Northern Ireland Assembly, 27 May 2014

304 contributions from 49 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At two previous Question Times, my name was down for a question for oral answer, and I was not present. I take this opportunity to apologise to you. For one of them, I was called away on urgent business and did not get back. For the other, I was involved in a family bereavement. I offer my sincere apologies to you, sir, for my absence on those occasions.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not in any way challenging your decision on my request for a matter of the day on the prolonged delay of the European election count, which is causing alarm and concern among many people, not only among those of us who were at the count yesterday but among the 625,000 people who cast their votes. We have two elections over the next two years — one to Westminster next year and one to this House in two years' time — and we need a way whereby the Assembly can convey its concern at the ongoing delay with the count at the King's Hall so that it is not repeated in the future.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I feel the frustration from all parties. It might be useful if parties were to come together to table a motion. That would be one way to get the message across.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I appreciate the Member coming to the House, like Mr Buchanan, and apologising. I understand — I say this very sincerely — that, sometimes, it is physically almost impossible for Members to be here.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, in the same vein, I have just been made aware that I was absent from the House for a question on, I think, 29 March. It goes back some time, and I had not been aware of it. Mr Speaker, I apologise to you and to the Minister. I was at a funeral that day, and my question was late on the list. I apologise.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for coming to the House and apologising. I want to alert the House that some Members who have been absent for Question Time have come to the Speaker's Office or to the Business Office to apologise. I am making a very clear ruling that Members need to come to the House to apologise. No doubt, this morning, after the elections, it is confession time for a number of Members. I appreciate the fact that Members have come to the House this morning to apologise.

Executive Committee Business

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [NIA 35/11-15] be agreed.

First, I would like to thank my Executive colleagues for their support in bringing this Bill to the Assembly. I look forward to working with the House in taking forward and refining this important Bill. Today, we have the opportunity to debate a Bill with the potential to save lives and reduce injury on our roads. That is quite a responsibility. Reaching this significant stage has involved significant effort. In particular, I recognise the work on the Bill that was undertaken by my predecessor, Alex Attwood.

The Bill contains provisions that will affect most people in Northern Ireland. It is right, therefore, that arriving at this point has involved extensive consultation, which has informed the development of the Bill and provides us with the assurance that we have a climate of opinion that supports the proposals before us today. We have also liaised extensively with the Police Service, Forensic Science Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that, together, we bring forward legislation that is not only right but workable.

I will set this in context. Looking back just five years to 2009, we were five months into a year in which 115 people were to die on our roads. Since then, there have been three years with fewer than 60 deaths and one year, 2012, with fewer than 50. I know that I speak for us all when I say that figures for 2014 have been a concern. Up to this morning, 24 people have died, compared with 21 at this stage last year, and 16 in 2012. I firmly believe that doing nothing is not an option. There are key challenges that we must face if we are to further drive down road casualties towards a vision of zero road deaths.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Certainly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister makes the important point that we want to try to get road deaths down to an absolute minimum. Does he accept that, given the fluctuating nature of the number of deaths on the roads, without all the micromanagement that is contained in the Bill, the cause of road deaths is something well without the kind of idiotic nonsense that is contained in part of the Bill, which would lead to a situation where what people do on the road is micromanaged either by his Department or the enforcing authorities?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his kind intervention. I am not sure which particular part of the Bill the Member refers to as idiotic nonsense. However, I have a feeling that we will learn as the debate progresses.

I take on board the Member's concerns that what happens on the roads is beyond our control. However, it should certainly not be beyond our ambition to strive towards zero road deaths. Indeed, as legislators, we have a responsibility to do all in our power to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. That is what I am attempting to do in bringing forward the Bill, and I will be seeking the support of the House — I have the support of the Executive — to do so.

The Bill will tackle those challenges by reducing inappropriate road-user behaviours, including drink-driving, protecting young and inexperienced drivers and improving safety for those using our roads, not least our rural roads where the majority of casualties occur.

The Assembly can ensure that our people enjoy the levels of protection from drink-drivers that they would receive in most other countries. We can ensure that new drivers here are as well prepared and protected as possible for today’s roads. We can ensure that people riding quads on our roads have the same protection from head injury as those on motorbikes. That is why the Bill is important and timely, and it is in this context that I turn to its provisions.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Maybe he will inform the House on how many people have died of head injuries as a result of accidents on quads on the roads over the past five years.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Unfortunately, I do not have that detail to hand. I will attempt to ascertain that answer for him later in the day.

The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill has five parts, comprising 27 clauses and two schedules.

Part 1 is a short section defining expressions used throughout the Bill. Part 2 deals with drink-driving, and I will look at this first. The current drink-drive limit in Northern Ireland is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. When convicted in court, offenders are generally punished with a 12-month disqualification and a fine. Those who reoffend within 10 years face a three-year disqualification.

The Bill will introduce two new limits: 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood will apply to a typical driver; 20 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood will apply to what is expressed as a "specified person". A "specified person" is a learner driver, a newly qualified driver and a professional driver; that is, someone who is driving a bus, lorry or taxi.

While a lot of work has gone into getting the limits right, they will not work in isolation. The Bill will, therefore, also introduce a new graduated penalty regime that will reflect the level of alcohol involved in the offence, with minimum disqualification periods from between six and 24 months. Repeat offenders will still face a minimum disqualification of three years regardless of the level of alcohol.

I assure members that there will be no lessening of any current penalties. New, fixed penalties will be available to punish those detected for drink-drive offences at the new lower limits. At present, there is no offence triggered at these levels. The Bill proposes a penalty system that is proportionate to the offence, acts as a deterrent, attracts public confidence and maintains levels of support and compliance. I believe that that is what the Bill delivers.

We also need effective enforcement measures. Some people still continue to drink and drive because they believe that the risk of being stopped is low and is a risk worth taking. If we change this perception, we will make progress. At present, the police can require a person to take a breath test only if they "reasonably suspect" that the driver has consumed alcohol or if there has been a collision. The Bill includes powers for police to establish roadside checkpoints where a constable could ask each driver to take a breath test. These will be conducted under controlled circumstances with authorisation at inspector rank or above. The new checkpoints will be highly visible. When drivers realise that there is a real likelihood of being stopped and tested, many who currently take that risk will make the right choice.

I am also providing for greater use of our drink-driver rehabilitation scheme for offenders convicted and disqualified from driving by making it mandatory for courts to offer such training. These courses are proven to be effective in preventing reoffending.

Why do we need these measures? Between 2008 and 2012, 66 people died and 468 were seriously injured by drivers impaired by drink or drugs. Much of our road network is rural. The impact of drink-driving is felt most keenly in rural communities: 79% of fatalities and 50% of serious injuries caused by drink-driving happen on rural roads. I think we would all agree that that is unacceptable and requires decisive action. I accept that some aspects are challenging, but we must be radical to make a real difference.

Members do not need to be reminded of the incompatibility of drinking and driving. There is a wealth of research indicating that very low levels of alcohol impair the skills needed for safe driving. Impairment begins at levels lower than the current drink-drive limit.

It is worth noting that between 2008 and 2012, drivers aged between 17 and 24 were responsible for 50% of deaths and 41% of serious injuries where alcohol or drugs was the recorded cause. For those reasons, the Bill introduces two new limits. I believe that that provides the best balance between public acceptability and tackling the risk associated with younger drivers and the responsibility borne by professional drivers.

An absolute zero limit would not be a realistic option. People who never drink alcohol can, if tested, register some alcohol in their system. It can be produced naturally by the digestive process or absorbed in some other innocent and unintentional way.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for giving way. He mentioned alcohol and drugs use while driving. What is in the Bill to stop or prohibit people from taking drugs and driving?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. This part of the Bill deals with drink-driving, and that is where we will focus our attention today. However, driving under the influence of drugs and impaired by drugs is a serious issue. It is something that we need to work on with the PSNI and enforcement agencies as regards their detection of people driving under the influence of drugs. I am certainly committed to doing so. Unfortunately, they are more difficult to detect than alcohol, although I am assured that work is ongoing through the police, not just on this island but elsewhere, on measures to combat this problem.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister give way, just on that point? If this is all down to a question of detection, is it easier to detect someone driving with a 14-year-old beside them than someone who is driving along the road out of their head on drugs? If that is not the case, why has he ignored the drug issue while imposing a silly restriction on the age limit of passengers for first-time drivers?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his third intervention. We will come to the issue of passengers in another part of the Bill. I stated in my response to Mr Elliott the seriousness with which I view those driving under the impairment of drugs. If it should be detectable, it will be detected that someone is driving dangerously and recklessly, and they can be held to account for that. As regards the actual detection of the drugs in that person's system, that is not quite as straightforward as the detection of alcohol.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. He is right about the difficulty in detecting those who are driving under the influence of drugs, and that has been a subject of discussion for many years. The pupil test is not, I think, a satisfactory way of doing it.

Perhaps he can remind the House whether, rather than being ignored, there is already legislation on the books that makes it an offence to drive under the influence of drugs.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There is an existing offence of driving under the influence of drugs, be those prescription or non-prescription drugs. Obviously, it remains an offence to consume, and to drive having consumed, illegal drugs, and that is something else that we will need to work on with the police to rid society of this problem that plagues us and causes not just danger on our roads but a lot of misery and suffering in our communities.

Finally, on the drink-driving measures, I assure Members that, before any changes are brought in, there will be a high-profile media campaign. Drivers will be left in no doubt as to the new drink-drive limits and how they will apply to them.

Part 3 of the Bill relates to the graduated driver licensing (GDL) scheme. Put simply, GDL is a package of measures designed to provide new drivers with experience and skills, over time, in lower-risk environments. First developed in the 1960s in Australia, and followed by New Zealand in the 1980s, GDL schemes are now common in almost all US and Canadian jurisdictions and in many European countries. International evidence shows that GDL has been effective in reducing collisions involving novice drivers wherever implemented. The quality and consistency of the evidence base is high, and reductions in collisions are seen for novice drivers of all ages.

As we are all too aware, young and inexperienced drivers are over-represented in road traffic collisions. The stark fact is that, between 2008 and 2012, although young drivers aged 17 to 24 comprised only one in 10 current car licence holders, they accounted for four in 10 fatalities and almost one third of all serious injuries on our roads for which car drivers were responsible. Further to that, there is evidence that young male drivers are four times more likely to be killed and six times more likely to kill than the average road user. The scale of the problem necessitates fundamental changes to how new drivers are trained, tested and gain experience once they have obtained their full licence.

Extensive consultation has been carried out in that area, too. Views were sought from a wide range of organisations. My officials also held a series of nine focus groups across Northern Ireland to gather young people's input. There will be opportunities for further debate, consultation and scrutiny. I have also requested a meeting with the Chief Constable to continue the dialogue my predecessor and my officials have had with the PSNI on the Bill and to facilitate detailed discussions on enforcement of specific proposals.

As I mentioned earlier, GDL consists of a package of measures. Those most commonly included are stiffer penalties for new drivers who commit offences, restrictions on new drivers, additional training or supervision periods; and requirements for a collision- and offence-free period before full licensing. A systematic review of 27 evaluations suggested that the implementation of GDL had resulted in reductions in collisions of between 20% and 40%. I firmly believe that a strong GDL scheme in Northern Ireland can and will contribute significantly to our journey towards achieving zero road deaths.

My GDL proposals consist of a number of measures to prepare new drivers for the challenge of driving on their own and to protect them and other road users as they gain experience. The package was developed with key themes in mind, primarily that GDL should be fair and equitable, reduce offending, align with other relevant legislation, and be accompanied by appropriate enforcement and public information campaigns. At the same time, we have strived to balance requirements with restrictions, permissions with incentives, and improving road safety with retaining mobility.

Before I outline the measures, I will mention one that is not included. That is a night-time restriction for new drivers. While there is evidence to support the effectiveness of such a measure in reducing collisions, I have had to be mindful of the economic and social consequences of such an intervention. A night-time curfew would have an impact on new drivers and their ability to take up work, particularly those living in rural areas and those working in the hospitality industry.

My package of measures therefore includes lowering the age at which someone can obtain a licence from 17 to 16 and a half years, but it requires that they hold a provisional licence for a minimum of 12 months before taking a test. That effectively increases the age of full licensing to 17 and a half. There is considerable research to show that raising the age at which someone can drive alone is effective in reducing collisions. I have sought to ensure that learners are not unduly delayed from obtaining their full licence while ensuring that they are encouraged to make the most of the learning period.

Learning to become a safe driver takes time. Provisional licence holders need to be encouraged to focus on learning to drive and not simply on passing the test. The mandatory learning period will provide learners with that time to take more training, to practise and to gain experience on a variety of roads, traffic environments and in weather and light conditions. Although it increases the age at which a licence can be acquired by only six months, the measure will allow new drivers to practise for one full year.

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)

Is part of the problem with that not that the Minister is applying a blanket approach by effectively requiring every aspiring new driver to wait a year before they can pass their test? Many young people from the rural community who have grown up on farms and are very skilled with machinery, tractors and all the rest make the transition to cars very swiftly and safely, and they can pass the test within weeks. Is the Minister not being punitive with those who have that experience and who will be and are good drivers by subjecting them unnecessarily to a protracted waiting period?

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

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I take on board his concerns that it may be overly punitive. Indeed, he singled out those who live in rural communities, are from farming backgrounds and who may be skilled at operating different types of machinery and driving machinery on the farm. However, by introducing that mandatory minimum learning period of one year, we will be doing our best to ensure that those young people will be best equipped to drive safely on our roads when they reach the age of 17 and a half. Under existing circumstances, the person may be able to pass their test within a couple of weeks of becoming 17. However, at that stage, they will have had only — or should have had only — a couple of weeks' practice of driving a car on our public roads. In my opinion, that is not enough to ensure that they are a safe, responsible and mature driver.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. Surely the test of whether someone is competent to drive on the public road is whether they pass the test that has been set. Either the test is meaningful or it is not. If the Minister is saying that someone can pass their test and not be competent to drive on the road, the question that needs to be asked is whether the test is sufficient. Surely the way in which it is decided whether someone can drive on the road is whether that person passes the test.

Is a mechanism for ensuring that not that, if someone who is not competent tries the first time, like I did, and does not get through, they try a second time, and, if they do not get through, they try again until they do eventually get through? Is that not the way that it should be done? Otherwise, he is saying that the test is not all that meaningful.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not saying that the test is not meaningful. It is possible that driving comes more easily to someone who is adept at and used to operating machinery than it perhaps did to the Member across the hall and than it certainly did to me; I passed my test on my fifth attempt. However, I know that the fact that it took me a year to learn has made me an extremely safe driver, and I have had no collisions in 17 years of driving.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

One second.

However, the longer that someone is exposed to driving in different conditions, the more that they will become used to those conditions, and the safer they will be on our roads.

I will go back to Mr Ross now.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. While I have some sympathy for his argument, I do question the logic of having to wait a year before you can take your test, particularly given that there is provision in the Bill for a logbook, in which an individual who wants to take their test has to prove that they have had a certain number of hours of practice. Surely the two things do not have to be in the same Bill. If you are insisting that an individual builds up a certain amount of experience and are setting the criteria for the number of hours of accredited learning, surely that should stand alone? You do not need the arbitrary 12-month figure, which actually makes it a longer period. If an individual does the required number of hours to take the test within the first four or five months of holding a provisional licence, surely they should not be held back from taking their test.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention and take on board his point. However, the intention behind introducing the one-year period is to maximise the possibility or likelihood that a young or new learner driver will gain experience driving in different weather conditions. Currently, someone could learn to drive over the summer months and then be on their own, unattended and unsupervised, the first time that they come across rain, ice or snow when they are driving. I think that it is important that people get experience driving in different conditions.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Unfortunately, the test cannot create those kinds of scenarios.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that Mr Wilson wants to come in again.

On that very point, is the Minister saying that, during that year, some of the accredited hours in your logbook have to be in different seasons of the year? That is not what the legislation says. If the legislation is passed, you could very well build up the required number of hours of accredited learning within two or three months of the year. So, you could do all your learner driving in the summer. So, the way that the legislation is drafted does not actually get round the issue that the Minister highlights about giving people experience of driving in different conditions.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his latest intervention; indeed, it is a sensible one. However, the introduction of the one-year mandatory minimum learning period is not just about the accredited learning.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is also about the practice driving that many drivers will take, be it with a qualified driving instructor or a parent.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I appreciate that the Minister may be reluctant to open up a third front on this. I have a lot of sympathy for the general thrust of what he is saying. However, I can see a number of flaws with this. Mention has been made of the one-year period. I think that it is very sensible to say, "Ideally, a learner driver should experience bad weather, rain, snow etc." However, to me, simply having a time frame does not seem to give any guarantees on that front. We are all aware of people who, for example, apply for their licence and then do very little about it. Such people may well do the year but only do their hours of driving in the summer. You may also get a situation in which we have —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If you live in east Antrim, it is always sunny.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Member to my side is intervening to claim that, if you live in east Antrim, it is always sunny. That is not, generally speaking, my experience, but that might be by the by. We have had large variations in weather, even over winters. Some winters have had very heavy snow, and there have been very mild winters during which you barely saw a snowflake. I can understand, particularly with a young driver, a situation in which there are concerns from parents who may well say, even during the learning period, that they do not want their children anywhere near the roads when it is snowing.

There is good sense in the idea of having to accumulate a certain number of hours. There may be reasonable merit in the legislation in that somebody may not have enough experience on the road even if they get through the test. To my mind, setting an arbitrary time frame does not appear to hold a great deal of water.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not sure whether there is anyone still in the queue, but I will respond to Mr Weir and then try to make some progress. There is evidence that the more practice learners undertake, the less likely they are to be involved in a collision when they start to drive unaccompanied. In Sweden, the extension of the learning period from six months to two years was associated with a net reduction in collisions of 15%. Consideration was given to requiring a set number of hours and lessons. However, the Bill has settled on the one-year learning period to ensure that learners can continue to avail themselves of a mix of paid, supervised instruction and practice with family or friends.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will you give way on that point?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

This is one of the concerns that I have about the one-year period. Mr Allister pointed out the disadvantage to people who live in rural areas, but the one-year period is also a severe disadvantage to people who come from low-income families in which there may not be a family car, because the only way in which they will get continuous experience over the year is to take lessons or pay someone to take them out. Has the Minister considered the social inequality that this clause builds into people's ability to obtain a driving licence? One family may have no car as opposed to another family having three, which means that the mother, dad, brother or sister can take the person out. That is not the case in many other instances. How does he deal with that social inequality?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Wilson for his intervention. I certainly do not want to introduce or propose something that will lead to social inequality or perpetuate disadvantage among those who may already be deprived. However, on the point that Mr Wilson is trying to make, surely it is the case now anyway that someone without access to a family car has the opportunity to practise only through driving lessons, which means paying for the use of a car. I am not sure whether it was Mr Wilson, Mr Weir or Mr Ross who made the point that there is nothing in the legislation to say that someone could cram all their lessons into one part of the12-month learning period. I understand the point that he makes. However, I do not necessarily agree with it.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that the Minister is trying to evade my point. If there is to be one year of continuous experience for all the reasons that he has given, including so that people can experience different driving conditions and have a longer period on the road, someone who is from a relatively well-off background and whose family has two or three cars, which means that two or three people can take them out, need only take the minimum number of lessons and gain experience the rest of the time for nothing. If someone comes from a family where those conditions do not occur, the only way in which they can gain the experience is to pay someone to take them out to get that one year's continuous experience. I am sure that the Minister can see the point clearly. He may want to avoid it because it is a difficult point for him to deal with, but that disadvantages those who do not have, because of their economic circumstances, the same family support that can afford them the experience on the road and, therefore, they have to purchase it.

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

Order. Before the Minister continues, to be helpful, I refer to the 'Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House'. Point 8 states:

"An intervention should relate directly to what has just been said and not be a short speech of its own."

It would be unfortunate if the interventions became longer than the time that a learner driver needs to become fully qualified. [Laughter.]

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure to which intervention you refer. I do not believe that I was trying to evade the question or the point raised by Mr Wilson. I believe that that is tantamount to the existing situation as regards access to vehicles. That is why I am supportive of, and will continue to be supportive of, initiatives to make driving lessons and the use of vehicles accessible to all. There are quite a few schemes, especially in my constituency, that do so and facilitate young people, and not so young people, from disadvantaged backgrounds to get heavily discounted, if not free, driving lessons.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been very generous with his time. He is right in saying that the access to cars is the same under existing circumstances and what he is proposing, but is the difficulty not when it comes to accredited learning? If the definition of accredited learning is that you have to go a professional and pay for lessons, and a minimum number of lessons or hours is set in the legislation, that could disadvantage those who are from less well-off families, whereas they are not disadvantaged from that at the moment.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Ross for his intervention. I accept Mr Ross's point; I cannot evade it or argue with it.

The programme of training will be evidenced using a compulsory student log book recording progress through the training programme. The introduction of a programme of training will ensure that new drivers follow structured learning over a sustained period. It will ensure that young people’s driving experience covers the full range of conditions and improves the learning process to adequately prepare novice drivers for real-life driving. It is my belief that the log books will lead to more structured learning and give supervising drivers — for example, parents — more ownership and involvement in the learning-to-drive process.

The Bill will remove the current 45 miles per hour restriction for learner and restricted drivers — I am sure that Mr Wilson will be glad about that bit at least — and allow lessons to be taken on motorways. That will only be permitted when accompanied by an approved driving instructor in a dual-controlled car.

The R driver scheme has been in place for 40 years now, and there is a lack of evidence that the current 45 miles per hour speed restriction does anything to improve road safety. Indeed, speed restrictions prevent learners from gaining experience, practising certain manoeuvres under tuition and from being tested while driving at higher speeds. Very few other countries impose speed limits on new or learner drivers.

Under the current system, the first time that a novice driver experiences higher speeds is often alone, having removed their R plates, despite not having undergone relevant training or testing. That is inherently wrong. I believe that we must better prepare them for driving alone and at speeds appropriate to modern traffic, roads and conditions. Removing the restrictions will allow learners to be taught to understand, judge and, above all, respect speed and its potentially devastating effects. Further to that, proposals to allow learner drivers to take lessons on motorways and to include a broader variety of road types in the driving test would be feasible only if the 45 miles per hour restriction were removed.

In the focus groups with young people, several attendees said that they felt anxious when using motorways because of that lack of experience. Many felt that lessons should be available to learn on those roads, and I agree. Novice drivers should be prepared for motorway driving before they pass the test rather than having to face that task for the first time afterwards and on their own.

I now turn to passenger restrictions. The Bill proposes that, during the first six months post-test, new drivers under the age of 24 will be restricted to carrying only one young passenger aged 14 to 20, unless they are immediate family. Young drivers carrying two passengers are twice as likely to be killed as they are when driving alone and they are four times more likely to die if they are carrying three young passengers.

Given the complexities of family life and the rural nature of much of Northern Ireland, there will be exemptions for close relatives of a driver as well as for carers and emergency services drivers. The restriction will not apply if there is a supervising driver in the front passenger seat of a vehicle. A supervising driver must be aged 21 years or older and must have held a full driving licence for three years.

It is worth noting that the Association of British Insurers has advised that, of the possible interventions, a passenger-carrying restriction on young new drivers has the greatest potential to improve the safety of young drivers and to drive down insurance costs.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way again. At the beginning of his speech, he talked about ensuring that the legislation was fair and equitable. Is he not in danger of being seen to pick on young people, in particular, as opposed to novice drivers? The GDL is about recognising that novice drivers, irrespective of age, are most at risk of being in a serious road traffic incident. Is he not moving away from that fair and equitable idea by having a provision that states that there are restrictions on those aged 24 and under but not on other novice drivers?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I gave statistical evidence on the risk posed to young drivers and by newly qualified young drivers while they have young passengers on board. This was not plucked out of the air and did not fall out of the sky; the proposals are based on evidence of what happens on our roads and on roads in other jurisdictions where this type of provision has been introduced.

I understand that there has been concern about the policing of a passenger restriction — Mr Wilson made that point — and the GDL as a whole. Let me reassure you: the Bill includes powers to enable the PSNI to enforce all the measures effectively. Throughout the policy development period, my predecessor and my officials carried out a great deal of consultation, which includes ongoing discussions with the PSNI on all aspects of the Bill.

The PSNI will have the power to ask for names, addresses, ages and the relationship to the driver, and can require evidence of the information given to be provided to a police station within seven days. I reassure you that the PSNI has given its support to the introduction of a passenger-carrying restriction and will continue to work with my officials to ensure that it can enforce the GDL effectively.

I see parents having a key role in enforcement. In fact, in other countries, parents are often seen as the primary enforcers, and, even where formal enforcement is minimal, such restrictions have been shown to have a positive benefit.

The final GDL element is the extension of the post-test period to two years. It is also my intention to introduce remedial courses for relevant offenders. The New Drivers Order already makes provision for a driver's licence to be revoked if he or she receives six or more penalty points during the two-year probationary period. In such cases, the driver returns to learner status and has to resit the test.

The aim of introducing courses is to give drivers the opportunity to be re-educated as an alternative to losing their licence. I firmly believe that there is value in intervening earlier to prevent unsafe driving attitudes and practices from becoming habitual. The two-year post-test new driver period will align with the existing probation period under the New Drivers Order and the lower blood:alcohol limit for newly qualified drivers. It will be necessary to introduce a new plating system because the introduction of GDL will lead to a temporary overlap with the old licensing system. Drivers qualifying under the old system will still be bound by the current R-plate restrictions for 12 months. Therefore, during that overlap period, two different plates will be required.

Having inexperienced drivers carry a distinguishing mark or plate facilitates enforcement, helps to deter high-risk behaviour and informs other road users of the relative inexperience of a driver. Notably, the young people in our focus groups felt that it would be a good idea to retain such plates. I have committed that the specifications of a new plate will be dealt with in regulations, subject to full consultation and affirmative resolution in the Assembly.

My Department continues to reach out to young people through our road-safety education programmes in schools and our advertising campaigns. We can, in parallel, effect change through legislation, supported by enforcement, including requiring certain behaviours and conditions before a full licence is awarded. That combined approach has been successful elsewhere, and I firmly believe that it is an appropriate way forward for us here.

Part 4 of the Bill deals with the mandatory wearing of helmets on quad bikes on public roads. Extending the requirements for protective headgear to quadricycles can surely only be welcomed by the Assembly. In response to Mr Wilson's earlier question, between 2006 and 2013, four people were killed and 39 seriously injured in collisions involving quad bikes. Public consultation —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In just a second. Public consultation carried out in 2012 was in favour of making the wearing of helmets mandatory for quad riders and passengers.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has not answered the question, of course. Four people were killed on quad bikes on roads, but my point is whether they were killed as a result of head injuries. Given the number of accidents involving quads, is this not a disproportionate and totally unnecessary response? Has he considered the very strong views of farmers who find themselves working on and off the road quite frequently, sometimes without any ability to plan whether they are going to be on the road?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. As the Bill progresses to Committee Stage and the call for evidence, I have no doubt that I will be made aware of the views of the farming community on that and other aspects of the Bill. I look forward to hearing those views and taking them on board as we work together to shape this Bill into what it is meant to be, namely legislation that reduces the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Although it might seem like a relatively small number of collisions involving quads, with only four people being killed, I am sure that the families of those four people, regardless of whether the deaths were due to head injuries or other sorts of horrific or critical injuries, would applaud any efforts to improve safety for quad users on the roads.

There are clear safety risks, as quad bikes provide minimal protection for riders in the event of a collision. If a quad-bike rider is involved in a crash, the probability that it will result in injury to them, especially a head injury, is high. Making it mandatory for riders of such vehicles to wear a helmet will help protect them against head injuries in the event of a collision and reduce the severity of any injury.

Part 5 of the Bill contains transitional and savings provisions. To sum up, the bold measures that the Bill introduces have the potential to deliver a step change in road safety, which is what is demanded of us if we are serious about pursuing an ambition of having zero road deaths. I believe that everyone in the House wants to do everything we can to reduce casualties. I also believe that there is broad agreement on the principles of the Bill, if not on the detail.

I said earlier that balances are to be struck and I believe that the Bill can strike the right balance. I fully understand that we all need to be sure that it does, and I am committed to considering the views of the House to ensure that we arrive at the best possible package of measures. I look forward to a constructive and positive discussion on the Bill.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an Bhille seo. I rise to speak in favour of the Bill and support its broad principles. It has been a good debate so far, and some very good points have been raised. I am surprised at some Members having to take two or three goes at getting their driving test. Maybe if they had been born and reared in rural areas, they would have had a chance of passing the test first time round, like Pam and me.

I welcome any new measures that we can introduce that will reduce road fatalities and serious injuries on our roads and encourage, persuade and support road users in general and, in particular, young people. I have to say that, while I appreciate that the Department has come to us on a number of occasions — this Bill has been bounced about for a number of years, and there has been a lot of consultation and remarks and things that have been said over the past three or four years in relation to the introduction of this Bill and these measures — looking at it today, it seems to me that it is slightly weighted towards the big stick approach as opposed to the carrot approach.

I have some concerns, which I will get into in a minute. Rural people may suffer as a consequence of some elements of the Bill, and that is something that I will certainly not support. Although I support the Bill's general principles, I think that, at Committee Stage, we will get to a point at which we can introduce some of the measures that we propose to bring forward and challenge existing measures in the Bill.

One of the major issues that I want to mention concerns the restrictions on qualified drivers. The Minister will be well aware of it, because I have mentioned it on a number of occasions. A lot of people whom I know who work in the hospitality industry are down along the border in rural areas, and they have to travel back and forward to work. I am concerned about how the proposed restrictions will impact on them, because a number are young people. Look at the restrictions. The Minister mentioned people up to 24 years of age, who can travel in a vehicle together and everything else. We need to be quite clear as to how we support businesses and young people in that regard.

A time frame of a year with a provisional licence is proposed. In the light of some the comments that have been made, clearly rural people in general were not mentioned in Committee. Some of them have quite a good experience of driving. There is no doubt about that. Perhaps there is an opportunity at Committee Stage to look at how we can address those issues, because we do not want to create an inequality. Other Members have mentioned inequalities and certain conditions. As I have said on a number of occasions, there is no doubt that rural people are totally reliant on car travel. They do not have the big rural transport network out there. That is another factor that the House, and the Minister, must consider.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Certainly, yes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member accept that there is a whole range of issues in the Bill that disadvantages people in the rural community, such as restrictions on the length of time before people can get a full licence? Indeed, many young people in rural areas, where there may not be widespread car ownership among them all, depend on friends to go out for the evening, so the Bill would impact on them in that way as well.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I agree with the Member's intervention. As we go through Second Stage and hear comments from other Members, we see that there is clearly an issue. We need to look at rural people's reliance on cars and on neighbours and friends. However, as I said, the broad principles of what we are trying to do are encouraging.

The other issue that I want to raise — a Member who spoke previously mentioned it — is drug-driving. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how we will take forward that issue. Drug-driving has not been mentioned in the Bill. I know that it has been very difficult for us. It has now been two or three years since we heard and gathered different evidence and tried to address the issue. It is certainly an issue, because, ultimately, what we are trying to do is address the issues through enforcement and detection. The other element is driver behaviour, and that is something else that we have not touched on in the Bill yet, but I will come back to that. Minister, have we made any further progress on how we can address drug-driving in the Bill?

There is one other point that I want to bring up.

Clause 4 would introduce authorised checkpoints, and whilst I do not have an issue with that in principle, I am somewhat concerned, because there are still some sensitive issues about checkpoints and where they might be placed. I am concerned about whether communities would accept that type of checkpoint. So, I need further clarification on that. The Minister said that he will work with the PSNI on looking at that issue. We would need to be very careful about how we introduce and authorise those types of checkpoint in certain areas at this time. There are very sensitive issues, and the Department is well aware of that, because I brought the issue up on a number of occasions in the past as part of our discussions on the Bill.

As I said, we have been through it, we have looked at the issue, and we are now down to the Committee Stage of the Bill. I will certainly look at some of the clauses. We need to look at restrictions on authorised checkpoints and at drug-driving. I have no issues on penalties and fines and all that. I see them as positive and a deterrent, and I would certainly welcome them.

As I said, I look forward to the Committee Stage. The Committee has had a number of Bills over the past while, so we are well used to them. With that, I support the broad principles of the Bill.

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

On behalf of the SDLP, I welcome the Bill, and I will say that we are supportive of its principles.

Let me reflect on what the Minister said in his opening remarks when he said that:

"doing nothing is not an option"

and that we have to do something. Although the Bill may challenge some Members, it is an opportunity to do something to try to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on our roads.

We have had considerable and significant success in reducing the number of deaths, and that has been due to a tremendous effort by many people, but we have to continue that process; we cannot relax. We have to move towards what the Minister described as a "zero road deaths" situation. That is an important objective. I think that we have to measure all these provisions against that objective. I assume that that is the basic principle of the Bill.

We have a concept in the Bill — I am not sure whether it is a principle — that I and, I know, other colleagues support. That is graduated driver licensing. If we accept that principle — or concept, if it is not a principle — we must construct provisions around it to see how we can make progress on these matters. I know that colleagues raised concerns about the exact implementation of that concept, such as how we actually implement it and how we put shape and form to it. That is the job for all of us in the Assembly and, in particular, for the Environment Committee when it comes to consider the Bill in detail.

I am reassured by the Minister's concluding remarks that the Bill can strike "the right balance". I think that all of us in the House want to do that; we do not want to introduce unnecessary difficulties that do not improve driving performance for people, whether they are young people, older or whatever. We want to strike that balance, and that is what the Minister aims to do.

The Minister has asked for, will seek and, I hope, will obtain positive and constructive interaction with the Assembly and the Committee.

In relation to drink-driving, I welcome a reduction from 80 mg to 50. We have to support that. It is the standard limit that has been established throughout Europe, and we should implement it and support it. I have questions about the 20 mg limit, and I think that we have to explore it in more detail. I am not saying that we should or should not go for it; I am saying that we should explore it and see if there are difficulties that we can address. Let us look at it and look at it carefully. It is an innovative provision that the Minister has rightly brought to the House, and it would be negligent of us all if we were to ignore such a provision. Let us look at it in Committee and see if it meets the concerns that we have in the community about drink-driving, particularly in relation to young people and those involved in professional driving, if I can put it like that.

The Bill gives us a real opportunity to be innovative and imaginative. A considerable amount of evidence has been given to the Department on all the issues. There has been considerable consultation, and we should carefully evaluate it, take it on board and arrive at an evidence-based decision on the Bill's provisions. As we do that, we should bear in mind the objective that the Minister has set us of working towards a zero road deaths target. That is very important indeed, and we owe it to our communities across Northern Ireland to do that.

We will have to analyse carefully the provisions on meeting the driving test over a period of a year to see whether that period is too long, can be varied or whatever. Let us look at that and see how we can improve the standard of driving experience for those who are learning to drive. I know that people have argued that passing the test is sufficient. If you have passed the test in a very short time, it may be sufficient, but it may also be insufficient as you do not have the experience that perhaps would help you to improve your driving.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has hit on a key point. The whole concept of GDL is that drivers get experience in a low-risk manner, when they begin to drive on their own. Is that not why the provision for holding a provisional licence for 12 months does not make that much sense? During that 12 months, the driver is not on their own facing real driving conditions. That is perhaps why we need to look at that again. By the same token, it is absolutely sensible that there should be restrictions on a novice driver for a period whilst they gain that experience on their own behind the wheel in real conditions.

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

I suppose that it depends on the extent to which the learner driver is gaining experience of actual road driving over the 12 months. I understand the argument that you put forward, and it is not an unreasonable one. However, you have to balance that with the experience in other jurisdictions, and we have to analyse that carefully. I do not think that we can simply say that that is all nonsense and we will forget about it. It may well be that we come to a conclusion that a lesser period is necessary, but the graduated driver licensing approach is certainly the right approach for new drivers. If we accept that, we have to implement it in some shape or form, and that is the important thing.

Many Members raised the issue of rural drivers and rural experience. I do not come from a rural constituency, and I accept the points that colleagues from rural constituencies have made. I await discussion on that. It is important that we try to get that balance right and do not in any way discriminate against people who live in rural areas and impose unnecessary restrictions on those communities, particularly young drivers. Nonetheless, we have to look at these things carefully and in the round. We have to strike a balance between the rural experience and the urban experience. It is important for colleagues to bear it in mind that accidents on rural roads involve a disproportionately high number of deaths and serious injuries. We cannot neglect that; we have to look at and address that to see whether we can improve the situation.

From time to time, we get exercised about the use of quads, which affects not just rural areas but urban areas. The compulsory wearing of helmets will be of assistance in reducing serious injuries and in creating the notion that quads are like other motor vehicles. They are similar to motorcycles, and people who use them require some additional legal discipline, if I may put it that way. That would inculcate it in people who use quads that they cannot do so freely. We have to create a situation in which people who use them are safeguarded. Therefore, the introduction of protective headgear is important in trying to create a new social discipline in the use of quads. I welcome that provision and think that it will be helpful in bringing home to people a new awareness of quads, which has been absent for some time.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill. It is a great opportunity for the House. I look forward to working with colleagues in Committee and hope that we can reach consensus on the difficult issues raised. There are by no means any easy answers to the questions raised.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This is a significant Bill, and it has got quite a bit of publicity already. I want and, I am sure, everybody in the House wants the number of road deaths in Northern Ireland to be reduced significantly, if not stopped altogether. I know that that is a huge challenge for everybody here, particularly the Environment Minister and his Executive colleagues, but we should strive towards stopping all road deaths if possible.

With regard to the first issue of driving while under the influence of alcohol, I would like the Minister to deal with the lower limit of 20 mg per 100 millilitres of blood that is now proposed and give an assurance that that will not impact on those who may have a small amount of alcohol in their system naturally or by other means, as has been indicated already. I would like that assurance, and I would like to have some discussion around that. I have already questioned the Minister, and he knows my concern that, although the Bill deals with the matter of driving while under the influence of alcohol, it does not deal further with driving while under the influence of drugs, which is becoming as big an issue as alcohol. I would like to see that matter dealt with. I am disappointed that it is not in the Bill, and I would like further discussion of why it is not. I do not think that just saying that it is more difficult to deal with is a real excuse; we need proper discussion and debate on it.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Given that there is existing legislation that deals with driving while under the influence of drugs, perhaps it would be useful if he could outline what additional measures he would like to see included in this Bill to specifically tackle that issue.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that. There is existing legislation that deals with the issue of driving while under the influence of alcohol and that is being changed, so there is no reason why we cannot change the aspects and be more restrictive on driving while under the influence of drugs.

On the proposal for a graduated driving licence, I have concerns about the requirement to hold a provisional licence for a minimum of one year, as I do not see why there is a need for one year. Some people may take one year to pass their test and to be competent driving on our roads, but, for others, it will not take one year. I recall Mr Ross bringing a motion to the Assembly some time ago and, to be fair to him, although I do not think that he was making any proposals, he suggested time frames of possibly six months or a year. If there were to be any time limit, I would like to see it being six months or even less. Mr Wilson has already highlighted in an intervention the fact that the driving test should decide whether a person is competent to drive on our roads. In fairness, I accept that a small minimum time limit might be useful to progress that.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate and agree with the thrust of what the Member has said. As the co-sponsor of that motion with Mr Ross, I clarify that we did not make any specific reference to time frames. Time frames may be unhelpful, but there may be other avenues that could be pursued to achieve the same objective.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that. However, to be fair, there was a specific reference, not in the motion but in the debate, to a time limit or a time frame, and six or 12 months was suggested. To be fair to Mr Ross, he was not making any specific proposals, but he highlighted the option of those two time limits.

I have concerns about putting in a time frame. It is a wee bit like other aspects that we debate, but I will not get into that, Deputy Speaker; otherwise you will say that it is not relevant to the Bill that we are discussing. I do not like arbitrary figures that have no real evidence behind them.

The consultation covered restrictions on younger drivers and the passengers whom they can carry. A Member mentioned that, and Mr Maginness said that, although he is not from a rural constituency, he is happy to discuss the matter. I understand where the Minister is coming from, but restricting passengers discriminates against people in rural areas. There is no question about that. We need to find a mechanism to get over that. Given the number of younger drivers who are killed or seriously injured, I fully understand that the matter needs to be dealt with, and we must find a mechanism to improve the situation. Everything must be enforced and policed, and that provision will add an extra difficulty.

I accept Mr Maginness's point that the wearing of helmets on quads is not only a rural issue but an urban issue. However, whether in urban or rural areas, there is a major a difference between those who race quad bikes up and down roads and a farmer who is moving stock from field to field when an animal gets out on a road and he needs to follow it and get it back in. That problem will be discussed by the Committee and through other means. We need to look at that carefully or there could be a danger of legal cases against farmers who unexpectedly have to move stock across a road or capture an animal.

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

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am happy to.

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

I will make a couple of points. There is great concern about injuries and deaths on farms, and the Health and Safety Executive takes it very seriously. Surely farmers should wear a hard hat or a helmet while carrying out farm work on a quad. Is that not a reasonable suggestion so that, on a voluntary basis, when farmers venture onto a public road, they are legally equipped to do so? Would that not create a healthier and safer environment among the farming community?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I fully appreciate the Member's thoughts. I understand that he is from an urban constituency, and the point that he has made makes it obvious that he is. When a farmer sees some of his stock on a road, he sometimes does not have the time to grab a helmet and put it on. His automatic inclination is to get his stock out of danger and prevent it causing a risk on a road on which there may be traffic. It would be difficult to implement that on a farm.

If a farmer were to move stock in a planned manner, that is a different matter, but flexibility is needed for emergencies. If Mr Maginness wants to come out on a farm to get a view on how it operates, he is welcome. I give him that invitation. He could see how things work in practice and how difficulties arise.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am happy to give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Is this not typical of people from the town trying to legislate for people in the countryside? Will the Member not accept that farmers do not race quads up and down the roads? If farmers are on a road, it is usually to take hay to a field or, as the Member pointed out, to herd cattle, sheep or whatever, and you do not do that at 30 mph, 40 mph or anywhere near it.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I accept that most farmers do not race up and down roads on quads, although there may be exceptions. That is the point that I am trying to make: there is a difference between routine or emergency work and those who go out on a planned quad race up and down a road.

I am happy to support the progress of the Bill, but I look forward to further discussions on various occasions at Committee and back in the Chamber.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for moving the Second Stage of the Bill. The accidents and fatalities on our roads are horrendous, and many could be avoided. If the Assembly can stop the carnage, it will have been well worth it and a job well done for everyone. The Alliance Party welcomes tougher measures. Hopefully, the Bill will bring down the number of road fatalities and injuries, which have serious human and financial impacts. We support the Bill at this stage as a mechanism for bringing forward legislation on the matter. We anticipate further scrutiny on specific proposals to test their robustness.

We are highly sympathetic to the plans to lower the drink-drive limit, but the DOE's public message must always be unambiguous: if you want to drink, simply do not drive — not one glass of wine or one pint of beer. "Do not drink and drive — full stop" must always be the message. We have all seen the graphic TV ads. Who would want to be responsible for creating such carnage and suffering? Unfortunately, once it has happened, it is too late.

Although the new penalty regime for drink-driving offences provides more flexibility for the courts and police to impose graduated penalty points and disqualification, I wonder if it is the right message that those who drink-drive above the new limit but under the current limit can get away with a fixed penalty of £100 and three penalty points, whereas any driver over the current limit will continue to be dealt with by the courts.

I turn to learner and new drivers. We all know the scary statistics of young and inexperienced drivers having accidents. At face value, there is a case for the one-year requirement for learning before taking the practical test. However, I have doubts about how the training logbook can be verified if not by a registered instructor. I know that it will be an offence to forge or misuse a logbook, but those provisions will require further scrutiny.

It may be difficult for the police to enforce on the road the restriction of young drivers to only one passenger. In principle, it is supportable, but, again, greater scrutiny will provide robustness to the proposals. I finish by asking the Minister what the merit of the two-year period is, if the 45 mph speed restriction is removed.

At this stage, the Alliance Party supports the Bill and wishes the Environment Committee well in its deliberations on this life-and-death issue.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I support the principles of the Bill. At the outset — I hope that there will be time next week to address this — I think it is appropriate to mention and place on record my sadness at learning the news this morning of the death of my former colleague from North Down, Sir John Gorman. I am sure that all in the House will join me in that when we have the opportunity, perhaps next week, to deal with the matter in more detail. Certainly, at this stage, my thoughts are with his family.

I appreciate that no one will want me to digress too much from the Bill. As I indicated, I think that all of us can unite around the intentions behind the Bill. Consequently, the good intentions that are out there are to be welcomed. Mention was made of a wide range of initiatives in recent years that, fortunately, had reduced the number of deaths on our roads. For any family, the death or serious injury of a loved one on our roads is one too many.

With the best will in the world, it is unrealistic to believe that we will eliminate death on the roads. We have to accept that. Down the years, quite a number of measures have been taken that have led to a reduction in the number of deaths. We should remember that some were controversial at the time. Perhaps few people today realise how controversial the compulsory wearing of seat belts was a number of years ago. [Interruption.] I appreciate that there may be a couple of people who believe that that was not necessarily the right move, but I will not embarrass anyone by naming names in that regard. Even if we go back 20, 30 or 40 years, the extent to which it was seen to be socially acceptable to drink and drive is, fortunately, something that has been clamped down on and a range of measures has led to that reduction of deaths.

The reduction in deaths has not always been purely about road safety measures in regulations. In my opinion, the biggest leap forward has been in the restructuring of cars to make them safer. Quite often now, we drive past what appear to be horrendous road accidents where the police and ambulances are involved and cars are being towed away, but then we hear nothing at all about them on the news. That is because the structures of cars nowadays are so protective that, in many cases, an accident that 20 years ago in a similar car would have led to a fatality now, fortunately enough, results only in minor injuries.

Obviously, the concern is that, despite the fall in road deaths, there is a danger that we seem, under current measures, to have bottomed out. To use the Minister's phrase — I hope that I am not entirely misquoting him — we need to create a new step change in reduction. From that point of view, the spirit of the Bill is something that we can all embrace.

As a Member of the Committee, I think that there are a lot of elements in the Bill that will require detailed scrutiny. To that extent, I look forward to the weeks and months ahead in which we will try to establish what we can welcome and approve in the Bill and what areas need to be changed. We need to do that on an evidence base. My initial thoughts are that many of the changes that relate to drink-driving make sense. We should embrace the concept of lower limits, and the system of random breath-testing and the greater use of educational courses are certainly worth trying.

One of the major controversies surrounds the issue of learner drivers and new drivers. A number of Members mentioned the motion that Mr Ross and I brought on the issue of graduated driver licensing. As Mr Maginness said, the concept should be embraced. However, those who looked at the debate on that occasion and those who did the research on GDL will see that a plethora of schemes have been used across the world, some of which have been more or less effective in certain circumstances. It is about providing a cocktail of measures. Within this, therefore, there will be aspects of the changes for learner drivers and new drivers that are particularly appropriate and others that may be less so, for example, looking at the way in which we deal with L-plate and R-plate restrictions.

I was taken by the notion that the pure restriction to 45 mph means that, in practical terms, there can be a lack of experience. For example, on any particular occasion, you eventually reach a situation in which someone who is newly qualified is suddenly alone on a road with a 60 mph limit or, indeed, at a future stage, on a motorway and has no experience of driving in those conditions. Alterations to that would be welcome.

We need to look at the need for particular levels of attainment of experience, which seems to be sensible, but there are other aspects of this about which I have greater concern. It has been mentioned that there is a suggestion in the legislation about a year before taking the driving test. There are other ways of doing this. Specifying time frames seems to be the wrong way of going about it. It has also been mentioned that, in different parts of the country, there are people who have gained that experience very quickly and have a degree of aptitude.

A bit like Mr Wilson, I suppose, I passed my driving test on the second go. Some who have seen me drive may feel that a lot longer may have been —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Did you ever pass?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I did.

Some people have a natural aptitude for driving, and others do not. A particular concern about the time frame is whether it is measured simply as the period between someone's applying for a licence and getting the test. We all come across young people in particular who are mad keen to be out driving as soon as they are the age. They will get the licence. They will get vast amounts of driving experience very quickly, and may well have good aptitude and be able to pass the test quickly. Others may be a bit more reluctant. They may almost feel a certain pressure to apply for it as a rite of passage, then may well have a bad experience in their first couple of lessons and essentially be put off learning for a bit. There may actually be a situation where someone has clocked up a year or 18 months since getting their original provisional licence but has very little experience. Therefore, an arbitrary time frame is not one that necessarily matches circumstances properly. Again, as with all aspects of this, that is something that the Committee will want to explore.

Clearly, to address some of the concerns, one element that is sometimes used in GDL is the restriction on the number of passengers that, in particular, young drivers or inexperienced drivers can carry. Quite naturally, widespread concern has been raised on that particular issue. Mr Boylan mentioned in the debate and previously the implications for employment, for example, if that were put in place. To be fair to the Department, I think that there has been an attempt to produce some form of nuanced position on that. However, most people looking at what is proposed at present will see, at first sight, a bit of a dog's dinner, to be perfectly honest, in terms of the restrictions and the exemptions to those restrictions. From that point of view, I am sceptical about that element of it, but we will wait and see.

Finally, I think that we need to see an evidence base on the use of protective headgear on quad bikes. I suppose, like Mr Maginness, I am a bit of a townie in that regard. I am less familiar with the position. Indeed, my experience of quad bikes is more of seeing young people trying to race about on them at 30 or 40 mph. I very much take that on board. I am sure that the Committee will listen to the rural voices of people like Mr Elliott and their farmland experience. There may well be an argument that the situation is quite different for farmers in rural areas. I also take on board what has been said and appreciate that there is a general degree of protection. The idea that there is simply a correlation between protective headgear and something that will reduce the number of deaths is again something we have to tease out an evidential basis.

Many aspects of the Bill can be useful and will be a productive way forward. However, to put it at its mildest, other Members and I will certainly query a number of its aspects. My colleagues to my right and left are due to speak next. I suspect that, over the next few minutes, they may query those aspects a bit more vigorously than I have, as neither has the opportunity to test them on the evidence of the Committee for the Environment.

There is the very serious and critical issue of how we actually produce legislation that leads to a reduction in the number of road deaths and with which we can help to drive that down. It has got to be done with something that is effective and enforceable and that is where the key tests need to be applied. Although it is a much shorter Bill than the Local Government Bill, I suspect that we will face it in the same way, in that we had a Bill that was a useful template to work on, to which we then made quite a number of amendments. My suspicion is that when we move through the process of Committee Stage and scrutinise this Bill, a number of changes will need to be made to it as we move ahead.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the serious scrutiny that the Environment Committee can give the Bill. Hopefully, at the end of it, we will have an effective piece of legislation which, hopefully in an effective manner, protects our citizens in terms of road safety.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the House. I know that his predecessor initiated the legislation, but he is otherwise engaged today, as are some other Members.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

You will soon have him back.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I cannot hear you there. Sorry, Peter.

This is very important legislation, and every Member in the House appreciates that it is about safety. Even some of the more libertarian Members across the way, I think, understand that the purpose of the Bill is to save lives. Anybody who watches the news on any given weekend will know how important that is and how we have to strive every day to make our roads safer.

We have to recognise that things have improved massively in the past number of years and decades, but we have a serious issue, in that far too many of our young people and our people in general still die on the roads. One of the issues around that is the state of some of our roads. Coming from the constituency of Foyle, I know all too well that, to get to anywhere else, you have to travel across fairly treacherous roadways. We never had the opportunity to go anywhere near a motorway when we were learning to drive. Even if we had been allowed to do so, we would have had to go far too far to find one, unfortunately.

We have to understand that the Bill is a genuine attempt to save lives. We can argue over some of the details now, but we will do a fair bit of that when the Bill comes to the Committee. Everybody seems to be committed to the idea that we have to do more to achieve the goal.

We have heard quite a bit about the rural community. I, too, am a townie, but I have plenty of family involved in farming, so I have a slight understanding — not as much as some people around here — of the needs of the farming community and the wider rural community in particular. If you take any of the issues, you will see that rural areas are affected a bit more. If you take the drink-driving issue, the issue of carrying passengers, the issue of the length of time that you have to have been learning to drive before you can do your test and the quad issue, you will see that all affect rural people a bit more. That is because of the isolation, the lack of transport and a lot of other things.

What has affected rural communities a bit more is the deaths on our roads. Rural communities across Northern Ireland, across Donegal and across Ireland have been absolutely devastated by horrendous stories about groups of young people in particular. I remember one incident around Carndonagh in Donegal where, I think, seven young people were in one car, and all but the driver were killed. The impact of such incidents on rural communities in general is much greater than that of some of the smaller issues that we can deal with as we work through the Bill.

It is good that, once the legislation is passed, we can finally say to people that no drink at all is allowed, because there is still some confusion. We can do all the ads that we want, but, until you make it law and say, "No drink is allowed before you get behind a wheel", people will continue to do it and say, "If I have one drink, I may as well have two drinks or maybe three or four drinks. I can handle it. I can handle my drink, and I can drive a car no matter how many pints I have had". We all know the devastating effect that drink-driving can have. Therefore, that is a very sensible measure that I hope we can agree on.

On graduated driving licences, we have heard the figures: 17- to 24-year-olds hold only 10% of driving licences, but they are involved in 42% of the fatal collisions that occur across the North. We need to do whatever we have to do. We can discuss the details of how many months, how many lessons or whatever, but it has to get to the stage at which people are not just learning how to pass their test but are really learning how to drive. People always tell you that you learn how to drive after you have passed your test. People could do a bit more learning before they pass their test. That makes a bit of sense.

In terms of the motorway issue, I remember passing my test on a Friday and having to drive to Belfast on a Monday. I had never seen a motorway or been behind the wheel of a car for driving on a motorway. It was an absolutely terrifying experience coming into Belfast and trying to negotiate the different lanes and different speeds of cars, and I was allowed to drive only at 45 mph.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. I accept some of what he said, particularly that there is a theory that you learn to drive properly only after you have been successful in your test and that, prior to that, you learn to do your test. However, that is the issue with the test. It needs to reflect proper driving qualities, and, if the driving test needs to be changed, so be it. I do not think that having a year, six months or three months to learn to do that will make any difference, because all that you will do is learn how to do the test.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

You will also have to do a certain number of lessons, however, and those will have to be logged and all that. So, I think that there is merit in that.

It makes perfect sense to get rid of the 45 mph limit not just for motorways but in general. How can you learn to cope with driving at 70 mph if you have never driven even at 50 mph? It makes absolutely no sense at all, and that is a good idea that is in the Bill. How will somebody from Derry, for example, ever get practice on a motorway if they have to drive 50 or 60 miles to find one? Maybe we can do a bit of work to bring the motorway a wee bit closer to make that a bit easier.

I know that one of the controversial issues in this is passenger restrictions, and I hear the arguments about that. However, the international evidence tells us that it is more dangerous and more distracting for young people in particular to carry a number of passengers who are around their same age. It makes sense that we try to deal with that, and I am sure that there will be plenty of debate on that.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. As somebody who did a lot of work on the whole GDL issue a number of years ago, the Member is absolutely right in saying that the evidence suggests that carrying passengers in the car distracts the driver, particularly young drivers, and makes them more likely to be involved in a traffic collision. But the same could be said for restrictions such as preventing young people from driving at night. That is because, again, the international evidence points to the fact that, if young novice drivers are driving during dark periods, they are more likely to be involved in a road traffic accident. Yet his Minister has rejected that idea, correctly in my view, because I do not think that that would be desirable. So, even if the evidence says that it will work, it is not always desirable. Would the Member go further than the Minister and have restrictions on night-time driving, or does he appreciate that, sometimes, even though the evidence suggests that it will work, it is not necessarily desirable for legislation?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member makes a fair point. The Minister has accepted that there are other things that he could have done on night-time driving and everything else. However, I think that he is doing what he can do, what is sensible and what can be implemented. In fact, the restrictions on passenger numbers and passenger ages will apply at night as well when there is likely to be more peer pressure with the issues that we know about. Given that most of those incidents and accidents happen at night, I think that that makes some sense. Of course, there is PSNI support for that measure.

One of the major issues that was just touched on in the debate is insurance for young drivers. We have all heard of the extortionate quotes that people have been given for car insurance, especially young people and new drivers in general. Insurance companies, whether we can believe them or not, are telling us that these kinds of improvements, as they see them, can help to bring down car insurance prices.

In terms of the quad issue, I understand that issue, and I think that we may have to look at how we can legislate for that in farming. However, I see far more quad bikes in estates around Derry than I do in Donegal or Tyrone driving around the roads. I know that they are a much-used vehicle for farmers, but one of the major issues with quad bikes is the issues that we see in estates, towns and cities. Those issues need to be tackled in a number of different ways, and this is one way that we can help to at least improve some of the safety issues.

Finally, I commend the Minister and the previous Minister for their work on this issue. They are doing everything that they can to try and ensure that we can drive down the incidents of fatalities on our roads, and I think that has to be commended. I am sure that there is broad support for the broad principles of the Bill, and we will get into the detail around it as we go forward.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Those who were not up all night counting votes will notice that it is the Minister of Finance who is standing in for his ministerial colleague, who is unwell. Question 11 has been withdrawn.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the work of the housing repossession task force. (AQO 6186/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The work of the housing repossession task force will be time-bound and completed in two phases. The first phase will focus on the nature and extent of the possessions issue in Northern Ireland, with a view to producing an initial research report by the end of June 2014. Minister McCausland is pleased to advise that the task force is making strong progress in the completion of the research phase. Outcomes from the research will inform the second phase of developing evidence-based recommendations for potential mitigating actions by the end of this year.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. Does the Minister accept that building or providing more social homes will prevent low-income families being forced to buy properties in the rented sector and, thereby, potentially spiralling into debt and that it is more appropriate to build more social homes?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I suppose that a habitual problem in the next 45 minutes will be that I often express my view, which, I am sure, will chime entirely with that of the Minister for Social Development. The Minister and his Department are on track to meet the target laid out for social and affordable homes over the current Programme for Government period — I think that it is around 8,000 homes. It is an ambitious but very achievable target that will make a considerable difference to people in Northern Ireland.

Given the times that we are in, more people are under pressure and, for them, social housing is the appropriate answer. It is not the answer for everybody. That is why I am and have been very pleased, over the past number of years, that the Minister for Social Development has pursued not just more social homes but more affordable homes. I am pleased that, with the help of my Department — the Department of Finance and Personnel — the budget for co-ownership housing in Northern Ireland has doubled over the past number of years. Last year alone, over 1,000 people were able to avail themselves of the co-ownership housing scheme in Northern Ireland. For them, owning a home was the right option. I do not think that, if you were to talk to the more than 1,000 individuals and families who availed themselves of co-ownership in the past year, you would think that they felt that they were stuck with that. That is the choice that they made, and it was a positive choice for them. A lot of the modelling looked at how much was being saved and found that the mortgage and rent payment through co-ownership was considerably less than what people were paying for private rented accommodation. For some people, social housing is the obvious answer; for others, affordable housing is the answer; and, for others, it is buying homes with, perhaps, some assistance from government and others.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Is he concerned that possible future interest rate rises may result in an increase in repossessions?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

There is a fear or spectre of the inevitability of mortgage interest rates rising over the next number of years. A rise would be good for savers, who have been struggling because of the record low rates for such a long time, but there would be an opposite reaction among those who are on the property ladder and are paying off their mortgage. One only had to listen to the governor of the Bank of England, the weekend before last, talking about the housing market. The housing market in Great Britain, particularly in London and the south-east, is in an entirely different position from ours. There is widespread talk about it overheating and a property bubble developing. There are no such worries or concerns, at this stage, about that happening here in Northern Ireland. There is very little heat in the market, albeit that it has been changing over the past number of months.

There are understandable concerns that, if there were to be a sudden increase in interest rates, it would put a lot of people under pressure. I take some comfort from listening to the governor of the Bank of England saying that he is not looking at sudden increases in the interest rate. He is not saying that it will happen very soon. I think that we all understand that, inevitably, it will happen at some stage in the future. It is important that those on the property ladder paying their mortgage do what I heard described last week at a Bank of Ireland event: just as the banks are undergoing stress tests, individuals should look at their household income in the context of possible interest rate rises and what that might mean for their budgets. There are obvious concerns, and people need to be cognisant of them. Those stepping onto the property ladder need to make sure that they can afford the house that they are buying and that, if there is a sudden jump in interest rates, they would still be able to afford to live in the house they have bought.

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

I thank the Minister for his answers. Does he accept that those unfortunate families living through a nightmare are being put through hell because of house repossessions and having to be moved out? Does he accept that that is unacceptable? What advice can the Executive give to people suffering the loss of their family home?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I absolutely agree with the Member: for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unable to afford to keep up payments on their house and facing the very real prospect — the reality, in many instances — of their family home of many years being taken off them, that is not a nice situation to be in. That is why the Minister for Social Development and his Department have supported the Housing Rights Service in providing support and assistance to those in that situation. All the evidence is that, the quicker people get to the likes of the Housing Rights Service with their problems to try to work them through not just with the Housing Rights Service but with their mortgage lender, the more likelihood there is of a positive outcome to their problem.

We can all understand and appreciate that people are perhaps reluctant sometimes to accept that they have a problem. They try to carry on and muddle through, but, all the time, the pressure is building. If the Minister were here, I am sure that he would send out the message that, if you think that you have problems or if you actually have problems with paying your mortgage, engage early not just with your mortgage lender but with the Housing Rights Service, which provides an exceptional service supported by the Department for Social Development. In those circumstances, with that help and expert advice, there is always the chance that the very scenario that the Member paints of somebody losing their family home might be avoided.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. In my patch, Christians Against Poverty has been excellent in helping people out. Does the Minister accept that we do not have enough support and debt relief to help people? Will the Minister put more effort into helping the housing repossessions task force to build better contacts and making sure that everyone knows what is available?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I echo what Mr Kinahan said about the charity Christians Against Poverty, which has a presence in my constituency as well. It and many others, including some of the more established names, such as Citizens Advice and the Housing Rights Service, which I mentioned, do exceptional work. Although the issue is more about repossessions than housing debt, sometimes that is triggered by debt issues in other parts of people's lives, which have a knock-on effect on the ability of an individual to pay their mortgage. In that sense, a more overarching approach is useful.

In response to the crisis over the past number of years, the Department for Social Development has helped to fund the Housing Rights Service, and my colleague the Enterprise Minister has helped to fund the citizens advice bureaux to carry out work on personal debt on her Department's behalf. Lots of work is going on. I am sure that, in response to the Member's question, we could get a fuller response to him about what is being done to knit together those different but sometimes interrelated parts of the debt problem.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the Building Successful Communities pilot schemes. (AQO 6187/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 8 together as each raises similar issues.

The Building Successful Communities programme, which the Department for Social Development launched in October 2013, springs directly from the vision of housing-led community regeneration as outlined in DSD’s housing strategy. That vision is focused on ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to access good housing at a reasonable cost. It recognises the significant role that housing can play in helping to support and sustain economic recovery, create employment and help to regenerate some of our most deprived and neglected communities.

The six pilot areas — five in Belfast and one in Ballymena — were chosen because they represent some or all of the problems that Building Successful Communities is specifically designed to address: blight; vacant housing stock; antisocial behaviour; high incidences of reported crime; and economic inactivity. Obviously, these areas are very different from one another, and some of the specific challenges are unique to that area. The Building Successful Communities programme, therefore, cannot and will not try to implement a one-size-fits-all solution in each pilot area. That is why Minister McCausland is delighted to report that three of the six pilot areas have already established their regeneration forums. Work is now under way in those three areas to identify each area’s specific physical, social, environmental and economic needs, with a view to developing a plan to address those needs. The regeneration forums in the remaining three pilot areas are expected to meet soon.

Minister McCausland knows that Members will be particularly interested in an update on the pilot in the Doury Road — I hope that I have pronounced that correctly — in Ballymena. That Building Successful Communities forum met for the first time on 1 May, and a second meeting is planned for 27 May. A Building Successful Communities seminar is also planned to take place at the 174 Trust on the Antrim Road, itself a magnificent example of the transformative power of regeneration, on Wednesday 11 June. The seminar is targeted at members of the regeneration forums and will draw speakers from across the regeneration field who will impart their experience, encouragement and suggestions for the challenges ahead.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I am delighted that he mentioned the Doury Road — I will correct his pronunciation slightly on that. It is my understanding that the Housing Executive intends to put the demolition on hold. Does that mean curtains for the demolition, or does the Housing Executive plan on demolishing the vacant properties at a later stage?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

With the Doury Road — that must be the Ballymena pronunciation — it is my understanding that the Housing Executive's demolition plans mentioned by the Member preceded the decision to pilot the Building Successful Communities programme in that area. In light of the establishment of the Doury Road as a pilot area, Minister McCausland has agreed with the Housing Executive that it would not be appropriate to progress current demolition plans. All plans for regeneration of the estate, including any necessary demolitions, are subject to be taken forward through the plan developed by the Building Successful Communities forum in the Doury Road. The forum includes the Helm and Triangle housing associations, which have been appointed to progress all new social and affordable housing developments in that pilot area.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. Stage 1 of the programme, which covered its set-up, staff and governance arrangements and the establishment of the forums, is now entering its conclusion. In the next month, the programme will move to stage 2, which will cover the beginning of the production of action plans and the appointment of consultants to work with each forum and to provide expertise and support in the formulation of action plans.

The Department for Social Development anticipates that stage 2 will be completed for all six pilot areas by July 2015. Stage 3, which will run until the end of 2015, will deal with the approval of the action plans, equality screening related to those actions and the securing of funding from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I say to the Minister for Social Development, "Good luck with that".

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

Will the Minister reassure the House that the Building Successful Communities pilot scheme will comply with the relevant equality legislation?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

As I said in response to the previous question, equality screening, which is done in any policy, of the Building Successful Communities programme will be done at stage 3, which will run until the end of 2015.

That will deal with a range of issues including, as I mentioned, funding and equality screening relating to specific actions and action plans that are developed by the fora in each area.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Minister mentioned the Doury Road. I wonder whether he is aware that over 20 families have been given notice to quit there as part of that development. Does he agree that that is not really conducive to a good project?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that the Member knows I would not have that level of intimate detail on the particular circumstances surrounding notices to quit. I will certainly ensure that officials from the Department for Social Development contact the Member with an answer and explanation as to why that is the case.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development whether he will seek independent advice on the best way to calculate housing need following the concerns raised about the method used to calculate these figures in North Belfast. (AQO 6188/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Minister McCausland has the responsibility for ensuring that access to housing is available for all citizens, irrespective of their religious or political persuasion. He has publicly and consistently highlighted the need to build more homes and improve housing conditions for everyone in Northern Ireland. The Housing Executive has a statutory duty to regularly examine housing conditions and need. In doing so, it frequently commissions independent research to inform its approach. That reflects the Housing Executive's Northern Ireland-wide remit and its long track record of determining housing need, identifying where new housing should be located and allocating housing on the basis of identified need.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister will be aware of the considerable concern about the Department building houses in that area from people who question whether it is about political benefits for the Minister rather than providing homes for people in greatest need. How can the Minister restore public confidence in the process, particularly among people in north Belfast?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member's original question was about ensuring that there is independent advice. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development, I can assure the Member and the House that the models and statistics that are produced to identify need are independently assessed and reviewed.

His concerns, which he says reflect the concerns expressed by others, are, of course, coming from one particular perspective and do not bear in mind the deep social housing need right across north Belfast. When one looks at the whole of the North Belfast constituency, one sees that there is an identified housing need of 1,994 people who are deemed as members of the Protestant community, or who identify themselves as such, and 1,988 people who identify themselves as Roman Catholic on the waiting list. I am sure that the Member is too long in the tooth to fall for the hype and propaganda of others. I am sure that he will appreciate that 1,994 versus 1,988 does not show that there is need predominantly on one side of the community versus the other and that, in fact, there is balance in the very high housing need in that constituency.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Can the Minister clarify what independent advice the Housing Executive receives in calculating housing need across Northern Ireland? Is it just assessed against waiting lists?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

No, it is not. The Member is right, as, indeed, was Mr McCarthy, to ask about independent advice. This is not a case of the Minister just sitting down and working it out himself. It is not even a case of the Housing Executive or his Department doing that. This is work that has had external independent underpinning by people who are experts in the field. For example, the most recent calculation of housing need that looked across the whole of Northern Ireland, not just north Belfast, was done in January 2013, just over a year ago. That work was carried out by Chris Paris, who was an emeritus professor at the University of Ulster and is now at the University of Adelaide. Professor Paris calculated that, to meet estimated demand, 1,200 new social homes are required per year in the 2008-2018 period.

That is work that, as I said, is not done by the Minister, the Department or the Housing Executive but is done and assisted by an independent academic from, at that stage, the University of Ulster. So, when some people are hurling around various accusations in the direction of the Minister for Social Development, what they are actually doing is undermining the work of an academic from the University of Ulster.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister now concede that the use of the figures regarding housing need in north Belfast was disingenuous, referring, as they did, to the parliamentary constituency rather than the housing district? Will he outline the actions that are being put in place to address the plight of those who are in housing need within that district?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that the Member would not wish to parcel up need artificially. Need is need, and need across the whole of the North Belfast constituency has been identified — as I outlined in response to Mr McCarthy — as not being predominantly in one community but pretty equal across both communities. You can identify that in district offices. Of course, there is an office called the north Belfast Housing Executive office, which does not cover the entirety of north Belfast. So, to ask about north Belfast and get a north Belfast answer does not in any way cover the entirety, or even close to the entirety, of the North Belfast constituency.

I think it is useful, right and proper that the Minister provides figures on a constituency-by-constituency basis. I know that my own Department is frequently asked for statistics on a constituency-by-constituency basis. It is not always easy, because sometimes that is not how figures and statistics are actually produced, but I think, in a situation where the north Belfast district office covers roughly a quarter — with Newtownabbey 1, 2 and Shankill also covering that area — it is only right and proper that there is a broader perspective of need, and considerable need, across the constituency, in the Protestant community every bit as much as there is in the Catholic community in north Belfast. I can see Members opposite shaking their heads. The truth of what is happening across the way is that they want to wallow in the need of one community and not have any regard for the need of other communities over a line. [Interruption.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

There is serious housing need in the North Belfast constituency, in the Protestant community every bit as much as there is — indeed, more than there is — in the nationalist community. That is a need that the Members opposite clearly wish to ignore —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Two minutes are up.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

— but it is not need that the Minister for Social Development is going to ignore.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development, in light of the questions being raised by the media, independent non-governmental organisations and international housing experts regarding the alleged gerrymandering of housing allocations and resources in north Belfast, whether he will stand aside from his ministerial position until an independent review is undertaken to establish the facts. (AQO 6189/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

No.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I acknowledge that response from the Minister on behalf of the other Minister. I will make a point that follows on from the last discussion. I think it is very unfortunate that the issue of housing has now become seriously politicised and sectarianised in north Belfast. I put it to the Minister who is speaking on behalf of his ministerial colleague that, in a recent interview, the Minister in question stated that, although one of the nine houses recently allocated in the Oldpark area of north Belfast had been allocated to an applicant with 200 points, over half of the nine properties allocated were allocated to people with no points. Does the Minister not accept on behalf of his ministerial colleague that that makes a complete mockery of the concept of objective need?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am afraid that, without specific knowledge of the particular nine houses, where they are, who got them, what points they got them on and all of that, I am not in a position to give the Member the sort of answer that he was obviously looking for.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister, like me, find the barefaced hypocrisy of Sinn Féin Members amazing? On the one hand, they call for the resignation of a Minister who has allocated resources for housing on a pattern that does not suit their sectarian prejudices and, on the other hand, they ignore the fact that their own leader has been implicated in covering up the rape of a young girl, while the deputy First Minister in the Assembly has now been implicated in murder by one of his terrorist colleagues in Londonderry?

Will he give us an assurance that the Minister for Social Development will not bow to the pressure of Sinn Féin and that my constituents, some of whom live in north Belfast, will not be disadvantaged by spurious, prejudiced and biased reports, which are politically motivated and designed to take resources away from the Protestant community?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I remind Members that Question Time is meant to be about the topic under discussion. It is not an opportunity for speeches, and the Member who has just spoken — a former Minister — is well enough aware of that protocol, and he is out of order.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Social development questions are a lot livelier than finance and personnel questions. I might come back in future.

I agree entirely with everything that the Member said. There is lots of catcalling and howling from the Benches opposite for resignations or for Ministers on this side of the House to stand aside when those Ministers are doing their job. They are trying their best to address housing need in Northern Ireland wherever it arises, whether it be in Catholic, Protestant or whatever communities in north Belfast and across Northern Ireland.

The situation in north Belfast is such that attempts have been made down through the years to mask the fact that there are problems on the Protestant community side. Those problems have been shown to be very real by the work of the Minister for Social Development. He met frequently with the MP for the area to address the housing issues. It is not the fault of the Minister for Social Development that the DUP MP for North Belfast is incredibly active on the issue. The Minister has received no request from Sinn Féin or the SDLP to meet to discuss any housing issues in the area. So, there are some johnny-come-latelys to the issue who are now crying, gurning and complaining about it when the Minister has been doing his best to address the housing need on both sides of the community in north Belfast and, indeed, elsewhere.

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

Is it not clear from the online newspaper 'The Detail' that Minister McCausland was intent on meeting not simply with the chairperson of the Housing Executive but with officials of the Housing Executive at a local level in order to browbeat and bully them into a political stance that suited his political agenda, instead of addressing the needs of the 3,888 people who require houses in north Belfast?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

To accuse the Minister of browbeating officials of the Housing Executive is a very serious accusation.

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

I can put it in stronger terms if you want.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

However, I expect nothing less from Members opposite, and particularly from the SDLP Member for North Belfast. When the SDLP was in control of the Department for Social Development, its Minister removed the ring-fence for housing provision, and that included provision for north Belfast. If there are accusations made of neglecting need in north Belfast, perhaps the Member should look much more closely at his own party. The Member's reading of the article in the online newspaper 'The Detail' is distinctly different from my reading of what it says. There is no accusation of gerrymandering or browbeating made by the newspaper. The Member should be incredibly careful about what he accuses the Minister for Social Development of.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I ask the Minister, on behalf of his ministerial colleague, whether he can give a commitment that the seemingly endless and partisan spat between him and those opposite will not in any way impact on the eventual delivery of much-needed housing at Girdwood?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Girdwood is obviously only one part of north Belfast, and new social housing is earmarked for that site. However, the Member is getting towards the right approach. The accusations that are being thrown by Sinn Féin and the SDLP are an attempt, as Mr Wilson said, to throw up a smokescreen. I assure the Member that the Minister for Social Development will not be knocked off course from addressing the core of the issue, which is that the North Belfast constituency has a very high social housing need on both sides of the community. Addressing that need is the Minister's job, and I am sure that he will do the best that he can to address it.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

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

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development what action has been taken to improve work capability assessments following the review of the employment and support allowance. (AQT 1161/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am not familiar with the specific details of what has been done on that. At the risk of repeating my previous answer to the Member, that information will be provided in what I am sure will now be a very lengthy letter back to Mr Cree.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Will we try for a hat-trick? I call Mr Cree for a supplementary question.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Yes, indeed, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — it will be a hat-trick.

Part of the process involves the use of mental health champions. How many mental health champions are there, and what is the procedure for appointing those people to specific cases at appeal?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I have always wanted to do this: I refer the Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I think that there is hardly a member of the public, particularly over the past weeks and months, who could have escaped that there is a debate going on about welfare reform and how it affects people in Northern Ireland. As a sometime participant in that debate, I would perhaps be one of the first to accept that, from time to time, that debate has generated much more heat than light. I think that, while the heat has been kicked up, perhaps some of the realities of welfare reform in Northern Ireland have been missed by a great many people here, particularly those who might feel that they will be affected in one way but who, in reality, will not be affected. I am sure that that will cause considerable and perhaps some unwarranted concern for people.

I know that my colleague the Minister for Social Development was very keen to inform and to better inform the public through an information campaign. Unfortunately, the Committee for Social Development took a somewhat different view of the merits of that. I think that that is regrettable, because I think that anything that better informs the public about anything that we do would be very worthwhile, especially for those who may be affected but who will perhaps not be affected or affected as much. That is particularly the case for an issue such as welfare reform, which is detailed and difficult even for Members to get their heads around.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Notwithstanding the points that I made in my previous answer, I think that there is an urgent need for us to accept that, if we do not get on with dealing with welfare reform, the ramifications for Northern Ireland will be incredibly severe.

I received correspondence from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the past week in which he confirmed that the Treasury has already taken £13 million from the Executive's baseline spend this year. That money is now gone. So, there is no longer any debate about it being paper money, not being a real process or not happening. The money has now gone from our baseline, and the people of Northern Ireland, including vulnerable people who avail themselves of services from the health service, the Education Department and, indeed, the Social Development Department, will suffer from the lack of that £13 million to spend. There is, of course, the looming threat of a further £87 million being taken off later in the year if progress is not made on welfare reform in Northern Ireland.

I know that many Members are not fans of the proposed welfare reform. There are also many members of my party who are not fans of elements of the welfare reform agenda. We have rightly opposed those elements in Westminster, where they should be opposed. The reality is that non-progress on the basis of a package that, I have to say, is incredibly attractive versus what people in England, Scotland and Wales now have at their disposal, given that time is critical, is letting down the people of Northern Ireland and is an abject failure in leadership on the part of some in the House.

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

3. asked the Minister for Social Development whether he agrees that the assessment of the alleged overpayment of £18 million was way off the mark. (AQT 1163/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

No.

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

Does the Minister agree that reputational damage was done to those contractors as a result? What will the Minister do about that?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The reason for my short answer was that, as the Member will know, work is ongoing on the alleged overpayments of £18 million to, I think, four contractors in Northern Ireland. The work is being carried out by the Housing Executive, which is the organisation that had the contracts. That investigative work has not come to the Department for Social Development yet, and, therefore, on behalf of the Minister, I am not able to comment at this stage.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Ms Megan Fearon is not in her place.

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

5. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the future of the neighbourhood renewal schemes, which have been so beneficial for many parts of our cities and district towns. (AQT 1165/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The week after local government elections to our 11 new reorganised councils is, perhaps, an apt time to be raising that. It is my understanding, as I am sure the Member will appreciate, that the powers for regeneration, including powers for neighbourhood renewal, are to move to the new councils as of 1 April next year.

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

I welcome the Minister's response. Will any finance be allocated to the new councils to widen the scope and remit of the neighbourhood renewal schemes, particularly to smaller towns?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that the Member, particularly given the stewardship of the Department of the Environment by his party colleague Mr Durkan, will be well aware that one of the overarching principles of the review of public administration is that no power or service should transfer from central government in Stormont to local government in a way that would cost local government. Detailed work is going on between the Department of the Environment and my Department to work out the exact intricacies of the funding mechanism for various services moving forward. The principle of it being done in a cost-neutral way is important. Obviously, there will be discussions to be had in each individual Department on how that is done. The Department for Social Development will have a view on how that should be done, and other Departments might have slightly different views. I know that some discussions are ongoing, and I have, in fact, met the Minister of the Environment to discuss a particular issue of some powers transferring from DSD to local government.

Of course, moving forward, additional money starts to become the responsibility of each individual new council. It will be for the new councils, within their borrowing power and rate base, to choose their priorities. If new councils want to spend more on, for example, neighbourhood renewal, that is a matter for them. That is the essence of being in government, whether local or central. It is about making choices, and, just as we would have to make a choice if we wanted to move funding to neighbourhood renewal and take the consequences of less spending elsewhere, so, too, will local government face those realities in the years to come.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

6. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on appointments to the DLO performance and development committee, which was advertised recently by the Department and Housing Executive. (AQT 1166/11-15)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I understand that the Minister for Social Development had some misfortune recently, and, in spite of the controversy earlier on here today, I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery to him.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that the Minister is grateful for the Member's best wishes. Rather than giving the Member a completely inaccurate update, I will ensure that the Department communicates with him and gives him a detailed response.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

When the Minister is doing that, will he provide details of how many people applied for those positions?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that the Department will have heard that and will ensure that the Member gets as comprehensive a response as it can provide.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

7. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the new responsibilities that the super-councils, rather than the Department, will deliver. (AQT 1167/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Neighbourhood renewal is just one of the powers that will transfer from the Department for Social Development to local government. I am quite excited about councils getting the powers of regeneration, including regeneration of sites such as Queen's Parade in Bangor in the new North Down and Ards Council area, of which I am now a ratepayer. I will be funding the redevelopment in Bangor, and Mr Gordon Dunne will be very appreciative of those rates heading up the dual carriageway into Bangor.

I am sure that the Member, too, in his constituency, will see the potential for places such as Carrick and Larne not having to wait, as they have in the past perhaps, for prioritisation by the Department for Social Development. That is not to knock what happened in the past; it is just the reality of having a certain amount of money at our disposal to spend on regeneration projects. Certain areas will get prioritised, and others will have to wait their turn. As I said in response to Mr Byrne, it is now up to the new councils as they settle in and develop plans for their areas to say what they want to prioritise their expenditure on. I am very excited about the possibility of many schemes that have perhaps been sitting on the shelf for a number of years being fast-forwarded and developed in pretty quick order.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Department have confidence that the new councils will be able to deliver those essential functions once they take over?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I think that there will be a bit of a culture shock for some elected members. They will need to grasp their responsibilities very quickly, because responsibility begins on 1 April next year. Although councillors will still have to do everything that they did before and ensure that it is done to a very high standard, there are a lot of powers — planning, community planning, regeneration and so forth — that they will have to get their head around almost immediately. Good teams of councillors have been elected across the country to serve their new district council areas, and they have to collectively realise that they have an opportunity to shape their new council areas in a way that those of us who were in local government in the past had no opportunity to do and would have been quite envious in some ways of the powers that are being bestowed on local government to reshape and regenerate their towns, cities and villages. The biggest challenge is not the capability of officials or the capability of members of councils; it is their ability to see the big picture. All our new councillors need to begin to embrace very quickly the possibilities and opportunities that the review of public administration presents to them.

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

9. asked the Minister for Social Development for his estimation of the current housing need in the Newry and Mourne housing district. (AQT 1169/11-15)

Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire cad é mar a mheasann sé an riachtanas tithíochta i gceantar an Iúir agus Mhúrn.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not have those figures to hand.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer, short and all as it was. In due course, will the Minister provide up-to-date figures and outline how that need is being addressed?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am very pleased to assure the Member that I will ensure that that information is provided to him.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I inform Members that questions 7 and 11 have been withdrawn.

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

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how many business cases are with her Department and awaiting a decision. (AQO 6201/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. DCAL is considering five business cases. They are at various stages, and my officials are continuing to work with the relevant organisations to ensure that each case is of sufficient quality to facilitate a timely decision on the investment of public funds.

In addition, DCAL has provided feedback on two further business cases and is awaiting the submission of revised drafts. Work is also ongoing in the Department on the development of a further four business cases for projects that we hope to progress in the near future.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. I take it that there are nine business cases in total: the five plus the four. Will she give us a flavour of the business cases, the impact on the budget and whether the spend will be met? Indeed, what does that mean if some are to be spent within the school term timetable?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am not sure about the school term timetable; I am going by own timetable. As for the flavour of the business cases, although there are nine cases today, I could go in next week, and there could be a further two. That is the nature of the progression, which is good because it means that we are moving in the right direction.

We are looking at the refurbishment of Coleraine library at a cost of over £2 million; the Arts Council gifting of musical instruments at almost £60,000; Tollymore National Outdoor Centre at almost £2·5 million; Dungiven sports provision; Omagh Riding for the Disabled Association; the Ulster canal; T: BUC; and the strategic outline business cases for the subregional stadia programmes.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what action her Department is taking to increase participation in cycling following the success of the Giro d'Italia. (AQO 6202/11-15)

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline her plans to build on the success of the Giro d'Italia. (AQO 6204/11-15)

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what plans her Department and Sport NI have to capitalise on the success of the Giro d'Italia. (AQO 6206/11-15)

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

15. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how she will ensure that East Antrim capitalises on the increased interest in cycling following the success of the Giro d’Italia. (AQO 6215/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 2, 4, 6 and 15 together.

The 2014 Giro d’Italia Big Start has certainly been a resounding success. We have once again shown the world how well we can host and enjoy major sporting and cultural events. The Giro d’Italia is a fantastic event, and the 2014 Big Start has helped to raise the profile of cycling across all our communities here.

DCAL and Sport NI are working closely with the governing body of the sport, Cycling Ireland, to deliver a number of specific actions set out in the NITB-led Giro legacy plan to develop the sport of cycling and increase participation in clubs and in all communities. These actions include the development and implementation of cycling strategies and the provision of training for leaders and coaches in cycling clubs across the North. Sport NI is also engaging with schools, through its Active Schools programme, to encourage them to develop linkages with local cycling clubs to increase participation and develop the sport.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that response. She rightly identifies the great success of the Giro d'Italia. Will she assure the House that she will work with the Regional Development Minister so that the infrastructure can be improved across Northern Ireland to benefit those who take part in cycling? In working with the cycling clubs, will she encourage those from a socially deprived background to get into this sport, given the health benefits that often come with the activity?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am quite happy to give the Member that assurance. I am working not only with DRD, as he mentioned, but with his colleague Arlene Foster and my colleague Michelle O'Neill in DARD. That is because, although we need to ensure that we have the roads infrastructure for road cycling, we also need to look at track cycling, which has become an increasingly popular sport across all social strata. Colin near Lisburn may be just outside the Member's area, but he might be aware that the VC Glendale Club has enjoyed £10,000 as a legacy of the World Police and Fire Games specifically to get what the Member mentioned: children from socially deprived backgrounds, and not only to purchase bikes and cycling equipment for them but to get them actively involved in the sport. Potentially, there are also coaching and training programmes.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. The Giro was a great success, with scenery from the North and the entire island broadcast across the world. I suppose that the best scenes were in places such as Carnlough and Ballycastle; I do not think that there is any doubt about that. On the back of the previous answer, will the Minister outline what plans her Department has for future funding of cycling as a sport and the health benefits that it has?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. I am not going to get into a dispute about which part of the island looked best but, like many others — many millions, I am sure — I saw the spectacular sight of the cyclists going through Carnlough with the horses on the beach. That was absolutely great.

I do not think that the sport's potential for health is lost on any of us. Indeed, Edwin Poots and other Ministers have been actively involved in looking at how we can use the power of sport to decrease childhood obesity and promote better health, particularly mental health.

Sport NI made an indicative award to Cycling Ireland to carry out a high-performance review in conjunction with Cycling Ulster. We will keep that under review. Thankfully, the Giro will help to increase the numbers coming to cycling and, hopefully, help others, including schools and other clubs that maybe have cycling as third or fourth cousins, for want of a better term, to get involved. That will help the business cases that are under way to make sure that we have not only the proper facilities but support for and promotion of cycling for years ahead.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her responses so far. She touched on some issues that I am interested in. The Giro was a great success. However, Minister, for some years, cycling has been recognised as a competitive sport for the disabled. How can that aspect of cycling be developed by the Department and Sport NI?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member may be aware that we have a very good working relationship with Disability Sports NI, which will continue. That relationship will strengthen as it takes forward its ongoing review of facilities management and the facilities for those with disabilities. Cycling and many other sports are part of that. The role of the Giro and the Olympic and Paralympic Games helped us to bring a different degree of focus on the needs of disability sports, including cycling.

I repeat that, where there are gaps, particularly for those with disabilities, we need to make sure that, first, they have our focus, and we need to work out the rest later. Participation is for everybody, not for just those with abilities, and it is important that those with disabilities are at the very top of the objective need criteria.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest as a casual and occasional cyclist. Cycling can benefit an individual's health and well-being, the environment and, indeed, the hospitality sector. Can the Minister advise us how she is building on the success of the Giro d'Italia to encourage more of my constituents to cycle and to improve facilities for those who may wish to visit it?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Primarily, that is a question for DETI. I am not passing the buck, but DETI has been very proactive on the tourism potential of sporting events, particularly in the Member's constituency, which is, primarily, a rural area. First, we need to get casual cyclists back on their bikes on the road or the track, whatever the case may be. We also need to get others to visit good spots across the North and, indeed, across the island, to help to regenerate the local economy. Cycling is one aspect of that and angling is another. There are other sports, and the regeneration of the economy will be supported through hosting and promoting better sporting events.

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

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what role her Department will have in the implementation of Together: Building a United Community. (AQO 6203/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. My Department has responsibility for one of the seven headline actions in the Together: Building a United Community strategy, namely the development of a cross-community youth sports programme. DCAL is designing a pilot project for implementation in 2014-15. That pilot will inform the Department's signature programme, which will be rolled out across the North in subsequent years.

The cross-community sports programme has the potential to be a vital element of the T:BUC strategy by delivering a meaningful and sustained impact on good relations through the transformative power of sport. In line with other strategic actions, DCAL will continue to use culture, arts and sports to improve equality and good relations. In order to reflect the joined-up approach required by the strategy, DCAL will also contribute to the other headline actions, as and when appropriate.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta as ucht a freagra. An bhféadfainn a fhiafraí den Aire an dtiocfadh léi míniú dúinn cad iad na spóirt a bhéas i gceist go háirithe? I thank the Minister for her answer. At this stage, will she outline in a little more detail which sports will be involved and how the programme will operate?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

At this stage, we are looking at as many sports as possible, not just the big three, although they are very important, particularly in areas that experience a lot of social deprivation. We are talking about soccer, gaelic games and rugby primarily, but we are also looking at other sports and other programmes and particularly at coaching and training-led initiatives in those sports. Although participation in sport and physical activity is important, it is particularly about children and young people who are in the NEETS category and who need a way out. Those people, by and large, have been excellent ambassadors and role models in their sports, so we are using these programmes not only as a way of helping their career development but to introduce sports that are not traditionally played in those areas. However, given the fact that we are looking exclusively at deprived areas, we are also looking at rural areas. So, we need to make sure that whatever sports are popular in those communities, and it could be cycling or others, are included as well.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister will be aware that I have written to her about a proposed cross-community snooker initiative supported by Northern Ireland professionals Mark Allen and Joe Swail. Will she support the scheme, which could benefit from funding through the T:BUC funding initiative, and will she agree to meet me and representatives of Mark Allen and Joe Swail to see how we could move this forward?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

At this stage, I am happy for officials to meet the Member and then meet after I get all the information. It is a good initiative and a good idea because, as I said earlier, parts of our community are much lacking in good, positive role models. Our sportsmen and sportswomen have been really good ambassadors and role models, and snooker is one of those sports. I am happy for officials to meet and take initial soundings and I will meet the Member with the organisers thereafter. I did the same thing with boxing and there are other sporting initiatives coming to me. From what I have seen thus far, albeit at a preliminary stage, the initiative looks very good and it is good that it is joined up because we can ensure that everybody, where possible, has an opportunity.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what assistance her Department has given to the Dale Farm Milk Cup 2014. (AQO 6205/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. As the Member knows, primary responsibility for the funding of events, including the Milk Cup, lies with DETI in the first instance. Sport NI, as an arm's-length body of DCAL, has not received a request for funding for the 2014 Milk Cup. However, in anticipation of my Department receiving a request, a bid has been submitted for the June monitoring round for additional funding for creative and cultural development in the north-west, which will, hopefully, include the Milk Cup and the Foyle Cup.

In addition, Sport NI has met the organisers of the Milk Cup event to discuss potential support in future years. Sport NI is carrying out a post-programme evaluation of the pilot international sports events programme, and a decision on the future direction of the programme will be based on the results of this evaluation. If the programme re-opens, sports events such as the Milk Cup may be eligible to apply provided they satisfy the criteria.

Looking ahead, collaborative work between DCAL and DETI will continue to bring forward a number of major sporting events such as the Rugby World Cup to help ensure that we continue to benefit from hosting major sporting and cultural events such as the Milk Cup and the Foyle Cup.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Milk Cup is a very prestigious event that brings so many people to our Province and particularly to the north coast. Will the Minister do all in her power to make sure that funding is made available for this terrific sporting event, which attracts so many people from all over the world?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am sure that the Member will agree that, despite that, the Foyle Cup and that competition's being betwixt and between Departments for a number of years is really unfair. However, there is a big emphasis on the organisers of those competitions to be — pardon the pun — match fit. I know that my colleagues in DETI have worked in conjunction with my officials in DCAL and Sport NI to try to ensure that those competitions continue. As I have said, I have made a bid. I will try to bring forward support as an interim arrangement. However, I will use this opportunity to implore the organisers of both competitions — particularly of the Milk Cup, as the Member asked about it directly — to get in a bit earlier and for their funding package, which is essential for hosting the event, to be a bit more strategic.

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

I consider the Minister's answer to be positive, and I offer no criticism whatsoever. However, does she agree that the little games of ping-pong between the Departments must end and that this particular competition is far too serious to be funded on an ad hoc basis? Will the Minister do what she can to ensure that the organisers of the cup — a voluntary organisation — know what is happening from year to year? Otherwise, we will lose it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I totally agree with the Member. As the competition happens in his constituency, I am sure that he will acknowledge that I, too, am fed up with the ping-ponging and have lifted the responsibility for this. It is not fair on the organisers, although they have a responsibility to get sponsorship and funding that is a bit more secure. More so, it is really unfair on the kids who look forward to taking part in the competition, their clubs and their families, who volunteer and go to considerable expense themselves to fulfil their children's ambitions to play in the competition.

I understand that such competitions — the Milk Cup in particular — are run on a voluntary basis. Therefore, I would like to see some support to get them to a better position so that they do not come at the last minute. They need to come at the start of the year, rather than at the last minute, to give us all an opportunity to see what we can do. Otherwise, it looks like an afterthought. I can say on behalf of DETI, from the conversations that I have had and the work that we have done, that it is not an afterthought for us. Both Departments are frustrated by the way in which the competitions have been brought forward.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

How is the Minister assisting with the development of youth football in the community and voluntary sector in my constituency so that we send more homegrown talent to world-class tournaments such as the Milk Cup?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

This is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome the Member. You are very welcome. I urge her to check her late colleague's questions on the matter, because we have supported a lot of grassroots community sport initiatives, particularly soccer, in that constituency. We have worked for not just young boys but young girls, and not just with football, to ensure that it is an inclusive process, and we will continue to do so. We have also worked very well with Coleraine Borough Council to ensure that not only competitions such as the Milk Cup continue but others that help very young children in very junior leagues become involved in sport and physical activity.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I commend the Minister for her support of the Milk Cup. In her answer to George Robinson, she talked about the Foyle Cup. Will she take the opportunity to provide an update on discussions that she has had with the organisers of that competition?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I know that DCAL officials and Sport NI have certainly had some discussions, particularly on the legacy of the City of Culture. As I said to George Robinson, a bid has been submitted in the June monitoring round on the legacy of the City of Culture, and that bid will include the Foyle Cup and the Milk Cup, hopefully.

As I have stated previously, I am also working very closely with colleagues in DETI and with NITB on a new strategy for events, which will go up to, I believe, 2020, to make sure that those competitions are given the same equality as competitions for golfing, cycling, motorcycle racing and other sports, because they attract an international audience and international competitors. It is important that we talk about and support good examples of grass roots soccer.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

8. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps she has taken to streamline the engagement between anglers and the relevant government Departments and public bodies. (AQO 6208/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I do not know whether it is election fatigue — you are flying through these questions — but I am sorry for the delay in getting to my feet.

I thank the Member for his question. DCAL was involved in a recent review to inform the development of a new angling strategy. 'A Strategic Review of Angling, 2013' was commissioned by Sport NI and the Tourist Board in association with the Loughs Agency, DCAL inland fisheries group and the governing bodies that are involved in angling.

The review highlights the potential to develop the sport of angling and the contribution that it can make to promoting equality, tackling poverty and social exclusion, and developing angling tourism.

The report also reflects on the current governance arrangements in angling and makes a number of recommendations, including the establishment of an angling forum to enhance engagement between the agencies, the governing bodies and the various stakeholders.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. It is good to have Departments working together. Angling is not just about game and coarse fishing; it is also about sea angling. Will the Minister review who she speaks to to make sure that sea angling is fully included and that the Department talks to the right people?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I can certainly check, because I am sensing that the Member has a concern that some of the people whom he has talked to have been left out. If that is the case, I am happy to talk to the Member to try to make sure that those people are included in the ongoing discussions.

The Member has consistently asked questions about this. We have tried our best to include as many people as possible. Angling is a very popular and growing sport, and it is particularly important for rural communities. We need to make sure that as many people as possible have had the opportunity to become involved in this very significant review. Even if people do not feel that all the recommendations are theirs, they can certainly feel that they were included in the process by arriving at some of the recommendations that will certainly come about as a result of the review.