain.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Here we go again with a few hundred pounds a year. I do not know how accurate it is, but I am told that one council got an estimate of £170,000 to install the equipment, whereas you are talking about a level there and then a level down to £150, so there is a huge amount of research to do on that. As I say, I am not totally averse or opposed to it. In fact, I am quite supportive of making recordings available, but it needs to be tailored.

There is also the issue that they must be retained for six years. I do not know what the statutory requirement is, but we may need to check that. I am sure that the amendment is legally competent; there is no question around that, but we need to check out whether the statutory requirement is indeed for a shorter time. If it is, maybe we could look at a shorter time required for retention.

I am happy to take on board any further views on this. I am supportive of recording the full council meetings. Mr McCrea raised the issue of committees and subcommittees. In the Assembly, almost everything is available. Some councils make most committees available as well, but I do not know how widespread that is. All I can talk about is the council that I was on in Fermanagh. We found that, whenever council committees were held in private, you got a lot more business carried out. You had that bit of an opportunity to allow that business to proceed in private and then debate it in the open chamber at a full council meeting. I felt that that worked quite well because you had the opportunity of the privacy of the committee and then the openness of the full council meeting.

Maybe there is a wee bit of streamlining to be done to try to get all councils to the one position on this. It would be helpful if there was a consistent approach across councils. I would be supportive of that.

I do not want to deal too much with the Committee amendments because we have been through them verbatim in Committee. I note there is some opposition to them. If a councillor is charged because of some issue, it is important that there is an appeal mechanism to the High Court. The Minister indicated that it should go straight to a judicial view, but the other mechanism may be more efficient and practical.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

As the Member who spoke previously indicated, this has been a long time in coming; nevertheless, it is to be welcomed that we have reached this stage. I thank the officials. Also, in going through what was a lengthy process during Committee Stage, a large number of stakeholders were proactive in raising issues.

Given the length of the Bill, it was always likely that there would have to be some changes. I appreciate that there will be a few issues on which some of us will find ourselves in opposition to what the Minister is saying or vice versa. In general, I thank the departmental officials and the Minister for their attitude, openness and willingness to work with the Committee. The end result is that we have large number of amendments. Although the concentration will obviously be on those amendments where there is division, a large number of them have been effectively agreed between the Committee and the Department. That is reflected by the extent to which the Department took amendments on board.

The theme with the group 1 amendments is one that we will see throughout the debate. It was Mr Eastwood, I think, who said that we need a balancing act between consistency in our approach to the amendments on the one hand and flexibility on the other. Similarly, a balance needs to be struck between being prescriptive in how we see things being run and, on the flip side, allowing councils the opportunity to decide certain things for themselves.

To that extent, a lot of the amendments are relatively uncontroversial. Let me say at the outset that all the group 1 amendments that the Department tabled are ones that I favour, and the same is the case for the Committee's amendments.

Mention has been made of a couple of the Ulster Unionist Party amendments. Amendment No 3, which is on greater information, is one that we are happy to support. Due to the timescale involved, the Committee was not able to give its verdict on amendment No 83. However, where domain names are concerned, a degree of common sense should be applied that says that there should be a level of consistency throughout. To that extent, we also support amendment No 83.

The controversial amendments in this group boil down to five, which can then largely be divided into two groups. First, the Alliance amendments include amendment Nos 20 and 22. I do not think that anybody would have a particular issue with amendment No 21. Secondly, there are the Committee amendments, which are amendment Nos 25, 26 and 27 and which deal with the appeals mechanism.

Turning first to the Alliance's amendment Nos 20 and 22, it is important that we do not conflate two issues, even though there are similarities between them. The openness of councils to the public is a different one to that of photographs and recordings. There were some interventions earlier on, and at one stage, I did not think that Ms Lo would be in a position to get on her feet, because it seemed that the interventions were batting back and forth. She was almost caught in no-man's-land as the shots were fired back and forth.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You mean the Alliance Party.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Some might say that, but it is probably not for me to comment.

There are specific provisions already in the legislation for admission to council meetings. Where access is concerned, clause 46(1) and beyond indicate that the presumption of openness is in the Bill. So, irrespective of whether particular amendments are passed at this stage, we should drill down to the specific issues on the photographic and audio recording side of things. There are provisions that cater for openness.

On amendment No 20, I share the view of a number of Members who have spoken, including the Minister and the previous Member to speak. I think that care needs to be taken with the issue of photographs. Hopefully, we not creating 11 mini-Assembly's across Northern Ireland. Taking that on board, as well as the fact that it is not quite the same thing, the rules and regulations in the Assembly mean that we do not have people taking photographs in the Public Gallery. Indeed, recording devices, cameras and camera phones are all expressly forbidden and are removed from members of the public before they come in.

That is not a theoretical example; I have seen situations, particularly at times of high tension, where a member of the public has brought a camera into the Public Gallery. I have also seen a situation where, effectively in retaliation, a councillor has produced a camera and started trying to take photographs of members of the public. That led to a degree of heightening of tensions on both occasions, and on one, there was a natural suspicion, whether true or not, that it was being done simply to intimidate and to ratchet up a problem.

Consequently, I think that the opportunity for members of the public to be there is right, but whenever facilitation is given for the taking of photographs of proceedings at any stage, it can be taken out of context and used for the wrong purposes. I think, therefore, that what is there at present is sufficient, and so I oppose amendment No 20.

Similarly, there are a couple of issues around amendment No 22. There is a high level of disparity of information about the cost. It goes beyond simply obtaining the equipment: it covers the use and maintenance of it, as well as the publication of the recordings and their attachment to the website. On one hand, we have had evidence given that one council had a figure of £160 for capital installation, as has been indicated, and, on the other hand, Mr Elliott said that he had heard of an occasion where it was valued at £170,000. There is quite a disparity between those two figures, although I suspect that both are likely to be reasonably inaccurate. This is not going to be an entirely cheap solution. We should remember that, in any duty that we are imposing, whatever the cost, we are imposing a cost to the ratepayer, and we are volunteering that piece of information.

It also strikes me that, if you have a situation where publication on a website is to be held for two years and tapes, or whatever recordings, are to be retained for six years, and I am happy to receive clarification from the proposer, but six years is, particularly with reference to legal cases —

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will happily give way.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Six years is the period for which the Bill specifies that minutes must be kept. Mr Weir talked about the range of costs, but when any of us buys a TV or any equipment we have a big range. It will be up to the budget and up to the council to decide what is a reasonable cost to pay to buy a piece of equipment. We can buy a cheap TV for £90 or spend £2,000 or £3,000. As for continuing costs, once you have the equipment, they will not be awfully expensive. It is a small price to pay for transparency.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I take on board the points that have been made, but transparency is best shown by the openness of the council meeting to anyone who can attend as well as the publication of the minutes. A verbatim account seems to go beyond that.

I appreciate that quotations of many tens of thousands of pounds may seem excessive. It could well be that audio equipment could cost a number of thousands of pounds: we do not really know. The idea that a council would not chose a fairly high standard of equipment beggars belief. Councils are not going to go down to the Saturday or Sunday car-boot sale and pick up whatever equipment they can get for the cheapest possible rate. They are going to want stuff that is of a high standard, and they will spend a reasonable amount of money on it.

I do not think that the timescale is necessary. I presume that the period of six years, and reference throughout to the six years, has been selected because of the limitation of a civil case being taken by way of an action. I appreciate that the amendment copies what is in other parts of legislation, but I assume that that is the source intention.

If I were on a council, I would have no problem with meetings being audio-recorded, but I think that that is one of the areas where the level of prescription should, largely speaking, be determined by councils.

There is a concern. There have been disputes on Castlereagh Borough Council, for instance. Let us not try to sort out what happened in Castlereagh by way of legislation that will apply across all of Northern Ireland. With the greatest respect, we should not be fighting those turf wars here. It should be up to individual councils to decide how best to provide that level of transparency. It seems unduly prescriptive that the Assembly should dictate that there should be a system that says that there must be audio recordings, which must be on the council website for the next two years and must be held for six years, presumably contained in some sort of safe area. As such, it is better that councils find their own solutions.

There is a divergence between the Committee and the Department on amendment Nos 25, 26 and 27. A lot of representations were made, particularly by local councils, councillors and representative bodies. It was said that we were putting in place a particularly regulatory regime — when it comes to the code of conduct there is no alternative other than to do that — that gives the commissioner an opportunity to investigate, adjudicate and, essentially, punish a councillor who is found guilty, leading to disqualification of that person. Moreover, that is done in a vacuum. The individual could be very properly or perhaps maliciously accused of whatever wrongdoing, but there is no appeal mechanism whatsoever after the verdict is produced.

It has been mentioned that that can happen with any administrative decision of judicial review. Amendment Nos 25 to 27 do not preclude judicial review, but they do widen the grounds, for instance, on the issue of severity. Indeed, the grounds that the Committee chose and that have been drafted are not unique. In amendment No 26, as I understand it, the grounds for appeal, which are not grounds for a judicial review, are taken directly from the situation in Scotland, mirroring precisely the grounds on which an appeal can be taken there. With the best will in the world, at times in Northern Ireland there can be accusations of malevolence, false accusations, and so on.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank Mr Weir for giving way. As a compromise, would it be possible to divide up the ombudsman's position, and let him investigate complaints and someone else adjudicate? Could members agree on that level of compromise?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I was going to come on to that issue. The Chairperson may be a mind reader. On that basis, perhaps she should pick a few lottery numbers for some folk on Saturday.

I will deal with some other aspects, but I will address that point directly. It has been mentioned that — it is a slightly spurious argument — there is a concern about the constitutional propriety of having the ombudsman's position in some way challenged and that that would be a unique situation. I argue that this is different from the normal ombudsman's position anyway, but let us set that aside for the moment. If the feeling, on consultation, is that to have an appeal of an ombudsman's decision pushes the boundaries of the constitutional position so far — it seems fairly clear that the amendments are likely to be passed today — one option for the Department would be to bring amendments at Further Consideration Stage effectively to separate out the powers. The argument seems to be not to challenge the investigative powers of the ombudsman and not to challenge the opportunity to make a report but to challenge the final verdict or the adjudication, be it at interim or final level. I suspect that the departmental officials are now going fairly white at the prospect as the colour drains from their faces, but one way around this is to separate out the powers so that someone in a different body carries out the adjudication. That is really only possible if these amendments are passed, but it is something that the Department could ultimately consider.

If the Department were to bring forward an amendment to divide up the roles so that the ombudsman investigated and produced a report but the adjudication and, indeed, any sentencing effectively came from a separate person or body, I would certainly be happy to consider that. I think that, at times, the commissioner has been a little bit precious on this issue. We are talking about somebody's reputation. Even if they were to successfully overturn a decision through judicial review or at some later court stage, their reputation will have been dragged through the mud. Even if it is shown at a later stage that they are cleared of wrongdoing, their career may be ruined. With the best will in the world, whatever level the remuneration is pitched at, it is essentially a part-time job, and it is not normal practice to have a situation where somebody, in their employment, can essentially be told, "You have been found guilty. By the way, you have no right of appeal". Due process and natural justice indicates that people should have some form of appeal. That is not set at a low level. We have fairly stringent grounds even within the criteria proposed in amendment No 26, but it is right that some form of appeal is available to people beyond simply the extremely narrow grounds of judicial review. This widens it out; not massively, but it does widen it out.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Weir. I recall that it is not as simple as the ombudsman making a decision and the person who was complained about having no recourse to change the decision or to answer the complaint. My understanding of the process is that, before a decision is finally made, the person can go to speak with the ombudsman, even with legal representation, and discuss the decision. So, it is not as black and white as the ombudsman sitting in a room by himself and making a decision that a person is guilty.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I understand that but, with respect to Ms Lo's position, it still means that the ombudsman is judge, jury and executioner. I am sure that some Members complained about legal processes for many years in Northern Ireland. Even when someone was up for murder in Northern Ireland, you could not be convicted of murder without a right of appeal. We are saying that someone convicted of the most heinous crime has a right of appeal, but someone who has effectively been convicted for misuse of being a councillor, or whatever terminology you want to use, has no right of appeal. To my mind, simply having the opportunity to discuss it with the commissioner before a final verdict is produced seems fairly inadequate, and natural justice says there should be some level of appeal.

As I said, I am perfectly open to the Department bringing forward amendments in connection with this. Indeed, this amendment would bring us much more closely into line with what happens in Scotland. There has been mention of the role of the ombudsman in coming to a final determination and that being unchallengeable. I would question, to some extent, whether that should be the case in any event, but there is a fundamental distinction between that and the normal role of the Commissioner for Complaints. In many ways, the normal operation of the Commissioner for Complaints is a situation in which there has already been a determination by a Department or a government body and, effectively, the ombudsman acts as the member of the public's appeal to that decision, such as where there has been a clear case of maladministration. Effectively, that comes in at the second stage. That is where the complaint and, indeed, the single conviction takes place directly against an individual. Whereas the ombudsman is effectively almost normally a form of appeal, this is about the verdict itself. That is the fundamental difference.

Secondly, on the implications of the decision, when the ombudsman rules on a complaint from a member of the public, they are, 99 times out of 100, ruling on a complaint against a government body or, perhaps, an arm's-length body. There is that opportunity. The implications may well be there for that body, but the implications for any individual within that body are severely limited. This provision, if it goes through without amendment, can allow the ombudsman to reach a verdict that disqualifies somebody from holding public office, effectively removing them from their job. That is of a fundamentally different nature from the normal run of things, if it were a ruling against the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health or whatever. That is where, I think, there is a fundamental difference, and why there is a need for an appeal mechanism. The grounds that we have in amendment Nos 25 to 27 is the way forward.

Again, I express the view that the commissioner is being a little bit precious on this point. If, ultimately, this is felt to be something that rocks the constitution, it seems slightly strange that the defenders of the constitutional position are the SDLP and maybe the rest of us are hoping to rock the constitution in that regard. However, if that is the case, and the Department feels strongly enough about it, there can be rectification of this by way of reasonably sensible amendment or amendments at Further Consideration Stage. There is that opportunity to rectify it by way of further amendments, which would separate the role of the ombudsman in investigation and reporting from that of adjudication and sentencing. If that is the case, I would be willing to give such amendments a fair wind and be happy enough to consider supporting them at Further Consideration Stage.

I will conclude on this group of amendments by saying that the DUP will oppose amendment Nos 20 and 22 but is happy to support the others in the group.

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

I have already intervened, during the contribution of Ms Lo, the Chair of the Committee, in relation primarily to amendment Nos 25, 26 and 27, which relate to the matters that Mr Weir has latterly discussed.

It seems to me that, although those amendments are well-intentioned and I am sympathetic to the general idea of an appeal in such circumstances where a councillor is adjudicated after due investigation as having done something wrong or contrary to the code of conduct, nonetheless, the legal implications are significant. This is based on legal advice obtained by the Minister, subsequent to the Committee meeting in which he engaged on this matter. That legal advice came not just from the departmental solicitor but included advice obtained by the Commissioner for Complaints. Let me summarise that legal advice: throughout these islands, no ombudsman or commissioner for complaints is or can be subject to appeal. That is the constitutional position in the UK, and I believe it to be so in the Republic. The reason for that is that an ombudsman is in a very special position and his investigation and adjudication is regarded as something that should not be appealable, save for judicial review, to which any public official or Department is subject. So, judicial review is the only instrument, as it were, of an effective appeal.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I take on board what has been said, although I have to say that I am not entirely persuaded by the argument. Surely, the way around this is as follows. There seems to be a widespread sympathy for the fact that no one should be potentially deprived of their job without some form of proper appeal mechanism. However, as indicated by Mr Maginness, it seems to centre on the issue of the extent to which, or whether at all, an ombudsman's position could be appealed. Surely the way around that is to accept the amendments that would involve an appeal, and then seek amendments at Further Consideration Stage to detach the adjudication issue from the ombudsman and give it to another body. Later we will be looking at amendments that give different interpretations of when, for example, a call-in could be made. So it is not as if these things are necessarily set in stone.

Surely that would be the way around that — to square the circle, remove that legal concern and ensure that we would have an opportunity to have an appeals mechanism.

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

I thank Mr Weir for his intervention. I neither agree nor disagree with what he said. Of course, there are all sorts of possibilities that one could raise at Further Consideration Stage to deal with this problem, and I am sure that those matters will be considered in due course by the Department and the Minister.

I think that it is important to put on record the reason for opposition to the amendments that have been tabled by the Committee. Having being critical of them, I accept that they are well-intentioned, but they have an undesirable effect of undermining the authority of the ombudsman. That is a particularly sensitive position in any society, and I think that there should be safeguards in relation to the ombudsman's position.

Mr Weir made the point about investigation and adjudication, and those are two elements. The ombudsman has had discussions with the Minister, as indicated in the Minister's letter to the Chair of the Committee of 27 February 2014. In that letter, he wrote that, when discussing that matter with him, the ombudsman indicated:

"if an appeal to the High Court is considered, this would undermine his position in relation to maladministration by setting a precedent that his decisions can be challenged on appeal."

That is made very plain in the letter. The letter also indicates that the ombudsman:

"would not be able, in this circumstance, to deal with both investigation and adjudication and that the adjudication element of the ethical standards framework would have to be referred to another body."

It was partly on that basis that the Minister wrote:

"this would be a significant deviation from the proposed policy approach which was agreed by the Executive."

That was part of the reason why the Minister opposes any amendment of that nature.

The ombudsman has made it very plain that, in his view, he could only deal with the investigation function and not the adjudication function. So, if the amendment were to be agreed, it might be rendered nugatory by the fact that the ombudsman would not want anything to do with the adjudication function. We really have to take that into consideration when considering these amendments.

That is all that I really want to say on the matter. There is, however, protection in the form of a judicial review. I know that it is expensive and difficult, but, nonetheless, the grounds of appeal that appear in the amendment are very reminiscent of a judicial review in any event. I think that the only —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, indeed.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I agree with the Member that the first four grounds in the amendment are very reminiscent of those that we argued about, such as Wednesbury unreasonableness, irrationality etc. There might be more difficulty in a judicial review arguing that it encompasses (e), which is that the "sanction imposed was excessive". One would be driven to relying on Wednesbury unreasonableness, and I think that there is a line of authority that indicates that the courts in judicial reviews are very reluctant to get involved in evaluating that. The ombudsman, if we call him that, has, in clause 62, very draconian powers, in that he can disqualify someone from being or becoming a councillor. Therefore, is there not some necessity to find some mechanism that addresses the issue of penalty? It seems somewhat excessive to give the ombudsman that full range of powers without applying a brake or review. Does the Member agree that there may be something there that requires to be looked at?

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

The Member makes a very reasonable point about (e), which states:

"that the sanction imposed was excessive."

That should be considered in the context of the debate. This is, if we involve the ombudsman, a difficult matter.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I take on board both points. The draft grounds for appeal, although there is overlap reminiscent of a lot of judicial reviews, go wider than judicial review because of the ground at (e). One could argue that some of the others stretch beyond what is the norm for judicial review. However, that is in line with the issue of severity, which is of particular importance. In the past, councillors have been struck off for five years or longer, so it is not unknown. If severity is one of the key considerations, it is unlikely to fall into the ambit of judicial review, and that highlights the need for appeal.

As has also been said, the potential solution has, in effect, been given by the ombudsman, although the wrong conclusion has been reached by the Department. He is opposed to there being an opportunity to appeal his verdict and has indicated, that, in such circumstances, he wants there to be a separation between the investigation and the adjudication. That seems to me the most sensible route. It ensures that there is a situation that allows for appeal, and, if the ombudsman is so protective of his position and wants to ensure that it does not create any precedent, it covers that situation as well.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I remind the Member that we will break for Question Time in a few moments.

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

I will conclude now. I take on board the points that Mr Weir made, but I go back to the original point that this is difficult if we involve the ombudsman or the Commissioner for Complaints. It is not an easy matter to resolve.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his plans, and the projected timescales, for the A5 western transport corridor. (AQO 5769/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

As I advised ministerial colleagues by letter on 27 February 2014, work is progressing on reports to inform the appropriate assessment process to address impacts on all areas with environmental designations — special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites — and proposed mitigation. There are four reports in all, dealing with nine environmentally sensitive sites. The reports will be the subject of a public consultation exercise expected to commence at the end of April 2014. A review of other matters considered in the environmental statement is ongoing and will lead to the publishing of an updated environmental statement, which will also require a public consultation exercise. The draft vesting order and direction order will also be reviewed and published at the same time as part of that process.

While I emphasise that I cannot in any way pre-empt the outcome of any public consultation exercise, an outline programme has been developed and the following key dates identified: in April 2014, there will be consultation on reports to inform the appropriate assessments associated with water-based special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites; consultation on the report to inform the Tully Bog special area of conservation appropriate assessment in September 2014; and, in November 2014, consultation on the updated environmental statement, together with the updated draft direction order and draft vesting order. That may lead to the need for a further public inquiry in the spring/summer of 2015.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his response and for answering my supplementary question in that response.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It was a very great pleasure.

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

Can the Minister give an assurance that the timescale will not be so elongated that the entire project becomes a victim of a comprehensive spending review? There are genuine fears that that might happen. Can the Minister give any reassurance that he and the Department are so committed that the project will not fall by default?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. The Member will know that the Executive remain committed to the scheme. Indeed, the Department continues to carry out all necessary work. I indicated that I could not in any way pre-empt the outcome of the public consultation exercise, in particular, and I have indicated the range of activities that will be necessary to keep the project moving. The financial considerations, of course, are a slightly different matter and, perhaps, more complex, given the commitment or lack of it by the Irish Government. So, all these matters have yet to be confirmed and determined, but, as it stands, the Department continues to work through the scheme and to remedy the areas of concern that Mr Justice Stephens outlined in his judgement.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that update. Can the Minister confirm whether he has any money in his budget that could be available for the A5? Has all of it been spent on other projects? If he has any money, how much is there?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. The only thing that he did not add was "Has he any money to spend on the Enniskillen bypass?", which, presumably, is his real purpose in asking. The Member will know that the A5 allocations have been redistributed and that the Executive, through me, have made the announcement on progress on the Magherafelt bypass and the A26 Frosses Road. It is important that money set aside for road projects continues to be spent on road projects. The House, in particular, will know the number and range of projects for which there is public and political support, including the Magherafelt bypass and the A26. No doubt other schemes will be referred to during Question Time. So, as I explained to the Member who asked the previous question, at this point in time, moneys that are allocated will be dependent on future financial settlements.

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

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development what lessons have been learned from the setback on the A5 project. (AQO 5770/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

After the successful legal challenge to the A5 western transport corridor dualling scheme in April 2013, I initiated a lessons learned review of my Department’s development of the A5 scheme. I asked, in particular, for an emphasis on environmental issues and the associated legislation. The findings of the review of the A5 project have resulted in improvements that are now applied to all major road improvement schemes. The improvements include ensuring the receipt of written confirmation of all consultations with statutory bodies, including the Loughs Agency, and some fine-tuning of the statutory orders and public inquiry procedures.

As those who have looked at this project's progress will be aware, it was during my predecessor's tenure that a screening exercise, as allowed by the habitats directive, was carried out on the Department's behalf by Mouchel, the consultants for the A5 project. I have also commissioned a review of Mouchel's work. That work is ongoing. The primary focus of the review is on the appropriate assessment and environmental statement processes. It is expected that further lessons can be learned from this exercise that can in turn be applied to this and other major road improvement schemes.

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

Minister, I appreciate that the mistakes occurred with your predecessor, the Sinn Féin Minister Conor Murphy. You have clarified some points. However, where accountability for this is concerned, who was ultimately responsible for the failure to deliver on the A5 project? Will your Department give any further thought to keeping some of those environmental assessments in-house in the Executive, such as through the NIEA?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question. I think that there are issues that Members and the general public deserve explanations for. We are not at the final stage of either report, that is, the lessons learned review in the Department or the inquiry into the work undertaken by consultants. However, we have sought to implement the preliminary results as we move forward not only on this but on other road schemes, and that is important. It is not unreasonable to expect explanations, but I have to say that a lot of it will hang on the original decision to proceed on the basis on which Conor Murphy gave authority in the previous mandate. It will be interesting to see the outcome of that.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Given the vast amount of money that has been spent on the project to date, will the Minister, as he did in the past, immediately share with the Committee the consultants investigation — or call it what you will? Will he also share the early fixes that he referred to a short time ago with the members of my Committee as soon as possible?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Chair of the Regional Development Committee for his question. I am happy to share the existing implementation directives. On receipt of the final investigative reports, I will be happy to share those with members of the Regional Development Committee and Members of the House generally.

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

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the potential benefits of dividing the A6 project into smaller, more manageable sections, including the decoupling of the bypass at Dungiven. (AQO 5771/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am pleased to inform the Member that planning for the Londonderry to Dungiven dual carriageway scheme will allow it to be constructed in up to three parts: the Caw roundabout to the Maydown roundabout; the Maydown roundabout to the Derrychrier Road; and the Derrychrier Road to Crebarkey Road. My pronunciation of east Londonderry and south Londonderry terms may not be absolutely accurate, given that I am from south Armagh. This would allow components of the scheme to progress at different points in time. However, progression of the project will, subject to final approval of the business case, be determined by subsequent budget settlements agreed by the Department.

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

I welcome the Minister's very positive statement and the indication of flexibility. Will the Minister agree with me that 50 years is too long to wait for a bypass, as the people of Dungiven have done? Will he also agree that the Moneynick stretch has now become the biggest car park in western Europe?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for that. I am not sure about his latter point about the car park. I am reminded of what used to be said about the Dublin Road leading into and out of Newry. It was said that there were only two things that you could see from the moon: the Great Wall of China and the lane of traffic into Newry. That may have been replaced now by Moneynick, I am not sure.

I think that I said at the end of my answer that final approval of the business case would be determined by subsequent budget settlements. I think I said, "agreed by the Department", but, in fact, I meant "agreed by the Executive".

I am aware of the importance of the A6 scheme and, indeed, other major projects to improve connectivity between two of the major cities in Northern Ireland: Belfast and Londonderry. Anyone who travels that road knows the importance of an upgrade and how much it would be appreciated and would benefit the entire region.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister agree that there would be immediate health benefits for residents and commuters if a decoupled scheme were to go ahead, leading to possible long-term savings by the Health Department?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member. It is rather a novel approach to support your Health Minister by pushing the blame onto me. I am aware that there are air quality issues in Main Street Dungiven in particular and in that general area. We have had strong representations from the council and, indeed, other public representatives in the area. Two habitats assessments have been carried out for the River Roe and its tributaries and for the River Faughan — be careful how you say that — and its tributaries, which are special areas of conservation. The construction and operation of the dual carriageway would not, by itself or in combination with other known plans or projects, adversely affect the integrity of the special areas of conservation or their ability to meet their conservation objectives. Traffic volumes through Dungiven would reduce significantly, resulting in the removal of the air quality management area designation.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhrearaí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers up to this point. As a long-suffering resident of Dungiven, I acknowledge his announcement. As someone whose birthday occurs today, it makes me only slightly older than the proposals for the Dungiven bypass — very slightly, I might add. When will the procurement process for the three sections of the A6 that he has outlined commence?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for revealing aspects of his personal life and age. The Member should know that I am assessing the inspector's report in respect of these matters. It is a significant report, and it carries huge potential. After that, we hope to identify a timescale, subject to some of the recommendations in it and whether we are prepared to accept and implement them.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that, of the A6 scheme's three components, the Randalstown to Castledawson section would have the greatest impact on congestion in the area?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member. To ease traffic flow, as I indicated in earlier answers, upgrading the entire road between Belfast and Londonderry has been a long-standing cause, and the Randalstown section is a very important element of that. It is perhaps a larger element than the Dungiven bypass, which amounts to around £60 million, while the Castledawson section is approximately £270 million. Therefore, there is considerable work in both schemes. The Randalstown to Castledawson section would significantly improve the connectivity between Belfast and Londonderry, but the entire scheme would be of most major benefit.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development what are the implications of the Reservoirs Bill (NIA 31/11-15) for sporting and community organisations that lease NI Water reservoirs. (AQO 5772/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The DARD Reservoirs Bill is concerned with the safety of reservoirs and preventing an uncontrolled release of water as a result of reservoir failure. The Bill has no implications for sporting and community organisations that lease NI Water reservoirs.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he guarantee that, in all cases in which community organisations and charities lease reservoirs from NIW, it will be the reservoir manager and will take all responsibility for the inspection, upkeep and maintenance of the reservoirs in accordance with the Bill?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member. I was not quite clear on the point that he raised. NI Water owns reservoirs that are no longer used as a water supply and, in some cases, reservoirs that are still used as a water supply. As to them being sold off or leased to other Departments, that is open for discussion.

Ownership by outside bodies is perhaps a slightly more delicate matter. What I understood the Member to indicate was that he wanted reservoirs to be leased to outside bodies and organisations, with NI Water retaining full responsibility for maintenance. I am not sure that that is a legal position that could be stood over. I am not a lawyer — I am happy to admit that — but I think that each application for such a transfer would have to be considered on its merit, and those issues would have to be gone into in some depth before final agreement could be arrived at.

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

Is the Minister satisfied that the best use is made of our reservoirs to promote tourism and leisure?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question. If reservoirs no longer provide a water supply to households, they would probably be better off under different management, either DCAL, for sporting reasons and because of responsibilities within its remit, or, indeed, local government. I have no ideological hang-up about the transfer of such facilities. I am happy to engage in some discussions. Indeed, we have had some discussions with at least one local authority, North Down Borough Council, on the future of a reservoir in its area.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development what consideration has been given to transferring responsibility for on-street parking to local councils. (AQO 5774/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

My Department is responsible for the management of the road network to promote safety and efficient operation. Traffic management is an important aspect of that function, and parking management — ie enforcement and car park provision — is a tool in managing traffic. I intend to review the success of the transfer of off-street parking before any future decision to transfer on-street parking is taken.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. People are punished, as he describes it, when they have parked inconsiderately, incorrectly or in full knowledge of but without any due regard for the rules of parking. I will consider the suggestion that he made about adapting the times, although that can cause problems too.

As for the transfer of on-street car parking charges to coincide with those for off-street parking, there are issues that those in local government would be interested in. In the current financial year, car parking services still cost the Department and therefore the taxpayer something to the tune of over £3 million. If local government, in its new format, were prepared to carry that added responsibility, I have a suspicion that it would want some supporting measure from the Finance Minister and the Executive to offset some of that. Those are some of the more serious issues that would have to be contemplated before any such transfer could be initiated.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. What would be the cost if on-street parking were transferred to councils? Has that been factored into any discussions with NILGA or the STCs?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member, and I hope that he was listening to the previous answer. In rough terms, parking services cost about £20 million. On the basis of the latest figures, we take in about £17 million. Therefore, the shortfall is about £3 million, which is met by my Department through the Executive. That, distributed throughout local government, would represent a burden on ratepayers. If it is the Member's suggestion that that is worthwhile, I am happy, as I said, to pursue it, but my suspicion is that local government would want some insurance cover, as it were, to protect themselves against some of those charges.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the roads improvement scheme at the junction of the A24 and B6, The Temple. (AQO 5775/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The A24 Ballynahinch Road is a trunk road connecting south Down with the greater Belfast area that carries approximately 10,000 vehicles a day. I am aware of the support among local residents and road users for the introduction of safety improvements at the busy junction known locally as Temple crossroads. The need for improvements was identified through a route improvement study carried out by my Department. The study highlighted the number of collisions occurring at that location, as well as the difficulties faced by motorists trying to negotiate the busy junction, particularly at peak times.

A number of options have been considered. The preferred option is to construct a new four-leg roundabout to provide easier and safer access to, from and across the A24 Ballynahinch Road where it meets the B6 Saintfield Road. My Department is continuing to progress this scheme and has recently begun discussions with affected landowners to agree accommodation works. Progression of the scheme through the various statutory processes, including the vesting order, direction order and tendering process, will also be required. Subject to the satisfactory completion of each of those stages, I have asked officials to bring the scheme forward as quickly as possible. I can confirm that it is currently included in my Department’s three-year minor works programme.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer. I welcome the news that it is being given priority. Given all the hoops that we have to jump through, do we have any idea of the timescale of a possible roundabout being put at that junction, given its serious accident history and the number of fatalities that have taken place there?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his indication of support for the project. The scheme has been estimated at £750,000, which, in Roads Service terms, is not enormous. However, it is a matter of putting the procedures in place, including the statutory planning and all the necessary stages that it needs to go through. Realistically, there will also be land issues to be undertaken with the landowners, and one can never quite predict timings for that. However, I would have thought that it will be the next couple of financial years before we see serious progress on it. Again, that depends on the available finance, and I know that the Member is a close friend of the Finance Minister.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

8. asked the Minister for Regional Development what plans he has to upgrade Kilkeel bus station. (AQO 5776/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I met Newry and Mourne District Council in May 2012 to discuss the possible upgrade of Kilkeel bus station. I subsequently wrote to the chief executive of the council in September that year.

The location proposed at that time — the old Mourne hospital site — was not suited to such a development. Historically, it has proven difficult to obtain planning permission for such facilities adjacent to existing housing, and access to the proposed site is too narrow. However, in recognition that the current premises offer limited facilities to users, Translink continues to explore alternatives that would provide an enhanced passenger experience. It has not ruled out relocation if such a possibility should arise. However, clearly this would be subject to achieving a value-for-money business case and to the necessary capital funding being available.

From 2008-09 to 2012-13, nearly £12 million has been invested by my Department in upgrading and improving bus stations and depots. Translink is currently prioritising work on a further programme — the building services upgrade programme — which involves carrying out repairs and replacements of Translink’s mechanical and electrical installations at several buildings and workshops across the network.

Given the available budget allocations, this work will be my Department’s priority going into the next financial year. However, I will avail myself of all opportunities to bid for additional capital to fund other bus projects, including the purchase of new buses.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order. That brings us to the end of the period for oral questions. We now move on to topical questions.