Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 February 2015

497 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As a valid petition of concern was presented on Monday 23 February in relation to the motion, the vote will be on a cross-community basis.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the draft Local Government (Standing Orders) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 be approved.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The regulations are being made under section 38 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. Section 127(3) of the Act provides that the draft regulations must be laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.

I remind the House that the principles set out in the regulations are already enshrined in primary legislation. The House voted for call-in and qualified majority voting (QMV) as part of the Local Government Act 2014. Furthermore, the regulations were widely consulted on and passed through the Committee without challenge. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand why a petition of concern has been tabled at this very late stage and look forward to hearing an explanation.

The purpose of the regulations is to prescribe provisions for the governance arrangements of a council that must be incorporated by a council in the standing orders it makes for the regulation of its proceedings and business: in other words, the specification of mandatory standing orders. These add to the governance provisions in the 2014 Act.

The specification of certain mandatory standing orders for the transaction of council business will ensure that a consistent approach to the relevant matters is adopted across all 11 new councils. Whilst each council is a locally elected body answerable to its electorate, it is elected to represent all the people who reside in the relevant local government district.

The Assembly, when it agreed many of the provisions of the Local Government Act 2014, accepted the need for a legislative framework to be in place to ensure a consistent approach to the governance arrangements of the new councils.

The 2014 Act, which was passed by the Assembly on 8 April last year, introduced mechanisms to provide protections for the interests of minority communities in council decision-making as an integral aspect of the new governance arrangements. Provision is made in that Act that a council's standing orders must specify decisions that are required to be taken by a qualified majority. In relation to a decision, a qualified majority means 80% of the votes of members present and voting on the decision. The Act provides that a decision on the adoption of executive arrangements by a council, a decision to use a method other than d'Hondt for the filling of positions of responsibility on a council, and the use of droop quota rather than quota greatest remainder for appointing councillors to committees must be taken by a qualified majority.

The regulations specify decisions that must be taken by a qualified majority, in addition to those already provided for in the Act. The regulations provide that a decision on a call-in made under section 41(1)(b) of the 2014 Act — in other words, a call-in on the grounds of disproportionate adverse effect on any section of the inhabitants of the district — must be taken by a qualified majority, as must a decision to suspend a council's standing orders. A council may not, however, suspend the mandatory standing orders specified in these regulations under any circumstances. The specification of these additional decisions will provide further support for the protection of the interests of minority communities in council decision-making.

A key mechanism for providing protection for the interests of minority communities in council decision-making is the introduction of a call-in process. Importantly, this was agreed by the representatives of the five main political parties on the strategic leadership board's policy development panel on governance and relationships. Provision for this process is made in section 41 of the 2014 Act, which provides that a council's standing orders must make provision requiring reconsideration of a decision if 15% of the members of a council present to the clerk of the council a requisition on either or both of the following grounds:

"(a) that the decision was not arrived at after a proper consideration of the relevant facts and issues; (b) that the decision would disproportionately affect adversely any section of the inhabitants of the district."

The main provision in the regulations is the prescription of the detailed process to be adopted by a council for the reconsideration of a decision in response to a request for such reconsideration being submitted to the clerk of the council. The process covers decisions taken by a council, a committee of a council and decisions taken under executive arrangements. This will ensure that a consistent approach is adopted by all councils to this important new feature of the governance arrangements for councils.

I wish to underline that the call-in of a decision is already provided for in primary legislation through the 2014 Act. It is, therefore, very important that councils are now provided with a consistent methodology for operating call-in. To do otherwise could result in processes being adopted by individual councils that may not provide appropriate or adequate protections.

The process specified in the regulations was developed with the direct input of a number of senior officers from local government and is designed to strike an appropriate balance between the administrative procedures of a council for the preparation and publication of the minutes of a meeting of a committee, and the need to ensure that the business of the council can be transacted in a timely and effective manner, allowing for the facility for members to request the reconsideration of a decision.

The regulations provide that a small number of categories of decision will not be subject to the reconsideration process.

Those include decisions where there is already statutory provision for an appeal against the council's decision; for example, the granting of an entertainments licence or, from 1 April this year, a planning application. Decisions where an undue delay would result in the breach of a statutory duty by a council, or where such a delay would be prejudicial either to the council's interest or to the public interest, are also excluded from the reconsideration process, as are decisions that simply note a report from, or the actions of, an officer. The final category of decisions that will not be subject to the reconsideration process concerns decisions that must be taken by a special resolution of the council, as such decisions are required to be approved by more than a simple majority.

The third aspect of the new governance arrangements for which provision is made in the regulations is to do with the operation of either the d'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë method for filling positions of responsibility. The regulations provide the timescales for the relevant steps in the process specified in the 2014 Act. The provisions should ensure that the process for filling positions of responsibility by one of those methods, at the first meeting of a council following a local election, is not prolonged unnecessarily. The provision of the ability of a council to extend that time frame ensures that there is the flexibility necessary to accommodate exceptional circumstances, should the need arise.

When the 2014 Act was being considered by the Assembly, Members agreed that provision should be made for the procedure for appointing councillors to committees. That is to ensure that the membership of a committee reflects the political balance of the council, and it was agreed that that should apply across all committees, if a council appoints more than one committee at the same meeting. Such an approach ensures that political parties with lower levels of representation on a council, and independents, would thereby have the opportunity to serve on a committee. Part 4 of the schedule to the regulations specifies the procedure that must operate in those circumstances. It follows closely the provisions in the Assembly's Standing Orders on the membership of Statutory Committees.

I ask the Assembly to approve the draft regulations.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background to and purpose of this draft affirmative statutory rule. The Committee considered the SL1 proposal at its meeting on 11 December 2014 and agreed that it was content for the Department to proceed with drafting the rule. The Department has since notified the Committee that two provisions were removed from the draft regulations after the submission of the SL1 to the Committee on that day, on the advice of the Departmental Solicitor's Office. The draft regulations included provision for a call-in to be terminated if the level of support for the request fell below the required 15% of members, after the request had been submitted. The Committee understands that no such provision may be included in the draft regulations, as the 2014 Act does not provide for the withdrawal of a call-in.

The initial draft regulations that came before the Committee also provided that only those decisions that were called in on the grounds of disproportionate adverse impact, supported by the opinion of the practising barrister or solicitor, would be taken by a qualified majority. All other decisions would be implemented or tabled for ratification by the council.

The Department has indicated that, since the relevant section of the Act makes no specific provision for obtaining a legal opinion on a request for reconsideration, the proposed provision had to be withdrawn. That means that all decisions that are subject to call-in on disproportionate adverse impact grounds must be taken by a qualified majority, taking into account the opinion of the practising barrister or solicitor.

The Committee was content that neither of these amendments impacted on the protection of the interest of minority communities in council decision-making. However, during its consideration of the Local Government Bill, the Committee raised concerns that the overuse of the call-in procedure could result in a deadlock in council decision-making. Members were reassured that the percentages required for a call-in or for a qualified majority may be revised by regulations subject to an affirmative resolution of the Assembly.

The Committee was also concerned that neither the Bill nor the regulations specifies the criteria to be used to determine the grounds for reconsideration under clause 41, which is that a decision would disproportionately affect adversely any section of the inhabitants of the district. The Committee believed that any lack of clarity could lead to a specious use of call-in. The Committee also remained concerned that the use of a call-in will require the opinion of a practising barrister or solicitor. The Department had indicated that the specification of a panel of lawyers, rather than an individual barrister or solicitor, would introduce an additional safeguard, but this has not been introduced in these regulations. Accordingly, the Committee therefore recommends that careful consideration should be given to ensuring that the criteria for call-in should be further defined in guidance.

After taking these concerns into account, the Environment Committee has agreed to recommend that the motion be affirmed by the Assembly.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will perhaps answer some of the questions that have been raised. Although I was not at that Committee meeting, the Chair of the Committee has probably reached one of the key points. The reason for the petition of concern and why we are concerned is based on two grounds. First and principally, it has been mentioned that a slightly better mechanism may well need to be looked at that than purely having the opinion of a barrister, but that in itself would not be something that would block this. If that had been the only consideration, we would not be opposing this. I think that it is something that needs to be looked at. The bigger concern is the other issue that the Chair raised, which is what might be described as the filter mechanism. Mention has been made about the reasons given by the Department for why it is felt that that cannot be much of a particular issue. Indeed, there is a concern over what is there in the law.

When we were looking at this issue initially, which became part of the overall local government legislation, there was a desire — this is something that predates the legislation by quite a time — to say that adequate provisions should be put in to ensure that the only successful call-ins and the only successful use of QMV will be in very genuine cases where it leads to an adverse impact that, clearly, is detrimental to one community or another. That should be a reasonable test and something on which there should be clear levels of protections and safeguards. The issue has been ongoing for at least five or six years.

Call-in and qualified majority votes have been mentioned. We do not have problem with those as concepts, and we do not have any problem with the broad thrust of the way that this is put together. Indeed, as the Minister indicated, at the strategic leadership board and before that in discussions, the idea of a call-in was unanimously agreed by the five main parties through a policy development panel, which I was part of. That panel agreed the percentages and the idea of qualified majority vote, but it was also indicated at the very start that that should only happen where there is a clear adverse impact. When we came to discuss section 41 of the legislation, provision was made, in absence of any other suggestion, for, essentially, a qualified legal opinion to be given to act as the filter mechanism. Clearly the intention behind that — certainly, our intention — was that this would be used simply on legitimate grounds. I appreciate the point about the concern that has been raised over the way the legislation has been drafted. It has been suggested by the Department that any filter or blocking mechanism that comes from a legal opinion is effectively taken out, and what we are left with in the call-in procedure is that an application is made, justification is given and there is a lawyer's opinion. However, according to regulation 4(8), when the legal opinion is obtained, the clerk must:

"include the decision on the agenda for the next available meeting of the council for reconsideration, at which it must be taken by a qualified majority".

The problem with this is that you could get the most vexatious application in the world, which would then go to the lawyer who could say, "This is absolute nonsense. This is simply grandstanding by half a dozen councillors". Yet, even though the clear-cut opinion is that there are no grounds whatsoever to proceed, according to the regulations, the decision automatically becomes one that is taken by a qualified majority vote. Under these circumstances, you are left questioning the role of the lawyer.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Coming from a qualified legal background, he will well know that solicitors, lawyers and barristers give different opinions. That is what makes the courts operate, because they do have different opinions. Sometimes, a council or members on a council will not agree with that legal opinion, and some solicitors, lawyers and barristers will not agree with it either, so just because you get one opinion does not mean that that is the right one.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I doubt that any lawyer and anybody who is legally qualified, including me or the more eminent lawyer Mr Allister, will claim to be entirely infallible on all occasions. I take on board the point being made. The problem is that we still have a situation in which you could line up every lawyer in the world, and they would say that this is vexatious, that it is not a proper call-in and is not something that adversely impacts, whether it is from the lifting of bins in a particular area to whatever. You can say that something is entirely vexatious. It does not meet the qualifications for it, yet, according to the legislation, it automatically becomes a qualified majority vote.

The danger with this is — and it is something that we were mindful of at the start — that, first of all, it is used legitimately. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the community where, potentially, if this is put in place and is allowed to automatically become a qualified majority vote simply by the assertion of it, where a coach and horses could be driven through it, and it could simply become tit for tat across the board.

I know that this is a debate for another day, but there has been criticism, particularly from the Minister's party, in relation to the use of petitions of concern in this place, and I hold my hands up as one of the most guilty culprits in relation to that, but the argument is —

[Interruption.]

— and I see I have found some level of agreement from at least some Members of the House in relation to that. It is clear that, as part of the Stormont House Agreement, there will be discussions on that, and we will look at that issue, so there will be a discussion for another day.

We are mindful of the situation, even five or six years ago, in that a mechanism whereby six councillors of a particular opinion effectively automatically turned any decision they wanted into a qualified majority vote was not going to be appropriate for local government. That is why there has been a discussion on whether it should be a panel, the ombudsman or a legal opinion and why, specifically, in the legislation, we put in place that legal opinion had to be sought on this.

It seems to me a nonsense that, if we put in place that legal opinion has to be sought, the import of the legislation is that, at best, it becomes entirely a tick-box exercise and, at worst, a useful device for lawyers to earn a few pounds, but that their opinion is utterly irrelevant because the decision automatically becomes subject to QMV. We believe that that element of things is wrong. If there needs to be some tweak to the legislation or, in this case, to the regulations, we are quite happy to entertain that.

In the broad level, we do not disagree with the general thrust of what is there. We are in a situation in which, as far as I am aware, all 11 councils have adopted qualified majority voting and call-ins in their standing orders.

I perhaps stand to be corrected on that. If we do have a slight delay in trying to make sure that we get this right, from a practical point of view, that will not make a great deal of difference on the ground. However, we believe that this is a very important point.

I apologise that we have reconsidered the provision quite late in the day, and I appreciate the inconvenience to the House on that, but I think that it is important that we get this right. If we simply go ahead with a system that is entirely carte blanche and has no restriction whatsoever to a call-in mechanism, which will make it simply an automatic qualified majority vote on all occasions, I fear that, across local government, we may well be storing up trouble for ourselves. I suspect that the Department did not intend that, and I do not criticise it for that. However, we have to be careful that, if there is an unforeseen circumstance, we do not fall into that problem and regret at some later stage the decision that has been made today. For that reason, we will vote against this, and we have used the petition of concern because we believe that something better can be put in place.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. I would like to say a few words on this. It seems that we have been speaking a lot on statutory rules in this last wee period, but it is a pity that this has come late in the day. It has given us no opportunity to go through the process on the issue that the Member who spoke previously raised. I know that no issues were raised at the Committee on this. The SL1 came, I think, in December, and the rule came last week. That said, the Minister can maybe clarify exactly what the issue is in response to the Member who spoke previously. I apologise, Minister, that I missed the start of your contribution, so I will maybe seek clarity on that.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member is asking an impossible question of the Minister. Mr Weir and his colleagues in the DUP have raised this issue at the eleventh hour. They never raised it once throughout the Committee's discourse, and you are now expecting the Minister to explain what Mr Weir introduced at the eleventh hour.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for the intervention. If he had waited until I explained what the clarification is about, he would have found that I want the Minister to give clarification on the consultative process in all this, because all these things have gone out to consultation. I was asking the Minister to clarify the responses. That is the point that I was going to make. It was not about the lateness of the hour at which the Member brought the process forward. The Minister is well aware of the call-in in connection with the process involving the barrister and solicitor's role in all this. That is what I am looking for clarification on. The Minister may be able to respond on some of the responses and clearly outline the role of the barrister and solicitor in this matter. The Member intervened before I got to explain that point. That is what I am talking about. There has been ample opportunity to discuss these issues, and I am asking the Minister about the responses as part of the whole consultation, because this has been going on for a period of time.

In what we are trying to do and in what we are transferring to local councils, we need to give local councils the authority. They are the decision-making bodies, and we need to have confidence in them to make the decisions. I know that, at some point, there will certainly be a need for legal opinion, but I seek clarification from the Minister on that. I am aware that this issue was raised late in the day.

I am concerned about the use of the petition of concern in this case. The Member clarified that point and tried to make some apology for it, but I want the Minister to outline whether there was ample opportunity for everybody to partake in this process and to respond to any consultation. I believe that there was ample opportunity, but I seek clarification from the Minister on where we go after today's process. With that, I will bring my remarks to a close.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is kind of strange that we are here today in what is now becoming a debate. I do not think anybody in the Committee had intended to do much speaking today; they had all assumed that it was agreed and would go through as a matter of course, without any real debate. Well, we have the debate now, and it is very interesting. A lot of work had been done to ensure that power-sharing and protection for minorities were put at the centre of the new council arrangements. We spent a long time in Committee. I look at some of the worn-out officials in the Gallery who spent a long time working with us as we went back and forth, discussing all these issues. They were already discussed in the strategic leadership board, where everybody agreed. Now, at the eleventh hour, we have a petition of concern.

I accept the Member's apology, but it is not the way for the House to do business. We can have debates about petitions of concern all day, and we do, but not on an issue of legislation, when we have gone through the Committee process, public consultations and processes before that. Remember that the legislation has taken far too long to get to this stage. It has been with a number of Ministers, and thankfully Minister Durkan has been able to bring it to the House and get it across the line. Now we are at the very final hurdle with these regulations, faced with a petition of concern with no real opportunity to discuss with the officials.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. If the Member and his party colleagues in Newry, Mourne and Down council had had the courage to vote against the Raymond McCreesh play park being renamed or continuing with that name, we might not need legislation and regulations such as this. Does the Member agree with that?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. The point about Newry and Armagh and the McCreesh play park situation — I think our councillors should have been there and voted against it, our leader has made that very clear — is that this mechanism would stop that type of thing happening. That could have been called in, and then you would have had to have a qualified majority. That is the very reason why these mechanisms are put in. Unfortunately it does not apply in this case, but, if it did, I would be very supportive of it applying. It is about protection of minorities, whether unionist minorities in Newry or nationalist minorities in Craigavon.

I hope that, given that we have all bought into the idea of the protection of minorities and power-sharing in a real sense being finally put into legislation and local government, where people would have no real choice but to share power, people are not getting cold feet on that. I hope this is not about flags or anything else. I hope —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The names of councils.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry? Did you want to make an intervention, Mr Campbell? I cannot hear you speaking from a sedentary position, but I am glad to give way if Mr Campbell wants. You don't, OK.

I hope, as I said, that this is not about people getting cold feet about power-sharing, because it took us far too long to get to this point. Some councils have been very good at it over the years, and some not so good at it. I hope that this can be resolved, and I regret very much that the DUP has decided to petition this; bizarrely using a petition of concern to prevent a mechanism that would protect minorities. It is very strange. I look forward to the Minister's comments, and I hope that the DUP will rethink its position on this.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Section 1 of the Local Government Act was brought into operation by commencement order on 2 June 2014, albeit pretty low-key and under the radar, even of the councils. As the Minister said, the order made provision for Members to request the consideration or the call-in of a council decision in specified circumstances. Following such a request, on the grounds that a decision would disproportionately adversely affect any section of the inhabitants of a district or was not properly decided on after appropriate consideration of the facts, the clerk of the council is required to obtain the advice of a practising barrister or solicitor.

The call-in procedure is an area that my party has long had concerns about. We recognise the merits of such a safeguard, but we believe that the Department could have gone about securing it more effectively.

The concerns raised during the progression of the Bill are still valid. For instance, both the Act and the regulations talk about a disproportionate adverse impact, without giving even the slightest indication of what would constitute such an impact. Maybe the Minister could provide some long overdue clarity. With such vagaries, the Department is only exposing itself and councils to unnecessary quarrels.

The call-in procedure has, nevertheless, been available to members of a new council during its shadow period. It appears that this provision has been interpreted differently by different councils, and, I am sure, by different legal advisers. There has been a number of attempts to use the process, many on genuine grounds. However, these have all been in the absence of the regulations.

Today's regulations are the laying down of matters that councils must include in their standing orders. It is important for an even local government system across Northern Ireland that a consistent approach be adopted across the board. Departmental solicitors scrutinised the draft SL1 and removed two provisions on the reconsideration of decisions. The first related to the removal of the termination of a reconsideration if the supporting members fall below 15%. The second provision that has now been removed is the need for the advice of a qualified barrister or solicitor as to the merit of a call-in on the grounds of disproportionate adverse impact. Now all call-ins in circumstances of disproportionate adverse impact will be decided on by a qualified majority, as has been mentioned, and a barrister or solicitor's opinion will no longer preclude a decision being taken, although it can be taken into consideration. As my colleague said, various solicitors have various opinions, and I am sure that those can be taken into consideration by all present.

The regulations were noted by the Environment Committee on 12 February, as well as at the earlier SL stage. It is worth noting that all parties were content with what was proposed at those stages. It is ironic, however, that we have one safeguard being used — some would say abused — to block another. The time for the DUP to raise their concerns was in Committee; then the Department would have had at least the chance to work with them. Typically, however, they have adopted the stance of their way or no way. Of course, the Ulster Unionist Party raised many concerns during the progression of the Bill but were broadly ignored. This is just one example of what happens when bad political decisions are pushed through the Assembly, not because it is the right thing to do but because it suits one or both of the two main parties, which thrive on carving up Executive responsibilities.

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

I support the regulations as tabled by the Minister. The Minister said quite rightly that the principles enshrined in the primary legislation are reflected in these regulations. It has to be said, and I emphasise the point, that there was never any challenge to those principles and never any questions in Committee — in particular, the Environment Committee.

There has, furthermore, been a massive amount of work done for many months on these regulations. Of course, a strategic leadership board was set up to consider all these provisions, and there was general agreement about the provisions on that board. That political consensus, which has quite improperly been undermined today, was wrought out of many months of political discussion and debate and was of great value in informing this House, the Environment Committee, the Minister and the Department of the Environment on how these regulations should be shaped, formed and presented in detail to this House. In my view, what has been done today is irresponsible. I do not find the arguments put forward by Mr Weir in the House to be convincing in any way.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. We could all have a separate discussion of process issues. Obviously, as regards the principle of the issue, everybody has been, and remains, committed to call-in and the qualified majority vote for the protection of minorities. Effectively, part of those discussions have been going since day one. Will the Member actually address the merits of this? We can bandy about comments as to when particular things should have happened and what process should be used, but we are dealing with the detail of specific regulations and the import of what is there. Can the Member name a single council decision of any nature — no matter how little impact it has on the community — where, if somebody put a call-in saying, "This adversely affects my community", it would not then become part of qualified majority voting? Is that not going against the spirit of what was agreed?

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

I find it peculiar that the Member reverses the onus to me, my party or the Minister. It is up to the Member to discharge to the House a serious reason why these regulations should not be adopted today. I do not accept the argument that the onus lies with the Minister or me, as a member of the Environment Committee, to disprove the points that the Member has raised in argument.

I want to go back to one other very important point in relation to process. This issue was raised yesterday evening by the DUP. It was, effectively, a political ambush and a misuse of political power to petition the regulations here today. It is highly damaging in relation to the political consensus that has been built around protections for minorities and the way in which the new councils will operate. It is also damaging to the process of bringing the councils into full operation in a fair and proper manner. That is not good politics; it is bad politics. It is bad for the House, bad for the new councils and bad for the DUP that, at the last minute, has brought the petition of concern and objections, which, quite clearly, no Minister could have dealt with at the last minute. The Minister is quite proper to proceed today to bring these regulations and say to the House, "These are the regulations that have been agreed by everyone". No objections were raised to them in Committee or outside Committee. There needs to be an explanation from the DUP in relation to that. I am not convinced by the arguments that have been brought forward. Indeed, if you look at the regulations —

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. If Mr Weir was convinced by his arguments, he would not need the petition of concern because he would probably think that he would get enough support. I agree with the point about the abuse of the petition of concern. I constantly warned during debates about local government reform that we would almost devolve our dysfunctionality to local government. The big issue that he needs to address is this: anyone in the Chamber who has ever signed a petition of concern should look at the reason why they signed it. Quite frankly, it looks as though everybody is as bad as each other, although I put my hands up and happily admit that I have never signed one.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention. He has a different political agenda, and he is entitled to that, but he does not seem to understand the necessity, in certain circumstances, for the genuine and proper use of a petition of concern. He would like to see the petition of concern mechanism removed completely in the House, but that runs contrary to the very nature of the House, which is to try to protect minorities on special issues.

I accept, Mr Speaker, if you indulge me, that petitions of concern have been abused in the House, but this is a most egregious example of the misuse of the petition of concern. I cannot think of any petition of concern coming so late in the day on an issue that has achieved — remarkably, in my opinion, and indeed thanks to the DUP amongst others — remarkable political unanimity in relation to these regulations. I just cannot understand why, at this particular moment, a petition of concern is being used in such a clumsy, crude and undemocratic fashion in the House.

Let us look at paragraph 3(2) of the schedule to the regulations, where it says:

"The following decisions shall not be subject to call-in —".

I am trying to address the point that Mr Weir raised, which was that this could subject councils to all sorts of abuse and that, willy-nilly, decisions could be called in and all the rest. There are proper safeguards, in my opinion, in relation to this. Paragraph 3(2) says:

"The following decisions shall not be subject to call-in — (a) a decision on a regulatory or quasi-judicial function which is subject to a separate appeal mechanism; (b) a decision which is deemed to be a case of special urgency in accordance with regulation 24 of the Executive Arrangements Regulations; (c) a decision where an unreasonable delay could be prejudicial to the council's or the public's interests; (d) a decision taken by an officer of the council which is not a key decision; (e) a decision by the executive which serves only to note a report from or the actions of an officer;".

I emphasise that point to you, Mr Speaker, and to the rest of the House, because there, in one fell swoop, you have safeguards in relation to the abuse of this particular process of call-in. There is a proper and lawful blocking mechanism there to prevent misuse.

Let us move on to paragraph 4(3) of the schedule, which deals with standing order call-in admissability. It says that:

"A call-in shall — (a) specify the reasons why a decision should be reconsidered".

Not only can you say to the clerk or chief executive of a council that you have a problem with it, but you have to specify the reasons why a decision should be reconsidered. That is another safeguard in relation to this matter. You cannot just, willy-nilly, say that you object to something; you have to state the reasons for that.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. The problem is that he indicates that you need to specify the reasons, but you could specify the most spurious reasons with no relevance at all to community interest. Once you have specified your reasons and once you have triggered the mechanism of the call-in on that basis, it does not matter, for example, whether the lawyer says that it is utterly vexatious and is utter nonsense, whether it is about putting 10p on the rate that you charge for swimming in the local leisure centre or lifting the bins or any of those things. No matter how utterly spurious it is, so long as you give a reason, that automatically follows through to the position of becoming a qualified majority vote according to the regulations. That is the problem.

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

I go back to the point of paragraph 4(3)(a). You have to:

"specify the reasons why a decision should be reconsidered".

That is unlike the petition of concern that Mr Weir has brought, whereby he has not specified why the regulations should be blocked. I emphasise that the specification of the reasons is an important safeguard in the use of the call-in mechanism.

Paragraph 4(3)(b) goes on to state:

"subject to sub-paragraph (6) [of the standing order] be deemed to be inadmissible if the reasons are not specified."

Paragraph 4(4) continues:

"In the case of a call-in submitted under section 41(1)(b) of the 2014 Act, members must in the reasons specified under sub-paragraph (3)(a) specify— (a) the [community] that would be affected by the decision; and (b) the nature and extent of the disproportionate adverse impact."

That is another hurdle that has to be overcome. You cannot simply say, "I don't like this decision, and it might affect such-and-such a community". It is put in there so that you cannot just vexatiously or frivolously bring an application for a call-in.

There are good protections in the regulations. Of course, it has to say that it has the support of 15% of council members.

Paragraph 4(8), which Mr Weir neglected, states:

"When the legal opinion obtained in accordance with section 41(2) of the 2014 Act— "

— confirms that the call-in has merit —

"the clerk must— (a)furnish the opinion to the members; and . (b)include the decision on the agenda for the next available meeting of the council for reconsideration, at which it must be taken by a qualified majority."

Mr Weir referred to paragraph 4(8), which does the same in a situation in which legal opinion indicates that the call-in does not have merit, so both situations are covered. In that situation, a council again has protection. That is important, and the ultimate determinant is qualified majority voting.

That mechanism was agreed by all the parties not just in the House but outside the House by their political representatives who were elected to council and appointed by those parties to look at and thoroughly vet the issues and come to a decision on them. That was good politics. The DUP has shown bad faith about the regulations today. It has gone back on what its public representatives agreed and on what it agreed in the Assembly, in Committee and in the Executive. It has given no proper reason for going back on those decisions. It is shameful that the DUP comes to the House and makes unsubstantiated points to sabotage the regulations.

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

I served on the Environment Committee almost two years ago, and I recall these regulations being discussed at that time. It was very clear that all members were very mindful of their responsibility, as more power was devolved to local government from each of the Departments, to put in place equality provisions to ensure that there would be no abuse of power at that level. There was a necessity, which was particularly advocated by my party, to put in place regulations, such as the ones that Minister Durkan has put forward today, to ensure that no community would be adversely impacted by any decision of the new councils.

Unfortunately, some parties here in the North seek, in the Assembly and in local government, to reduce all of our decisions to nothing more than a sectarian headcount because it seems to support their clamour for power. When people are worrying about whether flags are flown, they forget about the dire circumstances in which they find themselves: the type of home that they live in; the type of job available to them, such as those with zero-hours contracts, for example; and the waiting lists that they have to endure for their health-care or domiciliary care services.

It would be much more advantageous for society as a whole if people, and the politicians who represent them, were truly engaged in the type of debate that impacts on their daily lives. Clouding the issues around some of the more emotive subjects seems to be the ambition of some parties, because a consequence of being diverted from the bread-and-butter issues is that people forget the poor representation that many of them suffer from.

As my colleagues said, the use, at this very late stage, of a petition of concern is extremely regrettable. It is also symptomatic of the fact that some parties have not got their head round their responsibility to build a shared society and build reconciliation across our communities. That was exemplified in the Stormont House Agreement, when good relations, a shared future, flags, parading and the past were kicked into the long grass by the establishment of commissions.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. I assure her and the House that it is perfectly legitimate for people to protest and complain about the flag of their nation being taken down and still care about housing, the environment, jobs, security, social security and so on. That is absolutely consistent. While I am on my feet, may I ask the Member whether it was posturing by the SDLP in Newry and Mourne to put the Irish language first? Was that not political posturing before the upcoming election?

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

The Member has given the answer better than I could have: the issue is flags. In Craigavon, in my constituency, we saw electioneering in its worst form, when the DUP, in the dying embers of the council, ignored the advice of the Equality Commission and the council's legal advice in order to score points.

The very fact that the regulations are being promoted across all councils will seek to ensure that whatever community has the lead role through its representatives on a council, it cannot force issues down other people's throats, and people will start to talk about some of the real issues and put in place a proper economy strategy, for example. Quite bizarrely, we do not have such a strategy in Northern Ireland, nor do we have a childcare strategy worthy of any note.

It is very clear to me and, I am sure, to many independent observers what the real issue is for the DUP. Its abuse of power in using a petition of concern should send alarm bells ringing among all who describe themselves as democrats. I hope that other Members will prevail in their support for the regulations, which they did at Committee and, I presume, at the Executive.

We all know what this is really about.

It is right and proper that such regulations be put forward by the Minister, because it is very clear that many Members and many parties are still very immature and are not yet addressing the real issues that face our society, particularly that of building a shared and reconciled community.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Committee Chair and others who contributed to the debate today. Ms Lo gave a detailed account of the Committee's consideration of and support for the regulations, albeit she raised slight concerns and asked some questions around such issues as the criteria for call-in.

I listened intently to Mr Weir and wondered what his old friends in NILGA might think about decision-making powers being taken off councillors and given to legal professionals. I am now even more intrigued as to the use of the petition of concern by the DUP today, particularly given recent decisions made by councils that have caused such outrage and hurt. Mr Elliott raised one and Mr Humphrey raised another. Those are matters that could be blocked with the support of the regulations, and people could be protected.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

At the moment, call-in and QMV are actually in the standing orders of all councils, so there is nothing to stop anybody using call-in at present. The problem is that it could be used for anything, however vexatious, with the few exceptions that Mr Maginness raised, which I acknowledge. It could be used for the most superfluous of issues, to be frank. The Minister and others in his party have complained about the use of a petition of concern, yet this is effectively putting the petition of concern into local government in all instances.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It would allow consistency across councils and not create the carte blanche system that Mr Weir fears may be created.

Mr Elliott also made the perfectly valid point that different legal professionals will inevitably have different opinions and that, occasionally, councillors may think that those opinions are wrong. It would take a brave or foolish council to disregard legal advice and plough on regardless.

Mr Eastwood queried whether there might be more to the opposition from the DUP than meets the eye, or the ear. I guess that, as we dust ourselves down after today's debate and attempt to negotiate new regulations, the real issues may come to the fore. The irony should not be lost on anyone — I know that it was certainly not lost on Mr Eastwood — that a petition of concern has been deployed today to thwart a mechanism that would protect minorities. I wonder whether today's use of a petition of concern would have got through any filter mechanism.

Call-in has not really been thwarted, though, and Mr Weir has pointed that out. Call-in and QMV are enshrined in legislation and, in the interim, before we agree on regulations, and hopefully we can, councils will be left to their own discretion — in some cases, their own devices, I fear — as to when the mechanisms should be used. That is far from satisfactory. To use Mr McCallister's term, it is a recipe for dysfunction.

The regulations would add important detail to new governance arrangements for councils provided in the 2014 Act and would ensure that a consistent approach was adopted by councils to protecting the interests of minority communities in their decision-making and to the sharing of membership of committees across political parties and independents. The failure to approve the draft regulations today will leave the councils without a clear direction on the provisions that they must include in their standing orders on those very important matters, less than six weeks before they take on their full responsibilities on 1 April. As I said already, that will also lead to different approaches being taken by different councils on the decisions that must be taken by a qualified majority and on the process to be followed when a decision is called in. The lack of a clearly specified process will result in some councils providing for all decisions, including those to do with planning and licensing applications, to be subject to the call-in process. That could prevent the council acting effectively as the local planning authority if decisions are constantly delayed because of the call-in process. There is already a well-defined mechanism for challenging planning decisions through the Planning Appeals Commission.

Equally, other councils could decide to exclude certain decisions from the call-in process, for example, around flags, council name and language policy. That would run counter to the council's responsibility to represent everyone in that local government district and to the objective of providing protections for the interests of the different communities within that district.

Mr Boylan asked what many people will be asking: where do we go after today? It seems that the House has failed to agree these regulations. As a result, it is not serving local government and communities well. The 11 new councils are still finding their feet and were looking to the Assembly to provide certainty in the mandatory elements of the standing orders. In the absence of regulations, councils will have to set their own standing orders and determine their own processes for call-in and how QMV will operate.

Meanwhile, it appears that we will have to go back to the drawing board and possibly look at changes to primary legislation if we are to achieve consensus. It has been outlined by one of my party colleagues that this is a backward step. That should not be lost on anyone here today. While we seek to get consensus, councils will still be required, as set out in the Local Government Act, to operate a call-in process and introduce qualified majority voting.

I am disappointed at the outcome today, but I thank the Chair of the Committee and other Members for their support for the motion.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I remind Members that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis.

Question put. The Assembly divided:

Ayes 58; Noes 29

AYES

NATIONALIST:

Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr Dallat, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Ms Fearon, Mr Flanagan, Mr Hazzard, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Ms McCorley, Dr McDonnell, Ms McGahan, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McKinney, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Ramsey, Ms Ruane, Mr Sheehan

UNIONIST:

Mr Beggs, Mr Cree, Mrs Dobson, Mr Elliott, Mr Gardiner, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann

OTHER:

Mr Agnew, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Dickson, Mr Ford, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCarthy

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Eastwood, Mr A Maginness

NOES

UNIONIST:

Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Mr Buchanan, Mrs Cameron, Mr Campbell, Mr Craig, Mr Devenney, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mr Hamilton, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr McCausland, Mr D McIlveen, Miss M McIlveen, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Anderson, Mr G Robinson

Total Votes87Total Ayes58[66.7%]Nationalist Votes37Nationalist Ayes37[100.0%]Unionist Votes42Unionist Ayes13[31.0%]Other Votes8Other Ayes8[100.0%]

Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call the Minister for Social Development, Mr Mervyn Storey, to move the Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, 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 groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 4, 8 to 11, 13 to 18, 20 to 23, 26 and 27, which deal with administration and entitlements. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 5 to 7, 12, 19, 24 and 25, which deal with Assembly control, reports and technical issues.

I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. I also remind Members that debate at Further Consideration Stage is restricted to further amendments to the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 4, 8 to 11, 13 to 18, 20 to 23, 26 and 27. These amendments relate to administration and entitlements. Members should note that amendment No 14 is consequential to amendment No 13, amendment No 17 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 23, and amendment No 26 is consequential to amendment Nos 22, 23 and 24.

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

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

in page 4, line 38, at end insert

"(3A) Where an additional amount under subsection (2) can be awarded at two different rates, the lower rate shall be no less than two thirds of the higher rate.".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In clause 26, page 13, line 14, at end insert

"(c) the production of explanatory documentation on sanctions to be given to the claimant prior to the imposition of a sanction.". — [Mr Attwood.]

No 3: In clause 27, page 13, line 36, at end insert

"(c) the production of explanatory documentation on sanctions to be given to the claimant prior to the imposition of a sanction.". — [Mr Attwood.]

No 4: In clause 30, page 15, line 20, at end insert

"( ) An authorised person under this section is a person exercising a function or functions of a public nature.

( ) Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply to an authorised person as defined under this section.". — [Mr Attwood.]

No 8: In clause 47, page 25, line 40, at end insert

"(c) the production of explanatory documentation on sanctions to be given to the claimant prior to the imposition of a sanction.". — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 9: In clause 47, page 26, line 29, at end insert

"(c) the production of explanatory documentation on sanctions to be given to the claimant prior to the imposition of a sanction.". — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 10: In clause 47, page 28, line 12, at end insert

"(c) the production of explanatory documentation on sanctions to be given to the claimant prior to the imposition of a sanction.". — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 11: In clause 70, page 56, line 32, at end insert

"(6) Regulations may not provide for the reduction of an existing award where a claimant declines the offer of suitable alternative accommodation.". — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 13: In clause 81, page 60, line 32, leave out subsection (3). — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 14: In clause 81, page 60, line 39, leave out paragraph (c) and insert

"(c) must provide for relevant medical evidence to be taken into account in assessing a person and may make provision about other matters which are, or are not, to be taken into account.". — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 15: In clause 89, page 64, line 24, at end insert

"(3A) A person entitled to personal independence payment shall receive the award no later than 16 weeks after the date on which a claim for it is made or treated as made.". — [Mr Agnew.]

No 16: After clause 103 insert

"Appeal in respect of sanction imposed under this Act

103A. After Article 15 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 there is inserted —

“Appeal in connection with sanctions

15A. Where the amount of an award of any social security benefit is to be reduced as a consequence of any failure by a claimant which is sanctionable under the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 —

(a) a claimant is entitled to an appeal hearing within four weeks of the notice of sanction being issued; and

(b) the amount of any relevant award shall not be reduced before the appeal is decided.”". — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 17: After clause 120 insert

"Duty to ensure access to independent advice

120A.—(1) The Department shall ensure that any person making a claim under this Act shall be entitled to have access to independent confidential advice and assistance provided free of charge in relation to making a claim under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Department must bring forward guidance on the independent confidential advice and assistance which is to be developed in consultation with the Northern Ireland Advice Services Consortium, within 3 months of the commencement of this section.". — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 18: In clause 121, page 88, line 26, leave out "and" and insert

"(aa) the standards of advice and assistance provided under section 132B of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2015; and". — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 20: In clause 130, page 92, line 26, after "housing benefit" insert "or universal credit". — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 21: In clause 131, page 93, line 39, at end insert

"(6A) Regulations may not provide for the reduction of an existing award where a claimant declines the offer of alternative accommodation.". — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 22: After clause 132 insert

"Payments to persons suffering financial disadvantage

Payments to persons suffering financial disadvantage

132A.—(1) The purpose of this section is to enable the Department to make payments to persons who suffer financial disadvantage as a result of the changes to social security benefits and tax credits contained in this Act and the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

(2) The Department may by regulations make provision for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision —

(a) for determining whether a person has suffered financial disadvantage as a result of the changes mentioned in subsection (1) and, if so, the amount of that disadvantage;

(b) for determining eligibility for payments, including provision for payments to be made only in prescribed circumstances or only to persons who meet prescribed conditions;

(c) for determining —

(i) the amount of payments;

(ii) the period or periods for or in respect of which payments are to be made;

(d) for claims for payments to be made in prescribed cases and in the prescribed form and manner and for the procedures to be followed in dealing with and disposing of such claims;

(e) for payments to be made in prescribed cases without any claim being made;

(f) imposing conditions on persons claiming or receiving payments, including conditions requiring them to provide to the Department such information as may be prescribed;

(g) for payments to cease to be made in prescribed circumstances;

(h) for the disclosure of information relating to payments in prescribed circumstances or to prescribed persons;

(i) for the recovery of payments by the Department in prescribed circumstances;

(j) requiring or authorising reviews (whether by the Department or by prescribed persons) of decisions made by the Department with respect to the making or recovery of payments;

(k) imposing functions on a statutory body other than the Department in connection with the administration of the regulations;

(l) for such other matters as appear to the Department to be necessary or appropriate in connection with the making of payments including provision creating criminal offences and provision amending or applying (with or without modification) any statutory provision.

(4) Payments are not to be regarded as a social security benefit; but regulations under this section may provide for any statutory provision relating to a social security benefit (or to such benefits generally) to apply with prescribed modifications in relation to payments.

(5) The Department shall, in respect of each financial year in which payments are made, prepare and lay before the Assembly a report on the payments made in that year.

(6) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.

(7) If regulations under this section impose functions on any statutory body other than the Department, the Department must consult that body before making the regulations.

(8) A power conferred by this section to make regulations includes power —

(a) to make such incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional provision as appears to the Department to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of those regulations;

(b) to provide for the Department to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter.

(9) In this section?—

“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations under this section;

“payment” mean a payment under this section;

“statutory body” means a body established by or under a statutory provision.". — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 23: After clause 132 insert

"Duties of the Department

Duty to ensure availability of advice and assistance

132B. The Department must ensure that advice and assistance are made available free of charge to persons making a claim under this Act in connection with that claim.". — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 26: In clause 135, page 95, line 37, at end insert

"( ) section 132A (payments to persons suffering financial disadvantage);

( ) section 132B (duty to ensure availability of advice and assistance);

( ) section 132C (review of this Act);". — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 27: In schedule 1, page 99, leave out lines 3 to 7. — [Mrs D Kelly.]

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

At the outset of the Further Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, I welcome the opportunity that we have to seek again amendments to the Bill to mitigate its worst effects on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I welcome the fact that, as I understand it, no petitions of concern have as yet been lodged against any of the amendments tabled, and I hope that that remains the case. It means that we can debate the amendments on their merits and those who oppose amendments will do so for their own reasons but without the cover of a petition of concern, which, I think, at Consideration Stage, put the emphasis on the DUP, who tabled those petitions, and, to some extent, provided cover for other Members who rejected amendments that, in my view, were sound and in the best interests of many vulnerable members of our society.

Amendment No 1 is about a disability addition payment. As the Bill is currently drafted, many families with disabled children will see a loss of approximately £26 a week to the universal credit that they receive under the current tax credit system. It is estimated that that will affect 100,000 families across the UK, and, on a proportional basis, that figure equates to approximately 3,000 families in Northern Ireland, although, with our higher level of disability claims, there is the potential that that figure could be greater than 3,000.

At Consideration Stage, the Minister stated that the reduction in the lower-rate payment would enable those with more severe disabilities to receive a greater payment. For me, that does not stack up as an argument, when those on the greater payment would receive £2 per week more — which I am sure they will welcome — but I do not see how that is a justification for families to receive a reduction in payment of £26 per week, which will have a significant impact on the family income.

We need to separate out from this the issue of discretionary payments which, no doubt, will be used by some to suggest that this situation could be mitigated. What I seek from the Minister and from other parties is clarity on whether they support this cut to the lower-rate disability addition in principle, or are they supporting it in this Bill with the promise of discretionary payment being made to those families to meet the condition that some have said to date, that no one will be worse off under this Bill? There is no doubt that, as the Bill is drafted — without any discretionary payments — in the region of 3,000 families will be worse off as a result of this change.

I propose, as I did at Consideration Stage, that we change the legislation and give a commitment to those families that they will not be worse off and, therefore, we should amend the legislation accordingly to make sure of that. At the very least, I seek assurance and commitment from the Minister and other parties on the Executive that, should the Bill not be amended, those families will be compensated through the discretionary payments, and that they will benefit from the commitment made by those who said that no family will be worse off as a result of welfare reform in Northern Ireland.

Amendment No 15 is a proposal to set a time limit by which PIP assessments are made and claims honoured. We have seen the shambles — I think that that is the right word to use — of the situation in England, where, after 16 months of personal independence payment (PIP) implementation, only 40% of cases had been cleared, with many claimants waiting as long as six months. Indeed, in some cases, claimants were waiting longer than that for a decision to be made on their claim. The Government in the UK have now given a commitment that they will get the time delay down to 16 weeks, and my amendment proposes that we should set a limit of 16 weeks for such decisions to be made in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: that is still too long. Sixteen weeks to wait on a decision on a claim for people with serious disabilities and who need support is still too long, and I think that it should be a minimum commitment that we give that 16 weeks is the longest that any claimant should have to wait from their lodging of a claim until they receive a decision. That, to my mind, allows the Department the time to introduce the system and to iron out the cracks.

I hope that, going forward, no one will be waiting for 16 weeks, but it does allow the flexibility in the interim period and the transition period for the Department to get the processes in place and to deal with any backlog. I think that the amendment passed in the previous stage to allow for a pilot scheme should allow the Department the ability to test the systems on a smaller scale and to ensure that we do not have the mess that was experienced in GB, with many vulnerable people and many people with disabilities having to wait an extraordinarily long time to have their claim assessed and their decision made and to receive their payments. It is not acceptable that we expect people with disabilities to suffer to fit a change in the system. The change in the system must work for the people with disabilities and must meet their needs, not, as I say, the other way around.

Amendment No 17, which has been tabled jointly by the Green Party and the SDLP, is in relation to the independent advice duty; a duty on the Department to ensure that independent advice is freely available to those seeking to access benefits. In the previous stage, we heard about the issues facing the east Belfast advice centre, and there are advice centres across Northern Ireland that are facing increased demands, in part due to concerns and uncertainty around welfare reform. There is no doubt that, if and when this legislation passes, they will see a surge in demand for their services. However, it appears unlikely that they will see an increase in the support that they receive from government to meet that demand, which is a result of changes made by this Government.

Whilst I recognise that the Minister has his own amendment to place a statutory duty to provide free advice, and I will certainly listen to his explanation of how that will work in practice, I think that it is important that it is independent advice for a number of reasons. First, if it is simply the advice that is already given by our social security offices, every MLA in the House will know how inadequate that provision would be were it not for the support of the likes of Citizens Advice, Advice NI and other organisations. Staff in social security offices do not have the time to sit down with individual claimants to support them through their claims and to see that process through — for example, if they have to go for appeals etc. I see that the Minister is shaking his head.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened to this argument over a number of weeks, and I have to say that I do not see what the Member is painting as an issue. On the one hand, we are being told that, if we were to put all this on a statutory basis, everything would be well, but the Member has already said that it is an issue about whether we will have adequate resources in the independent sector to give advice because of the changes that are being implemented as a result of welfare reform, so what is at the heart of this? Is it about ensuring that the independent advice sector is put on a statutory basis that gives it a position in a legislative framework, or is the Member saying that he is not happy with the advice that the independent advice sector is giving, or is it all about getting more resources into the independent advice sector? I sometimes fail to see where it all fits in with what we are being asked to provide.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

If I was unclear, I apologise, and I will try to be clearer. I referred to the lack of resources in our social security offices. At no time, I believe, subject to referring to Hansard, did I suggest that I was unhappy with the advice being given by the independent advice sector. It is about protecting and giving security to that sector at a time when resources are being stretched so that its place is protected. We recognise the need for those services. I am not criticising staff in social security offices. I think that there are separate roles for the independent advice sector and the statutory advice given in social security offices, but it is about recognising that role, putting it on a statutory footing and giving the security that, as we go forward, despite the pressure on resources, we will continue to have an independent advice sector that is adequately resourced to meet the demands that will inevitably rise as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill.

Another reason why I believe that it needs to be independent advice — the Minister has addressed and faced this issue many times — is to do with what has come from the UK Government, which is an agenda to cut the welfare bill. I do not believe that the same government — Mr Storey can answer whether or not it is his agenda — that seeks to reduce the welfare bill gives advice to those who are seeking to access welfare payments. Those roles need to be separated. In GB, we have seen the pressures to reduce welfare spend through some pretty odious means, including setting targets for sanctions. I know that the Minister says that that will not happen here. I believe his sincerity in saying that, but we have to be on our guard that what has happened in GB does not translate to Northern Ireland.

For those reasons, I, along with the SDLP, propose amendment No 17 and favour it to the Minister's amendment No 23. It is important not only to have a statutory duty to provide free advice but to extend that statutory duty to independent free advice.

Amendment Nos 11 and 21 relate to the bedroom tax, and they are key amendments. We will learn a lot today in how parties respond to those amendments. They propose that, even when alternative accommodation exists, nobody should be subject to what has become known as the bedroom tax.

Undoubtedly, uncertainty has been created. We have been given commitments time and again that the bedroom tax will not be implemented in Northern Ireland. The Minister said that he was not introducing the bedroom tax by the back door, but my reading of his words in the same debate is that he is introducing it by the front door. He very explicitly stated, and I quote from Hansard:

"The Executive have agreed to create a separate fund of £17 million per annum that will mitigate the impact of this measure by protecting existing and future tenants from any reduction in their housing benefit unless there is a significant change in their personal circumstances or they are offered suitable alternative accommodation." — [Official Report, Vol 101, No 9, p24, col 2].

That is the bedroom tax. That is exactly what the bedroom tax is. I accept that it is a phased introduction, in that it would apply only where suitable alternative accommodation exists, but where that accommodation exists or where there is a change in personal circumstances, the bedroom tax would, as outlined by the Minister, be implemented. On social media and in other places, I was accused of all sorts of things, including being misleading. I am merely going on the words of the Minister. If those words are wrong and he wishes to retract them today, I will welcome that. He is shaking his head, so I assume that he will not do that. If Sinn Féin wants to stand up and say that it did not agree to the implementation of the bedroom tax, I will welcome that and will welcome its Members going through the Lobby to support amendment Nos 11 and 21, which will ensure that the bedroom tax is not implemented and that the legislation makes it clear that it cannot be implemented as proposed by the Minister at the previous stage.

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

Will the Member give way?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I certainly will.

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

Could the Member assist me by pointing out where any consideration has been given by the Minister or others to people with disabilities who require additional accommodation in their home to meet their personal care needs or even to store the aids and equipment that they need?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I certainly cannot find it. I thank the Member for raising the point. We were given all these assurances about the flexibilities of the bedroom tax. I remember that, when the previous Minister Mr McCausland was in post, I listed the various flexibilities that would be required to protect people with disabilities, carers, parents with caring responsibilities and, potentially, people in the armed forces who have children etc. I asked the Minister what, if we gave all those exemptions, would be the point of the bedroom tax and how much we would save by implementing it. Surely it would become just an ideologically driven mechanism to punish people for being on benefits. The Bill does not have the flexibilities that we were promised. What we have is a commitment from the Minister to implement the bedroom tax where suitable alternative housing exists or personal circumstances change. At this stage, I am looking for the assurance that the bedroom tax will not be implemented, and the only way to get that solid assurance is to support amendment Nos 11 and 21.

I come now to the amendments tabled by the SDLP. Amendment Nos 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are on explanatory documents on sanctions. I regret that, at the last stage, the Assembly passed the maximum sanction of 18 months, but, given that, these are sound amendments from the SDLP. We have evidence that those who suffer sanctions do not always understand why or understand the nature of the sanctions, so any assistance is to be welcomed.

Amendment No 16 from the SDLP is on the continued payment of benefits while an appeal against a sanction is being heard. Again, I do not believe that people for whom, in some cases, it will be their only source of income should be punished because of mistakes by the Department. The continuation of the payment while an appeal is being heard would ensure that those who have been sanctioned incorrectly do not suffer a financial penalty, while those who have been sanctioned correctly under the rules would receive the same length of sanction and the principal sanction, to which I am opposed, under the current proposals. Therefore, as the proposals stand, those sanctions would still be applied.

Amendment No 4 requires companies in the private sector to which work is outsourced to be human rights-complaint. It is important, where a private company carries out duties that would otherwise have been carried out by a public body and that essentially pertain to its role, that it should adhere to the same standards. I support amendment No 4 for that reason.

Amendment No 27 mirrors an amendment that I brought forward at Consideration Stage, which was petition-of-concerned, something that has not yet happened this time around. The amendment would ensure that workers are treated equally, regardless of whether they are UK citizens or EU workers. That is right in order to ensure fairness and equality but also to ensure that we do not implement a law that is contrary to EU regulations, thereby making us liable to significant infraction penalties.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate the importance of the point about other EU nationals. Does he accept that, during the three years in which the legislation has been in place in the rest of the United Kingdom, there has been neither a legal challenge nor any research indicating that that is a problem and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not know whether he is saying that he supports the provisions in the Bill. I expressed my disappointment that Anna Lo had taken her name off the amendment that she brought forward at Consideration Stage, leaving me as the signatory to speak to it. I do not know whether Anna Lo or the Alliance Party has changed its position on the issue. As I stated, it is an issue of fairness, and one that may have legal consequences. Of course, I do not want to see Northern Ireland subject to infraction penalties, and the best way to avoid that is to treat two workers in the same job who are made unemployed for the same reason equally and fairly and not to discriminate on the basis of nationality.

I move on to the Minister's amendments, which I will talk about briefly. Amendment Nos 13 and 14 provide for regulations to stipulate what other evidence besides medical evidence can be taken into account. I look forward to hearing the Minister's intention in proposing them. I certainly have no objections to them at this stage. Amendment No 18 provides for a report on standards of advice and assistance, and, again, I await the Minister's explanation. Amendment No 20 would have the effect of adding universal credit to the rate relief scheme. My understanding is that that would recognise the migration of housing benefit to universal credit, and I assume that it would ensure that the same standard of rates relief applied.

Obviously, amendment No 22 is key; it concerns the power for implementing the discretionary payments, and it details how that will operate. I welcome that. I want to be clear: the budget that has been set aside to mitigate welfare reform is to be welcomed. My problem is when people say that no one will be worse off when welfare reform is implemented in Northern Ireland because the figures do not stack up.

The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action report estimated that welfare cuts, if implemented as in GB, would see a £250 million loss to people on benefits in Northern Ireland. The then Minister Nelson McCausland, in answer to me, stated that the figure was more in the region of £115 million. We are now being told that £90 million or thereabouts a year, or £565 million over six years, is sufficient to ensure that no one is worse off. My calculations cannot equate those figures. To me, it will still mean the implementation of welfare cuts in Northern Ireland. They will be mitigated by the £565 million, but they will certainly not be negated. We are yet to see the detail of who will be worse off in Northern Ireland. That is where my concerns lie.

I have addressed amendment No 23, which concerns the Department's duty to ensure free, but not independent, advice. Amendment No 26 relates to Royal Assent for amendments should they be passed by the Assembly today.

I conclude on this group of amendments. I look forward to hearing the debate on each of the amendments. I hope that it can be a more open debate than that at Consideration Stage, which was closed from the outset because of the many petitions of concern.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before I call the next Member to speak, I advise that the Business Committee has agreed to meet at 12.30 pm. There is then the reception for former Speaker Lord Hay. I hope that as many Members as are available will attend that. The next Member called to speak should keep an eye on the clock. You will be the first person called after Question Time to conclude your remarks.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is my understanding that a lot of the issues raised in these amendments were dealt with. It is also my understanding that, eventually, there was a five-party agreement to deal with them. I do not yet know whether Mrs Kelly is up to speed this week. I wonder whether she stayed away from meetings, like her fellow travellers in Newry and Mourne council did, to ensure that she did not have to make any decisions on all this.

I am a bit confused by some of the amendments. We have amendments about sanctions that state that people should be informed about sanctions. Those amendments come from a party that wanted two-year sanctions — not one-year or 18-month sanctions; it was quite happy to go with two years. I watched Mrs Kelly on 'The View' on Thursday week past, after the original debate. Mr Agnew quoted the Minister from Hansard. In relation to the so-called bedroom tax, the Minister said that there would have to be:

"a significant change in their personal circumstances or they are offered suitable alternative accommodation." — [Official Report, Vol 101, No 9, p 24, col 2].

From what I heard, Mrs Kelly said that the Minister said that there were two options. It was almost like the common selection scheme in the Housing Executive: you were offered two choices, and, if you did not take one, you are out. She did not mention anything about the interpretation of "a significant change" in personal circumstances or "suitable alternative accommodation". I mentioned it in the last debate and I will mention it again. When the Social Development Committee was briefed by the Housing Executive on the so-called bedroom tax, we were told by Housing Executive officials that were it to be introduced, they simply could not cope with it because there was no suitable alternative accommodation. They said that it could take six years or possibly eight years before suitable accommodation would be available.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Can the Member be clear, then, whether his position is that he does not support the bedroom tax where there is no suitable accommodation or that he does not support it at all? If it is simply that he does not support it where there is no suitable accommodation, then he is saying that people on benefits — if they become unemployed and are in a three-bedroom house and are deemed to need only one — should pay more or move to suitable alternative accommodation. Which is it?

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his intervention but I think he missed the point. I was saying that there is no suitable alternative accommodation available. I certainly do not support the bedroom tax. In the agreement that was signed on 19 December by the five parties, we neutralised the bedroom tax and the benefit cap.

With the Assembly's indulgence, I want to draw the Member's attention to another matter. He talked about the discretionary fund but seemed to mix it up with the supplementary payment fund. It is my understanding that the discretionary fund is a completely different thing, which is to replace the social fund. I know that the Member had difficulty dealing with the discretionary fund commissioner and inspectors the last time, which indicates to me, with respect, that he did not have a lot of experience of dealing with the social fund commissioner or, indeed, the social fund inspectors.

He seems to be mixing up the two, because the discretionary social fund was giving us, in some ways, the opportunity to be innovative. It was going to include people on low incomes — the working poor, as they are termed. The supplementary payment fund is a completely different thing, which is going to ensure that people do not lose out. With respect, I would say that the Member is scaremongering and sowing seeds of doubt. As someone who has been dealing with this since I came here in 2007, I have not heard the Member shouting from the rooftops about cuts over the past four years. It seems to be a fairly recent development in the Member's repertoire, for want of a better word.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. He may point out my failings and that is fine; it is certainly not the first time that I have stated my opposition to the cuts. I have done it consistently and, indeed, it was in my election manifesto and election leaflet. The Member spoke about my failings, but is he saying, then, that there are no possible circumstances whereby there will be suitable accommodation and where the bedroom tax will be implemented? Is he saying that there is nowhere in Northern Ireland where that will happen and that the Minister's words are, effectively, meaningless and that the bedroom tax will not be implemented and no one will suffer from it?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I remind Members that it is almost 12.30 pm.

[Interruption.]

I am not stopping you; I am just reminding you of the time.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his intervention, but the Minister quoted his own constituency last week where 32% of the people on the waiting list are looking for one-bedroom accommodation. Whatever the Minister wants or does not want, the Member would maybe need to talk to the Minister about that.

The point I was making about the sudden campaign, or crusade, against these cuts is that it has come fairly lately. The Member also mentioned the fact that debate was stifled last week, but if it was stifled it did not stop some people from talking an awful lot, because I had to sit and listen to it for six and a half hours.

If it is OK, Mr Speaker, I will continue after the break.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you. The Business Committee has agreed to meet immediately after the lunchtime suspension today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time and, thereafter, Mickey Brady will resume his contribution to the debate.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.29 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture and Rural Development

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

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

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

1. Mr Rogers asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she is taking to further reduce the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in Northern Ireland's cattle herd. (AQO 7647/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Members will know that my Department takes bovine TB very seriously. We have a robust EU Commission-approved TB eradication programme in place that is based on testing to detect infected cattle, removing infected animals and reducing the risk of disease spread through movement controls and other biosecurity measures. The same disease-control measures are applied to beef and dairy herds.

Every TB breakdown is subject to an epidemiological assessment by a DARD veterinary officer, and specific public and animal health advice is provided. In addition, disease-control measures are instigated to prevent the spread of bovine TB to and from herds. Post-mortem and laboratory test results, including strain-type information, are provided to the farmer during a confirmed TB outbreak, as are biosecurity advice and advisory leaflets.

Widely published research over the years means that the main risk factors for a herd having a TB breakdown are well known. Advice on how farmers can best protect their herd is publicised on the DARD website. However, TB is a complex and multifactorial disease, which means that it is often not possible to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty a single cause of infection for every TB breakdown.

I have made it repeatedly clear that my objective is to progressively reduce the level of TB here, with the ultimate aim of eradicating it from our cattle herds. That is why I commissioned a TB strategic partnership group to prepare an eradication strategy and implementation action plan. The group has commenced its work and recently obtained initial consultation input from industry representative organisations and interested individuals. I look forward to the group's interim report, which will be presented in June 2015.

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

Thank you, Minister. Will you outline how the test and vaccinate or remove (TVR) pilot study, which deals with badgers, that is taking place in parts of County Down is progressing? What results have been gleaned so far from that study? When do you hope there will be a radical reduction in the level of bovine TB, like there is in Scotland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The first year of the TVR wildlife intervention research project has been successfully completed in the Banbridge area of County Down. Fieldwork is due to commence again in June 2015. Some 280 individual badgers were captured, sampled, microchipped, vaccinated and released, and there were a further 350 recaptures. Those recaptured badgers were released following identification checks.

As the Member is aware, TVR is a research project, rather than a strategy or pilot programme. Findings from the project should be able to provide us with an indication of how effective the TVR approach is and should then inform us on a longer-term strategy.

One aim of the project is to assess the feasibility of the sett side of TB testing captured badgers. Only one test is commercially available at present. Over the next few months, testing of the samples from all the captured badgers will be completed, along with the evaluation of the field data. We need to be reasonably sure that there is nothing significant to prevent the use of the test in year 2 of TVR and beyond. So, there is quite a significant body of work to do.

Alongside that, we have the TB strategic partnership group working to look at every aspect of TB eradication and at how we get to a stage when we drive out the disease. Obviously, we are all keen for that to happen. That is a significant body of work, and, as I said, I look forward to getting that group's interim report in June 2015.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí. I thank the Minister for her answers. Is she content that the TB strategic group is on track to achieve its aims?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. The new group has been tasked to act in the public interest to develop a long-term strategy for the eradication of TB in cattle here. As I said in the initial answer, the group is very much engaged at this stage in fact finding. It has received presentations from DARD officials and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute on TB-related issues. It recently completed a consultation exercise. The group is considering all those responses and is meeting the responders where it feels it is appropriate. As I said, they intend to produce the report to me in June 2015 and to have a final strategy with an accompanying action plan in place by the end of this year. We need to look at lessons that have been learned. One of the lessons that has been learned in New Zealand and Australia is that the eradication strategy works best when the industry is in the lead and where government and industry share responsibilities and costs.

Our relationship with stakeholders is enhanced when there is genuine partnership between the industry and government. The work that we and the strategy group are involved in is vital in getting us into a position where we drive out the disease.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister said that one of the key factors is removing infected animals from herds. What is she doing to improve the time that the Department takes to remove reactors from farms?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member can write to me about any particular instances if he wants. That is not an issue that has been highlighted to me as a major concern in the industry, but if there are any delays in the Department lifting reactors and the Member wants to talk to me outside Question Time about that, I am very happy to have a discussion with him.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how rural communities and dwellers will benefit from an extension to the tackling rural poverty and social isolation framework. (AQO 7648/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remain firmly committed to tackling issues of rural poverty and isolation, and I am delighted to have extended the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) programme into the 2015-16 Budget year, with an associated extension to the Programme for Government target of £4 million.

Plans are well developed to continue to assist rural transport, access to rural transport and associated health issues; to maximise access to benefits and services; to support rural community development; to support youth employment and entrepreneurship; to assist in tackling fuel poverty; and to assist on broadband issues. In addition, officials are looking at options for support to help community and voluntary groups to provide much-needed resources for their communities.

There is much focus on ensuring that all tackling rural poverty and social isolation funding is targeted at making life better for rural dwellers who are living in isolated and deprived areas and at building on the great achievements in the past number of years.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she provide details of any new initiatives that the TRPSI programme may offer in 2015-16? Go raibh maith agat.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The work to date and the premise around all tackling poverty work has been on three key areas: access, financial poverty and social isolation. All the initiatives that we have taken forward have been very effective in meeting the aims and targeting those key areas.

The Member is very aware of the assisted rural travel scheme, which we intend to do more of in the next year. The rural support charity provides a listening ear for farmers and rural families, and I want to support its work. On rural community development work, the networks on the ground do fantastic work to empower and lift the skills range in rural communities and rural community groups to access funding. The rural youth entrepreneurship programme helps unemployed rural young people to develop their skills and to get into new areas of work.

Alongside all that work, and other things that I have not mentioned, are some of the new initiatives that we are looking towards, particularly around the availability of transportation vehicles for rural community and voluntary groups. I have asked officials to bring together something like that, and that is something that I am keen to roll out next year. When I am out and about talking to community groups, that is something that is often requested.

Other areas that we are scoping include making a small capital grants scheme available to community and voluntary groups to allow them to purchase smaller capital items that they may require. So, we are working all that up, and I intend to roll-out a scheme of that nature in 2015-16.

I am also very keen that we work with other Departments. I have asked officials to liaise with other Departments on how we can work collectively, particularly to build on the good work that we have completed in the past with DCAL on the Health in Mind project and to address fuel poverty. We have a great opportunity with the money that I have prioritised for those initiatives to make a real difference in rural communities.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. How does the Minister think the proposed cuts in rural transport will affect — indeed, improve — social inclusion? Is the Minister in dialogue with Translink to overcome those problems?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am not in direct dialogue with Translink, but I can assure the Member that, in the next financial year, I will continue to fund the work that I am involved in on rural transport in conjunction with DRD. I have made that clear. My officials are talking with the DRD officials about what their budget input is going to be, but I can certainly give an assurance that I am committed to making sure that I take forward the assisted rural travel scheme. That is the joint initiative that we have with DRD.

The other thing that will be very important in the future is that I am about to bring rural proofing legislation to the Floor of the House. I think that all Departments need to be mindful of rural communities when they are taking decisions on budgets. That legislation, on which I hope to have a good conversation with all Members of the House over the next wee while, is going to be necessary, particularly given the financial climate that we are in, if we are serious about making sure that there is equality for rural people and rural dwellers when it comes to making budget decisions and policy decisions for Departments.

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

I thank the Minister for her detailed responses, particularly in relation to social isolation. Can she quantify the rural development programme moneys that will be specifically targeted at rural isolation and, indeed, combating rural poverty?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, under the current Programme for Government in the current CSR period, we set out £16 million, and I have set aside £4 million for the further year that we are going to have in the CSR period. That may not, in the scale of things, sound like a significant pot of money, but it has acted as leverage funding, and we have been able to work in partnership with other Departments. I think that we have leveraged in, maybe, an additional £11 million on top of that, so there is significant investment across quite a range of issues, on everything from fuel poverty to employability for young people, to the small capital grants scheme. All the work that we are involved in is very valuable.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

One of the difficulties in some isolated rural areas is still access to broadband. How do you see this addressing that issue in areas where there is still a black spot as far as broadband is concerned?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member that broadband is a big bugbear of people in rural communities who find themselves with no access to it. It is obviously the responsibility of DETI to take forward broadband, but I feel that my Department has a role to play in trying to plug the gaps for people in rural areas who do not have a connection or who may have a connection but the speed is not worth having. I set aside funding during the last and current CSR, and I have set aside funding again under the new rural development programme.

There is a small pot of money so that we will be able to look at bespoke arrangements for small villages and small pockets of population. The Member will know well that the big providers do not go into rural areas where there may be 10 houses spread out over quite an area. I feel that it is my responsibility to try to work with DETI to try to bridge the gaps that are there. As I said, we have set out funding under the rural development programme. We have also set aside funding where we are working with DETI. We have looked at all the postcode areas that do not have a connection, and I have used deprivation stats to prioritise the areas that we touch on first. I can certainly give an assurance that I am going to do all that I can to target and plug the gaps in broadband provision.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

3. Mr Allister asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she is aware of any evidence of price-fixing in the pig processing sector. (AQO 7649/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

While the price paid to producers and pricing structures in the pig processing sector are commercial matters outside of my Department’s remit, I believe that all elements, the supply chain, producer and processor alike, should work together to ensure that the pig sector in the North remains profitable and sustainable.

I am not aware of any evidence of price-fixing in the pig processing sector, but if my Department was to discover or be presented with any evidence of such activity, the matter would be immediately referred to the Competition and Markets Authority for investigation, particularly in relation to any allegations of anti-competitive activity.

My Department will continue to do all that it can to improve efficiency and competitiveness, build resilience in the pig sector and help to develop new opportunities and grow markets across the EU and beyond, especially in the Far East. I recently met local pork processors to discuss access to new trade markets, including China and Australia. My officials are working to secure access to those markets, which would hopefully mean greater returns for the pig sector. My Department is hoping to host the inspections necessary to secure approval to export to those countries in the first half of this year.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister will be aware of the great concern among pig producers as to the huge disparity that arises between the price paid in Northern Ireland and the price paid in GB. A differential of 4p or 5p per kilo might be understandable, given the transport costs, but, when it reaches something of the order of 18p, there has to be another explanation.

The processors themselves have been far from transparent about it. What does the Minister think that the explanation is, if it is not suppression of the price for mutual benefit among processors?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree. I agree with the industry about the differential. I do not think that the differential is acceptable. I do not think that it is explainable by the difference in the transport cost when you weigh it up. I know that the Agriculture Committee recently had a presentation in which this was very much explored. Transport costs are being used as an explanation, but I do not really believe that they are reflective of the actual costs that would cause the differential.

For me, it is about trying to explore the new markets. That creates more demand, which should, in turn, create an increase in price. That is very much where I feel that my role is in being able to help and assist the industry to grow. We are very much looking forward to a visit from the Chinese inspectors before the end of March and the Australian authorities before the end of June. These are all areas where I can make a difference and can be effective in helping the industry.

Suffice to say that farmers deserve a fair price for what they produce. That goes for the pig sector or any other sector out there, and we have always said that. When the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister and I met the new Going for Growth group when it came into place, we made it very clear that we must have fairness across the supply chain. We can have all the wonderful plans that we want, but they will not be effective if we do not help to sustain the farmers going forward.

What can we and my Department do? It is about exploring new markets. It is about working with the sector. It is about helping them with efficiency. It is about providing grant aid to help them with all those aspects. If there is any evidence that identifies any sort of price-fixing, we need to get involved and, as I said, report that to the Competition and Markets Authority.

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

The Minister has talked about trying to extend to markets beyond the EU. When can the Minister hope to get an export licence via London to make sure that pork and other products can be exported from Northern Ireland? Will she be raising this issue with Commissioner Phil Hogan when he visits Northern Ireland at the end of March? He is due to meet the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee that day for a meeting and lunch, and we hope to press him on a number of issues.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I am very happy to raise the issue with Commissioner Hogan when he comes on 24 March. I will also be meeting him before the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, and we will have a number of engagements throughout his visit here that day.

In terms of securing our licences, it is DARD's remit to make sure that we have everything in place for the export certificates. It is about working with the industry to make sure that it will meet the targets in the inspections of visiting officials from the different markets that we are targeting. Australia and China are particularly big markets for the pig sector at this time. I will be doing all that I can, including potentially visiting China for some political discussions on how we can make sure that we secure access into that market.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Fairness in pricing is absolutely essential to the agricultural industry, yet the Minister has done little but express platitudes in her four years in office. In the event of price-fixing, even if it is commercial, what powers or actions can the Minister take in addition to expressing concern?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have referred to it twice now, but the Competition and Markets Authority is the place that we will go. If the Member has any evidence to suggest that there is price-fixing going on, my door is always open. Bring it to me, and I will take it to the appropriate place that I need to take it. We need to make sure that the industry is supported. I can stand over way more than platitudes. I can stand over what I do to help the sector. I can stand over the work that the Department is doing around looking at efficiency through our College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) advisers, sustainability, cash flow and all those areas of work.

Outside of that, if we are going to try to guard the industry against the fluctuations in prices, one of the areas that we are going to have to be very serious about being involved with is export growth and the markets that we are targeting. I have referred to the work that we are doing in relation to China, Australia and other markets that the industry identifies as its target markets. There is quite a lot of work going on. I reiterate that, if there is any evidence to suggest that there is any price-fixing going on, please bring it to me. At this time, I have nothing on my desk to suggest that it is.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Minister, would you agree with me that all the new trade opportunities for the pork industry that you have mentioned represent the best way forward not only for prices in the market but in installing confidence within the pork industry?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely. I held a meeting with the pig industry back in January. They advised that being able to export to Australia and China would enable the processors to pay more for their pigs, due to the returns for these markets. Therefore securing approval to export may mitigate the impact of other market forces, however it would obviously still be a commercial issue between the processor and the producer.

It comes back to fairness in the supply chain and making sure we have markets that we are able to sell into. I am hopeful that, in the time ahead, we will be able to open up these new markets, which will be a lifeline to the pig industry and the other markets we are targeting for beef, dairy and all the other sectors.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

5. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the rural White Paper action plan. (AQO 7651/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The second annual progress report on the rural White Paper action plan was published on the DARD website in December 2014. It provides details of the progress made by Departments in implementing their commitments in the action plan during the period from the launch of the initiative in June 2012 up until 30 June 2014. The report indicates that Departments continue to make good progress in implementing their commitments, with most on track to be achieved in the time frame specified. I see the rural White Paper action plan very much 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 to be included in a refreshed action plan, which I hope to finalise during 2015.

With budgets now set for 2015-16, my officials are engaging with members of the interdepartmental committee on rural policy to encourage Departments to identify new actions that will make a meaningful contribution to the quality of life of our rural communities. I am pleased with the progress made by Departments in implementing the commitments in the current action plan, and I will continue to work with my Executive colleagues to ensure that this important rural initiative continues to deliver real and positive benefits for those living in our rural areas.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. Can the Minister detail the policy objectives of the new rural proofing Bill?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The proposed Bill will support the equitable treatment of rural dwellers by requiring that their needs and the impact on rural communities be appropriately addressed in the development and delivery of policy and public services. The Executive signed up to rural proofing back in 2002, and I want to strengthen that commitment by making sure that rural issues are an integral part of the development of government policy on public services and that consideration of the needs of rural dwellers is firmly embedded across government. The Bill proposes to introduce a duty on all Departments and local councils to consider the needs of people living in rural areas when they develop strategies, policies and plans. That will place the Executive's existing commitment to undertake rural proofing on a statutory footing.

The policy objectives of the proposed Bill require the effective implementation of rural proofing across government; the establishment of DARD's role in promoting and encouraging rural proofing across government and providing advice and guidance, where necessary; making information and data on rural proofing available in a transparent way in a report that will be laid before the Assembly; and the putting in place of effective arrangements for cooperation between public authorities and sharing best practice.

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. I thank the Minister for her answers so far. The Minister referred briefly to putting rural proofing on a statutory footing. Could I ask the Minister what she has in mind by that and how would she suggest mainstreaming that across all the other Departments that have a meaningful and significant impact on rural dwellers?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Bill sets out very clearly what we are trying to achieve. The objectives, to which I have just referred, are really about putting on a statutory footing the need for rural proofing to happen during the development of policies, plans and strategies, whether that be in government Departments or, indeed, councils, where it is also important that it happens.

While there is a commitment across government Departments to rural-proof — my Department is involved in training policy people across all Departments — it is important that there is a statutory obligation on all Departments and a mechanism whereby all Departments have to lay before the Assembly for scrutiny and discussion what they have done to make sure that they protect the rights of rural dwellers. We have a real opportunity here to put in place really effective arrangements that will make a real difference to the lives of rural dwellers. It will also be an opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of cooperation across government Departments and councils.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister accept that the current annual reporting system is really a waste of time? Instead of simply asking each Department what it has done during the year, would it not be better to give Departments targets or key performance indicators that they can be measured against?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Bill will be an opportunity to build on and improve what is there. What is there is a starting point; it was, I suppose, an attempt by the Executive at the time to bring rural proofing onto the stage for Departments. I am trying to make sure that it is more effective. The draft legislation that we have set out will include an obligation on Departments to lay reports that will be open to scrutiny. All Members will have an opportunity to look at those. This is necessary work, and I look forward to it being debated.

We are out consulting rural communities and rural dwellers. I encourage everybody to take part in that, particularly all elected Members, and to voice your support for the Bill going forward. I look forward, as I said, to the discussions that we will have in the House.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

6. Miss M McIlveen asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what proportion of the south-east area European Fisheries Fund moneys have been distributed, or are allocated for distribution, to each of the commercial fishing communities. (AQO 7652/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

To date, £1·255 million south-east area European Fisheries Fund (EFF) funding has been allocated to projects in the Kilkeel area, £0·102 million to Ardglass-based projects and £0·186 million to Portavogie. A further £0·533 million has been awarded to projects that span all three target areas, with benefits shared across all three villages.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

My supplementary question concerns the reported situation in Portavogie, where the council has accepted a letter of offer from the South-east Area Fisheries Local Action Group (SEA-FLAG) for a 3G pitch after a lengthy and robust six-month process, including obtaining planning permission and a thorough consultation, only to be told that the offer has been withdrawn. Meanwhile, DARD officials have informed the local press that the offer might not be withdrawn but would instead be subject to an economic appraisal. Will the Minister please provide an explanation of why so many conflicting messages are being sent out and assure the people of Portavogie that they will not be short-changed in the distribution of these moneys at the expense of perhaps more politically favourable projects in south Down?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be very aware of how the decisions are made. I will try to make it very clear for you: it is not about favouring any project; it is about making sure that we have gone through all the concerns, objections and issues that have been raised.

I will try to make this very clear and succinct. SEA-FLAG has received an application from Ards leisure centre seeking EFF funding of £302,171 for a synthetic football pitch in Portavogie. That application was presented to my Department for approval, following a recommendation by SEA-FLAG. However, in assessing the project, concerns have been raised about how the project meets the objectives of the funding programme, the timescales to complete the project and the benefits for the community. Those are three key issues that we need to overcome. If we are able to do that, I do not have or foresee a problem with the Department allowing the recommendation to go further.

The Department has recommended that, before any offer of grant is made, a full independent economic appraisal is required to examine critically the need for the project, the full range of options available to address that need and the preferred options that offer the best value for money. If the project benefits the local community and stands up to the scrutiny of the economic appraisal, I do not foresee a problem. For clarity, I hope that that sets out exactly the issues that we are trying to work through. The Member will also be very aware that I am keen to make sure that we spend every available penny in these communities. I am very keen to do that, so there is absolutely no barrier from DARD's point of view in trying to get that project spend on the ground.

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

On the distribution of the European Fisheries Fund moneys, will the Minister give us an idea of what onshore job creation there has been in Kilkeel and Ardglass through that much welcomed investment?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The investment was much welcomed. I do not have the stats with me on job creation, but the Member will be aware of some of the really worthwhile projects that have been brought forward under EFF funding. Obviously, that pot of money is now closed, but we look forward to the new pot of funding and all the opportunities that there will be for the industry and the local community that surrounds the fishing villages. I am happy to provide the Member with the job creation figures in writing.

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

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

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

T1. Mr Nesbitt asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to refresh the House’s memory about the projected costs of moving her Department’s headquarters to Ballykelly. (AQT 2161/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the exact figures, but they are around £30 million of resource and £12 million of capital. Needless to say, it has all been well costed and clearly set out in the business case.

It will be a fantastic project for the north-west. I was in Ballykelly in the last number of weeks, and I met community groups and elected representatives who are keen to see the project on the ground. It is a big opportunity for the Executive to show their commitment to rural areas and to decentralising public-sector jobs.

The Member will be aware that I have set out not just the move to Ballykelly but for fisheries division to south Down, Forest Service to Fermanagh and Rivers Agency to Loughry. For me, this is clearly a win for those rural communities and for people who work in the public service and want to find opportunities outside the greater Belfast area. The economic benefits of the move are set out very clearly and stand up for themselves. As I have set out clearly in the past, we are on target to deliver it.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for that answer. On the point about decentralisation, she will be aware that Coleraine has vacant government buildings. Why has she not considered those as a viable alternative?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Coleraine issue arose after the fact and after decisions had been taken about the move. I have said many times in the House and I can provide it to the Member in writing, if he needs that reassurance, that we very clearly set out all the available areas that we could look at, . The north-west was identified on the basis of objective criteria. It was also prudent, in that there was Executive-owned land there that we could utilise. Again, I will clearly set out the benefits of moving to the north-west: it will be a fantastic opportunity for investment in the north-west, for decentralising public sector jobs and for giving rural people an opportunity to avail themselves of public-sector jobs without having to travel to the greater Belfast area.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

T2. Mr I McCrea asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she is content with the information that her Department has given to farmers about the new single farm payment arrangements that are being implemented this year. (AQT 2162/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is certainly a time of big change for all farmers, given that we are going through the CAP reforms. We are working hard to provide all that information through a number of avenues, including DARD Direct offices and our website, on which we have put out a lot of information. Throughout the process, as we have received more information, we have put it out there for farmers.

A lot of queries are coming in, which we expected, particularly as we move into the 2015 single application form process for May. I encourage more farmers to go online. There are significant advantages for them and the Department in more people doing that. We are endeavouring to put as much information out there as possible, but, if the Member has picked up on something that we can improve or some means of getting more information out there, we would be happy to utilise that.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

A large number of farmers are losing their conacre land due to landowners starting to farm their land. Will the Minister issue clear guidance to give clarity on what conditions need to be met for a single farm payment to be claimed?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I forgot to mention that the Department is holding roadshows, which are also about trying to get the information out there. I have taken part in a number of roadshows, and the number of people coming to those shows that you are right: there is a demand for information.

One issue that continually comes up is that there may be a lack of conacre land because landowners feel that they will be able to make more money from holding on to their land. I encourage landowners to think carefully about that. I do not think that it will be as lucrative as people think, particularly as we move to a flat rate over the years. There is an online calculator on the DARD website that I encourage people to use. It will clearly show individuals what it will mean for them and the support that they might expect.

My other warning is to landowners who might try to cheat the system. This is about active farmers, and we need the money to go to active farmers. That is what the reform is about, and I am very wedded to that. Checks will be carried out to make sure that people are indeed active farmers. We are in a bit of a difficult situation, in that all of us would like to have seen Europe go further with the definition of "active farmer". However, that has not been the case. Therefore, we have to work within what we have, but we are endeavouring to get as much information as possible out to all farmers.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

T3. Mr D McIlveen asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she believes that the system for administering single farm payments is much better today than it has been in previous years. (AQT 2163/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I do. You can clearly see that from the improvements that we have made year on year in our targets for making single farm payments. In 2014, we exceeded the target. I want to continue to build on that. We have done so over the past number of years, and that is something that I am very committed to, particularly given all the issues that face the farming sector. Cash flow is a major issue, so getting farmers their single farm payment on time is key. I am content that we have made vast improvements and will continue to do so.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. In the knowledge that the system that we have at the minute is an evolving system and, as the Minister rightly said, one in which improvements have had to be made, does she believe that, where decisions have been taken erroneously by the Department or where the Department has made mistakes in calculations in what was clearly an imperfect system, it is right that farmers — not those who, to use her words, "try to cheat the system" but those who were genuine and made no mistakes — continue to be pursued for the outstanding amounts?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that we have an appeal process in place. That is there to protect the farmer, and it is a vital service alongside the Department administering single farm payments.

Yes, you are right. I understand the frustration that anybody would feel, particularly if there has been a Department error, but, if farmers feel that they have not had a fair outcome from an inspection or have concerns about how they are being treated by the Department, I encourage them to avail themselves of the appeal process.

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

T4. Mr Attwood asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on where we are and Britain is in accessing the American market for the sale of beef products, given that she will be aware of Minister Simon Coveney’s recent visit to America, which, in substantial part, was to promote the sale of Irish beef, now that that is available. (AQT 2164/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is an ongoing discussion that I have with Simon Coveney. We are meeting again on Wednesday at the North/South Ministerial Council, so that will be a standing item for discussion. We have a very effective group in place comprising DARD and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) in the Twenty-six Counties. That group comes together to work, particularly on trade. Obviously, new markets have opened up for the Twenty-six Counties, and we want to get in on some of that. Work is ongoing to allow us to follow suit and to have access to those markets.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer so far, but, to be more specific, where are we with export licences for relevant products for America? It is one thing to work with Simon Coveney, which is very welcome, but, if we are not able to access the same markets for some of the same products, it is hard to work with somebody in those circumstances.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It all comes down to export certificates. The Member knows well that, in negotiations that we have with other countries, no matter what other market we are targeting, we have to work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in England. We have a strong relationship with DEFRA when it comes to trying to get into those markets. We are working with it at the minute on trying to open out the Chinese market. As I said, we will have inspectors here before the end of March, and I know that they are visiting some factories in England. I am very much taking a two-pronged approach. I am working with DEFRA on trying to get access to markets, but I am also working with DAFM in the South to make sure that there are opportunities for the local industry to export and be part of the export certificates that it is able to achieve. That is something that is so beneficial for the local industry.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

T5. Mrs Dobson asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she is satisfied with the findings of the section 25 analysis of the Northern Ireland rural development programme for 2007-2013, particularly the ratio of Protestant and Catholic beneficiaries. (AQT 2165/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not know whether the Member is trying to point to there being discrimination in the rural development programme in relation to Protestant and Catholic beneficiaries, but that is certainly not the case. All projects are considered on merit. Your party colleagues sit on groups that distribute the funding, so, if there are any questions about how decisions are taken, I would be happy to hear from you about any issues that you have about discrimination. For me, the rural community is not about targeting Catholics or Protestants or about nationalism or unionism; it is about rural communities and supporting the people in rural communities. No matter what element or what projects come forward, there is an onus on the rural development programme to support all people in those rural communities.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she accept that there was much room for improvement in the last programme? How will she ensure that the new rural development programme will have increased access for the PUL community?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have a very strong stakeholder group in place for the current programme, and we will be putting our new stakeholder group in place. The group very much oversees and analyses the rural development programme, including, I am sure, any concerns about any community not having access to funding. The Member will be aware that we had in place a targeted area of work that helped the PUL community build capacity around achieving funding. She will also be very aware that we did a lot of work with faith-based groups and encouraged them to look towards funding not just from the rural development programme but EU funding and all other avenues. There is a significant body of work ongoing, and I am sure that it will continue into the new programme.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

T6. Mr Swann asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether, given the paramyxovirus problem in our homing pigeon fraternity, of which she will be well aware, she knows of any restrictions on individual breeders importing vaccines. (AQT 2166/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There has been no change in the legislation relating to breeders importing vaccines. I think that the legislation has been there since 2005, so there has been no change recently. The vaccine is bought in from England through one of three areas: the veterinary service, wholesale pharmaceutical suppliers and another area that I cannot recall — I will get the Member the details. However, if he has any concerns, I am happy for him to talk to officials about any potential issue that he has picked up.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for clarifying that there may be a third issue. I think that it was possibly regarding homing pigeon societies and clubs and the facility being opened out for them to import the vaccine themselves.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I have just found a note. The pharmacist can import it, the vet can import it and the wholesale dealer or agricultural merchant can import it. The pigeon does not have to be medically examined by any of those people. However, there are some protocols in place, and maybe that is what the Member refers to. I will get officials to contact you to have further discussion.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

T7. Mr Lyttle asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the review of the implementation of animal cruelty legislation. (AQT 2167/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have an interim report on my desk, and I will discuss it with officials in the coming days. I then hope to report to Members.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her response and look forward to hearing the interim findings on that important report. In addition to the wider review, will the Minister join me in condemning the concerning accounts that we have received of brutal cat poisoning in the Dundonald area of east Belfast and take the opportunity to advise members of the public how best to respond and seek action against that type of crime?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely. I concur with you in condemning all acts of animal cruelty. The horrific case that we have witnessed has been a hot topic in the media over the last number of days. Thankfully, that case has gone through the courts and been dealt with, and I welcome the outcome. I commend the DARD staff for the work that they have done in seeking that prosecution and taking that case to court.

People should look towards the DARD website to see how to report animal cruelty, and they should look towards our DARD Direct offices to get support. If they have any issues at all, they should come forward and let our vets get involved and investigate properly.

Oral Answers to Questions — Culture, Arts and Leisure

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

Questions 1 and 5 have been withdrawn.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

2. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline the discussions she has had with the Minister for Regional Development to ensure that people using wheelchairs will be able to access and exit Windsor Park via Adelaide Street railway station. (AQO 7663/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. I understand that the IFA has met the Regional Development Minister on a couple of occasions regarding the creation of a pedestrian link between the Adelaide Halt train station and the stadium. A planning application has also been submitted by the IFA for the creation of a pedestrian link from Apollo Road to the stadium on behalf of DRD and Translink.

The planned pedestrian link between Apollo Road and the stadium will be fully accessible by all and will provide improved links between the redeveloped stadium and Apollo Road. It is envisaged that it will be operational for the completion of the stadia works.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer on what is a very important issue to people who do not have the accessibility that we enjoy. There is an issue for Adelaide Street station because of the two tracks and getting from one side of the station to the other. At the minute, there is only a footbridge. That had a massive bearing at a recent cup final that Ballymena United managed to get to. A number of wheelchair-bound people found it very difficult to get from one side of the track to the other to go home. Does the Minister have any thoughts on how we can fix that problem?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I congratulate Ballymena United on getting to Windsor Park. I can see that the Member is quite chuffed with that and, hopefully, it will not be the team's last time there.

Disability access is key to all facilities in my Department and I know, through the sponsored work programmes with the IFA, Ulster Rugby and the Ulster Council of the GAA, that disability access is key to their plans. It is actually key to the planning application.

I am led to believe, and I have no reason to doubt it, that disability access, not just for one wheelchair but several, will be realised in the design of the bridge at Adelaide Halt train station and to the stadium and the Olympia Leisure Centre which is in the vicinity as well. It is important that we have full disability access — not just some access but full access — for people. We are trying to encourage people of all abilities to use our facilities and we cannot miss this opportunity with this development.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, agus buíochas fosta leis an Aire. Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur faoin tSólann Olympia. It is great to see the Windsor Park development making steady progress, and the other piece of that jigsaw, as you mentioned, Minister, is the Olympia Leisure Centre. Will you spell out your Department's involvement in that development?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. The Department has been working very closely with Belfast City Council and the IFA, particularly looking at the opportunity to develop the Olympia Leisure Centre in conjunction with the redevelopment of Windsor Park. As the Member may be aware, the IFA received £31 million for the Windsor Park project, which involves a significant upgrade to bring it from a capacity of 14,000 to 18,000.

The project, therefore, seemed to have an opportunity, at the very early stages, to work in conjunction with Belfast City Council to develop community facilities which will be located within the east stand of the new Olympia Leisure Centre, attached to the rear west stand of Windsor Park. This is an exciting partnership between my Department, Belfast City Council and the IFA. As the Member may be aware, the Olympia Leisure Centre project contains an investment of £2,750,000 from DCAL, in partnership with Belfast City Council's £19 million contribution, to ensure that, when we have the opportunities that we have in south Belfast, we use them. I think it is money well spent.

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

I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Is she in discussion with other Departments to open up access in other ways, particularly in other elements of public transport, to ensure maximum access and to link stadia to town centres?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member will be aware that as part of the redevelopment of Casement Park one of the issues flagged up as being problematic in the judicial review — apart from everything else that happened — was around traffic management. So, it is crucial that, in conjunction with providers such as Translink, the taxi association, private companies, and cycling as well, we improve access and provide for a better flow of traffic as a part of any new planning application that goes in. Discussions are under way with Translink and private firms about pedestrianisation, park-and-rides, making sure that there is better access to the stadia and that there is better signposting when that happens. I imagine that that will all be part of any new application that the Ulster Council of the GAA puts in.

This one for Windsor Park was included in its planning application, and, with the add-on of the Olympia Leisure Centre in south Belfast, signage will also need to be upgraded and updated.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

3. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what action she plans to take to address the funding inequality between the Irish language and Ulster Scots, which is at a ratio of approximately 10:1. (AQO 7664/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. The ratio of funding for Irish and Ulster Scots from my Department has been, on average, 3:1 respectively. That is reflected in funding that my Department and its arm's-length bodies have provided to programmes and projects dedicated to Irish and Ulster Scots. The Executive remain wholly committed to affording equal respect and recognition to Irish and Ulster Scots, and the funding provided to each reflects their different stages of development and ranges of programmes, projects and supported organisations. Such funding is determined on the basis of approved actions in their respective business plans. I have made it clear on several occasions in the past that I will consider and give my full support to any initiatives that the Ulster-Scots community brings forward that will help community infrastructures. That remains my position.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she recognise her failure to comply with her own policies in her equality scheme, which states that DCAL:

"seeks to eliminate any inequalities which exist in the areas of its operations."?

What is the Minister doing to address the inequalities that exist between the promotion of the Irish language and Ulster Scots?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I find it a constant source of frustration that the Member and other Members on the Benches opposite make allegations that are particularly about my responsibility for creating inequalities. The Member has yet to write a letter and has yet to knock my door to ask for meetings with me or my officials. If this issue is of such concern to him, let me say that he has done very little between one Question Time and another. If I felt that there was inequality towards my community, I would take action to ensure that that was addressed, so I suggest that the Member is just using Question Time —

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

It is for you to address it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

— to score political points, and there certainly is no —

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

Order, please. The Minister will resume her seat. I take it very seriously, especially when a Minister is answering a particular Member, when that Member insists on shouting from a sedentary position. It had better not happen again.

Carry on, Minister.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I also thank the Minister for her response. Minister, you had a very high-profile launch of the consultation on the Irish language Act in the Senate recently. Can you share with us some of the early responses to and the likely cost of that launch?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The launch happened this day fortnight ago, and it probably cost £100 or £200 or whatever the cost of transport and of hiring out here, which is minimal, to be fair.

On the early stages of the response, I can tell the Member that I intend to talk with as many people as possible, and I look forward to talking to him and other Members about their views on the consultation on the Irish language Act. Needless to say, I have been encouraged, albeit that it is 14 days later, that many people from civic society are coming forward with their own views, and even though they do not necessarily understand the need for an Irish language Act, they have expressed that in a very respectful way. I am pleased that that has set the tone, and, hopefully, it will set the tone for the remainder of the consultation.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, agus mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. How much funding has been spent on the Ulster-Scots ministerial advisory group and the Ulster-Scots Agency since 2011?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. I may need to write back to him with specific details. In the last completed tax year, the total amount of money spent on Ulster-Scots initiatives has been probably around £4,357,350. I need to break it down into the money spent on the Ulster-Scots Agency and on the ministerial advisory group for the Ulster-Scots Academy (MAGUS), and I know that there have been other initiatives. Over £2 million has been spent on the agency, and over £1 million has been spent on the MAGUS. I know that the Arts Council, libraries and NI Screen, through the Ulster-Scots Broadcast Fund, have also spent money. I will happily write to the Member with specific details of all spending on Ulster Scots, but, as the Member can see, it is certainly significant.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

4. Ms Fearon asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how her departmental arm's-length bodies will ensure that there is improved provision of and access to their services in rural communities. (AQO 7665/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. The Arts Council's five-year plan aims to increase the proportion of arts activities in rural areas by creating greater opportunities for marginalised rural communities to engage in the arts. That includes the development of a draft community arts strategy, which includes a commitment to working with rural stakeholders to promote greater access to, and take-up of, funding programmes. The activities of NI Screen, creative learning centres, after-school clubs, digital film archives and the work of the exhibition sector have given priority to disadvantaged and marginalised groups, particularly in rural areas.

Sport NI works closely with district councils through the Chief Leisure Officers Association and sports governing bodies to deliver sports and leisure opportunities for all communities, including those based in rural areas. As the Member will be aware, libraries have a statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, including to communities in rural constituencies. Libraries NI and DARD have entered into a memorandum of understanding to encourage cooperation and to work and support each other's customers and clients in rural areas through the provision of high-speed broadband in the 28 rural libraries and information on well-being and support programmes.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. Will the Minister outline how young people in rural communities can benefit from creative learning centres (CLCs)?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

As I said in my primary response, NI Screen has worked in partnership with three creative learning centres. One, in the Nerve Centre in Derry city, works throughout the north-west, including in rural areas. The second is the Southern Education and Library Board's AmmA centre in Armagh. The CLCs' activity gives priority to young people, particularly those living in poverty in disadvantaged and marginalised areas.

At the heart of the creative learning centres is work on alternative education programmes, which target areas of disadvantage in each community. The creative learning centres received additional funding to extend programme activities, particularly in hard-to-reach rural areas that were previously not covered. That was achieved by the creative learning centres actively pursuing areas of social exclusion and deprivation. So, the creative learning centres deliver programmes for schoolchildren and young people, specialising in the use of new and creative digital technologies.

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

Will the Minister assure the House that the proposed savings plan delivery for the Department's budget spend for 2015-16 will not disproportionately impact on the services of our rural communities?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member previously asked me about equality impact assessments. The delivery savings plans are quite detailed because we asked for an overarching equality impact assessment rather than a high-level impact assessment. DCAL has 11 ALBs, and we wanted to make sure that rural communities were not disadvantaged, so when we get the outcome of those, we will be able to compare and contrast. I will happily share those with the Member and with other members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. We were keen to ensure that people living in rural communities were not disproportionately disadvantaged or even experienced further disadvantage as a result of Budget cuts to the block grant.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister so far. Has the Minister carried out any assessment of the distribution of funding from Sport NI between urban and rural areas?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Not in comparing urban with rural; it is primarily around programmes. In those programmes, it has to be on the basis of need, so it is not a percentage split between urban and rural. The Member may be aware that concerns were raised previously around the fact that rural communities and constituencies were not benefiting from the support of the creative industries innovation fund. As a result of that, I questioned the assertion that that was the case. It was down to the councils in those areas that had to put forward the application.

So, in response to Mrs McKevitt's question, we are looking at spending plans around the Budget. We want to make sure that the budgets that we have are spent by being directed at need, and those needs are in rural as well as urban communities.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Can the Minister explain why she argued for NI Screen to get an extra £800,000 but did not make the argument for the Arts Council or Sport NI, both of which have reported that this will have detrimental effect on rural provision?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

First of all, NI Screen had a deficit of almost £1 million going into the 2011 mandate. The impact of the 11·2% cut on some of the programmes, particularly for NI Screen in working in hard-to-reach communities, would have been at the level of a 50% cut rather than 11·2%. On the basis that it was always working at a disadvantage in comparison with the other arm's-length bodies, we felt that it was fair to try to bring it up to a level through the bid in January. I made the argument to try to get additional funding and will do so again.

The Arts Council, which received money for the Ulster Orchestra and works very closely with NI Screen, will have an awareness, if not a strong appreciation, of that deficit and what it means to have it slightly closed. It is still running at a disadvantage of a couple of hundred thousand pounds in its budget, and it will, I am sure, make bids in future monitoring rounds, as will the Arts Council, libraries and museums. It is really important that, when the NI Screen programmes were under threat of closure — not limiting resource but closure — we acted decisively. I make no apologies for that.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

6. Mrs Dobson asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what discussions she has had with the governing bodies of sports that are organised on an all-island basis, to establish how many require an Irish passport as part of their eligibility criteria. (AQO 7667/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. Sport NI is talking to sports councils in Britain and Ireland about providing guidance for sports governing bodies on their responsibility under the Good Friday Agreement and, in particular, the rights of citizens from the North to choose to hold either an Irish or British passport or both. I am committed to the principle in the Good Friday Agreement to:

"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose".

On that basis, I am happy to meet or make representation to any sports governing body that may be operating contrary to the spirit of the agreement and to encourage them to support its principles and review their eligibility criteria.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister has partially answered my supplementary. I was going to ask whether the Minister agrees with me that, if the governing body of any sport were to require an Irish passport as a prerequisite for a team representing the island of Ireland, it would be contrary to the Belfast Agreement, which entitles citizens of Northern Ireland to define themselves as British, Irish or both.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. As she said, part of my answer has covered some of her concerns. That has been the case. In fairness, the governing bodies and the sports councils here and in Britain all recognise the Good Friday Agreement and are happily working together to try to ensure that they support the athletes as well as possible. The important thing is to make sure that athletes are supported as well as possible. They do not need politics or concerns around citizenship, their identity, their background or their culture to get in the way of their performance.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Could the Minister provide details of any discussions that Sport NI has had with its counterparts in the South and, indeed, in Britain about providing guidance for sports governing bodies?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. As I said in my primary answer to Mrs Dobson, he will know that the Good Friday Agreement ensures that citizens here can have one or both passports regardless of how they perceive themselves. The governing bodies have acknowledged that. The good thing about it is that the British and Irish sports councils have also accepted that, and the sports councils and governing bodies are working alongside that principle, too.

As a result not just of recent competitions but of the recommendations in the report on boxing, Sport NI is looking at routes and ways to look at representations at Olympic, Paralympic and Commonwealth Games to see if there are any barriers and, if those are identified, to have them removed. I am certainly happy with the way in which the governing body, Sport NI and the British and Irish councils are working to support the athletes.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister will know that the Irish Football Association has a superb programme for the development of youth football. Does the Minister agree with me that the poaching of young players by the Football Association of Ireland is not just wrong, but damaging and detrimental to community relations in Northern Ireland?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No, I do not agree with the Member at all.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister welcome the formation of the Northern Ireland Boxing Federation and its application to Sport NI for recognition as a governing body, and does she agree that it would be an excellent vehicle to enable young boxers from Northern Ireland to fight for their own country?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have not been informed of any application by Sport NI. I have heard a lot of speculation in the media. Any attempt to break up a sport on the basis of geography, politicking and point scoring is unfortunate for athletes. Boxing has set a very good example for decades, when those from other backgrounds and communities felt it difficult to participate in other sports. Boxing has led the way and led by example, and I think that it is regrettable if boxing goes down this route.

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

7. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for her assessment of the Arts Council NI's recently published disability action plan 2015-18. (AQO 7668/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

All arm's-length bodies have a statutory duty to publish disability action plans and to increase access and participation for people with disabilities. The Arts Council, as a designated public authority, has a statutory duty to publish a disability action plan setting out its commitment to promote positive attitudes towards people with disabilities and encourage participation in all aspects of the arts. As Minister, although I have no official role in approving the plan, I am confident in and welcome the efforts of the Arts Council to increase access and participation opportunities in the arts for people with disabilities.

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

Go raibh maith agat as an fhreagra sin, a Aire. Thanks very much indeed, Minister, for that response. Of those appointed to the board of the Arts Council, how many are registered disabled?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to ask for that information and to write to the Member. If the Member has any particular concerns, he can knock on the door of the private office and give me a shout.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am very supportive of the plan, but how realistic is its implementation, given the budget cuts the Minister faces and also the fact that Northern Ireland has lower arts funding per head than anywhere else in the UK and Republic of Ireland?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am not suggesting that the Member is saying otherwise, but consideration of equality — disability has equality implications — has to be put first and foremost. You cannot skimp on a project because you cannot afford to have disability access and participation; that is not where we are coming from. The Arts Council will have to ensure, within the budget it received, that all outcomes for section 75 groups are adhered to. In addition to what I have provided to the Arts Council for arts and creativity for people with disabilities, my Department has funded disability programmes for accessing the arts. It is crucial that we ensure that everyone has an opportunity to avail themselves of the programmes and participate where possible.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. An dtig liom fiafraí den Aire cad é an tacaíocht atá ar fáil do dhaoine faoi mhíchumas a bhfuil suim acu páirt a ghlacadh sna healaíona? What support is available for disabled people who are interested in participating in the arts?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her supplementary. As I said to Ms Lo, it is important that the affordability of disability access, any more than a decreasing budget, is not used to limit access for people with disabilities. The work of the arts and disability equality charter, which was brought to the Arts Council through the disability forum, along with Adapt NI and Open Arts, has been crucial not only in raising awareness but in raising awareness of some of the venues, thus ensuring that there are as many opportunities as possible for participation.

I take this opportunity to commend the work of the Arts and Disability Forum, which is also funded by the Arts Council. It has been an absolute catalyst for empowering people with disabilities who have an interest in the arts. The Arts and Disability Forum is crucial to ensuring that the Arts Council provides opportunities for people with disabilities and that the funding is at the level that it should be at. It is through the work of the Arts and Disability Forum and its lobbying of DCAL and other Departments that it received additional funding. It is very much the advocates, the spokespeople and the representatives of those who want to engage in all sectors of society but particularly the arts and creativity. It is there to make sure that people like me put the funding where it is needed.

Maurice Devenney (DUP, Foyle)

8. Mr Devenney asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for an update on the plans her Department has in place for Libraries NI. (AQO 7669/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. In line with 'Delivering Tomorrow's Libraries', I am determined to provide a library service that, within available resources, is centred on people and relevant to their current needs; is responsive to local communities, particularly those experiencing poverty and social exclusion; is sufficiently flexible in its core activities to reflect new demands; and provides space, stock and expertise to enable people to develop themselves, their families and their communities.

Library services are under considerable pressure due to the annual decreases in the block grant. However, I am working with the libraries board and the chief executive to ensure that no branch libraries will be required to close permanently. Public libraries play an essential role in our communities, especially in socially deprived areas, so they need to be protected as far as possible. The responses that DCAL received following the publication of the consultation on the draft budget last autumn indicated that there was strong public support for our library services.

Maurice Devenney (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that libraries across Northern Ireland deliver a much-needed and valued service to our community? Will she give an assurance that there will be no further cuts to hours, which could lead to closures of our libraries?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member may be aware that there is a consultation at the minute about the reduction in opening hours. That started on, I think, 18 February, and will end on 17 or 18 April. I encourage the Member and others to feed into that consultation, because consultation responses have been crucial in shaping the future delivery of libraries.

Libraries are very good; they work out their usage in terms of hours, staff and resources. The last consultation was on the draft budget, but previous consultations on library services ensured that they were protected. If a library service goes, particularly in a rural community, it is really difficult, if not impossible, to get it back.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I speak for libraries in mid-Ulster, and they certainly do not want to implement restricted hours. Has the Minister agreed with Libraries NI the restricted opening hours that will be implemented as a result of the budget?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I appreciate that the Member may have had her question worked out before I gave the answer to Mr Devenney, but the consultation opened in February and will close in April. I will wait for the Libraries NI response to the outcome of that consultation. It has proposed reductions in hours for each of the libraries based on different bands, but, as part of a robust consultation, that may change, depending on the feedback that the libraries get. The libraries have certainly gone about it in the right way; they have shown that the bands are delivered on the basis mainly of usage but also of hours and membership. They worked it out on that basis, which is a fair and transparent way to do it. The consultation is open, and I encourage the Member and others to feed into it.

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

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

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

T1. Mr Kinahan asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether she is aware of any plans from the Irish Football Association or other bodies to replace all community playing surfaces with 3G or 4G pitches. (AQT 2171/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am aware that every club, regardless of whether it is soccer, rugby, Gaelic or hockey, wants to look at better facilities, and 3G and 4G pitches are on the long list of things that groups need. I am certainly not aware of the IFA per se replacing 3G and 4G pitches at the minute. The Member will be aware of the subregional funding, but that is not about the replacement of pitches but is looking at subregional facilities.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I raise the issue not so much to ask about the Irish Football Association but because there seems to be a trend towards having 3G and 4G pitches everywhere, with the danger being that we will no longer have any grass facilities for, among others, those who want to play football or rugby on them. Will she use all her influence and, indeed, resources to make sure that we keep enough grass pitches so that we can still compete at the highest level and give people in towns and villages a chance to learn on that surface?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am sympathetic to what the Member says. I recently met cricket representatives who were concerned about grass facilities. I also met representatives of some smaller soccer clubs who have concerns. They had met their local councils, which are under a lot of financial pressure because they have to provide multi-sport facilities, and that is where the 3G and 4G pitches come in. We are still working with the governing bodies through the Sport Matters implementation group. This issue was raised previously, but we will look at it again. It is up to the governing bodies to identify grounds on which they want their sport to be performed. We will try to work in partnership with them, Sport NI and local government, but I hear what the Member is saying.

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

Mr Paul Givan is not in his place. I call Mr Mickey Brady.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T3. Mr Brady asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for an update on the boxing investment strategy, particularly in the Newry and Armagh constituency. (AQT 2173/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. The boxing investment programme, which came from Sport NI through Lottery funds, has been very successful. The Member will be aware, because I was in the constituency with him and other representatives, that there is not enough money at the moment to meet the demand. However, Sport NI did an exercise with the governing bodies and some of the clubs to get a facilities plan to look at the state of boxing clubs. They will prioritise those with the worst facilities and look at when funding can go to them. That process is under way. I am not sure whether some of the clubs in the Member's constituency will get funding, but I will happily write to him about that.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her answer and ask her to ensure that boxing clubs in my constituency, such as St Brigid's, St John Bosco, Sacred Heart at Cuan Mhuire, and clubs such as the Sean Doran Boxing Club in Keady are not forgotten when it comes to investment. Boxing is a sport that, until relatively recently, was not getting the investment that it so deserves.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his supplementary , and I agree with his last point. Over decades, boxing has delivered an awful lot to our community. It has given us a great spectacle of sport and produces more medals than any other sport the length and breadth of this island, yet its facilities are not fit for purpose. It is important that we get investment into the boxing clubs and that it is spread throughout communities as much as possible. As I said, I will try to find out about the clubs in his constituency that he mentioned and write to him with any details.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T4. Mr Ramsey asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, following a meeting with the Northwest Forum of People with Disabilities that he attended along with other Members, at which one of the main questions was why so few people with disabilities are appointed to public bodies, to assure the House that she will look at best practice to ensure that public bodies are made up of people with disabilities alongside people who represent those who have disabilities. (AQT 2174/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will happily take the Member's concern back to my Department so that I can check with all the arm's-length bodies. His colleague Patsy McGlone asked similar questions about the disability action plan and about disability access and participation. I will raise that query and write to the Member.

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

Mrs Pam Cameron is not in her place.

[Interruption.]

My apologies, Mr Ramsey. You have a supplementary.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her response. For the record, I chair the all-party group on disability, which had a meeting with the Commissioner for Public Appointments, John Keanie, who has expressed deep worry and concern about the lack of appointments of people with disabilities. Would the Minister be favourably disposed to meeting me and representatives of disabled groups?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I would be absolutely delighted to. I was delighted to meet the all-party group on disability action. I also met the Commissioner for Public Appointments to look at gaps in female representation, gender imbalance, disability imbalance, political imbalance where people are coming forward from the Catholic or Protestant community, and ethnic minority imbalance. It is important that we get the best possible balance. I will happily have a meeting with the Member on that.

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

Mrs Pam Cameron is not in her place.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

T6. Mr Beggs asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether she has any plans to shine a light, by way of permanent or temporary exhibitions, on the many works of art and artefacts that are stored in the bowels of the Ulster Museum, about which concern has been expressed. (AQT 2176/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for raising that query, because a concern that I have had since I came into the Department is that, year on year, a lot of public money is being spent on preserving works of art that are in storage. My questions are these: why have they been in storage for so long and why have they remained in storage? I am working with museums, libraries and the Arts Council on bringing exhibitions out to communities and am looking at the practical implications of doing that. If I am picking up the Member correctly, I agree with him that it is a shame that we have collections that are stored away where no one can see them.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer and her support on the issue. Can she advise whether a detailed archive list is available to councils so that they can perhaps identify items of local interest? Local people could see them, and the items would enhance important tourist facilities looked after by the Department of the Environment, such as Carrickfergus Castle.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I know that the inventory of what is stored away and by whom was done quite some time ago. The issue has been raised before, but I will certainly raise it again and look at where we could hold exhibitions. We could bring artwork out to school assembly halls, council buildings and community facilities, and bring school groups, community groups and residents to the exhibitions. The exhibitions could almost travel around.

I will happily raise the Member's concerns with museums and the Arts Council. Primarily, however, this is about museums. I will see what is in the latest catalogue and whether art can be displayed by local government. I will then write to the Member with the details.