Northern Ireland Assembly, 7 November 2016

381 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Private Members' Business

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The first item on our Order Paper today is a motion on a review of on-street parking. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That this Assembly believes that the mandatory £90 car parking fine should be reduced significantly; further believes that greater flexibility needs to be introduced to encourage trade across Northern Ireland by allowing for the first 30 minutes of parking to be free of charge across our towns and cities, and for on-street parking time limits to be extended in rural towns and villages; and calls upon the Minister for Infrastructure to review urgently the contract for on-street parking.

Having met traders across this city and, in particular, those in the city centre, I am concerned about car parking in the city centre. In particular, I am concerned about parking in car parks and about what my party and I see as punitive fines for members of the public who return late to their parking space. My mailbag has received considerable correspondence about the issue, as, I am sure, have those of Members across the Chamber. I think that the fine of £90, if someone is late, is too much.

I think that the fine needs to be reviewed, and I welcome the fact that the Minister is here in his place. Even if that fine is paid within a fortnight, it is still £45. Someone being made to pay £45 for being late to their car parking space is, frankly, far too much.

We need to strike a balance that is right between making sure that people want to come to our city and town centres to shop, spend money and generate wealth there and those who want to see greater usage of park-and-ride developments. I very much welcome that as a way forward. We have a number of park-and-ride facilities around the Belfast basin for bringing people into the city centre. As Members will know, we do have issues in that Northern Ireland has a largely rural population, with people tending to travel by car. Whilst there has been great progress with bus and rail transportation, particularly with Ulsterbus, we do not have the services that perhaps are needed to encourage people to come into our city and town centres. I should state clearly that I am speaking as a Member of the House and not as the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, but, only a few weeks ago, we at the Committee listened to some arguments that were put forward by people who live in rural Fermanagh about the disconnectivity that there is of people who live in rural areas, even affecting getting in for a doctor's appointment never mind shopping or whatever in Enniskillen as the county town.

The pressures that our businesses currently face are pressures that are increasing. You only have to look at the arterial routes in the city centre of Belfast to know that those pressures are real. You see that through the number of shops that are closed. I do think that this Chamber needs to be much more responsive and listen to the views of traders.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. The motion talks about fines. Will the Member agree, from listening to shoppers, that the "redcoats", as they are often known, seem to be overzealous in how they do their jobs? We hear of people being fined for parking a few inches outside of the limits of a box. It seems to be more that they get an enjoyment out of punishing people than trying to work with people to bring them into our towns and villages.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Indeed, only last week, I witnessed a number of what the Member calls "redcoats" in South Belfast when I visited Sandy Row and saw the pressures there. It is the same in my constituency of North Belfast. I do think that we have to set guidelines, and those guidelines have to be adhered to. We do have to have laws that are implemented, and the House should be supporting those laws. We are calling for the Minister for Infrastructure to review the laws that are currently set out.

Given the other pressures that there are in our city and town centres from many aspects facing the business community, car parking is a key issue.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I am happy to give way.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On the back of the question that was asked by your colleague, I understand what he is saying. However, especially in the likes of Belfast, which is nearly all that we can speak about, an invasion takes place every day. People are crying out for redcoats to go in to help to deal with that.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his intervention. The Member and I served on Belfast City Council at the same time, and he will know from his time there that small communities that abut the city centre, like Sandy Row, lower Falls, Brown Square and the Markets, are under pressure when people come seeking free parking there and not having to face any fee at all. Sometimes, people, many of whom live in settled communities like those and who are older members of the community, simply cannot get their car near their own door. Going back, there were a number of pressures that were recognised by the then Department for Regional Development when its Minister was Minister Murphy. However, those solutions were not solutions either because they gave people permits to park outside their own door and they could not be given certainty that they could park outside their own door. That is why the review is timely.

Look at the city centres. Along with my colleague Mr Stalford, I met some Belfast city centre traders only a few weeks ago and heard about the pressures that they are under. Members from those parties on Belfast City Council that took the recent decision can explain the reasoning behind it, but the town and city centres that surround Belfast will be rubbing their hands at it. They are offsetting the costs of parking and allowing people freer access to their town or city centre to help boost their economy in the run-up to Christmas. I have seen stuff on Facebook recently where people who, for example, represent Lisburn are making the point, "Come to Lisburn, and you will get free parking". The decision by Belfast City Council seems to be wrong-faced, but, as I said, the parties who made it can explain the reasoning behind it.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank Mr Humphrey for giving way. The Member referred to the situation with the redcoats on Sandy Row. The actual problem is that the redcoats do not go into the likes of the housing estate off Sandy Row and instead spend all their time on the arterial route. We see that on the Lisburn Road as well. The consequence of their focusing on arterial routes is that people who want to stop there and spend their money in the shops are discouraged from so doing.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for that. If Members are honest, they will say that that is something that they have heard across the city. As Mr McCann said, I can speak only for this city and the city centre of Belfast.

The other thing that Members need to bear in mind is that, because we are a rural economy, many people travel to our town and city centres in cars from rural parts of Northern Ireland. I did a wee tour on Saturday morning and went over to Boucher. I saw that, in and around Boucher Crescent where there is free parking, the car parks were completely full and the roads into those car parks were completely full. The number of cars there from the Republic of Ireland was hugely noticeable. We know the benefits that border towns such as Enniskillen, Newry and Londonderry have been receiving because of the exchange rate between the pound and the euro at this time. There was a piece on the news only last week about the benefits to the Newry economy in particular. Are we going to discourage those people who are travelling in their cars to our town and city centres by having this £90 parking fine?

There should be some flexibility for people who are a few minutes late, but, if people are significantly late and taking up a parking space that others could be using, yes, they should be fined. I would argue against myself if I did not make that point. However, £90 is just too much. For a working person with a young family, £90 is too much. We do not know the circumstances in which those people can be placed. There should be flexibility around timing, the amount of the fine and people not being able to park inside the box. We have all arrived to park in a space and found a car parked outside the box and into your space. We know how annoying and difficult it is when you cannot get a space anywhere else and are trying to navigate into a tight spot. There needs to be flexibility around those things.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I will give way.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The motion calls for a review but goes on to predetermine the outcome of any review. The Minister has said that he is up for reviewing it. We should therefore support the amendment. We will then get a review, and we can all take part in the review process.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I am not sure that the motion does have a predetermined outcome. We are asking the Minister to show some flexibility around the issues that I have set out. I very much welcome the tone of the debate so far —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member's time is up.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

— and took great pleasure in proposing the motion.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move the following amendment

Leave out all after "Assembly" and insert "recognises the vital importance of adequate and affordable on-street parking for the growth and development of our town centres; notes the need for the Minister for Infrastructure to review the provisions for on-street parking; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to carry out an investigation into the reduction of mandatory car parking fines; and further calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to look at options to review on-street car parking fees and times.".

I will speak in support of the amendment and against the motion. Ba mhaith liom cúpla rud a rá faoin rún. I will speak first on a number of issues to do with the motion. Overall, I think that it is populist in nature. We all know — indeed, I have found out to my own cost on a number of occasions — that, if you pay the initial car-parking fine within 14 days, it is not £90 but £45. The Member who spoke previously said that himself.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I accept that, if it is paid within two weeks, the fine is £45, but I have had a number elderly people come to my office in a state of distress about these issues. Also, when you have a working-class family or a single-parent family who are under pressure, £45 is also a huge amount of money for them to find in the run-up to Christmas.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member. I understand what he is saying, because our constituency office has similar types of people coming in. I was on the Regional Development Committee when the measure was brought in, and one of the things that we argued at the time was that it should not be a revenue-raising mechanism. The £45 offer is there to encourage people to pay promptly. I have been caught once or twice in that situation.

The second issue is allowing the first 30 minutes of parking to be free across our towns and cities, as outlined in the motion. That would be totally unmanageable, and it is unrealistic. It would need many more redcoats or enforcement agencies to enforce.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I am listening to the Member saying that it would be unworkable. Maybe you are going to elaborate on how it would be unworkable, given that all we are asking for is a review of the fines. It is going to take the same number of redcoats; all we are suggesting is that fine should be less.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a number of occasions this morning, DUP Members have said that all they are looking for is a review. The DUP motion does not ask for a review; the amendment might ask for a review, but the motion asks for the fine to be reduced.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I note the remarks of the Minister.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I accept and welcome the —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am thankful to the Minister for his intervention and am happy to provide some clarification. I made it clear that we wanted, as part of the review, the fine to be looked at. So, I do not see any contradiction between my position and that of the Minister, quite frankly.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is not a point of order, again.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Minister outlined, all those issues can be taken into account in the review.

As I said earlier, it would take many more traffic wardens to enforce the initial 30 minutes. You can imagine traffic wardens running back and forth to see whether the 30 minutes had run out. Again, how much would that cost? That would have practical issues around enforcement.

The aim of parking enforcement is to reduce the number of vehicles that are illegally parked. There are limited numbers of spaces in our towns and cities, as I know from Enniskillen. The issue is the effective use and management of the spaces. There is a need to tackle congestion and, at the same time, have affordable town-centre parking. In Enniskillen, it is £1 for five hours' parking; some do not agree with that, but the traders mostly accept it. I have spoken to traders in Enniskillen, where a new bypass is planned. A small number have said that the bypass would lose them business, but the majority argue that easing the traffic benefits the economy. If the new bypass gets the go-ahead, the through traffic in Enniskillen will be taken out of the town, easing congestion for those travelling there for shopping and trading.

The increase in fines for penalty charge notices (PCNs) in 2012 has worked in that the number of illegally parked cars is reducing. As I said earlier, it would be virtually impossible to manage having the first 30 minutes of parking free, which is what the motion proposes. Rural towns and villages operate one- to two-hour waiting times. How long do people want? The proposer of the motion spoke about people going to doctor appointments, and I know that people go into towns to get a haircut or whatever, but the current contract does not prevent any changes to waiting time and fines.

Our amendment recommends that a review takes place, as the Minister said. However, any review will need to be based on evidence and focus on reforms that work in the interests of managing limited on-street spaces effectively, improving the flow of traffic and enhancing the towns and cities that we live in.

Sinn Féin is calling for a review, and all the issues which the sponsors of the motion have outlined, and will outline, can be taken in that review. I think that this is a sensible way forward for the issue and I ask the House to support the amendment.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

There is some merit in the motion and in the amendment. All of us should be seeking to ensure smooth traffic flow in our towns and cities and that people can access parking spaces so that they can do business. It is essential that we support local traders and ensure that our town centres remain vibrant. However, we have to strike a balance because every car in a parking space means that that is one parking space that cannot be used by another motorist or shopper. It is important that we have proper regulation to ensure turnover and not have a large number of motorists driving around town centres searching for parking spaces because people are not moving from them.

I have a number of points to make. I ask the proposers of the motion to state what would be a more appropriate figure than £90. In any case, we should point out that, whilst the charge is indeed £90, if payment is received within 14 days of receiving a penalty charge notice, or within 15 days by letter, a 50% discount applies. You have to pay £45. That has been outlined in the debate thus far. The discount is offered to ensure prompt payment, and the 50% reduction seems to me to be exactly what the —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I steered clear of setting out a figure to the House even though invited to do so by Mr McCann. We do not want to predetermine the outcome. In calling for a review, we want the Minister to have exactly that flexibility, but I think that a figure of £30, reduced to £15 if paid within the fortnight, would be sensible.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to take that on board.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The 50% discount is offered to ensure prompt payment, and it seems to me to be exactly what the proposers of the motion are calling for in terms of the charge being reduced significantly.

For some reason, this appears to be a DUP acting-alone motion, away from its coalition partners who control the Department responsible. One might reasonably have expected the DUP to run the motion past Sinn Féin before tabling it. Instead, we have a Sinn Féin amendment before us, which also takes a sensible approach. As you would say, it is probably not joined-up government.

Obviously, it would be great if we could free up parking everywhere, 24 hours a day. Nobody likes to pay for parking but, by the same token, people also want to access parking at locations convenient to where they want to shop or do business.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Member talks about freeing up parking and how people want parking spaces that are convenient. Nothing in our motion suggests that we are going to prevent that. All the motion indicates is that the punitive fine of £90 should be reduced because it is too expensive, particularly in rural villages. This is supported by the traders in our small towns, the people who depend on motorists stopping in those spaces and paying those fines. Traders are supporting us in wanting to reduce the cost for people to park on the street.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. It leads us to look for a comprehensive set of measures, which could include looking at reducing business rates in small towns and villages. We are certainly open to the review of parking charges and measures as to how we can support town centres. There is certainly merit in exploring the impact which a comprehensive strategy would have. However, that is wider than what the motion before us calls for. We should also remember that most of the car parks were transferred to local government and are now run by councils, so they would obviously have to be consulted for their views of any overhaul. Indeed, devolving parking to councils is something that must be considered seriously.

With regard to the call for on-street parking time limits to be extended in rural towns and villages, as I have already stated, nobody likes to pay for parking but, by the same token, people want to be able to access parking at locations where they want to do business. Extending time limits could cause congestion, causing greater inconvenience for people who want to park but are unable to find a space. We must be aware of the law of unintended consequences.

Finally, we agree with the call on the Minister for Infrastructure to review urgently the contract for on-street parking, which is also reflected in the amendment.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I am delighted to speak on the motion, not only as the SDLP spokesperson for infrastructure but as someone who, like many in the House I suppose, has been at the tail end of the odd fine now and again. I almost feel that I own a part of the tarmac in the car park outside my office in Strabane.

As we approach the busy Christmas period, this is a debate that we should be having. It is a very important one and is an issue that causes considerable frustration to many throughout our constituencies. It impacts heavily on those who are less financially well off, particularly the elderly, as Mr Humphrey mentioned, and single parents — people who are struggling to keep their heads above water or, in what will be a very cold winter, put fuel in their oil tanks at home. The debate is an important one, and I am glad that it has been brought to the House.

On-street parking is vital for many of our towns and villages in managing the flow of traffic effectively and supporting the local economy by providing parking access to our town centres. It is vital that this balance is struck proportionately and that people are not penalised for wanting to shop in town centres that are facing considerable challenges in trying to keep their heads above water in a very difficult economic climate, particularly in my own town.

I must remind the Chamber that, in 2012, fines were increased from £60 to £90 and that the then Regional Development Committee Chair moved a motion to block that change. Ironically, that Chair followed his party and voted against this amendment, yet here we are today with the DUP spinning busily around the proverbial roundabout proposing this motion, which it could have prevented four years ago. It is all very well saying that we are very concerned now, but it is four years too late when many people have been facing considerable stress in relation to what is a £90 fine.

Make no mistake about it: it is a £90 fine, because although there is a 14-day window, and that is the issue, many people who are paid monthly and are struggling cannot afford to pay that fine within two weeks. No one in the House will disagree with that. I ask the Minister to consider that when he reviews these circumstances.

Turning to the motion, I am not wholly against on-street parking restrictions because they are vital for the proper flow of traffic through cities and town centres, particularly in Belfast where there is considerable congestion. Each and every area has its own circumstances and, as the Member for Fermanagh said, different councils have taken different approaches. For instance, in the immediate aftermath of the reforms, Derry and Strabane District Council took away the five-hour car parking slot for £1. Omagh District Council kept it, but, having spoken to traders in Omagh, I know that it has caused them considerable difficulties with turnover and flow. There are considerable concerns in that regard.

I am concerned that fines are not handed out in a fair and proportionate way. We have all witnessed to some degree, redcoats, as they have been called in the House, handing out tickets for the slightest mistake. That causes concern for people, particularly those who may have difficulty in getting back to their car, whether they are elderly or a mother shopping with her children during the day. They might be 10 minutes over and have to pay a significant fine as a consequence. Is that realistic or necessary? Absolutely not. It is more about the approach to handing out fines.

I am aware that many people in my constituency have questioned the integrity of parking enforcement officers. I am sure that redcoats' jobs are not easy. They are doing what they are told to do, but some go way beyond that; you would almost think that they were commission-based.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Absolutely.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Does the Member agree that one of the reasons why people question the integrity of the system, if not the people implementing it, is that in certain parts of Northern Ireland your chances of being hit with a fine are considerably higher than in others? The Lisburn Road has become something of a golden goose for the redcoats.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has an extra minute.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Absolutely, there are certain areas. I remember a particular redcoat in the Strabane district who was almost handing them out like raffle tickets at one stage, and her colleagues had to pull her back slightly. It damages those people's safety as well, and it is deeply frustrating having been on the tail end of it on one or two occasions.

I fully support providing the first 30 minutes free of charge, as it would be of huge benefit to town centres such as Strabane and Omagh. I am being parochial, but I am sure that, right across the board, not many will disagree.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ruane] in the Chair)

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Absolutely.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Can the Member tell us how that would work in practice, especially if you have town centres that are packed? You would probably have to triple the number of redcoats to keep the thing on balance.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Every council area has a different approach to this. I am aware of some that have provided free parking, and it has worked considerably well. That puts those town centres at a distinct advantage over, for instance, mine in Strabane or Omagh. We need to address this, and a more local approach needs to be taken. I believe there could be some accommodation. As Glyn Roberts said today, it would be hugely welcome.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Yes.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am concerned that the discussion that we have been having has been primarily, it sounds to me, in relation to off-street parking. The motion and the amendment are in respect of on-street parking and only on-street parking, so perhaps, when Members address that issue, they could address that issue.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Yes, it is taken on board, but I think it is a wholehearted debate in relation to parking generally.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Can the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I will indeed. I think we are all aware of the points and how it affects our constituents on the ground and that the fines are far too heavy.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member's time is up.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

We need a review and —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I call Ms Kellie Armstrong.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

— I support the amendment.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. As Alliance spokesperson for infrastructure, I confirm that we will not support the motion. With reservation, we will support the amendment.

Before joining the Assembly, I had the privilege of working in the field of transport for almost 16 years. For the last nine of those, I worked in partnership with organisations to improve access to services for older people and people with disabilities. During that time, the issue of on-street car parking featured regularly in our considerations.

On-street car parking can create havoc for citizens. Being able to find an appropriate car parking space can be a problem, but, for many with disabilities and for families with young children, it is bad parking that causes most concern and danger. The reason I cannot support the motion is the populist request to reduce parking fines. Let me be clear: I do not like parking fines. No one likes parking fines, but, if you park correctly, you do not get a fine. If you park badly, you will get a fine. That fine needs to be enough of a deterrent to stop people parking badly in the first place. The current fine level is enough to make a driver think twice about parking where or when they should not. I do not agree that the fine should be reduced, as that would reduce the deterrent.

As I said, Alliance will support the amendment with reservation.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member take a point?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Not at this point.

I said "with reservation" because the amendment suggests the Minister should investigate a reduction in mandatory car parking fines. I agree that the Minister should review car parking fines. However, this should not be an investigation just to reduce fines but should consider if the level of fine is enough to be an effective deterrent.

Why is it important that we deter people from parking badly? Bad parking forces mums to push a pram into the middle of the road. Bad parking forces people with visual impairments to go onto the road. Anybody who wants to find out more about this can contact Guide Dogs, who can show you just how difficult it can be. Bad parking prevents people who use wheelchairs from being able to use public footpaths. Bad parking takes up two spaces, preventing others from being able to park on-street. Bad parking blocks a bus lane, creating havoc for all road users at rush hour. Bad parking is the driver who decides to park in a clearly marked disability bay or on yellow lines. Bad parking is the fault of a driver who does not care who takes a risk. Bad parking happens when people are not deterred.

The mandatory fine is there to deter bad parking because of the negative impact it has on many people whom I have worked with over years. I encourage those looking to reduce parking fines to speak with the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC) and review their annual Baywatch reports, which highlight bad parking across Northern Ireland. With respect to a period of —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Not at the moment.

With respect to a period of free on-street parking, I cannot support the 30 minutes specified in the motion. As a driver, I love free on-street car parking. In the villages and towns in my constituency of Strangford, there is free parking all day. In all those towns, you are permitted free parking up to a fixed time, and that time is set on the basis of local factors. In parts of Newtownards, you are allowed to park up to 60 minutes, but in other parts it is all-day free parking.

There are three controlled parking zones in Northern Ireland: Belfast, Lisburn and Newry. That is where this takes effect.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member please give way?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I will give way.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the Member giving way. The Member says that fines work. If fines work, why are my constituents in the city centre communities in the Market, Sandy Row and Donegall Pass tortured with people parking illegally? If fines work, the problem should not exist.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I agree, and —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member will have an extra minute.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you. I agree, but in 2012, when the fines of £90 were introduced, it fell dramatically. Residents' parking schemes need to be brought forward, and I will come to that.

Thirty minutes' free car parking in areas sounds good until you consider that the time specified will not help mums or dads to get their pram out of the car, get their child unplugged from the car seat, go to do whatever they need to do and be back and do the reverse of that within 30 minutes. The amendment calls for a review of on-street parking times; indeed, by having a review, the Department can consider whether there are any negative impacts, such as the one I just outlined, for people with dependants. Section 75 comes into play here, folks.

A review can also take into consideration all the businesses that are being negatively impacted on by parking arrangements. Local rural shop owners have come to me to say that all-day free car parking hurts their businesses. In the village of Kircubbin, for example, shop owners are losing business because some commuters leave cars on the street while they take the bus to work. Other shop employees leave their cars parked all day and block access to local shops. In some villages, they want to see the introduction of limited free parking in conjunction with residents' passes to ensure that residents do not face the issues faced in the controlled parking zone areas.

Parking is an emotive subject. Bad parking causes difficulty for other road users, particularly pedestrians. A responsible Government must, therefore, consider putting in place deterrents to prevent people from taking risks and putting others' lives in danger. None of us likes parking fines, but, if the fine is high enough, it makes drivers think twice about parking dangerously or badly. Let us have a review of free parking, and let us ask local businesses what they think. Let us also consider the wider issue of sustainable transport and how we will reduce emissions. Let us consider how we can prevent our towns and villages being clogged up with on-street parking and plan our parking better.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

There is real concern, especially among local businesses in our towns, that current parking issues and car parking fine levels hamper trade and cause real hardship for some of those businesses. In Bangor, there have been serious issues with the lack of available car parking provision for Main Street, with such provision having been taken away under the recent public realm work. To bring shoppers back into our struggling town centres, there need to be incentives for shoppers to do so. It is not enough for businesses to put sales on continually; the public need and want easy access to parking, which will enable our town centres to compete with out-of-town shopping centres that offer attractive free car parking, which gives them an unfair advantage.

As is the case in England, Northern Ireland's towns and cities have suffered from significant decline over many years, principally due to the increased presence of out-of-town retail developments. That was a key conclusion in the Northern Ireland Assembly Social Development Committee's inquiry into town centre regeneration in 2009. There needs to be a rethink on the lack of free car parking spaces, a rethink on the level of fines and a rethink on the amount of time someone can have access to a car parking space free of charge. Shoppers want to be able to come into our towns in a way that does not cause them hassle and lead to complications, and the only way to do that is to encourage them in through easier parking.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. The point that I wanted to make to the Member for Strangford, who would not give way, is that, in the Member's constituency of North Down — in Bangor and Newtownards, for example — people can park for up to one hour free, as he outlined. Why is it, do you think, that that does not apply to people in some of the most deprived wards in Northern Ireland in the city of Belfast? Surely there is a clear imbalance. Does the Member agree?

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member has an extra minute.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Thank you. There certainly seems to be an imbalance across Northern Ireland. There does not seem to be the same approach. That needs to be addressed urgently.

A negative and costly experience in any town will have an impact on someone's decision to return to shops there. That is coupled with the extortionate fines being handed out to those who are only minutes late back to their car: they get £90 fines. That, however, is reduced to £45 if it is paid within a certain number of days, which, I believe, is 14 days. A total of £4·5 million has been raised from parking penalty charge notices from 2015 up to March 2016. That figure was given in response to an Assembly question from my colleague Carla Lockhart. I found it disturbing that the response to the question stated:

"Therefore the revenue received from parking PCNs is required to finance the services my Department provides."

It is deeply worrying that the Department for Infrastructure is relying on penalty charge notices. In my opinion, overzealous car parking attendants are actively competing to raise as much revenue as possible as an alternative source of income for the Department. That is wrong. It sends out the wrong message, damages local businesses and needs to be addressed.

In fact, it was the then Ulster Unionist Regional Development Minister who announced — without any shame, I might add — his intention to generate income of £2·1 million from off-street car parking charges in provincial towns and from on-street charges.

The majority of on-street parking is free, with exceptions in Belfast, Lisburn and Newry. Usually, drivers are allowed to park for one hour before having to move. In my opinion, that needs to be reduced to 30 minutes to encourage more people to go into their town to get their messages and move on so that others can then afford of the same time, thereby encouraging quick access and helping more people to afford parking. I do not see the need for drop-off points, such as the one created in Main Street, Bangor, which took away further car parking spaces, was not even wanted by traders and is still abused by delivery van drivers who cannot be bothered to go to the loading bays at the rear of the shop premises.

The Department remains the transport authority and retains responsibility for on-street parking. It is vital that the Department starts to listen to the needs of local businesses in struggling town centres, and that means working with councils and preparing local transport strategies. I understand that the Department is looking at this, but it is taking far too long. It needs to take an approach much more quickly, as time is everything to local businesses. A Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association (NIIRTA) report recommended 80 policy priorities for local economic development and that DRD devolve on-street car parking to councils to give them more responsibility for developing the potential of their towns. Councils should give discount on their off-street car parks at key times, such as Christmas and other festivals. Free one-hour on-street car parking in 30 towns should continue. Indeed, it should be extended to all towns, including Belfast, Lisburn and Newry, but lowered to 30 minutes.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Sorry, I am coming to the end.

In conclusion, urgent action is required to reduce the burden of fines and increase flexibility in order to encourage shoppers into our town centres. Transport NI should start to listen for a change. The Minister needs to move quickly and look at this as a matter of urgency for our local businesses and shoppers.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Representing a constituency with a large rural economy, I fully understand the motion and happily support it. In many of our rural towns, street parking is essential for businesses to remain viable. In our medium-sized and larger towns and cities, which have substantial car parking availability, the need for a pragmatic approach is plausible. That is why I see a period of free parking as an encouragement to shoppers to use the car parking provided rather than blocking side streets.

The motion states that the first 30 minutes should be free, but I am aware that smaller towns would like that period to be extended. As our economy begins to grow, we should encourage the population to come into our towns and spend money in the shops, socialise and have a meal or a coffee, though I fully appreciate that online shopping is a reality and here to stay. However, limited free parking and lower fines could help to boost the retail sector by encouraging footfall on our streets as the economy grows. It would mean more employment in retail and less dependency on benefits — a win-win situation.

My office deals with many people who are irate at the price of a parking ticket. This does not mean that they or I condone illegal parking, but I believe that the penalty should be lower. I have been told very definitively what people think of the fine level. Punishment can still be applied but at a level that would be seen as more appropriate. For many — unless you are Stephen Nolan — £90 can mean real financial hardship, even when the individual accepts that they were in the wrong. I ask the Minister to carefully examine the motion, taking into consideration the impact that parking fines and the cost of car parking has on rural towns, and to proactively address the problem as a matter of importance in developing our town centre economies. I support the motion.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

The motion calls for tactical changes to address what is a strategic problem. Of course, the lack of free car parking is a source of competitive disadvantage for our town centres as compared with out-of-town shopping centres with plenty of free parking. However, if the objective of the motion is to encourage trade across Northern Ireland, it is very one-dimensional in its approach.

My colleagues Jenny Palmer and Danny Kennedy submitted an amendment calling for on-street car parking to be included within a comprehensive set of measures to encourage greater trade in our cities, towns and villages, but unfortunately it was not taken. The motion calls for a review, which we are happy to support. However, we have issues with some aspects of the motion and believe that the amendment provides a more rounded and practical way forward.

The motion proposes that the £90 car parking fine should be significantly reduced, but figures released by the Department last year showed that only 7% of penalty charge notices were paid at the full £90 rate, with a further 3% paying an additional penalty to make a headline cost of £135. Sixty-seven per cent, two thirds, paid the discounted fine of £45 for payment made within 14 days of the PCN being issued. The remainder of those who were fined were either in the process of challenging the fine, and many of them managed to evade it, or were part of a small 5% who were in various stages of debt recovery.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

Yes, certainly.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member agree that one of the things that really frustrates people about the system is its total inflexibility? For example, I was dealing with a constituent whose care worker was fined because her car was parked where it should not be while she was in his house administering medication to his wife.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member has an extra minute. I will just remind Members that they should not refer to amendments that have not been accepted.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

Duly noted, Principal Deputy Speaker. I take Mr Stalford's point. Certainly, there needs to be flexibility in the system. That is why a review is required. I am sure that the Minister will weave that into his proposals. The bottom line is that the £90 fine is paid only by a very small minority. I am not sure how the reduction to the headline rate would improve the situation. There is no doubt that a lack of free and accessible car parking is an issue for shoppers and traders, but, as I said earlier, this needs to be looked at strategically.

What role can improved public transport, for example, play in bringing shoppers into town centres and making towns more attractive by reducing traffic congestion? If the disincentive to park badly, causing inconvenience and potentially danger to others, is reduced, what would be the negative impact on town centres resulting from this proposal? What package of improvements is needed to incentivise retailers and traders to locate in town centres with the ongoing growth in online sales in so many sectors? I know that the Finance Minister is reviewing non-domestic rates and the issue is a priority for the Committee for Finance as well. At one of our recent meetings, the research pack highlighted the difference in rates bills of a traditional retailer and an online trader with similar turnovers. The example that it used, which is maybe not a great one for Northern Ireland, was Harrods versus the online retailer ASOS. Both companies have similar turnovers — £716 million for Harrods compared with £769 million for ASOS — but Harrods pays rates of £11·5 million per year while ASOS pays less than £1 million. I appreciate that these are not on the same scale as Northern Ireland, but the example effectively illustrates the problem.

Therefore, there needs to be a holistic approach to town centre development and car parking. While car parking plays a significant role, it is only one factor in a range of many. If we really want to localise on-street car parking and provide a tailored solution to each town and area across Northern Ireland, we need to devolve the power to local government. Councils will then be able to provide a bespoke service that suits the requirements of the town centres in their areas. This solution is supported by NILGA, NIIRTA and, as I have noticed in previous debates, many in the Chamber. The proposal for the first 30 minutes to be free affects only, as many have said, Lisburn, Newry and Belfast. I think that that further illustrates the need for local solutions to local problems. Until that long-term solution can be implemented, I would support —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

I am finishing now. I am sorry.

I would support a full review of on-street car parking by the Minister for Infrastructure. I hope that the Minister can outline his proposals to do this in his response to the debate.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the debate and support the motion. Complaints about parking fines, tickets or overzealous parking enforcement officers — "redcoats", as they have been called in the Chamber — are issues that come into every one of our constituency offices.

Time and time again, we hear of inconsistency in the approach to parking enforcement across the North. Shopkeepers say that the redcoats drive trade out of our town centres and into out-of-town multinational retail parks. While the multiples play a vital part in our economy, we must do more to protect and grow our town centres, indigenous businesses and our SMEs. Traders, particularly small, independent retailers, find it tough enough to survive at the minute. They are competing with online shopping, the upwards re-evaluation of business rates a couple of years ago and the parking regimes in many of our towns and cities.

As we are all aware, responsibility for off-street parking transferred to councils last year. It is seen as a success, giving local authorities the power to use reduced-rate parking incentives as a way of attracting shoppers into our towns and villages. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council has set parking fees at 40p an hour or three hours for £1 in Newry. Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council has opted for 30p an hour or five hours for £1 in Armagh city. That is local decision makers making decisions that best fit their area.

No one likes to get a parking ticket. When someone is unfortunate enough to get the dreaded note under their wiper, we want them to learn a lesson. We do not want to deter them from entering our town centres in the future. On-street parking is charged for in Belfast, Lisburn and Newry, whereas it is free, with time restrictions, across the rest of the North. Those paying for on-street parking pay between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm. The SDLP wants to see the current regime reviewed. The system for charging and fining must be fair and equitable. One frustrating complaint that I have had is from delivery drivers, especially in Newry. They constantly tell me that they find it increasingly hard to make a delivery without getting a ticket.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thanks for giving way. You said at the start that you supported the motion, but you then called for a review. That is what the Minister advocates.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member has an extra minute. Beidh nóiméad sa bhreis ag an Chomhalta.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Correction: I support the amendment.

The redcoats are not only driving customers out of towns but disrupting the daily operation of business. What is more frustrating is the inconsistency. One attendant can be accommodating one day whereas a different attendant the next day can be ruthless and completely inflexible. I am mindful of the tough job that parking enforcement officers have and of the fact that they are trying to earn their corn.

We need to see the system reviewed. We need to take on board the views of motorists, traders and delivery companies alike. We need to see engagement with local government, town centre groups and Chambers of Commerce. We need to ensure traffic turnover while accommodating the needs of shoppers. Can the fee be reduced? Can the time to pay a reduced fee be extended from two weeks to one month? Do we have enough parking available in our cities, towns and villages? I want to see a review of on-street parking charges, particularly those in Newry. Why does charging happen in Belfast, Lisburn and Newry but nowhere else? Is it really necessary? A serious discussion is needed. Let us have it, and let us engage with those whom I have mentioned. I support the amendment.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I will be brief. My speech is primarily to support many of the points that my colleague Kellie Armstrong raised. I will concentrate on the proposal for the first 30 minutes of on-street car parking being free. That would prove incredibly problematic for the Minister, the Department, officials and, ultimately, those who have to enforce it on the ground. We all know that the traffic wardens have a route that they follow. They will know instantly when somebody has put a ticket —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the economies of Belfast, which is the economic driver for the region, Lisburn, which is an important and growing city, and Newry, which deals so much in cross-border trade, are vital? How does what he says apply in Bangor and Newtownards, where the first hour is free? Is he not arguing against himself?

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member has an extra minute.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am not arguing against myself — I am arguing that we want to make this clear. We need clarity on parking. When somebody parking on the street buys a ticket and puts it on their windscreen, the parking enforcement staff know when that person commenced their parking. If the first 30 minutes were free, it would be very difficult for them to know when that time started, particularly in Belfast and other towns where on-street parking is important to create a flow and changeover of people parking. That is the real lifeblood for shops and businesses and for appointments and cash machines on the street that people are required to use.

Members have said today that they do not relish the thought of having to pay a parking fine. No one relishes the thought of having to pay a parking fine, but, unless the penalty — everybody knows what the penalty will be — is a large sum lodged in your head and very clearly known, then it fails to act as an appropriate deterrent. There is a derogation; it is reduced to £45. People accept that that is a reasonable sum to pay in the event of default.

There are also very clear guidelines. There are Members in the Chamber who have tried to throw up some smoke and mirrors in terms of the operation of parking enforcement officers. The reality is that they work to very strict guidelines on the amount of additional grace time given, which is exactly 10 minutes. My concern is that if we start to confuse all of those elements, we make it more difficult for the parker, for enforcement and for shoppers and those who wish to trade on high streets and streets across our province where these rules are applicable.

The Alliance Party, as my colleague has said, will not support the motion, but we will support the amendment because it invites the Minister to provide further clarity but does not require him to reduce the penalty.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion today. There appears to be an awful lot of confusion between on-street, off-street and the entire issues that we are discussing today.

As Minister for Infrastructure, I have overall responsibility for ensuring that we have an efficient and safe transportation system in the North. This includes ensuring that vehicle drivers have access to the various business and retail sectors in our town and city centres. In order to deliver this, my officials and their service providers have two tools at their disposal, namely, parking provision and the associated tariffs and parking enforcement. Correctly levelled tariffs are aimed at ensuring there is a turnover of parking provision whilst, at the same time, allowing vehicle users enough time to go about their daily business.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues relating to adequate and affordable on-street parking for the growth and development of our town centres. I have listened with interest to the issues and concerns that Members have raised. The main issues of concern relate to the current cost of a penalty charge notice (PCN) and the provision of cheaper and longer on-street car parking. Our aim is to reduce the number of illegally parked vehicles on the road. We want to reduce congestion, thereby improving the vitality of our towns and cities. We do not want to issue PCNs, but if we have to, we will. We want everybody to park properly; that has to be the message that is heard today.

The cost of a PCN increased to £90 on 1 June 2012, and it is discounted to £45 if paid within 14 days. Indications are that this charge is having the desired effect of discouraging people from parking illegally, as the numbers of PCNs issued per annum has declined. The overall trend of the number of PCNs issued has been downwards, even though car and van ownership continues to increase, and that is an indication that the deterrent nature of the cost of a PCN is having a positive effect. The number of penalty charge notices issued has fallen from an all-time high of 163,000 in 2007 to 110,000 in 2015, despite the number of vehicles rising in that same period by up to 5%.

The area in which on-street charges apply is called a controlled parking zone (CPZ). We have three in city centres here, namely Belfast, Lisburn and Newry.

The pay-and-display machines currently in use in our controlled parking zones cannot be configured to allow the tariffs to be charged in this way as they are not designed to accommodate a multi-layered range of tariffs. To carry out parking enforcement for any system introduced that offers the first 30 minutes of parking free would be extremely resource-intensive. This is because traffic attendants would be required to undertake a series of additional observations to enable them to determine the validity of parking times being claimed.

Currently, traffic attendants patrol streets in controlled parking zones two or three times per day by adhering to predetermined schedules known as beats. Each beat has been designed to optimise the resources available to obtain maximum efficiency and effectiveness. When patrolling the streets in a controlled parking zone, traffic attendants must check each parked vehicle for evidence of a valid parking ticket ie that a pay-and-display ticket has not expired or that it has an equivalent cashless parking session logged. This involves traffic attendants making a single pass of each street as they continue to patrol the remainder of their beat. Then, as part of the cyclical process, they will repeat this process later in the day to deal with any vehicles with expired parking time and record details of any newly parked vehicles.

The success of any restricted parking facility relies on effective parking enforcement. For the enforcement of any system that enables free parking for the first 30 minutes to be effective, traffic attendants would be required to return to each street on multiple occasions to carry out checks on each vehicle to determine the validity of its parking status. This would be detrimental to our ability to meet all the enforcement demands across each CPZ and in other critical situations which rely on parking enforcement, such as urban clearways and arterial routes. Offering free on-street parking in this way would also create a negative impact as a result of drivers circling the controlled parking zones to avoid parking in charged off-street car parks where the 30-minute free parking rate would not apply.

Turning to the review of the parking enforcement contract; the current contract with NSL Services for the provision of parking enforcement and car park management services commenced on 30 October 2012 for an initial four-year term and has recently been extended by mutual agreement for a further three years. That contract does not affect any decision my Department may take in the future relating to the cost of a PCN, on-street parking tariffs or limited waiting times.

Turning to comments made by Members today, William Humphrey, in a gallant effort to step in for Edwin Poots who was due to kick off today's session, mentioned traders. It is an emotive issue that comes up time and again, but we need to look at evidence. I have yet to see studies, reports or evidence that lead me to believe that we should do one thing or another and it is something that I want to address.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for giving way. If you go into Belfast — and I speak as a Belfast representative — then the number of shops that have closed is noticeable, particularly in the traditional shopping areas such as Donegall Place and Royal Avenue and so on. There has been a shift towards the new Victoria Centre. When you talk to the Chamber of Commerce and businesspeople, as we did a few weeks ago, and when you look at the shops that are empty, the traffic chaos, the buses that are unable to get round and the people who are unable to flow into the city to do their shopping, you can see that the city centre traders are really under pressure. In Northern Ireland, we do not have a level playing field as regards Belfast, Lisburn and Newry: those city centres are under real pressure.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I remind Members that interventions should be short.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Member mentioned improving the flow into our cities but the DUP is suggesting here today that we take away or reduce one of the tools we have to deter people from parking in urban clearways and main arterial routes — the £90 or £45 charge. I know that £15 has been thrown out by the DUP today but, if we reduced it to that, I would be very worried at the impact it might have on urban clearways and main arterial routes.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will indeed, yes.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I heard the £15 amount thrown out as well, and some people might say that that would be cheaper than paying in a car park and that they could park wherever they want. I am not sure that it would be much of a deterrent in the city centre.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for her intervention. Again, it raises an important point.

The comments of both Kellie Armstrong and Philip Smith helped to shine a light and bring a bit of reason to this debate, especially those from Ms Armstrong with her background in community transport. I listened with great delight to an awful lot that the Member said. The central message was that you get a fine only if you park illegally; if you do not park illegally, you do not get a fine.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am sorry, but I want to go on. Members complained about the black-and-white nature of this, but it is because we are talking about laws: if it is illegal to park in a certain fashion, it is illegal to park in a certain fashion.

Many Members touched upon — this will be part of any review — the need to look at a differential penalty system. Parking two or three inches outside a parking bay should not carry the same weight as blocking a main arterial route into the city. I am more than happy to look at that. Certainly, for me, that would be part of a wider review that the amendment calls for.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Yes, go ahead.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Minister, I am a bit annoyed about the term "illegal". Yes, in definition it possibly is, but we are talking about individuals who have been at an appointment that has overrun and have come back to their car park five minutes after the time has expired. We are talking about flexibility. A £90 fine may be reduced, but that is still excessive.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Member is being misleading. There is a 10-minute observational period. A person coming back after five minutes will be totally fine because there is a 10-minute observational period. The observational period has to come to an end; we cannot have it being 20, 25 or 30 minutes as you start eating considerably into another hour. There is a 10-minute window, and there is flexibility in the system.

You can appeal, and there are three stages. You can challenge, and it is dealt with within 14 days of receipt of the PCN by the parking enforcement unit; the second stage is representation, which is dealt with between days 14 to 30 by the enforcement unit; the third stage is appeal, which is dealt with by the parking penalty tribunal. There are flexibilities, and each appeal is considered on its merit. It is not accurate to suggest that there are not sufficient flexibilities in the system.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister talks about flexibilities in the system. We are aware of the reduced penalty available to people who pay within 14 days. Will the Minister consider introducing new flexibility and giving people a bigger window when they can avail of the reduced fee, maybe 28 days, so that people who are paid monthly or those on low incomes can avail of that reduction?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his intervention. The Member has flagged up why there is worthiness to a review, but we should have a review that looks at all the issues and not simply, "Let's reduce parking fines". Let us look holistically at all the issues to see the best way forward.

Another issue raised was that, somehow, this is a cash cow for the Department and that it is about raising money for the Department. In the years ahead, certainly while I am Minister, I hope that no PCNs are made. I hope that people park within the law and that there is no revenue at all coming from this area for the Department.

It is the same with bus lanes. I hope that people do not have to pay the sort of money. Again, to go back to the remarks of Philip Smith, and this gets to the heart of the discussion, the motion is a tactical error to a strategic problem. There is a certain validity in looking at the strategic issue of on-street car parking and the way forward, and that is certainly something that I am happy to do. At the heart of the motion —

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Sorry, I want to finish this. At the heart of the motion is a seriously misguided logic. The four pillars of the motion collapse under even a cursory examination of the evidence, leaving the motion entirely unworkable, unmanageable and full of unintended consequences for our attempts to improve traffic flow and to breathe life into town centres.

In conclusion, I am happy enough to look at a review; it is certainly something that I will take forward. However, my review will be based on the principles of evidence, focused on reforms that work in the interests of managing limited on-street spaces effectively, improving the flow of traffic, and conducive to town-centre growth and vitality.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Minister raised a number of the issues that Members brought up about the motion, so I will try to condense what has been said and the issues that have been raised. I have no doubt about William Humphrey's sincerity because we all deal with difficult problems in centres, and he spoke of the fines being punitive and talked about the need for balance and that the additional penalty of £45 needs to be reviewed.

Seán Lynch said that the motion is populist and that the fine of £45 is to try to reduce problems and is only increased to £90 when people do not pay.

Jenny Palmer said that there is merit in both the motion and the amendment, but she went on to say that the amendment, because it takes in a review, is probably the best way forward.

Justin McNulty said that there are inconsistencies in the approach across the North. He talked about trading competing with online shopping and said that we need ways to encourage people back into town centres.

Stewart Dickson said that 30 minutes' free parking would be problematic for the Minister and that there needs to be clarity on these matters, especially when free parking is available. He also said that £45 is a reasonable sum of money when you consider what it is there to do.

Alex spoke about the serious issues in Bangor. I would have been surprised if he did not raise the issue of Bangor in the midst of his speech; in fact, I am surprised that he did not get a couple of other parts of his constituency into it also. He made a point about the difficulties that people face, especially when shopping, and about trying to encourage people back in to shop. He also spoke about overzealous parking attendants, which seemed to be a theme that ran through many of the issues that Members raised.

George Robinson said that he represents a large rural constituency where on-street parking is essential in towns and villages and that we should, again, encourage people to come into towns. He also said that a reduction in fines would be a great help, but punishment could still be applied on certain occasions.

Philip Smith said that the amendment offers a more rounded approach. He gave statistics on the payment of fines and said that there are very few who do not pay. He said that a review is required, and he is sure that the Minister will take that on board.

If I have left Members out, I apologise. The Minister said that he would do a review and take on board what Members said here. He said that the review will be wide and encompass everything.

I will just make a few points.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you very much for giving way. On the basis of the last figures that I found available, which were for 2012, it was costing over £9 million to NSL. Given that there are 115 operatives on the streets of Northern Ireland, do you think that £80,000 per redcoat is good value for money and, therefore, that the matter should be reviewed?

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Beidh nóiméad sa bhreis ag an Chomhalta. The Member has an extra minute.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I take on board what you are saying, but I think that it has been mentioned here that, when the Ulster Unionists were speaking, they did not speak about when their party member was the Minister and what was done then. Certainly, the DUP did not say that this could have been dealt with when it had the Ministry the last time around.

I think that what the Minister is offering here is a balanced way out of this. He is offering to do a review that will allow Members — certainly, the Committee will take it on board — to have an input. It is about trying to find a happy medium that does not punish people unduly, which encourages people back into town and city centres, and which deals with the serious problem of people parking and blocking communities in city and town centres unduly. What we need is a free flow of traffic in many of those centres, and the only way that you can have that is by ensuring that you have in place procedures that allow you to deal with what people would call illegal parking.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member, like me, has the honour to represent the great city of Belfast, and he talks about the free flow of traffic. The difficulty in encouraging people to park their car and travel into Belfast city centre is the fact that there is a continual logjam of buses in the city centre, preventing a free flow of traffic and people from going into the city centre to shop and support the local economy. Does he agree with that?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I agree that there have been problems with buses in the city centre for many years. I think that there has been a reduction and that, in a number of parts of the city, the rapid transit scheme will be another plank to encourage people to use public transport to come into the city. What the Minister and all Ministers who have held the post have said —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

— is that we need to encourage more and more people to use public transport. If we can crack that nut, we can start to tackle and defeat the problem of parking in city centres, town centres —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member's time is up.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

— and villages.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Having listened to the debate, I think that it is unfortunate that so many Members appear to have missed the point of the wording of the motion. It clearly calls for a review. It does not prejudge the outcome of that review; it calls for a review.

Parking is an enormous issue in South Belfast. I think particularly of the communities that I represent in the city centre area in Sandy Row, Donegall Pass and the Market, where people are tortured as a consequence of people using their neighbourhood as a car park. Various Members have told us that there has been a reduction in illegal parking: I have to say to the House and the Minister that that is not the experience of the people living in the Market, Sandy Row or Donegall Pass. The experience of people living there is that, despite the fact that fines went up — we were assured that that would be a massive deterrent to illegal parking — the problem has persisted. The Minister is, of course —

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

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that there are no activated residents' parking schemes in Northern Ireland and that it is time for the Department to formalise one? We appreciate that there are some problems, but those could act as a model for others.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That is not true.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I have asked the Minister an Assembly question and hope that he will respond positively to Pakenham Street off Donegall Pass being treated as a pilot for residents-only parking. It is something that people want to see, and, if it is got right, it will help —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

One second. If it is got right, it will help to alleviate the suffering of the inner-city communities that are afflicted by excessive parking. I give way.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have been involved with those communities, and I can understand what you are saying. William spoke earlier about the communities that are invaded every day. A Sinn Féin Minister brought the issue of residents' parking to the fore, but it fell apart because a number of residents' groups would not accept some of the passes that were offered, although they had been offered a pilot scheme for a year in which that could all have been worked out. We need to get them back and make an offer again. A couple of weeks ago, the Minister announced that he had brought in a residents' parking scheme in Derry.

[Interruption.]

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I remind Members that, if they are making interventions, they need to be brief. I also ask Members to talk through the Chair.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has made his point and eliminated the chance for me to make a few of mine. I am grateful to him for that contribution.

As my colleague William Humphrey said, Belfast city centre is vital, so Belfast City Council is able to provide all the services that it does to all the people throughout the city. At present, our arterial routes — I think particularly of the Lisburn Road — are being damaged because of the excessive zeal being shown by parking enforcement officers. If you speak to traders on the Lisburn Road, they will tell you that that is the case.

People would welcome the idea of the first 30 minutes of parking being free. It would allow them, in the case of, say, the Lisburn Road, to park, visit one or two shops and then get back in their car and get out. It would also help those in Sandy Row in a fortnight's time —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

In a minute. In a fortnight's time, it would also help those in Sandy Row to park and go into the office of their local DUP Assembly Member and have a conversation for half an hour and then leave without the risk of being fined by a parking enforcement officer.

The fact is that the appeal process, which the Minister referenced, is a joke. I would be interested to hear in raw numbers and percentage terms the number of appeals that are upheld. During the debate, I referenced a case that I dealt with in which a care worker visiting an elderly man was fined because part of her car was on a double yellow line. She was fined even though she was in a house administering medication to an elderly person. It is the total inflexibility of the system that lots of people —

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I do not have time. I am sorry; I would.

Lots of people find it very frustrating. People want more flexibility in the system, and that is what our motion calls for. Even though the fines went up, the parking problems persist. It is having a damaging impact on the city centre by discouraging people from going there. I have spoken to traders who have said that. I never thought that I would see charity shops on Royal Avenue, but that is what Belfast city centre has been reduced to. We need to take action in this area not only to protect our vital city centre trade but to give people a fair shake.

Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided:

Ayes 57; Noes 32

AYES

Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Mrs Dobson, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Dr Farry, Ms Fearon, Mr Ford, Ms Gildernew, Ms Hanna, Mr Hazzard, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Mrs Long, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyttle, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCrossan, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McKee, Mr McMullan, Mr McNulty, Mr McPhillips, Ms Mallon, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Mr Mullan, Mr Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs Overend, Mrs Palmer, Ms Seeley, Mr Smith, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Lynch, Mr F McCann

NOES

Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lyons, Mr McCausland, Mr McQuillan, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mr Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Mr Weir

Tellers for the Noes: Mr McQuillan, Mr Robinson

The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr Agnew, Ms Bailey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly recognises the vital importance of adequate and affordable on-street parking for the growth and development of our town centres; notes the need for the Minister for Infrastructure to review the provisions for on-street parking; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to carry out an investigation into the reduction of mandatory car parking fines; and further calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to look at options to review on-street car parking fees and times.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. As two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, an additional 15 minutes has been added to the total time. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Before we begin, the House should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly believes in a victim-centred approach to addressing the past and that victims and survivors should have a meaningful input to the content and design of legacy proposals; further believes that justice, truth and accountability, acknowledgement and support for victims and survivors are essential elements in a comprehensive approach to the past; notes the comments by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on a public phase on legacy proposals; and calls on the British and Irish Governments for an urgent, renewed effort to conclude legacy issues, including the further development of the proposed roles and powers of the Oral History Archive, Historical Investigations Unit, Independent Commission on Information Retrieval and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group and rejects any attempts by the state, state agencies, illegal groups and others to evade justice, suppress the truth of and resist accountability for the past.

First of all, I confirm that we accept the Sinn Féin amendment, which adds a little to the motion, and oppose the DUP amendment, which changes a lot in the range of the motion.

Last week, I was talking to a senior person in one of the Governments who confirmed that they expected that, within the next few weeks, the British Government would enter the "public phase" that the Secretary of State has been referring to, whatever that means. Given that and the centrality and enduring nature of the issue, it is an important time for the Assembly to touch on and have a debate in relation to these matters so that on the far side of the public phase, whatever that might be, the outcomes do not once again let victims and survivors down, cause them exasperation and, most of all, cause them new and higher levels of hurt. The next few weeks will be vital in how we comprehensively and ethically deal with the issues of the past.

If we are going to deal with the issues of the past, we should try to be informed by a number of principles. First, the highest standards of justice, accountability, truth and acknowledgement should prevail. Secondly, victims should be consulted and be involved in and participate in the design of any legacy proposals. Thirdly, through and beyond the legacy mechanisms, whatever they end up being, doors should not be closed to victims, not least because of a lack of proper financial support for those mechanisms. On the far side of and through those processes, we need to deal with the issues of intergenerational trauma and experience, advance national reconciliation and healing and ensure that individuals and communities get the full opportunity through those mechanisms to deal with the issues that they face.

Let us be clear: the thresholds around truth, justice, accountability and acknowledgement have been degraded from those advanced, for example, by Eames/Bradley. Each time we have entered into conversation with parties in government, we have ended up with a degradation of the strength and quality of the Eames/Bradley proposals of all those years ago. Consequently, even at this eleventh hour, I ask the two Governments and all the parties to attempt to improve and upgrade the proposals that are forthcoming in respect of dealing with the past so that the architecture of legacy measures up to the needs of the victims and survivors of the legacy of the last 30, 40 and 50 years.

I note that once again, even on this issue, we are being denied the opportunity to hear a response from any Minister, including the Minister of Justice. That is to be deeply regretted. The reason I say that is that, if we are going to navigate through the next number of weeks properly, we need to learn from the lessons of a year ago. What are the lessons of a year ago from the aborted negotiations around Fresh Start? First, this time a year ago, time was spent in the negotiations undoing the damage that was done to dealing with the past arising from private conversations between the Northern Ireland Office and the DOJ that produced, at that time, proposals that would do damage to a comprehensive way of dealing with the past. Yet, that is what we have at the moment. There have been private conversations going on for at least the last six months between the NIO and the DOJ for which the Minister of Justice refuses to account in any shape or form, at any level, to the Assembly or the people of Northern Ireland. When she is asked about these matters, she says, "Ask London".

The second lesson from a year ago is on the lack of transparency. I wait to hear from the DUP and Sinn Féin in that regard, but, when the British Government produced a second draft legacy Bill, they shared its contents in full or in part with the DUP and Sinn Féin but not with any of the other parties and maybe not even with the Irish Government, who should have joint custody and stewardship in taking this forward. Are we going to have a rerun of last year's NIO/DOJ conversations with a lack of transparency about what is coming forward?

Thirdly, we must not have what we were close to having last year: a fait accompli, where a smaller number of parties and one Government decide what the outcome is, over the heads of other parties, other Governments and, crucially, victims and survivors. I hope that there is learning in relation to all that and that those errors and fault lines of last year are not repeated.

The SDLP has said that, in writing and in person, to the two Governments and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the last number of months. On the matters that I am about to raise, we have not received any detailed or satisfactory answers. In Fresh Start, the SDLP submitted seven papers to the three Governments, some of which were shared with others. In those papers, we outlined how to upgrade the proposed legacy mechanisms and, without being exhaustive — some people, especially on the British side, will say that we are being exhaustive — these are matters that now need to be dealt with.

For example, will the Implementation and Reconciliation Group (IRG) be in statute and have full powers to talk to any person or organisation in order to interrogate thematic issues from the past? Will it have access to any and all relevant information in so doing? Will the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU) be able to investigate cases that need to be investigated, rather than have its role and mandate constrained on some spurious basis, not least in collusion cases? Will the issue of funding be dealt with? Since the Stormont House Agreement, when moneys were agreed in respect of legacy, there are new and inescapable pressures in relation to Stakeknife, legacy inquest, mental health, demand for the Victims and Survivors Service, the volume of cases to go through the HIU, and the potential role of the IRG? Will funding measure up to all those needs? Will disclosure be dealt with once and for all by the British Government, not in a way to protect its self-serving interests but to satisfy the needs of truth, justice and families, victims and survivors? And so on and so forth, in respect of all the legacy matters.

In concluding, let us be clear about one of the fundamental fault lines in the legacy discussions: those who did the worst over the years of conflict, and those who know the most about the truth of all of that, have the least intention to account in relation to the legacy mechanisms. There are too many vested interests at the heart of legacy, where the interest of the few will be greater, or is in danger of being greater, than the interests of the many victims and survivors. That is the truth behind the national security issue: that the British Government do not wish to account for that which may be criminal, embarrassing, callous or brutal, that went on with their knowledge during the years of the conflict. Similarly, terror organisations may wish to share at an institutional level corporate memory of what the leadership of illegal organisations did during the years of conflict, but they will not cross the line when it comes to damage to their reputations or self-serving needs.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

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

When it comes to those issues, there is one, perhaps final, chance to get it right. Let us not squander that opportunity; let us stand up unambiguously for the needs of victims and survivors.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

The Member's time is up. I call Paul Frew to move amendment No 1.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1.

Leave out all after the first "proposals;" and insert "further believes that all parties should work towards an early resolution of these matters; and welcomes the Government’s proposals to consult on a way forward.".

Let me say at the outset that I agree with a lot of what Mr Attwood said, as it resonates with me. I yearn for the day when we get this issue dealt with. I am sure that every one of us has met, spoken to, or even has family members who are victims or who are involved in a victims' group. We have all met them and seen the pain in their eyes and heard it in their voices when they talk about their loved ones and how they miss them.

However, it is also a truth that not all victims want and need the same thing. That is something that we need to be very mindful of when we proceed along this path. It is also clear that, on these issues, trust has been and probably will continue to be a massive issue. In fact, it is a massive barrier to moving forward. The fact is that not all victims' groups want or need the same thing. Even within victims' groups, there are victims and survivors who do not want or need the same thing. It is a massive issue for us, the leaders, who are trying to move Northern Ireland forward, working with the UK Government. The Irish Government also have a massive part to play in this moving forward as regards their role in the Troubles. With all of that, trying to get a resolution and agreement has, to this point, proven to be remarkably difficult.

What are the needs and wants of victims and survivors? Some want truth, and that is a massive area. Some want justice, some want truth without justice and some want justice with truth. This is a massive issue moving forward. What does our party want? Our party wants a resolution to this; of course we do. We want to remove some of that pain for those people who suffer this every single day. Ultimately, however, we see that this cannot move forward without justice being upheld. Justice must be seen to be done. The rule of law must be upheld without fear or favour to anyone — and I mean anyone, whether you were part of a terrorist organisation or you were a part of the security forces and you stepped out of line and broke the law. The law is there to protect the citizens of every nation. It is important that, as we move forward, the rule of law is maintained and justice is seen to be done.

This is a remarkably sensitive area. It has proven so difficult to move forward from the ceasefires and the various agreements to now. We are edging forward, although, of course, we are not going quickly enough. That responsibility lies on every single person in this House and on every single party. That is why I am speaking to the amendment that our party put forward:

"further believes that all parties should work towards an early resolution of these matters; and welcomes the Government’s proposals to consult on a way forward."

If we go into the public sphere on this, we should let the people see what is on the minds of the Governments. Let them judge for themselves how much or how little progress has been made or what more needs to be done. That is a very important issue, but nobody in this room, whether you are in government or in opposition, should shirk that responsibility.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. The content of the motion is extremely detailed. It is an extremely constructive motion, which goes into many of the aspects that have been worked out over a number of years and which are well established for a comprehensive framework for dealing with the past. Will the Member tell the House and the public why the DUP felt the need to remove the vast majority of the content of that motion and replace it with a very short, abstract, early resolution for an issue that has been dealt with for years and which, I think, is at risk of actually offending victims and survivors in our community who are well past an early resolution of these matters?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I hear what he is saying, but this is about a holistic approach. There is detail in the motion, but it does not mention all of us working together. I am not saying for one moment that this stuff should not be done. I am not saying that this stuff should not be in our thoughts or in the motion. What I am saying is that the issue has to be moved forward with a holistic approach. Everyone must be brought along and come with us. Whilst there is a lot of good in all this, it has to be the Fresh Start Agreement. I am not too sure whether the Member wants another intervention, but would he like to explain to the House his party's settled position on the Fresh Start Agreement, the same as every other party in the House? With the agreements already sought within that agreement, we believe that that is where we need to go. It is OK to include bits of the Fresh Start Agreement in a motion, but let us take the whole Fresh Start Agreement forward. Let us try to get a resolution to these issues once and for all, and then maybe victims will get some closure.

What Northern Ireland and what victims and survivors have come through over this generation is beyond explanation. Some of our young people do not even realise the horrors that have been inflicted on our people over the past 40 years. A light must be shone on all this, and the truth must come out. Justice must be done. That is the only way in which we will ever be able to move forward with any confidence. The moment that we trade justice is when we are in big trouble, and I believe that there will be no closure for the many victims and survivors in Northern Ireland.

We stand here today determined to resolve this issue. We stand here today wanting to resolve these issues. We are happy to stand over the work that we have done to date. Can we do more? Of course we can. Every single party and every single Member in the House can do more and work harder to resolve these issues. We will not be found wanting when it comes to trying to resolve the issues. We will work hard for all the people of Northern Ireland and all the victims to whose doors terror has been brought.

We will support the security forces and their work throughout those terrible years to keep the public safe and out of harm's way. A debt of gratitude should leave the House today for the service of people in the security forces and the role that they played in keeping us all safe. That should never be forgotten. That can never be rewritten, and it is important that we acknowledge it here today.

We hope for the support of the House for our amendment.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Tosnóidh Tráth na gCeist ag a dó. Question Time will commence shortly. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Gerry Kelly, who will move amendment No 2. The House may take its ease.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

1. Mrs Dobson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister who provided the advice that the royal prerogative could be used to appoint the new Executive press secretary. (AQO 567/16-21)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We were advised by the head of the Civil Service that we could use the prerogative powers conferred on us by section 23(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make an order that would enable us to make such an appointment. He took advice from his Civil Service legal advisers before informing us. The appointment was then made under the provisions of that order. Therefore, the prerogative was not used to directly appoint the Executive press secretary; he was appointed under an enabling provision lawfully made using the prerogative power.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Given that the now-in-post Executive press secretary is undertaking cross-departmental engagement with the media, especially on behalf of the Department of Health, can the First Minister give an indication of the financial savings that Departments will realise as a result of the new appointment?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, we are looking at the Executive information service (EIS). Indeed, following the director's retirement, a structural review is ongoing. The role of the press secretary is to do what the Member outlined: to work right across government so that we have a cohesive approach to the media; and to ensure that, instead of the sometimes glib and trite understanding of what is going on up here, there is a more in-depth understanding of the challenges that face the Executive and how we intend to deal with them. Yes, the press secretary was very much involved in the launch of the Bengoa report and the action plan from the Minister of Health. He will be involved in many other initiatives as well. I am sure that there will be cost savings, but, of course, that was not the main reason why this gentleman was appointed. He was appointed to create a more in-depth understanding among the general public of what the Executive are doing in their policies. The role of the press secretary is very clear. It has been set out in the many answers that we have given about his job title and job specification, and he will work to that specification and that job title.

Richie McPhillips (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the First Minister for her answers so far. Last week's High Court decision was significant in that it disallowed the use of the prerogative power to rush through the triggering of article 50. Considering such developments, what is the Executive parties' plan should there be a vote in Westminster on triggering article 50?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Last week's court ruling was that article 50 had to go back to Parliament, but, as the Prime Minister has made very clear, Brexit will still continue because that was the expressed will of the British people in the referendum on 23 June. Whilst the mechanisms may change, she is very clear that Brexit means Brexit. We are very focused on our engagement, and the deputy First Minister and I will be in London this Wednesday, along with our colleagues from Scotland and Wales, to meet David Davis. We have a Joint Ministerial Committee to deal with those European matters and very much look forward to that positive engagement.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answers thus far. Can she confirm that no one has sought to legally challenge her use of the royal prerogative? Can she further confirm that the first post-1998 use of this power was by Ulster Unionist and SDLP Ministers?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thus far, no one has taken me to court for the use of the royal prerogative. I suppose that there is always time. Of course, the Member is right to say that this is not the first time that the royal prerogative power has been used; it is the fourth time since devolution returned to Northern Ireland. The first time it was used was by the then First Minister, David Trimble, and deputy First Minister, Seamus Mallon. As I said, it was used by us for the first time since I became First Minister when we appointed the press secretary.

There is no mystery in the use of the power: it was given to us under the Northern Ireland Act, as I indicated, and is there for all to see.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Why was the opinion of the Attorney General not sought before the decision was taken to exercise the royal prerogative? Would it not have been most appropriate to get the benefit of his opinion?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I suppose that we could have asked the Attorney General for his opinion. At the time, we thought that we would ask the head of the Civil Service whether we could use the power. He checked with his legal advisers and came back with the answer that it was available for us to use. We could easily have asked the Attorney General; there is no mystery in any of this.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Given that one of the implications of the High Court ruling in London on the use of the royal prerogative to trigger article 50 was that the Government in London do not have the right to legislate where legislation already exists, does the First Minister have concerns over the legality of the decision to use the royal prerogative in Northern Ireland in relation to the press secretary?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I do not have any concerns. We took advice from the head of the Civil Service, who took legal advice. This use of the royal prerogative is under an enabling power set out in section 23(3) of the Northern Ireland Act. So, there is legislative cover, if he wants to go down the line of the court case in England. I have no difficulty in saying that we used the prerogative in the appropriate way.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

2. Ms Armstrong asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the specific proposals and methods of evaluation that have been developed to meet recommendation D2 of the Fresh Start panel report on the 'Disbandment of Paramilitary Groups' to measurably reduce segregation in education and housing and set ambitious targets and milestones to achieve measurable progress as quickly as possible. (AQO 568/16-21)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Executive action plan, which was published in July, sets out how we intend to take forward and implement all the recommendations in the three-person panel report, including arrangements for reporting progress. On good relations, we are committed to building on existing strategies and will give them ongoing consideration. Together: Building a United Community includes the establishment of 10 shared education campuses and the creation of 10 new shared housing schemes, and we are making good progress on them. Five shared education campuses are being progressed at the Moy, Limavady, Ballycastle, Brookeborough and Duneane/Moneynick. Following a third call for applications, we expect to announce the successful projects in May 2017. Under Delivering Social Change, we have a £25 million project to incentivise shared education partnerships between schools and to enhance opportunities for children and young people to learn together regardless of their religious or cultural background. Some 314 schools are engaged in 134 partnerships, and a further call for applications has been made. The shared neighbourhoods programme is also progressing well. Two schemes at Ballynafoy Close on the Ravenhill Road and Manse Court in Saintfield have been completed. A further two schemes are near completion and six others are under construction. The Executive will consider in due course how to build on this significant success.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. What impact has the withholding by the UK Government of their contribution to funding for the action plan in the report had on delivering the recommendation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, we are progressing well on the shared education piece. I am pleased with the number of projects for which funding has been made available, including one very close to my heart in Brookeborough. It is good to see them progressing well. Under Delivering Social Change, we have been able to give £25 million to incentivise shared education between 314 schools, which, as I think she will agree, is a very good march forward. Shared housing is also moving along very well. There has been good progress made on the sharing front. Of course, there is always more that we would like to do, but we will continue to push ahead on this agenda.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

Following the disclosure by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that, in the last year alone, over 400 people who claimed homelessness cited paramilitary activity, how does the First Minister think that the Executive's strategy will deal with this behaviour, given that the first draft has already been rejected by the Government as falling short?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, his characterisation is wrong — the Government in Westminster have made that very clear — but I would expect him to characterise it in that fashion. Yes, I was rather alarmed to hear those figures last week. When I made enquiries into what the Housing Executive is doing on the matter, I was told that it has been able to, under Fresh Start allocations, draw down £498,000 — not an insubstantial amount of money — to deal with three programmes: one on community empowerment; one on re-imaging communities, which will try to deal with some of the issues that led to those people being rehoused; and one on bonfire management, which always becomes a very topical issue at a particular time of the year, not just in the House but in councils across the piece. Work is ongoing, with the Housing Executive in the lead, to deal with community tensions and community programmes.

Again, we all have to take leadership roles on the matter. It is what we need to do in the Assembly: give leadership; say that those activities that are going on, sometimes at a very low level, are completely unacceptable; and try to move people away from those activities to more progressive and positive matters. The programmes come into their own in and around re-imaging. I saw some of the very good work that went on in the past with those projects through the Department for Social Development, as it then was. Those projects are now being put forward through the Fresh Start Agreement.

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

Given the report to the Assembly by the Minister of Finance that London will not release in-year moneys to deal with the issue because of the lack of a detailed action plan and that, one year ago this week, the DUP and Sinn Féin had a fanfare of promotion for Fresh Start, do you feel embarrassed today?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No. I do not feel embarrassed at all, because, as I have just told you, £498,000 has been drawn down under the Fresh Start Agreement to help people in communities right across Northern Ireland under three Housing Executive programmes. That is just one part of A Fresh Start. Why would I be embarrassed about that? I am not embarrassed about it at all. In fact, it is something that we should celebrate.

The money that he refers to is, of course, money that will be rolled forward into next year. Sometimes, people have this thing and think that we have lost money because a programme has not been pulled together. I would much rather that the programme be the correct one and that it really can deliver for communities. In that respect, we will be able to pull the programme together and take advantage of that money, which, as I say, has not been lost but has simply been rolled forward, so that we can deliver in a more positive way for the communities involved.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

3. Mr Swann asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any discussion that they have had with the Minister of Finance in relation to the Programme for Government 2016-2021. (AQO 569/16-21)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are taking a collaborative approach to developing the Programme for Government. There is regular engagement with Executive colleagues, including the Minister of Finance, on the draft Programme for Government that was agreed by the Executive on 27 October 2016. Those engagements will continue as we put in place plans to realise the programme's outcome of societal well-being. Clearly, there is a connection between work on the Programme for Government and work on the Budget. Once we have greater clarity regarding our funding envelope, which will be after the Westminster autumn statement, we will carefully align the Budget with the Programme for Government.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. She referred to work on the Budget and Programme for Government. Has she had any discussions with the Finance Minister on setting aside money for the financial implications of the renewable heat incentive scheme?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That is a very creative way in which to get the renewable heat incentive scheme into First Minister's questions. We are engaging weekly with the Finance Minister on the Budget. That will become a lot clearer once we have had the autumn statement, which is at the end of this month. Then, we will be able to align the Budget with the Programme for Government and, indeed, deal with any other demands on the Budget.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Can the First Minister indicate whether the Ulster Unionist Party made a substantive response to the Programme for Government and, if so, whether there were any ideas in it worth taking on board?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, I can. This is the response to the Programme for Government from the Ulster Unionist Party. The first page is a commentary on the Programme for Government. Most of the second page is the same. The response has one — one — item that the party wanted to bring to the attention of the Executive.

I will read it out with your permission, Mr Speaker:

"In the spirit of constructive opposition, we offer one important addition to the 14 outcomes listed on page 12 of the Programme for Government framework".

Bear in mind that it has had months to put together its response to the Programme for Government. This is what we get:

"In recognition of the legacy of the Troubles, we suggest the outcomes should include specific references to victims and survivors beyond the general comment 'We care for others and we help those in need'".

And it gives us draft wording. That is it. That is it in terms of the Programme for Government. That is it in terms of what one of the Opposition parties has to say in relation to the Programme for Government. That is it.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

How has the decision to adopt an outcomes-based approach been received during consultation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It has been received very well, apart from that response from the Ulster Unionist Party. Eight hundred and ten consultees have put forward their views. Most of them are a little bit longer than that. The deputy First Minister and I were at a conference organised recently in Belfast that was attended mostly by local government and the third sector. Attendees warmly welcomed the outcome-focused approach and the very collaborative way in which we are taking forward the Programme for Government. I think that most people recognise the need to work not just across government but outside of government if we are going to make a real impact with what we want to do for Northern Ireland.

It has been received very well. The second iteration is now out for consultation. I encourage everyone to look at it and bring forward their ideas. That consultation ends on 23 December, just before Christmas.

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

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. I noticed that one of your colleagues asked about the SDLP's responses. We put in 50 suggested legislative initiatives that the Government could take. I do not blame the Ulster Unionists; they are not there to be a think tank for you. As with the Bengoa report, I did not see any financial allocations. Will you outline what financial provision will be made over and above recurrent spending to address specific Programme for Government priorities?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not know whether the Member was in the House when I said that we are waiting on the autumn statement at the end of November so that we can align the Budget with the Programme for Government. That, of course, is what we intend to do. I welcome the fact that the SDLP made suggestions. That is what opposition is meant to be about. I note that she gave cover to the Ulster Unionist Party by saying that it is not there as a think tank. It is there as an Opposition, and it is meant to put forward an alternative. It has not done so. Until it does, it should reflect on that.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

First Minister, are you not somewhat embarrassed by the way in which you seemed to sneak out the latest emanation of the Programme for Government on a Friday before a holiday? Much more importantly, is there not a paucity of targets in the document that has been delivered? I understand the point about finance, but surely a Programme for Government must have targets in it.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am certainly not embarrassed about putting the document out. There was a press release that went out. I am sorry if the Member was off on his holidays and was not able to read that. I cannot answer for the media. If they are not interested in covering the Programme for Government going out in its second iteration, that is a matter for them, not for me.

Phillip Logan (DUP, North Antrim)

4. Mr Logan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the current operations of the Northern Ireland bureaux. (AQO 570/16-21)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Northern Ireland Executive's three overseas bureaux in Beijing, Brussels and Washington DC play a pivotal part in our strategic international engagement. The primary role of developing Government-to-Government relations is hugely important in underpinning the work of Invest Northern Ireland, Tourism Ireland, Northern Ireland businesses and our universities on the global stage. Our international offices are in regular contact with decision makers in government and influential international organisations in their respective regions. That has assisted the Executive in realising key Programme for Government targets.

Phillip Logan (DUP, North Antrim)

Thanks to the First Minister for her answer. I am sure that she agrees that the Washington DC branch does great work to promote a positive image of Northern Ireland to America. Will she assure us that, regardless of the result of the presidential election, the Washington DC branch will continue to do its work?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his supplementary. I know that he was recently out in Washington on a US Consulate-led programme and was able to see, first-hand, the work that goes on by our colleagues in Washington. I am always amazed at the amount of ground that they are able to cover with a relatively small team of staff. They hosted five ministerial visits in 2015-16 and a total of 34 visits by over 200 people from Northern Ireland society including two Assembly Committees, the PSNI, the Policing Board, universities and a lot of the councils who send out delegations. They sponsor, or part sponsor, a lot of events and are, essentially, our eyes and ears not only in Washington DC but in New York and Canada. They spread themselves very thinly but very effectively and do a marvellous job.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give us an update on her proposed visit to China in December?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The deputy First Minister and I intend to go to China at the beginning of December. We hope to officially open the Beijing office, although it has been open for a while now, which is our Northern Ireland Executive office in China. We also hope to go to Shanghai and Shenyang in the north-eastern province. While we are there, we hope to sign a memorandum of understanding with regard to even deeper ties with Shenyang because Shenyang is a sister city of Belfast and does a lot of good work.

I understand that the Northern Ireland Assembly Business Trust has just returned from China and that that was a very successful visit. We will keep on. China is a huge market. It is a very long way away but we believe that, in conjunction with the very effective consul general in Belfast, there is a lot of very good business to be done.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answers so far. What assessments have been made of how other non-EU countries engage with Brussels and the EU institutions, and what lessons is she drawing regarding our Brussels bureau post-March 2019?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Brussels office, just like our Washington and Beijing offices, is really our eyes and ears in Brussels. It is doing a very good job at the moment bringing back intelligence and information on what is happening. With the vote on the 23 June, there is a lot happening in Brussels — that is the understatement of the year. It is important that we get that information back to us. Obviously, post-Brexit, we will have to look at the relationship and whether we need to have the Brussels office, but that is something that will come after the Brexit negotiations have finished and we have exited Europe.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister advise on the guidance that has been provided to officials overseas in those bureaux on the issue of Brexit in order that, if questioned, they have a consistent and clear response?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Their position is the position of the Northern Ireland Executive: that we will do what is best for the people of Northern Ireland in these negotiations and that we will move forward and try to get the maximum amount of market access. That, of course, is still our position with regard to the negotiations and it is the message that we will be taking to David Davis on Wednesday when we have our Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) meeting.

We are also looking for new opportunities in the post-Brexit world and have asked our officials in the offices to make sure that they are alert to all of them because a lot of our companies are looking for opportunities beyond Europe. I was delighted to see Brendan Mooney of Kainos as part of the Prime Minister's trade delegation to India. He is an award-winning member of the business community here and we wish him well and hope that he is able to access more business opportunities for Kainos which we are very proud of — a Belfast-born company doing global business.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

5. Mr McCartney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. (AQO 571/16-21)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, with your permission I will ask Junior Minister Ross to answer this question.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Just four days ago, the fifth group of refugees arrived here through the scheme. Each new arrival will receive the same care and support as previous groups to integrate and start their lives anew. We are very proud of the part that we have played in the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. With our partners from the non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector, we have shown that we can make the scheme work here successfully. People here have been very welcoming to those families in their time of need and we will continue to welcome refugees on a phased basis over the coming months.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his answer and add my gratitude, particularly from the people in Derry, for the good work carried out by many individuals and organisations in welcoming refugees. Can the Minister give an update on how the complex needs of many refugees are being addressed on an ongoing basis?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Through the scheme, we are making sure that they are welcome in local communities, and we are working with communities to address their many complex needs. Over the course of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, we have been able to welcome just short of 300 individuals. They all have very different needs, and we have been trying to support them through various offices in the Executive Office and wider government to make sure that any specific needs that they have are dealt with and that any local issues that they have can be resolved at local level.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you very much for your answers to date. Following on from the question on NGOs and the sad news last week that the Northern Ireland Council For Ethnic Minorities (NICEM) will have to close its doors, how will you ensure that the NGOs have sustained funding to support them? The problems will not be dealt with very quickly.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for that, not least because it gives me an opportunity to thank Patrick Yu for his contribution over many years as the chairperson of NICEM. It is important to put on record the fact that NICEM has received a considerable amount of money since the minority ethnic development fund was conceived in 2001; in 2015-16 alone, the group received £90,000. Members will be aware that the minority ethnic development fund has become an increasingly competitive process. In 2016-17, there were 99 applications, of which 32 were successful, for a fund worth just over £1 million. NICEM made two applications, was advised that it had been unsuccessful and was given feedback on those applications.

I point out to the Member that, although NICEM has decided that it is no longer capable of continuing as an entity, we have seen many new groups emerge during that time. Those groups provide support to and reflect the needs of their members, not least in lobbying government and being a critical friend of government. I see more organisations being able to access funding than before, and I am confident that those organisations — not least through the racial equality subgroup — will make sure that their voice is heard and that they can work alongside government to address the needs of the people whom they represent.

Richie McPhillips (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

6. Mr McPhillips asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the provision of financial redress schemes for the victims of historical institutional abuse. (AQO 572/16-21)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Ross to answer that question.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The chair of the historical institutional abuse inquiry, Sir Anthony Hart, is due to deliver his report and recommendations to the Executive in January 2017. Late last year, the inquiry took the unprecedented step of gathering additional evidence through a targeted consultation with victims and survivors on financial compensation and other forms of redress, and the outcome of that consultation exercise will undoubtedly inform its recommendations. We must wait to see what Sir Anthony recommends, so it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the inquiry's findings or any future Executive decision by speculating now about redress or potential models of redress that the Executive may agree upon.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have time for a quick supplementary and a quick response from the Minister.

Richie McPhillips (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We look forward to the report very soon. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister will be aware of Margaret McGuckin's comments that the financial redress scheme would cost in the region of £20 million to £30 million. Can the First Minister outline how confident she is of securing that funding? Will it be in the next financial year, and will it be ring-fenced or subject to budgetary constraint?