Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 June 2015

334 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before we proceed to today's business, I remind Members that, due to unforeseen circumstances, the Minister for Regional Development was not able to attend Question Time yesterday. The Minister for Social Development, who was due to answer questions today, took his place, and questions to the Minister for Regional Development will commence at 2.00 pm. All Members were notified of that change last Friday.

Ministerial Statements

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we wish to make the following statement on the twentieth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in plenary format, which was held in Dublin on Friday 5 June 2015. The Ministers who attended the meeting have agreed that we can make this report on their behalf.

Our delegation was led by the Finance Minister, Arlene Foster MLA, and me. In addition, the following Ministers were in attendance: Minister Durkan; Minister Farry; Minister Ford; Minister Hamilton; Minister Kennedy; Minister Ní Chuilín; Minister O'Dowd; Minister Storey; junior Minister McIlveen; and junior Minister McCann

The Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD. The following Irish Government Ministers were also in attendance: Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton; Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Charles Flanagan; Minister Noonan; Minister Howlin; Minister Fitzgerald; Minister Reilly; Minister Varadkar; Minister White; Minister Donohoe; Minister Humphreys; Minister of State Hayes; and Minister of State Sherlock.

The meeting started with a discussion on the challenges facing both Administrations and the policies being implemented to support economic growth and job creation and to improve living standards. That included discussions on foreign direct investment (FDI) and working together to build trade links with key developing markets. I think that we are all pleased with the positive signs in both economies, but, of course, it is important that we work to support the recovery.

We then had a good discussion on the various EU funding opportunities that are available. Ministers noted the discussions that have taken place across all NSMC sectors in relation to EU funding opportunities and the identification of relevant programmes that are available for collaborative funding applications. There is a real opportunity for us to work together in this area, and Ministers agreed to continue to examine opportunities and progress in drawing down collaborative EU funding.

Approval of the INTERREG V programme by the European Commission was welcomed, and the Council looked forward to the early finalisation of the Peace IV programme. Ministers welcomed the early indications of good progress towards reaching the joint target of €175 million in cross-border collaborative drawdown under the Horizon 2020 programme and the work of InterTradeIreland and the all-island steering group in raising awareness of the programme. The Council agreed that a further update on EU funding opportunities will be brought to the next plenary meeting.

The next item on the agenda was sectoral priorities. The Council noted that sectoral priorities were discussed at the NSMC institutional meeting on 25 February 2015 and that new sectoral priorities will be an agenda item at future institutional meetings. The Council also noted the decision that was agreed at the NSMC institutional meeting that Ministers would review their current work programmes and that endorsement of any changes will be sought at a future NSMC plenary meeting. Ministers agreed that the matter of sectoral priorities and the current review of work programmes will be kept under active review.

Ministers then went on to have an extensive discussion on cross-border smuggling and fuel laundering. The issue had been raised at previous plenary meetings and at recent NSMC environment, agriculture and transport meetings. Ministers noted the ongoing efforts by both jurisdictions to tackle the serious issue and noted the introduction of the new fuel marker in both jurisdictions. The Council noted that the issue is also of concern at EU level. The Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has been in correspondence with Environment Ministers, North and South, concerning latest developments and actions taken to address the issue. The Council recognised the importance of closer cooperation between agencies in tackling and combating cross-border smuggling and fuel laundering and agreed that the topic be revisited at a future meeting.

An update was then provided on the north-west gateway initiative. The Council noted the continued engagement between officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister with stakeholders concerning the future development of the north-west gateway initiative and the ongoing discussions on arrangements to hold a meeting of relevant Ministers in the north-west. The Council further noted the current work by Donegal County Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council to develop new and collaborative cross-border arrangements at local government level to promote the development of the north-west region consistent with the aims of the north-west gateway initiative. Ministers noted that these arrangements aim to place cross-border cooperation in the north-west on a more formal basis in local government-led structures and will allow for the development of the future direction and priorities for the region in cooperation with central government and other stakeholders. Ministers also noted the ongoing work on the A5.

The Council then noted that, in line with the decision taken at the NSMC institutional meeting on 25 February 2015, the joint secretariat has consulted sponsor Departments and board members of the implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland Limited regarding the proposal to extend the existing terms of appointment of board members for 12 months. This consultation is ongoing. The Council agreed that decisions on board appointments will be made before the expiry of the current board members' terms of office in December 2015.

Next, the Council noted the progress report prepared by the NSMC joint secretaries on the work of the North/South bodies and in the other NSMC areas for cooperation and welcomed the following key developments. Cooperation continues with regard to EU-related transport issues. At their recent meeting in April 2015, Ministers noted the opportunity to strengthen the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) application process through the development of cooperation statement templates that will support project applications.

Ministers also noted the position with regard to the INTERREG programmes, including the update on the INTERREG IV funding of the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service upgrade and Drogheda viaduct works.

At the NSMC health and food safety meeting held at Altnagelvin Area Hospital on 15 April 2015, Ministers discussed ongoing cooperation in healthcare. They welcomed the presentation by the Western Health and Social Care Trust representatives on the radiotherapy unit and had the opportunity to view the construction under way on the unit, which they were advised is on target for completion within the agreed time frame.

At the NSMC agriculture meeting on 25 February 2015, Ministers noted the recent developments in plans for the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms agreed in 2013, including administrative measures for direct payment schemes.

The Middletown Centre for Autism successfully hosted a major international conference on the theme of enabling education, targeted at professionals and parents of children with autism. The event, attended by in excess of one thousand delegates, was opened by both Education Ministers and featured a range of eminent speakers from across the globe. Progress continues to be made by the two Departments and the centre in facilitating the expansion of the centre’s range of services.

At the NSMC environment meeting on 13 May 2015, Ministers received an update on the agreed repatriation of waste programme for 2015, under which two illegal waste landfill sites will be addressed. The issue of fuel laundering was discussed, and Ministers expressed concern at the impact of fuel laundering and stressed the importance of closer cooperation between agencies to tackle the issue.

At their meeting in January 2015, Ministers noted the various support structures put in place by InterTradeIreland to assist with the jointly agreed €175 million target for cross-border applications under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Ministers also noted that early results were positive, with 45 cross-border applications to the programme and an economic value of €8·8 million for successful cross-border Horizon 2020 collaboration at that time.

The draft Peace IV and INTERREG programmes 2014-2020 were submitted to the European Commission on 22 September 2014, in line with the regulatory deadline. The INTERREG programme was formally adopted on 13 February 2015, with calls expected to launch in early summer. A number of outstanding issues still remain in the Peace IV programme, and high-level discussions are ongoing between the member states and the EU Commission. It is hoped that the Peace IV programme will be approved shortly and be open for calls later in the year.

At the NSMC health and food safety meeting in April 2015, Professor Chris Elliott of Queen’s University Belfast gave a presentation on the topic of "Food safety and traceability: an all-island imperative", which provided Ministers with valuable insight into this important subject.

Ministers welcomed reports on the activities of the Loughs Agency in promoting and marketing Foyle and Carlingford loughs, in particular marine leisure infrastructural developments, outreach and community activity, and promotion of local seafood products.

Progress continues on the publication of the new English-Irish dictionary flagship project, and an app for the new English-Irish dictionary will be available in the near future. Progress continues on the Ulster-Scots community impact programme, which has been extended for a second year following a positive evaluation.

In February 2015, Minister Heather Humphreys announced the approval of the restoration by Waterways Ireland of a 2·5 kilometre stretch of the Ulster canal, connecting Castle Saunderson International Scout Centre to the Erne basin at an expected cost of approximately €2 million.

Finally, the Council noted that last year was another great year for tourism. Total overseas visitors to the North for the first nine months of 2014 grew by 3% year on year. Overseas visitors to the island of Ireland increased by 14% in the January to March 2015 period when compared to the same three-month period a year earlier. The council also noted the very successful greenways and blueways information-sharing and networking event hosted by the joint secretariat on 30 April 2015.

Ministers then noted the current position on a North/South consultative forum.

The meeting ended with the Council approving a schedule of NSMC meetings proposed by the joint secretariat, including a NSMC institutional meeting in Autumn 2015 and the next NSMC plenary meeting in November 2015.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for that update. Paragraph 6 states that there was a "discussion", paragraph 7 states that there was a "good discussion" and paragraph 14 states that there was "an extensive discussion". Are those officially defined terms? With regard to the discussion that was neither good nor extensive, what were the positive signs in both economies.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that a bit of nitpicking is going on. Obviously, we had a very thorough discussion in relation to the ongoing economic situation North and South. We were able to record what is good news for us, the fact that we have had steadily decreasing unemployment figures over the last 28 months.

At the same time, we recognise that we are facing huge challenges in relation to the difficulties we are having to deal with as regards the austerity agenda that is coming at us from London. Effectively, something like £1·5 billion was taken out of our Budget over the lifetime of the last Conservative Government, and further cuts are predicted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That leaves us with a very challenging situation. The fact that, even against that backdrop, we have been able to record unprecedented levels of foreign direct investment is obviously good news.

The South were also amplifying their decreasing unemployment figures. During the meeting, they made the case that their economic situation was steadily improving, to which I asked, "When is the election?". All I got was a smile in return and fingers pointing towards the Taoiseach.

Overall, the economic discussions that take place at these meetings are of great importance to all of us.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

The deputy First Minister is no doubt aware that many of those involved in fuel smuggling, especially along the south Armagh border, are former IRA members. Many, like me, believe that they act with relative impunity to this day. What tougher measures would the deputy First Minister like to see introduced to help tackle this crime, given that, to date, no one has served a custodial sentence for it?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As far as I am concerned, the people involved in fuel smuggling and fuel laundering in south Armagh are criminals who need to be arrested and brought before the courts. My party fully supports the authorities North and South that are charged with the responsibility for tackling this.

Quite apart from everything else, people involved in fuel laundering are endangering the lives of the people who live in the community. The environmental fallout from the activity is disastrous for the local community, endangering people's health and animal health. During the meeting, we were very encouraged by the fact that there is a new marker in the fuel, which makes it much more difficult for people to be involved in fuel laundering. We welcome that very much. We also welcome the fact that in the region of 100 illegal fuel-laundering plants have been detected and put out of business.

So, my party is absolutely of the view that anybody involved in this type of illegal activity is a criminal who needs to be arrested and brought before the courts.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. What discussions took place regarding the efforts to resume the A5 project?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We had a useful discussion on the prospects for the A5. The issue comes up at all of the meetings that we have and at the margins of the meetings. As I said, we did have a useful discussion on the prospects for the A5 project being resumed.

The next step is now for the Regional Development Minister to publish the draft orders. I understand that, in response to a question for written answer on 24 April, the Minister stated that he would be bringing a new Executive paper on the way forward for the A5 within weeks. I also met the Minister on 30 April, when he confirmed his intention to publish the draft orders imminently. I welcome that commitment and, given the time frame that he has outlined, expect to see the new Executive paper in advance of the summer recess.

This is a vital project for the west and for all of the counties in the west from Derry right through Tyrone into County Fermanagh. It is a project that will not just supply a first-class route in the northern stretch to link up with a first-class route in the southern end to Dublin; it is also a vital route for people in County Tyrone travelling to Belfast to link up with the M1 at Ballygawley. The sooner that we see this project moving forward the better, and I look forward to the early announcement of the draft orders.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement to the House, and I very warmly welcome the more determined approach in terms of the north-west gateway initiative. I want to ask the deputy First Minister about the apathy felt in the north-west and Derry and Strabane, which have the highest levels of unemployment and economic inactivity. Will the economic development of the north-west, including third level education and access to more employment opportunities, be the focus of any future deliberations?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member. That is one of the reasons why the First Minister and I agreed that we would form a subgroup of Ministers to deal with the very strong perception — it is more than a perception — that there are areas of the North that are not getting their fair share. Quite clearly, that was a declaration of both his and my intent to ensure that the subgroup would tackle the unacceptable, high levels of unemployment that exist, particularly in the Derry and Strabane area. There was to be a meeting of the north-west gateway initiative, but it did not happen for unforeseen reasons, and the health of the First Minister intervened on the second occasion. We are hoping that that meeting will happen very shortly.

Obviously, we accept that the combined efforts of the Ministers involved in the north-west gateway initiative and the ministerial subgroup that we have formed need to tackle the whole of issue of, for example, Magee university and the numbers of students there. The expansion of the university is absolutely critical for the importance of future economic development in the city. Of course, the whole issue of infrastructure is of major importance, so the A5 and the A6 are very much in the forefront of all our minds. Obviously, these contribute to the ability to attract foreign direct investment.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Can I ask the deputy First Minister what the outstanding issues with the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme IV are? How will those be overcome, when will the programme open and how will it be linked with the OFMDFM regional good relations strategy, Together: Building a United Community?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, this is something that has contributed tremendously for all of us in recent years. The new Peace programme has not yet been finalised, and officials, North and South, are making every effort to reach agreement. Minister Foster and Minister Howlin had a bilateral meeting on the morning of the NSMC plenary to discuss the Peace IV programme, and I know that there is a strong desire on both sides to get the programme agreed as quickly as possible. Delays at the start of the programme will place us under pressure to meet spending targets later, so it is very important that we reach agreement as soon as possible.

As I recorded in the initial statement that I made, it is also very important for us to continue the work of maximising the success of Horizon 2020.

Good progress has been made by officials and Ministers, North and South, on that issue in relation to drawdown.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. I notice from the joint secretaries' progress report that cooperation on transport issues and opportunities to strengthen TEN-T applications continues. Exactly what progress has been made and what project applications are being considered for TEN-T?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Minister for Regional Development advises that his Department submitted four applications under the Connecting Europe Facility call for funding, launched in October 2014. Two of the applications submitted are for rail projects: track refurbishment and upgrade work on the Belfast to Dublin lines and upgrading work on the Coleraine to Derry line. The other two are road projects: works relating to the A26 dualling scheme and studies for the Newry southern relief road. In total, those projects are seeking up to £34 million of co-funding.

The upgrade to the Enterprise service is important to improve rail services between Dublin and Belfast, and we understand that the supply issues that had the potential to delay the project have been resolved, and NIR and Irish Rail are confident that the lost time can be recovered. The total cost of the project, which is funded by INTERREG, is approximately £17 million, including the refurbishment of the Drogheda viaduct. Once completed, this project will be a further positive example of North/South cooperation and will be of real benefit to rail users from both jurisdictions.

As many people know, there is a lot of focus on the Juncker plan, which has been much discussed recently, and we are continuing to explore how that can be exploited in our interests.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. I noted, Minister, that you alluded to a meeting of the north-west gateway initiative. How soon do you think it can take place?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It should take place before recess. It did not happen, due to unforeseen circumstances, but there is a strong commitment that the meeting should take place. There is clear recognition that the north-west gateway initiative and the work of the ministerial subgroup is a priority in beginning the process of redressing the difficulties faced by people west of the Bann.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I, too, thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. Deputy First Minister, of the projects in this list, some are aspirational, some have commenced, and all have a degree of cost attached to them. On the basis that the Assembly continues to haemorrhage over £10 million a month due to the failure to implement welfare reform, did the Ministers of the Irish Republic offer to pay for these projects?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be as aware as we are that we had a commitment from the Irish Government on shared funding for the development of the A5. Their commitment was to something in the region of £400 million in match funding for our side of the bargain. Of course, the offer was withdrawn due to economic circumstances. That was apart from the difficulties that the A5 then faced from the fallout of the judicial review, which we hope will be remedied shortly.

The challenges we face with the issues and the projects that we deal with on the North/South Ministerial Council are real. Although some may be described as aspirational, they are very important for future development on the island, for the benefit of everyone on the island.

There was a bit of political point scoring in relation to funding. People have to remember that this is about protecting the most vulnerable, marginalised and disabled in our society, and, yes, that comes at a cost.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My question follows on from those raised by Bronwyn McGahan and David McIlveen. Is the deputy First Minister satisfied that Minister Paschal Donohoe and an Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, remain fully committed to the A5 project from the Dublin Government side? I note the comments by the deputy First Minister on the expectation that a paper from Minister Kennedy on taking the project forward will come to the Executive in the coming weeks.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The next stage in the process is the publication of the draft orders. As the Minister for Regional Development indicated, both in an answer to a question from a Member and in a meeting that he participated in with me, he intends to do that within weeks. For us, that is the next stage of the process.

How we will fund the road obviously represents a challenge for us, North and South, but the £50 million commitment that the Taoiseach made, which, of course, falls short of the £400 million, is still on the table. I hope that, in the context of, as the Irish Government describe it, an improving economic situation in the South, if we can get the green light to proceed with the road, they will recognise their responsibilities to come up with their side of the bargain. It is a commitment of the North/South Ministerial Council.

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

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. Were any specific measures discussed or opportunities identified for EU funding to provide better high-end job opportunities and real employment opportunities and/or training for our young people to address the high levels of youth unemployment across the island?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are all very conscious of the challenges that most European countries face in addressing what are unacceptable levels of youth unemployment. The key to all of that is for all of us to continue to bear down on the unacceptable unemployment figures out there. Given the report that I gave earlier to the Assembly and the improving economic situation recorded at the meeting by Irish Government representatives and by us, based on a steady decrease in unemployment figures over 28 months, there is a big focus North and South, and, indeed, in the rest of western Europe, to recognise that young people are disproportionately affected by the unacceptable unemployment levels.

So, yes, there are projects that both Governments are pursuing, through DEL and DETI at our end and the relevant Departments in the South, to ensure that we continue to bear down on the figures with some degree of success, but we have to accelerate that success over the coming period.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The deputy First Minister referred to extensive discussions on cross-border smuggling and fuel laundering. Given that, over the past number of years, I and others have endeavoured to get the deputy First Minister to own up to having known people or to personal involvement that he would have had in terror-related activities in the distant past, is he now prepared to own up to knowing any former colleagues, whom he is bound to know of, who would be involved in fuel smuggling and laundering in border areas? His denials are quite implausible.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not think that that is a question that featured in the course of the North/South Ministerial Council meeting.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the deputy First Minister elaborate on the reference to the EU's interest and involvement in the fuel smuggling issue? What exactly does that amount to, and are infraction proceedings a possibility on foot of that? Given the inextricable links between fuel smuggling and the republican movement, does the deputy First Minister know any fuel smugglers, and has he identified any to the authorities?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No, I do not personally know any fuel smugglers. In my earlier answer, I described any people involved in fuel smuggling or fuel laundering as criminals. That is what I regard them as. I believe that people who are involved in that type of activity need to be arrested and brought before the courts. I give my wholehearted support to the authorities North and South in that endeavour. As I said, I welcome very much the new marker that has gone into fuel, as it will make it very difficult for anybody to continue with fuel laundering. I very much welcome that over 100 illegal fuel laundering plants have been shut down.

At the end of the day, in my opinion, the authorities North and South are well aware of who the fuel launderers and smugglers are. It is not my job as the deputy First Minister to investigate that. It is certainly my job to support the authorities in apprehending those criminals.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I note that paragraph 9 mentions Horizon 2020. Can the deputy First Minister perhaps elaborate on the all-island steering group or how we might gain more from the Horizon 2020 programme? It has long been a bugbear of mine that we are drawing down only a fraction of the amount of research and development money in that context and that only three or four major players, like Queen's, the Ulster University and Shorts, were drawing down that money. To my mind and in my opinion, it is vitally important that we exploit that opportunity to ensure further economic development here.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I indicated, we had a discussion at the meeting on the opportunities that are presented by the Horizon 2020 funding programme. We are committed to increasing our success in Horizon 2020, and we have agreed a joint target of €175 million with the Irish Government for projects that have a cross-border element.

We recognise that this is a very competitive programme, but we see real opportunities for increased cooperation between companies and universities from both jurisdictions to drive greater success. Between January and September 2014, there were 12 successful cross-border proposals. The economic value of that cooperation is €14·9 million. The average award per partner for a cross-border project is €450,805, which is higher than that for a Northern project partner at €330,509 or a Southern project partner at €373,432. The current focus is on establishing, developing and extending cross-border partnerships to ensure that we achieve the target of €175 million. I share the Member's view that we need to continually examine how we can exploit those opportunities for our mutual benefit.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. He covered quite a number of topics. I note that both Health Ministers were there. Were any updates either sought or given on the recommendation that was made by the international working group on children's cardiac surgery? Are we still on track to being able to provide those surgeries in Dublin for Northern Ireland children, as recommended in that working group's report?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely understand the Member's interest in this issue. We all recognise the challenges that we face in ensuring that we provide first-class services for children who are affected by this medical condition. I understand that good progress is being made with implementing the international working group's recommendations. The Executive have allocated £1 million from their change fund towards the cost of establishing the all-island congenital heart disease network.

The network board has met twice since 1 April 2015. It has formed subgroups to plan and implement the phased transfer of surgery and cardiac catheterisation to Dublin from Belfast and to strengthen the cardiology hub in the network at Belfast children's hospital. However, we remain reliant on the majority of elective procedures being carried out by specialist heart centres in England until sufficient capacity has been developed in Dublin to accommodate our patients. Therefore, we look forward to the expansion of the service in Dublin. Once in place, like the new radiotherapy centre at Altnagelvin, it will be a further example of how close cooperation can deliver improvements to public services North and South.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you, deputy First Minister. That concludes questions on the statement.

Before we move to the next item of business, I would like to inform Members that as today's sitting is likely to be quite late, the Whips have agreed to a shorter lunchtime suspension. We will, by leave of the Assembly, be suspending at 12.30 pm until 1.30 pm.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry for intervening, but I was looking for a statement earlier on. Has it been published? Where is it? We know nothing about what is going to be said. Did anybody get it?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am informed that the statements were, in fact, lodged in time. I just cannot explain if you have not been able to access it at this point in time.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

So they are available, Mr Speaker?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Yes, they are indeed.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I can confirm that the statements are in the pigeonholes. Apologies if maybe they were late into the pigeonholes but, as you said, they were there on time.

With your permission, Cheann Comhairle, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the 1998 Act regarding the twenty-seventh meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in aquaculture and marine sectoral format, in Armagh on Wednesday 27 May. The Executive were represented by Minister Mervyn Storey and myself. The Irish Dublin Government were represented by Joe McHugh TD, Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. We received apologies from Minister Alex White, who was unable to attend. I chaired the meeting. Minister McHugh offered his best wishes to the First Minister and wished him a speedy recovery. This statement has been agreed with Minister Storey and I am making it on behalf of us both.

Ministers received a progress report on the work of the Loughs Agency from its chairperson, Winston Patterson, and its chief executive, John Pollock. We welcomed the report on the activities of the agency and noted its ongoing conservation and protection efforts and continued participation in the climate change adaptation initiative. We were pleased to learn that the Loughs Agency has successfully prosecuted across a range of offences, including illegal fishing, pollution and removal of gravel. Thankfully, enforcement staff have not faced any violent threats.

The Council was given an update on the survival of the native Lough Foyle flat oyster. The spring stock assessment has been completed. All oyster beds in Lough Foyle were surveyed. Initial findings suggest that the spat that settled last autumn has survived well, with very little evidence of mortality. We were pleased to note that there was no evidence of any unusual mortality in the adult oyster stocks last winter. We were also pleased to hear that the Loughs Agency has already engaged with local fishermen in the run-up to the opening of the fishery and that further communication with these stakeholders is planned. Tribute was paid to the chair, the chief executive and their team for making the decision to partially reopen the oyster beds at the end of last year.

We were provided with an update on the management agreement. The ongoing jurisdictional issue has been discussed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and an exchange of views has occurred. Further communication from the FCO is awaited. Minister McHugh undertook to raise the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Minister Storey and I offered our support in an attempt to expedite the outstanding issues.

In parallel with the ongoing discussions on the jurisdictional issue, the Loughs Agency continues to engage with other relevant agencies in developing an implementation plan that will address the operational issues. The Council noted the progress made in relation to the agency's financial statement for 2013 and its business plan for 2016.

The NSMC welcomed the successful completion of the €8 million EU INTERREG IVa-funded IBIS project. That was marked with a two-day event in Newry hosted by the agency and its project partners the University of Glasgow and Queen's University Belfast. Students presented their research findings, which covered a wide range of topics, such as aquaculture and fisheries management.

Ministers received a very informative presentation on the sustainable development fund. This small grants scheme provides support for small-scale capital investment, training and events. The Council acknowledged the significant contribution that the scheme has made in providing sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits to the communities of the Foyle and Carlingford areas. We were impressed with the detailed report that was given on the activities of the Loughs Agency in promoting and marketing the Foyle and Carlingford areas, including angling development initiatives, marine tourism, education and outreach events.

We paid tribute to the agency for its efforts and the partnerships that it has developed with funding partners and others to promote and develop the Foyle and Carlingford areas. We also noted its success in securing EU funding and its plans to avail itself of future funding initiatives.

The Council noted the Loughs Agency’s annual report and draft financial statements for 2014. It also noted that, following certification of the financial statements by the Comptrollers and Auditors General, they will be laid before the Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas. Ministers approved the continuation of the framework that is designed to support the Loughs Agency in dealing with emergencies, such as a serious pollution incident, for a further period of one year with effect from 20 July this year. Ministers agreed to review the operation of that procedure, including its possible renewal, based on a report from the Loughs Agency and the sponsor Departments, before 20 July next year.

The Council agreed to meet again in aquaculture and marine sectoral format in the autumn.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I refer the Minister to paragraph 11 of her statement and the management agreement between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Ireland. She will know that that agreement is required to enable the agency to carry out its job fully. Will she outline what progress has been made since the issue was last discussed in the Assembly during the ministerial statement in February 2015?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that that issue has been going on for a number of years and that we are obviously anxious to resolve it. Licensing is one of the functions of the Loughs Agency, and, to date, it has not been able to assume that function due to jurisdictional, legal and policy issues. We discussed that during our meetings, and, at the recent NSMC meeting, we had quite a lengthy exchange on the actions and on trying to put as much pressure as we can on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have had some communication with that Department, and Minister McHugh said that he will raise the issue with the relevant Minister in the Dáil. We need progress on that issue.

We will continue that conversation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Alongside that work and in parallel with the ongoing discussions on the jurisdictional issues, the Loughs Agency continues to engage with other relevant agencies to develop a management agreement. The outworkings of that will address the practical and operational issues that may arise.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her detailed presentation. Minister, the statement shows that the Loughs Agency has had successful prosecutions. Will you give us more detail on that?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I start by saying that we are pleased that the Loughs Agency staff have not faced any threats of violence or any incidents over the last number of years. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will agree that we want that situation to continue.

The Loughs Agency has been very successful with prosecutions. Currently, 19 outstanding cases that date back to 2014 are being pursued by the agency. Those cases can be broken down into the five categories of oyster, netting, angling, obstruction and pollution cases, and the agency is proactively pursuing all of them. As I said, I certainly want to put on record the fact that Loughs Agency staff have not faced any violent threats in recent times. We can all welcome that.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. I want to point out the two-day conference that was held in Newry. The Minister spoke about its success and the fact that it celebrated 70 years of scientific research that has been undertaken through the IBIS project. There have been successes with that €8 million EU-funded project, with objectives delivered and information generated, particularly on shellfish resources. Paragraph 20 of the statement notes the Loughs Agency success in securing EU funding and:

"its plans to avail of future funding initiatives."

Will the Minister give any details on whether further research, through a project similar to IBIS, will be available through that funding?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is certainly the plan. The IBIS project has been extremely successful, and it was right and proper that we celebrated those successes. The agency has been really successful in drawing down EU funding, and I expect that to continue into the future.

You will probably be aware of some of the other significant EU funding opportunities that it has availed itself of. Those include around €4 million for marine tourism and angling development and the €8 million that it received for the IBIS project. It is certainly looking to strengthen that work and to work in partnership, particularly with local councils, communities, businesses and stakeholders, on further opportunities and research opportunities. The agency will look at all the EU opportunities, but particularly at INTERREG funding, Peace funding, the rural development programmes and funding for marine affairs and fisheries — the EFF. There are plenty of opportunities. It is actively working up those plans, and I have no doubt that it will be as successful in future years as it has been in the last number of years.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement also. Looking to the future, what percentage of her Department's savings does she intend to realise from the Loughs Agency?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Loughs Agency, like every other agency, has been tasked with finding efficiencies and has done so very successfully. Just recently it has been working towards its 2015-16 budget, which will be finalised in the coming period. I do not have the actual figure as a percentage of the budget, but I will be happy to provide that to the Member. Like every other agency of the Department, the Loughs Agency has been asked to find where it can be more efficient and do things better.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement, late though it may have been. She said that:

"Ministers received an informative presentation on the sustainable development fund."

Is this fund widespread or is it simply for the Foyle and Carlingford areas? What is the value of the small grant?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is particularly for the Lough Foyle and Carlingford areas so that projects can be developed to work in partnership with communities and business. The sustainable development fund grant goes up to £7,500. Some of the projects featured in the presentation that we received benefited from the fund. Those are fantastic projects, which are about enhancing activities on the lough, developing business opportunities for people on the lough and working with young people on the water, canoeing and so on. Quite a range of projects have benefited from the fund, but it is specifically for those areas.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement. She mentioned an implementation plan to address operational issues. Will she elaborate on the other relevant agencies that are involved and the timescale for the completion of that implementation plan?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said in my answer to the Committee Chairperson, we are working our way through the jurisdictional issue and the problem that we have of the Loughs Agency assuming its full role, which it should be playing. Alongside that, while we are trying to get that issue resolved — it has been ongoing for quite a number of years — we are working in parallel with all our partners on the ongoing operational and practical issues on the ground. We are working with fishermen, angling organisations, councils and a range of partners that the Loughs Agency engages with regularly.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister share my view and, indeed, the view of many that the Loughs Agency can and does play an important role in maximising the value of natural assets for angling development, education and wider community benefit?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I absolutely concur. The agency continues to provide support to a range of community and business projects, not just through the sustainable development fund but in its everyday work. The Member will be aware of a quite significant body of work that the Loughs Agency got involved with in his constituency at Lough Macrory, where we had the water recreation activities and where the angling club launched its world championships, I think, in 2013. That clearly shows the Loughs Agency's track record in wanting to engage with local communities. The agency is very keen to do a lot more of that and, through the sustainable development fund, to engage in practical working on the ground with young people to educate them about fishing activities and the potential of the water courses. I am quite sure that that work will continue into the future.

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

I hope that the Minister will not claim that I am pushing the boat out too far. She will be aware that there is a ferry service across the Foyle that has carried over two million passengers since its inception and gets not one brass penny of public money from the Republic or from this Assembly. Will she use her ingenuity at a future meeting to find out why one ferry service here gets no funding while the other two get something like £10 million? Perhaps she will remind Mr McHugh that he is part of the solution.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am happy to take up any issue that a Member raises. It is not something that we have discussed in the NSMC in the past, but I am happy to take a look at it to see whether there is potential for the Loughs Agency in that regard. One of its key objectives — it is key to what it is all about — is to develop the Foyle and everything to do with the Foyle. I will be very happy to explore that further.

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

Thanks to the Minister for her statement. I apologise for missing the start of it. Minister, a couple of months ago in Clare, an oyster fisherman tragically lost his life when the tides came in on him. As you know, good communication between land and sea is vital, but, with competing phone signals in the likes of Lough Foyle and Carlingford lough, the mobile phone is not an answer. Is there any opportunity in the small grants programmes to provide grant aid for a responder device for our oyster fishermen?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not believe that it is within the remit of the sustainable development fund, but I am happy to explore it further. Obviously, the safety of fishermen on the lough is something that Loughs Agency concerns itself with. I know that it has partnered with organisations such as Seafish around life jackets and different safety equipment.

I have not been privy to any kind of conversation about responder devices in the past, but I am very happy to explore that because, as I said, Loughs Agency really wants to work with all the stakeholders, particularly the anglers and fishermen who use the lough. If there is scope and potential for Loughs Agency to be involved in that, perhaps in partnership with the likes of Seafish, I am sure that it would be very happy to explore that.

Executive Committee Business

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to introduce the Water and Sewerage Services Bill [NIA Bill 51/11-16], which is a Bill to amend, and to confer power to amend, the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to introduce the Health and Social Care (Control of Data Processing) Bill [NIA Bill 52/11-16], which is a Bill to make provision about control of data processing in relation to health and social care.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Mental Capacity Bill [NIA 49/11-16] be agreed.

In recent weeks, I have been setting out my vision for the future of health and social care in Northern Ireland. That vision involves, and, indeed, demands, reform, transformation and innovation across the sector. The Mental Capacity Bill delivers on all three of those. Developed jointly by my Department and the Department of Justice, the Bill is a first example of how, when we work together, we can overcome challenges and do things that will bring about real change for the better. I pay particular tribute to Minister Ford and his Department for all the hard work and dedication they have contributed in bringing the Bill before the Assembly today.

As far as I am aware, the Bill adopts an approach that has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. It has been a hugely complex and challenging process. As many Members will know, the Bill has been a long time in development. The reasons for that are clear and will, I think, emerge from our debate today.

The Bill provides a framework that will govern some of the most serious decisions that professionals in the health and social care sector and others make on a daily basis; decisions such as whether it would be best for someone to have a major operation that they are unable to consent to, or whether to place restrictions around a person's care or treatment to the extent that the person is, in fact, being deprived of his or her liberty.

As the scrutiny process begins, the Assembly can have confidence that the Bill has had the benefit of extensive stakeholder engagement and input, initially by those involved in the Bamford review, and, in more recent years, by the various stakeholder groups that met on many occasions to consider papers and proposals from both Departments. I thank everyone on those groups for their contribution to the development of the Bill and those who took the time to respond to the various consultation exercises and attend the many events held throughout Northern Ireland last year after the draft Bill was published for consultation. Many of the innovations in the Bill began with our extensive, transparent and responsive approach to consultation. The Bill, as introduced, is all the better because of that engagement.

The Mental Capacity Bill seeks to create a single piece of law that puts people's rights first when decisions, big and small, need to be made about their lives.

Respect for the choices and decisions that we make about our own life is something that many of us take for granted. However, for some, it is far from the reality of their day-to-day life. The Bill seeks to change that. The principles in Part 1 on the key concepts of capacity and best interests are the starting point. Significantly, these principles take account of developments since the Bamford review, such as the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They include a requirement up front for people to be given every practicable help and support to make decisions for themselves. This is because by far the best outcome when it comes to making decisions about our own healthcare, treatment or even our money is for each one of us to make those decisions for ourselves.

The Bill recognises that decisions based on informed consent are not always possible, so there is a need to provide for situations when judgements need to be made about what would be best for someone. However, crucially, this can occur only when it is properly established that a person lacks capacity to make a particular decision by themselves. In other words, the onus is on the person intervening to prove a lack of capacity, not the person themselves.

Under the Bill, assumptions cannot be made about someone's capacity on the basis of any condition "or any other characteristic" that they might have. It is expressly stated in clause 1 that whether a person has capacity to make a decision can be determined only by reference to clause 4 and his or her inability to make that decision because of an impairment or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain. This could be caused by any number of things, temporary or permanent, but the key point is that it does not matter what causes the impairment or disturbance. It is the inability to make a decision because of it that matters.

Part 1 also contains the principle that anything done for a person who lacks capacity to make a particular decision must be done in his or her best interests. Clause 7 sets out the list of factors that must all be balanced in order to comply with this principle. I do not intend to go through them all today, but I want to highlight to Members that it specifically requires "special regard" to be given to what the person's "wishes and feelings" might be. This was one of the key changes made to the draft Bill following the consultation.

Part 2 is the core of the Bill. It gives doctors, nurses, social workers, carers and others legal cover for things that they do every day in relation to people's care, treatment or personal welfare. These are things that would require people's consent if they had capacity, such as dressing them, taking them for a dental appointment or giving them an anaesthetic or injection of some kind?. This legal cover is not new. It already exists in common law, but it has been found wanting by the courts when relied on in the past to do some of the more serious things in a person's life: for example, things involving placing significant restrictions on a person's movements to the extent that a person is being deprived of their liberty. Part 2, therefore, requires additional safeguards to be put in place in relation to serious interventions in someone's life. They include requiring a formal assessment of capacity to be carried out or a second opinion to be obtained; consulting with someone’s nominated person or an independent advocate; and getting very serious interventions authorised by the relevant health and social care trust.

Finally, Part 2 also provides a right to seek a review by a tribunal of any authorisation. Safeguards such as nominated persons, for example, do not exist under the current legal framework, nor do the safeguards in Part 8 that deal specifically with research involving a person who lacks capacity to consent to it. They therefore represent a major change in the law — a significant change for the better that many of our people will stand to benefit from if the Bill is made law.

This brings me to perhaps the most ambitious change that the Bill will bring about. The new legal framework in the Bill will apply to all adults. Importantly, this includes those whose choices about their care and treatment can currently be overridden by professionals acting under the powers in the Mental Health Order. Other jurisdictions have retained their separate mental health legislation when legislating for adults who are unable to make decisions for themselves. This Bill takes a very different approach for two key reasons: first, it avoids the confusion that having two sets of rules inevitably brings; secondly, and vitally, it will help to reduce the stigma felt by those who have, for many years now, been treated differently because they suffer from mental disorder. This fused approach is what the Bamford review strongly advocated and what stakeholders have repeatedly told us is the right way forward. It is that which makes the Bill unique and innovative. Other jurisdictions will watch the Assembly with interest as the Bill progresses through its legislative stages.

However, it is not just people in the health and social care sector who will need to be aware of the Bill. There are also significant safeguards contained in Parts 5 and 6 to do with making decisions about money that are relevant to banks, building societies, post offices and the legal profession. The new lasting powers of attorney system provided for in Part 5 will allow anyone over 18, if they have capacity, to appoint someone they trust to make decisions about their finances. That new system will replace the existing enduring powers of attorney system and will be extended to decisions about health and welfare matters. Under Part 6, the High Court will also have powers to take one-off decisions or, where there is a need, to appoint a deputy to make ongoing decisions.

That leads me to Part 7, which also involves the justice system. Part 7 requires the Department of Justice to appoint a public guardian. That officer will have a number of functions, including establishing and maintaining a register of attorneys and deputies and supervising the activities of deputies.

Parts 9 and 10 also deal with matters falling to the Department of Justice. Part 9 creates powers for police constables to remove a person from a public place and take him or her to a place of safety. Those powers will replace the current powers in the Mental Health Order and will apply if the person appears to be in need of immediate care or control. Once in a place of safety, the police can detain the person there.

The police will also have powers, under Part 9, to transfer people between places of safety. Certain conditions will apply before those powers can be exercised. The police constable must reasonably believe that the person lacks capacity to make the decision around their removal or, as the case may be, their transfer or detention. They must also reasonably believe that the removal, transfer or detention is in the person's best interests. Those conditions are new. The current powers also allow a person to be detained in a place of safety for up to 48 hours. The new powers reduce that to 24 hours. Finally, provision is also made to ensure that further protections, based on those in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, are afforded to any person detained in a place of safety under the powers in Part 9.

Part 10 replaces the current court powers in the Mental Health Order around remand and sentencing, including in "unfit to plead" cases. Unlike the current powers, the new powers take into account, where appropriate, a person's capacity to make decisions about their medical treatment. That reflects the recommendations made in the Bamford review.

The current hospital orders in the Mental Health Order will be replaced by new public protection orders, which can be made with or without restrictions. The purpose of the public protection order is to provide flexibility to the court in cases where a person has been convicted of a crime but is not considered culpable enough to be sent to prison, but if not detained in an appropriate place, would pose a risk of serious physical harm to other people. That risk, however, must be linked to the person having an impairment or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain.

Part 10 also creates a new court disposal on conviction, which is known as a hospital direction. A hospital direction can be made by the court if it is considered that a custodial sentence is appropriate but the person requires medical treatment. In those circumstances, the court can direct that the person be taken to hospital and be detained there. If the person recovers sufficiently to no longer require hospitalisation, he or she must be returned to custody to serve the rest of the sentence also imposed by the court.

Part 10 also makes provision for the conveyance to hospital of individuals who are detained in prison, the young offenders' centre and the juvenile justice centre. Like the new court powers, the new transfer powers take account of a person's capacity to make decisions about their medical treatment, where it is appropriate to do so. Any person subject to detention under the powers in Part 10 has the right to seek a review of that detention by the review tribunal that I referred to earlier.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to cover briefly the remaining parts, Parts 11 to 15. Part 11 carries forward the current facility to transfer patients who are detained in hospital between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Part 12 makes amendments to the Mental Health Order for persons aged 16 and under. Those amendments add to the safeguards that already exist for children in that order and in other legislation, such as the Children Order.

Part 13 creates new offences, such as the offence of ill-treatment or neglect of persons who lack capacity. Parts 14 and 15 contain miscellaneous and supplementary provision. For example, Part 14 gives effect in Northern Ireland to the Convention on the International Protection of Adults. It also makes clear that there are some decisions that are just too personal to fall within the scope of the Bill, such as consenting to marriage.

It will, I hope, be abundantly clear to Members at this point that the Bill, all 295 clauses and 11 schedules, is one of the largest ever to come before the Assembly. It may also be the most far-reaching in scope and potential impact, but the Bill itself is only one part of the jigsaw. The accompanying code of practice will be a key document. Work has already begun on that, and on the training and awareness-raising programme needed to make the changes happen on the ground.

I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that the Bill presents. In particular, I am acutely aware of the exceptionally difficult financial situation that we face. However, those challenges should not deter or deflect us from the crucial task of reforming our health and social care system. Indeed, the need to reform and modernise is more vital now than ever before. We should also not lose sight of the fact that, with this Bill, we are leading the way on a global stage, with what is widely recognised as being one of the most forward-thinking pieces of social legislation to be brought before any legislature.

I conclude by commending the Assembly for the early establishment of the Ad Hoc Joint Health and Justice Committee, which has already met to hear directly from officials about the Bill's detail. The Committee has my and Minister Ford's full support and cooperation, and that of our Departments, as it takes on the important and difficult job of scrutinising the Bill. I look forward to hearing what the Committee and Members have to say.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

As the House is aware and the Minister has just said, the Ad Hoc Committee, comprising members of the Justice Committee and the Health Committee, has been established by the Assembly to consider the Mental Capacity Bill. The Committee has met on five occasions so far, and we began our work by taking introductory briefings from both Departments on the various aspects of the Bill.

As many Members will be aware, the background to the Bill is primarily the Bamford review, which, in 2007, concluded that there should be a single legislative framework to reform the existing mental health legislation and introduce capacity legislation to Northern Ireland for the first time.

Mental health law is broadly concerned with the reduction of the risks flowing from mental disorder to the patient and other people, while mental capacity law is designed to empower people to make decisions for themselves wherever possible and to protect people who lack capacity.

The key purpose of developing a single legislative framework to cover both mental ill health and mental capacity is to attempt to reduce the stigma and inequalities that sometimes flow from having specific mental health legislation. However, the production of such legislation is in no way a straightforward task, and, as the Minister acknowledged, Northern Ireland is the only place in the world to attempt such an approach. For example, while England brought in the Mental Capacity Act in 2005, it does not cover the treatment of mental illness. England has maintained two distinct legislative frameworks. The closest that anywhere in the world has come to contemplating the approach that we are moving ahead with is in Victoria in Australia. Its legislature considered the issue of bringing together mental health law and mental capacity law in 2012 and produced a report on the issues. However, it decided not to proceed further and concluded that it was a matter for ongoing debate. The difficulty that it encountered was in coming to a position on whether having separate mental health legislation amounts to unjustifiable discrimination against people with a mental illness or whether it in fact constitutes a special measure for the benefit of people with a mental illness.

Therefore, it is important to note up front the complexity of the task that we are facing in fusing mental health and mental capacity legislation, given that it will bring about a fundamental change to the way in which people with a mental illness receive treatment. Indeed, it strikes me that the decision, made by the Health and Justice Ministers, to be the first in the world to try that approach might be described by Sir Humphrey Appleby as a "very courageous decision, Minister".

Given the complexities of the issues, and the fact that there is nowhere else in the world where this type of legislation has already been introduced that we can look to as a model, there are genuine concerns around the timescales associated with the Bill. It has been introduced in the Assembly for scrutiny during the fifth year of what was originally to have been a four-year mandate. Since the start of this mandate, the timescales have continually slipped back. At one stage, the Health and Justice Committees were informed by their Departments that the Bill would be introduced no later than December 2013. We are now 18 months past that date. I therefore think that it is a legitimate question whether the introduction of the Bill in this mandate was the preferred option for both Departments and whether it will result in the best outcomes for the legislative process.

However, as is often said in these parts, we are where we are, and the Bill has been introduced nine months before the end of the mandate. The Committee will need to report on it by the end of January at the very latest to allow the completion of the other legislative stages before dissolution. When we take out the recess periods, that allows only about four months for scrutiny of a Bill with, as the Minister said, 295 clauses and 11 schedules to it and that aims to create a legislative framework that is so complex and so controversial that the rest of the world has decided against doing it.

While the Committee fully understands and accepts its scrutiny responsibilities, it is concerned about the short space of time it has been left with to complete its task. There are also concerns about the level of consultation that has taken place on some aspects of the Bill prior to its introduction to the Assembly.

In May 2014, the Health and Justice Departments launched a public consultation providing draft clauses in relation to how the Bill will relate to civil society. Stakeholders therefore had the opportunity to make comments about specific clauses relating to things such as the principles of the Bill, protection from liability, safeguards, the role of independent advocates, lasting powers of attorney and so on. However, on the justice side, draft clauses were not provided as part of the public consultation. Instead, the Department of Justice provided its proposed policy approach for those subject to the criminal justice system, covering the following three key areas: first, police powers to remove persons from a public place to a place of safety; secondly, court powers to impose healthcare disposals at remand and sentencing, or following a finding of unfitness to plead; and thirdly, the powers by which the Department of Justice can transfer prisoners for inpatient treatment in a hospital.

The Departments' analysis of the responses to the public consultation on those issues indicated a range of views, some supportive and some expressing reservations or opposition to particular proposals. However, given that the first time stakeholders will have seen the detail of the clauses proposed to deal with the three key issues was last week, when the Bill was introduced, it could be anticipated that those will generate a lot of discussion and debate when we reach Committee Stage of the Bill.

There also appears to be an over-reliance on regulations and code of practice in the Bill. Those have not yet been consulted on and will be introduced through regulation, without the same level of scrutiny by the Committee or the Assembly and, of course, without the ability for the Committee or Assembly to amend. Given that other Bills have faced similar criticism of late, this is something that both Ministers may wish to consider. The lack of detail, coupled with the fact that stakeholders have not had much time to examine the current draft Bill will, in turn, add to the task of the Committee in trying to come to a position on issues that really, to date, have been consulted on only in a very broad sense and at a very late stage in the day.

If we look beyond the detail of the Bill itself, there are major question marks around how and when this piece of legislation will be implemented. The Departments have estimated that between £75 million and £129 million is required in year 1, and between £68 million and £102 million for recurrent costs on an annual basis. I will repeat that: the outworkings of the Bill could cost the Executive an additional £100 million each and every year. While the Committee will, of course, wish to challenge the robustness of those costings and whether they are accurate figures, it needs to be concerned at the order of magnitude we are talking about and whether that is where the Executive's priorities — and indeed where the Justice and Health priorities — will be in the next number of years.

Even the lower estimate of annual costs, at around £70 million, represents a significant pressure on the budgets of both Departments, which seems unattainable at this juncture. Given the current financial climate, and the likely financial climate in the next four to five years, the question genuinely arises as to whether Northern Ireland will be able to afford the implementation of this piece of legislation. If we cannot afford it, what happens? Will we end up rushing through a piece of legislation that could end up not being commenced until a number of years down the line, if at all?

I now want to address some of the key aspects of the Bill itself, beginning with the principles upon which it is based. The Bamford review recommended that any new legislation should be based on agreed principles, which should be explicitly stated on the face of the Bill. There were four principles outlined by Bamford; namely autonomy, justice, benefit and least harm. The Departments’ approach has been to take autonomy as the leading principle, in that the fundamental premise of the Bill is the presumption that all adults have capacity to make their own decisions unless the contrary is proven. However, in instances where it is determined that a person does not have the capacity to make their own decision about a matter, the principle of best interests governs the course of action that is decided on, on behalf of the person who lacks capacity.

The principles of the Bill are not without controversy, particularly around the concept of "best interests", which some stakeholders believe conveys an unhelpful sense of paternalism. Other stakeholders have referenced the emerging impact of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was ratified by the United Kingdom in 2009. They have suggested that the focus on substituted decision-making and best interests in the Bill has the potential to impose discrimination against people with disabilities and advocate a move towards a legal capacity support model.

Therefore, right from the very start of the Bill, from Part 1, we, as a Committee, will consider a whole spectrum of views, ranging from those who wholeheartedly endorse the principles to those who have some reservations and those who oppose them outright.

There are also concerns coming forward from the legal community around the practical outworkings of the Bill in terms of things such as lasting powers of attorney, which will replace the enduring powers of attorney provisions. Organisations such as the Law Society, which held a very useful briefing in Parliament Buildings last Wednesday which I attended, have pointed out that the making of a lasting power of attorney could cost a person in the region of £500, compared to the £100 that it currently costs to make an enduring power of attorney. If the ability to make an enduring power of attorney is done away with as is proposed under the Bill, the fear is that people will be put off making a more expensive lasting power of attorney because of the cost.

The Law Society posed this question: why can we not offer people the choice of whether they wish to have an enduring power of attorney, which could be extended to health and well-being, or a lasting power of attorney, which is a more expensive model? Those types of practical outworkings of the Bill and how they will impact on the public will require the Committee's careful consideration, as will the higher-level concepts around the principles of the Bill.

I will turn to children and young people. There are a range of concerns about how the Bill will impact on children under 16 and on young people aged 16 and 17. A range of organisations have questioned the fact that the majority of the provisions in the Bill will only apply to those aged 16 or over in terms of presumed capacity. Some people have suggested that a lower age could be used, although I think that it is fair to say there is no consensus on what that age would be. Some organisations that advocate a lower age have not made any specific proposals. Others have come at the issue more in terms of the practical impact of under-16s who have mental health problems not being able to access certain safeguards that the Bill will provide for adults who lack capacity to make certain decisions.

The Department of Health has attempted to address some of those concerns by proposing a range of amendments to the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which will still apply to under-16s. While some of the concerns may have been addressed, there is little doubt that this will continue to be a contentious issue as we move forward, and the Committee will look closely at the provisions in the Bill and how they impact on children and young people.

To conclude, the Committee does not underestimate the task that it has in front of it in the coming months. We take seriously our responsibility to scrutinise what is the probably the most complex piece of legislation ever to come in front of the Assembly. Equally, we expect both Departments to work with us and to provide us with all the information that we require in order for us to produce our report on the Bill for the Assembly. Most of all, the whole House wants to hear whether there is a genuine possibility of getting the Bill into law, given the huge financial pressures that we are under at present and the estimated cost of enacting the legislation.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Bhille seo. I welcome the introduction of the Bill.

The Ad Hoc Committee has recently begun the task of scrutinising the Mental Capacity Bill, which has arisen out of the Bamford review of 2007, the main recommendation of which called for a single comprehensive legislative framework for the reform of mental health legislation and for the introduction of capacity legislation in the North. The report concluded that that would help reduce the stigma attached to mental health being dealt with in separate legislation. It would also allow for improving the protections for people who lack capacity and find themselves in a situation where they cannot make their own decisions in regard to their health and/or personal circumstances. It would also give protection to those who are within the criminal justice system.

Bheadh cosaint ann fosta do na daoine úd atá sa chóras choiriúil. It will seek to improve the current legal framework, which does not have stand-alone mental capacity legislation. Mental capacity issues come under common law here in the North, which provides for an acceptance generally that anyone aged 16 or over has capacity. A test of incapacity and protection against liability when required to make an intervention in another person's life as long as it is reasonable to assume that the person lacks capacity and that the action to be taken will be in the person's best interests.

Is soiléir, fiú ag an phointe luath seo, an saghas na castachtaí a thiocfaidh chun cinn maidir leis an Bhille seo. Even at the early outset, the sorts of complexities that will arise out of the Bill are clear. How, for example, do you determine what is reasonable? How do you define that? That is one of the challenges that will arise. What dictates how you come to a decision on another person's best interests? The Bill will throw up various legal questions that will, no doubt, be very interesting to explore. However, they place a very onerous task on those carrying out the scrutiny as these minutiae are all connected to a person, and these decisions will have implications for the health, treatment or personal affairs of that person. We, as a Committee, have an obligation to ensure that we consider all the foreseeable eventualities that could come from this.

The Mental Health Order 1986 currently governs decisions relating to mental health issues, and it gives statutory powers to remove and detain people in certain circumstances where assessment and treatment of a mental health disorder is required, whether or not a person has capacity. It is now recognised that this runs contrary to the right to personal autonomy, and so it is clear that reform of the legislation is a positive move forward. The Bill spells out an approach that will join mental capacity and mental health law in one piece of legislation — something that has never been attempted before in any jurisdiction and has been described as groundbreaking. Initially, the Department thought about dealing with this via separate legislation, but it became clear from the consultation responses that the desire was overwhelmingly in support of having one comprehensive framework, as envisaged by Bamford.

This is complex legislation, as we have all said. Throughout Committee Stage, there will be an opportunity for close scrutiny of the clauses to ensure that it fulfils the needs for which it is being created. Even at an early stage, some issues are coming to light. Cause 1, for example, states that whether a person is able to make a decision is not:

"determined merely on the basis of any condition"

that they may have. The Committee is exploring the use and implications of the word "merely" in that context: for example, does that word appear in the 2005 Act in England? An bhfuil an focal sin in Acht 2005 i Sasana, mar shampla? Likewise, clause 4 states that a person can be judged as "unable to make a decision" if they cannot "use and weigh" information as part of the process of making the decision. The Committee's task here is to examine how, in practical terms, one person would be able to judge whether another person had used and weighed the information before coming to their final decision on any matter.

Clause 7 refers to a person's "rights and freedom of action". How is the term "rights" being used here? Does it refer to a person's rights in reference to any particular existing legislation? If not, how will it be interpreted legally? Those are the questions that the Committee will seek clarity on as it moves through Committee Stage.

In a general sense, the Bill will facilitate people making plans for their future in case a time should arise when they no longer have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. That would include decisions relating to healthcare and treatment, property and finance. Currently, people can avail themselves of making such arrangements through an enduring power of attorney (EPA), which allows for the appointment of a person chosen by an individual to make decisions relating to property and affairs — an arrangement that would continue in the event of loss of mental capacity. The new legislation will seek to replace the existing EPA with lasting powers of attorney (LPA). The main difference is that an EPA covers property and financial affairs, whereas the LPA will be more wide-ranging so as to include matters relating to health treatment and care.

In the event of the new legislation taking effect, an EPA will no longer be available, although people who have an existing EPA arrangement can continue with that. It has also been flagged at this stage that the LPA will be more costly and complex than an EPA, so that will be taken into account as well in the consideration.

Last week, we had a very interesting presentation from the Law Society, which explained these arrangements by providing human examples of what that can mean. It was shown how life can become extremely complicated when certain circumstances arise, as in the case of a sudden debilitating illness or a serious accident that could result in a person no longer having the capacity to make decisions and where there are no legal provisions in place to cover that. In a very accessible way, the examples flagged the need for all of us to consider our own arrangements and how we would like our wishes to be fulfilled in such circumstances.

Those are the pertinent questions and matters to which we should be giving serious consideration at a time when we are capable of making such decisions. We should think about people who may be lying in a vegetative state or in a coma and are now unable to communicate, let alone convey their deepest wishes. Those are the circumstances that we need to prepare for in advance. It is very similar to a situation where someone might die without leaving a will and the complications that can arise from that.

In some circumstances, there can be the risk of fraud as well. There can also be cases where someone who may not have been the person's choice may be able to step in and apply for power of attorney. So, again, it is about people putting in place arrangements that will lay out how they want their wishes to be carried out. As I said, those are very weighty decisions, and they are always made simpler when the correct legalities have been put in place. Where no prior arrangement is in place, such matters will fall to the courts to decide on property and financial matters.

Where a person's care, treatment or personal welfare are concerned, where no such arrangement is in place, the Bill seeks to place the common law doctrine of necessity on to a statutory footing and, further to that, to provide new safeguards to allow for different types of interventions.

There have also been concerns raised about another aspect of the Bill, which is that children under the age of 16 will be excluded from its scope. The worrying aspect of that is that the new safeguards and protections being created will not apply to children. It has been said that the Mental Health Order 1986 will be amended to cater for under-16s, pending a review of the Children Order 1995. That could take a very long time, and, meanwhile, children may be subject to less favourable regulations, including being formally detained.

Bamford also recognised that the Mental Health Order was not fully ECHR compliant. Is gnéithe dáiríre iad seo den Bhille ar chóir scrúdú grinn a dhéanamh orthu lena chinntiú go mbeidh na socruithe is fearr in áit do gach duine — do pháistí agus do dhaoine fásta araon. Those are very serious aspects of the Bill that must be fully scrutinised to ensure that the best possible arrangements are put in place for all people, children and adults alike.

As I said, the Ad Hoc Committee has a hugely complex piece of legislation to consider. It will reflect on all the relevant questions and on concepts such as safeguards; formal capacity assessments; nominated persons; deprivation of liberty; powers of attorney; appointment of deputies; public guardian; the power of the police to remove a person to a place of safety; and criminal justice issues, like remand to hospital and all the added complex issues that surround all those subjects.

I recognise the difficult work that we will face as a Committee, and I look forward to hearing the presentations and listening to all the expert opinions so that we can arrive at the best and most comprehensive legislation for the protection of people in the North. Molaim an Bille. I commend the Bill.

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

As SDLP health spokesperson and a member of the Health Committee, I support the general principles of the Bill. The wide scope of the Bill is to be welcomed. It will directly impact on everyday and more serious decision-making for many vulnerable groups, such as those linked to health, welfare and finance.

Just to give some statistics, in Northern Ireland, we have almost 20,000 people suffering with dementia, 1% of the population suffering from schizophrenia, some 13% suffering from depression and almost 214,000 carers here for people who may lack capacity. All those people and many others may need important decisions to be made on their behalf, or they may need to make decisions for other people. It is in that context that we see how important today's Bill will be for those with mental illness and their families and extended families.

For decades, Northern Ireland has lagged behind the rest of the UK in not having a fully tailored legislative framework for mental capacity. Instead, we have relied on the antiquated Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order, which wraps mental capacity around mental health disorder in the common law, relying on the outdated principle of necessity. The concerns of those with mental illness have historically been separated from the treatment of capacity in general. That remains the case in England, Wales and Scotland, which have proceeded with developing legislation that has been enacted for a number of years. We have been lagging behind due to the absence of an exhaustive framework. That has proved problematic in developing the quality of services that we want, and it has not helped to promote public confidence around a very sensitive issue.

It is important to take this opportunity to commend all those involved in bringing forward today's Bill. It has been an arduous task by any measure, and I am sure the scrutiny by the Committee — it has had five meetings — reflects that. We should praise all those stakeholders who have engaged with politicians and the consultation exercises and the Ad Hoc Committee deserves recognition, as I have said.

As we all know, the development of the Bill has been a long process, starting back in 2002 with the Bamford review, which was commissioned to examine the best possible way to provide services to people with mental health issues or a learning disability. It was finalised in 2007 and recommended a single piece of legislation that would provide a framework for reform of mental health legislation.

It is appropriate at this point to mention that the SDLP previously noted its concerns over the Bamford action plans and the appropriate funding being made available to implement them. To stress that point: they have not been successfully funded by successive Health Ministers, and there is a broad spectrum of individuals who do not receive the appropriate level of care or support that they need. It is important that the Assembly reflects on that today. However, it is positive, in the context of today's debate, to see some outcome from the Bamford action plans.

I welcome the general principles of the Bill, as I have said, and its aim of empowering vulnerable adults with impaired mental capacity to make as many of their own decisions as possible. I welcome the fact that adequate legislative measures and safeguards are in place to ensure the individual is protected when decisions have to be made on their behalf. As I have already reflected, it is also positive to see David Ford and the Health Minister embracing the Bamford report to this point and its recommendations by bringing forward the single piece of legislation.

With this Bill, we have an opportunity to be world leaders in setting the best standards achievable for vulnerable adults who may lack, even intermittently, the capacity to make important decisions for themselves. The Bill has been described as representing a paradigm shift in the approach to the care and treatment of individuals with mental disorders. No longer will they be treated or seen as a separate class of individual. Capacity will no longer be defined differently among people, which has to be recognised as a positive move.

Some of these issues have been addressed, but it is important to reinforce them. There are issues that need to be resolved in this Bill, even at the outset. As has been reflected, there needs to be clearer provision for people who are aged under 16. That group will not have rights under the Bill's provisions, and there needs to be clarity over what action will be taken to ensure that young people benefit from having effective safeguards and protection in place on issues relating to capacity. There are issues involving parental responsibility and its interaction with existing legislation. That will need to be clarified.

Also, we must ask whether the provisions of the Bill reflect the particular needs of certain groups in society. Considering the prevalence of dementia in our society, the scale of which I have outlined, and other age-related mental conditions, coupled with the fact that we have an ageing population, we must ensure that action is taken that protects and provides safeguarding and proofing for older people. In that regard, the Bill calls for suitable and adequate support to be given to individuals when all decisions relating to capacity are taken. I welcome that approach, but, in fleshing out the guidance, we have to ensure that there is a clear measure of support available, whether that is through minimum standards or otherwise. We need to ensure that when older people are making important decisions about their future, which often happens in urgent or time-critical situations, they are given the best opportunity to make their own choices.

At this stage, I will focus on the practicalities of the Bill. Last year, there were serious concerns highlighted by the House of Lords over the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales, which the Health Minister referred to. The review concluded that existing cultural and organisational practice amongst all professionals involved in the care of vulnerable adults must change, because they were failing to implement the ethos of the Act. This concern must also be reflected here today, and the issues of ageism and existing perceptions about learning disabilities must change. The process of implementing this legislation needs thorough consideration, as it requires a significant amount of education and training across levels of care, including health and social care staff; capacity assessors, as outlined in the Bill; and specialist professionals such as social workers, doctors, hospital staff and all those involved in the criminal justice system. I would like the respective Ministers to give an indication of what plans exist for facilitating such training and give assurances around funding.

There is an obvious need to ensure at the outset that the various bodies and individuals operating under the Bill are adequately funded and resourced. The Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee referred to finance and the extra cost, and I am sure that it would be beneficial to have some sort of an economic audit carried out on that because, while some people see everything as cost, could there be savings to be had as well? Budgets will be cut, and that has been reflected. We need assurances that the principles of this Bill will be deliverable once the scheme of practice is implemented.

To finish, the SDLP is supporting the general principles of this Bill. We believe that it is a step in the right direction in giving autonomy to and protecting some of the most vulnerable in society. However, as we have reflected, some improvements can be made, and we look to further analysis, if you like, by the Ad Hoc Committee and scrutiny of the Bill and the Consideration Stage next in this Chamber.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

As the Ulster Unionist Party's health spokesperson, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. However, as already has been mentioned, it is regrettable that it has taken so long for this Bill to come to the Floor, especially as it was proposed as long ago as 2009, following the Bamford review. This delay not only allowed the two Departments to prevaricate as to their own responsibilities, leading in turn to what I believe was an overdue consultation process, it meant that the Bill faces a challenging legislative timescale. As the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee has already said, the problem with passing it through the House at the latter end of the term is that it will inevitably get caught up in a raft of other Bills, especially after the summer recess. Whilst I think that the Ad Hoc Committee will be able to perform its role, it is regrettable that the Assembly more generally will have less opportunity to examine this important legislation than it would have had if the Bill had been introduced a year or even six months ago.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt about the significance of the Bill and what it proposes. As has already been said, the Bill develops a single legislative framework, in turn completely overhauling a raft of existing mental health legislation and practices. Some people looking in may be concerned that the Assembly, along with two of the largest Departments in the Executive, appears to be passing legislation that seeks to determine whether an individual does or does not have the capacity to make crucial decisions affecting them. There is no doubt that this is a very sensitive area, much like all legislation relating to mental health. However, I trust that the public, along with those professionals who ultimately will have to engage with this legislation, will be satisfied that there are sufficient provisions in place to ensure that people will be given the maximum support to exercise their own capacity.

The statutory assumption of capacity must always be to the fore of this Bill and its subsequent implementation. Up until now, whilst the support has been extensive, I do think that, in some circumstances, it will have been too all-encompassing. We all know from our own constituency work that people with poor mental health often cannot be defined or pigeonholed in a single category. Circumstances are often complex, emotional and ever-changing. The blanket protections currently in place have not always recognised this, so, again, I welcome the requirements to always assess the level of capacity.

There are a number of other provisions in the Bill that I and my party very much welcome. In particular, we welcome the proposed introduction of a new offence of ill-treatment or neglect of a person lacking capacity. As legislators, we should and must seek to protect the most vulnerable in society. We hear, all too often across the United Kingdom, horror stories of people with serious additional needs being abused, whether in care settings or in their own homes. Thankfully, such incidents are rare in Northern Ireland, but given the scale of poor mental health we face as a society, it is essential that we have robust protections in place.

It is important, too, that this Bill provides protections not only for those who lack capacity to make decisions but for those around them, including their loved ones and medical or legal practitioners.

Some of the issues in the Bill will, of course, be more challenging than others. For instance, the term, "effective advance decision", used in relation to refusals of medical treatment, will need to be handled with great care. I am aware that the Departments are of the opinion that it is better for courts to determine the rules with regard to advance decisions. However, my fear is that in the meantime this will only lead to a period of uncertainty while awaiting the outcome of the first test case, so I ask the Minister whether it is possible to elaborate, in the code of practice or elsewhere, on how his Department envisages the term will be applied.

Another aspect of the Bill that has already generated quite a bit of debate, especially among organisations engaging with the Ad Hoc Committee, is the proposed exclusion of under-16s. I know that this has been covered by most of the Members who have spoken today. At the moment, I can see why the Department has been keen to exempt young people. I face the same issue with my organ donation Bill, which I hope to introduce to the House very shortly. Whether we are talking about organ donation or legislating for capacity, complexity and sensitivity are always heightened when children are involved. Nevertheless, whilst the Department may have what it thinks to be a valid reason for exempting children from the Bill, I believe that an opportunity has been missed to strengthen the protections.

As has been said, the Mental Health Order 1986, rather than the new system in this Bill, will still apply to children, but the Department has also said that it intends to modify the Order. The proposed changes to the Order should have been brought forward at the same time as the Bill to allow for all the changes to be looked at holistically as well as, importantly, to provide reassurance to those concerned about the safeguards for children.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I too will end with the theme of implementation. The Bill proposes a major transformation of our mental health laws: not just reform for reform's sake. It is essential, therefore, that it is properly implemented both in terms of swiftness and resources. I am fully aware of the funding pressures that the Minister is grappling with; they are probably worse than he envisaged when he had the easier job of giving out the funding. However, the historical underfunding of, and underinvestment in, mental health services are still having a major impact on the wider population across Northern Ireland. Improvements have been made, especially from 2007, but given the scale of the problem, I suspect that it will be many more years before we get to the position we need to be in.

The Bill attempts to update a key element of our existing legislative framework. I have my concerns about certain aspects of the Bill, some of which I have mentioned, but for now I am satisfied that the Ad Hoc Committee and the Department will continue to ensure that the final legislation is informed, effective and best meets the needs of the people it ultimately applies to.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On behalf of the Alliance Party and as a member of the Health Committee and Ad Hoc Committee, I warmly welcome the Mental Capacity Bill. I am pleased — in fact delighted — that it has now reached its Second Stage in the Assembly and has been moved today by our Health Minister, Simon Hamilton.

The Bill is a key component of the implementation of the Bamford review on mental health and learning disability. Members will be aware of my special and particular interest in this vital legislation. It will provide a single statutory framework for decision-making and care for physical and mental health conditions. I also welcome the very strong and important collaboration between the Department of Health and the Department of Justice in bringing forward the legislation. It proves that Departments can and do work together.

The introduction of mental health-specific legislation first took place almost a century ago. Since then, people with a mental health difficulty or learning disability have been treated under the law in a fundamentally different way compared with all other health issues such as physical illness. That has been particularly so on issues to do with consent and the withholding of consent. Through the Mental Capacity Bill, Northern Ireland has the opportunity to introduce historic legislation that will be a world leader, and I am so proud to be part of that.

The Bill has brought into one piece of legislation the usual provisions of mental health law and mental capacity law. It is the first time that that fusion approach has been considered anywhere in the world. If and when these proposals find their way onto the statute book, they will replace the current Mental Health Order for those over the age of 16. It will bring an end to discriminatory detention and the overriding of people's refusal of treatment if they retain the capacity to refuse. Those decision-making rights will be on a par with the rights that individuals enjoy at present in common law regarding physical health treatment.

People in Northern Ireland, whether they have mental health difficulties or/and physical health problems, will now have equal rights to make decisions about their treatments. The new legislation will require that, if people have capacity, they can make their own decision about their treatment and that all possible support to make a decision will be provided. Northern Ireland will be the first region in the world to achieve such legislation, and it is hoped that other countries around the world will follow our lead. It is a good news story and shows that together we can produce legislation that can and will be a world leader.

There is a presumption that all persons aged 16 and over have the capacity to make decisions for themselves and, indeed, should be supported to do so. However, if a person lacks capacity and has not put in place alternative decision-making arrangements, important safeguards should be in place for that person before the state can intervene. Decisions can then be made regarding a person's health, welfare and financial issues.

The integrated approach is particularly welcome and significant. The Bamford review recommended that a single Bill should cover mental health and mental capacity issues, as other Members said. A single Bill will provide safeguards for all people who lack capacity at any point in their lives, whether from a physical condition or a mental health condition. That means that there will no longer be any discrimination for those who lose capacity for reasons of a mental health difficulty. That will be in place for all of us and our families so that, when one of us or one of our family members suffers from a lack of capacity at any time in our lives, there will be non-discriminatory legislation in place, no matter what the source is of our lack of capacity. Our approach in Northern Ireland, therefore, stands in contrast to the situation in England and Wales with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and in Scotland with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.

Notwithstanding the efforts and commitment of many people and organisations, stigma and discrimination for people with a mental health problem still persist, unfortunately, in our society. Discrimination against people with a mental health problem is entrenched in existing mental health legislation, with double standards on loss of liberty.

Those in the general population have the right to refuse treatment should they wish to do so, but mental health service users do not. The inherent stigma and discrimination in having separate mental health legislation is completely unacceptable. It is unequal. We need to and must provide equality for all.

We are also aware that there is much work to do on this. Society as a whole and government need to take clear responsibility for ending such discrimination. It is incumbent on us all, whether professionals or members of the public, to do everything in our power to eliminate such stigma and discrimination. This makes the introduction of this game-changing Bill all the more imperative. People with a mental health difficulty will no longer be under separate mental health legislation.

There is currently no capacity legislation in Northern Ireland. A golden opportunity has been grasped to ensure that this unique new capacity legislation will be for all in our society. We now have a single piece of legislation for people who have a physical health problem and lose capacity; people with a mental health problem who lose capacity; people with physical and mental health problems who lose capacity; people who are vulnerable; and all, including those in the criminal justice system, who lack capacity. No group in society is excluded from the capacity legislation. Northern Ireland will be the only place in the world where this happens. That is historic indeed.

The Bill is, therefore, for all of us. At any point, any one of us, whether in the Assembly or in the community, could find ourselves lacking the capacity to make decisions on our health, welfare or finances. The Bill provides protection for all of us, and, in particular, it will provide non-discriminatory protection when we are at our most vulnerable. At one stage, it seemed that we, too, in Northern Ireland would revert to having separate Bills, so I am pleased that we are adopting the more innovative and potentially transformative approach instead.

How did this all come about? The very important work involving very many people commenced at the start of the century with the vision of Professor David Bamford and his colleagues. In October 2002, the Health Department initiated a major wide-ranging and independent review of law, policy and provision affecting people with mental health needs or a learning disability in Northern Ireland, which, nowadays, is referred to as the Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability. I can well recall being at the launch of the Bamford report some time ago and feeling euphoria and excitement. We are now on the journey to implement what Professor Bamford and his colleagues called for. I pay tribute to the vision of Professor Bamford, who, sadly, passed away before his work was completed. His role as chair was taken over by his colleague Professor Roy McClelland OBE, professor of mental health at Queen's University, who, subsequently, chaired the board of experts appointed by the Minister to champion the Department's response to the Bamford proposals. He is also a member of the project board overseeing the development of the new mental capacity legislation. Arguably, no other legislation has come to the Assembly after so much preparation and engagement with experts, service users and other key stakeholders.

Equality lay at the heart of the Bamford review, and its vision was about valuing all who have mental health needs or a learning disability. That included rights to full citizenship, equality of opportunity and self-determination. The Health Department and the Department of Justice have responded to the challenge, and we welcome that. The Bill maintains a high degree of fidelity to the Bamford vision, including the fundamental rights to equality and dignity and in how the officials have conducted their work, particularly their accessibility, inclusivity and openness.

The Bill's ethos is to provide equality in all circumstances and for all aspects of a person's needs — financial, welfare and health, including mental health. The proposed legislation is also principle-based. Those principles are set out at the start and underpin the entire Bill, and the Minister mentioned them in his introduction. The first is that a person is assumed to have capacity unless it is established otherwise. That enshrines in statute what is referred to as the common law presumption of capacity. Nobody should be deemed to lack capacity unless all practical help and support has been given to an individual to make a decision for him- or herself without success. Making an unwise decision does not mean that a person lacks capacity. The second principle is establishing and acting in a person's best interests. The person intervening in someone's life must take into account the person's past and present wishes and feelings, his or her beliefs and values and any other factors likely to influence the person's decision if he or she had capacity. In addition, under the best interests principle, the person making the determination must, in relation to any act or decision that is being considered, have regard to whether the same purpose could be achieved in a way that was less restrictive of the person's rights and freedom of action.

While the legislation will be ground-breaking, we also have to recognise that, in the absence of the legislation, we are falling behind many other jurisdictions. There is a real imperative to ensure the progression of the Bill as quickly as possible and delivering its passage before the conclusion of this mandate. I have every confidence in us all being able to conclude and deliver this important legislation for the benefit of those in our community with mental heath problems and learning disabilities.

In implementing the Bill, education in the form of special training and raising public awareness will be essential. Training will need to be provided for health and social care staff, including specialist staff such as capacity assessors. It will be important for that requirement to be fully supported with the necessary resources and the views of the full range of stakeholders taken on board. That will ensure that the full benefit of the Bill can be achieved.

I commend the commitment of all involved in bringing the Bill to this stage. I look forward to progression to the next stage of this important Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately after the lunchtime suspension. I have received agreement from the Whips to reduce the lunchtime suspension to one hour. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly to suspend the sitting until 1.30 pm. The first item of business when we return will be the Second Stage of the Mental Capacity Bill. The next speaker will be Mr Alex Easton.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.33 pm.

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

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the Second Stage of the Mental Capacity Bill, which is being scrutinised by the joint Ad Hoc Committee made up of Health Committee and Justice Committee members. The Bill has 295 clauses and 13 Parts.

While mental capacity legislation has been introduced in other parts of the UK, mental capacity issues in relation to health and welfare interventions largely continue to be governed by the common law in Northern Ireland. That provides for a presumption of capacity in persons aged 16 and over, a test of incapacity and protection from liability when intervening in somebody's life, providing that it is reasonably believed that the person lacks the capacity to consent to the intervention and it is in his or her best interest. Those rules do not, however, apply to decisions governed by the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, under which there are clear statutory powers to remove and detain people for the assessment and treatment of mental disorders, provided that certain criteria are met, regardless of whether the person has capacity.

A number of factors have been driving the need for legislative changes in this area in Northern Ireland. We are out of step with other parts of the United Kingdom, and there is no mental capacity legislation in Northern Ireland. That was highlighted in the report 'A Comprehensive Legislative Framework', which was published in 2007. That was one of a series of reports that came out of the review commissioned by the Department of Health of the delivery of mental health and learning disability services across Northern Ireland. That review was known as the Bamford review.

The key recommendation in that 2007 report was:

"There should be a single comprehensive legislative framework for the reform of Mental Health legalisation and for the introduction of Capacity legislation in Northern Ireland."

The report concluded that that would help to reduce the stigma associated with having separate mental health legislation and would provide an opportunity to enhance protections for persons who lack capacity and are unable to make specific decisions about their health, welfare or finances, including those subject to the criminal justice system. The report also recommended that the new single legislative framework should be based on agreed principles that have regard to the dignity of the person and provide equality in all circumstances in which a person's autonomy might be compromised on health grounds.

The objective of extending a mental capacity approach to healthcare decisions to the criminal justice system is to comply with the recommendations of the Bamford review. The Bamford review recommended a legislative framework that integrated capacity and mental health legislation that was applicable to all in society, including those in the criminal justice system. With that framework in mind, the review made specific recommendations on the various interfaces between the health and criminal justice systems. The Department of Justice therefore chose to draft criminal justice provisions on the basis of those recommendations. That meant the creation of a capacity-based approach to care, treatment and personal welfare for those aged 16 or over who are subject to the criminal justice system. In addition, where possible, the Department of Justice aimed to build a legislative model that did not contain potentially stigmatising references to mental disorder. As part of that last comment, I ask the Minister why the Bill does not include those who are below the age of 16. Does that not complicate the Bill for the future?

Taking account of the interfaces between the mental health and criminal justice systems, the Department of Justice also sought to retain the existing statutory powers available within the system to transfer individuals to the health service for medical treatment. Those powers include police powers to remove persons from a public place to a place of safety; court powers to impose particular healthcare disposals on offenders at remand, sentencing or following a finding of unfitness to plead; and departmental powers to transfer prisoners for inpatient treatment in a hospital. While the Department of Justice wishes to retain those powers, it also sought to create provisions that respect the autonomy of individuals who retain the capacity to make decisions about their medical treatment, while providing safeguards and protections for persons who lack the capacity to make those decisions.

The Department of Justice also considered amendments to the civil law to take account of any introduction of capacity legislation. Those changes include the introduction of a new office of the public guardian, additional powers for the High Court and the restructuring of the mental health review tribunal. A joint public consultation on the draft civil provisions and policy proposals on the criminal justice aspects of the Bill was launched in May 2014. The consultation closed in September 2014, having received 121 formal responses. Five public events were held across Northern Ireland as well as approximately 40 additional meetings or events organised by key stakeholders.

Initially, the Department took the view that the Bamford review's legislation proposals could be delivered through separate mental health and mental capacity legislation but with an overarching set of human rights-based principles. That was largely in line with the approach already taken in many parts of the United Kingdom and, at that time, was considered to be the only realistic way of delivering legislative reform. However, the overwhelming view expressed in the responses to the consultation was that the Department should instead take the time to develop the single comprehensive frameworks envisaged by the Bamford review. Consequently, in September 2009, it was decided that the Department would bring together mental capacity and mental health law in a single Bill in a groundbreaking approach not attempted in any other jurisdiction.

In July 2012, the Department of Justice publicly consulted on the basis of the existing criminal justice provision in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and posed a series of questions to determine how the existing legislation could be revised to take account of a capacity-based approach. Following the consultation exercise, the Department of Justice developed a policy proposal on the basis of the responses received. The policy proposals were included in the joint consultation that was launched in May 2014. The criminal justice provisions in the Bill have been drafted in accordance with those proposals, taking into account the responses received in the joint public consultation.

I have a few areas of concern that I hope the Minister will clarify. The first is to do with the independence of the person who makes the decision to appoint an independent advocate and to ensure that they do not experience undue time and resource pressures. I also want to ask for clarification on the safeguards for those who experience mental health issues and come into contact with the PSNI. I want to know whether those who decide the need for the care, treatment or social welfare of such individuals, such as custody sergeants, will be trained for that purpose. Thirdly, I want to know where the money is coming from to implement the Bill. Finally, I ask the Minister to address the concern that I raised earlier about persons under the age of 16.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Bill and commend the Ministers for ensuring that it was brought before the House today. I do not intend to repeat much of what has already been said because that will not be of much benefit to us. However, we all know that the Bill flows from the Bamford review's recommendations. Much of the implementation of the Bamford review has now been carried out, which is to the good. This is a critical and essential part of the Bamford review, and, therefore, as a Government, we have accepted Bamford's recommendations. It is only right and proper that we fulfil those recommendations in completing this work. The Mental Capacity Bill will create greater opportunities for people who have mental capacity issues. It is critical that we show people respect and courtesy and enable them to have a greater say in their own life. That is a key component of the Bill.

One issue that caused me concern, which I raised in Committee yesterday, was the implementation costs. Let us make it clear at the outset that the Bill is about people, not processes. It is not about establishing new all-singing, all-dancing offices; it is about people. We must ensure that we serve the people well and that they get the appropriate and proper support and care. We may be able to do that without going overboard in spending public money and still ensure that we deliver the appropriate resource so that people have the correct opportunities.

I want to place on record something that I would like the two Ministers to address. Whatever we create, we must ensure that it does not become a Civil Service monstrosity that will cost huge amounts of money to implement.

Rather, it must be something that will make a real difference to the lives of people. That should be the main focus of the Mental Capacity Bill. It should make a transformational difference to people's lives; it should not be something that will have lots of staff and civil servants carrying out particular duties. Let us focus on the people who need the service.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this very important Second Stage debate on the Mental Capacity Bill. I do so as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee formed to consider the Bill and as a member of the Justice Committee.

The Bamford review of 2007 highlighted the need for change in this area. Mental capacity here is governed largely by common law, which involves an incapacity test and the application of a reasonableness principle. Collectively, that has been referred to as the common law doctrine of necessity. However, it is now clear that that alone is not enough. We have seen that Scotland, Wales and England have all moved to legislate for mental capacity. In that context, I am glad that we have reached the Second Stage of the Bill today, but it is clear that a number of areas require closer scrutiny and clarification before the Bill can become law. I intend to discuss a few of these today, namely the issue of children under the age of 16, issues around powers of attorney, possible jurisdictional considerations and the practicalities of implementing the legislation.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Justice have excluded under-16s from the Mental Capacity Bill. The rationale behind that decision is based around the fact that, due to their developmental stage, children under the age of 16 cannot be subjected to the same tests included in the Bill as adults. Instead, it has been suggested that the Mental Health Order 1986 be retained, possibly with an amendment of some sort, as an interim measure to cover mental capacity issues for those under the age of 16, until a new legislative solution can be found, possibly through an adjustment of the Children (NI) Order 1995.

The House must ask itself today whether that is an acceptable state of affairs and whether the Bill as presented is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with capacity issues for those under the age of 16. The Ad Hoc Committee has reflected on the matter. I look forward to hearing more evidence from stakeholders such as the Children's Law Centre and MindWise pointing to the fact that there are further considerations around the issue of under-16s when we look to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly article 2, which concerns non-discrimination; article 3 — the best interests of the child; article 6 — the right to survival and maximum development; article 12 — the right to be heard and have views taken into account; article 23 — the right of a disabled child to a full and decent life; and article 24 — the highest attainable standard of healthcare.

A reasonable argument may be made that the exclusion of those under the age of 16 from the Bill goes against the very ethos of the Bamford review. Instead of safeguarding children in a legislatively binding fashion, we are relying on a 20-year-old piece of legislation that we may have to refine to bring it up date in any case. At the same time, obviously a balance must be achieved, as there are delicate considerations when probing the issue of parental consent and, especially, the vulnerability of the child. In many cases, they are frail and vulnerable, and we are dealing with very sensitive mental health issues and the protection of individuals.

The Committee has touched on and has received briefings on the proposal in the Bill to remove enduring powers of attorney (EPA) and replace them with lasting powers of attorney (LPA). I have spoken to the Law Society of Northern Ireland around the potential merits and detriments of both. For example, the cost of making an LPA, based on figures in England and Wales, can be up to three times the amount of making an EPA: £500 plus VAT, with a further court fee of £110. However, some believe that the introduction of an LPA can provide further safeguards for individuals from fraud than an EPA can do.

The question for the House and the relevant Departments is whether both versions of powers of attorney need to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps a system can be incorporated where choice is available to an individual and either EPA or LPA can be used to best suit the needs of the particular case. I remain to be persuaded one way or the other as to what options may be operable.

One further consideration that I brought to the attention of the Committee and other stakeholders is based around the law as applied or as it may apply. At the Ad Hoc Committee on Monday — and I see some of the officials here — I raised the issue of how the law on mental capacity may apply and be interpreted in different jurisdictions. It is my understanding, subject to further clarification, that the Bill proposed here may differ slightly to the Mental Capacity Act in England. What considerations have the responsible Departments and others given to the regulations around capacity if a person moves between jurisdictions? The assets may continue to be in different jurisdictions, and how the mental capacity legislation is applied, or otherwise, to access those assets can lead to difficult situations, as quite often others can emerge from the woodwork. Will it negate any prior arrangements that have been made here if, for example, the person moves to another jurisdiction? I look forward to some clarification around that because it is clearly an issue that has to be worked through in the best interests of the individual who may be determined as being incapacitated at that time.

Whilst we are dealing primarily with the principles of the Bill today, we must keep one eye on how each of these principles will be delivered in practice. Compulsory detention, for example, is often essentially a "must do" under very extenuating, difficult and fraught circumstances. Quite often, due to convenience, a person may be detained under the 1986 Order and subsequently brought to a police station. I made it clear, and I make it clear again today, that I find absolutely no fault whatsoever with the authorities on that point. Very often, it is the police who have to deal with the very tricky, delicate and difficult situations of trying to bring in a person who is in a very fraught and fragile mental state and deal with all their sensitivities.

Due to the sensitivities often involved in such cases, I throw out this question: is it reasonable to suggest that a police station is the appropriate place to take a person who is in such a frail and fragile mental state? I am thinking particularly of vulnerable young people. To my mind, it could exacerbate their fragile state of mind if they feel they are being arrested or detained. All the stress that can build up, and goes with that, in a normal situation where a person is in good health can be compounded where the person is in difficult and fraught circumstances and has very fragile mental health.

As a result, it may be instructive to create a code of good practice for the police when carrying out detention orders to ensure the best care of the person concerned; that the best interests of the person suffering from poor mental health can be protected; and that they can be treated through a proper practice that is universal for the police, who find themselves in these difficult situations. The police are doing their job and are trying to protect the individual, but, with the best will in the world, they are not the people best placed to make the call as to that person's state of mind.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I know we are at Second Stage and are talking about broad principles, but, on a similar theme, an area that we, as a Committee, identified is that where a person is deemed to lack the capacity to make a decision that may then harm them, and is brought to a place of safety, that person has the right to seek legal advice. However, the assumption is that they will have regained their capacity in order to make that decision. The Committee may feel that it would be valuable for legal advice to be given as a matter of course as opposed to being something that people have to request. It very much relies on the individual having the capacity to take a decision that might be in their best interests.

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

I thank the Chair for that intervention. As I talk, I am trying to get my own head around these matters. Is that person competent to take and accept legal advice? It is an obvious requirement, as is an automatic medical intervention if the person has been determined to be incapacitated.

Often, the difficulties arise when people are not known to police or anyone around and may well not have been reported as being missing from a social services location or, indeed, a mental health hospital. They just pop up, and the police are placed in the invidious and very difficult position of trying to make the call about how to deal with the situation. There should be a code of practice for police officers who find themselves in such situations, as was referred to on Monday at the Ad Hoc Committee. There should be automatic routine practice for police to follow when faced with those situations and when dealing with all the sensitivities that have to faced at the time.

That brings me on to my next point. At this stage, it is merely a cautionary note, but the principles and associated actions contained in the Bill will no doubt place greater financial burdens on DHSSPS and DOJ, particularly, as I raised the other day, around what is determined to be a place of safety for someone. If we are saying that police stations may not be the best place to which to take people who are frail or vulnerable on the mental health front, should it be determined that that safe place is in a hospital? Some of us might view a hospital as being a safe place, but I do not think that A&E is a safe place to which people who may be very distraught should be brought. They would be being brought somewhere where there are other people suffering from physical disabilities and physical health problems. That might create difficulties for both parties — the individual who is mentally distraught and those who are in A&E awaiting attention and treatment. This is something to be worked out with DOJ and the Department of Health, but I think that the safe place should be a convenient and calming environment in a hospital. Such a place could be made available to individuals for their treatment, to bring them down and to help calm them as much as possible in such circumstances.

At this stage, we do not know how much that might cost, but we can infer from the work carried out by the Committee that there should be, and will be, an additional cost. How much consideration has been given by both Departments to the funding of the implementation of the Mental Capacity Bill? That is important to know if we are to get it right, and get it right in the interests of all parties, particularly those who have fallen into difficult health circumstances at that moment in their life.

From the reduction in the Budget for 2011 onwards and in the current financial context, we have seen that, quite often, plausible initiatives fall by the wayside owing to the necessity to save money and a climate of cuts. A good example of that is Transforming Your Care. We have to look at the issue in the round, because some of the people at whom Transforming Your Care was directed were people who had been in long-term institutional care, particularly in some of our mental health hospitals. Those people may find that they have slipped through the net because of the incapability of the system, through Transforming Your Care, to deliver support for them. They may well be the exact same people who come through the system's revolving door and wind up in difficult circumstances. I am very well aware of a case in which the police were the first port of call and had to deal with the situation until they eventually got the person to the safe place, which was a local hospital. That safe place had been got as a result of the forward thinking and planning of the people associated with the hospital.

I hope that the Department of Health and the Department of Justice are examining their budgets against the contents of the Bill so that, when the time comes, the money and manpower will be available to deliver.

In conclusion, the SDLP is broadly supportive of the Bill and thanks those who initiated it and brought it before us for our consideration. We are broadly supportive of what the legislation seeks to achieve. However, we need to consider some of the issues that I highlighted — I am sure that there is a multiplicity of others — before the Bill's provisions can become operational here.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate that we are coming up to 2.00 pm, so I will be brief.

I welcome the opportunity, as a member of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee to Consider the Mental Capacity Bill, to speak on the matter today. Following on from the recommendations of the Bamford report, it has been recognised that we in Northern Ireland require reform of our mental health law to include provision recognising an individual's mental capacity. Whilst our current position centres on the individual's best interests, the new legislation will add to the protection given to that person and will no longer rely on the assumption that people with limited or restricted mental capacity cannot take responsibility for major life decisions.

The Bill will bring together mental capacity and law and ensure that an individual's right to make decisions is protected in a way that will ensure that they are primarily kept safe. The provision within the Bill to allow individuals to participate in and contribute to their care process is to be greatly welcomed. The provision recognises the fact that mental capacity in those people experiencing mental health issues is often not a one-off episode but may vary on a day-to-day basis. In providing help and support in making decisions as to how they would like to be cared for during periods of mental distress, people will undoubtedly feel empowered and more in control of their situation. Without doubt, this approach will be less traumatic for those suffering conditions such as schizophrenia and depression. Being in control may assist quicker and longer-term recovery.

I appreciate that, at times, it is necessary to make serious and often life-altering decisions on behalf of people when their mental capacity is diminished. I am pleased that that area has also been given a framework to allow health and social care professionals to make those decisions in order to protect the individual and those making the decisions. In serious interventions such as major surgery or moving someone to a sheltered dwelling, for example, it is vital that decisions are made in a person-focused manner. The Bill will provide a system of checks and balances to ensure that the thorough steps have been followed to confirm that the level of mental capacity has been firmly and indisputably established. Again, the best interests of the individual in question will be at the heart of any decisions, and their right to make decisions for themselves will be safeguarded.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that there have been some concerns raised in relation to the omission of under-16s from the Bill. In addition, I understand that there is apprehension surrounding the independence and training of those who have responsibility for assessing capacity. I trust that, as we in the Ad Hoc Committee scrutinise the Bill, we will be able to alleviate those concerns and build into the Bill the insertion of further protection for children into the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

The Bill contains many legal and medical intricacies, largely due to the fact that we are dealing with the vastly complex issue of mental capacity and how it affects each individual in an often unique way. It must be said that the projected costs of this Bill and its implementation are huge. Both Departments have their work cut out for them in managing those vast costs in our rapidly depleting budgets.

The Mental Capacity Bill will provide greater autonomy, independence and ownership for those with mental health difficulties by giving them the ability to manage their own treatment and all aspects of their daily lives. I support the general principles of the Bill.

The debate stood suspended.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

It is time for questions to the Minister for Regional Development. I ask the House to take its ease while we change the top table.

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Development

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

We will start with listed questions.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

1. Mr Irwin asked the Minister for Regional Development whether, given the responsibility placed on farmers for the control of noxious weeds on farmland under the Noxious Weeds (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, the current condition of roadside verges will accelerate the spread of noxious weeds to adjoining farmland. (AQO 8392/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

At the outset, I express my gratitude to the Speaker and his office, and to my ministerial colleague Mervyn Storey, the Minister for Social Development, for swapping oral questions today because of personal family circumstances. Thank you very much indeed.

My Department's policy and procedures on weed control are aimed at ensuring the safety of road users, preventing the deterioration of the road pavement and meeting statutory obligations to control noxious weeds so that they do not spread to adjoining farmland. As Members will be aware, however, my Department is facing a very significant £60 million resource budget pressure in 2015-16, more than half of which has fallen to Transport NI. Due to these pressures, my Department is able to provide only a skeleton routine maintenance service at present, at some financial risk to my Department. As a consequence, weed control is one of the areas affected.

Although my internal workforce has limited capacity to carry out chemical weed control, it will endeavour to undertake that type of treatment to ensure that the Department meets its legislative requirement for noxious weeds. It is not the service that my Department wishes to provide, but it is a direct consequence of the current very challenging budgetary position. In June monitoring, I have bid for additional resources to restore routine maintenance activities to normal levels, and I hope that the Member and the House will robustly support my Department's bid.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept, given that farmers can be fined under cross-compliance for having noxious weeds on the ground, that it should be a priority for him and his Department to ensure that noxious weeds do not seed and spread over farmers' land?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. Let me reassure him and, indeed, the entire House that this is not a situation that we want to be in and that every care and consideration will be given to ensuring that there is no impact on farmland or farmers' property. Local section offices work very closely with farmers in an area. We are not aware of any widespread difficulty, but, of course, if there are issues that farmers or landowners wish to discuss with my officials at section office level, they will be very happy to do so. Ultimately, I want to be in a situation in which we can properly fund all these important services.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Has the Minister done an assessment of the additional cost to the Department as a result of not cutting the grass verges earlier in the season?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member, but there is a fundamental issue with the current budget allocations. There is a blockage, and, as is well known, it is a political blockage. The Member is a member of a party that is central to the blockage in very necessary funds that could assist my Department and other Departments as they confront the very serious financial challenges at this time. As well as asking me to look at the situation, the Member and his party need to look closely again at a situation that is costing the Executive £2 million a week.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister outline the Department's approach to Japanese knotweed and other invasive species?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Members will know that special efforts are required to control giant hogweed and Japanese knotweed by poisoning. In those instances, Transport NI generally treats invasive weeds such as Japanese knotweed found growing on land in its control using chemical treatment.

That is generally done using specialist contractors, following advice from the NIEA, as required.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

2. Mr Hussey asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his Department's bid in the June monitoring round. (AQO 8393/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The outcome of the 2015-16 Budget leaves my Department facing cuts and pressures of some £60 million on its resource budget, which is around 18% of the 2014-15 baseline. Whilst I have worked with my officials to try to absorb some of those pressures internally, the extent to which that is possible, without impacting on public safety and core public services, is limited. Therefore, I have identified eight other resource non-ring-fenced bids totalling £39·8 million and 13 capital bids totalling £141·1 million, which my Department has now submitted to DFP.

The main bids that I have put forward in June monitoring are for essential road and street lighting maintenance activities, including winter service; addressing the shortfall in the funding of NI Water to bring it to the level recommended by the Utility Regulator in its final determination; addressing the continuing pressure on concessionary fares and the delay in implementing the Translink efficiency programme to allow further consultation with the unions in an attempt to minimise the impact on services; and funding to support community and rural transport services.

I have also submitted 13 capital bids, including a bid of £104·4 million to meet the substantial shortfall in the current structural maintenance budget, which stands at over £100 million less than the independently recommended requirement. I have also included a bid of £15 million to address the shortfall in capital funding to NI Water to bring it up to the level of funding recommended by the Utility Regulator in the PC15 final determination.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he give more detail on the Transport NI component of the bid?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member, and, as I indicated in the initial response and the previous response, the brunt is, unfortunately, being borne by Transport NI. Its resource budget has a shortfall of £38·5 million compared with the 2014-15 opening budget and a further shortfall compared with the funding required for an optimum service. As a result, the budget is sufficient to fund only the street lighting and traffic signal energy requirements and associated electrical inspection and testing requirements. I have, therefore, agreed that Transport NI should undertake a skeleton road maintenance at-risk service until the bids can be made in June monitoring. Transport NI has submitted resource bids totalling £23·4 million in the June monitoring round. They include a £14·8 million bid for a skeleton service for street lighting, road maintenance and to fund the winter service for the at-risk period and the remainder of the year. There is a £6·6 million road maintenance minimum requirement for traffic, patching and routine maintenance, including for the operations and maintenance division and its overheads. That is in addition to the skeleton service bid. There is £2 million to cover street lighting, including restoring normal service, for inspection and testing, and for repairs and maintenance to electrical and structural hazards. That is also in addition to the skeleton service bid.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister, you referred to Northern Ireland Water and capital money for that project. Is it on your mind to provide capital money for the Duncrue Street Northern Ireland Water facility, which is at full capacity at present and in danger of not allowing any more development in the docks area?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. He will know that there are significant pressures on capital schemes in NI Water. As well as the Duncrue one that he mentioned, there is an issue at Sicily Park and other places.

We need to ensure that proper capital and resource funding is made available to NI Water; otherwise we face considerable infrastructure issues that are not in anybody's interest. The Utility Regulator has set out the bare minimum that she wants and expects us to meet in the water and waste water services that we provide, so it is important that we address that. I have done as much as I can within the current financial limits open to me to ensure that that happens. There is still a shortfall. We are bidding, as I have indicated, for capital and resource to address the situation, and it would be very helpful for the Member and his party to support those bids.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister's response, particularly on street lighting. With regard to your bid for community transport, I think that you would want me to acknowledge the contribution that Disability Action and community transport make to the lives of disabled people and their families across Northern Ireland. Will the Minister ensure that those aspects of Disability Action and disabled people's access are also a bid in this monitoring round?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I understand and entirely agree and want to pay tribute to all the providers of community and rural transport services. They fulfil an important task, and the Assembly, the Executive and the Department need to ensure that they are properly and fairly funded. We have sought to do that. There are challenges, and we have made a bid to the June monitoring. However, I am getting smoke signals from the Department of Finance and Personnel, and from around the Executive table, as to whether, first of all, we can agree a Budget, let alone whether there will be any moneys available for June monitoring. Frankly, I am in Old Mother Hubbard land here. We are already providing services at financial risk, and we can see the skeleton service that is available. We are in a dire financial situation, and it is time for parties around the Executive table and parties in the Assembly to face political and financial reality, and that includes your own party.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Like Mr Ramsey, I also welcome the Minister's intention to bid for more provision for community and rural transport. In his answer to Mr Ramsey, he alluded to challenges. Will he outline what those challenges are in respect of that group?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. Basically, it is one thing to bid in June monitoring for additional funds; it is another thing to receive them. That is the challenge. There is no guarantee. Simply, a bid does not do it in and of itself; it needs to be followed up. Talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy whiskey.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

3. Mr McCarthy asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of NI Water meeting its environmental obligations over the next three years. (AQO 8394/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Northern Ireland Water’s environmental compliance has steadily improved over the last seven years. This has led to NI Water achieving the best ever waste water compliance in recent years of 98%, which can be attributed to significant investment in sewerage services and improvements to the management and operation of waste water assets. The number of pollution incidents attributed to NI Water over this period has also declined significantly.

The NI Water business plan for the price control 15 (PC15) period, which runs from 2015 to 2021, sets out the approach for NI Water to continue to improve its compliance and meet environmental obligations over the next six years. This approach is based on the DRD 'Social and Environmental Guidance for Water and Sewerage Services' that I launched in 2014.

NI Water will strive to continue to meet its environmental obligations over the next three years. However, due to the reduced funding allocations received by my Department, I am unable to fully fund the determination made by the Utility Regulator in relation to the levels of investment required in water and sewerage infrastructure for this financial year.

Should the situation continue, it may adversely impact on NI Water's ability to build on its success in improving on its performance. It is clearly an area of concern, and I will continue to bid for additional funding for NI Water through monitoring rounds.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he accept that the start of infraction proceedings regarding the Ballycastle waste water treatment works demonstrates that vital provision in this region is not being provided by his Department and that it has been an abject failure of the Department not to provide that for Ballycastle?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It is very easy for the Member to say that it is an abject failure on the part of the Department. Actually, it is not. I am happy to update him now on the current situation in respect of Ballycastle waste water treatment works. I got a sense from his question that he was hoping for infraction proceedings. I am actively working to make sure that we are not subject to infraction proceedings, and that includes the Ballycastle situation.

Ballycastle waste water treatment works is one of 17 sites throughout the UK that is the subject of infraction proceedings by the European Commission for failing to meet objectives under the urban waste water treatment directive. It is the only one in Northern Ireland. Meeting our European obligations is a key priority in social and environmental guidance, and the Commission expects those obligations to be met in a timely manner. As a result, Ballycastle has been identified as a priority for NI Water. The timescale for completion of the upgrade, subject to satisfactory completion of the procurement and construction processes, would be late 2017. That information has been communicated to DEFRA and the Commission, and, to date, the proposed way forward has satisfied the Commission and no further action has been taken.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I appreciate what the Minister said about Ballycastle, but given the current financial pressures and impending further financial constraints, is the Minister confident that we are not looking at potential infraction proceedings on any other sites across the North?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. It will be incumbent on me to protect NI Water and the Department against any such proceedings, but, again, we are down to the issue of finance. We have to ensure that the infrastructure work that needs to be done on the ground to upgrade water and sewerage facilities is made available so that we can avoid any situation, anywhere in Northern Ireland, in which there is a risk of infraction proceedings. Those things are taken seriously in Europe, and they are taken seriously by DEFRA and the UK, and let me assure you that they are also taken seriously by me and NI Water.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

4. Mr Easton asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline how he will redistribute funds from within his departmental budget to facilitate phase 2 of the Coleraine to Londonderry track renewal project. (AQO 8395/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

My commitment to the Coleraine to Londonderry rail line has always been clear, and I have worked hard to ensure that the line has remained open. The project is a key Programme for Government commitment and is evidence of the Executive’s determination to invest in our rail network. It also signals our continuing commitment to invest in the north-west and improve connections and frequency of service between Belfast and Londonderry.

In November 2014, I commissioned an independent review of the project following concerns that the original cost estimate for the scheme was significantly underestimated. The outcome of the review provided me with the assurance to press on with the project. It confirmed that there might be limited interest in the signalling procurement due to the scale of railway investment being carried forward in Great Britain. Translink has now awarded the contract to Babcock, which is a company renowned for its engineering excellence.

The overall cost, at £46 million, is higher than originally envisaged but reflects the market that we are competing in. The profile of expenditure on the Coleraine to Londonderry project is such that there will be no additional budget requirement in this financial year. As you will be aware, budgets beyond 2015-16 have not yet been agreed. I will be prioritising this project in my capital planning for the next budget period to provide cover.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, I am fully supportive of what he has done here.

This project is earmarked to happen over two financial years, and he has given a commitment on the funding for the first year. Can he give a commitment that, if the money is there, the funding will continue into the second financial year? There is a possibility that it could slip into a third financial year, so can he give a commitment that those two years will be covered?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his mild encouragement. I appreciate it. This is a priority not only for my Department and Translink but is an Executive commitment. I am not sure where he got the idea that it might slip into a third financial year. As he will know from previous statements that I have made, the works are due for completion by the end of next year, and I very much anticipate that that target can and will be met.

Obviously, whilst budgets are not set for next year, let alone this year — let us not even go there for this question — it is inconceivable to me that I would receive nothing. I know that sometimes I am Oliver Twist, in that I am always looking more, but to receive nothing would be jolly unfair. My expectation is that we will receive sufficient to ensure that Coleraine/Londonderry phase two is completed and paid for.

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

May I add my congratulations to the Minister? Will he please tell the House that the £6 million additional is a mere drop in the ocean compared with the money that could not be spent on the A5 and was spent on the A8 and A2? Will he promise not to lose any sleep over the additional money that he has invested in our railways?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member. I do not think that the notion of me losing sleep would appeal to any Member; therefore, I am comforted by his remarks. There have been issues in getting phase two under way, but we are now in a better position and are moving forward. We will have the work undertaken, begun and completed hopefully in time and in budget. I think it will benefit hugely the increasing numbers of people who want to use the rail service between not just Coleraine and Londonderry but Belfast and Londonderry. We have seen remarkable and astonishing figures in relation to that — an increase of 12% over the past year — so we are doing the right thing, and we will continue to work at it until it is satisfactorily and fully finished.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Someone once said that all politics is local. Can the Minister outline bus and rail investment in north Down?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am very grateful to the Member for his question, lest anybody think it was a plant.

In the past two years, over £240,000 has been directly invested on bus and rail in north Down. This year, some £1·5 million will be invested, including £1·1 million for Bangor park-and-ride. Additionally, this year around £5·6 million will be invested in a number of other projects across the wider bus and rail programmes, which will benefit north Down. I hope the Member draws comfort from that.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

5. Mr Dickson asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the impact of the budget crisis on future capital projects, including the York Street interchange. (AQO 8396/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

My Department has a capital allocation of £328·3 million in 2015. That is some £70 million less than projected expenditure in 2014-15. However, we are still taking forward a substantial capital programme. I am pleased to inform the Member that development work on the York Street interchange is progressing well. This important project will alleviate the existing bottleneck on the strategic road network, which affects the M1/Westlink, M2 and M3. It will reduce congestion, improve the reliability of journey times and improve access to the regional gateways from the eastern seaboard corridor.

A considerable amount of work is required to take the scheme through the public inquiry process, scheduled to start on 10 November 2015, and the necessary budget has been set aside in this financial year to complete this task. The scheme has already received EU funding towards design development. I am hopeful about being successful in attracting further EU funding for construction. I continue to engage with EU officials to secure further funding for this and other important projects.

If there were to be any cuts to my capital budget as a consequence of the current austerity measures, I would, of course, have to review the capital programme, including the Yorkgate interchange. However, any decisions would be informed by the extent of budget reductions and a review of the progress on schemes and capital commitments existing at that time.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, thank you for your answer so far, particularly in relation to an actual date for a public inquiry, one at which I will certainly be supporting the project. One key element of the York Street interchange is the opportunity to provide a dualling of the railway track across that section; but it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as the consultants have advised that it can be done only at the same time as construction of the roadworks. Will the Minister confirm that that is true and that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that the work for the rail track is done at the same time as the roadworks?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for the point that he raises. I understand it entirely, and it appears that, from an engineering point of view, that is the case. Clearly, it would be sensible that two schemes could run parallel to each other. I say to him directly, and not in any aggressive way, that I think the difficulty and challenge will be, clearly, that the financial implications of both in terms of capital are substantial. We will have to look at those issues and other capital projects, which have also been waiting for some considerable time. Members will be quick to raise particular capital projects that are of interest to them. I understand the point he has raised, but I see challenges in bringing forward a track scheme of that nature in the immediate period that we are facing.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister outline whether budget allocations will affect the Gortcorbies climbing lane project on the Broad Road between Coleraine and Limavady or Limavady and Coleraine?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member, and I join with other Members to congratulate him on being a recent recipient in the honours system. Enjoy the moment.

I am aware of the scheme that the Member speaks of. Indeed, there are a clutch of other similar schemes for improvements that would give considerable benefit to areas and, indeed, communities. It was always my intention that we would somehow create a pocketful of money to carry out schemes of that nature. That might even perhaps be useful to improve the reputation of the Assembly and the Executive for what they are able to deliver, but the financial situations we find ourselves in are very constrained. Whilst that scheme remains active on the books, we are not able to indicate at this stage how quickly it will further develop.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

T1. Mr Ó Muilleoir asked the Minister for Regional Development, given his pride for his reputation as a bridge-builder, for an update on any plans to improve the eyesore that is the Finaghy bridge, linking west and south Belfast, which has managed to evade all efforts to improve it over recent years. (AQT 2651/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member, and I accept, even as a backhanded compliment, the reference to me as a bridge-builder. The Member has raised this through correspondence. It is not so much a topical question as a typical question. We will provide an update with the detail as quickly as possible.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire. Thank you, Minister. As it is some years since we met about it, perhaps we could return to that discussion. We welcome the ambitious plan to put a £3 million bridge over the Lagan at Ormeau, but a £25,000 cosmetic exercise is required at Finaghy bridge, which is more redolent of Belfast in the 1970s or the green zone in Iraq than the great city Belfast is today.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I note the Member's comment, and I recall the meeting. The issue is not so much the structure or soundness of the bridge but its aesthetic value. I wish that I was in a position to worry about the aesthetics of the services I provide, but I will engage with him, and perhaps we can meet to discuss the issue further. Tarting up bridges is not so high a priority as maintaining bridges and ensuring that their structure is sound and remains safe.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

T2. Mr Hilditch asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the A2 between Silverstream Banks and Seapark in Carrickfergus and to state when it might be fully functional. (AQT 2652/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member. I confirm that work is progressing well on the A2 Shore Road scheme at Greenisland. Work on upgrading three and a half kilometres of single to dual carriageway began in March 2013 and is programmed for completion in September of this year. Along the online section of scheme between Jordanstown Road and Station Road, the new carriageway in the Carrickfergus-bound direction has been substantially constructed and a contraflow traffic arrangement is currently in operation. The existing road is now being reconstructed to become the Belfast-bound carriageway. That work is nearing completion, and, later this month, traffic will revert to it while the final surfacing is completed on the Carrickfergus-bound carriageway.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the update. It should be acknowledged that the scheme has been managed very well during the two years, with minimal disruption and upset to the vast majority of users. Tribute should be paid to all those involved. Has the scheme come in within budget and have some of the minor issues regarding cyclists and bus lanes been sorted out as well?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his positive comments on the scheme. Indeed, I want to endorse them and will certainly relay them to my officials, the consultants and the contractors. There will always be ongoing issues in matters of finer detail. Those charged with carrying forward the scheme on the ground hope to continue to resolve such issues as easily and practically as possible. This is a scheme of huge benefit to the east Antrim area and that region, and I look forward to seeing it finalised as quickly as possible.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T3. Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Regional Development whether he has a confirmed date for the publication of the draft orders for the A5 dual carriageway. (AQT 2653/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question and welcome him back to the House, perhaps unadvisedly as a constituency colleague.

I am currently processing the situation around the A5 and the new statutory approvals that need to be issued, and I hope at some stage to update Executive colleagues on that situation.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his welcome. He will be aware that the project has been delayed, causing great dismay in the north-west region. He has a number of weeks left between now and the summer recess to apprise his Executive colleagues, and then the opportunity for that will pass on until the autumn. Will he have an opportunity or be in a position to bring it to Executive colleagues this side of the summer recess in order to progress the project as quickly as possible?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am not in a position to confirm that at this stage. We are still working through some of the detail. I could be uncharitable and say that some of the delay issues were caused while he was Minister for Regional Development, but I will not do that. We will continue to see what progress can be made on the A5 scheme.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

T4. Mr Beggs asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the maintenance work at the Copeland and North Woodburn reservoirs in Carrickfergus, which have been lying empty for most of this year, and to state when the reservoirs will come back into service. (AQT 2654/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. NI Water has advised that there are seven reservoirs in the Carrick area that are being refurbished as part of an ongoing routine maintenance programme over the past 18 to 20 months. Water levels have been lowered in the reservoirs to allow that work to progress. Work on five reservoirs has been completed, and work on the remaining two — Copeland and Lower South Woodburn — is due to be completed by the end of July, after which they will be refilled. Again, the rate of refill will depend on the weather.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. June is, thankfully, predicted to be a relatively dry and summery month. We do not know what lies beyond that, but can the Minister assure us that there are sufficient stocks of water in the other reservoirs that serve the wider east Antrim area to carry us over the summer?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I can say that the five reservoirs where work has been completed are progressively refilling naturally. Of course, the rate of refilling depends on weather and rainfall. I can be challenged about many things, but providing additional rainfall is probably not one of them. The same principles will therefore apply on the remaining two: Copeland and Lower South Woodburn. We hope that that will deal with the situation.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

T5. Mr Girvan asked the Minister for Regional Development whether there will be a review of the current grass-cutting policy, which allows for one cut only and is causing some concern. (AQT 2655/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. He will have heard me consistently say that this is not the service that I want to provide as Minister, nor do I believe that it is the service that people expect, but I have to say that the skeleton service that I have in place, which is at financial risk, even at this point, is the maximum that I can provide without further relief. I appeal to him again to use his considerable political influence within his party and therefore on the Executive to ensure that, either through June monitoring or through other sources, the Department can be properly and fully funded for the important front-line services that it undertakes.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate that it is not additional contractors that are being brought in to undertake that work; it is staff from the Department. Have any been laid off? What duties are being carried out by those who were trained to do such a function?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I say to the Member that this is hugely frustrating for my officials and other staff throughout my Department. I have taken the opportunity to meet front-line service staff in the Armagh area and the Antrim area, close to the Member's constituency, to hear at first hand their frustrations and about the impact on morale. These are highly dedicated and professional staff who want to carry out and provide the best possible service, and the maximum service, when it comes to grass cutting, gully emptying, street lighting and road defects. It is hugely frustrating for them to find themselves in this situation.

There have not been any lay-offs at this point. That will obviously be an absolute last resort, but, in the absence of affording proper materials for them to do their job, it does rather put staff in a very difficult and challenging position. They have to deal with the frustrations that are being expressed by the general public. Indeed, I think that all constituency offices and advice centres, including my offices in Markethill and Tandragee, are subject to people raising legitimate concerns and complaints about the lack of road maintenance and associated work. I hope that that message can trickle down not only to the Assembly but to the Executive to get them to move on, unblock the financial issues and move forward in such a way that we can properly fund front-line services.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

T6. Ms Sugden asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline how the community transport networks were assessed for the funding that they receive for the services that they provide. (AQT 2656/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member. She has been assiduous in trying to raise concerns on the issue.

I have to say that, in view of the severe budget outcome — I have outlined this in the recent past — I was forced to reduce funding in that area by some £2 million. I believe that, through continued efficiencies and use of all the financial resources available to them, providers should be able to minimise the impact on service users. I have bid for additional funding in the June monitoring round to mitigate further the impact on services. Those decisions were not easy or soft options in any way. We have sought to mitigate their impact as much as possible. We will continue to work with the groups that provide those important services to see whether we can further alleviate the impact.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

My understanding is that some networks have had the impact mitigated more than others, to the point where those that run a very efficient service have been told to tap into their reserves. Is it appropriate, or even its business, for the Department to look into those networks' finances and reserves? After all, a group may have a 10-year-old whiskey, but the Department should not necessarily pressure it to drink it, particularly if there is not another bottle coming any time soon.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I think that the Member's reference is a veiled one to the comment that I made earlier about it taking money to buy whiskey. It does indeed. At this stage, even watered whiskey would be a help. That might be of some benefit.

My Department's officials will continue to work with the groups and transport providers out there to try to manage the situation and offset some of the impacts that we are already aware of to front-line services. The important thing is that it is ultimately about the customer. People will debate whether it is proper for reserves to be used in such situations. Will their use reduce any negative impact that there is on people who use the service? If the answer to that is yes, and I believe that it is, we have got to stretch ourselves to do that.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Time is up.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture and Rural Development

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

We will start with listed questions.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

1. Mr Moutray asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline her Department's role in tracing the owners of abandoned farm animals. (AQO 8419/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. If farm animals are properly identified, their keepers can normally be identified from data held on the Department's customer and animal information databases. The Department will share that information according to DARD's privacy notice and in line with data protection legislation. The Department assists the PSNI to trace the owners of farm animals found abandoned on a public highway. If abandoned animals are not properly identified, it is often impossible to establish who is responsible for them.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answer, but I am going to press her. Who is responsible for abandoned horses on private land when animal welfare is not the issue?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

For horses, councils and animal enforcement officers are clearly in the lead in being able to go out to try to identify the owners. The Department will work, not only for horses but for all animals, with the PSNI or councils, depending on the circumstances. However, councils have principal responsibility for horses.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Just to expand on that point, will the Minister tell us the legal position on abandoning animals?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is illegal for cattle, sheep or pigs to be sold or moved off a farm unless they are properly identified. If the identity of bovine animals cannot be established within 48 hours, the Department will seize and destroy them without delay under the provisions of the cattle identification regulations. My Department does not have the power to detain or destroy unidentified pigs or sheep, but it does have the power to prohibit their movement.

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

Are there links with or a role for the likes of the USPCA to make the protection of abandoned animals and the identification of owners more fluent?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am not sure whether there is a role for the USPCA in that instance. Certainly, there is a role for partners to work together to be able to identify owners and hold people to account, particularly in cases of animal cruelty or abandonment.

As I said, councils are strongly in the lead for horses. For farmed animals, that is obviously the Department's role. The PSNI takes control on criminality and other aspects. There is always a grey area, particularly in areas where there are high numbers of horses. However, councils are in the lead, in conjunction with the PSNI, to try to identify owners.

When it comes to farmed animals, the Department will use whatever systems it has, within the limits of data protection, to try to identify owners and work with all stakeholders.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister give an assessment of the scale of the problem of abandoned horses across Northern Ireland and provide an update on the consideration being given in her Department of the redefinition of a horse from a domestic to a farm animal, which would greatly enhance the welfare of abandoned horses?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I know that the Member has a keen interest in horses and has tabled a Bill on the definition of a horse. I have had numerous conversations with the equine industry on whether we should change the designation. I was not convinced of the merits of doing so at that time, but I am always open to considering it further if there ever was a change or new arguments put forward for consideration. At this time, I am not convinced of the need to change the definition.

Problems with horses are a council issue, and councils take the lead, so it would be better if they gave you an assessment of particular problems. Some areas have more of a problem than others. It is not coming to or being tabled with me as a key area of concern, but I have dealt with the issue in my constituency on numerous occasions and understand that it is frustrating for people who constantly encounter abandoned horses on the roads and the car accidents that can result from horses being wild on the roads.

It is important that we are clear about who is responsible for what, which is what we try to do. I encourage people with concerns about horses to talk to their council animal enforcement officers.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline any discussions she has had with other Governments to find a solution to the current problems in relation to lamb labelling. (AQO 8420/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have been concerned about the impact of the new EU country of origin labelling rules on the trade of sheep reared in the North and slaughtered in the South. I am doing everything in my power to support solutions to the current situation and to head off any potential problems for other products.

I have been in regular contact with Minister Coveney in the South and his Department on labelling issues that have an effect right across the island to seek a resolution to the specific issues in the sheep sector. My officials had a constructive meeting with Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine officials recently and met EU Commission officials in Brussels on the matter, as well as DEFRA and Food Standards Agency officials here in the North.

I also discussed the impact of country of origin labelling with Commissioner Hogan during his recent visit. I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to the EU Commission to outline the unique circumstances of agrifood businesses on this island, and I am making the case for greater flexibility in labelling our local products. Elizabeth Truss, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, replied positively to my letter, and I am pleased that she offered her support in finding a solution to the problem. I still await a reply from the EU Commissioner.

Ahead of today’s meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg, at which labelling is likely to be raised during any other business, I have contacted my English, Scottish and Welsh counterparts to reiterate my view that we need flexibilities for farmers in the North. I remain fully committed to finding a solution to labelling difficulties that works for everyone, and I will continue to press for flexibility for our local products.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she outline what impact country of origin labelling has had on any other sectors?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Since it came into play last year, we have had the so-called nomadic cattle and the issues that they caused with the labelling of meat. The beef trade was quite significantly affected in 2014. The voluntary term "Irish" could be used to label beef derived from cattle born in the South and imported into the North for direct slaughter or for finishing and slaughter.

I am aware of the recent Commission report on the feasibility of extending country of origin labelling to other products, including milk. I understand that reports have concluded that the cost of extending mandatory country of origin labelling to additional food products, including milk and milk products, would outweigh the benefits to consumers, but that voluntary labelling should be allowed. Given the negative effect on beef and lamb, I would not support a further extension of country of origin labelling to other products such as milk. The potential exists for a very damaging effect on our milk industry, as we currently send about 23% of our milk to the Twenty-six Counties for processing. I will continue to press for maximum flexibility on labelling for our products because this will have an impact on all other sectors, not just the beef and lamb that have been affected to date.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Minister, there is a perception among farmers that processors are taking advantage of the issue to lower prices for lambs across the border. Can she do anything to allay those suspicions? Has she met processors to discuss and raise those concerns?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There will always be concerns from farmers, particularly about the volatility of pricing in the market and the controls used by processors and the retailers who buy their products. That is an ongoing concern of mine, and I have raised it with the Agri-Food Strategy Board. I want to work on that and produce initiatives over the next number of months, particularly in relation to the whole supply chain and how we can work together. When the Agri-Food Strategy Board was established, I sent a strong signal and message to it about the need for fairness in the supply chain, and for clear and full communication with the industry, from the farmer right through to when a product is placed on a supermarket shelf. Unless we have that, we will damage our agrifood sector and, potentially, cause future problems for the industry. It is a priority and an issue that I continually raise with the Agri-Food Strategy Board, NIMEA and the other processor organisations when I meet them.

Lamb prices have dropped significantly, and there are the other impacts of market forces such as supply and demand or even the euro rate. All have compounded the problem. Moving forward, we need to remove any barriers at an EU level, such as the country of origin labelling. If we have voluntary labelling, processors cannot use that as a stick to beat farmers.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the fact that the Minister has made efforts to resolve the labelling saga. Does she feel that we are any nearer to a resolution?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As far as approaching Europe is concerned, there is provision for a voluntary label. I have made all the right approaches. We had positive feedback from DEFRA in England, and I very much welcome that. I raised it with George Eustice, Minister of State for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment, when I spoke to him last night. We have ongoing discussions with Minister Coveney in the South because we need agreement from the three parties to take the voluntary label forward. We are making significant progress, and the sooner we get to that point, the better.

It is only one of a number of issues that affect the industry, but we need to remove any trade barriers or obstacles. There is traditional trade across the island, whether in lamb, beef or other sectors including, obviously, milk, with nearly a quarter of all the milk that we produce going to the Twenty-six counties for processing. Anything that places barriers in the way of that all-island trade or restricts our market opportunities has to be taken very seriously, and I assure you that I take it very seriously.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

3. Mr Girvan asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether there will be any additional allocation of funds for local action group boards. (AQO 8421/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Regarding the 2007-2014 rural development programme, there are no additional funds to distribute as, I am pleased to announce, we have achieved a 100% project spend at a programme level for LEADER. I take the opportunity to thank all those involved in achieving this great result. It is a first for any LEADER programme in the North, and, considering that it was done against the backdrop of an economic downturn, it is an even bigger achievement. This investment has so far resulted in 839 full-time equivalent jobs being created in rural areas at a time when they are sorely needed.

Regarding the new LEADER element of the 2014-20 rural development programme, I announced on 22 October 2014 what each of the new local action group (LAG) areas was being allocated. That has not changed; indeed, I have maintained these allocations despite the difficult financial climate in which we find ourselves. No additional funds are available for allocation.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Were any calculations made for areas of deprivation in the criteria for the new programme?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Absolutely, 100%. The rural development programme is the only show in town for rural communities. When it came to allocating funding across each LAG area, I was mindful of the need to tackle deprivation, as it is a focus for my Department and me. We looked at categories such as rural population, levels of deprivation, income deprivation and employment deprivation. We used a range of comparators to make sure that funds were distributed on a fair and equitable basis. I am content that that is what I have achieved.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answers so far. When does she anticipate the call for applications will open?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Our programme is with Europe at the moment. We have had very positive feedback, and we are tidying up some of the elements. We hope by the end of this month or very early in July to have formal approval from the European Commission. The animation process was launched at the Balmoral show and will continue over the summer. We are actively working with groups, organisations and businesses that may have ideas and want to consider bidding into the show. Given the timescale that we expect to achieve for formal sign-off by the Commission, I would want to open official calls for full applications in September this year.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Will it be in the Department's power to decide what guidelines it will set to ensure that the appropriate people receive the right money?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

One of the beauties of the LEADER programme is that it is a bottom-up approach. Local elected representatives along with community representatives decide how funding should be distributed, but it is benchmarked against criteria. It is all very open and transparent, and all applications are scored by way of a scoring mechanism. We have been working up all that detail, but it will be consistent right across the board. All LAGs will use the same criteria, but each LAG will have the opportunity to look at priorities in its area. One of the advantages that we have is that councils are pulling together their new community plans. The LAGs will also pull together their rural development plans, and those two things will dovetail, so we are in a good position. While the criteria and benchmarking will be the same across the board, each area may have a different focus on how it decides to distribute funding through each measure.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Was the appointment process for the new boards under the new programme subject to section 75 assessments?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

When the appointment process was taken forward it was very important to me that we got a good spread across the board. The process was taken forward in conjunction with the rural community networks, which did all the work on the ground, animating, working with groups and encouraging people to apply. We have a fairer balance because the previous make-up of the LAGs was not sufficient and there were not enough women or young people. We have addressed that imbalance, but we still have a way to go. The calls were made, and all the members who came forward were able to vote for the people who were appointed. We have a better make-up this time round, but there are still improvements to be made.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

4. Mr Cree asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the proposed relocation of her departmental headquarters. (AQO 8422/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The relocation programme involves four different moves, with fisheries division relocating to south Down, Forest Service to Fermanagh, Rivers Agency to Cookstown and the rest of my Department headquarters to Ballykelly. I am delighted to be able to report that the first of those relocations has taken place: the headquarters of my fisheries division was relocated to the Downshire Civic Centre in Downpatrick last Monday, 8 June. That represents a major milestone in the relocation programme.

In respect of the move to Ballykelly, another key milestone was reached recently when my officials submitted a planning application for the new building to the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on 30 April. It is hoped that planning approval will be granted by August — in a few months' time. Work is well under way at the other two relocation projects, with Forest Service expected to be in Inishkeen House in Fermanagh by the end of September and Rivers Agency in its new accommodation at Loughry by mid-2016.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her response. Given that she is pushing ahead without a genuine business case and despite the concerns of several senior officials in her Department and DFP, she is clearly not worried about value for money, but can she give us an update on cost at this point in time?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The costs are as I have previously outlined: we are talking about £30·8 million in capital and £14·3 million in resource. As for concerns from officials in either DFP or my Department, I assure you that my Department and all my officials are working to my policy objective, which I have set out. The programme board has been working consistently over the last number of years. We are working closely with staff to make sure that we make the transition as easy as possible. There is an outline business case in place; that is all done. The Executive have signed off on the process and the move to relocate. I am happy to rehearse all the arguments around the benefits to rural areas, the economic knock-on effect of the footfall for rural areas, the construction jobs that the build will create and the fairer distribution of public-sector jobs. That is what this is about. I am certainly very committed to taking it forward, and I assure you that my officials are tasked with doing that also.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Has the transfer of all the staff to the proposed new site been completed?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I assume that the Member means the transfer of fisheries division.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. The fisheries move happened last Monday, 8 June. All the staff have moved out. Obviously, there may be a few teething problems while everything gets smoothed out, but the office is open and the staff, in the main, are there. I am sure that it will take a couple of weeks for everything to bed in.

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

I support the decentralisation of public-service jobs to Ballykelly. I hope that other Departments do likewise and contribute to the decongesting of our motorways. Does the Minister agree that, irrespective of its previous use, it is one of the most idyllic and beautiful spots in County Derry, overlooking Lough Foyle and Inishowen? Does the Minister agree that there should be a master plan for the remainder of the site so that best use is made of the 900 acres, rather than flogging it off to the highest bidder?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I certainly agree that it is a beautiful site. I look forward to the Department headquarters being completed there. The site should sell itself; it is a fantastic location. OFMDFM surveys show that, because we have become the anchor tenant, there is significant interest in the site. The strategy for taking that forward will come down to that Department. It is keen to make sure that we maximise the benefit for the Executive and, in turn, public services and the Departments, and that will ensure that we deliver for the people who elect us. I do not have a crystal ball to foresee what businesses or types of industry will want to move to the site, but, nonetheless, there is significant interest, which is very positive in itself.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

5. Mr Gardiner asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how many cattle have been reported as either missing or stolen in Upper Bann since 2011. (AQO 8423/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Under the Cattle Identification Regulations 2012, keepers must report cattle that are lost or stolen in writing to DARD within seven days of the event being noticed. Information on stolen animals or animals reported missing is kept on the Department's database: the animal and public health information system (APHIS). APHIS does not differentiate between missing, lost or stolen animals.

Those two categories are recorded collectively on APHIS, and that information is not kept by constituency. The majority of the Upper Bann constituency is in the Armagh divisional veterinary office (DVO) area. The number of cattle reported missing or stolen in the Armagh DVO area was 497 in 2010-11; 342 in 2011-12; 389 in 2012-13; 629 in 2013-14; and 666 in 2014-15. That totals just over 2,500 over the last five years. The PSNI actively investigates reports of stolen cattle. I encourage any keeper who suspects that an animal has been stolen to report it to the PSNI as soon as possible so that a full investigation can be carried out.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister thus far. Can the Minister give her assessment of the problem of the illegal meat trade in Northern Ireland? In particular, what is she doing to clamp down on it in border areas, where the problem is especially rife?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, I condemn any criminality, particularly in the meat trade, given the implications that are felt by the wider agrifood industry if people are involved in that type of criminality. It has a knock-on effect, particularly on consumer confidence, even though all the products that go through our system are fully traceable, they are wholesome and we can stand over them when instances such as food fraud occur. This is something that affects the industry.

However, food fraud is a problem right across Europe. It is an issue that we seriously need to tackle. It is an issue that is given a lot of priority at European Commission level and one that I have given priority to. I will continue to work with the PSNI in particular, as well as with our environmental health officers, our people who work in the abattoirs and our veterinary enforcement team. I think that everybody has a role to play to make sure that we drive out what is essentially a criminal problem that needs to be dealt with because of the impact it has on the rest of the trade.

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

Have you had any correspondence with Minister Coveney in the light of the suspected BSE breakout over the border in Louth?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. I have spoken to him on the phone, and my officials are regularly engaged on any updates. There was an identification of a classic BSE case in County Louth last Thursday. It was identified through the ongoing surveillance systems that are in place, so it showed that those systems and practices are actually working. The animal was not presented for slaughter, so there was no opportunity for it to enter the food chain. Confirmatory tests are being undertaken, and we have been advised that it will take up to a week to get the results.

The one message that I want to be clear on and to give an assurance on is that our beef remains a quality product and safe to eat. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) in the Twenty-six Counties and my Department are liaising daily, and more than once a day on this particular issue. We will hopefully have confirmed results this week that I hope will point to the fact that it is an isolated case.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I call Mr Declan Boylan.

[Laughter.]

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Could I ask the Minister what —

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

My apologies, Mr Boylan.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

— action her Department has taken to try to reduce the number of stolen cattle?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That was a great merging of two individual MLAs.

My Department has been involved in a number of joint initiatives with the PSNI, including the Farmwatch scheme and the Crimestoppers campaign. The central enforcement team of the veterinary service works closely with the PSNI in conducting joint inspections and investigations. The DARD veterinary service enforcement branch (VSEB) is involved in ongoing training of PSNI officers on animal identification requirements and the associated documentation that is required when livestock are being moved.

Our VSEB has also attended on-farm workshops organised by the PSNI to discuss those issues and what officers should look out for at roadside checkpoints. The PSNI reports cases of stolen livestock to DARD, and descriptions of stolen livestock are immediately passed to veterinary staff in meat plants right across the island. The veterinary service central enforcement team works closely with the special investigations unit in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, sharing intelligence and conducting joint investigations. APHIS is available live in all markets and abattoirs. If an animal has been reported missing or stolen and subsequently appears on these premises, it cannot be processed for sale or slaughter without a DARD investigation.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

6. Mr McNarry asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what specific research projects, planned over the next five years, are designed to benefit the agrifood industry in the Strangford constituency. (AQO 8424/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remain committed to supporting local research and recognise its importance to the agrifood sector's plans for growth. Although the benefits of research projects funded by DARD are designed to improve sustainability of the agrifood sector across the North, I will give particular focus to those that are benefiting the agrifood industry specifically in your constituency.

DARD funds research through postgraduate studentships, the industry-led research challenge fund (RCF) and the DARD-directed AFBI research programme. DARD is currently funding 26 studentships directly relating to DARD’s priority evidence and innovation needs and providing high-level training to underpin the science base here. Currently, two of those studentships are being conducted in aquacultural research in the Strangford area, with a further two PhDs to commence in the autumn. Three of those studentships are based jointly at Queen's University's marine laboratory, Portaferry and AFBI.

DARD's research challenge fund encourages collaboration between rural enterprises and the research community. Recently, a three-year project to improve the breeding efficiency of suckler cows was commenced on farms across the North, including beef farms in the Strangford constituency. It is anticipated that a further tranche of the RCF will be launched later in 2015.

Through the DARD-directed AFBI R&D programme, work is being undertaken to provide estimates of overall carrying capacity for the diverse pot fisheries in Strangford lough and to determine the susceptibility of the seabed to pot fisheries. AFBI has been successful in obtaining funding under Horizon 2020 for a programme on water quality for aquaculture systems and, under the European fisheries fund, for work on the sustainable management of lobster fisheries.

Finally, the DARD-directed AFBI R&D programme is funding a range of projects underpinning competitiveness, animal health and welfare and sustainable environment across the land-based agrifood sectors in the North. New research programmes are in the final stages of commissioning and will commence later in the year.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I was not expecting that when I asked the question. In further benefiting Strangford and all farmers, does the Minister welcome the rejection of proposed EU caps on methane emissions and consider that to be a huge relief for the farmers and, not least, the livestock?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is an issue of ongoing discussion. I have a scheduled meeting with my officials, and we will also talk to the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) around what it means for the local industry.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister accept that it is very difficult to have specific research projects to assist the agriculture industry when research is continually cut? Will she agree to look once again at the research sector and follow what they are doing in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland and identify greater levels of resource to ensure that there is qualitative agriculture research?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think it is fair to say that we have a significant body of research ongoing. That could be seen in the answer I gave to the substantive question. We have a significant portfolio with AFBI, which was, I think, £40 million last year. I am currently working with AFBI around research priorities and R&D potential, and looking at R&D and innovation and at what opportunities we have to attract additional funding from the EU in particular. Since my recent visit to China, the Chinese agriculture and science institute is very keen to work with us around potential research projects. So, I think we need to look towards what other opportunities there are for us.

To be clear, my officials and I have been working with AFBI around identifying the priority industry needs and the path forward. Recently, I had sight of its strategy for up to 2020. We are working our way through that with AFBI. I understand and think that there is some misinformation out there in relation to AFBI and the challenges, particularly in relation to budget. I understand that a figure of 26% has been quoted as representing the extent of cuts to AFBI. That is not the case. On a like-for-like basis, when you use the same methodology that is employed by my Department and across the public sector, the reduction to AFBI's budget is, in fact, 11·5%. That compares favourably with what I have tried to find, internally, in DARD, which is just over 15%. So, when you set that against AFBI's overall cost base, the reduction equates to only 7·5%.

Are there challenges? Yes. Do we need to prioritise the work we are doing in research, development and innovations? Yes. I will continue to work with AFBI around its priorities and the areas towards which we will be able to look for other funding opportunities for research, development and innovation.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

T1. Mr Middleton asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she has had any discussions with the Minister for Regional Development about the transport infrastructure to and from the Ballykelly site earmarked for her Department’s relocation. (AQT 2671/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, it is an issue that a party colleague raised with me, particularly in relation to a possible railway halt. I am very keen to see that happen. I think that it would help to open up the entire site, particularly if we have other companies and industries moving onto the site. I have discussed it with the Regional Development Minister. He has highlighted challenges. However, we have an ongoing conversation about whether there is any scope or potential opportunities for us to be able to secure that method of transport, which, I think, would be very beneficial to the site.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answer and welcome the fact that there have been discussions in relation to a stop there. The Minister will be aware that there is quite significant traffic on the roads between Londonderry and the Ballykelly site. Will she outline how far those discussions have progressed? Will she continue to press the Regional Development Minister on funding that type of proposal?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will continue to have such conversations. We have had a number of conversations at ministerial level and also at official level. My project team, which is working very hard to deliver the project in Ballykelly, has obviously factored in, to all the considerations, the transport issues, the access road and all those things. We are working our way through that. We are on target to be on site, as I have previously set out. We do not perceive any problems in relation to that, but, obviously, transport issues, and making sure that the site is accessible to the staff who decide to go there, is a key consideration.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

T2. Mr Nesbitt asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her assessment of how successful she has been in maximising the potential of red meat export markets. (AQT 2672/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Since taking up office, I have very clearly said that this Department is an economic Department, and that is why I worked with the Enterprise Minister to establish the Agri-Food Strategy Board, which has now come up very clearly with a vision; a strategy for the industry, up to 2020, for all sectors, whether beef, lamb, milk, poultry or any other. In particular, we have worked very hard with our colleagues in the DAFM and DEFRA on opening up market opportunities. We had some success with beef in South Africa towards the end of last year. I have recently returned from China, where we had another very successful round of engagements, and we hope to have very positive feedback as that market, hopefully, opens up over the next number of weeks.

There is an ongoing collective effort at Executive level, with the Enterprise Minister and me, for the agrifood industry, going out, taking on and working with whatever Administration it may be to open up new markets. So, yes, we have had success, particularly in relation to beef. The strategy clearly sets out that we have so many more opportunities that we need to consider. We look towards New Zealand, America and Asian countries. The scope is massive, and it is there for us to embrace, but we need fairness in the supply chain, and we need to assist the industry to grow, if we are to be able to do all that.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

With regard to red meat specifically, does the Minister accept that the export figures confirm that, under her watch, the Republic of Ireland has been allowed to pull well ahead in developing new export markets and, ultimately, that is to the detriment and disadvantage of local producers?