Northern Ireland Assembly, 30 September 2014

295 contributions from 57 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I call the Minister of Justice, Mr David Ford, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two amendments, which will be debated in a single group. The amendments set out to require specific selection arrangements for the person who is to be designated director of legal aid casework and to provide that the director must comply with directions from the Department about the carrying out of the director's functions, which have a specific basis in statute.

I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debate, they should address both amendments. Once the debate is completed, the second amendment will be moved formally, and the Question will be put without any further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

We now come to the amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 2. I call Mr Tom Elliott to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendment in the group.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 1:In page 2, line 18, at end insert

"(2) The selection of the person to be so designated must be on the basis of merit through fair and open public competition.".

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In clause 3, page 2, line 27, after "directions" insert

", issued under this section or under any other statutory provision,".— [Mr Elliott.]

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will speak on amendment Nos 1 and 2. Obviously, we are back here just two weeks after the last debate. I think that the Minister was quite pleased that I provided a little more debate and discussion around the legislation. He did not ask me to bring these amendments forward again, but I think that he is quite sympathetic to them — at least I hope that he is.

It was quite interesting the last day that Mr Allister described the amendments that I brought forward as modest. Most parties, with the exception of Alliance, appeared to support the principle behind them but did not appear to have the will, the courage or whatever to vote for them.

What were modest amendments the last day are even more modest today. Therefore, I hope that Members will see fit to support them. They are pretty simple. I have simplified them as much as possible.

The first amendment obviously deals with the appointment of the director. I did attempt to amend it so that the matter of being a civil servant would be taken out of it. That has now remained in. I accept that situation. However, what I am doing at this stage is proposing an amendment that will result in an open, transparent competition for the appointment of the director. I do not see how anybody can actually object to that. I thought that most parties and Members of this House supported open competition for senior positions. I hope that Members will see that.

I know that the last day, the Minister indicated to us, as the officials did when they were at Committee, that there are a number of options for how the director may be appointed, but there is no guarantee that it will be by open public competition. That is the difficulty. Indeed, at the Committee, the senior official indicated that there were three methods that could be used. Only one of them was open competition. If we are genuine about moving the appointment process in the Senior Civil Service towards more open competition, why is this not a good place to start? The last day, there was an acceptance in the House and in the Committee that, indeed, some senior positions in the Civil Service are filled by open competition. Why are we not saying that this should be? That is all that I ask: that it gives people in the wider public the opportunity to get into a position that may be suited to them. I think that it would be hugely helpful to the Civil Service in general. It would be hugely helpful to this new position if there were open competition. That does not preclude or exclude a senior civil servant from applying. It does not exclude a senior civil servant from getting the position, but it leaves the option for the wider public to apply — maybe someone who is well suited to it.

The last day, the Minister said about my amendments:

"I fear that they would create a degree of uncertainty and confusion that would have to be addressed elsewhere and which would run contrary to the normal procedures for appointing civil servants." — [Official Report, Vol 97, No 4, p16, col 1].

I do not think that my amendment this time either adds any confusion or, indeed, runs contrary to the appointment of civil servants because we have already been told that this open process is being used for the appointment of other senior civil servants, including the recent appointment of a permanent secretary. That is what we are told. That is not coming from me; it is coming from the Minister and the Department. That is my first amendment on the appointment process.

My second amendment is on the directions that can be given by the Minister or the Department to the director. Again, it was described the last day by some Members as a "power grab" that allowed the Minister to actually direct the director to comply with his directions. All that I am indicating in the amendment is actually what the senior officials have told us at Committee, which is that any directions that are given to the director must be issued under statutory provision — in other words, within legislation. They have already indicated in Committee that that will be what they have to do. Therefore, why not include it in the legislation?

In the last debate at Consideration Stage, I noted that the Minister gave an example of when that power of direction might be used. However, the example that he gave was either about individual cases, in which he cannot give direction anyway, or about a class of case, which was raised in that debate by Mr Maginness and Mr Allister and was not included in my last amendments or in this one. I do not believe that the Minister has addressed the issue of when he can use that direction to the director. If we heard some good examples of when he could use that direction, maybe it would satisfy me and other Members. However, at this stage, we have not. That is why I am keen to bring this amendment forward: to limit the times when the Minister and the Department can give direction to the director. That is all that I am asking: that there is not a power grab by the Department or the Minister, as was indicated in a recent debate.

I hope that Members will see fit to accept both amendments. The first amendment would make the competition for the director open to the public; I do not see what anybody has to fear from open competition for the director's position. The second amendment would limit when direction can be given to the director by the Minister or the Department.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I outlined during Consideration Stage, the Committee considered in some detail the requirement in the Bill for the Department of Justice to designate a civil servant in the Department as the director of legal aid casework and how, in practical terms, the recruitment and appointment of the director would take place. The Committee explored the issues raised in relation to the matter in the written and oral evidence with Department of Justice officials when they appeared before the Committee. At Committee Stage, the Department did make it clear that, as the Bill was drafted, the post of director could be filled in a number of ways, such as direct recruitment, competition among the existing grades of staff across the Senior Civil Service in all Departments, or the more managed move of a particular person in the Department or, more generally, across the Senior Civil Service. They also indicated that the Department had no plans to hold an external competition and stated that consideration needed to be given to the current chief executive of the Legal Services Commission and the potential for retaining the expertise over a transition period, then considering how to fill the post in future. When considering clause 2, some Committee members were of the view that it could be better worded to ensure that there is not a perception that a person in the Department must be appointed to the post of director of legal aid casework. Other members, however, noted that it did not preclude the recruitment of someone from outside, who would then become a civil servant.

Mr Elliott, when addressing his amendments at Consideration Stage, said that he was seeking assurance that there would be an open competition for the director's post and that the Bill needed to be future-proofed to ensure that such appointments are not made on the basis of moving senior civil servants around, either in a Department or between Departments. In response, the Minister explained that the recruitment process at senior grades in the Civil Service is already widening, generally by generic competitions rather than the expense of running individual competitions. He stated that, each time the post falls vacant, consideration will be given to the best way to fill it. He clarified that there can be an open recruitment competition, which would be open to people internally as well as externally under the provisions in the Bill.

Amendment No1, which we are debating today, aims to ensure that the director is appointed by open public competition. The Minister expressed concerns regarding Mr Elliott's previous amendments, indicating that, if accepted, they had the potential to cause some confusion and uncertainty regarding the appointment process. I wait with interest to hear the Minister's further comments on this particular amendment.

Before moving on to amendment No 2, I will speak in my capacity as a Member. Obviously we are keen to hear what the Minister has to say. We remain to be convinced that we need to explicitly put in legislation the need for such a competition. However, I want to hear from the Minister an assurance that he would consider a public competition before we take what I regard as an unusual step to explicitly put such an appointment in legislation. We remain to be convinced otherwise.

I turn now to amendment No 2, which deals with directions given by the Department and the need to protect and ensure the independence of decisions by the director of legal aid casework on individual cases and the granting of civil legal aid.

The safeguards in the Bill include a requirement that the Department cannot give direction or guidance in relation to an individual case; that directions and guidance must be published; the establishment of an independent appeals process; and imposing a duty on the Department to ensure that the director acts independently of it when applying any guidance or direction to an individual case.

During Committee Stage, the Department indicated that any direction or guidance could not override the provisions of the relevant primary or secondary legislation and may be challenged in the courts, as can any funding decision by the director of legal aid casework by way of an application for judicial review. It also emphasised that, under the proposed new arrangements, the independence of the director’s decision-making in any individual case would be no less than the independence of the Legal Services Commission’s decision-making under the current arrangements.

When considering clause 3, some Committee members noted that the requirement to follow directions and guidance issued by the Minister already exists and were satisfied that any direction could not override the provisions of the relevant primary or secondary legislation. Individual decisions by the director will be made on the basis of the statutory tests. Other members expressed reservations about the proposed framework to ensure the independence of the director in relation to decisions in individual cases and whether adequate safeguards were in place.

During the Consideration Stage debate, the Minister reiterated the primacy of relevant primary or secondary legislation over any directions issued by him or his Department and, by way of assurance, highlighted the fact that regulations to amend schedule 2 of the 2003 Order to add new services or omit or vary any services that the director of legal aid casework may not fund as civil legal services are subject to the draft affirmative procedure in the Assembly.

As I indicated, the Justice Committee is clear that the independence of individual decisions on the grant of civil legal aid by the director must be protected. I listened to Mr Elliott’s rationale for the amendment, and I look forward to clarification from the Minister on its likely effect and whether it will strengthen the safeguards already in the Bill.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I will take the amendments as they are listed. We are sympathetic to the intent of the amendments, and, throughout Committee Stage, the issue of how the process would go forward and how the person would be selected was raised. At Consideration Stage, Tom Elliott outlined that, and when the Minister responded, we were satisfied that the competition would be based on merit and be open and fair. The appointment process as laid out covers that, but, as outlined by the Chair, we are interested to hear what the Minister says about Tom Elliott's points this morning. We are satisfied with the explanation given at Consideration Stage, but we are open to Tom Elliott's points this morning.

Similarly, with amendment No 2, at Consideration Stage, Alban Maginness raised a number of concerns about the power of direction and the Minister's ability to provide direction — Tom Elliott described it this morning as a power grab — which will go across a category of cases that we feel should be protected and not be in the gift of the Minister to change. The statutory provision in the legislation is clear that the Minister cannot change the categories, so unless we hear a different explanation this morning, we are wholly satisfied.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The term "power grab" has been used and will doubtless hit the headlines tomorrow. Does the Member agree, given what he has just said, that this is the reverse of a power grab? This gives away power that the Minister currently has.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I hope that I will not add to the headline of saying that it is a power grab. The issue was raised at Committee Stage, and Tom Elliott and Alban Maginness made the point at Consideration Stage, and there is a concern. I am sure, however, that the Minister will want to be protected from the suggestion that perhaps a Minister could interfere to deny a particular category.

Alban Maginness referred to inquests, whereby a Minister could say that there will be no legal aid for all inquests. We feel that that would be inappropriate but that the statutory provision laid out in the legislation would protect us from that situation and prevent any future Minister from allowing that situation to occur. We await the Minister's contribution.

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

I, too, am very sympathetic to amendment No 1, which Mr Elliott has brought to the Floor of the Assembly.

It highlights the collective wish of the Justice Committee and many Members to see open competition for the ultimate appointment of the director of legal aid casework. That is a reasonable objective and I support it, as does my party. The question is this: how do we achieve it? Of course, the two previous contributors, leaving aside Mr Elliott, have indicated that they await the Minister's comments on the matter.

If I were to anticipate what the Minister is going to say — I do not know what he is going to say — and if he said that he was in favour of open competition but could not guarantee it in the circumstances of the situation, then I am not certain that that would fully satisfy my party, which wants to see wider open competition for senior positions in the Civil Service, not just for this position but for permanent secretaries, their deputies and so forth. That is a proper aim on our part as a political party, and other Members would agree with that. I cannot see inside the Minister's mind — he will reveal that in due course — but if he says he is sympathetic but cannot guarantee this, that falls short of what the House, my party and the Justice Committee wants. In those circumstances, I would be thrown back to the position where I would give sympathy and support to Mr Elliott's amendment. So, a lot hangs on what the Minister will say on this matter.

Amendment No 2 has been brought forward by Mr Elliott with very good intentions, and, again, I am sympathetic to it. It is a belt and braces exercise, which is worthy of support. It merits support because the issue raised last time by me and other colleagues was about trying to limit the power of the Department to interfere with the grant of legal aid for certain categories of cases. We are very concerned about that, and if this helps to achieve the objective of limiting the Department's power to do that — the Minister has indicated that the Department could not do it — I still think that as this is intended to reinforce that point of view it is not only a well-intentioned amendment but an effective one, as well as being a belt and braces amendment. It is worthy of our support, but, again, I wait to see what the Minister is going to say about that.

I would not even dare to anticipate what the Minister is going to say on this point, but, in any event, the House is very concerned about the matter. The example I gave last time was in relation to judicial reviews. If, for example, the Department was of the view that we should limit legal aid and not permit it to support judicial reviews, that would have a profoundly negative effect. It is something that we should be wary and protective of and should try to prevent it happening. If amendment No 2 helps to do that, and reinforces the point, I think that we should support it.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Elliott said that, at Consideration Stage, everyone but the Alliance Party — I think that that was his precise quote — appeared to be sympathetic to the principle of opening up the Civil Service. Let me be absolutely clear: I expressed my commitment, and I believe that Stewart Dickson made a similar commitment, to the general aims in the amendments that Mr Elliott had at Consideration Stage. The difficulty that we had was with whether the amendments, as proposed then, and, indeed, as proposed today, would succeed in achieving the aim that he set out. It seems to me that the amendment that talks about putting in place an open competition after a civil servant has been designated as director does not make sense. There are real problems in putting that level of explicit provision in a Bill as an appropriate way of delivering on the objective of opening up the Senior Civil Service to wider competition.

I made it clear at Consideration Stage a fortnight ago that the Bill as drafted allows for that open competition if that is the best way in which to fill the post of director at any time. If it is the right approach, it can happen. In fact, I made the case that that is what happened when the chief executive of the Youth Justice Agency was appointed. There was a specific open competition for that post. I assure Members that if that is the case, that will apply again. In fact, the most recent competition, which produced the current list of those eligible for appointment at grade 5 in the Senior Civil Service — the grading that the post of director has — has produced a list of those suitable for appointment from internal and external candidates. So, there is clearly already an open list of those who have proved their merit, and that includes people from outside the Civil Service. That is the reality, and that process is ongoing. Recently, we heard about it in the context of a permanent secretary position and other senior posts. The Civil Service is being opened up. I do not think that we need to fix that open competition in the Bill for one particular post, when that is the principle of what is already happening. The real danger of putting it in the Bill is that it would remove any options that might be appropriate in other circumstances. One key example —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will give way.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister not agree that, by failing to put it in the Bill, he is relying on a non-statutory exhortation towards openness, which, he says, is generally spreading throughout the Civil Service, but that there is no statutory basis for the imposition of openness in competition throughout the Civil Service? It may be a policy direction, but amendment No 1 would give it a statutory focus for this specific post, which is the only post that we are talking about in the Bill. So, what is he scared of?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I was saying, the key point is that there would be a complete lack of flexibility in any circumstances. Suppose that we had a number of changes of director over a short time, for whatever reason. We would potentially have to run a costly and, worse, time-consuming open competition. We would hope that that would not be the case, but you cannot be sure that health issues, job opportunities or changes in personal circumstances would not lead to that happening. Given the difficulties that we have had in managing legal aid, the last thing that we would need is a lengthy series of vacancies for the post of director.

The danger is that the approach that is put forward in the amendment would remove any flexibility. We could tie it down if we passed this amendment, but doing so would potentially rob us of the benefits of having continuity at this particularly difficult time of transition, because my understanding is that it would remove the ability to nominate the current chief executive of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) as the director of legal aid casework. That is a point that was raised by a number of Members at Consideration Stage. Mr Givan referred to it today, and, I think, Mr Maginness referred to it last time.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point, taking the present incumbent and moving them over on a temporary basis would not be prohibited by this amendment because, by its very nature, it would be a temporary appointment, which is in keeping with what everybody seems to want in relation to this position. Surely, a temporary appointment could not be prohibited by this particular amendment.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is certainly my understanding that a temporary appointment, given the specific powers vested in the director of legal aid casework, would fall under the provisions of this amendment. This is not somebody temporarily acting up from one post to another; there are very specific legal duties, including, as we will be talking about later, the duty of individual decision-making, that are attached to this post. I find it difficult to see that even a temporary appointment would not fall foul, because it would be the formal designation of a post holder who would have to carry out those duties.

We are not talking about a simple acting-up mechanism for people operating within a mainstream policy area. That is another point where we would have difficulty if we were to fix open competition into the Bill. It is unnecessary because we have the openness already coming through. It would create difficulties if we had particular needs to make appointments speedily, and it would have particular difficulties on the transition. If it is made even internally, the reality is that, the way things are changing, there would almost certainly be somebody bringing experience from outside the Civil Service as they fill the post.

So, I do believe that there are significant problems with the wording of the amendment. Whilst I think that I have outlined, a fortnight ago and today, my willingness to look at the opening up of competition for posts in the Senior Civil Service, there are difficulties in specifying in a Bill that, right from the introduction of the post, it would have to be somebody external and that an internal candidate could not apply whatever the circumstances. I hope that, on the basis of what Members said when we discussed it at Consideration Stage and what has been said today, Mr Elliott will think of those points and accept that there is a broad understanding around the Chamber of his intent and a willingness to work on that but will not move the amendment, because I believe that it is unhelpful. If he does move it, I ask the House to reject it.

On amendment No 2 —

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Minister give way?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Yes.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

On the issue of flexibility, would a reserve list not satisfy the need for a smooth transition if someone were to leave for health or career reasons?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I understand the principles of reserve lists, they would only apply for up to a year. So, if the post were to fall vacant at 53 weeks, you would potentially be going through a very long process to make an open appointment with a complete gap at that stage. I am not sure that we would be able to maintain a reserve list for any longer than the one year. Indeed, in those circumstances, if there were effectively a list of those who were already on the grade 5 approved list, that would be the appropriate point to go to, not to go to public competition to get a speedy filling of the vacancy.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Again?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes. Surely, it is not unfamiliar in public appointments to have a situation where there is an acting up for a period while a post is filled. In recent years, we have seen the post of chief executive of the Housing Executive filled a number of times, and he or she, of course, is the accounting officer of the Housing Executive with specific functions under the Act that only they can operate. In each of those circumstances, there has been an acting up while the process has run its course. So, where is the difficulty in having that same principle apply here? As for the suggestion that someone in-house could not be appointed, of course they could be appointed if they applied in the open competition. There would be no barrier to them applying in an open competition, would there?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I think that Mr Allister has just made the point that I was making. We have a list at the moment of those eligible for grade 5 appointments, some of whom are internal and some of whom are external. That is where the openness has come through. So, he makes the point that I was making about the existence of that list.

I will turn to amendment No 2. I am simply not sure whether it achieves any effect. It merely restates the requirement to comply with directions that appear elsewhere in legislation. It is not clear to me why only the power of direction in clause 3(1)(a) is singled out and not the other references to directions. I am not sure whether, in that way, it makes sense as drafted.

If the amendment does have any effect, it is to interfere with the set of safeguards on the power of giving directions, which are designed to work together to provide the appropriate level of assurance that the House has been seeking. Those safeguards have been extensively aired by the Committee, as the Chair said, and during Consideration Stage, and, frankly, I do not think I need to repeat them all today. We have a carefully constructed set of arrangements, and amendments could potentially result in meddling and lead to unintended consequences.

The key point is that, under the Bill as it was originally drafted and as it proceeded through Committee Stage, all applications for civil legal services will be dealt with individually. The decisions will be taken by the director on the merits of the case and not influenced by political considerations. As well as being published, any direction or guidance issued by me or my Department cannot override the provisions of the relevant legislation, whether primary or secondary.

There may have been some confusion over the reference to the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 during Consideration Stage. That refers to the power of Ministers to direct. The 1999 Order states that all functions of a Department shall be exercised subject to the direction and control of the Minister, but it does not mean that I or any other Minister can use the 1999 Order to give directions to the director on individual cases. Article 4(6) of that Order prevents that by making it clear that:

"Nothing in this Order affects the operation of any statutory provision or rule of law which authorises or requires any functions of a department to be exercised in a particular manner or by particular persons."

That means that the assurances in clause 3(2)(a) of the Bill that the Department must not give direction or guidance about an individual are simply not affected by the 1999 Order.

There may also be confusion about whether anything in the Bill, the 1999 Order or other statute allows me or the Department to give directions in relation to classes of cases, as has just been highlighted by Mr Maginness on the issue of judicial review. I must say that, from discussions that have happened around the Executive table, I think that I am probably more favourable to judicial reviews being allowed than a number of other Ministers are. Article 12(5) of the 2003 Order prescribes, in schedule 2, the services that the director of legal aid casework may not fund as civil legal services. Article 12(6) provides:

"Regulations may amend Schedule 2 by adding new services or omitting or varying any services".

That may be the point of concern, but article 46(5) of the Order, as I highlighted previously, provides that any regulations made under article 12(6) are subject to Assembly control by draft affirmative procedure. Mr Givan made that point today. So, it would simply not be possible for the Department to give the kind of direction or guidance reflecting the scope of cases, never mind the individual cases, that may be funded without the approval of the Assembly. I trust that that reassures Members who have expressed concern about that.

The term "power grab", as I highlighted to Mr McCartney, who is about to intervene again —

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Minister give way?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will give way.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It is in terms of clarity. Tom Elliott's amendment only makes it clear that there is statutory provision that prohibits a Minister from interfering in the classification of cases. It only makes it clear.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I do not accept that it makes it clearer, because it only applies in one small part. It is only inserted into one subsection of one clause where there are references to directions. The point is that the overarching issues that appear in the 2003 Order and the references to the schedule 2 powers are clearly covered quite explicitly there. There is no need to tinker around the edges and make a reference to one piece of legislation only. It is not assisting with or adding anything, and the powers and the limitations of powers on the Minister are absolutely explicit elsewhere in statute in a much more coherent and joined-up way than appears by tinkering with just one subsection of one clause of this Bill.

There was a reference to a power grab, but the reality is that, as I highlighted a fortnight ago, I have already given away, as a matter of administrative practice, any power that I had to determine continuing funding in inquest cases. Representation for next of kin in inquest cases currently has to be approved by the Minister, but I have given away the responsibility for continuing assessments of further applications to the chief executive of the LSC because I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Minister to carry out those functions. We will move this forward in a way that ensures that those powers formally pass in statute.

The suggestion that I am engaged in a power grab is an utter nonsense, when the reality is that the power is being taken as far away as possible from political influence and being given as much as possible to the director of legal aid casework. That is being done under the guidance and duties that exist to ensure that only the Assembly can change classes of case and only the individual director can decide individual cases.

On that basis, I do not believe that the amendment contributes anything. It merely clouds the issue by referring to one or two points. If that amendment is moved, I trust that the House will reject it also.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome and thank all those who participated in the debate to make it a little more exciting than it could have been. I am a wee bit surprised that the Minister has been so difficult about the issue of a power grab. I only referred to a comment made during the debate at Consideration Stage, but it seems to have gathered some legs, with Mr McCartney referring to it and the Minister taking up the issue. Mr Maginness referred to limiting the power of the Department, which is maybe a little softer. I am quite happy to use whatever term people are comfortable with.

I welcome the Chairman of the Committee's overview of the situation, particularly on amendment No 1. He said that there is no guarantee of an open public competition for the position, and that was referred to on several occasions during the debate. It has been accepted by the Department and the Minister that there is no guarantee of an open public competition. I totally accept that it is one of the options, but there is no guarantee, and even the Minister has accepted that position.

Mr McCartney and Mr Maginness said that they were sympathetic to my amendments. My late father used to say, "My pockets are full of sympathy, but it does not do a great lot for me." [Laughter.] I am looking for much more than sympathy; I am looking for a clear line on where Members and their parties are on this.

Mr McCartney also referred to the power of direction and the power grab. I probably want to remove that term. I do not think that it is reasonable, and I was referring to something said during the debate at Consideration Stage.

Mr Maginness said that his party wants a wider competition for senior civil servants' positions, so he also accepts my premise and position on that. He went on to say that he wants to hear more from the Minister than that he is sympathetic to open competition; he wants him to guarantee it. Mr Maginness, if you heard that today, I would like to know where, because it was not from the Minister, and there is no guarantee of an open public competition. I assume that you will, therefore, support my amendment.

I am pleased that the Minister has not indicated that my two amendments cannot be accepted and would not fit into the Bill. I did not hear the Minister —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will in a moment. I did not hear the Minister say that they would be detrimental to the Bill, and he did not give any examples of where either would diminish it. In fact, I think that the opposite was indicated. I give way to the Minister.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way, but, if he did not hear what I said, I am really concerned. I made a very specific point that his amendment would prevent the current chief executive of the LSC becoming the director of legal aid casework as we seek to make these changes. If that is not a pretty fundamental objection to his first amendment, I am not sure what it is.

I also made a point about the confusion around his second amendment. I said that it applied only to one subsection of one clause in a way that did nothing to deal with the concerns about the powers of direction, which are well covered by the limitations on any individual case and the limitations that I highlighted with the Assembly's role via affirmative resolution on classes of case. So, if Mr Elliott did not hear me objecting to both his amendments, I fear that he was not listening terribly well to what I said.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. While I do not know who the current director or chief executive of the Legal Services Commission is, if opposing my amendment is about the protection of the position of one individual, I have to say that it is a very weak case for objecting. I do not think that legislation should be refined to address any one individual; it should be much broader than that. I do not see that as a reasonable or valid objection to that amendment.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am happy to give way.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

In relation to amendment No 2 and the points that the Minister made, during the previous stage, we were satisfied that there was a statutory provision that would prevent interference in the classification of cases. Your amendment does not add to that. I think that Alban Maginness referred to this as a belt and braces exercise, so, in some sense, it is not necessary. Do you agree with that, given what we have heard again this morning?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will come to that in a wee moment, if that is OK, Mr McCartney.

I will finish my point about the side move of the chief executive of the Legal Services Commission. I understand why the Minister and Department would want to do it because it brings some consistency, and I accept that; however, I do not think that the legislation can be bound by just that one issue. I think that would be totally unfair to the wider public. It would be unfair to people who may have the expertise to go into that position and, therefore, I think that is a very weak reason for the Minister to want to stop it.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

OK, I will give way on that point.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not sure whether Mr Elliott wants me to repeat my entire speech. I merely gave one specific example, but I made a number of references as to why the dangers of confining the appointment of the director of the legal aid casework in the way he has suggested could create difficulties in short-term changes as well as in transformation. As a member of the Committee, he is surely well aware of the problems that we have in managing legal aid at the moment and the vital need to get a handle on that.

I also gave significant examples of the current open practice that exists across the Senior Civil Service and, indeed, the open list, which includes both internal and external applicants who would be available, for example, if we were seeking to draw from it at the present time. Let us not have him highlight one particular point I made as if I am seeking to protect an individual rather than trying to ensure that, in the difficult financial circumstances that we are in at present, we get a handle on the cost of legal aid.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I certainly hope that the Minister is not trying to defend his position by saying that the process that we are currently using to administer legal aid has been a huge success and that we want to continue with it, because I do not think that many in the community would accept that. I notice that Mr Wells, the new Health Minister, is not in his place, but he was very critical of that matter in Committee. I hope that the Minister is not trying to use that issue as a defence, because I think that he is on the wrong tack there.

In relation to Mr McCartney's point on amendment No 2, I accept his position that it does not do anything around that class of case. I am trying to reiterate the position that any directions given must be part of legislation, therefore, it is, to some extent, repeating legislation. However, the point is that, once it gives direction in the Bill at all, that is repeating legislation, because we heard during Consideration Stage that the Minister and the Department already have powers to direct their civil servants. That is a repeat of the legislation. All that I am trying to do is refine it and curtail the powers that the Minister and Department have to the legislative base. I hope that you accept that, Mr McCartney. I accept that particular point.

The Minister indicated that amendment No 2 may have unintended consequences. However, he did not give us an example of what those unintended consequences may be. We have not heard any good reason as to why either amendment cannot be accepted.

Therefore, I am happy to move forward with the two amendments and, hopefully, I will get more support than sympathy from Members.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 46; Noes 33.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I have been advised by the Whips that in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b) there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 21; Noes 61.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That concludes Further Consideration Stage of the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Private Members' Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with deep concern the allegations of sexual abuse that took place in Kincora Boys’ Home during the 1970s and 1980s; further notes allegations that senior politicians, military personnel, paramilitary figures and businessmen from Northern Ireland and Great Britain were involved in the commissioning and subsequent cover-up of the abuse, as well as allegations that members of the intelligence service were complicit in a cover-up of this scandal; believes that the nature and seriousness of the allegations, especially that MI5 was involved in a cover-up, means that this cannot be adequately considered in any way other than a Westminster Government-led inquiry; and urges the Home Secretary to include Kincora Boys' Home in the inquiry by Fiona Woolf as the most appropriate means of achieving truth and justice.

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important issue today. Child abuse is a devastating crime that traumatises people at an early age, and the consequences stay with them for the rest of their life. Perpetrators need to be stopped and brought to justice, yet, so often, our systems have failed young victims by not hearing or believing them when they cried out for help or by failing to protect them from those who sought to harm them.

Recently, we have been made aware of particularly troubling cases of abuse involving powerful people and celebrities and a growing belief that some of those people did not act alone but were part of a network of abusers who were too well connected to be touched. It is partly the fact that some of the rumours have turned out to be true that has reignited interest in Kincora in east Belfast, as well as the fact that Kincora is one of a number of children's homes currently subject to investigation by the historical institutional abuse inquiry.

We know that three senior care staff from Kincora were jailed in 1981 on 23 counts of abusing 11 boys. However, there are concerns that there were more victims and more abusers during the period between 1960 and when the home was closed in 1980. There have been allegations that senior politicians, military personnel, paramilitary figures and businessmen from Northern Ireland and Great Britain were involved in both the commissioning of abuse and the subsequent cover-up. Perhaps even more disturbing are the allegations that members of the intelligence services were also complicit in covering up the scandal. Indeed, there are specific allegations that the secret services, over an extended number of years, used their knowledge about a paedophile ring at the boys' home for the purposes of intelligence gathering while actively blocking police investigations that could have ended the abuse.

The motion is designed to shine a light on the magnitude of the allegations concerning Kincora.

It also echoes the repeated calls of my colleague Naomi Long MP to the Home Office to ensure that present investigations comprehensively assess what took place at Kincora, as it is clear that none of the previous probes had the power that they needed.

I said that the Kincora Boys' Home is one of a number of children's homes subject to investigation by the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry, which was established by the Assembly and began public hearings in January. Whilst I appreciate that investigating abuse should, in normal circumstances, be the responsibility of the devolved Administrations, we do not believe that that alone is appropriate in this case. What differentiates Kincora from other cases are the allegations that persist that the Government and their agencies, such as MI5, had full knowledge of the allegations at the time and acted to prevent appropriate investigation taking place. There is further suspicion that MI5 and the security agencies were complicit in the abuse in order to collect information that could be used to blackmail those in positions of power. It is also thought that the abuse that took place in Northern Ireland did not only involve victims and perpetrators from Northern Ireland, and there have been suggestions that children were moved between different locations where abuse took place. Indeed, a former army captain said that he was aware of boys being brought from different children's homes to be abused in Kincora.

The current Northern Ireland inquiry, as it stands, is limited in its terms of reference and its statutory powers to summon witnesses. The head of the inquiry, Sir Anthony Hart, recently spoke out to confirm that he does not have the power to compel MI5 and military intelligence witnesses to give evidence or Whitehall Departments to release files. That fact was also highlighted by Amnesty International and my colleague Naomi Long when they called for Kincora to be included in the overarching UK inquiry. That view has been echoed not only by other politicians from various parties but by former army captain Colin Wallace, who was discredited and jailed for his efforts to expose the abuse back in the 1970s and then finally cleared.

Whilst we do not want to hinder progress for those victims who have seen the HIA process as a step forward, given the allegations of the senior level of visitors to Kincora, we believe that the Home Office's inquiry would be a better vehicle by which truth could be established and where a more thorough and substantive investigation of allegations can take place. I understand that the Woolf inquiry will look into how child abuse allegations against senior public figures were handled by the Government, and I believe that there are parallels with, and a potential connection to, the circumstances surrounding Kincora. These are extremely serious allegations and need urgent attention. Only the inquiry that is about to take place at Westminster would have the powers to examine the necessary material and to call the witnesses required to uncover the truth about the abuse and any subsequent cover-up at the home.

A number of former military intelligence officers have recently come forward to indicate publicly that they possess information that would be of interest to an inquiry with regard to Kincora and also their willingness to give evidence, including on the alleged blocking of police and army investigations by secret services. At least one of them has also indicated that he was unable to disclose some information to an earlier inquiry because it would have been deemed a breach of his obligations under the Official Secrets Act. It is therefore imperative that the UK Government authorise disclosure of all relevant information held in order to examine and fully address the persistent allegations surrounding Kincora and other such homes. It would be extremely concerning if any limitations, including the use of the Official Secrets Act, were allowed to restrict the effectiveness or undermine the credibility of this inquiry.

The victims and survivors of Kincora deserve justice but, to date, they have been left as outsiders. If the correct powers are granted to it by the Home Office regarding witnesses testifying who are subject to the Official Secrets Act, the Woolf inquiry is the way to properly consider the allegations and help the victims put their nightmares to rest. I believe that today we can send a strong message to the UK Government to encourage them to take the correct decisions, with regard to the inclusion of Kincora in the Woolf inquiry and ensuring that the inquiry is empowered to access all files and witnesses required to uncover the truth, which many feel has been hidden for so long.

I hope that there will be full support for this motion.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I support the motion, and I thank the Member for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I hope that, after today, this will not just be about raising the issues, many of which have been raised before, but about action, and that, at long last, we will get to the heart of this scandal, which has shamed Northern Ireland, given the extent of the abuse that went on and the fact that it affected so many innocent young people.

I live one and a half miles from the former Kincora Boys' Home in east Belfast. Every time that I pass that area, it is like a trigger, in that I am reminded of the rumours, the allegations, the discussions with people, the real anger and the suspicions, which have persisted through the years, that child abuse at the home was indeed known by a huge range of people, including politicians, civil servants and members of the security forces and military intelligence. The most serious allegation is that investigations were blocked by the authorities.

I read an old copy of the 'Belfast Telegraph' last night in which our First Minister said:

"In some cases it goes beyond rumours. Again, you get down to what might be regarded as circumstantial evidence, but people did take their lives after being questioned by police on these issues."

He also said:

"at the bottom of all this ... we're talking about young boys who were put into the care of the state and we are now being told that there were agencies of the state who were aware of it and did nothing. That is the most serious allegation that can be made, particularly when you see just how much it has ruined the lives of so many people."

I have met some of the individuals concerned. Last year, a man who was at the home came to see me. He told me of his own nightmare and his experiences while he was at the home, but also when he was taken from the home. He was taken to big fancy houses where he was abused by, as he said, the top echelons of our society. He was a man in his sixties. He went to the police and informed them of his allegations, but he was frustrated after all these years. The man was traumatised in his own being, and, unfortunately, he died within the last year. He had a record of his allegations of the abuse that he experienced during those years, which he handed to the police.

There are specific allegations that the secret services, over an extended number of years, used their knowledge about a paedophile ring at the boys' home for the purposes of intelligence-gathering while actively blocking police investigations that could have ended the abuse. Shocking. Those allegations, with some substantiating evidence, have been documented in a series of media investigations and books published from 1990 onwards.

Kincora Boys' Home is one of a number of children's homes subject to investigation by the historical institutional abuse inquiry established by the Assembly, which began public hearings in January. While we welcome the Northern Ireland inquiry, let us be honest: it has only limited powers and is unable to compel the release of files from either Whitehall Departments or the intelligence agencies.

On 1 August this year, our First Minister, Peter Robinson, said that child sex abuse at Kincora Boys' Home is a "national scandal" that needs to be fully investigated. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to urge that the east Belfast home be included in the ongoing Westminster child sex abuse inquiry. I agree with the First Minister: we should seek nothing less than a full investigation of Kincora. We must be able to have access to all the relevant files and witnesses required to uncover the truth about abuse and any subsequent cover-up at the home. That should include the UK Government granting requests for the authorised disclosure of relevant information by current or former state employees with relevant knowledge of the alleged child abuse and its alleged cover-up, as permitted under the Official Secrets Act 1989.

As Mr Robinson said, any investigation would require full access to information from intelligence agencies. I think that there has to be complete freedom on the part of those who want to give evidence to be able to do so. I do not think that anybody is asking them to divulge national secrets, but this is a national scandal that needs to be dealt with, and I trust that whatever steps are taken will ensure that the truth will eventually come out.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Alliance as an rún seo. Tá an díospóireacht seo an-tábhachtach ar fad, agus tá mé sásta go bhfuil gach páirtí ag tabhairt tacaíochta don rún. I would like to thank the Alliance Party for bringing forward this very important motion. It is good to see that, so far, there is all-party support for it. I absolutely agree with both of the Members who spoke previously that a thorough investigation is required into the allegations about what happened in Kincora Boys' Home in east Belfast.

The issue is different from abuse that occurred in other institutions in one important area, which is that of the role of the British security services, who are accused of actively colluding in the ongoing abuse of young children for decades. We know that senior staff at Kincora were jailed for abusing boys in the home, but, as Judith Cochrane said, that is only the tip of the iceberg. There are concerns that there are potentially more victims from a later period who have not come forward yet. Continuing allegations have been made on the specific role of the British security services, senior politicians and civil servants. It is alleged that, due to the high-level nature of those involved, investigations were blocked and thwarted by the authorities. That is absolutely shameful and scandalous.

We know that, when the Westminster inquiry was announced, a number of former members of the British security services came forward to reveal that they had information that would relate to the inquiry and specifically to Kincora. The historical institutional abuse inquiry, which began its public hearings in January, will examine the allegations of abuse at Kincora. However, Judge Hart has made it clear that the scope and terms of reference of his inquiry are inadequate to deal with the shocking nature of the allegations in that instance. He is unable to force the release of files that are in the possession of the British Government or the secret services; he cannot compel the British security services to give evidence to his inquiry; nor does his remit stretch to allegations or links to Westminster politicians and British establishment figures.

There are proposals for a further inquiry at Westminster into some of those issues. My party has great concerns about the British political establishment investigating itself. We feel that there needs to be an independent investigation that has the powers and remit to access the files and information that is held at the highest level. I know that my colleague junior Minister Jennifer McCann has met some of the victim-survivors of the abuse at Kincora Boys' Home. They feel abandoned by the state. They are worried that, due to the scale of who was involved in their abuse and suffering, it will be swept under the carpet. Those survivors need our help.

What we need to see today is a united voice from the Assembly calling for a strong independent investigation into what happened at Kincora, particularly the role of the British security services and establishment. We also need to send a clear message that, in the past, those survivors may have been failed, but we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that they get justice even at this stage in their lives. Go raibh maith agat.

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

I, too, welcome the tabling of the motion by Mrs Cochrane and her colleagues as well as their work, with that of many other politicians, to raise this issue in all appropriate places. In doing so, I also want to acknowledge, first and foremost, the victims and survivors, individually and through organisations like Survivors and Victims of Institutional Abuse (SAVIA), Amnesty International and others, which continue to campaign for truth, accountability and acknowledgement because, in this phase of our history, the measure of our democracy and the standard of our Government should be the primacy of the needs of victims and survivors of institutional abuse, abuse outside institutions or the history of this part of the world.

In opening my remarks, I want to make three comments. It is remiss of us, in a debate like this, not to name the other issues that need to be addressed by our Government. Those issues are: compensation for victims and survivors where there continues to be uncertainty; how there shall be an inquiry into victims of clerical abuse outside institutions and whether that does or does not fall within the Hart inquiry; and the other victims in our society who were abused by organisations not of the state but of the paramilitaries and who must be acknowledged and have their needs addressed.

The SDLP endorses the proposal in the motion, which is that, given the limitations that Judge Hart has named in relation to his inquiry, the appropriate vehicle for inquiry into what happened in Kincora should be the Home Secretary's inquiry in London. We endorse the need for full accountability and disclosure with all appropriate powers to compel witnesses and documents in respect of the inquiry. While I note and welcome what the Home Secretary said about the Woolf inquiry — that there would be access to all government papers and that the inquiry could become a full public inquiry in the fullness of time if necessary — I put down a word of caution due to what we know from this jurisdiction. Only last week, a case in the High Court confirmed that important papers that were meant to be released to an ongoing inquest were destroyed. Here we have an example where a court in this part of these islands was to have access to important state documents, yet those state documents were destroyed in advance of them being released to the inquest. So, when it comes to the inquiry in London, whilst we welcome the words of the Home Secretary in respect of what might or might not be made available to it, we put down a word of caution, because we have had our own bitter experience in the last number of days, never mind over a long number of years, of the state, when it comes to issues of national security, denying people access to all information on all the individuals in a way that standards of due process require. However, subject to that caveat, we in the SDLP believe, as it appears all other Members do, that the right place for the Kincora issues to be interrogated in all their scale is through the inquiry being convened by Justice Woolf in London. In that regard, we welcome the motion.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, if you and I were to take a lunchtime stroll down the Upper Newtownards Road, we would soon pass Kincora. We would find a large, double-fronted building. It is the sort of large, double-fronted building that you see on arterial routes in east Belfast, north Belfast, south Belfast and west Belfast; nothing intimidating or threatening about it. As a young man, I walked and cycled past Kincora daily; as an older man, I drive past it daily. Only in recent years has it come to light that it was a double-fronted building living a double life.

I feel this personally because there but for the grace of God go any of us in the Chamber. I feel it politically because it is to do with how we have treated the most vulnerable in our society. Once again, victims have been doubly abused. First, there was the physical and mental abuse, and that is proven: three people who worked in that care home were convicted on 23 counts. Secondly, there was the failure to rally round and do what was right when the abuse was discovered. That did not happen. Worse than that, there was, allegedly, a cover-up. Worse even than that, allegedly, it was not just a cover-up but the children were exploited. The children who we already knew had been mentally and physically abused were then used as fodder and bait to entrap people. They were used to help the authorities to engage in some form of blackmail.

So, there remain key questions, despite all the inquiries to date. When did the abuse begin? Who was responsible for it? Who knew about it? When did they know about it? Why was it not discovered sooner? Was there a cover-up? If there was, in whose interests did it suit people to cover up what was happening? What was the nature and extent of any involvement or knowledge of unionists, the Orange Order, the business community, military people and senior civil servants, including the secret services?

For decades now, there has been speculation that senior politicians were involved, including members of the Ulster Unionist Party. If the Ulster Unionist Party is implicated through individuals or corporately, I stand here to say that I will accept that guilt. The time has come to find out what really happened.

In a previous life, I worked with journalists, including Chris Moore, who has dedicated himself to exposing the abuse at Kincora as well as the Father Brendan Smyth case. I have been very critical of the Catholic Church and the way that it covered up members who abused children. I have been critical of political parties in the House whose senior members and family members were involved in abuse, and they did not do the right thing. So, if it is our turn as the Ulster Unionist Party, so be it. If any of our members were guilty, let us expose that, and I will acknowledge our guilt. There should be no hiding place because, if this is true, it is a national scandal. If it had happened in Birmingham, Swansea or Glasgow, it would be a national scandal. If it happened here in Belfast, it is a national scandal. Therefore, it needs a national investigation.

I understand that the historical institutional abuse inquiry will look at certain aspects of what happened at Kincora, but even the chairman has made it known publicly that he does not have the power to compel Whitehall Departments or the security services, so something else is needed. That is why we support the motion calling on the investigation to be passed over to Fiona Woolf's UK-wide inquiry, but it is critical that she is given the powers to look into the darkest corners of government in London. Otherwise, she will fail, as many other inquiries have failed to date. The most recent was undertaken in 1984 by Judge Hughes. I understand that Chris Moore and the BBC 'Spotlight' team are about to challenge some of the recommendations and conclusions of that report. I wish him well in that, and I wish Fiona Woolf well in her investigations.

It may be historical abuse, but those boys are now men. They are still hurting, and we owe them a debt. Perhaps supporting the motion is a small down payment.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The abuse that took place at Kincora and at a number of other homes in the Province is, I believe, a stain and shame on our society. Yesterday, the news focused on what happened at Rubane House, the De La Salle boys' home in Kircubbin. Today, in the Chamber, the focus is on Kincora.

All those examples of abuse are equally vile, but the story of Kincora is somewhat different, in that there are more dimensions and layers to it. That was very clear even back in 1980 when the story was first exposed in the 'Irish Independent'.

Three homosexual predators were appointed to one home; that is the starting point of it. The first of them arrived in 1958, the second in 1964 and the third in 1971. Many people have asked how it was that the staff — I suppose the entire staff at one point — of that home were appointed to that home and all of them were homosexual predators. The Belfast welfare authority, which made those appointments over that period, was part of the old Belfast Corporation. Clearly, the chief welfare officer of the Belfast welfare committee had a role in making those appointments. Many people asked themselves how it was possible for this particular and unique situation to arise. The Hughes report of 1985 looked at recruitment processes, but it is interesting to pick out as one example the fact that one staff member gave a reference for a friend to enable him to be appointed. There are big questions about recruitment that need to be looked into in more detail.

Then, of course, in 1973, the Belfast welfare authority gave way to the health boards. The question arises as to how it was that over time, under the old corporation welfare authority and then under the boards, none of these things were uncovered. Previous investigations were partial and limited in their remit and their powers. Therefore, the fullest and strongest possible inquiry with adequate powers in relation to this matter is what is required. As has been pointed out, it is something that nearly all the political parties in the Chamber have called for. We need the fullest and strongest inquiry possible.

The focus has also been on the fact that there were suggestions, allegations and now clear first-hand testimony of the awareness in the British security services and military intelligence of what was happening in Kincora. Questions were raised all those years ago about the fact that the third person to be appointed to Kincora was appointed in August 1971 at the very point when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland and when, in many ways, Northern Ireland exploded. It had started in August 1969, but the introduction of internment in August 1971 changed the scene here politically, and that was the point when the third member of staff was appointed.

Soon after the initial article in the 'Irish Independent' in January 1980, stories began to emerge in newspapers and journals about other allegations of involvements, many of which were traced back to Colin Wallace and the book written about him by Paul Foot. Many people would have raised questions about the credibility of some of it because they would have seen Paul Foot as coming with a particular agenda because of his background. However, we now have very different and very compelling evidence that is solid and substantial.

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

Will the Member give way?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Yes.

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

The Member referred to Paul Foot's book 'Who Framed Colin Wallace?'. If one now reflects on that book, one realises that what Mr Foot was in fact revealing was the depth of the intelligence service's involvement in trying to suppress the truth that Colin Wallace had tried to reveal.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The point I was making — I do not have time to go into it in full detail — was particularly around the fact that there were other aspects of Wallace's narrative that people may wonder about. As regards the core story, which was the issue around Kincora, there is not a question nor a doubt that it was correct. Chris Moore's book about Kincora, which has also been mentioned, was much more focused on Kincora and is a much superior piece of work because he had access to a lot more information and sources when he put that book together. It is an excellent book that highlights the issues. Clearly, because of all this, we now need something that is very different from what is on offer. We need the most extensive, thorough and empowered research and inquiry into this.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I trust that, as a result of today's discussion and all of the other pressures that are being exerted and the demands that are being made, that will be forthcoming.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the proposer of the motion and hope that today's debate will shine a light on a very grave injustice that saw young children left to the mercy of a paedophile network. That was all in spite of it being known and, indeed, covered up by the British security services. At the outset, I express my admiration for the victims and survivors of Kincora and, indeed, any victims and survivors of this type of abuse. The way in which they have come forward to try to highlight their case is admirable. I also pay particular tribute to the proposer's colleague Naomi Long MP, who has raised this issue on several occasions.

I too voice my support for the motion for Kincora to be included in the Westminster inquiry, but I also want to express some concerns that have already been expressed about the state investigating itself. I feel that an independent investigation would be better, but, that said, I support the motion.

As Members have said, we hear on a daily basis from the historical institutional abuse inquiry in Banbridge details of horrendous and horrific abuse and sexual exploitation of children. The testimony that is being given by witnesses is clearly saying that those children, who were in the care of the state, had no one to turn to. Even when they tried to speak out about the abuse, they were often not believed and were sent away. In the case of Kincora, there have been persistent claims of a cover-up of what happened and claim after claim that members of the British security services, high-profile politicians and civil servants, among others, were involved in the abuse and sexual exploitation of young boys who were in the home. Indeed, some individuals have gone even further and gone on public record claiming that they reported the abuse while it was happening but investigations by the authorities at the time were deliberately blocked. That has to be a concern for us all. To date, only three members of staff at Kincora have been charged and sentenced, and at least one of them is alleged to have been an agent for British intelligence.

I reiterate: all forms of abuse against children are wrong and should be condemned, no matter who was responsible or where the abuse took place. The abuse of children in care is an attack on our most vulnerable children, as they have no one to protect them or to speak out on their behalf. Even more startling in respect of Kincora are the reports that the intelligence services not only knew it was going on at the time but chose to allow it to happen and to deliberately block any investigation, as they were using the knowledge of a paedophile network operating there as a means of gathering intelligence and protecting informers. It is difficult to imagine anything worse than a paedophile network knowing that it could get away with whatever it wanted to do to abuse vulnerable young children because it was being protected by the security services at the time. That shameful practice illustrates the need for a proper independent investigation that has the powers and the remit to access the files and information held by the British security services that allowed the abuse to happen. We cannot allow the Official Secrets Act or any national interest certificates to be used to hide the truth or to prevent the disclosure of any evidence, as that will only result in another cover-up.

The victims and survivors of Kincora were let down by the state as children, and we cannot allow them to be let down now as adults. They have the right to truth; they have the right to a thorough investigation of the crimes that were perpetrated against them. I hope that all parties will stand united and be their voice today and come out to support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I rise to support the motion. Kincora is a scandal; it is a stain in east Belfast. It was a house of horrors, and every day the house sits as a permanent reminder of its very dark past. Those walking around the area today who have a connection with Kincora and are regarded as respectable people and pillars of society are a total and utter disgrace. They have a conscience seared with a hot iron for what they did to young boys in Kincora.

They are people who abused youngsters, destroyed their lives and left them with mental problems that they carried with them for all of their days. My colleague Sammy Douglas referred to the fact that he had met victims from Kincora. I have also met them and you cannot really understand what they have suffered all of their lives.

Kincora was established as a house of refuge, a safe haven and a shelter, and, for many, it turned out to be a horrifying and nightmarish place to spend their days. Vulnerable young boys were preyed upon, and, allegedly, the security forces allowed the abuse to take place. It has been referred to that purportedly prominent people frequented Kincora. Those are people who have been referred to as politicians, businessmen, military men, church men and people who held high positions. Also, there is evidence to suggest that the children were, as we would call it today, trafficked away from the home and, indeed, across the border for similar abuse in other places.

Caitríona Ruane called for a united front on this, and I agree with her on that. However, if this House is really concerned, there has to be a united front on how we tackle the child abuse that is happening today. The way that we can do that, in the memory of those who were abused in Kincora, is for all of the political parties here to sign up to the legislation that will allow the National Crime Agency to tackle this problem in Northern Ireland as it does in other parts of the UK. I am certain that those who were the victims of Kincora would plead for that to happen today.

Reference has been made to Kincora being a part of the UK-wide inquiry. The First Minister has written on that. I hope that that decision can be made by Theresa May, but what happens if she decides that it cannot be? What happens if Judge Hart is unable to investigate fully, as he said he cannot do? This House needs to ensure that Judge Hart has the remit, the resources, the finance and the expertise that will allow him to take a step forward on this issue. If we get a negative decision from Theresa May and we do not allow Judge Hart to do it, we are failing the victims of Kincora.

None of us who have had a loving, supportive family environment could understand what many of the victims of Kincora went through for years, and we will probably never know how many went through the abuse in Kincora. However, through supporting this motion and other actions in terms of the National Crime Agency and adjusting Judge Hart's remit in the case of a negative response from the Home Secretary, we can in fact take this matter forward and continue to keep it in the headlines. We can be supportive of all of those who were abused in Kincora.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag tabhairt tacaíochta don rún seo sa Tionól inniu. I also will be speaking in support of the motion. Indeed, I welcome the motion. I think that, whatever we say or do or whatever results as this inquiry is taken forward, we should always be very mindful that at the core of this are the young people who were abused. I think that it was referred to today that the needs of the victims and survivors should be very much on our minds.

There is absolutely no doubt that there is a wide acceptance that what happened in Kincora Boys' Home should be the subject of scrutiny. I do not think that anyone has anything but the belief that there was a cover-up on a massive scale, and that is one of the reasons why I have some concern around how this will unfold. I do not think that anyone can doubt the integrity of or the need for the inquiry that has been laid out by Fiona Woolf, but I think that the powers that she has might be limited and, in that case, we will not get to the full truth around these matters.

In my opinion, the best vehicle to carry this forward would have been an inquiry under the 1921 Act because that has the power to compel not only papers but witnesses. From reading some of the documentation around the Woolf inquiry, it seems that she will have access to papers, but there will be no power to compel witnesses. Most people know that, in this type of situation, open proceedings and cross-examination provides better details and a better insight into what has happened. I know that there is reference to the fact that it will be similar to the Hillsborough panel, which I believe carried out an excellent piece of work. It had full access to papers and resulted in bringing the next stage of justice for the Hillsborough victims —

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

Will the Member give way?

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I will indeed, yes.

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

There is one other technical difficulty and that is that anybody who is called to give evidence could claim that they cannot give evidence because of the Official Secrets Act. That aspect of the inquiry also needs to be addressed, because it restricts the amount of information that a person can give.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I agree.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Whereas the 1921 Act is not the perfect vehicle to get round the Official Secrets Act, we saw, in some other instances, particularly the Saville inquiry, how at least some of the rush to try to prevent evidence coming forward was tackled. That is why I make the point about the Hillsborough panel. Despite the cover-up that resulted from Hillsborough, there was no role for the British secret services, which have a long history of not only not wanting to come into the public domain in these type of cases but of suppressing and destroying evidence. Alex Attwood spoke about the most recent example where evidence has been destroyed as an inquiry was just about to take place.

I also agreed with Mike Nesbitt when he spoke about what the inquiry should do. At its core, yes, it has to be about the abuse that was carried out, but there are important questions to be asked about who knew, when they knew, who should have been responsible for ensuring that it did not continue and who failed in their responsibilities at the time, because it is on public record that the RUC said that an appropriate and thorough investigation was carried out and that there were no issues apart from the fact that three people were charged. We have to try to resolve that.

In this inquiry, many allegations have been made about who was entrapped and what responsibilities they had in wider society, and there may be implications around that because there may be suggestions that other people's lives could have been disrupted. Indeed, there are other suggestions that people's lives were manipulated in a particular way, and all of that must come out as well. Being mindful that the abuse that was visited upon the people in Kincora has to be at the core of the inquiry, there are other implications that will not do a service unless they are all resolved. That is why this motion is a good one.

The truth around Kincora has to be exposed, but that truth will have many, many layers, and unless we get the proper vehicle to do it, we will be back saying that there is a need for another inquiry into Kincora Boys' Home.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.34 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

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

Before we begin, I would like to welcome the new Minister to his first Question Time and wish him well. We will start with listed questions. Questions 5 and 12 have been withdrawn.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development, given that Newtownabbey Borough Council has not met the deadline to acquire the former PSNI barracks site in Glengormley, whether the Housing Executive will acquire this land for social housing as per its expression of interest. (AQO 6710/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your kind words. I certainly look forward to the challenge that has been presented in rising to fulfil my roles and responsibilities as Minister for Social Development.

I understand that, at a meeting yesterday, the PSNI gave the council an extension until 31 December to firm up proposals for purchasing the land. Both Newtownabbey Borough Council and the Housing Executive have expressed an interest. The Housing Executive expressed its interest on behalf of the housing associations, which would, in due course, have been responsible for buying the site and providing the housing. The Housing Executive itself would not have acquired the land.

The council’s interest involves a concept plan for the wider area, including the PSNI site. The plan will focus on attracting private sector investment, including commercial, leisure and recreation activity. In that context, the Housing Executive decided to suspend its interest until the concept planning process was complete. The Housing Executive is still supportive of housing on the site and awaits the outcome of the PSNI decision-making process.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Before I ask my supplementary, I congratulate Mr Storey on his elevation. Will the Minister outline other sites in the Glengormley area that his Department is examining to meet the need for social housing in north Belfast?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his words of congratulation. He specifically asked how many other sites there are in the area. There are a number of different projects. I do not have all the details of the individual sites, but I will write to the Member with those.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Is he aware of the significant housing need in the Glengormley area of north Belfast, especially in unionist estates such as Queens Park? Is he also aware of the failure of the Housing Executive over many years to meet that need in those communities, with no family homes built in almost 40 years? Will he undertake to engage with the Housing Executive and local representatives to see how it can provide new housing in appropriate locations for those communities?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The answers to those questions are yes; and I will endeavour to do that. It is unacceptable and regrettable that no family housing has been built in that area in the last 15 years. In fact, the last social housing of any type was built in 1999 and was a supported housing scheme for clients suffering from mental illness. There is a need for us to look seriously at the issue, and I undertake to have the matter addressed.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the status of the land owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive between Hope Street and Wellwood Street, Belfast. (AQO 6711/11-15)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I also congratulate Mr Storey on his promotion. I have no doubt that his elevation will come as a great relief to the Minister of Education.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his kind words. I will pass no comment in reference to what the feelings of the Education Minister have been.

The Housing Executive has advised me that final land transaction for Hope Street was completed on 12 September 2014 and confirmed that the majority of the site is now in Housing Executive ownership, with Roads Service and the Lincoln group each retaining a small portion. The land in Housing Executive ownership is currently vacant. The Housing Executive is in the process of arranging a meeting with the Planning Service to discuss future usage of the site, both in the interim and in the longer term. It is considering progressing an outline planning application on this site.

As someone who knows the area, and for anyone who passes through it, it is clear that there is an urgency in addressing that need. I find it somewhat ironic that we are talking about Hope Street. In that location, very little hope has been given over the last number of years and I trust that we can move in a positive way for this location.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for that answer and what I read as a call to action as far as this vacant site is concerned. He will be aware that it is not the only vacant, derelict site in the Sandy Row area. We are now getting a proliferation of applications for housing, but not social housing; it is for student accommodation. That goes very much against the grain as far as that community is concerned. I ask the Minister to meet local representatives to discuss the way forward, because he is aware that this is a well-known arterial street, close to the city centre, and is —

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

Order, please. The question is very, very long.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

All right, thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask that the Minister meet local representatives to discuss the issues and drive forward some development that will be acceptable to the local community.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

There is a short answer to that: yes. However, looking at the history of this site, we should go back as far as 1998, when the Housing Executive entered into an agreement with Lord Rana's company, Lincoln Centre Belfast Limited. There were a lot of issues and there has been a lot of discussion, which ultimately led to a court case. I would be quite happy to meet local representatives of the area and discuss the issue as well as the wider issue of need in that community so that, as I said previously, we give that community hope.

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

On the back of what Mr McGimpsey said, this was once described as the "golden mile" of Belfast. Members will probably all recognise now that it is significantly tarnished. The Minister has reflected on the demand, but can he point to a resource that would answer that demand at some point?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member is well aware of the current financial situation that we are in. Since I have come to the Department, it is abundantly clear that, not only are other Departments under huge financial strain, but that the Department for Social Development is under particular strain. Since being appointed Minister, I have been overwhelmed by how this Department impinges so much on all our lives on a day-to-day basis; on housing, welfare and regeneration. If we want to give a sense of hope to our communities, my Department has a huge responsibility to ensure that we give that hope and that leadership.

However, we have to face up to some realities. It is, unfortunately, against the backdrop of a very difficult financial situation, but I am looking at the budgets to see where allocations have been made in the past and where they will lead us in the future. Following my agreement to meet local representatives of the area, I believe that we can give a sense of hope to those communities, as we have done in other places, that the dereliction that currently prevails is not what they should live to expect or live amongst.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development whether demand is being met by the number of social homes being built. (AQO 6712/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I think that good progress is being made. Not only are waiting list figures coming down, but the numbers of new homes being built are significantly up. For the first time in over a decade, planned output is in line with the Housing Executive’s assessment of need. That need has been determined at a requirement of 2,000 homes in each of the next three years and that is what the programme proposes to do.

As far as the waiting list is concerned, we have seen a drop of over 2,000 from last year. At March 2013, there were over 41,000 applicants on the waiting list. The latest figures, at June 2014, showed just over 39,000. During the same period, the numbers in housing stress dropped by almost 1,000. At the same time, we are also building increasing numbers of new homes. The Programme for Government target is to build 8,000 new social and affordable homes by 2015. Delivery has been running substantially ahead of the target for the past three years, which has, no doubt, had a positive impact on those waiting lists. Compared to the 8,000 target, I expect the final out-turn to be around 9,500.

It is also worth noting that, in social housing, Northern Ireland is outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom. In England last year, one new social house was provided for every 60 applicants on the waiting list; in Scotland, the figure was one for every 49; in Wales, it was one for every 44; but in Northern Ireland, the figure was one for every 30. In relative terms, Northern Ireland is performing at twice the level of England.

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

I call Mr Stewart Dickson.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

[Interruption.]

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

Apologies. I would not need to do that.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer and wish him a successful tenure in his Department. He will be aware that previous net stock models indicated that 1,900 a year was the target for builds, plus 600 to make up for shortfalls. That, I see, has changed. Can the Minister tell me why it has changed, and does he accept what his predecessor always sought to deny, which is that the Programme for Government targets are not sufficient?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Look at the Programme for Government targets for 2011-15: we are committed to delivering 8,000 new social and affordable home starts. This was broken down into some 6,000 new social starts and 2,000 new affordable starts. What we have done to date is progress. I will not be complacent in believing that there is no more that needs to be done than all that we have said we will do. We always have to ensure that the figures are accurate and relevant to what is being done on the ground. However, when I look at the figures for social and affordable housing — two key component parts of the delivery of our housing programme — I believe that we need to focus on what the commitment was and how we can continue to build on that commitment. That is what I am determined to do as the new Minister for Social Development.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. What hope can we have that, in the delivery of new social housing programmes in Northern Ireland, you will put sharing and integration front and centre as a policy and delivery model?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

You always have to remember that housing is driven by demand. It is also driven by the desire of the people who want to be part of that housing provision. Housing need, as defined in the current process, gives us a number of elements to that provision. I have already had some look at the social housing provision that we have across Northern Ireland, and I am well aware of the two projects that were transferred into the new regime — one in Londonderry and the other in Bloomfield. I have asked my officials to establish how successful they have been, what problems they have encountered and what needs to be done to change the model, if it needs changed, so that we encourage people to live in a way that reflects our society and our community and gives them, first and foremost, a good and affordable standard of housing, which I believe they all deserve.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I, of course, join in congratulating my honourable friend on his elevation. Both he and his immediate predecessor have indicated the scale of affordable and social housing that has been provided in recent years. Has he got any figures that he can supply for the immediately preceding four or five years? If not, perhaps he can write to me.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank my colleague. From his previous ministerial roles, he knows the challenge that is before us as we take up this post.

The Programme for Government commitment to deliver 8,000 new social and affordable homes was by 2015. In the past three years, 6,911 new social and affordable houses have already been delivered; a further 2,500 are due this year. That will give a total of over 9,400 new social and affordable homes against the original target of 8,000. In 2011-12, the target was to deliver 1,900 new homes; 1,400 social and 500 affordable. A total of 2,053 were delivered; 1,400 social and 643 affordable. In 2012-13, the target was to deliver 1,825; 1,325 social and 500 affordable. A total of 2,336 were delivered. I could on giving you all the figures in relation to 2013-14. That gives us the overall view of the progress that has been made. I am certainly happy to make all those figures available to the Member in writing.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Like other Members, I wish the Minister all the best for his new appointment. May he bring to it the same passion and commitment that he brought to education.

Will the Minister look urgently at the demand for bungalow accommodation in new build programmes? It is an issue that I highlighted on the Floor to the previous Minister. Many disabled people, families and older people in our communities are being deprived of a bungalow because housing associations just will not build them for financial reasons.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his comments. I will miss the interaction in relation to education. I know that those whom we worked with in education, from comments that they have made recently, appreciate the efforts that we made. I trust that I will bring to the Department a sense of enthusiasm, as I endeavoured to do in education. Members, I come here with no elevated opinion of my ability. I come here as someone who is very proud of his working-class background. I was born, as most Members know, in the village of Armoy. I am extremely proud of that fact. I will not forget — the grace of God will enable me not to forget — who I am. I realise the real issues that are out there for our community.

The Member made a specific reference to the provision of particular types of dwellings for people with disabilities and others. I know, as a constituency MLA, the challenge that that is. I assure the Member that that is an issue that I will look at. I am quite happy to respond to the Member when I get an update on that particular issue. He raises a very valid point in the House. It is something that I have a concern about. Indeed, I have already had discussions with some of the providers. I plan to meet those who provide social housing: the Housing Executive. There are huge issues and big challenges in relation to the Housing Executive. I will meet the chair and the chief executive tomorrow for frank and open discussions. It is my intention to very quickly get a handle on what is happening in relation to the Housing Executive and what is being delivered in social and affordable housing. I will bring the same passion and commitment to that as I trust I did to education.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development what information is available for community and voluntary groups preparing for the transfer of community planning powers to local government in April 2015. (AQO 6713/11-15)

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Many congratulations to the Minister in his new role. I just hope that he will be mindful of his neighbouring constituency of East Londonderry when making decisions in his new office.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her kind words. I assure her that her colleagues in that constituency remind me constantly of what is across the Bann in East Londonderry.

Whilst preparation for community planning is a matter for the Department of the Environment and councils, I confirm that my Department, in the run-up to the transfer of agreed urban, regeneration and community development powers under the reform of local government on 1 April 2015, has worked, and continues to work, closely with the organisations that it supports through, for example, neighbourhood renewal, areas at risk and the community investment fund.

That ongoing support has proved vital to managing this period of change and has ranged from advising organisations on what the transfer of powers means for them to meeting with neighbourhood partnerships and local representatives in the area.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you for your response. Do you acknowledge the growing uncertainty amongst community and voluntary groups about the transfer of community planning when there are less than six months to go?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I do. I assure the Member that reference has been made to that issue in other questions before the House today.

The issue around the Regeneration and Housing Bill is of grave concern. I am not misleading anyone in the House when I say that a decision will have to be made on that very soon. I have made it very clear that a decision will be made and that those who have blocked the progress of the Regeneration and Housing Bill, and the issues that are associated with it in regard to how those powers will be transferred to councils, need to give reasons for doing so.

I am very clear that I have not seen any information that is in any way substantive or gives any degree of understanding on why concerns have been raised. I have met with some of those who have raised concerns, and I raised the issue at the Executive last Thursday. I assure you that it is a matter of importance for me, because, in relation to this, my Department is contributing to the transfer of somewhere in the region of £60 million to £65 million; it has the largest proportion of the overall budget that would transfer to local councils.

I am well aware also of the concern in the new councils about the key part that that will play in how they will be able to roll out, over the lifetime of the new councils, projects that are vital for rejuvenating and bringing new life to their areas.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I congratulate the Minister on his elevation. I also congratulate Mr McCausland, the outgoing Minister, on a job well done. Thank you very much.

When the Minister gets an update on the Regeneration and Housing Bill, will he make sure that it comes to this House?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank my colleague for his words and concur with what he said about my predecessor. I apologise for not doing this at the start, but I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Nelson McCausland, someone with whom I have worked closely down through the years, not only in this House but in other organisations. He endeavoured, when he was in the role, to ensure that the Department was focused on many of the issues that we have already discussed here this morning.

In many respects, some of the issues were addressed in my response to the previous question. When I read through the paperwork in relation to this, I saw that there had been attempts to table this legislation at the Executive on a number of occasions. We still have not had any progress on how that matter can be resolved.

However, I had a meeting with the Chair of the Social Development Committee. I plan to meet him again in relation to this issue and meet the members of the Committee, because there is a serious issue around giving confidence to the people of Northern Ireland. The confidence of the people of Northern Ireland in this institution is pretty low, and people feel that there is little need for this place to be in existence. However, let us be under no illusion: if we do not have the transfer of the powers outlined in the Regeneration and Housing Bill, local councils will also be saying that there is no need for this place to be in existence. So, it is a serious situation, and I look forward to meaningful engagement and discussions over the next few days. That is the time frame that we are dealing with in making decisions on how the issue will be progressed.

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I add my words of congratulations to the Minister. I look forward to what will, I am sure, be a fairly robust debate in the time ahead. If and when the powers are transferred, can he guarantee that each and every area will not lose budget when it comes to community development and regeneration functions?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his comments, and, yes, I will endeavour not to disappoint him when it comes to being robust in discussions on the issue.

The budget as it stands is always subject to what the final arrangements and agreement will be, but I have to say that I am concerned that the envelope originally envisaged — I think that the package was in the region of £90 million, and, as I said, the largest part of that was £65 million coming from the DSD budget to carry out those functions — will have to be reconsidered in the event of whatever decision is taken.

Along with my colleague Mr Wells who was also appointed a Minister, the stark reality and wake-up call has been the serious situation in which we find ourselves with the Budget. Let us not get tied up with welfare reform, which is another issue, but with the issue of the Budget and the 4% cut — or is it 6%, is it 8%, or is it, as it may be, higher than that? — to ensure that we as an Administration live within our means. It is a very serious situation, and I cannot underline enough how serious it is.

I was taken aback somewhat when I had meetings with my officials about the number of people that my Department employs. There are in the region of 7,000 people in the Department for Social Development, in over 70 locations in Northern Ireland, and 3,000 personnel in the Housing Executive.

I have a statutory responsibility to protect social security. I will give that priority —

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

— as is my statutory responsibility, but I assure the Member that the issue of finance is at the top of the agenda in my Department.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the range of Housing Executive schemes, such as window replacement, kitchen upgrades and repainting, planned for Upper Bann, including the timescale for completion. (AQO 6715/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The following schemes are included in the Housing Executive's planned maintenance programme for Upper Bann in 2014-15: external cyclical maintenance (ECM) for 204 dwellings; double-glazing installation for 398 dwellings; kitchen replacements for 289 dwellings; and heating installations for 341 dwellings. The projected budget spend for 2014-15 is £3·7million.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his response. Like others, I concur with the remarks made about him and his predecessor. Is he confident that those very worthwhile schemes can be delivered on time, given the current financial circumstances?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

There is always a concern over how any proposal that is brought to fruition can be completed in the current financial situation. We would all do well to look at our constituency to see how those projects and programmes have been of benefit to people. Dwellings have been greatly enhanced, as has quality of life, whether as a result of external cyclical maintenance, double-glazing installation, kitchen replacements, replacement of fire doors to flats with communal access, or heating installations. In your constituency of Upper Bann in 2013-14, 464 dwellings benefited as a result of heating installations. We ought to be pleased that that has been achieved. As I said to the previous questioner, the issue of budget is at the top of the agenda for me, because I want to protect those services and deliver to the people of Northern Ireland in a meaningful way.

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

Order. That ends the period for oral questions. We will now move on to topical questions. Question 9 has been withdrawn.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her insight to how challenging this role is going to be. I can assure her that, over the last week since being put into the position, I know how challenging that is.

The Housing Executive has advised me that the external cyclical maintenance scheme for Ballyclare has recently been commissioned and that the start date is currently 30 March 2015. There are 103 dwellings included in the scheme, which is at a briefing stage at the moment. None of the properties is on the stock transfer list.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. As I said in relation to Glengormley, here we have another serious issue, because the last external cyclical maintenance scheme that was carried out in Ballyclare was between 2003 and 2006. I do not believe that that is in any way acceptable in how the process is carried out. On a general note, the work content and unit costs for the ECM schemes have changed a number of times in recent years in response to rising costs and competing demand of other work streams in the investment programme. Consequently, the external cyclical maintenance programme will be revised and reviewed as part of the Housing Executive's new strategic approach. I intend to raise that issue with the Housing Executive when I meet the chair and chief executive for the first time tomorrow.

As I said to other Members earlier, a huge amount of work needs to be done between my Department and the Housing Executive. The Housing Executive does much good work. Indeed, before coming to the House today, I was in east Belfast to see how the scheme in the Diamond project is delivering, through the Housing Executive, benefit to the people who live in that area. So it can be done. However, when you look at figures showing that, for this particular scheme, the last time it was carried out was between 2003 and 2006, it raises serious questions about the way in which the scheme is operated.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the Magherafelt town centre master plan. (AQT 1522/11-15)

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I, too, would like to join the chorus of Members who have welcomed the Minister to his post, and I wish him well.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I think that it might be good to note in the House that I have no hand in who asks these questions. When you look at the topical questions, you might think that I was involved in some sinister plot, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, as a good Calvinist, I believe in providence, so I was delighted when I saw that the first questions were from my colleagues.

Getting back to the issue at hand: the Member has rightly asked about the Magherafelt master plan. I have to say that I have been impressed by the variety and number of master plans, and I am very keen to get up to speed with all that they intend to deliver for the communities.

The Magherafelt master plan was launched in 2011, and the document sets out a vision for the future development of the town centre. The plan sets out 32 actions, showing their priority and potential delivery, with partners for each. DSD is represented on the town centre forum, which comprises town councillors, Chamber of Commerce representatives and council officials who oversee the implementation of the actions contained in the master plan.

To date, my Department has also progressed and completed a number of other activities set out in the master plan. Under the heading of "Growing and Supporting the Retail/Commercial Sector", for example, my Department supported the branding and marketing strategy, Wi-Fi and the smartphone app. Also, under the heading of "Improving the Townscape Quality" and the shopfront improvements theme, my Department funded a revitalisation scheme for Queen Street.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for that update. What assurance can the Minister give that the Magherafelt master plan will be taken forward after the reform of local government?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member raises what is, for me, an important issue. We have had some discussion about the transfer of powers, but I want to be absolutely sure that the objective of the master plan is carried out as originally envisaged. Obviously, we do not want to have a command and control situation, whereby Big Brother — my Department — oversees that. Under the reform of local government, the responsibility for the delivery of master plan initiatives will rest with the new Mid Ulster District Council. With councillors on the town centre forum, the council was fully involved in the preparation of the master plan and the current site. So my officials are working closely with the council to ensure that there is a smooth transfer and that the functions and all the related activities are carried out in a way that ensures progress and continuity.

My Department has committed funding of £90,000 to progress the scheme to detailed design and readiness for construction, and that work is due to be completed in March 2015. That is with particular reference to the Magherafelt public realm scheme, which was identified as a key regeneration initiative in the master plan.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development to commit to the House that he will get his Department to fully cooperate with the Red Sky investigation so that the public will be assured that the Department has nothing to hide, given that one of the biggest challenges for him will probably be restoring the credibility of his office after several turbulent years. (AQT 1523/11-15)

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Like other Members, I would like to congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and welcome him to his first Question Time.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. As I said earlier, I come to the House without overly inflated views of my ability but with a determination to ensure that I carry out my responsibilities to the best of my ability. I have made that very clear to my officials and those for whom I am responsible.

The reality of being appointed to the position of a Minister in the Executive is that the buck stops here, so I have a responsibility. I will bring to the job the skills that, I trust, I endeavoured to bring to education. Others will judge whether those skills were relevant, useful or needful. However, I have to say that I am quite open to scrutiny, discussions and debate, and, when necessary, I will be quite open to criticism. As far as I am concerned, those will be my guiding principles. I do not claim infallibility, and I do not claim to be perfect. I have weaknesses like everyone else, but I can assure the Member and the House that I will do this job to the best of my ability.

Let me say this: if one thing has — maybe "impressed" is the wrong word — challenged me, it is the need in many homes in Northern Ireland. There are needs that, I believe, my Department can meet, whether it is in regard to housing, regeneration or benefits. Those things matter to people, and we will endeavour to address them.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I sincerely thank the Minister for his very comprehensive commitment to the House to do his best. Unfortunately, the credibility of the Department was damaged by more than simply the Red Sky issue. Allegations of political interference in housing allocation in north Belfast have held up much-needed housing schemes. Will you restore credibility to the Department by stepping back and taking independent advice so that the issue can be addressed transparently?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I am disappointed that the Member feels it necessary to make such an allegation. The figures do not prove that that is the case. Maybe the Member sitting beside her who is giving her the information would be more prepared to ask that question, because it seems as though he has more of an interest in the issue, given his involvement in the Committee.

We had some allegations in the press just a few days ago about my Department trying to do something subversive in regard to the Ballysillan master plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. There can be no changes. For example, in regard to the issue of schools in the area, it was quite clear in the statement that was made, which included a comment from the Department of Education, that I can do nothing without a development proposal being brought to the table. There is process, and, unfortunately, process can be very slow, difficult and challenging.

I can give the Member this assurance: I will pay due regard and close diligence to process. I trust that no one in the House, from any political party, believes that, somehow, they have someone in place whom they think they can manipulate, corral and change. There is an issue of ensuring that my Department continues to deliver in a way that reflects the needs of the community that we serve: the people of Northern Ireland.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development what his Department is doing to assist the many communities that need support and work in disadvantaged areas that fall outside the neighbourhood renewal zones and lots of other catch-alls, albeit that much good work is happening in those communities. (AQT 1524/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Congratulations to the Minister on his appointment.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member raises a very important issue. On a personal level, I thank him for his contribution when he was the Health Minister. I trust that I can bring the same determined focus to my Department as he did to his Department when he was the Health Minister.

The Department recognises that tackling spatial deprivation through neighbourhood renewal can leave out smaller areas, and there can be places in which there are difficulties and challenges. So, as a result, the areas-at-risk programme provides support to communities, outside the Noble 10% most disadvantaged communities, identified as being at risk of decline. The small pockets of deprivation programme was created to complement the implementation of the neighbourhood renewal strategy and to target areas with a population of under 1,000. Those area-based interventions were designed to target substantive concentrations of deprivation.

In addition, my Department provides a wide range of support to individual families, households and communities through the provision of decent and affordable housing, actions to address fuel poverty, child maintenance arrangements, comprehensive social security provisions and support for the voluntary and community sector.

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

I am afraid that time is up; there is not time for a supplementary.

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

Questions 6, 8 and 10 have been withdrawn.

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

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline her proposals for farming practices in relation to the nitrates directive (91/676/EEC). (AQO 6725/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

An action programme to implement the EU nitrates directive across the North of Ireland was first introduced in 2007. The nitrates action programme regulations are joint legislation between my Department and the Department of the Environment, and contain a wide range of measures. These measures are to prevent water pollution and to ensure that manures and chemical fertilisers are used efficiently.

The nitrates directive requires action programmes to be reviewed and, as necessary, revised every four years. A comprehensive review of the current action programme was completed by the Departments and scientists from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in March of this year. Subsequently, a public consultation on the proposed action programme for the next four-year period from 2015 to 2018 has been carried out.

The Departments intend to make some revisions to the proposed measures to take into account the responses to the consultation. They are also in the process of seeking European Commission agreement for the next action programme.

The proposals for the 2015-18 action programme should not require any significant changes to current farming practices. The majority of the measures in the current action programme are being carried forward. Key measures, such as the dates of the closed period for spreading slurry, remain unchanged despite pressure from the European Commission for a longer closed period. The changes which are proposed are based on scientific evidence or technical and policy developments, or have been requested by the European Commission.

My aim is to continue to have a balanced action programme which is practical for farmers and effective for protecting water quality and meets the obligations under the nitrates directive.

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

I thank the Minister. There is a further step. Is she prepared to issue clear guidelines to farmers on ways to reach the targets that are set by Europe?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, as I said, as part of the review on the action plan both my Department and the Department of the Environment worked very hard to consult the industry to ensure that it is up to speed with what we are doing. However, absolutely, if there are any requirements on the farming industry — as I said, the reality is that, by and large, there will not be very much difference to farming practice — and any changes that impact on farmers, we will, of course, issue guidance and ensure that everybody is able to comply and is given all of the necessary information that is required.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. The Minister will be aware that we have had changeable weather in September. I am interested to learn what impact these proposed changes will have on the proposed closing date for spreading slurry. As a secondary comment, I did not really know that there was that much interest in spreading slurry in South Belfast.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will not comment on the second part, but I will certainly pick up on the spreading of slurry. As I said in the original answer, by and large, farming practices will remain as they are. However, one issue that was raised was the closed period for spreading slurry. The length of that closed period has been an issue for the European Commission for quite some time, not just in this review of our action plan but in previous negotiations on the action programme. Officials have successfully negotiated on that issue that there will be no changes to the current dates. The Commission did not get its way in trying to extend that. That is a positive outcome, because I know that some farmers even find the period that we have at this moment in time to be frustrating.

Farmers will continue to demonstrate good practice when they are spreading slurry and will take great care to protect water quality. As the Member rightly said, the recent dry spell of weather means that conditions are very good for slurry spreading and will allow farmers the opportunity to maximise its fertiliser value and have slurry tanks emptied before the winter housing period.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister mentioned good practice. Will she also include an update on safety practice? Since the nitrates directive was introduced on 1 January 2011, we have had seven slurry-related deaths due to asphyxiation or drowning. Prior to that date, there were only two such deaths, and that was back in 2005.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member's concern about the number of deaths that we have had as a result of slurry. As he will know, the Health and Safety Executive, through the Farm Safety Partnership, has been doing excellent work to try to raise awareness and promote the Stop and Think SAFE message. It is continuing to bring forward quite a number of other areas of work, particularly with regard to farmsafenet.org. Farmers can actually go online and go through a quick course.

We have an obligation in my Department, in DETI and in other Departments with relevant responsibilities to promote the Farm SAFE message and do all that we can. One issue around slurry that is frequently raised has to do with detectors and measuring the level of gases. The HSE is still not in a position where it is content that that is the proposed way to do it. However, all those things are being considered and taken forward as part of the action plan that the Farm Safety Partnership has clearly set out.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What steps are taken to ensure that the people carrying out the inspections actually know what they are doing? I wrote to the Minister recently about a case where the gentleman had soil stored and people mistook it for chicken manure. That soil has now been used, as soil, by another Department for its facility. Can we have people who know what they are doing when they carry out inspections?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I would like to think that the inspectors who go out are fully qualified. I am sure that, as a former Minister, the Member will be fully aware that, when it comes to dealing with individual cases, I do not want to comment on the one case that he wrote to me about. However, I am happy to correspond with him privately. I assure him that, if there are issues with inspectors not carrying out their job properly, I am always happy to look at that.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on her proposals to enhance rural proofing. (AQO 6726/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In the annual progress report on the rural White Paper action plan I made a commitment to explore options for strengthening rural proofing. Having considered the issue, I believe that there is more that we can do to improve the effectiveness of the rural-proofing process across government. Therefore, I propose to introduce rural proofing legislation during the lifetime of the current Assembly, subject to Executive agreement. This important Bill will provide my Department with a firm basis for promoting rural proofing across government and help to ensure that rural needs are fully considered in policymaking. Whilst all Departments have been committed to carrying out rural proofing since 2002, the new legislation will build on the present commitment and help to improve the effectiveness of rural proofing across government. In particular, it will increase the availability and transparency of information on how rural proofing is carried out in Departments.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas don Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for her answer thus far. Will she provide an update on the rural White Paper action plan?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The first annual progress report on the rural White Paper action plan was published earlier this year and demonstrates that good progress was made by Departments in implementing their commitments in the action plan during its first year of operation. Further reports from Departments during this year indicate that good progress continues to be made. I hope to publish the second annual progress report later this year. I see the rural White Paper action plan as a live initiative that continues to respond to the needs of rural dwellers. I have therefore asked my Executive colleagues to identify new and challenging actions for inclusion in a refreshed rural White Paper action plan that I intend to publish in 2015.

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

I thank the Minister for her answers thus far and her commitment to rural proofing. Will she state what concrete proposals her Department has made in the last year to embed rural proofing and what is being done across other Departments to make sure that rural proofing becomes a reality?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

To be clear, the reason I propose to legislate is that I am not convinced. Whilst I think that, individually, Departments are doing their best on rural proofing, particularly when it comes to policy development, there is no tangible way of measuring that. There are other opportunities that we need to explore. It is all well and good having the rural White Paper action plan. However, we do not want it to become just a tick-box exercise for Departments; it very much needs to be a live document. There are opportunities for us to provide a firm basis for rural proofing and to make sure that it is consistent across Departments. One possible area we can look at is an obligation on Departments to feed into DARD on the work that they do on rural proofing to make sure that there is consistency. For me, there is a lot of benefit in bringing this forward. Quite a lot of consultation will be necessary, and that will involve talking to stakeholders about what needs they identify. Given the Member's role on the ARD Committee, he will know that there will be a role for the Committee in scrutinising the legislation that we bring forward.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her response so far. Will she now at least give a commitment to speak to her colleague the Sinn Féin Education Minister with regard to the possibility of the Department rural proofing decisions on the future of rural schools, just as Scotland does, before he shuts any more?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I assure the Member that I have had many conversations with the Minister of Education, and he has clearly put on record his commitment to maintaining rural schools and making sure that he provides first-class education for all children right across the board. He has also made it clear that, when it comes to the future of schools, it is not merely a numbers game; it comes down to the position of the school in the community. Six criteria are clearly set out when it comes to the future of schools, and I am assured of his commitment to maintaining the best education for all children.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

What action is the Minister taking to ensure not only rural proofing but shared future proofing for all her policies and programmes?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can give the Member an assurance, particularly with regard to some of the projects that we have seen taken forward through the rural development programme. Quite a lot of work has been done, particularly in rural communities around churches working together and trying to reach out to bring people together. My commitment through what we have done on the ground is on the record. I am happy to provide a bit more detail on projects that we have taken forward that clearly demonstrate a shared future, but I can assure you that equality is at the core of everything that I do. That is key to a shared future for everybody.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister has said that rural proofing is very important. She also said that she intends to legislate. Given that she has been in office for some time, can she outline what the change has been in rural proofing on her watch compared with previously?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Over the last two terms, before my time, when Michelle Gildernew was Minister, we made sure that rural proofing was at the core of the Department, and we have seen significant progress right across all Departments. However, as I have said, all Departments have signed up to the rural White Paper, which is reviewed every year, but there is a lot more scope for more positive collaborative working across Departments. I think that my commitment is very evident, particularly when it comes to tackling poverty and social isolation. For all the programmes across my Department, the evidence is there to back up that I truly am a champion of rural communities.

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

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the proposals being put to Brussels for the next fishing quota agreement for 2015. (AQO 6727/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Proposals for fishing quotas are made by the European Commission and are based on scientific advice for fish stocks. At the Fisheries Council on 15 and 16 December, Ministers will discuss the Commission's proposals and reach agreement on fishing opportunities for 2015. It is expected that initial proposals will be published around the end of October or early November. As usual, my main priority will be prawn quota for area VII, which includes the Irish Sea and is the main quota fished by vessels that are based here. The prawn stock is surveyed and assessed annually, and the scientific advice on catch limits is published at the end of October. That ensures that all the latest survey information is included in the stock assessment. The Commission's proposals for prawn quotas will be based on that advice.

Another stock of importance to us is the Irish Sea herring. The latest scientific advice shows that the stock is in good condition, but a small reduction is recommended in order to remain within the maximum sustainable yield levels. It is expected that the quota will vary up and down annually around the 5,000-ton level.

The scientific advice for cod has not changed for several years and is that there should be no directed cod fishery and that by-catches are kept to a minimum. We are doing all that we can with highly selective fishing gear to keep cod by-catch below 1·5%. It is inevitable that some cod will be caught in the prawn fishery, and the quota is probably as low now as it can be to accommodate the by-catch. I will be resisting further cuts, which would be completely pointless and would do nothing for cod recovery.

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

What prior discussions have taken place thus far with Brussels in order to get that better fish quota deal for the people of Northern Ireland? What impact does she think that will have on our fishermen?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Every December, fishermen watch with interest, and we enter into a period now in which, first, the Commission publishes its advice on what it believes the quota should be. We then have to go to Europe and fight science with science. We bring our own science expertise to that discussion. I will go to Brussels with an agreed approach, which I will talk to the industry about over the next number of months. We will have a set timetable, and we will go and fight the case for quota. I do not think that the way that Europe does it is the right way to do it. I do not think that fishermen can plan for the future on the basis of a yearly quota. It needs to be set out over a number of years so that people can financially plan and take business decisions. However, that said, we are where we are, and I will go out and fight for the adequate quota and fight against cuts that, in all likelihood, we will see the Commission trying to put forward again.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The Minister will know that licences have been issued lately for the Mourne Herring Fishery.

She will also be aware that the EU embargo on Russia will dramatically affect the market for the licence holders. Has any analysis been done on providing any compensation to them? What effects might it have on other sectors of the agrifood industry?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, the Russian import ban has an impact. We did not sell any fish to Russia last year. There will be a knock-on effect for us, particularly on price, because the European market has an abundance. That will be an issue for the fish sector to deal with, and we are actively involved in conversations about that at a European level.

I was in Brussels about three weeks ago to talk about that issue and the fact that there is an implication for the dairy sector, particularly the cheese sector. We have made it clear to the Commission that we need to see timely intervention and support coming at an appropriate time. The Member will be aware that quite often in the past the EU steps in when things are too far down the line and a lot of businesses have already been negatively impacted on. I assure the Member that the Russia issue is high on our agenda and we are looking at it.

When it comes to supporting these industries, we are looking for new markets. Whether that be for the dairy sector or the fish sector, looking for new markets at an EU and local level is key.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister provide an update on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The fund will remain open until the end of December 2014, and applications are still invited for projects that can complete by the end of 2015, when the programme will close. The Department and the EU made a joint funding commitment of just over £7·5 million to the fishing industry to the end of August this year. It is fair to say that spending under the EFF has been less than we wanted to see, but a number of factors contributed to that, particularly the uncertain economic climate, which has affected the industry's confidence to invest. In addition, the decommissioning scheme did not go ahead, and that also had an impact on the spend.

Looking to the future, however, we have the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to be put in place. We already have a task force in place, the aim of which is to get that spend on to the ground. We have to make sure that, as we design programmes, the fishing industry is integral to them. A lot of positive work is going on. The task force has met on a couple of occasions and will report by the end of the year.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I want to return to the original question about quotas and the December Fisheries Council. What can the Minister say that would give confidence to the local fishing fleet that she is ahead of the curve in preparing for that critical event?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The industry has been very aware of my approach to that issue over the past number of years. We have gone out and fought a hard battle with the European Commission. There is no point in going out to Europe unless you have the science to back up your argument. A number of years ago, we put forward a clear proposal on selective gear that allowed us to avoid cuts. My track record of commitment to standing up for the industry in Brussels speaks for itself, and I will do that again this year.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what proportion of total agricultural land is set in conacre. (AQO 6728/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The results of the June 2013 agricultural and horticultural survey — the latest available data — showed that land let under conacre accounts for 31% of the total area of farmed land.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister. Can she tell us how many active farmers depend on the significant acreage of rented land for their farming operations?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the number of active farmers who occupy the 31% that I mentioned, but I will be happy to try to provide that to the Member. He will be aware that we will be working with a new definition of "active farmer" from next year, so those statistics might not be available. Suffice it to say that the active farmer issue is a contentious one at the moment. We need to make sure that everyone understands what defines an active farmer. We have been anxious to make sure that we make that clear for people to understand.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur. My question is exactly on that very point. What is the Department doing at the moment about the definition of "active farming" and its implications for land that is taken in conacre?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that that is an issue. The rule of thumb should be this: if you do not know whether you are an active farmer, you most likely are not. That is just a definition that I use in my head. Given the difficulties, it would be good to set out exactly what it means and what we are trying to do. The implementing Act for CAP reform contains a provision that, in 2015, entitlements to be issued under the new support regime must be allocated to the person who enjoys the decision-making power, the benefits and the financial risks in relation to the agricultural activity being carried out on the land for which an allocation is requested. My best advice to anybody who is unclear is to contact their DARD Direct office or the helpline and seek out the information.

The provision that we now have has particular relevance to us because we have the conacre system. That is obviously a long-standing system that we have. In general terms, however, it means that in 2015, when all existing single farm payment entitlements are abolished and the new entitlements are established, the landowners who rent out land in conacre will not be able to establish entitlements on that land. We are reviewing the information that the Department holds for all farm businesses that submitted an application for single farm payment this year, and we will write to all the businesses that, we think, the review suggests are not active farmers. We are proactively targeting those people. We will encourage them not to put forward an application in 2015, if that is what we believe to be the case. I think that that will lead to some farmers wanting to query that, which is fair enough. I think that that is the right direction to go.

Next year, when people are applying for single farm payments, we will be able to run reviews and check records to see if there is evidence of agricultural activity. We will look at herd books, movement histories and all those things. There will be a number of ways in which we will be able to look at and establish whether people are active farmers. Whilst I accept that —

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is a time of big change, but we are doing all that we can to make sure that we get the clarity out there that is needed.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What advice do the Minister and her Department have for potato and vegetable growers who have difficulty in accessing land?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am aware of reports that potato and vegetable growers are having difficulty obtaining land for 2015, as landowners are, perhaps, speculating and trying to hold on to their land to see if they can maximise the value of their entitlements for 2015. Again, the Department has made available information to growers in a Q&A brief that is on the DARD website. I encourage farmers and landowners to look at that. The Q&A points out the issues relevant to whether landowners rent out their land or farm it themselves. It is probably determined by the financial benefit that there will be for them and, therefore, depends on the conacre rent that is on offer. It is important that the return received from establishing entitlements for 2015 is fully understood and compared with the alternative of forgoing conacre rent in 2015. There is a worked example of that on the Q&A, and I advise people to look at that. Potato and vegetable growers will also have the option of establishing entitlements on the rented land in 2015 and transferring those back to the landowner, provided that the landowner is also a farmer after 2015. It should be possible for landowners and potato and vegetable growers to reach an agreement on the way forward, which would see the land being rented out for potato and vegetable production.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

There is still a lot of confusion among farmers, especially young farmers, about what constitutes head of holding. Has the Department yet decided what constitutes head of holding?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I assure the Member that young farmers have every piece of information that I have. Our problem is that Europe has yet to define a few remaining issues, particularly around young farmers. We will have a meeting on 6 October with European Commission officials, and we are hopeful that clarity will be provided at that stage. We are asking for clarity, and I know that other member states are asking for clarity. We are hopeful that, with a bit of pressure, we will have a bit more information to provide to the young farmers after that meeting on 6 October.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, given that the departmental grant to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute has been cut, what steps her Department is taking to aid research aimed at maximising the contribution of agricultural and food industries to the economy. (AQO 6729/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remain committed to supporting research and recognise that it is vital in supporting the agrifood sector plans outlined in the ‘Going for Growth’ report. My Department engages with stakeholders when prioritising its evidence and innovation needs, which helps to ensure that funding is correctly targeted. My Department is well advanced in preparing the DARD-directed AFBI research work programme for 2015-16. DARD funds a NI contact point based in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, the role of which is to facilitate the local agrifood industry and research community in drawing down increased EU research funding.

The Department is funding postgraduate studentships to help drive innovation in the industry and to foster future local world-class leaders in industry, research and teaching, while developing the science base here in the North.

The industry-led DARD research challenge fund encourages collaboration between rural enterprises and the research community, and five new projects have recently been commissioned. My Department is working to develop strategic alliances and collaborations with other government funders to help to coordinate research and evidence gathering for the agrifood sector. For the new rural development programme, DARD has been developing proposals for innovation partnership groups that aim to bring together farmers, advisers, businesses and researchers to advance innovation in the agricultural sector.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

The Minister said that one of the strategic aims is to draw down further funds from Europe. In light of the fact that the first tranche has been announced for science, has agriculture, through AFBI or any other institution, been successful in applying for Horizon 2020 funding and achieved a drawdown?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Eighteen per cent of my resource budget goes to AFBI. Other than that, we are dependent on looking outside, particularly to Europe. You will be aware that the Executive have a Horizon 2020 target of increasing the drawdown of funding by 20%. We have now appointed our person in AFBI who will target that funding. We have no confirmation of new funding, but we are working in Europe and trying to form partnerships. One of the key areas that we developed under the new rural development programme is partnership working, and that involves everybody — farmers, researchers and scientists — coming together. We believe that there will be opportunities in Horizon 2020 for us to be able to take that forward, but, as yet, we do not have confirmation of funding.

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

Minister, given the cuts that AFBI, like other organisations, is experiencing, what is the Department prioritising in its budget to ensure maximum delivery for the economy of Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I assume that the Member is referring to the AFBI budget. Public expenditure is under significant pressure for a combination of reasons, and AFBI, as an arm's-length body, is no different from any other element of my Department, in that it is being prudent and looking at what potential savings it can make. As I said in my initial answer, it is not just for us to decide what areas need to prioritised. Our clear vision for the agrifood sector is set out in Going for Growth. It sets out where we need to direct research, support, innovation and technology transfer. For me, the way to establish our priority is in consultation with stakeholders, and that work is ongoing. We are working with AFBI and stakeholders to design next year's programme and identify what research opportunities we will explore. All sectors feel that they are worthy of research, but, with limited budgets, you have to prioritise. As I said, we are working, with AFBI officials, to develop a strategic plan for research and to identify what will be targeted over the period to 2020.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. Can the Minister tell us about the postgraduate research programme?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The research programme is designed to ensure that we provide the best local students with the best opportunity to undertake research that is directly relevant to our agrifood industry. It has been successful in providing world-class leaders in research, teaching, industry and policy development, and it has had an impact throughout the local agrifood sector. This year, DARD increased the number of PhD studentships from eight to 12, the majority of which are undertaken in conjunction with Queen's and the University of Ulster. These take place at a university campus or at either the AFBI or CAFRE site. As part of our continuing need to provide assurance on the value and quality of the PhD studentships, the departmental scientific adviser has commissioned a review of the current arrangements. DARD is funding postgraduate studentships to help to drive innovation in the industry and to provide high-level training to help to develop the science base in the North. PhD research areas are directly related to DARD's priority in evidence and innovation needs.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how many applications were received for the level II agriculture qualification at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise for the CAP young farmers’ scheme and regional reserve. (AQO 6731/11-15)

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

12. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the young farmers' scheme. (AQO 6736/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will answer questions 7 and 12 together. My Department received 3,495 applications to the level 2 agriculture qualification. The qualification is one of the eligibility criteria for the young farmers’ scheme and the young farmer and new entrant categories of the regional reserve. CAFRE is providing an accredited training course for those who do not already have the required level 2 qualification. Equivalent or higher level agriculture qualifications are also acceptable, and CAFRE has compiled a list of eligible qualifications, which is available on its website.

DARD has recently written to all those who applied for the level 2 qualification in agriculture by the closing date of 29 August to provide further information on the young farmers' scheme and the regional reserve and to outline the possible types of evidence required to meet the head of holding eligibility criterion. Evidence will be required from young farmer applicants to demonstrate that they are the head of holding. If they are unable to provide it, they will be unable to participate in the scheme or benefit from associated support until they satisfy the requirements. Officials are also seeking legislative advice on whether a minimum age should be imposed for young farmers to satisfy the head of holding requirement, and a decision on that will be made in the coming weeks. Officials are also seeking clarification on the young farmer requirements, particularly in relation to the head of holding requirement. Commission officials have been invited to Belfast on 6 October, and it is hoped that further clarification will be provided during that visit.

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

That ends the period for questions for oral answer. There is no time for a supplementary. We will now move to topical questions.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she has taken to include primary schoolchildren in the farm safety action plan to instil safety awareness at a young age. (AQT 1531/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the detail with me but, yes, that is one of the elements that was looked at. A lot of schools do that work anyway, particularly schools in rural areas. The Farm Safety Partnership looked at whether there are some elements that it could incorporate, even into the curriculum, that would help. So, yes, work around imaging and diagrams would resonate with children. Some work has been done on that, but I am very happy to provide to the Member any other detailed information on what we have done.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you for the answer. Would the Minister consider engaging with community and voluntary groups such as young farmers to engage with a younger group of people in rural areas?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I regularly engage with young farmers' groups and have met them over the last couple of months at different shows. They do great work in reaching out and getting that positive message across. I am very encouraged by the number of young people who have applied to be head of holding under the new CAP regime. To me, that very clearly sets out a change in the age structure in the farming industry. For all those young people who either have qualifications in agriculture or will now take part in the level 2 qualification, there will be a farm safety element to that training, and that will be key in changing mindsets and making sure that people start out in their farming business with that to the forefront of their mind.

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

Question 2 was withdrawn. Mr Chris Hazzard is not in his place.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether her Department is still on course to achieve the 85% target for single farm payments. (AQT 1534/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, we will be announcing our targets over the next wee while. The Member will be aware that, year-on-year, we have reached increased numbers by December, and my aim this year is to do even better than last year. There is no doubt that it has been challenging year and a challenging couple of years with CAP reform, but I gave an assurance to the House last year that I will continue to make improvements year-on-year.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

It is certainly good news that that is to be the case, and we look forward to seeing the outworkings of that. Is the Department on target in respect of the inspections that need to be carried out?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. Again, in our endeavour to speed up the payments, we have switched to a lot of remote control sensing inspections, and, this year, we were able to start those earlier again, which should obviously improve the bigger picture. I think that it is just over 1,200 remote control sensing inspections this year. So, we are certainly further on than we were at this time last year.

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

Mr Trevor Clarke is not in his place. Mr Robin Newton is not in his place. I call Mr Joe Byrne, who is in his place.

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

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether DARD’s EU infraction fine problem from Brussels has gone away. (AQT 1537/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that we are trying very hard to avoid infraction. We have been working very hard with the remapping exercise to try to avoid it, and we have had success in that, year-on-year, we have had a reduced fine. However, we want to get to the stage where we rule it out altogether or certainly try our best to rule it out altogether. We are awaiting confirmation of this year's fine, but we are pretty confident that the fine is coming down as it did last year.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she state whether there is a unit in the Department that is actively dealing with that issue to make sure that we do not incur any further fines, given the tight budgetary situation?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I assure the Member that it is my aim to get to a position in which we avoid fines altogether. People are working seriously hard on remapping. You will be aware that we had to remap over 750,000 fields, so it has been no mean feat. My officials who are working on the land parcel identification system project have been working hard with DFP's Land and Property Service officials to make sure that we avoid future disallowance.

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

Mr David McNarry is not in his place. Mr Edwin Poots is not in his place.