Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 June 2015

447 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the temperatures that we will have over the next few days, would you be minded to relax the dress code for Members in the Chamber, particularly those male folk who may want to take off their jacket?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am not sure that I share your confidence in the weathermen. If you do not mind, we will monitor it for the first few hours and then review the situation in those circumstances. I know that a precedent exists, but let us see how the weather really works out.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, given the accuracy of the BBC in predicting anything in this country, could we perhaps leave it for a day or two to see whether the BBC has got this one right?

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Are there wimps in the BBC?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Order. I hope that the party mood continues for the rest of today's business.

[Laughter.]

To reiterate: we will keep the situation under review. I am very conscious that, in the past, we have found it necessary to relax the usual code. I will come straight back to Members when it becomes obvious that we need to do something.

I want to proceed with today's business, and I have a few announcements to make.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I wish to inform the House that the Pensions Bill received Royal Assent on 23 June 2015. It will be known as the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2015.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Mr Danny Kinahan giving me notice of his intention to resign as a Member for the South Antrim constituency with effect from Saturday 27 June. I also wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Mr Tom Elliott giving me notice of his intention to resign as a Member for the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency, also with effect from Saturday 27 June. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer, in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I wish to advise the House that I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer of the following appointments: Mr Adrian Cochrane-Watson has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the South Antrim constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from Mr Kinahan's resignation; Mr Neil Somerville has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from Mr Elliott's resignation; and Ms Claire Hanna has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the South Belfast constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from Dr McDonnell's resignation. Mr Cochrane-Watson, Mr Somerville and Ms Hanna signed the Roll of Membership in my presence and that of the Clerk to the Assembly this morning and entered their designation. The Members have now taken their seats. I welcome them to the Assembly and wish them every success.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Matter of the Day

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Mr David McNarry has been given leave to make a statement on the terror attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. Members will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until this item of business has been finished.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Our hearts, prayers and thoughts are with the injured and the bereaved families cast into darkness, but so, too, must the outright condemnation from the House of ISIS and its warmongering be listened to.

Last Friday, at 7.00 am in France, 12.00 noon in Kuwait and, in between, at 11.45 am in Tunisia, ISIS terrorists struck, and they shook the free world. Thirty British and three Irish holidaymakers, along with others, were cut down by an IS extremist murdering innocent people on a Tunisian beach. It is unforgivable. Islamic countries must now decide to disown IS, to reject and repudiate it. They cannot host tourists and harbour terrorists at the same time. Our Government must also act by informing us all of the level of threat existing in our United Kingdom. I trust that the House will unite in that condemnation and that our message will be carried forward by you and your office, Mr Speaker, to the rest of the world.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not know whether saying that I welcome the opportunity to speak is the correct form of words today. I am sure that the events that unfolded last week filled everyone with horror, in the Chamber and outside it. I had the immense privilege, towards the end of last year, of being part of a delegation to Tunis. We met a number of senior political figures, including the president, and it was an eye-opening experience. It was very clear that there were serious concerns in the country that an attack such as this was almost inevitable. Last year, although Tunisia is one of the more secular Islamic states in the region, it exported over 2,000 young people to ISIS. That certainly caused the vast majority of right-thinking people in the area huge concern as it started to become clear what the ramifications could be.

It is a twisted, disgusting, barbaric ideology. It is often said at these times that it should not be reflected upon the vast majority of good people who live in the area, and I have to echo that today. I was received with nothing but courtesy and hospitality when I visited Tunisia. I think particularly of a young man called Tariq, who, despite putting his personal safety on the line, continues to try to mobilise the student movement to encourage all young people that violence is not a legitimate form of political protest. Therefore, I condemn it wholeheartedly and welcome the Member bringing it to the Floor today.

I think that we have to be in no doubt and be unequivocal in our condemnation of those acts over the weekend. Whether it is a terrorist attack in Sousse, New York, London, La Mon, Loughinisland or Omagh, it does not matter to me. Terrorism is terrorism, and it must be condemned on every possible occasion. The House must send out a message that that type of barbaric activity, regardless of whether it is on our shores or within the shores of other lands, should be condemned wholeheartedly and outrightly. My thoughts and prayers are with the families in the United Kingdom and across the border in the Republic who are bearing unmeasurable grief at time. I hope and pray that the vast majority of the thoughts of people in the House are with them.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I join others in saying that my party is shocked at the slaughter that happened on the beaches in Tunisia. Sinn Féin's deepest sympathies go to all the relatives who have lost loved ones and also to those who have been injured. I am hearing that 38 people were killed, but we will obviously have to wait for the final tally. British and Irish people were killed. Three from this island were killed. They were Laurence and Martina Hayes from Athlone, County Westmeath, and Lorna Carty from Robinstown, County Meath.

I also recently visited Tunisia, following the shootings in March. I was there for Easter weekend as part of a seminar, meeting political parties, Ministers, other elected representatives and non-governmental organisations from across the Middle East and north Africa. I know from my time there that the vast majority of the people of Tunisia will be outraged at the attack. They were certainly outraged at the attack that happened a couple of days before I visited. The vast majority of people from the Muslim world, here in Ireland and across the world will also be horrified and reject the activities of ISIS. The onus is on us to reach out to progressive and representative voices to address the issues that allow that sort of extremism to exist.

Our thoughts are with the families who have lost loved ones.

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

Reference has been made to the fact that terrorist attacks took place across three continents within a few hours of one another, resulting in the deaths of at least 62 people. That brings home to us the extent of what happened on a quiet Friday afternoon.

I became aware when I got a phone call from a family in Kilrea whose son was in Tunisia. In fact, he was on a beach close to where the shootings took place. I pay tribute to the British and Irish consular services for their outstanding help in assuring those families who were not tragically affected by the holocaust that their family members were safe and, indeed, that efforts were being made to get them out of the country. I particularly thank the British-Irish secretariat here in Belfast, which was absolutely outstanding in giving information to that family that their son was, in fact, safe after spending several hours locked in a bedroom, not knowing exactly what had happened.

Like Mr McIlveen, I have been to Tunisia, although just as a holidaymaker. I found the people there to be exceptionally good people. They are poor and very much dependent on tourism for their survival. They, too, need to be in our thoughts, because many countries in the world have had their tourism industry destroyed by acts of terrorism. Today, this island and our neighbouring island, along with Germany and Sweden, are united in grieving for all those families who went there to enjoy a short holiday and are now plunged into grief.

The Assembly, I am sure, is united in extending its good wishes to the people who were injured, some of them with life-changing injuries. Our prayers are with those families who, over the next few days, have to bring home the bodies of their loved ones.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Mr Ross Hussey. Mr Hussey, you are fine to sit down.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

On this occasion, Mr Speaker, I feel it is appropriate that I should stand as a mark of respect to the 30 British and three Irish who lost their life in this ridiculous attack.

I thank Mr McNarry for bringing this Matter of the Day to the House. Every time something like this happens, you think how you would react if it was a member of your own family. The reports were coming in on Friday lunchtime, and one of my staff actually said, "Reports are coming in from Tunisia". You hear one dead, two dead, and the figure goes up.

One of the first photographs that I saw was of a very good-looking young woman, a nurse, on her holidays. She was out to get a wee bit of sun before she came home and was brutally done to death by a terrorist.

I have said this before in the House, and I hope I never have to say it again: terrorists are cowards. They always have been and always will be cowards. That man arrived with a sub-machine gun and continually shot at people. I am one of those people who would put the car on the roof to avoid a rabbit. How could anybody deliberately go along and shoot people in cold blood?

We have seen it in this place in Northern Ireland, and we know the pain that these families are suffering. Thirty British and three Irish, and the Chamber is unique because we are British and Irish. So, 33 of our fellow citizens have been murdered, and for what? Tunisia depends on the tourist industry to make a living. As mentioned, they are a very poor people, and they need the support of tourists.

Terrorists terrorise, and that is what they are there for. They are there to terrorise the community. They have murdered in cold blood these citizens, but what have they done to the people of Tunisia? An awful lot of people will now not go to Tunisia, and nobody is going to encourage people to go to a place where they may get shot. We need to support the people of Tunisia as well.

I am appalled at these killings. My sympathy is with the families. They have many cold, dark days ahead. When the bodies are returned, they have days of mourning. I agree with the previous speakers that everyone in the House will send their sympathy to our fellow citizens, whether they be Irish or British.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

With others, I join in condemnation of this attack in Tunisia and express our sympathy to all the families of the victims, injured and bereaved. We also join in recognising that this is part of a three-pronged attack, including that in France and the attack on the Shia mosque in Kuwait.

It is right that, given the British and Irish victims in Tunisia, we reflect in particular on that incident and loss, not least given that it is perhaps the most serious terrorist attack that we have experienced in these islands for effectively 10 years. Somewhat poignantly, we are coming up to the tenth anniversary of 7/7 itself. However, we should bear in mind that this type of action is happening day and daily in different parts of the world, most notably in Iraq and Syria, but also in other parts of the Middle East. We are seeing barbaric acts and atrocities occurring with alarming frequency and people being singled out based upon their religion, some warped view of a lack of adherence to religion or, indeed, their sexuality.

It is clear that the threat from the so-called IS is a very localised challenge in some parts of the Middle East, but it is also now a major global challenge facing us all, with terror taking place on an almost random basis. That is obviously driven by what is very clearly a warped interpretation of Islam, just as throughout history we have seen barbaric acts and atrocities carried out through warped interpretations of other world religions.

I have a slight difference of opinion with Mr McNarry in saying that I think that very few states in the world are actively harbouring Islamic State. Islamic State is as much a threat to the states in the Middle East as to ourselves here in the west. People referred to Tunisia, which is now suffering hugely in terms of the loss to its economy. There is no doubt that it was particularly targeted, as this is the second major attack there in a number of months, because it was the first state to be involved in the Arab Spring and it has successfully made the transition to democracy.

We should also recognise the acts of many individual Tunisians who stepped in and prevented even worse acts of terrorism from occurring last week. They are real heroes. They recognise their common humanity with our citizens, as well as the fate of their state on the back of this.

There are, of course, challenges to us all, both in the West and states in the Middle East, in how we tackle propaganda and prevent our citizens from leaving our shores as fighters. Those are discussions for another day, but we need a genuine global response to what is a genuine global problem.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I wish to express, as all other Members have, my sympathy to those who are grieving and who find themselves mourning relatives who went for a holiday and finished up in a holocaust; who thought that they were going to a beach and found themselves in a bloodbath. Since we in Northern Ireland can identify so much with the sudden loss that comes from acts of terror, I think that the sympathy and the empathy of the Assembly should go out to them.

On the wider issue, though, this is the challenge for our generation. Many people point to worldwide issues that need to be dealt with, and this is one of the global issues. Friday's violence across three continents indicates just how widespread this is. We in this country need to seriously decide how we wish to address it. People living in this country need to decide how we react to it.

Whilst there is responsibility for our Government and for other Governments, there are also responsibilities for those whose community is being targeted by this death cult; and it is a death cult, which only wishes to spread destruction, whether it is the destruction of the Tunisian economy, the destruction of the lives of the people who went there on holiday, or the destruction of families. I listened to the family of the gunman, who said that he was their hope; he was the one who had got an education, and yet his mind was poisoned by individuals who wanted to draw him into this death cult.

I think that leaders in the Muslim community here in Northern Ireland also need to bear in mind their responsibility. It was not so long ago that we had the head of the Muslim community in Northern Ireland on the radio actually praising this death cult for what it had done when it took over Mosul, and claiming that it had brought order to that city. When people are considering how we deal with this, everyone at all levels of society, especially those within the Muslim community, have to ask themselves what responsibility we have if our families are being drawn into this. We must inform the police, dissuade them, and make sure that there are no more recruits who gun down innocents on beaches and in factories.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I join in the condemnation of these horrific events, made all the more horrific because they occurred at a time when those in Tunisia thought that they were there for a period of relaxation, leaving aside the cares that beset people, only to suddenly face the deadly horror of the situation. That adds a peculiar dimension to the situation. Of course, as a society, we came face-to-face for far too long with the awful wickedness of terrorism. Those of us who opposed that terrorism can quite properly join in expressing our horror and condemnation of this terrorism. Those who supported that terrorism must speak for themselves as they deploy words to meet this situation.

Reference has been made, and it is true, that Tunisia was the crucible of what was called the Arab Spring. Now we have come full circle to the horrors of terrorism that we are facing, not just there but in many other countries, including our own. I do think that it is unhelpful to note the diffidence, at times, of the Prime Minister and others to call this for what it is — Islamic-inspired terrorism. You can ignore reality, but you cannot go on ignoring the consequences of ignoring reality. I trust that stern and necessary measures will be taken within our nation and that the jihadists who go off to trade their war outside this nation will be prevented from ever returning within our boundaries. A very clear message has to go out that the Government and all in authority are serious about identifying the source and the nature of this terrorism and serious about dealing with it on our shores. To an extent, there has been too much diffidence already in dealing with that.

I send my condolences to all concerned. That is a small matter in the realm of the huge devastation that they feel, but it is right that those who have experienced terrorism, such as this community, should feel an affinity and empathise with them at this time.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I am grateful for the opportunity to condemn these most recent atrocities, including Friday's events in Tunisia. The principle of non-violence is at the heart of what the Green Party in Northern Ireland stands for. Global terrorism is a scourge. It is not often that I agree with Mr Sammy Wilson, but it is one of the greatest challenges facing us. Globally, this type of event happens much too often — seemingly on a daily basis, as Mr Farry pointed out. This particular event in Tunisia over the weekend affected people from these shores, but the suffering, pain and anguish of those involved in the often daily atrocities across the world are no less just because we do not know them. Of course, in Northern Ireland we know only too well the impact of terrorism — how it tears families and societies apart. It is important that we condemn terrorism, wherever it originates. Unfortunately, it continues to be a scourge in our society and that is something that we must continue to grapple with.

On behalf of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, I extend my sympathy to the families of this most recent atrocity. Violence begets violence, and we must lead by example through standing strong on the principle of non-violence. That is the only way we can defeat those who perpetrate such heinous crimes.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Mr Steven Agnew has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

The petition I present today calls for a change in the law to effectively ban the use of animals in circuses by denying them access to an entertainment licence. Let me be clear: animals do not exist for our entertainment. We know what an animal needs to ensure its welfare.

The five freedoms include the need for a suitable environment; the need to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. We have protected the five freedoms through the code of practice issued by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and we should ensure that the five freedoms are met in all aspects of our society. Even with the best of intentions, a travelling circus cannot meet the five freedoms of an animal, and, for that reason, I believe that circuses that use animal acts should be prohibited in our society. Animals should be afforded dignity and respect, and they are denied that in circuses where the five freedoms are not met.

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

I would like to thank Councillor Ross Brown for starting the petition, and I am honoured to present it to you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the 1,775 signatories. I urge the Environment Minister to take action. He has gone out to consultation on the licensing regime, and 1,775 people have spoken and made it very clear that they no longer wish our society to give legitimacy to circuses that perpetuate cruelty on animals. To quote one of the signatories:

"It's time to stop this cruelty. Animals deserve better."

Mr Agnew moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member. I will forward the petition to the Minister of the Environment.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 29 June 2015.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 29 June 2015.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

The motion will be treated as a business motion and, therefore, there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Ms Caitríona Ruane be appointed to the board of trustees of the Assembly Members' pension scheme. — [Mr G Kelly.]

Ministerial Statements

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the British-Irish Council (BIC) summit that was held in Dublin on 19 June. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will make the statement on their behalf.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

In accordance with the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-fourth summit meeting of the British-Irish Council, which took place in Dublin Castle on 19 June. The First Minister, the deputy First Minister and I attended the summit, and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have agreed that I make this statement on their behalf.

The Irish Government hosted the summit, and the heads of delegations were welcomed by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD. The United Kingdom Government were led by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP. The Scottish Government were led by the First Minister, the Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP.

The Welsh Government were led by the First Minister, Rt Hon Carwyn Jones AM. The Isle of Man Government were led by the Chief Minister, the honourable Allan Bell MHK. The Government of Jersey were led by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst. The Government of Guernsey were led by the Chief Minister, Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq.

The twice yearly summits continue to provide an opportunity for the British-Irish Council to play a unique and important role in furthering, promoting and developing links between its member Administrations through positive, practical relationships, and in providing a forum for consultation and exchange of information on matters of mutual interest.

As is now customary at each summit, the Council discussed the current economic situation. Each member Administration outlined their latest economic indicators and the strategies that they are putting in place to promote growth and address unemployment. Overall, a common theme emerged of a continuing improving economic situation in all member Administrations, with a recognition of the interdependence and links between our economies. Each Administration also noted the decision of the UK Government to hold a referendum on membership of the European Union and the potential implications of the outcome for their economies.

The Irish Government presented a collaborative paper, on behalf of the misuse of substances work sector, on the misuse of alcohol, focusing on the economic and social implications of alcohol abuse and the various measures planned to tackle the problem of excessive alcohol consumption. In response, the Council had a detailed discussion on the significant harm being caused by alcohol to individuals, families and society. The Council agreed that continuing action is required across member Administrations to protect the health and well-being of the wider public — especially children — from alcohol misuse. The Council recognised the need for policies that foster protective environments for families and young people and to implement strategies that target high-risk groups. There was an exchange of views and information on how member Administrations are handling issues such as marketing and advertising, minimum pricing and licensing reform.

All member Administrations reaffirmed their commitment to the British-Irish Council and to its key principle of facilitating the development of mutually beneficial relationships between these islands. They recognised the many positive achievements of the BIC to date and agreed that it was timely to update the working of the British-Irish Council to ensure that it best reflects shared priorities for the member Administrations and delivers for citizens across the islands. They requested that officials, working closely with the secretariat, review the work sector's activities and report back on progress to the next summit in November 2015, as well as review the working of the Council in general.

The Council received an update on the work that had taken place across each of the 12 sectors since the last summit in November 2014. The Council looked forward to a number of ministerial meetings, at work-sector level, to be held later this year. The Council also reviewed the latest youth employment statistics across the Administrations and welcomed the further progress being made in that important area. The Council noted the secretariat's end-year report against its business plan and welcomed the publication of the BIC annual report 2014. Finally, the Council noted that the next BIC summit will be hosted by the UK Government in London in November 2015.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for the update. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland Executive are the only lead member Administration with sole responsibility for no fewer than three of the work streams: collaborative spatial planning, housing and sustainable and accessible transport. Can he tell the House why that is, what the implications are for the resource demand on officials and update us on those three sectors?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not know the origins, specifically, of why Northern Ireland has responsibility for three of the work streams out of quite a number. I am looking at Mr Attwood across the Chamber. I am not sure whether he was Minister for Social Development at the time that the housing sector work stream was started. If he was not, it was his predecessor who was in post. I think that work stream was moved forward for inclusion specifically at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive. It was not one of the original work streams; it was added at that stage. Each of those work streams is tailored to areas where there is particular interest from the lead member Administration. I can certainly return to this area and ensure that officials get back to the Member about any cost estimate for the time taken by our officials in taking forward work. The Member is aware, I imagine, from his chairmanship of the OFMDFM Committee, that the overall cost of the secretariat as a whole to Northern Ireland is quite modest. The fees that we are paying to keep the secretariat going are a little over £10,000 a year, but that obviously does not take into account costs for in-kind work done by officials.

While there will be a cost and time will be spent and, perhaps, officials will be taken away from the day-to-day core business in their Departments, it is work of mutual interest, and there is benefit for Northern Ireland in working collaboratively with officials from other Administrations. I know from my Department that there was a focus at the summit on the misuse of alcohol and substances and that work was shared at the summit and across the work stream that can be of benefit to Northern Ireland. We put in time and resources, but we get the benefit of sharing our understanding.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

The Minister highlighted a discussion between the Administrations about the economy. How does Northern Ireland's economic performance compare with that of other BIC members?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

At the commencement of the summit, some time was devoted to a discussion among all member Administrations about the state of their respective economies. I noted from the previous BIC summit, before the turn of the year, in the Isle of Man, that there had been further improvement in economic outlook across all member Administrations. We cannot all boast as good an economic outlook and performance as that of the Isle of Man, which reported having over 30 years of unbroken economic growth and an unemployment rate of about 1·5%. That is something to which we would all aspire and try to work towards.

There was general optimism across member Administrations about the state of the economy. It struck me that Northern Ireland was performing a little better than some member Administrations in the area of unemployment. That is not to say that Northern Ireland's unemployment situation is perfect by any means, but it is certainly considerably lower than that of the host member Administration, the Republic of Ireland, where unemployment has fallen from a high of around 15% to now just below 10%. Northern Ireland is at 6·1%, which is a little above the UK average but certainly a lot better than the rate in the Irish Republic. We should be immensely proud that our claimant count has been down for 28 months. It is one indicator among many that things are starting to improve in Northern Ireland and right across the British Isles.

The fact that all Administrations across the British Isles were reporting economic growth, falling unemployment and general optimism and confidence across the economy can only be a good thing for Northern Ireland. We are so economically linked to and interdependent on one another that, when we get good economic news in the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, England or in other Administrations, that is ultimately good news for Northern Ireland too.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. What indications were discussed at the meeting for the future direction and working of the British-Irish Council?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

As I said in my update, there was a brief discussion among member Administrations about reviewing the work of the work streams to update the next summit, which will be held in London in November and which will discuss progress on those work streams. That will help to inform future work undertaken by those work streams, whether some of them can be pared back or whether new ones can be put in their place. That will obviously have an impact on the future work of the summit.

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

I ask the Minister to lodge the updates across the 12 work sectors since the last summit, in November 2014, in the Assembly Library for Members' consideration. When the discussion took place on the forthcoming referendum on membership of the European Union, did the British Government indicate in any shape or form that they recognised how any withdrawal from Europe might have a disproportionate impact on the economy and the people of Northern Ireland?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Foreign Secretary raised the issue of the referendum in the context of the economic discussion that had taken place at the summit. I do not recall him specifically talking about the impact on other devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. A range of views was expressed, although he did not need to; other First Ministers and Chief Ministers ensured that their concerns were raised. For his part, our First Minister welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister was pursuing renegotiation. That is something we have long supported. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is endeavouring to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the European Union. I think his call for reform of the European Union will find common cause, not across just the United Kingdom, but the European Union. At this stage — the early stage — of those discussions and negotiations that the Prime Minister is engaged in, I think we should be wishing him luck and hoping that he gets a successful and fruitful result for the United Kingdom.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Was there any mention of welfare reform in the margins of the conference? Did the Scottish or Welsh Ministers offer any comfort regarding our ability to obtain further concessions from the British Government?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am not always sure whether you are allowed to talk openly about what happens in the margins. I could not talk about everybody's margins; I could talk only about the margins that I was in. There was no specific, formal discussion around welfare reform on the agenda. Obviously, as you might expect, it was raised, particularly by the First Minister, in the context of the overall need to have faithful and full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, the impact that it was having upon the Northern Ireland Executive and the instability that it was creating in the institutions. Beyond that, there was no formal discussion. Whilst I think I can recall comment made by the First Minister of Scotland and others about welfare reform in the broad sense, no specific comment about Northern Ireland was made in the formal summit. I cannot comment on what was done in the margins that various people were drawing before, during or after the summit.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Minister, you mentioned briefly that a paper on the misuse of substances was presented. Can you inform the House what discussions, if any, took place about the outlawing of the new psychoactive substances?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. These so-called legal highs, or new psychoactive substances, as they are better referred to, have caused concern across the British Isles. The Irish Government have moved to ban and outlaw new psychoactive substances. Learning in that area can be useful when it is shared across BIC member Administrations. The Home Office Minister Mike Penning, who was at the summit, mentioned the fact that legislation is proceeding through the Houses of Parliament to ban new psychoactive substances. That is something that we warmly welcome; it is something that we have been pushing for in Northern Ireland for some time. In fact, it was the subject of a motion and debate in the House that was brought forward by our colleague Alex Easton, a number of weeks ago. So, it is good to see that that progress is being made. Again, it is a very good example of where policy decisions taken in one member Administration of the BIC can have an experience and learning that can be used by others and taken forward as policy in other member Administrations.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. It is none of my business whether the British people decide to remain in the EU, but, clearly, any decision that they might take would impact on this region and, perhaps, many others. Will the Minister confirm that the majority of Administrations at the BIC expressed concerns in relation to the British intention regarding its exit from the EU?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

A straw poll of the various views of Administrations was not taken at the summit, but certainly, on the basis of listening to those who expressed any opinion on the European Union and the referendum that will take place next year in the United Kingdom, concern was expressed by the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales, in particular. It is also fair to say that some of the smaller Administrations expressed concern. The Isle of Man, in particular, expressed concerns because of the nature of its relationship with the European Union. So, yes, concerns were expressed, as you would expect them to be expressed, for national interest reasons and for party political reasons by other member Administrations and their heads of delegation.

I reiterate that I welcome the progress that the Prime Minister has made to date. I think that many across Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and Europe will be welcoming the fact that the Prime Minister is bringing a focus to the issue and to the long outstanding and much-needed reform of the European Union. I think that we would do well to wish him well in the negotiations that he has commenced.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I also thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon. He said that some discussions took place on the misuse of alcohol in our society. Will he confirm that the issue of minimum unit pricing is still being viewed as a viable means to deal with that problem?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The focus of the summit was on the misuse of substances, particularly the misuse of alcohol, and there was an exchange of information and experience across member Administrations. There was a particular interest in the issue, as it had been raised initially by the Scottish Government, who are, at this minute, entangled in a court case in Europe on the legality of moving forward with minimum unit pricing. I was one Minister amongst several who expressed a keen interest in the outcome of that case, and we will continue to observe it as it moves through the European Court processes, with an expected conclusion or at least an indication of direction by the autumn of this year. It has been considered between the Executive and the Irish Government, along with the impact that the border might have on any minimum unit pricing on one side of the border or both. To that end, research has been jointly commissioned by the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and I anticipate that the outcome of that will be published in the not too distant future.

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

I also welcome the Minister's statement. I noted that the British-Irish Council reflected on the need to project the best image of the organisation in how it represents people across these islands, and that is to be commended. Not least, of course, is the issue of youth unemployment, and I am pleased that that issue was discussed. Will the Minister tell us what he has gleaned from those discussions that might slow down the number of our young people who are heading off to other parts, legally and illegally, to find work when there is none at home?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

This is the second British-Irish Council summit that I have attended in succession, and youth unemployment was discussed in more detail at the previous one. It was raised during the broad economic discussion that member Administrations had at the commencement of the more recent summit in Dublin Castle.

Work in this area is ongoing between Administrations. Like unemployment, economic growth and the other updates that were provided, we are seeing improvements in this area, and we are seeing improvements in our youth unemployment figures in Northern Ireland. We are by no means in a position whereby we should be resting on our laurels with the progress that has been made. I have long supported the various strategies that are in place between the Department for Employment and Learning, working in conjunction with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, to create employment opportunities, and I want that to continue.

One of the worst impacts of the downturn has been the denial of opportunities to many young people, not just in Northern Ireland but right across the British Isles and further afield. The different strategies and policies that are pursued in member Administrations can be shared, learned from and adopted, if necessary and appropriate, in our own jurisdiction and elsewhere.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

This is the product of another long hard day at the British-Irish Council (BIC). Is there a sense of embarrassment at the commitment in the document to update the working of the BIC? Is that an acknowledgement that it is very much the poor relation and that east-west relations just have a notional traction — even the 2014 report shows how shallow that is — in contrast with the constant ministerial meetings of "North/Southery", where we pour in £30 million a year and more and run a British-Irish Council secretariat for £98,000 a year —

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to come to a question on the Minister's statement.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that the workings on an east-west basis need to be revamped and that they are totally out of kilter with the focus and emphasis of "North/Southery"?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I would like to see the British-Irish Council do more. My experience of working in the environs of the Council proved that there is a lot to be learnt across its member Administrations. I would have thought that the Member might want to welcome and acknowledge that, but, of course, it is not his habit to do so.

I think that it is right that, periodically, the work of the BIC is refreshed, and the Member should welcome the fact that that is being acknowledged across the several member Administrations. Collectively, they acknowledge its importance. That is always recorded at the start of a summit, and, indeed, comment was passed publicly in the press conference afterwards that all the Administrations very much welcome the opportunity, whether formally or — to use Mr Lunn's phrase "in the margins" — to have conversations with each other. I accept that that has been slow to grow in importance, but it is of growing importance.

I think that the Member overstates his case. I think, having attended some North/South Ministerial Council meetings in plenary and sectoral session, that he has a habit of overstating the work of that institution. He is right that there are lots of meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council in its various formats, but not a lot of output from it.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I wish to make a statement regarding the Líofa website.

I previously advised Members that the Líofa website had been shut down because the details of some Líofa participants had been made available publicly on the site, and I undertook to make a further statement to the House when the matter had been investigated fully.

The Department engaged IT security experts, accredited by the Communications-Electronic Security Group, which is the UK’s national technical authority for information assurance, to establish the full extent of the Líofa website’s vulnerabilities. The matter was also reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

While the independent IT security experts found that data disclosure had taken place, they could find no evidence for the disclosure having come from the Líofa website. Rather, they stated that the disclosure came from a test server with the developer who created the site. As a result, the maintenance contract with the existing website developer has been terminated, and a new Líofa website has been developed by the NI Civil Service enterprise shared services (ESS). The Department used the opportunity to upgrade the site, to make it more easily accessible across all types of smartphone and tablet, to improve the user experience and to bring responsibility for its management and future development fully in-house.

While a new website was under development, an interim Líofa site was constructed and made live. That provided a range of helpful information about Irish language classes, learning resources and how to register for Líofa. The interim site was hosted by ESS as part of the Civil Service network and was independently verified. Full responsibility for the new website now rests with the Department, with ESS removing any role for Foras na Gaeilge or a third-party supplier. The ICO is content that no further action is required. The ICO also asked the Department to review its management arrangements for personal data, and that is being taken forward by a senior information records officer. A lessons learned report has been completed and is being quality assured.

I would like to reiterate that I am deeply sorry about this unfortunate incident, but I am satisfied that the new website, in-house management arrangements and independent verification of the site will restore the confidence of Líofa participants in using the website. The new site is now fully functional and provides improved access to help Líofa learners on their journey.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The issue arises of the future intentions of the Minister because this is clearly in the context of the Líofa website having a sustained future. In view of the financial constraints at the moment, how does she envisage the future of the website, in view of all the competing costs and the fact that so many projects have had to be either completely abandoned or severely restricted in their funding?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. I did not hear it fully owing to the sound in the Chamber, but I think that I caught the thrust of it, which was about affordability and the future maintenance of the website. The website's budget has already been set right through to the end of the mandate. When we are preparing our next CSR, I will firmly make the maintenance of the Líofa website central to that, as I will other needs that are competing for attention, support and sustainability throughout.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. An dtig liom ceist áirithe a chur ar an Aire. Will the Minister tell us who in the Department commissioned the investigation of the breach?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat. The Department commissioned IT security experts independent of it, which, by British standards, is the national communications agency. We commissioned the Communications-Electronics Security Group and the British national security authority for information assurance to ensure, first, that any such breaches would not occur again and, secondly, that Líofa participants and other users of DCAL's other services on the web were assured. They have provided a detailed report assessing the security status of the site and made a number of recommendations. This is about learning from our mistakes to try to ensure that they do not happen again.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. An dtig liom a fhiafraí den Aire cá mhéad airgid a caitheadh ar an suíomh go dtí seo? How much has been spent to date on the Líofa website?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

There was a budget of almost £60,000 for the Líofa website, so it is now over £65,000, including a new health check and paying for those services.

I am sure that the Member will agree with me that, given that we are reaching almost 12,000 participants and growing, not only are people happy to access the website but the new arrangements have engendered the confidence of people using it. It is an important tool, particularly for people who are learning from home, or even for adult learners like me who need every support possible and cannot get to as many classes as they would like to. Therefore, it is almost £65,000, and, as far as I am concerned, it is £65,000 well spent.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I see that the finger of suspicion was clearly pointed at the test server operated by the developer. Did he have anything to say about that?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

As the Member will appreciate, it is not about pointing fingers but about learning lessons. I want to say that up front. The Department is in discussions to try to ascertain exactly what we can do from here, but the contract with that server has been terminated. We are now with a new in-house Civil Service contract, which has been tested and verified, and I am quite content that we can learn lessons from the past and move on.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Minister said that all the measures will hopefully restore the confidence of Líofa participants in using the website. What action has she taken to reassure the public that the website is now secure?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The statement that the Member will have received laid out clearly that there was a breach.

We have not only rectified the breach but enhanced security arrangements to ensure that Líofa participants have confidence in the website and in getting access to it. We brought in renowned IT specialists who have not only verified it but checked that the website is functioning as it should be and that confidentiality is adhered to for Líofa participants. Although it has taken some time, I am happy that we have taken that time to get it right.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answers. Will she clarify who manages the website now and who did? Can we again have assurances that the failure will not reoccur? Obviously, it is important that a full investigation is carried out and that the lessons learned are put in place not just in this Department but across the various Departments.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his questions. I will take his last point first: I am responsible only for my Department, but certainly the experts that we have now and even the fact that the website is being managed centrally by the Civil Service should provide additional assurance.

As I said in response to Leslie Cree, we are looking at how the breach happened. As I said to him, we terminated that contract on the basis that we needed to move forward. I am content with the time taken, not only to look at how the breach happened, but to terminate the contract and to get new IT experts in who have looked at the security and tested and verified the new arrangements.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you mentioned in your statement the Information Commissioner's Office. What was its view, and has it made any recommendations?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. The ICO advised that it did not intend to take any further regulatory action, but it advised the Department to take actions to ensure that such breaches do not occur again. We have taken its advice, and we have taken the skills and services of IT experts to ensure that data protection is adhered to. I am content not only with the report from the ICO but with the measures that we have taken thus far, as I believe everyone is.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Carrying on from the answer that the Minister has just given, I ask her to expand on this phrase in her statement:

"establish the full extent of the website’s vulnerabilities."

What does that mean?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Back in September of last year, when a Líofa participant reported that they had seen their email details on the website when that should not have been the case, the problem was remedied and the website was tested independently within the Department. That is how you do it: the IT experts come in and independently test the security of the website. They use different mechanisms to test it to ensure not only that the website is not breached but that data protection is upheld. I think that that is really important, and I am sure the Member will agree with me.

I have no difficulty with people from outside the Department testing the website to ensure that not only does it work but that it functions and provides the best possible security screens to ensure that data protection is not breached.

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

It is a worthwhile website as far as I am concerned, but I am sure the Minister will agree with me that £65,000 is a lot of money to be spent on a breach of data. I am glad that she has made the statement to the House. Is there any advice for people who may not be computer savvy on how to join up to the Líofa programme?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. The money that was spent on the website included paying for the IT experts to come in to not only fix the breach but to provide firewalls and security steps to ensure that the website cannot be breached in the future. There are many people who, like the Member, have expressed an interest in joining Líofa. At a very basic level, and I am not an IT expert by any stretch of the imagination, if someone cannot access the DCAL website they should google "Líofa". That will bring you directly to a link. If you go on the Internet and look, or even look at liofa.ie, you will definitely get a link to it. There is a very easy step-by-step approach to join and become a Líofa participant. Once that happens, members of our team will be in contact to see what services can be availed of. Once you are a member of Líofa, you also get a newsletter giving updates. You can access Irish language classes at different levels and find out where some of your local classes are.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister tell us whether she personally met the Information Commissioner's Office? If so, can she explain what is meant by "no further regulatory action"? Is there any other action that is being anticipated by the ICO?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I did not personally meet the ICO. That is what the officials' job is; they met the ICO. The ICO would have been in a position, if it felt that the breach had been of such a severe nature, where it could have awarded penalties against the Department. That is what is meant by that term, in response to the Member's point. The ICO is assured that the remedies that we have taken thus far are satisfactory. It also asked that the Department have an overall look at all its Internet usage and to ensure that data protection is adhered to, which we have done. We have asked independent experts to come in to ensure that not only has it been done but that it is maintained. As I am sure the Member will agree, data protection is something that we need to strive for to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for people.

Executive Committee Business

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I call on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Moved. — [Mrs Foster (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Budget (No. 2) Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That the Londonderry Harbour (Variation of Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

In 1992, the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners resolved, through an administrative measure, to abandon their jurisdiction of part of the River Foyle. Since the Craigavon Bridge was built in 1933, the part of the river between Craigavon Bridge and Lifford Bridge has been inaccessible to port traffic and of no commercial benefit to the commissioners. Therefore, the commissioners decided to amend their limits of jurisdiction. However, while the commissioners introduced this administrative measure, that in itself was insufficient to legally alter the harbour limits, so it was recognised that formal legislation was required. The commissioners did not bring their decision to the attention of my Department and, once it came to light, my officials worked closely with the commissioners to prepare the order.

The purpose of this order is to provide for the formal revision of the commissioners' harbour limits. The order has been subject to a 12-week public consultation, which ended on 23 February 2015. Only one response was received during the consultation process, and that supported the legislation. I am grateful for the consideration given to the proposal by Executive colleagues and for the consideration given to the matter by the Committee for Regional Development. In addition, the Examiner of Statutory Rules has considered the order and has not had any formal comments to make in his sixteenth report of this session. This has allowed the order to proceed to today's debate to seek affirmation. I, therefore, commend the Londonderry Harbour (Variation of Limits) Order 2015 to the Assembly.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I will be very brief. The Committee for Regional Development considered this item of subordinate legislation at SL1 stage at its meeting on 25 March 2015. The Committee stated at that time that it was content with the merits of the policy proposals. The draft statutory rule was considered by the Committee on 27 May, when members stated that they had no objections to the rule. The Committee for Regional Development's position in that regard has not changed. We support the motion.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Londonderry Harbour (Variation of Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be approved.

This statutory rule is being made under powers contained in the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which prescribes that this order must be laid in draft for approval by affirmative resolution of the Assembly. The changes that I bring forward in the draft order relate to the Renewables Obligation Order (Northern Ireland) 2009. The Northern Ireland renewables obligation, or the NIRO as it is better known, has been the main support mechanism for incentivising renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland since 2005. Since its introduction in 2005, renewable consumption has increased from 3% to 20%, so it has been a great success.

This is the latest in a line of changes in recent years to adapt the NIRO to local, national and European developments. The underlying principle of the NIRO is to support deployment of renewables at least cost to the consumer, as it is the consumer who ultimately bears the cost of incentivising renewable electricity in Northern Ireland. Therefore, support needs to be reviewed periodically to ensure that it is as cost-effective as it possibly can be.

There is a statutory requirement for my Department to carry out a review of renewable obligation certificate bands before new bands are set. My Department undertook a small-scale banding review and public consultation in 2014.

The consultation proposed the retention of the existing levels of support for small-scale onshore wind, hydro and anaerobic digestion (AD) generating stations but proposed the reduction in support for solar photovoltaic (PV) stations up to 250 kW installed capacity. The majority of respondents agreed with the retention of existing ROC levels of support for onshore wind, hydro and AD. However, a large proportion disagreed with the proposed reductions for solar PV. It was argued that the proposals were too severe and could halt future levels of solar deployment in Northern Ireland.

The consultation process provided additional evidence to support a higher ROC level for solar PV from that originally proposed and also to introduce the reductions in a stepped manner rather than in one single reduction. That will ensure the continued deployment under the NIRO at support levels, which will decrease in line with technology cost reductions. From 1 October 2015, the ROC banding level will reduce from four ROCs to three ROCs per MW hour, and will reduce again on 1 October 2016 to two ROCs per MW hour until the NIRO closes in 2017. The changes will apply only to new generating stations. Any generating station already accredited under the NIRO will continue to receive the ROC banding level at which it was originally accredited.

In conclusion — apologies for my late entry. I understand that business proceeded apace, but my apologies for that — the ROC levels introduced in this order are a sensible approach to small-scale renewables deployment under the NIRO.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for moving this. The Committee explored this on a number of occasions and took evidence from the Department and interested stakeholders if memory serves me right. After the proposed changes were recommended by the Department, the Committee was happy to support the proposals.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Minister wish to respond?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the vice-Chair of the Committee. We spent some time last week discussing a number of issues. I am relatively new in office, but I appreciate the very positive contribution that the Chair and vice-Chair have made. I hope that that continues. I welcome the Committee's endorsement of what has been proposed. The proposed ROC banding changes strike the appropriate balance of continued support at least cost to the consumer. I think that that is the model that everybody in the House wants. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be approved.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be approved.

The draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 is being made under articles 19, 7 and 8 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. Article 19(9) of the 1992 Order provides that a draft of the order must be laid before, and approved by, a resolution of the Assembly. The draft order will maintain and continue the policy that was in place before the coming into operation of the Local Government Act 2014 by removing certain restrictions imposed on councils in relation to their public supply or works contracts. It is necessary to make the order because the 2014 Local Government Act replaced the best value regime with the new performance improvement framework.

The draft order will enable councils to continue to include social clauses in their work and supply contracts, should they wish to do so. This could include, for example, the provision of apprenticeships, the employment of people who are long-term unemployed and the provision of work experience places. The draft order replicates and will re-establish the provisions of the Local Government Best Value (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order 2012, which was made at the request of councils and approved by the Assembly on 3 July 2012. The draft order was not consulted on, as it simply maintains the provisions introduced by the 2012 Order and does not include any new policy proposals.

I ask the Assembly to approve the draft order.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background and purpose of this technical statutory rule.

The Committee first considered the SL1 proposal at its meeting on 16 April. Officials briefed the Committee on 30 April, providing more details on the rule. The Committee noted that one outcome of the Local Government Act 2014 was a new performance management framework that replaced the best value regime. As a result, the Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 was repealed. Subsequently, a statutory rule made under that Act, enabling councils to include social clauses in their works and supply contracts, also fell. The Committee supports the order, as it reintroduces provisions that were repealed, thus enabling councils to continue to include social clauses in their contracts and thereby encourage good practice and helping employment.

The Committee sought assurances from officials that measures remained in place to ensure that councils continued to deliver value for money through the performance improvement framework. The Committee also noted that the Department is working on amending guidance so that it reflects the current order. Accordingly, the Environment Committee has agreed to recommend that the motion be approved by the Assembly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This order will enable councils to continue to have greater flexibility in the drawing-up of their contracts and, as a result, will benefit their communities. I thank the Chair of the Environment Committee and other Committee members for their support for the motion.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be approved.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Health and Social Care (Control of Data Processing) Bill [NIA 52/11-16] be agreed.

Every individual in Northern Ireland will use the services provided by the health and social care sector at some point in their life. In doing so, we provide information about ourselves, in confidence, to be used by health and social care professionals for our direct, personal care. However, this information is also valuable in other ways. It can help to understand the health and social care needs of everyone and the quality of care and treatment provided. It can also assist research by supporting studies that identify patterns in diseases, responses to different treatments and the effectiveness of different services. Currently, information can be used for such purposes if consent has been given or the information is anonymised. There are, however, limited instances in which access to information that identifies individuals is needed to secure the required outcome and obtaining their consent is not possible or practicable.

At present, patient-identifiable information may already be used for purposes other than direct care as long as the requirements that are set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the common-law duty of confidentiality are met. The requirements of the Human Rights Act and Data Protection Act are clearly defined. However, aspects of the common-law duty of confidentiality are less clear, and that can present a challenge.

Under the common-law duty of confidentiality, where consent has not been given, personal information may only be shared if there is a statutory basis for doing so or if disclosure is deemed to be in the public interest. At present, because we do not have statutory authority, the use of patient-identifiable information for any purpose other than direct care is predicated on the organisation’s ability to satisfy the public interest test. Deciding what is or is not in the public interest is open to interpretation, and that creates a significant risk for patients, the health and social care (HSC) organisations that hold the information and those who are using the information. The ambiguity about what constitutes public interest means that decisions may be more subjective and prone to legal challenge. Additionally, organisations may simply decide not to pursue that option in the absence of a robust framework, and, as such, the associated potential benefits that were outlined earlier may not be realised.

The purpose of the Bill is not to open the floodgates for sharing confidential information without adherence to existing law or due regard to an individual’s right to privacy. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Bill would enable my Department to establish a robust, transparent and open process that will ensure that information is shared in very limited and strictly controlled circumstances for medical or social care purposes that will clearly benefit health and social care or be in the public interest. Any use of information must still comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

Applicants will have to clearly demonstrate to the committee that the use of information that identifies individuals is absolutely essential to the successful outcome of their work. They will further have to prove that similar results could not be obtained by using anonymised information and that it is either impossible or impracticable to obtain consent from every individual whose information may be used. If an application is approved, the approval will allow the organisations to release the information. It will not compel the organisations to release it.

In bringing forward the Bill, I am seeking to remove the ambiguity that currently surrounds the use of information for purposes other than direct care and, in so doing, safeguard the patient, their information, the health and social care sector and the information user.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I wish to note the introduction of the Health and Social Care (Control of Data Processing) Bill.

The Committee took evidence from officials in October last year while the consultation on the proposed legislation was live. It took further evidence in February, after the responses to the consultation were analysed, and again on 17 June, following the Bill’s introduction. During the briefings — in particular, the most recent briefing — members raised a number of issues about the principles of the Bill, and it was agreed that I would convey those during the debate today on the Bill's Second Stage.

As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory framework and safeguards to enable the use of health and social care information that identifies individuals to be used for medical or social care purposes that would improve health and social care or are in the public interest, without the consent of the individuals whose information may be used. The Committee has absolutely no concerns in relation to the principle of providing a statutory framework and putting in place robust safeguards to enable the use of patient-identifiable information for medical or social care purposes, with the ultimate aim of improving health and social care. It is vital that a framework is put in place to help reduce the risk of a loss of personal information. The Committee’s concerns focused mainly on the principle of sharing identifiable information without consent and, following on from that, the principle of sharing identifiable information without consent if it is deemed to be in the public interest.

Most, if not all, Committee members were unaware that, at present, patient-identifiable information can be shared without consent if the request satisfies the public interest test under the common-law duty of confidentiality.

This means that, for example, where someone has opted out of sharing their information, refuses to give consent for their information to be shared for a particular purpose, or cannot give consent because they are deceased, their identifiable information can be shared if it meets the public interest test.

Setting up a committee under the legislation to authorise the processing of confidential information will not change that. It can still override an individual’s wishes if it deems the request for information to be in the public interest. Under common law, satisfying the public interest test is complex. As a result, there is an increased risk of legal challenge for the Department and the health and social care sector. The legislation’s intention is to put a framework and safeguards in place to minimise the legal challenge risk that the Department and the health and social care sector could face as a consequence of using identifiable service user information for purposes other than their direct care. In other words, it will lessen the risk of an individual service user taking legal action if their information is shared without their consent.

The Committee had difficulty in understanding the principle of sharing identifiable information that was deemed to be in the public interest, because public interest can be interpreted widely. There is currently no definition of the phrase "public interest"; it is based on case law. By the Department’s own admission, the term "public interest" is broad. There is no limit to the breadth of scenarios whereby it could be deemed that the sharing of information is in the public interest. However, importantly, the Bill does not define what public interest is. It does not remove the ambiguity around what constitutes public interest.

Another issue for the Committee was the use of the term "social well-being". What exactly does that mean? The Bill defines a relevant person as being someone whose information can be shared. The definition includes someone who is in receipt of services designed to secure improvement in their social well-being. By way of example, the Bill lists a whole range of conditions requiring such services; everything from pregnancy to dependence on alcohol or drugs. However, at the end of that list we have the words, "or any other similar circumstances". The Committee appreciates that it is necessary to have some flexibility within definitions, but what does the Department mean by "any other similar circumstances"? In other words, how broadly will social well-being be interpreted?

The term "social well-being" is also included in the definition of information that can be shared. Again, how broadly can that be interpreted?

The Committee also discussed the issue of safeguards. The explanatory and financial memorandum talks about stringent safeguards. What are those stringent safeguards? The only safeguard apparent to the Committee was the establishment of a committee to authorise the processing of confidential information; but, even then, the Bill, as it stands, states that the Department "may" establish a committee to authorise the processing of confidential information. Surely the establishment of a committee should be mandatory if it is intended to be a safeguard. Should the Bill not make it the Department’s duty to establish the committee rather than just give it the power to establish it?

If a code of practice on the processing of information is intended to be a safeguard, a question exists around how robust that is. Health and social care bodies must only "have regard" to the code of practice when exercising their functions. In relation to the provision of health and social care, they are not required to adhere to it. Perhaps some interpret the words "have regard" more stringently than others, but it should be crystal clear that the code of practice is a document with status. Perhaps a more robust direction should be given.

The Committee notes the Bill's Second Stage, and, should it pass this stage, the Committee will scrutinise very carefully its detail and impact, including the issues of consent and opt-out, what is meant by public interest and social well-being and how robust the safeguards are. It will also assess, based on evidence, how robust, open and transparent the entire process will be.

I want to make a number of comments as an individual MLA. I want to highlight the concerns about the Bill that have been addressed by most Committee members. There is no doubt that the Bill's objective for the provision of a statutory framework with robust safeguards is the correct approach. My concerns lie with the principles of the Bill. It would seem that the principle of sharing identifiable information that is based on public interest can, indeed, be interpreted widely.

Another issue that has been referred to is the use of the term "social well-being". By way of example, the Bill lists a range of conditions and includes people who would require such a service for everything from pregnancy to addiction. However, at the end of that list are the words "or any other similar circumstances". It is critical that we have a clear definition of public interest and social well-being.

The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to safeguards, but it appears that the establishment of a committee to authorise the processing of that information "may" only happen. There does not seem to be any mandatory or statutory requirement to ensure that it does happen.

I assume that most MLAs will have received correspondence from Cancer Focus and the Law Centre. The Law Centre has warmly welcomed the Bill, as has been the Committee's approach today, but has stressed that there is a need to get the balance right between confidentiality and the public interest.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister to work closely with the Committee to ensure that these issues of clarity and redress are addressed at this stage.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

The aim of the Bill is to provide a clear statutory framework that will enable the use of Health and Social Care (HSC) information that identifies individuals for medical or social care purposes that are designed to benefit health and social care or achieve some other tangible benefit that might reasonably be described as for the public good without the consent of the individuals whose information may be used. This provision will be utilised only when it is impossible or impractical to gain the consent of individuals or when information would not be achieved for the desired outcome.

There is a provision for the establishment of a committee to authorise processing, which I believe is essential for the Bill to progress. I ask the Minister to clarify whether there will definitely be a committee.

The policy objective underlining the Bill is to minimise the legal challenge risk that the Department and the Health and Social Care sector could face as a consequence of using service user information that identifies individuals for purposes other than the direct care of the individual. The Bill will enable regulations to be made that establish a process that will ensure that information is shared only in very limited circumstances that are proven to be for medical or social care purposes and that will benefit health and social care or achieve some other tangible benefit that might reasonably be described as for the public good.

The process will be robust, open and transparent. It will impose conditions on the use of the information and include penalties for those who fail to comply with them. This will protect the service user, the holder of the information and the individual or organisation that is applying to use it by establishing a clear, unambiguous framework to govern the secondary use of information. Will the Minister outline what the penalties might be if these are breached?

In an information session with Mr Daniel Greenberg, a specialist in legislation, he raised a number of substantial issues, as did Committee members in a further information session. Some of those issues related to principles and policy objectives and others to the technical drafting. The use of the phrase "assist research" in paragraph 3 of the original explanatory note was of concern, and "social well-being" refers to quality of life, but the definition is too broad. What does that mean?

Safeguards were mentioned in paragraph 4, but very little is known of the powers under the legislation. What are we safeguarding against? There is an assertion that anyone applying to make use of HSC data will be required to demonstrate to an oversight body:

"that the use of service user identifiable information is absolutely essential to the successful outcome of their work".

That is fairly robust, but it is not what the Bill says. The Bill uses the term "reasonably practicable" rather than "absolutely essential"`, so there are issues with wording that need to be addressed.

Those issues were of real concern to the Committee. Some parties were reluctant to proceed with the Bill. I will certainly ask the Minister to take seriously the concerns of the Committee and for the Department to work closely with the Committee in addressing those concerns.

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

I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate, and to do so as SDLP health spokesperson and member of the Health Committee, which, as you heard, recently received briefings from the Department on the principles and objectives of the legislation.

It is clear that we support all measures and actions that are undertaken to ensure that the provision of health and social care services are the best that they possibly can be. Disclosing patient data that will improve diagnosis and treatment outcomes has to be welcomed, but effective checks and balances must be provided when a patient's consent is not expressly given.

Just by way of background, disclosure without the patient's consent is governed largely by common law. It involves the public interest test as part of the duty of confidentiality, and consideration has to be given to data protection and human rights laws. However, it is now clear that that alone is not enough, and we heard that reflected.

Through engaging with many clinicians and considering the invaluable work undertaken by the Cancer Registry at Queen's, it has become explicitly clear that there is a need for change in this area of health reform, and that is accepted. They told us that the law governing their work in profiling diseases, which aims to improve diagnosis rates and treatment outcomes, is confusing. There exists a real possibility that legal proceedings could be taken against them.

It is important in the context of today's debate that we look at ways to build systems and devise ways of working that meet the standards and services that we and the public expect. I am trying to suggest a positive approach, but, of course, as has been highlighted, there are issues to be addressed. England and Wales have moved to legislate on the issue. I am glad that we have reached Second Stage today, but a number of important issues require closer scrutiny.

There are significant concerns about the intent and wording of the Bill. As was reflected, the Committee heard evidence that the legislative process outlined includes a catalogue of inconsistencies and areas of potential confusion, and that further information should be sought. We see that as part of this process of finding out how robust the safeguards in the Bill actually are. For the record, I will give a few examples. Clause 1(1) states:

"The Department may by regulations make such provision for ... the processing of prescribed information ... as it considers necessary or expedient — ".

What does that mean?

Clause 1(1)(a) refers to:

"the interests of ... health and social care".

Clause 1(1)(b) to refers to "the public interest". What exactly do those terms mean, and who decides in that context? Further questions arise in the use of the terms "care or treatment" and "social well-being of an individual". As I highlighted, most concerning is the fact that the Department has yet to define those terms and provide robust definitions of the circumstances in which patient data can be disclosed without consent. What is "the public interest"? What is the "social well-being of an individual"? In what exact circumstances can patients' data be disclosed?

I am not confident that the Bill tells us. That raises the question of whether the Minister can give assurances that patients' data will not be disclosed to third parties; for example, merely for commercial purposes. The House has to ask itself whether that would be an acceptable position to be in.

The Health and Social Care Information Centre in England is charged with the processing and disclosure of medical information under section 251 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That organisation is now rolling out its data care programme, which allows information to be sold to insurance companies and big pharma companies. Only this month, it came in for considerable criticism. I refer to an article in 'The Guardian' on 6 June, which reported that 700,000 patients have had their information shared despite making attempts to opt out of the process, as was in the legislation. There are 700,000 people out there who sought not to have their information shared yet have had it shared. Will the Minister give us some assurances that the Bill will contain robust provision for making sure that that could not happen here?

To compound the issue further, a recent review of the data care programme in England, which, I remind the House, will operate under very similar — almost copycat — legislation, found major issues with:

"project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable."

It is important to note in the debate that our Bill's remit is even wider than the English Act. The English Act makes consideration only for medical care, whereas this Bill makes consideration for medical and social care. We have already reflected on the questions that attaches to that wider gate, if you like. That provokes more questions about the disclosure of patient data and what safeguards should be in place to ensure that their data is protected from exploitation.

Will the Minister provide clarity on what organisations can apply for access to data? Will the data be available only to organisations in or through Northern Ireland? We have already heard questions about the status of the committee that was suggested and whether it "may" be set up as opposed to whether it "should" be set up. Will organisations have to pay a fee for the data to be extracted, and, if so, how much? The principles and associated actions in the Bill will no doubt place greater financial burden on the Department. At this stage, we do not know how much, but can we infer from the work carried out in England that there will be an additional cost? We have already seen from the reduction in the 2011 Budget and onwards and in the current financial context that, quite often, plausible initiatives fall by the wayside as a result of the need for additional fiscal resources in a climate of cuts. A good example of that has been Transforming Your Care.

Although I see merits in the Bill — I should re-emphasise that — in information sharing between appropriate health and social care agencies, we must ensure that any information shared is not mishandled or used purely for commercial purposes without the consent of the patient. Until the House is satisfied that those concerns have been fully addressed by the safeguards in the Bill, the SDLP cannot support it in its current format. However, we look forward to the Health Committee rigorously examining the Bill and making its recommendations.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I also welcome the opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill. As openly admitted by the Department and the Minister, the overall intent of the Bill is to minimise the risk of legal challenge that he, his Department and the health and social care sector more generally could face as a consequence of using service user information that identifies individuals for purposes other than the direct care of the individual. In other words, the Department and its trusts want to be protected from service users — "patients", in everyday terms — taking action if they later find that their details were used and released. The overall intent of the Bill, therefore, gives me some concerns. I am conscious that the Department should do what it can to minimise legal risk to itself and its bodies, but, equally, I am concerned that at the core of patient treatment throughout the NHS should be the promise of confidentiality. The sharing of data is not a problem when the patient has consented, but it becomes complicated when, for whatever reason, consent was not achieved. At present, in such circumstances, I believe that a blend of legislation is applied, including the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act, but there is a potential weakness in the application of common law.

The public interest test is a bone of contention at present, but, having read what the Bill intends, I am not satisfied that what the Department proposes to do is any better. Just because the Department thinks disclosure would be necessary or convenient does not automatically make it the case. The Department appears concerned about applying the test of public interest within the current legislative framework, yet, in reality, the Bill appears to do nothing to make it any clearer. It does not even make a stab at giving a high-level definition of public interest, and that is very worrying. This is only one area that needs much greater detail and explanation, and, worryingly, it sits in the very first clause.

Even the scope of where the Bill would apply is not made clear. It mentions health and social care but includes a caveat of anything else "in the public interest". I know the Minister would probably refute the allegation that drugs or insurance companies could wangle their way under this broader public interest definition, but the Bill does not give me those reassurances. I do not need to remind the Minister of the uproar in England — I know Mr McKinney has already alluded to that — when it was revealed last year that such companies were effectively able to buy patient information. Whilst I accept that this is a different Bill that is trying to do different things, the same core principles in the use of confidential patient data apply.

I appreciate that the Department claims that the legislation would improve the planning and delivery of health and social care services and would provide information to inform the future diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. However, I reiterate that private information and data, especially on healthcare, is an issue that many people across Northern Ireland feel strongly about. The Minister has rightly indicated that safeguards will be to the fore in what the Bill proposes to do, but, rather regrettably, the detail attached to them will be decided later in future regulations and after a further consultation exercise. For the time being, we are asked to rely on little more than the word of the Minister and his officials.

In addition, while the Department and the Minister stress that the vast majority of respondents to the consultation were supportive of the proposal, they should perhaps be a little more honest about the wider picture. There were only 14 responses, and the majority of those were from the health organisations. I would hazard a guess that, if the wider population had been aware of the proposals, the consultation responses would have been rather more mixed. In fact, I will go further and say that most people would be shocked that their private information is held at all and, even worse, is already shared in some circumstances. Broad public unawareness of existing powers, especially those that are now being proposed, should not be mistaken for acceptance by the Minister or his Department. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the broader intentions of the Bill, but its broad-brush nature and wording trouble me. At this time and in the absence of still crucial information, I and the Ulster Unionist Party would not be content to see the contents of the Bill get into statute. I will support it at this stage only for it to go to Committee, but we will reserve our position for the latter stages.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Mr Trevor Lunn.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

1. Mr McMullan asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline the work carried out to promote the Causeway coast and glens as one of the nine key tourist destinations. (AQO 8503/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Over the past five years, the Causeway coast and glens destination has seen significant investment in visitor infrastructure and in interpretation to the value of £13·4 million. The Causeway coastal route is a key focus for Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland advertising campaigns overseas and in the Republic of Ireland markets respectively. The Causeway coast and glens also features heavily in itineraries that are developed for international media that visit Northern Ireland. Both our tourism organisations work with the local authorities and tourism partners in the area to promote iconic visitor attractions, including the Giant's Causeway and the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge, as well as new products that we are all very excited about, such as the Gobbins cliff path and the hugely successful 'Game of Thrones' filming locations. I note that 'Games of Thrones' is now, I think, the most successful HBO programme. There are other brilliant productions like 'The Sopranos', but 'Game of Thrones' has now become the most successful. Obviously, there is also the North West 200 and the Giro d'Italia.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer, and I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his input to the question that I put into his office two weeks ago on tourism in the glens. I acknowledge the help that he gave.

Minister, everything that you said is quite right, but we are missing out on the mid-glens, which is an integral part of the Antrim coast road and the experience for tourists. Can I ask you to look into that and promote it more? There will be information coming out in a fortnight about HBO, but we need help and input from your office to promote it greatly. We have got Carnlough on the map now for the first time ever. Can I ask you to look into that?

Quite a lot of people have not registered for the scheme for inspecting self-catering accommodation because it is not —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Come to a question, please.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

The question is this: could you look at that? It is not doing the trade justice. There is a lot of controversy over it.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the ongoing communication that I have had from the Member on this area. It is a spectacularly beautiful area, one that I have been to many, many times. I will certainly look into how we can maximise all the areas, including Carnlough and Cushendall. I believe that a rising tides lifts all boats, and we want to see everything raised as we look towards how we promote the area in a range of media, particularly online, and promote the Causeway coast and the road map for the area. I know that itineraries have been posted on the website.

I know we have translations into other languages over the next number of weeks, which is very important. I more than welcome the Member's suggestions, and those of the industry and people in the local area. We will do that, and I will work alongside Tourism Ireland and Tourism NI to see how we can promote it. If the Member wants to give me a specific reference to what he said about self-catering accommodation, I will certainly look into that and make sure that we get that accommodated for him.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. Do you share with me the concerns, which a hotelier in Carnlough raised with me yesterday, that Mid and East Antrim Council has not provided adequate tourist information, given the season that is upon us? Do you also acknowledge that opening up the glens and the Causeway coast to people effectively starts in Belfast and the Loughshore Park, and includes places like Carrickfergus Castle? There is a major tourism offering to be made in the area, but there is serious concern about the lack of promotional material available there.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am more than happy to take up the concerns of Mr Dickson. People talk about a northern powerhouse in England, and I said to the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) conference that I wanted to see 11 economic powerhouses. Equally, I want to see 11 tourism powerhouses. We will work with each area because each area, as the Member rightly points out, has a very distinctive offering.

I recently cycled out — given my level of fitness, I should have stopped at Jordanstown — past Carrickfergus and Eden, right through to Larne, and I have to say, just anecdotally, that it is outstandingly beautiful. The Member rightly poses a challenge, which I am more than happy to take on: how can we make sure that history from Carrickfergus Castle, through to the offering that the villages in that particular area have — I know that, any time I have stopped in Cushendall or Carnlough, the value of tourism has been in the quality of the people and the offering and support that they give to visitors. In that area, it is absolutely second to none.

The question comes: how do we do it? We will do it online and with our brochures. If people feel that there is a specific offering they have that is not being taken up, give it to us and we will share it with the councils and look at what Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland can do with it. We will try to make sure, because at the end of the day we have a huge tourism industry, which is growing. We have people from all over the globe. I can quote figures into the millions of more people coming. Looking at the previous year, there was something like an 11% positive change and 4·5 million visitors. How can we make sure that they go back and advertise us to others?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister mentioned the Causeway coastal route, which encompasses both the natural beauty of the north glen and the soon to open Gobbins cliff path. Does the Minister agree with me that it is important not just that we capture the day tripper, but that we also get overnight stays so that local hotels, bed and breakfasts and restaurants gain from such stays with additional resources? How is he ensuring that other Departments, such as DCAL and the Department of the Environment, which are responsible for a number of properties such as Carrickfergus Castle, maximise their input to the tourist industry, enhancing the product and encouraging those overnight stays?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am more than happy to work with the other Departments, as the Member suggests, and with their corresponding Committees. We have had a wonderful offering in the past but, because of difficulties with our history, people tended to come in, visit the Giant's Causeway and leave. Now, when I look at some of the research, which shows that people visit the Giant's Causeway, stay overnight and then visit Titanic Belfast, what I see is a tourism offering that will result in an increased need for overnight accommodation.

My Department and Invest NI are more than happy to work alongside hoteliers — and have been doing that — to see where the additional need can best be accommodated. We want to make sure that we do that in all the events that we have done; we have done them marvellously well. We are looking forward to the arrival of the Tall Ships later this week and to the 2017 women's World Cup. I spent quite a bit of time with Dick Spring, the former Tánaiste, to talk about bringing the World Cup to Ireland as part of a bid. We know that we will have the Irish Open again in 2017 and we hope to have the Open. I will take the Member's concerns on board. We need every Department to step up to the plate to make sure that when people come we have the capacity to give them the offering that we are capable of giving.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister assure me that he is doing everything that he can to make sure that there is a coordinated strand to the three councils involved in promoting the Causeway coast and glens — Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, and Londonderry city and Strabane District Council — and that it is connected to the Republic of Ireland's Wild Atlantic Way? Will he assure us that he believes that Tourism Ireland is giving the Causeway coast and glens area a fair crack when it comes to other competing pressures on the island of Ireland?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for North Antrim for his question. He is absolutely right: we want to build on the success of the Causeway coastal route and the Mournes coastal route. Tourism NI, in conjunction with all the coastal councils, has appointed consultants to put in place the coastal route master plan, which will set out further strategic, tactical and clustering opportunities right along the coast and will scope out the further links with the Wild Atlantic Way to make sure that there is a coordinated plan for that.

Tourism Ireland's Live in the Now! campaign with the 'The Daily Telegraph' kicked off in February and will reach more than 8·3 million readers throughout 2015. The Causeway coastal route features as part of that campaign, which also includes half-page advertorials, advertisements on 'The Daily Telegraph' website and articles in "Telegraph Travel" and the newspaper's midweek sections. Tourism Ireland's first-half promotional activity included TV advertising campaigns for Northern Ireland in the United States, Germany and France, and the Causeway coastal route was specifically highlighted in those campaigns.

I could talk for longer about this, Mr Speaker, but for pressures of time. In March, Tourism Ireland teamed up with one of the main online French travel agents, GO Voyages, for its largest ever joint promotional campaign in France. More than 1,000 billboard ads were spread out across Metro stations in the French capital, which grabbed the attention of commuters with beautiful images of the Causeway coastal route and featured attractive offers to take a weekend break.

I spent some time with Tourism Ireland last week —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I have to remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

— and it is very keen to see the campaign progressed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am sure that I will not have to remind you again. Before we proceed, Mr Pat Ramsey raised a point of order this morning when he accurately predicted the rising temperatures. I am quite content to relax the rule if Members wish to divest themselves of their jackets.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

2. Ms Maeve McLaughlin asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how many jobs were created with Invest NI support in the Foyle constituency in 2014-15. (AQO 8504/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for the question. During the 2014-15 financial year, Invest Northern Ireland (INI) helped to create over 660 new jobs in the Foyle constituency area. During the year, 491 new jobs were promoted, contributing towards £52·8 million in investment in Foyle, including recent support for Convergys to promote 333 new jobs in the constituency.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that. Obviously, every job is most welcome in the constituency. Given the regional disparities in the north-west, will he, along with INI, deliver a subregional strategy or proposition for the area?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I can understand the Member's desire for that. We will certainly do what we can in terms of what we can offer. It is also important to note that we provide the support but that it is the businesses that decide where they want to go. Metaverse, which has 100 new jobs, looked around, took the support of Invest Northern Ireland and looked at a number of areas. Mr Speaker, for your and my generation, the mod squad is probably The Jam and 'Going Underground', but, in the case of Metaverse Mod Squad, it is moderated communication. Metaverse Mod Squad, a US company, is providing 100 new jobs in the heart of the city centre in Foyle. The reason they went there, as opposed to other areas, like Dublin and Galway, which were looking for them, was the work that Invest Northern Ireland did here; but, more importantly, in my view, the global reach of Invest NI and its office in the United States attracted those high-tech digital jobs into the centre. I have no doubt that the trajectory of the growing need in digital technology will lead to more jobs in that area.

I will certainly look to see what we can do. To be fair, 18 constituencies probably want me to have an individual sub-national plan for their area. I think we should also be aware, if I can remember the census figures correctly, that something like 40% of our people in Northern Ireland are working in a constituency that they do not live in. So, just because jobs are not coming directly to any Member's constituency does not necessarily mean that people in that constituency are not getting the jobs, because the evidence indicates otherwise.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I want to follow on from my colleague in Foyle and press the Minister on acknowledging that we have the highest level of unemployment in the north-west — in Derry and Strabane — and the highest level of economic inactivity. Given that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have acknowledged the importance of ensuring that there is regional balance when it comes to economic opportunities and access to employment, will the Minister outline when the priorities of the ministerial subgroup will be looking at these regional imbalances?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I can get the Member the exact details that he requests. However, it is important to consider that, when I was down there, I was with a major company that had invested in the heart of the city centre in the Foyle constituency, against stiff competition from Dublin and Galway. I also think that we should look towards the positives of that area. In the previous four years, Invest Northern Ireland gave out over 1,469 offers of support, which totalled something like £31·76 million of assistance. It contributed £156·49 million in investment. There were 35 offers of research and development support, which totalled £11·88 million of assistance and contributed towards £44·30 million of investment; and 48 offers for skills development in the area, which totalled £1·72 million of assistance and contributed just short of £6 million — I think it was £5·96 million — of investment. If we include the regional start initiatives, 2,646 new jobs were promoted and somewhere in the region of 122 jobs were safeguarded. So, that is what we are doing. I will certainly look towards how we can build upon what is a reasonably healthy set of figures to improve things for the area.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I commend the recent comments by my East Londonderry colleague Mr McQuillan to raise the concerns about the lack of investment in East Londonderry. Does the Minister share those concerns? What will he do to encourage Invest NI to work a little bit harder in our area?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Again, let us be conscious of the fact that, as I understand it, 40% of the people are living outside the area in which they work. The view almost gets into the psyche that if investment goes to another parliamentary constituency area, those jobs are not available to the neighbour. We are a small place in Northern Ireland.

Invest Northern Ireland was set a task to promote 25,000 new jobs, and, because an extra year has been put on to our Assembly term, we can review where it is four years later, and it promoted 37,000 jobs. In addition to what I said to Mr Ramsey, when I look at the 1,123 locally owned business start initiatives that were offered support, I see that 58 were direct and over 1,065 were indirect in the regional start initiative, and 510 new jobs were promoted. What we are doing, not only for new business start-ups but for support to externally owned business in that area, is that there were 40 offers of support and £15·63 million of assistance that contributed towards £98·19 million investment; of those, 1,181 new jobs were promoted.

I certainly encourage Invest Northern Ireland in all that it has done already in everything, aside from exports, in the job loans fund and research and development. It was asked to go for 25,000, and it delivered something like 37,222 over the last four-year period. I commend it for the excellent work that it has done, and I will raise the areas in which each Member would like to see an increase.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I recognise what Invest NI has done for Northern Ireland over the last four years and what it continues to do. Will the Minister accept an invitation to accompany me to Coleraine and the Causeway coast and glens area to visit some of the businesses? In a recent poll in the 'Belfast Telegraph', figures showed that the Causeway coast and glens was the area of lowest investment for Invest NI.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Certainly. I am happy to take up that offer. Indeed, I think that the Member of Parliament has already made a request to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to visit the area, and I am more than happy to accompany Mr Campbell, Mr McQuillan and anybody else from the area — Mr Dallat, Claire Sugden and Mr McMullan.

In this particular area, it is important for all of us to understand that it is the businesses that make the investments and create jobs; it is not Invest Northern Ireland. Therefore, the support that we offer to businesses is demand-led. I ask Members of those constituencies to speak specifically to businesses in their area, because we are looking for businesses to approach Invest Northern Ireland with a business plan. If we look at the huge success that Invest Northern Ireland has had over this period, we see that, when businesses do that, they produce spectacular rewards, not only for them but for the targets that we have set for them.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

There is a high degree of interest in this topic, but it is a constituency-focused question. I am afraid that we must move on.

I recognise that we have a very special group in the Gallery — the Rainbow Group.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. Mr McElduff asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, given that on completion of broadband improvement works some rural areas of West Tyrone, such as Eskra and Creggan, will still be without broadband access, to outline his strategy to ensure access to broadband for all rural communities. (AQO 8505/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In February 2014, my Department awarded a contract to BT for delivery of the £23·6 million Northern Ireland broadband improvement project (NIBIP) that will bring more choice and improved broadband speeds to over 45,000 premises across Northern Ireland, including in rural areas of West Tyrone, by 31 December 2015.

Recognising that NIBIP will not deliver superfast broadband to all premises, on 27 February, my Department also contracted BT to deliver the superfast roll-out programme, which will deliver superfast broadband services to a further 38,000 premises across Northern Ireland, including in many rural areas of West Tyrone, by 31 December 2017. That £17·1 million project has commenced with an extensive survey and design process. It will take several months to complete. Until it has been completed, it will not be possible to be specific about exactly which premises will benefit from the upgrades. Further details will be published on NI Direct as they become available.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for the detail in his answer. Very many rural communities in West Tyrone are being left at the mercy of private satellite companies that provide a much poorer product and customer service. To cut to the chase, I ask the Minister for a commitment, here and now, to meet me and a group of representative people from the West Tyrone constituency aimed at getting to grips with our rural broadband and mobile phone coverage problems once and for all.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am certainly more than happy to meet the Member. As he knows, I used to work in that particular area and have a deep love for it. I am more than happy to meet Members, as the diary allows, whenever I possibly can, so that they can hear, at first hand, what we can do.

We look towards alternative provision where we can. Satellite broadband services can offer products with download speeds of 20 MB per second and wireless broadband, which we supported under the broadband fund. That led across Northern Ireland to extensive deployment of high-speed fixed wireless broadband networks. Services with download speeds of up to 100 MB per second are available across many parts of West Tyrone. As the Member knows, service is dependent on the line of sight from the infrastructure to the premises. I am certainly happy to meet a delegation to tell it what we have done and what we intend to do. I will let them know where we are, particularly with our survey and about any areas of particular difficulty that we need to look at again.

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

I welcome the Minister's commitment to increasing the level of broadband across Northern Ireland. In relation to West Tyrone, however, people are getting a bit fed up with surveys. They feel that BT has all the data and information. I urge the Minister that pressure be applied to BT and the mobile companies to provide the necessary broadband and mobile services. We have many small businesses that are badly handicapped at the moment. They are willing to invest but are greatly handicapped in how they conduct their business.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Member raises important points. Some of the reasons why we have done what we have done is to do exactly what he has asked us to do. It is important to realise exactly what DETI can do. We have the powers under the Communications Act 2003 to make investments that are important to Northern Ireland. We can improve the extent, quality and reliability of telecoms — networks and services — where the market has determined that it is not financially viable to do so. We cannot specify a particular technological solution. To do so would bring us into breach of the European Commission's state aid regulations. We cannot compel network operators to invest in particular areas or deliver services at particular prices and we cannot interfere in disputes between service providers and their customers. However, I am happy, if the Member wishes to join the meeting, to see what we can do about improving the extent, quality and reliability of services where the market has not provided, or where there is a lacuna in the service.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers. Does he recognise the need for a robust strategy to cover all rural areas? More and more people work from home and many are involved in their own small businesses, whether in beautiful West Tyrone or scenic north Down and Ards.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes. I was enjoying that run-through, Mr Speaker, but, sadly, it came to quite an abrupt end.

There is information on DETI projects and the specific roll-out plans for the Northern Ireland broadband improvement project. That is available on the NI Direct website. It includes a postcode checker, which enables constituents to identify when work is due to be completed in their area. As information on the superfast roll-out programme becomes available, it will be posted to the NI Direct website. In the meantime, a fact sheet and frequently asked questions are available on the DETI website. A fact sheet specific to the Northern Ireland broadband improvement project has, I understand, been distributed to all MLAs. It is also available on the website, as is the fact sheet and FAQs on the superfast roll-out programme.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T1. Ms Maeve McLaughlin asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, given the current economic climate, particularly the decline in the border regions, whether he will commit to learning more about the introduction of a border development zone, as proposed by a number of leading economists. (AQT 2721/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am happy to look at any proposals that come to me from any part of Northern Ireland to see what we can do to promote and create jobs and, very often, to sustain jobs in particular areas. I was in the north-west when the 100 new jobs were announced, and we will continue to look at what support we can give and what support businesses are asking us for. It is a two-way process. It is not just about our supporting businesses but about businesses coming to Invest Northern Ireland with a business plan specifying the help they need and our working alongside them and supporting them.

If the Member wants to encourage people in that area to come to us, they should come with a business plan to see how worthwhile that is, and they should look at what has been achieved over the last four years, because there has been some quite spectacular progress. Up to August 2014, Members of the House proudly boasted that we had more foreign direct investment per capita than any other part of the United Kingdom outside London. In August 2014, those figures were surpassed. In the past year, with our population of 1·82 million, we can proudly boast that Northern Ireland today, per head of population, has more foreign direct investment than any other part of the United Kingdom. Anybody who has anything that can improve on investment to work with specific areas will receive an open door in DETI if it is about creating and promoting jobs.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that very pragmatic approach. I agree with him that there is a responsibility on regions to develop their unique selling point, but there are also infrastructural deficits that need to be addressed. The Minister said that he is willing to explore border development zones. Does he now accept that cooperation — a number of Ministers have done this — can be done in a way that threatens no one but is for the benefit of all in a region?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We have been working extensively with a number of bodies, and I will work with anybody if it is about improving and sustaining jobs in Northern Ireland. A number of our companies do business both in Northern Ireland and the Republic, and I will work with them to create jobs in Northern Ireland as much as I possibly can. There are quite significant offers of assistance from Invest Northern Ireland for specific areas. Over a period, we had 2,339 offers out. We put in over £100 million of assistance that was offered. There was a planned investment of £430·9 million. That was assistance per head of some £1,151 and an investment per head of over £5,000.

So, in specific areas, we can show where work is progressing. If anybody comes to me with proposals for working together that will create more jobs in Northern Ireland, they will have an open door.

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

T2. Mr D Bradley asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what his Department is doing to attract more jobs to Newry city and the surrounding area. (AQT 2722/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

To attract jobs, we highlight the skills offering that we have, the research and development offering that we have and the assistance that Invest Northern Ireland can give.

In the Newry and Armagh area, over the period that I am reviewing, there were 2,275 offers made, which translates to over £53 million of assistance. In excess of £430 million of that was for planned investments, assistance per head was £596 and investment per head was just short of £5,000 — I think it £4,813.

Let us go out and tell people about the jobs secured in the last period. I was joking that, in five weeks, I have announced nearly 500 new jobs for Northern Ireland, and I summarised that in three words: thank you, Arlene. There is a real interest in investing in Northern Ireland. I will take just a few of the companies that have invested in Northern Ireland — the Metaverse Mod Squad, RLC and Grant Thornton. I hear from them that some invested after doing a global span, and, in many cases, it was against stiff competition across this island, and they came here because of the skills offered by our young people and the education that we can provide.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I agree with the Minister that Newry, located as it is on the North/South economic corridor, is a first-class location for industry and commerce. We have fantastic schools in Newry and all the skills that are required. Does the Minister see the extension to the industrial site at Carnbane having a role in attracting more inward investment?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am more than happy to sit down with the Member and look at that particular industrial area. I cannot keep in my head every industrial area that a Member has in mind.

I have been very impressed by what Newry has done. I sat down with a previous shadow Chancellor at the Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade in the last number of years, and, at a lunch, we reviewed what had been done. What I really like about the attitude of many in the business community in Newry is that they ask what they can do and how we can help them. In that sense, the more business plans that are brought forward, the better. It is not for me to stipulate, "I want this industrial zone or that particular area extended." I am saying to the businesses in that area, "Come to me with your business plan. Come to me with where you see development opportunities. Come and tell me what help you need from Invest NI to deliver on your business plan". If they do that, the evidence over the last number of years across Northern Ireland, not exclusively in Newry, is that we can create and promote more jobs.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T3. Mr Ramsey asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment whether he is aware of the major economic benefits that City Deal has brought to Aberdeen, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. (AQT 2723/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am delighted to say yes. A number of months ago, the Member of Parliament for Foyle contacted me specifically in relation to City Deal. A further meeting is planned because the work is ongoing. Last week, I was in Londonderry with Mr Durkan's parliamentary assistant specifically to talk about City Deal. The area is ideal for city breaks, and we will look, with Tourism NI, at how we can develop that tourism offering, particularly around city breaks.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his very warm response to the question. To advance it a bit further, I think that it is important that the focus be not just on tourism. There is an economic value and an infrastructural and social benefit as well. Can the Minister speak about the possibility of visiting some of the areas, including Aberdeen, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, to see on the ground the effect that the initiative is having there and the lift that it is giving to local communities?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

It is certainly a very interesting itinerary that the Member offers me. I can assure him that we will take the best practice from those areas, and extensive work has been undertaken. I know the research that the MP brought to me, and, in a meeting with his assistant in Londonderry last week, we were able to build on that. There will be a further meeting. Diary pressures mean that I cannot assure him that I will visit everyone personally, even though I might like to, but I can assure him that we will use best practice from those places and try to translate it into the area.

In looking at how we want to grow tourism, the Member is absolutely right. The economic benefits that flow socially and economically are much wider than tourism per se and can, in many cases that we have already seen, bring young people in particular into employment. The reality is, particularly for the Member's city but right across Northern Ireland, that, when people come to visit us, they want to come back. Part of our job is to make sure that they come for a short period, stay overnight, see what we have to offer and then put that out as an advertisement to others.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

T4. Mr Easton asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on the recent north Down jobs announcement by Denroy Plastics Ltd in Bangor. (AQT 2724/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. I know the interest that he has in creating jobs in his area. It is a very healthy interest, and I welcome that from him. He will have seen that I announced 32 new jobs at Denroy Plastics, which undertakes the design, engineering and contract manufacture of injection-moulded plastic products and components for a broad range of customers, including aerospace, defence, materials-handling, construction, medical and automation customers, right through to the consumer sectors.

That particular project is a staged expansion of the production capacity at Denroy's factory, and it will allow it to purchase new equipment to support the industry's growth in the global aerospace industry. I know that we need tens of thousands of new planes across the globe, and the Northern Ireland industry, and Denroy specifically, is offering some products, particularly one plastic polymer that is absolutely unique. Denroy, I think, will continue to be an important supplier to the global aerospace sector. For the company to grow in Northern Ireland, that investment in buildings and production is required. It will create 32 new manufacturing jobs at the Bangor factory. We already have eight of those jobs in place. People ask what the average salary is, and I think that it is important to say that the average salary for those jobs is somewhere in the region of £18,687, which I think is very attractive indeed.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his update. Will he agree that Denroy is a world leader in its field? Can he maybe tell us how much investment went in from Invest Northern Ireland and the company itself, and what benefits that will have for the population of north Down?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am more than happy to identify with Mr Easton's comments about Denroy being a local economic leader and a national and international leader in the product that it can specifically offer.

In that particular case, Invest Northern Ireland offered total assistance of £400,000, which leveraged a £3 million investment by Denroy. We are providing Invest NI capital grants towards the eligible cost of the buildings but also, and I mean this, absolutely state-of-the-art manufacturing equipment. This is a sector, as Mr Easton rightly points out, that is at the leading edge of aerospace development. That will provide new skills and new capabilities for a whole range of people in Northern Ireland.

The project is an outworking of what many Members will know to be the Northern Ireland aerospace strategy, Partnering for Growth, which was launched in January 2014 when Northern Ireland companies committed to doubling the size of the aerospace sector to £2 billion of sales and to increasing employment from 8,000 to 12,000 staff over the next 10 years. I expect that project to be fully completed and the 32 new jobs to be in place by 2017. That is building on what Denroy already does in employing some 127 people and a commitment to employ 151 staff in Northern Ireland by 2017.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Ms Michaela Boyle. There may not be time for a supplementary, so you may want to choose which question to ask.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T5. Ms Boyle asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for his opinion on why potential investors are not interested in relocating to Strabane business park, given that, since its opening, although Invest NI has met with a number of interested businesses, unfortunately, as of yet, none of those interactions has led to an actual sale, and given the high level of need for jobs in the area, will he come to Strabane, where he would be welcome, to see the business park. (AQT 2725/11-15)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Thanks. The Member's smile led me to get that question short. I know of the interest that she has in that particular area, and I am more than happy to take up the offer to visit.

I think that it is important how we frame this. I think that Strabane has a huge amount to offer through the development of the Strabane business park. It has released 16 acres of new industrial land that will support economic development not only in Strabane but right across the wider west Tyrone area.

Invest Northern Ireland has engaged with the council and stakeholders regarding the development of the business park. If we frame it in the context of the significant investment by first, Invest Northern Ireland, I think that it shows that there is an ongoing commitment to secure investment and to get employment opportunities for the west Tyrone area. It is the view of Invest Northern Ireland that the current availability of land within Strabane business park will be sufficient to meet the needs of the qualifying businesses across the medium term. I assure the Member that Invest Northern Ireland will continue to proactively market the land to potential investors, both indigenous and foreign direct. We need to remember that the final decision on investment location rests solely with the investor.

I will certainly take up the offer to visit when I can. We will put in whatever resources we can to bring together and to see the fulfilment of the potential that the Strabane business park has to offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Environment

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

1. Mr Beggs asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the figures for household recycling for the 26 local councils for October to December 2014. (AQO 8517/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

When the provisional information on municipal waste for the October to December quarter of 2014 was published back in April, I welcomed that the tonnage of recycled household materials excluding composting had increased by more than 16,000 tons, which is over 3·5%, compared with the same October to December period of the previous year.

However, whilst the total tonnage of household materials sent for recycling increased, the rate of recycling decreased slightly by 0·3% to 38·6%, mainly because of the even faster growth in the total amount of waste collected by councils, but it is important to put that into context. Over the last five years, the recycling rate across all councils has increased in spite of significant challenges. Over the last decade, the annual recycling rate has increased fourfold to 41·3% in 2013-14. That is the most recent validated figure.

Year-on-year improvements in the recycling rate have been increasingly more difficult to achieve. This is because of a number of factors such as poor financial return on low-grade recyclables, low global energy prices, which have made the substitution of virgin material with recycled material less financially attractive, and the high costs of recycling for some waste streams. Despite those difficulties, councils are working to meet the European Union waste framework directive target of a recycling rate of waste from households of at least 50% by 2020, and doing so with a much greater focus on improving the quality of recyclates so that those materials can be used closer to home, which will create jobs and additional value for the local economy.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Modern, user-friendly layouts in recycling centres encourage citizens to recycle a wide range of material. Will the Minister acknowledge that, in Carrickfergus in particular, where there is lower recycling, there is an urgent need to upgrade the local recycling facility? What help, support and grants are available to encourage local government to upgrade its facilities to modern, user-friendly facilities that will encourage people to recycle?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Beggs for his questions. I certainly concur with the Member's view that, the easier and more attractive it is to do something, the more people will do it. That is certainly borne out if we look at investment that has been made over the last number of years in recycling infrastructure through supporting councils to create better and more attractive amenity sites for their recycling.

Since May 2010, my Department has allocated over £12·5 million in capital funding and over £1·6 million in revenue funding through the Rethink Waste programme. Much of that funding has helped to deliver the current recycling rates of over 41%. Whilst there has been a slowdown in recycling rate increases in recent years as most of the kerbside services for the main waste streams have already been rolled out, many of the Rethink Waste initiatives and projects will take further time to come to fruition. Those will contribute to ensuring that we meet the European recycling target of 50% by 2020.

Obviously, the Member will have heard me lament the current financial situation for my Department and all Departments. What we can do on Rethink Waste grants has been impacted on by the swingeing cuts that came with the final Budget settlement. However, capital funding is still available, and I am happy to work with Carrickfergus, or wherever, on applications that they might make for grants.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the presentation. Will he outline the possible impacts that the new councils, since their amalgamation, may face in reaching their waste management targets?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr McMullan for that question. It is not dissimilar to one that was asked previously in the House, in response to which I spelt out the inevitable teething problems of different councils with different waste collection policies and programmes coming together and trying to find what methods best suit the council area as a whole. While I would very much like to see some degree of uniformity across all councils, it is understandable that what works in an urban area or city might not necessarily work in a more rural area. It is important that councils retain that flexibility to identify what works best for them and the environment.

We are now three months into the new council structure and setup. I believe that all the councils should have overcome those teething problems. Although up-to-date figures are not available yet, I think that that will be borne out in the coming quarters in the amount of waste collected and, more importantly, the amount of waste being sent for recycling.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Ms Claire Hanna and welcome her to her first Question Time and first question.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What are the Minister's thoughts on the glass bottle deposit return scheme being trialled in Scotland, and has he any plans to introduce a similar pilot here?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I very much thank Ms Hanna for that supplementary question and welcome her to these Benches, to which I know she will bring much sense as well as plenty of passion.. I welcome the findings of the feasibility study for a deposit return scheme for Scotland that were recently published by Zero Waste Scotland. The study was informed by a number of recycle-and-reward pilot projects undertaken at locations across Scotland during 2013. The pilots clearly demonstrated that incentivised recycling of drinks containers can be made to work and that the materials collected by the schemes were typically of very high quality. I believe that a deposit return system for drinks containers could play an extremely important and effective role in reducing litter, improving recycling services and supporting my ambition to develop and promote a low carbon circular economy here.

Since I floated this idea on Friday, I have been overwhelmed by the positivity of responses that we have received to date from the public. Far from a novel idea, it is almost a nostalgic one, as many in the Chamber — perhaps not the Member in question — will recall deposit return schemes existing for drinks containers in our childhood. Again, it is something that I will be pursuing. I have asked my officials to prepare papers outlining the feasibility and desirability of such a scheme for Northern Ireland.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Following on from your answer to Mr McMullan, in which you talked about the difficulties of local issues, is it not time for your Department, Minister, to drive towards having a single waste authority in Northern Ireland to bring all the waste together, as opposed to having three separate organisations doing the same job?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. I suppose, in what is a rarity, I concur with what he is suggesting. Again, it is something that I have spoken of here before. Ultimately, this will be a decision for local government as well, but it is one on which my Department will work closely. I believe that a single waste authority is the best way forward, and I am happy to talk to and negotiate with local government to find the best way forward.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

2. Mr Milne asked the Minister of the Environment whether his department will implement the key recommendations from the Committee for the Environment's inquiry into wind energy [NIA 226/11-16]. (AQO 8518/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member will already be aware of my Department's formal response to the Environment Committee's inquiry into wind energy. I welcome the Committee's report as the product of an extensive and thorough inquiry process. I believe that it makes a valuable contribution to the debate surrounding wind energy development. The Member will know that I have sought to take account of the report's recommendations in finalising my strategic planning policy statement (SPPS), which I will publish as soon as possible following its consideration by the Executive.

Other recommendations are being taken forward through guidance notes that my Department is preparing on the processing of wind energy development. Work on this guidance is at an advanced stage, and I can confirm that it will address matters such as cumulative impact, noise impacts and planning conditions. Furthermore, I have made clear my intention to undertake a fundamental review of strategic planning policy for renewable energy following publication of the SPPS. Some of the report's recommendations, including those regarding the use of the ETSU-R-97 noise assessment methodology and the minimum separation distance between turbines and dwellings, require further research, policy development and public consultation, and are better considered as part of this fundamental review.

Some other recommendations — such as those relating to the consent process for connection to the grid, models of community energy ownership or the report on the turbine failure at Screggagh — fall outside DOE's remit and will require consideration and action by other Departments and bodies. Nevertheless, my Department is continuing to liaise with the responsible authorities, in a supporting role, to ensure that, where possible, these recommendations can also be advanced.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí a thug sé go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his very detailed answer thus far. Do he and his Department work to a specific definition of cumulative impact in relation to wind turbines and saturation levels in particular areas?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Milne for his question and his supplementary question. Cumulative impact is something that is considered — at least, it certainly should be considered — in the assessment of any renewable energy application, but, in particular, to date, with wind applications. Unfortunately, as the Member touched on in his supplementary question, there are no set criteria for what the cumulative impact or threshold should be. However, as I outlined in my initial answer, that is something that I wish to address through the fundamental review of PPS 18, the policy that pertains to renewable energy applications.

The term "saturation point" is one that I have heard in some areas in the North, particularly west Tyrone, which has proved extremely attractive to wind energy companies. That is why I think that, in many respects, councils will welcome the fact that they will now make decisions on the vast majority of applications. Indeed, any application under 30 MW will be dealt with locally. Councils are best placed to make those decisions, as they will know what will work in their communities and what will be acceptable. If not, their communities will certainly let them know.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

3. Ms Ruane asked the Minister of the Environment how his Department plans to consult with communities on the new local development plans. (AQO 8519/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, supported by subordinate planning legislation, established a two-tier planning system on 1 April 2015 that gave the 11 new councils powers in relation to the functions of development planning, development management and planning enforcement. The 2011 Act places a statutory duty for the preparation of a local development plan (LDP) on the new councils, with the Department having an oversight role, whereas, prior to 1 April, the development planning function was exercised by my Department.

One of the key elements of the reforms to the planning system is enhanced and early public engagement, including through the development plan process. The 2011 Act places a statutory duty on each council to prepare a statement of community involvement (SCI). That is a statement of a council's policy to involve members of the public who appear to councils to have an interest in matters that relate to development in their districts. With respect to a local development plan, it is therefore the responsibility of each council to prepare a statement of community involvement and to consult communities on their new local development plans to involve them in shaping the growth and development of those areas.

To support councils in their new development planning functions, my Department has developed a series of practice notes, one of which provides guidance on the preparation of a statement of community involvement and which is publicly available on the planning portal. It is hoped that that practice note will be of particular assistance to councils that are undertaking consultation with communities on their new local development plans.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. When devising their LDPs, will communities be able to secure local policy flexibilities, where appropriate, that are aimed at reflecting local and particular circumstances?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Ms Ruane for that question. It is very much my intention that flexibilities will be able to be secured by local councils for local communities. That is something that I alluded to in my earlier answer to Mr Milne about how well placed councils are to know what their communities require and what will work in and for their communities.

Obviously, DOE will retain oversight and responsibility for policy. However, I am determined that, within that framework, flexibility exists for councils not to do just as they choose willy-nilly but so that, within reason, they can work within that framework to deliver for their communities in a sustainable fashion on the ground.

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

Thanks to the Minister for his answers thus far. Will he detail the reasons why the Departments are not being named as statutory community development partners?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. In my view, there is a very close linkage between community planning and the local development plan, which, in many respects, will be the spatial expression of that community plan. The consultation responses on the draft Local Government (Community Planning Partners) Order indicated a desire on behalf of local government and others to see Departments named as statutory partners on their community planning partnerships. I therefore sought the views of my Executive colleagues on including the 12 Departments as statutory community planning partners. Whilst their responses indicated support for the community planning process, most Ministers do not believe that it is necessary or productive, I might add, for their Department to be named as a statutory community planning partner, preferring, where appropriate, that the arm's-length bodies — many of which are named as statutory community planning partners — participate in the partnership.

It is vital that we have as many Departments and or through their arm's-length bodies buying into the community planning process as possible, if it is to be the success that we need it to be and anticipate that it can be. We have to look at other processes that are still running, however, with mixed measures of successes. I think of neighbourhood renewal and maybe the reluctance of some Departments and agencies to buy into that, which, in my opinion, has not allowed it to realise its full potential.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I agree with the Minister. I had bitter experience of being involved with neighbourhood renewal, with the Departments not having enough buy-in. The Minister has said that he will establish an engagement protocol with the Departments: can he detail a bit more about how that may help with more buy-in?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Ms Lo, and I hope that she has recovered from her bitter experience in neighbourhood renewal. She is correct in identifying that I am consulting Executive colleagues on the development of a community planning engagement protocol. The responses that I have received to date on that have been entirely positive. In addition, Members should be aware that I have established the partnership panel for Northern Ireland, membership of which comprises a representative of each of the 11 new councils, Executive Ministers and representatives of NILGA. That partnership panel provides a mechanism for discussion between Executive Ministers and local government elected members on strategic policy matters at a political level. While we have had only four meetings to date, I would like to think that it is taking shape and will be a useful tool in the future.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister have any concerns about councils adjacent to one another adopting conflicting policies in regard to the plans?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mrs Overend for that question. It is a valid question and a valid concern. It would seem ridiculous that one council would zone housing right up to the border of its area, which would then be immediately adjacent to land zoned as open space or where development was prohibited by the neighbouring council. That is why it is important that there is a central oversight retained by DOE. We will do everything that we can to encourage liaison between councils as well. That is very important, and it would not just be on a council-by-council basis but, naturally, for councils in border areas to liaise with their neighbouring councils in the Republic of Ireland as well.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

4. Mr Weir asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on departmental funding provision to environmental non-governmental organisations in 2015-16. (AQO 8520/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In the past, I have highlighted the very serious implications of the budget settlement for my Department, particularly emphasising the implications for a wide range of grant and other programmes aimed at supporting key environmental programmes. I further stressed that these cuts would have immediate and significant implications, including the loss of jobs, for a range of voluntary bodies across the North. Since then, I have focused on doing whatever I can within the imposition of this extremely difficult budget to ease the impact of these cuts, primarily through the use of carrier bag levy receipts. Therefore, I agreed initial allocations to environmental organisations totalling just under £1·5 million to help to deliver a wide range of environmental outcomes. Furthermore, my Department set up a workshop on 23 April to discuss how best to allocate £1·25 million of residual funding from carrier bag levy income to support key environmental priorities and help in safeguarding some of our most valuable sites and landscapes, protecting our priority species and encouraging access to the countryside.

Following the workshop, which was attended by 22 environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs), the natural environment fund (NEF) opened for applications on 1 May with a closing date of 20 May. All applicants to the NEF were informed of the outcome of their grant application on 18 June in line with the established timetable. Twenty-one NGOs and landscape management bodies were awarded funding. I have also allocated £0·3 million for the 2014-15 challenge fund from the carrier bag levy that will provide money to support community groups and schools in delivering environmental projects. ENGOs, provided that they are not the lead applicant, are encouraged to partner with eligible organisations in project delivery. The competition closed at noon on 26 June for community groups and will close at noon on 25 September for schools.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. Albeit somewhat belatedly, there has, at least, been some progress on this front. How many groups did not receive funding, and how many potentially face removal of their activities as a result?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question and his begrudging recognition of my intervention — albeit belated — in this regard and efforts to ensure that the number of groups and the amount that groups lose in funding was kept to a minimum.

As regards who is no longer eligible for funding or who has not been successful with the NEF, I do not have that detail to hand. However, I will certainly provide it to the Member. I can assure him, if he has not seen it on the TV or heard it on the radio — I have not heard any particular criticism of the process that I engaged in, perhaps apart from the regret that it was a wee bit late; we would love to have been in a position to carry this out prior to the Budget and this financial year — that the vast, vast majority of groups, in the region of 99%, recognise the efforts that I have made in this regard.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Whilst I am sure that the voluntary groups — I am probably a member of every one of them — are very happy with progress so far, does the Minister not accept that this is a very ad hoc arrangement in the sense that the previous funding was guaranteed for up to three years and organisations knew where they stood? Under his new scheme, they will constantly have to apply with no guarantee that that funding will continue.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Wells for that question, although why he would want to be a member of any group that would have him as a member, I do not know.

I agree that this has been a very ad hoc arrangement. The Member should recall that he was a Minister at the time, when we had to decide on a one-year Budget. They were extremely ad hoc circumstances all round. I have said on record publicly again and again and will do so again today that I was not particularly pleased with the hand that was dealt to me in that Budget. However, I think that I have played that hand as well as I could. While the stakes are high for all those groups, I took the gamble and got a big win for them.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Does the Minister think that the budget cuts for the environmental NGOs will have a negative impact on them when applying for European funding?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, and I thank Mr Ó hOisín for that question. As part of the criteria for the natural environment fund that we set to judge the performance of the ENGOs — it is worth remembering that we are here as the Department of the Environment not to ensure the survival of voluntary and community groups but to ensure the survival, protection and promotion of our environment, and all those groups happen to be providing services that do just that — we looked at their ability to draw match funding from many other sources, including Europe. That was weighed up when we were assessing their applications and, ultimately, allocating funding to them. It is important, particularly in these straitened times, that we look externally and maximise the drawdown of money from other sources.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am afraid that that ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions. Questions 7, 8 and 10 have been withdrawn within the appropriate time frame.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

T1. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on the Hightown quarry application and to state when he is likely to make a decision on that for the waste management group. (AQT 2731/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Clarke for that question. He is right to establish the connection between things such as recycling figures and waste infrastructure or lack of infrastructure here in the North to deal with our waste. The Member will be aware that an article 31 planning application is being assessed by my officials. I have not received a report from my officials on that application to date nor have I had any indication of when that report might arrive.

There is massive public interest in the application, as the Member will be well aware, with in the region of 3,500 objections. Assessments of an application are based not on the quantity of objections but on their quality. This application, like any application, will be subject to the most stringent examination and scrutiny by planning officials and Northern Ireland Environment Agency officials before it even reaches my desk. It will then be up to me to make a decision.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I welcome the scrutiny of those officials. I am sure that he, like me, will welcome the fact that one council group has, through Arc21, come forward with a proposal to deal with the waste. Can I take it from the Minister that, whatever recommendation his officials make on that application, he will sign this off in concurrence with that recommendation?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Clarke for his question. However, I am not in a position to give any guarantee on something of which I do not know the content. One thing that I can give a guarantee on is that I will give careful consideration to all factors, as I do with all decisions that I make, before making a decision.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

T2. Mr Buchanan asked the Minister of the Environment what weight his Department is giving to the concerns expressed by members of the public during its consideration of applications for new wind turbines, given that he may be aware of the growing concerns about the safety of wind turbines, either those on wind farms or, more particularly, second-hand single wind turbines. (AQT 2732/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Buchanan for that question. I am extremely aware of many concerns and objections that residents across the North and beyond have about wind energy applications.

I referred to many of those concerns in response to Mr Milne's earlier question. I also referred to the fact that the Member's constituency is one area that is particularly well versed in these objections and concerns.

As for safety fears, I presume that the Member is referring to the potential health impacts of wind turbines and wind farms. I remind the Member that the Public Health Agency (PHA) is a consultee on these applications. When objections are made, they must be addressed and answered by my Department, which it does in consultation with agencies such as the PHA. My Department works with those agencies to allay residents' concerns and fears — hopefully, in most instances — and, if a genuine concern is shared by the relevant statutory agency or authority, that can be addressed by the applicant.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. It appears that any safety checks are being done during the consultation process, but, during the application process or when an application is being approved, what stipulation does the Department have for regular safety checks on those turbines after a wind farm has been completed and is up and running?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. Again, in response to an earlier question on the Committee's report on wind energy, I briefly referred to the incident at Screggagh earlier this year or late last year when the wind turbine fell during an unprecedented event here in the North. The fact that that could happen, and the potential impact of such an occurrence should it happen in close proximity to houses, sent shock waves not just through the local community but through the community at large across the North and beyond.

When I answered questions about that in the House, I explained that, although my Department retains authority over planning matters, it is not the relevant authority to run checks on the safety of these structures when they are up. That is a job for the Health and Safety Executive, in the same way that, if the DOE gives planning permission for a house, it cannot be chasing round doing building control inspections. Other agencies and bodies are charged with that work, and it is important that my Department works with them to ensure that they are doing that so that we can give some peace of mind and security to those who have these perfectly understandable concerns.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

T3. Mr Wilson asked the Minister of the Environment what action his Department takes to ensure that company records of tyres that have been taken off customers marry with the records of disposal for those tyres, especially because, when customers change tyres, the company that changes them takes a fee for their proper disposal. (AQT 2733/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Again, this is a subject of which Mr Wilson never tires. My Department is working very hard to bring forward new measures to tackle the scourge of used tyres being illegally disposed of. Mr Wilson is a former Minister of the Environment, and I know that he recognises the complexity of this area of work and the complications in trying to grasp the issue and deal with it in a conclusive manner. I can, however, assure him that we are working closely with tyre manufacturers to discuss the best way forward.

We are also working closely with councils, which is timely in that we are close to bonfire season when many tyres that are illegally and wrongly disposed of end up causing huge environmental damage as well as being a huge antisocial scourge, which tortures communities across the North.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not so sure that the Minister gave any answer to my question. Surely, if there is a record of tyres that have been taken off, there should be a record of how those tyres have been disposed of. Given that around this time of year, tens of thousands of tyres are dumped on to bonfires by companies that, presumably, took money from customers, why can his agency not simply call with tyre companies, check what tyres have been changed, ask where they have been disposed of and, if no reasonable explanation can be given, prosecute?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his supplementary. As I tried to outline in my initial answer, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and other areas in my Department are working hard, along with other agencies and jurisdictions, to come up with a producer responsibility scheme for tyres. We have to look South — I know that the Member would love to see how such a scheme is rolled out in the Republic of Ireland. As I said in answer to Mr Wilson's initial question, this is a very complex issue, and I thought that he, as a former Minister of the Environment, would have had some appreciation of that complexity. Clearly, however, he does not, and that indicates to me that, when he was Minister, he did not grasp the issue and take control of it. I could probably continue the discussion with him outside.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T4. Mr Givan asked the Minister of the Environment what preparatory work is being carried out for the review of those functions that were transferred to local government, given that when those powers were transferred, it was built in to the process that there would be a review and, potentially, further powers could be transferred. (AQT 2734/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Givan for his question. In my response to an earlier question, I referred to the establishment of the partnership panel, which comprises Ministers and representatives of each of the 11 new councils. That panel is a very useful tool. It gives Ministers — not just this Minister — an opportunity to hear the concerns of local government and to discuss the opportunities offered by the functions that have already transferred and those that might transfer in the future.

A review should be looked at, and it will be looked at within a year of a vesting day in April next year. However, we need to do that in close partnership with local government because, as the Member may hear from his colleagues in local government, there is quite a bit of disquiet and discontent about some of the functions that they have received, or, rather, the budgets going with the functions that they have received. Some in local government have the perception, albeit mistaken, that the transfer of functions was used as — can I use the term without offending the Member? — a Trojan Horse for central government to pass cuts on to local government to make.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Minister's commentary on the partnership process. Two functions that colleagues in Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council have expressed to me that they want to look at are on-street car parking — off-street car parking is already within their remit, obviously — and particularly the maintenance of grass verges. That issue has come to the fore and is a function that I believe local government could deliver. Will the Minister lead on trying to see what efforts could be made, working with local authorities — I appreciate that this is a DRD matter — to take forward some kind of approach that ensures that the maintenance of grass verges, a basic function of government, can be delivered, where currently it is not?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Givan for his supplementary. Quite rightly, he identifies that both functions to which he refers do not fall within my Department, and, therefore, I cannot lead in their transfer. However, I do, and will continue to, lead in convening the partnership between central and local government and facilitating the conversations that have to take place. As I said, I am not sure that there is a tremendous appetite at this time in local government for assuming new functions in the immediate future. However, I am happy to talk to local government, listen to it and work with it on that.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Time is up, I am afraid. The House should take its ease while we change the top Table.

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

Executive Committee Business

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I support the Second Stage of the Bill. Kieran McCarthy would normally be speaking for the party, but he is absent today owing to family matters. I am not a Health Committee member, and it is fair to say that I am not 100% familiar with all the issues raised by other Members.

The Bill has the potential to be an important tool in helping us to better understand the nature of the health challenges facing our society and, consequently, helping us tailor solutions more efficiently and effectively. The Alliance Party believes that it is a good and necessary Bill. It is quite clear from comments from Members that there are a lot of issues with it, but those can be addressed through the Committee's scrutiny and at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. The Bill provides a proper, ethical framework for the use of confidential data in the wider public interest and for the wider public good. That extends most notably to research and development efforts that are seeking to discover more effective treatments and cures for a wide range of conditions, many of which are life-limiting or life-threatening. Members have spoken in the past about the quality of the research base in life sciences in Northern Ireland and paid tribute to the many discoveries and contributions that have made a real difference to healthcare and people's lives.

The sharing of individualised data exists in an uncertain state in Northern Ireland. Its legality is shaped by the provisions of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the common law on confidentiality. As other Members have said, the current basis around a public interest test appears to be ambiguous and risky. There is a difference in consent between that for direct care and the disclosure for improving the general functioning of health and social services. The Bill is seeking to address the latter point only if it is impossible or impractical. Anonymised data would not achieve the desired outcome, and, most crucially, a committee or body established for that purpose must authorise the processing. I appreciate that many people will have concerns about such use of individual data, but that is why it is so important that sufficient safeguards be put in place.

In that regard, we can take comfort from the fact that the privacy advisory committee that advises the Department on such matters appears to understand the logic of the Bill and sees the bigger picture. We must also recognise that, without the legislation, Northern Ireland would be out of step with other jurisdictions, and, indeed, our researchers and practitioners would be hindered from engaging and collaborating effectively with their counterparts. It is also clear that the legislation will benefit bodies such as the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, which is located at Queen's and has done great work to understand the frequency, diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Without the legislation, its work would be hindered. The Bill recognises that, in certain circumstances, the use of anonymised individual data is not sufficient, particularly when there are advantages to be gained from intersection with genetics.

This legislation is already a fine balance between respect for the individual and working for the common good of all. The Bill provides for oversight structures and safeguard measures to be put in place. Given the uncertainty and ambiguity of the current loose legal framework, the Bill should work in the interests of all by ensuring that there will be a clearly understood, balanced framework in place for decision-making. We therefore support the further passage of the Bill, but we look forward to the Minister's reaction to the points that have been raised by other Members on all sides of the House.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I rise today as a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety to speak on the Health and Social Care (Control of Data Processing) Bill. I was greatly concerned to learn that patient information is being shared without prior consent or knowledge within the secondary health service. Whilst the Bill aims to put in place a legal basis for sharing that information, I believe that there is a great deal of obscurity and lack of precision in it. I trust that the Minister will provide some more clarity on those issues today. That said, I feel that the Bill offers huge opportunities to advance the healthcare system by allowing information to be disseminated for the purposes of further research into various illnesses and conditions, as well as planning for future health and social care provision. We must ensure, however, that in taking the Bill forward we do absolutely everything we can to make sure that privacy and personal information are protected.

In cases were consent has not been possible and where anonymous information is used, the requirements to protect the information fall under the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the common law duty of confidentiality. There must be a clear statutory reason for sharing the information, and it must be deemed to be in the public interest. Therein lies the first major anomaly in the current provision. The term "public interest" is incredibly vague and open to interpretation, meaning that decisions are based on subjectivity and are open to challenge. Organisations are often reluctant to pursue information on that basis, and there is a significant deficiency, in the legal context, for them to do that. Thus any benefit that may have been gained is lost.

The Bill aims to put in place a legal framework for sharing any information in restricted and controlled circumstances. It would also include an overseeing body that would independently assess any request for access to information within the parameters of the legal guidance. It will be necessary that any information that is provided will be used to secure a significant outcome that could not otherwise have been achieved in the absence of that information. My concern with that is that the phrase "public interest" still forms the basis of any decision that is made. Public interest remains open to interpretation and will still require any organisation making an application to access information to make its case for why its needs it and how it will serve public interest. I am anxious that that loophole is addressed and a much clearer definition put in place to remove the subjectivity of the term and to ensure that decisions to share information are made on the most robust basis.

In looking at how the Bill may assist medical research, I am of the opinion that there is a vast opportunity to improve the healthcare system, streamline services and better predict future trends. However, that area also requires incredibly stringent guidelines. Our current position permits information to be shared without a framework, structure or guidelines, and in taking the Bill forward I hope that many of the obscurities will be removed. It is my view that the key focus of the Bill should be on the principle of attempting to obtain consent at all times when practically possible and that we should have to call on this in only the most extreme circumstances.

I would hazard a guess that many people whose information is shared for the purpose, for example, of researching outcomes for cancer patients would not object to that, but questions remain about who would be able to access the information and for what purpose. We must ensure that we do not open the floodgates to sharing personal information without prior consent, awareness or knowledge.

I do, however, support the Bill in the main and believe that, if properly worked out, it will give us a great opportunity to make our health service much more efficient and competent. I trust that the Department will ensure that the privacy and protection of service users is kept at the forefront during the next stage of the Bill, if passed.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá imní orm faoi ghnéithe áirithe den Bhille seo caithfidh mé a rá. Like others, I have concerns about some aspects of the Bill. The Bill aims to provide a statutory framework and safeguards so that information relating to the health and social care of individuals may be used for medical or social care purposes without the consent of the people concerned. While there are, no doubt, very good reasons for collating valuable patient information in order to feed into research and where all that can take us for very positive reasons, I would like, nevertheless, to draw attention to a couple of areas of concern that I feel are vague and require more stringent definition.

First, I want to refer to the use of the expression "in the public interest". There are some concerns around sharing identifiable information without consent, particularly as it would be regarded as permissible to do so if it is believed to be in the public interest. I have difficulty with that and I know that there are difficulties in defining what the public interest actually means. If a person's views are being overridden because of some undefined public interest, I feel that we should have a clear definition of what is meant by that.

"Social well-being" is another undefined concept. Again, the Bill uses this phrase without giving a definition. If an individual's personal information is to be used with or without their consent, I believe that it is only reasonable that we have some idea of how it will be used. The Bill states:

"For the purposes of this Act, "information" means ... information (however recorded) which relates to the social well-being of an individual".

"Social well-being" is a vague phrase, which could be interpreted very widely or very differently from one person to another, so we must have clarity as to what that will mean in order to take a properly informed view on it.

The Bill proposes that a committee may be established as a safeguard to decide how confidential information is processed. I question the use of the word "may" in this case. If a committee is intended to be put in place as a safeguard, why does it appear to be optional rather than obligatory? In conclusion, these questions, and many others that other Members have raised, will need to be addressed as we proceed with the scrutiny of the Bill.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will not labour the points that colleagues have already made but I will make a couple of points about the scrutiny of the Bill at Committee Stage. There are a number of interesting areas that we will need to drill down on, and they are not just applicable to healthcare provision. There are issues around public interest tests that a lot of us could debate in a whole sphere of different arenas. It will be interesting as we get into it around healthcare; what is it to have a public interest that would override other aspects?

Colleagues have mentioned social well-being. Let us look at the clauses in the Bill where this is relevant. Clause 1(11)(b) mentions social well-being and goes on to outline what these areas are. Clause 1(14)(a) refers to:

"research into social care or social well-being".

When we read that in the context of the type of areas that we will be considering, including disability, dependency on alcohol and drugs and so on, we see that these are very sensitive and personal pieces of information. When we talk about that in the context of research and sharing that information, we need to be careful and have the right kind of measures in place to protect that. Having said that, I recognise that the Department is coming from a position whereby we already have disclosure of this information through the common law aspect. Therefore, the starting position on this is one in which information is already being shared but the Department wants to make sure that there is a proper strategic framework in place. We need to be careful about where the debate on this starts, in recognition of the current environment where this information is being shared. That will be important as we go forward.

The key area seems to be around the secondary use of that personal information, as opposed to its primary use. That personal information is very sensitive and it is right that we have the appropriate safeguards in place. Having said that, you still have existing legislation on data protection and the Human Rights Act, which govern this and which are still applicable to it.

There is a point of interest that I will want to tease out at Committee Stage, and the Minister may be able to comment on it. Clause 3(5) states that the code of practice, which we will be giving the Department enabling powers to introduce, speaks only about the code applying to:

"Any other person who provides health and social care under arrangements made with a public body"

What about private healthcare where there is no contract with a public body in its provision? Would the code of practice be applicable to private healthcare provision that has not been contracted in by a public body? Should we be looking at arrangements for how personal information is controlled and managed by private healthcare providers? Otherwise, we are in danger of having a two-tier system in which there will be very clear rules on the handling of people's personal information in public provision, through the health service and where there is a public contract, but we do not seem to be clear on what the rules are in respect of personal information for private healthcare provision where there is no public connection. That is something that I will certainly be interested in teasing out as we go through the Committee Stage. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank all Members who contributed to the Second Stage debate. There has been commonality in issues raised by Members from all sides around some concerns, if I can put it as strongly as that, with aspects of the Bill. I will seek to address, as far as I can, some of those as I go through the comments.

I do not think that there was much disagreement on the purpose of the Bill and support for the purpose of the Bill. The purpose is laid out very clearly early in clause 1. Clause 1(1) states that the release of information that identifies individuals will be for "medical or social care purposes". Clause 1(1)(a) and clause 1(1)(b) go further and talk about information not being released:

"in the interests of improving health and social care, or in the public interest."

That has been a debating point during Second Stage, and I will return to it before the end. As we go through all these issues and concerns, it is worth bearing in mind, as the Bill proceeds through its various stages in the House, that it is for medical "or" social-care purposes, to pick up on Mr McKinney's point that this goes much further than the equivalent legislation across Great Britain. That is simply because we have the benefit of an integrated health and social-care system. It is not some great conspiracy; it is actually a benefit of the system that we have in Northern Ireland. The release or sharing of information, within certain parameters, which I will come on to momentarily, is for medical or social-care purposes.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to place that sharing of information, which can and does identify individuals, on a clear statutory framework. That is something that does not currently exist — a fact that was identified by many Members in their contributions. At this minute in time, we have a situation in which information is already being shared via the common-law parameters. It is my view, and, I think, the view of other Members, that information can be shared, and is being shared, via common-law tests, that it is better for us to have a statutory framework, and that it is far better for us to have a Bill passing that has robust safeguards to ensure that that information is shared appropriately.

The safeguards are extensive. Obviously, we have regulations, including the limited circumstances in which information can be shared, that will have to be put through. Many Members touched on the creation of a committee that will look at each application. I think that that is a robust safeguard to have in place. An onerous task will be placed on that committee. Mr McKinney shared some not-so-good experiences from England. I will come back to them, but I agree with him on the points that he raised.

Even in that situation, which is not a perfect system, since 2001, about two thirds of applications have been approved and one third has not been approved. That is an indication that not every application coming forward to their committee is getting through and that a robust test is being applied. Although not the majority, a significant number — around one third, which is 300 out of 900 — of applications since 2001 have been turned down and have not proceeded.

I know that the Committee has a concern about the committee in that the Bill as currently drafted permits rather than requires the establishment of the committee. I am happy to look at that, perhaps by way of an amendment at a later stage, because I understand the point that the Committee has made in its deliberations so far. Similarly, on a code of practice, which is part of the safeguard that is there, the legislation as currently drafted says to "have regard to" the code of practice. Again, I would be content to look at strengthening that by way of an amendment.

Other safeguards in place include the Human Rights Act, particularly in respect of the right to private and family life, and the Data Processing Act, especially around fair and lawful processing so that information is only what is absolutely needed and only those who are entitled to have that information have it. The Human Rights Act and the Data Processing Act and how they apply to this are still applicable. Those safeguards are not in place at present in respect of the way information is shared via the common law. We will be in a far better position if we have the robust safeguards of a committee and a code of practice in place to ensure that this is done in a more robust and safer way than has hitherto been the case.

Some Members alluded to the fact that there has been broad support for the legislation. Our inboxes have been populated today by some people from various sectors who support it. Some 96% of respondents to the consultation supported the legislation. I could not quite work out Mrs Dobson's comments about how she thought that, if more people knew about the Bill, they would be shocked that their private information was being kept. I would have thought that most people were quite content that their private information was being kept within the health and social care system. Having that information and the ability to share it and use new technology like the electronic care record ensures that people get a high standard of care no matter what health and social care establishment they go into.

Of course, there is a practical purpose. In debating the definition of social well-being or the definition of public interest, we can sometimes forget the very good practical purpose that there is in the Bill in taking the legislation forward. There are already examples of where the legislation, when passed, will enhance the sharing of information for good, sound, solid, medical and social care purposes. For example, it will underpin the operation of the already successful Northern Ireland cancer registry, and many Members referenced and acknowledged the good work that that is doing. Within that registry, it will allow the removal of duplicate information. People can appear in several different environments within the health and social care system and are, perhaps, being double-, triple- or quadruple-counted. It will allow that to be taken out; it will facilitate genetic requests; and it will have the ability to link patient data with a death certificate. It will also enable Northern Ireland participation in many UK-wide epidemiology studies. It will allow us to participate in our own and other clinical audits, health monitoring and research studies, with the other safeguard that any research must be shown to be ethical.

As Members are aware, there are concerns about legal challenge to releasing information via the common law. Dr Paul Darragh of the BMA is quoted as having said:

"We agree that using the public interest justification for collecting data for the cancer registry in Northern Ireland is open to legal challenge."

I do not think that we want to put any medical practitioner in the position where they are concerned about legal challenge to the releasing of information for good purposes, for trying to improve our understanding of cancer and other diseases. There is an existing desire among many health professionals to participate in studies. Some of them are UK-wide, and some of them are just for Northern Ireland. In fact, there was a recent cancer satisfaction survey that we were unable to participate in because of the fear of legal challenge on releasing the information. If we were to cast our net around for other examples, I am sure there would be many. We do not want that to be the case. We want to have the ability to participate in studies in the UK or further afield that increase our understanding of certain diseases, how people respond to certain treatments and, above all, raise the standard of care that people in Northern Ireland receive. I think we would want to participate in such studies and play our part. We would want to gain the benefit for Northern Ireland of the information that would be derived from the conclusions and recommendations that come out of such studies. However, we cannot do that, clearly, if people in the health and social care sector are fearful of releasing their information for legal reasons.

Some Members, particularly Mr McKinney, raised concerns around the release of information to insurance or pharmaceutical companies. I certainly share that concern. Members appreciate that I have almost inherited this legislation, so, in studying it completely afresh, this was one of the concerns that I had: who might get their hands on this information? You would be surprised if I said anything other than that it is not the intention for insurance or pharmaceutical companies to get such information. However, it goes further than it not being our intention; there is enough in the Bill to make it clear that it is not for those purposes. Clause 1 makes it clear that it is:

"for medical or social care purposes".

I do not see how it could be gained for insurance purposes. Again, it must be:

"in the interests of improving health and social care".

That makes it clear that sharing the information with insurance companies or other financial institutions is not the intention.

There is another safeguard in that respect. Say an application were to come from an insurance or a pharmaceutical company for what appeared to be commercial purposes. Of course, a pharmaceutical company could request such information for medical or social care purposes, and that could actually benefit patients and people in Northern Ireland, so we must decouple them from insurance companies.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. He will not want to get into a protracted debate at this stage because a lot of this will be debated in Committee. Part of the evidence that we heard was about academic research. What safeguards and guarantees will be put in place to ensure that such information will not be forwarded to the very organisations that, he says, should not receive it?