Official Report: Tuesday 20 October 2015

Mr Speaker: I call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to move the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The amendments in group 1 deal with name changes and technical matters. The second debate will be on amendments relating to the powers and remit of the ombudsperson. The third debate will be on amendments dealing with the complaints handling procedure.

I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the three groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate all the other amendments in group 1, along with the opposition to clause 52 stand part. These amendments deal with name changes and technical matters. Members should note that amendment No 10 is consequential to amendment No 9; amendment No 130 is consequential to amendment Nos 1 and 76; and amendment No 131 is consequential to amendment Nos 1, 76 and 130.

Opposition to clause 52 has been tabled by Mr Nesbitt as Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I call the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill, Lord Morrow, to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Lord Morrow: As Chairman of the former Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill, I would like to thank the members of the Committee, those who provided evidence to the Committee, the OFMDFM Committee Bill team, supporting officials and the Committee support team for the time and effort that they put into the Bill and into the preparation of the Committee’s report. The Ad Hoc Committee, by its very nature, carried out its scrutiny of the Bill in a relatively short period of time, and I am appreciative of the consideration paid by the members of the Committee during this period.

The aim of the Bill is to combine the offices of the Assembly Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints into a single office for public service complaints — the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsperson, or NIPSO. The Bill not only combines the powers and remit of the existing offices but provides for the appointment of the NIPSO on the nomination of the Assembly and for the NIPSO to report to the Assembly.

While the Committee did not oppose any clauses in or schedules to the Bill in its consideration and was content with the amendments put forward by the OFMDFM Committee prior to its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny, members expressed concerns on a number of issues and made recommendations to the OFMDFM Committee, as the sponsor of the Bill, to take steps to address the Committee’s concerns. I will address these concerns throughout the course of the debate.

With regard to amendment No 1 and the other amendments proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, namely amendment Nos 76, 130 and 131, the Committee is proposing that the title of the new office will be the Public Services Ombudsman. The Ad Hoc Committee considered the usage of the term "ombudsperson" in the Bill as drafted and noted that the OFMDFM Committee’s intention was that the name be unambiguously gender-neutral.

The Committee noted the comments of the International Ombudsman Institute, the Ombudsman Association and the Welsh and Irish ombudsmen that the term is already gender-neutral, that it is a trusted and recognised brand and that to change the title could cause confusion among the public. The Committee noted the Scandinavian origin of the term and its original meaning in Swedish as "representative". While, initially, some members of the Committee preferred ombudsperson as an explicitly gender-neutral form, following consideration of a research paper on the etymology of the term, the Committee agreed to propose amendments to change "ombudsperson" to "ombudsman".

There are over 200 instances of the word "ombudsperson" in the Bill, and the Committee, seeking an efficient and practical means of effecting its amendments, agreed that it would seek amendments to the first instances of the term in the Bill — that is, in clause 1 — and to the short and long titles at this Consideration Stage and, depending on the outcome of today’s proceedings, intends to table amendments to the other affected clauses at Further Consideration Stage. I understand that the OFMDFM Committee, as sponsor of the Bill, is content with the Ad Hoc Committee’s amendments to change "ombudsperson" to "ombudsman".

The Ad Hoc Committee did not have sight of amendment No 73 prior to the Committee’s formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and, therefore, does not have a view.

The Ad Hoc Committee considered the remaining technical amendments in this group proposed by the OFMDFM Committee following briefings from the Bill team and was content to agree them. The Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee will, no doubt, explain the intentions behind those amendments in his contribution to the debate.

The Ad Hoc Committee considered clause 37, to which amendment No 55 relates, at length in its deliberations. Clause 37 provides the power for the NIPSO to lay a special report before the Assembly if, after conducting an investigation, it appears to the NIPSO that an injustice has been sustained and that the injustice has not been or will not be remedied or adequately remedied. The Committee noted evidence welcoming this provision as a means of strengthening the office of the NIPSO but also noted the concerns of representatives of the medical profession that such a power could be construed as coercive and have significant reputational impact, for example, for a general practitioner.

The Committee noted that the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 provides for the laying of a special report before the Assembly. As at clause 11, the Committee noted stakeholder concerns with regard to potential implications of an ongoing judicial review and the laying of special reports. In considering legal advice on this issue, the Committee noted that the judicial review relates to the Commissioner for Complaints Order and that any decision on powers exercisable under the Commissioner for Complaints Order cannot be read across to this Bill. The Committee also noted that the NIPSO, as a public authority, will be required by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act in a manner that is compatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including article 6, the right to a fair hearing, and article 8, the right to a private and family life, and to ensure that it discharges its functions in a manner that is procedurally fair.

While the Committee was content to agree clause 37 and amendment No 55, it expressed its reservations in respect of the provisions in this clause for the NIPSO to lay a special report before the Assembly and was concerned that such a power could potentially be construed as coercive and that such a report had the potential to have a detrimental impact on a medical practitioner. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, as sponsor of the Bill, satisfies itself that there are proper safeguards and procedural fairness before any such power is exercised.

The Committee noted that the Audit Committee is seeking resolution through a protocol with DFP and is seeking ministerial agreement to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Assembly and the Executive on the budget process where such a protocol could be included. However, the Audit Committee is not aware that such a resolution is imminent and states that it is likely that, as currently drafted, schedule 1(17) would allow for similar issues to arise in respect of the NIPSO and the budget of the NIPSO's office. The Committee sought the views of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the concerns expressed by the Audit Committee. The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister noted the Audit Committee's comments but did not propose to bring forward amendments in this regard. The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister noted the distinction made between the Audit Committee agreeing the estimate and its being included in the Finance Minister's Budget Bill. However, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister noted that, to date, there had been no divergence between the agreed estimate and the figure included in the Budget Bill. It further noted that the Audit Committee was seeking to resolve the issue through a protocol with DFP.

The Ad Hoc Committee was content to agree schedule 1 but draws the Assembly's attention to the concerns expressed by the Audit Committee that schedule 1 may not provide the NIPSO with sufficient protection from the Executive controlling or directing its access to resources. The Committee strongly recommends that the Committee for —

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. I think that this is an important point not just politically but constitutionally: if the Assembly is given the power to appoint and provide for, in payment to and the terms and conditions of, the NIPSO, that power should not be restricted by the Department of Finance and Personnel through funding. It is very important that the office of the ombudsman is seen to be and is, in fact, independent and properly resourced, and no constraints should be placed on it by the political office of the Department of Health and Social Services. The point that I am making to Lord Morrow is, I think, a very important and crucial part of the Assembly's considerations. Any safeguards that the Member has talked about must be foolproof and guarantee that independence, not just to the NIPSO but to the Assembly itself.

Lord Morrow: I thank Mr Maginness for the points that he makes. I have heard what he has said, and I think that similar points were made during the journey of the Bill through the Ad Hoc Committee.

The Committee strongly recommends that the OFMDFM Committee, as sponsor of the Bill, takes steps to address the concerns raised by the Audit Committee to ensure that there is sufficient protection from the Executive controlling or directing the NIPSO’s access to resources. The Committee notes that the Audit Committee has urged the Minister of Finance and Personnel to agree a proposed memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the Executive on the budget process in which a protocol to resolve similar issues in respect of the budget of the Audit Office could be included. The Committee also notes that, to date, no such protocol or MOU has been agreed.

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that an MOU acknowledging and safeguarding the NIPSO's financial independence should be agreed with DFP at the earliest opportunity. I look forward to hearing from the Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee on how the Committee proposes to address the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations and the Audit Committee's concerns.

The Ad Hoc Committee was content to agree the remaining technical amendments in this group proposed by the OFMDFM Committee.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have been involved in it from its very inception, and although I am off the OFMDFM Committee, I still feel that I have a role to play.

The Chair will be aware that we are broadly happy with the provisions in the Bill. From its very inception, we opposed clauses 2, 3, 40 and 41, so it will come as no surprise that our party will oppose some of the amendments.

We will oppose amendment Nos 1, 76, 130 and 131 on the change from "ombudsperson" to "ombudsman". We live in a very progressive society. My understanding is that the term "ombudsperson" is used in America, and I do not believe that there is any confusion out there.

We will also oppose amendment No 5 on the appointment of the ombudsman by the Queen. We do not believe that the Queen has any role to play in that; it should be the Assembly. It is a point of principle. Again, the Committee Chairperson will be well aware of our stance from the very beginning; we are on record in regard to that matter.

We are also opposed to amendment Nos 57, 58 and 59 on disclosure contrary to public interest. We raised serious concerns throughout the discussions at Committee regarding national security and the involvement of the Secretary of State. When we were formulating our policy recommendations, the evidence showed that the policy was not utilised in any other region, so we did not believe that there was a need. However, it went to a vote, and the Committee voted to include the recommendation and to amend all the clauses that flowed from it.

That is all I have to say at the moment. I look forward to further consideration of the Bill.

Mr Eastwood: I give a broad welcome to the legislation. It is good and useful, and it is important that a Committee such as the OFMDFM Committee has done the work to bring such an important Bill to the House. It is a lesson for the rest of the Committees that that can be done well and properly. I sat on the OFMDFM Committee when the Bill was beginning its long process. I have not been on that Committee in quite a while, but we are here now. For my sins, I also sat on the Ad Hoc Committee, and we had some good debates on some of the issues.

I will focus on one issue in the first group of amendments: clause 37 and the laying of reports. We had concerns, as did the BMA, about the impact of general health practitioners being named on the schedule as some of the people who could be investigated by the ombudsman. We were slightly concerned about the size of a one- or two-person doctors' surgery compared with a trust or a Department and how all that fits together. We went through all the details, and, whilst we still have reservations, we are broadly content, having discussed the issues with the ombudsman.

The laying of reports concerned us. The potential for an individual doctor or a doctors' surgery being named at the Health Committee, for example, could be overreaching and have dire consequences for an individual doctor or a doctors' surgery. Given how connected and close our community is, the reputational damage to somebody around that type of activity could be very severe. We had those discussions in Committee and also spoke to the ombudsman, and we are broadly content now. The ombudsman said that he would be happy for those reports to be anonymised. We will keep a watchful eye on how that plays out, but, if we ever get to the stage of laying one of those reports to the Committee, it is important that they are anonymised to protect the individual doctors concerned. There are other issues, but that deals with many of the issues about general practitioners.

Mr Lunn: I was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, and I will speak about the amendments that deal with the name of the ombudsman or ombudsperson.

Before I do that, I want to say that I agree with Mr Eastwood's comments about the laying of special reports. That may need more attention, along with representation at an ombudsman's hearing or, as he calls it, an inquisitorial process. At the moment, the Bill appears to allow the ombudsman, if a professional person is before him, to advise him that he may need legal representation. My concern is that it may be too late at that point. He may already have compromised his position, and, if a case has to go on to County Court level, the details of the ombudsman's hearing are discoverable. The laying of special reports, particularly for an individual GP or single-practice GP, is a cause for concern. We will have to return to that.

There is nothing sexist, or whatever the word might be, about the word "ombudsman".

As the Chairman said, it goes back into modern history and almost into prehistory. It is not an English word; it appears to be a Scandinavian word. It is in use around the world. I accept Ms McGahan's point that it is not in use in America now, but if you look around the near continent and anywhere else they have ombudsmen, you see that in only a very few circumstances do they call them ombudspersons. Some commissioners in some countries are referred to as "ombudspersons", but the general rule, historically based, is "ombudsman".

Mr Hazzard: I thank the Member for giving way. I would have taken a view similar to him until I did a wee bit of digging into this. You are right to reference the historical connotations when it comes to "ombudsman". It comes from the Old Norse: "umbodh":"commission"; "madhr":"man". That is something that we need to bear in mind.

When the Member started speaking today, a few times he referred to "he, he, he, he" when he referred to "ombudsman". So, it is not a sexist term, but if we are going to set up a new office, we maybe could break away from this, which leads us to always say "he" or "him, when it could be gender-neutral if we went for "ombudsperson".

Mr Lunn: Yes, I accept the rebuke from Mr Hazzard and his comment. I will, frankly, never manage to wholly convert to using "they" rather than "he" or "she". It is the way we are, but it does not mean any offence. I am sure he knows that.

Formal use of the word goes back to 1809, when the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman was formed. However, it was referred to in 1713 by the Swedish King Charles XII as Högste Ombudsmannen. If you want to trace it right back, you can find it in China in the Qin dynasty of 221 BC, never mind in the Korean history of the Joseon dynasty, which was around the same time. I could take you to the Turkish use of the word from 634 to 644. You could go on like this, but the fact is that down the centuries it has been common practice to use the term "ombudsman". There are plenty of female persons in the position of ombudsman around the world right now who have no problem with being called "the ombudsman". They quite value the phrase, actually.

That was the reason I proposed this amendment at Committee, and I will stand by it. It is a pity that we cannot agree about it, but there is no offence intended. I refer back to the "Women in Politics" report, which, I think, I instituted. I think that my record on this is good enough that if I occasionally say "he" instead of "she" or "they", you will forgive me.

Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Lord Morrow and the Ad Hoc Committee for the invaluable work it has done on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill. Also thanks to the stakeholders who made submissions or gave evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, Ministers and their officials, and the Ombudsman's Office, which contributed to the Committee's thinking during the Committee Stage.

The Ad Hoc Committee recommended that the OFMDFM Committee satisfied itself that there were adequate safeguards in place in relation to the exercise of the power to make a special report to the Assembly. That was in light of concerns raised that the naming of listed authorities in such reports could be construed as coercive. The OFMDFM Committee considered that point and took advice on it, concluding that we are content that it will be a matter for NIPSO, as a public authority, to exercise the power to make a special report in the manner that is compatible with the convention rights of the listed authority.

The power to make a report to the legislature is a key feature of other ombudsman legislation and underpins their authority. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for England has made reports to Parliament about individuals who are general healthcare providers. I remind Members that this is a power that can be exercised only where NIPSO finds that the person aggrieved has sustained an injustice and that this has not or will not be remedied. I think that this place should be informed when that happens.

I will now address the concerns by Lord Morrow and Mr Eastwood, among others. It is a balance between the prospective reputational damage, for example to a doctor or a small GP surgery, and the fact that NIPSO has concluded that there has been an injustice that has not and will not be remedied.

The Audit Committee highlighted to the Ad Hoc Committee that, while the Audit Committee approves the budget estimate of the Comptroller and Auditor General and will approve the estimate of the NIPSO, this would not rule the possibility that the Department of Finance and Personnel might take a different view. The Committee for OFMDFM is aware that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has been working to address this issue. The Committee for OFMDFM will explore this again with both the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee to see if we can identify how best to progress and conclude a memorandum of understanding, which has been suggested as the best way of resolving the difficulties and tensions inherent in the involvement of the Executive in the Budget process for the bodies that scrutinise it. Lord Morrow talked of sufficient protection from interference by the Executive in setting the Budget for a scrutiny body of that Executive.

I note that the Ad Hoc Committee was content with the provision in the Bill that requires listed authorities to disclose to the NIPSO relevant information that would otherwise be privileged, such as relevant legal advice. I refer here to clause 32(2). I note that some Members continue to have concerns about that issue. I can assure Members that the Committee for OFMDFM, like the Ad Hoc Committee, took advice on this issue. The Committee for OFMDFM is satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to avoid information being used to the detriment of the listed authority. The content of the advice cannot be disclosed in the NIPSO's reports, as covered by clause 38, or used in court proceedings, as covered by clause 47. The normal privilege attaching to legal advice is not lost through disclosure to the NIPSO.

I now turn to the amendments before us. I will comment first on the Ad Hoc Committee's amendments to change "Ombudsperson" to "Ombudsman", namely amendment Nos 1, 76, 130 and 131. The Committee for OFMDFM, in light of the views expressed by the Ad Hoc Committee, commissioned more research on the etymology of the term "Ombudsman". In the end, the Committee was satisfied that the term is not gender-specific. There was cross-party support for the Ad Hoc Committee's amendments, although I note the contributions from Sinn Féin Members this morning.

The Committee for OFMDFM has proposed amendment Nos 2, 3 and 77 on foot of a suggestion from the Office of the Legislative Counsel. That is a recommendation that provision for the NIPSO to be a corporation sole would be preferable. I would like to thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel for that and a number of other very helpful comments. The effect of amendment No 77 is to provide that the NIPSO will be a corporation sole. That is in line with similar provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General and others.

Amendment No 3 removes the current provision in clause 1(2), which would have established the office of the ombudsperson. Amendment No 2 inserts "(in this Act 'the Ombudsperson')" at the end of clause 1(1) because this interpretation provision would have been lost with the removal of clause 1(2). I accept that, if amendment Nos 1 and 3 are made, clause 1(1) will read:

However, this can be easily remedied at Further Consideration Stage.

Clause 2 declares that the NIPSO is independent and not subject to the direction or control of Ministers, Departments or the Assembly. However, all public servants must be accountable, not least for the public moneys that they receive. The Committee took the view that, where possible, accountability should be to the Assembly; to the legislature rather than the Executive. We felt that accountability should be clearly stated in clause 2(2) but, having reflected on comments received at Committee Stage, we agreed that not all the provisions referenced in clause 2(2) amounted to powers of direction and control.

Amendment No 5 changes clause 2(2) by both reducing the number of provisions referenced and making it clear what the nature of the provisions were, such as the setting of salary and other terms and conditions, the power of the Assembly to request the NIPSO's removal, which requires the support of two thirds of all MLAs, and financial accountability.

Clauses 8 and 9 provide for own-initiative investigations by the NIPSO. Clause 9 states that the NIPSO must publish the criteria for launching such an investigation. Amendment No 6 makes it explicit that the NIPSO must also have regard for those criteria.

Amendment No 7 reflects two changes suggested by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. I thank the Examiner for his report on the delegated powers, which the Ad Hoc Committee shared with us.

Clause 12 provides that the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may, by order, amend the schedule of listed authorities in schedule 3 that the NIPSO may investigate. The Examiner pointed out that such powers traditionally lie with Departments, and amendment No 7 provides for the power to lie with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Amendment Nos 9, 10 and 25 reflect similar change.

Amendment No 7 also makes provision for another suggestion, namely that the power in clause 12 to amend the schedule of listed authorities is exercised with:

That reflects the Committee for OFMDFM's policy of aligning the NIPSO with the Assembly. However, the Committee wishes to consider that approach further. On that basis, it has decided not to move amendment No 7 and come back to this issue at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 25 introduces the same requirement in clause 19, which empowers OFMDFM to update the schedule of tribunals in schedule 4. Amendment No 26 mirrors this approach by providing that the power in clause 22 for the Assembly Commission to, by order, amend schedule 5 — which deals with matters that are excluded from investigation — is exercised with the concurrence of OFMDFM. The Committee has decided to not move amendment Nos 25 and 26. That will allow us time for further consideration and we will revisit them at Further Consideration Stage as necessary.

Amendment No 8 touches on clause 12, which sets some criteria for exercising the power to add new bodies to the schedule of listed authorities, one of which is being publicly funded. Amendment No 8 supplements the list of possible public funding mechanisms in clause 12(5) by inserting reference to expenses being:

Amendment Nos 14, 16 and 20 insert the words, "of that body", to avoid any possible misreading of clauses 15(2)(c), 16(2)(b) and 17(2)(c).

Amendment Nos 28 and 36 provide for standard wording across the clauses, where the NIPSO is deciding whether to accept a complaint that has been submitted or referred outside a time limit and where a complaints procedure has not been invoked and exhausted.

Clauses 24 and 28 are amended to reflect the wording in clause 26(4) so that the NIPSO may exercise discretion where:

Amendment Nos 37 to 43 inclusive standardise some of the terminology in the Bill, such as changing "furnish" and "supply" to "provide", and other similar changes.

Clause 37 deals with the NIPSO's laying of reports before the Assembly. Amendment No 55 clarifies that clause 37(2) does not apply to a report on an own-initiative investigation. Such reports are required to be laid in the Assembly by clause 37(3).

Amendment Nos 56 and 61, to clauses 38 and 47 respectively, insert references to the NIPSO's power to obtain information and documents under clause 31.

Amendment No 57 requires that any non-disclosure notice served under clause 41 must be in writing.

Amendment No 62, which applies to clause 48, omits the words:

Those words are unnecessary in light of the Committee's proposed amendment to the power to delegation in schedule 1 to the Bill. That is amendment No 79 to schedule 1, which we shall come to later.

Amendment No 63 deals with clause 49 and provides for the office of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman (NIJAO) to be held by the NIPSO. Amendment No 63 provides that the current NIJAO will cease to hold office when clause 49 comes into operation.

Amendment Nos 64, 66 and 68 inclusive amend clause 50 on interpretation. Amendment No 64 points the reader to the definition of "action taken by a listed authority" in clause 13. Amendment Nos 66 and 68 amend the provision dealing with Ministers so that "Minister" means a Minister of a Northern Ireland Department and a junior Minister and provides that "Northern Ireland Minister" has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Amendment No 70 inserts, in effect, a new clause to replace clause 52, which the Committee opposes standing part of the Bill. The purpose is to make clearer provision for the exercise of delegated powers under the Bill in line with the recommendations of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, including changing the mechanism for certain order-making powers from affirmative to draft affirmative, requiring an order to be laid in draft and approved by the Assembly before the order is made.

Amendment No 72 commences the power for the Department of Finance and Personnel to make arrangements for the transfer of staff one month after Royal Assent. Amendment Nos 73 and 74 postpone the commencement dates for certain provisions to coincide with universities coming within the NIPSO’s remit on 1 October 2016 and own-initiative investigation powers, which will commence on 1 April 2018.

Amendment No 78 amends schedule 1 sub-paragraph 5(4). It makes clear that someone who is currently the Judicial Appointments Ombudsman is not disqualified from being appointed as the NIPSO. Schedule 2 paragraph 11 ensures that the current ombudsman would not be disqualified. It also ensures that appointment of the NIPSO as the Judicial Appointments Ombudsman is not prevented by paragraph 5(2), which prevents the NIPSO holding any other office.

We now come to 17 identical technical amendments and to schedule 2, which deals with the transfer of assets, staff and other transitional issues. They are amendment Nos 81 to 91, 93 to 95 and 98 to 100. References to "appointed day" become "transfer day", which is 1 April 2016.

Amendment No 92 replaces paragraph 8(2) of schedule 2. It preserves the provisions of the current legislation dealing with the pensions of previous ombudsmen to avoid any detriment to them from the repeal of the current legislation.

Amendment Nos 96 and 97 amend schedule 2 paragraph 10(1) to allow complaints to be made to the NIPSO in respect of the actions of listed authorities that predate the transfer day and which could have given rise to a complaint. Where a complaint is made after the transfer day, the provisions of the NIPSO legislation will apply.

Amendment No 101 amends the schedule of listed authorities in schedule 3, by replacing the individually named Northern Ireland Departments with a generic "A Northern Ireland Department".

Amendment No 102 changes the reference to "a grant-aided school" to refer to "the board of governors of a grant-aided school".

Amendment Nos 105 and 106 remove the entry for Health and Safety Agency, which was accidentally included in schedule 3, and relocate the entry for "Health and Safety Executive".

Amendment No 109 updates the statutory provision under which the Planning Appeals Commission is constituted. That reflects changes that were made after the NIPSO Bill had been introduced.

Amendment No 110 removes paragraph 3 of schedule 5. That provision excluded complaints between a healthcare body and a general healthcare provider about the arrangements between them. It is not needed because of the provision for complaints to come from a member of the public, that is, an individual or body other than a listed authority.

Amendment No 111 simply restructures paragraph 5(2) of schedule 5 to make it easier for the reader.

Amendment No 112 inserts words in schedule 6, which deals with the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman, in order to repeal the provision of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 that requires the Department of Justice to pay the expenses of the Judicial Appointments Ombudsman. The current ombudsman and the Department have agreed a reallocation of budget to cover NIJAO expenses.

Amendment Nos 113 and 114 deal with provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act, which require the NIJAO to lay an annual report and a power to direct the NIJAO to report on certain matters.

The general approach taken was that the annual report should be laid in the Assembly, rather than given to the Minister of Justice as at present, and that the power to direct the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman to report on a particular subject should be similarly given within the Assembly. However, the Committee agreed to bring amendments Nos 113 and 114 to give that power of direction to the Assembly Commission.

Amendment No 129 includes in the table of repeals at schedule 9, the Ombudsman and Commissioner for Complaints (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which the Assembly passed earlier this year to allow the acting ombudsman's term of appointment to be extended and to provide time for the Assembly to deal with this NIPSO Bill. It can safely be removed on commencement of the NIPSO Act.

That concludes my comments on this round.

Lord Morrow: In winding up on the first part of the debate, I would like to comment briefly in relation to some of the things that some Members have been saying. I will be very brief.

I was not aware that there was any division in relation to whether the person should be called an "ombudsperson" or "ombudsman". I think it was generally taken in the Committee that this was the road to go and I am a wee bit surprised that some are seeking to make an issue out of that particular point now, on the Floor of the Assembly. However, we have heard what has been said.

Also, we have not heard of the opposition to "Her Majesty" before either or, at least, I cannot recall it.

Mr Eastwood spoke in relation to clause 37, on the laying of special reports and the potential naming of a GP by a NIPSO. Yes, that was a matter that was discussed and stood quite a bit of debate and discussion and it was something that the Committee was perhaps exercised on, but we were able to proceed.

Trevor Lunn said that he shares the SDLP's concern on special reports and also concern that the provision of legal representation is at the NIPSO's discretion. He is quite correct. He gave us some history lesson in relation to the name of the ombudsman. He is quite correct when he says that it is of Scandinavian origins. He went on to remind us that it went back to the days of Charles XII. I think that Charles XII reigned somewhere between the late 1600s and the early 1700s. I hope I am correct in that, but I have no doubt that some of our historians will stand up and challenge me if it is not correct.

In respect of the technical amendments in this group proposed by the Committee for OFMDFM, Mr Nesbitt has provided the House with the Committee's intentions behind those amendments and I do not propose to rehearse those again.

In closing on this group of amendments, I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate so far.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 4, it will be convenient to debate the other amendments in this group, which deal with the powers and remit of the ombudsperson. Members should note that amendment Nos 21 and 22 are mutually exclusive; amendment No 59 is consequential to amendment No 58; amendment No 108 is consequential to amendment No 24; amendment Nos 119 and 120 are mutually exclusive; and amendment Nos 121 to 123, 125 and 128 are all consequential to amendment No 115.

I call the Chairperson of the Committee for OFMDFM, Mr Mike Nesbitt, to move amendment No 4 and to address the other amendments in this group.

Mr Nesbitt: I beg to move amendment No 4:

Mr Nesbitt: Amendment No 4 makes it clear that the principal purpose of the NIPSO is to investigate alleged maladministration and avoid any suggestion of prejudging the result of that investigation.

Amendment No 11 qualifies the NIPSO's power of investigation of complaints of maladministration by making it explicit that the power exists only for alleged maladministration through action taken in the exercise of administrative functions. While maladministration obviously suggests that the power of investigation related to administrative actions, the Committee was content to insert the explicit qualifying words. Those can also be found in amendment Nos 12, 15, 18 and 21, covering all the bodies that can be investigated in clauses 14 to 18.

Amendment Nos 13, 17 and 19 deal with the NIPSO's power to investigate complaints in the health and social care sector — complaints about the merits of a decision to the extent that it was taken in consequence of the exercise of professional or clinical judgement. The amendments remove reference to clinical judgement as a separate category so that the powers of investigation in clauses 15 to 17 cover professional judgement, reflecting the approach taken in the Welsh ombudsman legislation.

Amendment Nos 21 to 24 and amendment No 108 all touch on the NIPSO's proposed power of investigation in respect of universities. Amendment Nos 22 and 23 were tabled by Mr Allister, and I will come to them in a moment. The effect of amendment Nos 24 and 108 are to relocate a provision clarifying that:

from the notes at the end of schedule 3 to the end of clause 18.

Amendment No 21 makes it clear that the power of investigation relates to complaints from students enrolled in courses validated by the university. The theological colleges that are members of the Queen's University Institute of Theology offer a range of courses, and not all their students are students at Queen's. Some are enrolled in courses validated by the University of Chester and the University of Cumbria, as well as others. The effect of amendment No 21 is to ensure that it is only those students at the theological colleges enrolled in courses validated by Queen’s who can complain to the NIPSO. The universities of Chester and Cumbria, and, indeed, the Open University, provide their students with access to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator at the conclusion of the internal complaints procedure.

While the Committee for OFMDFM's amendments would ensure that it is only students enrolled in courses validated by the university who can complain to the NIPSO, amendment Nos 22 and 23 from Mr Allister appear to take the policy in the opposite direction so that anybody could complain about a university. The Committee considered amendment Nos 22 and 23, together with Mr Allister's comments at Second Stage, and agreed not to support them. The fundamental question here is this: who are the users or consumers of the publicly funded services — namely, higher education — being provided by the universities? Clearly, the answer is that the students are.

Amendment No 53 clarifies that the power of publication of reports in the public interest in clause 35 does not apply to reports of own-initiative investigations. Publication of own-initiative investigation reports is dealt with by clause 36. Such reports must be published.

Mr Allister's amendment No 54 to clause 35 would in effect replace the Committee's proposal for publication of reports where the NIPSO considers it is in the public interest to do so with a requirement for the NIPSO to publish all investigation reports on the NIPSO website, unless the NIPSO believes that it would not be in the public interest to publish. Personal details would be redacted on the request of any person affected.

I remind Members that, at present, the reports of the ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints are not published and that the legislation prevents disclosure, save in very limited circumstances, one of which is the ombudsman's report to the Assembly. Other ombudsmen publish case summaries on their websites and, in some cases, more detailed reports of their investigations.

The Committee considered that the confidential nature of the investigation and the distribution of the report only to those immediately involved in the complaint tended to encourage open and frank engagement in the process, while the prospect of greater publicity may be a corresponding disincentive. In bringing forward its proposal in clause 35 for the publication of reports where the NIPSO considered it was in the public interest to do so, the Committee had regard to the views of the current ombudsman. The Committee considers that that represents the best balance and agreed that it would not support amendment No 54.

Mr Allister’s amendment No 58 would amend clause 41. Clause 41 provides that OFMDFM, acting jointly, a Northern Ireland Minister or the Secretary of State may serve a non-disclosure notice on the NIPSO where the Minister is of the opinion that the disclosure of a document or information would be prejudicial to the safety of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Clause 41(4) provides that the Secretary of State and the NIPSO must enter into a memorandum of understanding concerning the exercise of their functions in relation to that section. Amendment No 58 would require that all those who can serve a non-disclosure notice must enter into such a memorandum with the NIPSO, and amendment No 59 provides for a new clause 41(5) to allow for memoranda with a variety of Ministers rather than a single memorandum with the Secretary of State.

By way of background, the Committee considered a request from the Secretary of State for a mechanism in the Bill to help inform her decisions regarding the exercise of that power. The Committee agreed, by a majority, that that mechanism would be a memorandum of understanding to be agreed between the Secretary of State and the NIPSO concerning the exercise of their functions in relation to clause 41, and that the memorandum agreed would be laid in the Assembly. The underlying reason for that provision is that the Secretary of State would not normally be aware of what documents or information were being provided to the NIPSO and, therefore, would not be in a position to consider if a further disclosure by the NIPSO would be prejudicial to the safety of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Northern Ireland Ministers, on the other hand, would be in a position to be briefed about what information their Departments or agencies were disclosing to the NIPSO and be able to consider whether a non-disclosure notice was required. Therefore, the Committee does not consider that Mr Allister’s amendment is required and does not support it.

Amendment No 60 adds to the list of bodies with which the NIPSO must consult and may cooperate with under clause 42. Those are the local government auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), given its role in the regulation of health and social care bodies. The point of that provision is to avoid the duplication of functions, investigations and costs, and to enable maximum cooperation.

Amendment No 79 inserts a new provision in schedule 1 of the Bill that provides for delegation by the NIPSO to any member of staff. It also includes a new power to delegate to any other suitably qualified person where there are special circumstances that make it proper to do so. The ombudsman requested that power to manage circumstances where a conflict of interest might arise.

Amendment No 80 removes the current delegation provision at paragraph 14(5) of schedule 1.

Amendment Nos 103, 104 and 107 bring the General Teaching Council within the NIPSO’s remit — that is at the council’s request — add a newly created body, the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust — that came in at the request of the Department of Justice — and remove, at the request of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Rural Development Council, which is independent and not core funded.

We now come to schedule 7, which deals with the NIPSO’s role in relation to investigations of complaints about breaches of the local government code of conduct under Part 9 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. Amendment No 128 provides that the ombudsperson is to be known as the Northern Ireland Local Government Commissioner for Standards when investigating under the 2014 Act. That change was requested by the current ombudsman, and the Minister was content. As a result, we no longer need a number of provisions that insert "Ombudsperson’ at various places in the 2014 Act. Most notably, amendment No 115 removes a long list of such insertions, as do amendment Nos 121, 122, 123 and 125.

Amendment No 116 was requested by the current ombudsman, following agreement with the Minister of the Environment. It inserts a new section, 56A, into the 2014 Local Government Act to make explicit provision that the commissioner may, following a code of conduct investigation, hold an adjudication hearing and, where he or she does so, such a hearing must be in public.

Amendment No 127 provides that the NIPSO Bill provisions relating to legal representation, witness expenses, the power to compel witnesses and require production of documents, as well as the provisions relating to obstruction and contempt, apply in relation to an adjudication hearing as they apply in relation to a NIPSO investigation.

Amendment No 118 was also requested by the ombudsman. It will allow the commissioner to publish reports of investigations under the Local Government Act on his or her website.

Amendment No 117 provides that where the commissioner censures someone, notice must be given to the clerk of the council concerned.

The Committee has laid two amendments that touch on the opening paragraph of the new section 63 to be inserted in the 2014 Act on page 40 of the Bill. The Committee prefers the late, revised form of amendment No 120, and, accordingly, I will not be moving the earlier version in amendment No 119. Amendment No 120 provides for the applicable powers in the 2015 Act to be read as if they applied as if references to the ombudsperson were references to the commissioner. I will also mention, at this stage, that the Committee has agreed not to move amendment Nos 113 and 114, to allow further time for consideration of allocating functions to the Assembly Commission.

Amendment No 124 provides for the commissioner to exercise the NIPSO’s consultation and cooperation powers in relation to the Local Government Auditor and the Comptroller and Auditor General, in light of their remit in relation to the work of councils.

Amendment No 126 omits a reference to the expenses of the NIPSO in discharging this local government role. This is adequately set out in the Local Government Act 2014.

That concludes my remarks on this mid-section of our debate.

Lord Morrow: With regard to the amendment Nos 4, 11 to 13, 15 and 17 to 19, proposed by the Committee for OFMDFM, the Ad Hoc Committee noted that these amendments qualify the power of investigation of the NIPSO, in that the powers would relate to alleged maladministration through action taken in the exercise of administrative functions and would exclude any judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The Committee also noted the clarification provided with respect to the distinction between clinical and professional judgement. The Committee was content with these amendments.

In respect of clause 18, the Committee considered this new power for the NIPSO to investigate maladministration as it relates to universities, superseding the existing power of the board of visitors of a university to investigate complaints by students. The Committee noted the views of the universities, which felt that the existing board of visitors' system offered a more flexible remedy for students. Conversely, student representatives felt that the board of visitors should be excluded from considering any complaints in relation to student matters.

During its deliberations, the Committee sought clarification from the Committee for OFMDFM on the jurisdiction of the NIPSO in respect of constituent and theological colleges. The Committee noted that amendment No 21 clarifies the situation for students of theological colleges and ensures that only those students enrolled in courses validated by universities here can complain to the NIPSO.

The Committee noted that amendment No 24 provides clarity in respect of constituent colleges and that amendment No 108 moves the provisions in respect of amendment No 24 from schedule 3 to clause 18. The Ad Hoc Committee was content with these amendments proposed by the Committee for OFMDFM, but noted the concerns of some members in relation to the inclusion of universities within the NIPSO’s remit.

I move now to Mr Allister's amendment Nos 22 and 23 in respect of clause 18. The Ad Hoc Committee did not consider those prior to formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and, therefore, has no view. The Committee did, however, take note of Mr Allister's comments on those provisions in the Second Stage debate and raised the issues with the Northern Ireland Ombudsman when he gave evidence in May. It may be helpful to outline the ombudsman's response.

With regard to the NIPSO not having the power to investigate complaints made by university staff, the ombudsman highlighted the fact that the Committee for OFMDFM, in developing its policy proposals, decided that it was no longer defensible for only people in the public sector to have access to the NIPSO on employment issues and that there were other suitable mechanisms, such as the Equality Commission, industrial tribunals and so forth, for the resolution of such complaints. The ombudsman stated:

I move now to Mr Allister's amendment No 53 to clause 35. The Committee did not have sight of the amendment prior to formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and therefore does not have a view. The Committee, during its deliberations on clause 35, noted that a number of stakeholders, in their response to the call for evidence, recommended that reports by the NIPSO be published. However, concerns were expressed by representatives of the medical profession about the publication of reports on investigations involving issues of clinical judgement. They recommended that reports on the exercise of clinical judgement not be published.

The Committee noted that the intention of the Bill, as drafted, is to leave to the NIPSO's discretion the determination of whether a report raises an issue of sufficient public interest to warrant publication. The Committee heard from the ombudsman that the publication of all reports would have resource implications. He said that moving to a position in which all reports should be put into the public domain would, he envisaged, develop over time as capacity and expertise in the ombudsman's office built. The Committee was content to agree amendment No 54 proposed by the Committee for OFMDFM to clarify the situation on the publication of reports in the public interest.

Amendment Nos 58 and 59, in the name of Mr Allister, relate to clause 41. The Committee did not have sight of the amendments prior to formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and therefore does not have a view.

The Committee, in its consideration of clause 41, which relates to disclosure contrary to public interest, noted that there is similar provision in legislation for the Scottish and Welsh ombudsmen and for the parliamentary ombudsman.

The Committee noted comments from the ombudsman:

The Ad Hoc Committee had considered amendment Nos 60, 115, 119, 126 and 128 in this group prior to formal clause-by-clause scrutiny. The Committee noted that they were largely technical in nature, provided clarity on which provisions would have effect in relation to the Local Government Act and removed unnecessary drafting.

The Committee was content to agree those amendments.

With regard to amendment No 79 to schedule 1, which is proposed by the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Committee noted correspondence from the Northern Ireland Ombudsman seeking this amendment in order to provide for delegation to any other person to, first, allow for delegation of an investigation to another ombudsman should a conflict arise and, secondly, to provide for an external review process. As the amendment was not available for the Committee's consideration prior to formal clause-by-clause scrutiny, the Committee did not take a view.

Regarding amendment Nos 103, 104 and 107 on the listed authorities in schedule 3, the Committee noted various requests made to the Committee for OFMDFM for amendment to schedule 3, namely from the General Teaching Council and the Department of Justice to add the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust to the listed authorities under the remit of the NIPSO. The Committee also noted that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development sought the removal of the Rural Development Council from the listed authorities. The Committee for OFMDFM's amendments to give effect to these changes to schedule 3 were not available for the Ad Hoc Committee's formal clause-by-clause consideration, and the Committee did not take a view.

The Committee did not have sight of the remaining amendments in the group prior to the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and therefore did not take a view.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I rise to make a number of points on this group. First, I thank all the officials, who have been very supportive of the Committee in our fairly lengthy and protracted deliberations on the Bill, including the Bill Office officials, who have been helpful and supportive to all members.

Earlier, my colleague Bronwyn McGahan made it clear that we are very much in support of the Bill, albeit that we are opposed to a small number of its provisions, particularly the relationship that the Bill wants there to be in the appointment of the ombudsperson by "Her Majesty", as referred to in the Bill; issues around disclosure in relation to the Official Secrets Act; public interest matters; and, equally, the proposed involvement of the Secretary of State. We are opposed to those matters and have made that very clear consistently. I note that Lord Morrow said that he had never heard those issues or concerns. That may well have been the case at the Ad Hoc Committee; I do not know as I am not a member of that Committee. Certainly, at the principal Committee, the Committee for OFMDFM, concerns were routinely and consistently raised at every occasion when the matter arose in deliberations. I think that the Committee Chairperson would acknowledge that. Obviously, we did not get support for that and, again, that is a matter of record, but we are very much in support of the intent of the Bill itself.

As has been made very clear, the Bill is about merging the office of the independent Commissioner for Complaints with the ombudsman's office, as it is currently, into the new NIPSO. We believe that the new provisions in their totality will actually enhance the protections of members of the public who may well fall foul of any deficits that there may well be in the public sector and in public-service delivery. Again, I put on record that, as far as we are concerned, we all know that the vast majority of public servants and those who are charged with responsibility to dispense public services are absolutely 100% professional, have personal and professional integrity and deliver a perfect or very good service, but of course there are always cracks in the various systems. The Bill is designed to try to ensure that people who fall foul of any of those deficits have the maximum protection at their disposal.

We have considered all the matters long and hard. Some of the decisions that the Committee has reached, mostly by way of consensus, have been on the basis of the balance of the evidence that was presented to us. I think that the Chairperson highlighted a number of those very well in his remarks, particularly when opening this group.

I would just like to make a couple of points. We will oppose a number of amendments in this group. We will oppose amendment Nos 22 and 23, moved by Mr Jim Allister. As has already been suggested, these relate to whether this remit would be exclusively at the disposal of students or whether it would bring in others. It is important to reiterate the point that this is about the delivery of public services at the discretion of the recipient of those services where it is believed that there has been a failure. Staff and others have other recourse to redress if they feel the need for it. On that basis, we are opposed to amendment Nos 22 and 23.

We are also opposed to amendment No 54 on the basis that the ombudsman, the ombudsperson or the NIPSO will have all the latitude necessary to make judgement calls. On balance — the Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee has already made this point — where reports will generally be withheld from those directly involved, that has led to better outcomes for the complainants. On balance, that is why we took that decision.

We are opposed to amendment Nos 58 and 59 because they relate to clause 41, and we have already made it clear that we are opposed to clause 41.

Mr A Maginness: I wish to refer to clauses 30 and 32. Clause 32(1) and (2) deals with legal privilege. Some issues were raised in relation to legal privilege, and it is worth addressing them. It has been suggested, in particular by the BMA, that those provisions would introduce a new power for the NIPSO to override legal professional privilege. In fact and, indeed, in law, that is not correct because the ombudsman's current powers in relation to investigations conducted as the Assembly Ombudsman under the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 permit the ombudsman access to legal advice held by Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments and their statutory agencies. His practice has been to request access to legal advice infrequently and only where it is relevant to an investigation. The legal advice is, however, not shared with the complainant, or with any other person, and is held in confidence by the ombudsman and his staff.

I would certainly be very concerned if, in fact, that threatened legal privilege, as it is important that we preserve legal privilege. However, given the legal advice that the Ad Hoc Committee received on this matter, and considering what the ombudsman has said about this aspect of the Bill — that is, clause 32(1) and (2) — I am reassured that legal professional privilege is not threatened in a real sense by clause 32. Those who have, properly, raised criticisms about clause 32 should themselves be reassured that it does not stray into that area and that legal privilege is safeguarded in these circumstances.

I wanted to raise that because I know that it was a matter that concerned a number of people, not just the BMA but the Bar Council.

It also concerned the Law Society and others involved in the legal profession, but I think that the House can be assured that, in fact, legal professional privilege is protected, and the Bill continues with that protection.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way because I very much value his assurance that he accepts that legal privilege is being protected, not least given his legal background. An earlier contributor felt that legal advice could be disclosed in the County Courts. I assure Members that that is not the case. The only person who will have access to privileged legal information will be the ombudsman, which will allow him or her to come to the right decision. The ombudsman will not disclose that legal privilege further under any circumstances, so, as Mr Maginness pointed out, that barrier is protected.

Mr A Maginness: I am grateful to Mr Nesbitt for his contribution. It is important to reassure the public generally and legal practitioners. Effectively, there is a firewall for the legal advice that the ombudsman receives, which does not permit such legal advice or information to go further than his office. It is important to remember that.

Another issue relates to clause 30(7)(b) and legal representation. That clause gives the NIPSO discretion to determine whether a person can be legally or otherwise represented. Subsection (7) states:

The BMA raised that matter. It said that the opportunity currently exists in article 12 of the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 for the body complained against to request a formal hearing and be legally represented. The BMA said that, under the Bill, that provision will be removed but that there is a right to legal representation at the ombudsman's discretion. That is correct: if this clause is accepted, there is now a discretion, in certain circumstances, for the ombudsman to permit legal representation.

I am not saying definitively at this point that I disagree with the removal of the automatic right of representation and that the discretion is wrong. What I do raise is the issue of whether the House should consider allowing the current situation to remain — an automatic right to legal representation in certain circumstances — as opposed to a discretion on the part of the ombudsman. I raise the issue because I think that the House should think carefully about this and reflect on it, and it may be that, at Further Consideration Stage, the matter could be re-examined by way of further amendment. Technically, it may prove difficult when considering whether or not that is possible. Nonetheless, the House should be sensitive to the matter and give it special consideration. There is a sense that, if there is not automatic legal representation, then the person or body being investigated would be at a disadvantage.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not speaking as Committee Chairman on this occasion, because I do not think that we have looked at the issue in those terms. You said that we should consider these matters, and I very much agree. Perhaps we should look at the recent example of the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry where, I think, the chair, Sir Anthony Hart, makes the call as to whether individuals or groups should have access to publicly funded legal representation. It may be an idea to examine the efficacy of how that regime has worked heretofore in the HIA inquiry.

Mr A Maginness: The Member makes a very good point. It may well be that the House prefers the new arrangement, or what is posited as the new arrangement, in terms of the ombudsman having that discretion.

I raise these points because I think that, where stakeholders go to the extent of giving evidence to a Committee — the Ad Hoc Committee in this instance — and make representations to individual Committee members and individual political parties in the House, we should at least ventilate those issues so that they are not forgotten about when we consider aspects of this Bill or, indeed, any other legislation.

I will just conclude by speaking about clause 11(b) on an investigation by the ombudsman, which states:

It has been suggested that this is, effectively, a compensatory payment that the ombudsman is imposing on the public body or individual complained about. That is an incorrect interpretation of the previous legislation and what is proposed in this Bill; he is making a recommendation. The whole approach of the ombudsman is to try to reach a settlement, and contained within that settlement is a recommendation. The person or body complained about does not have to accept the recommendation, although it has to be said that, in many instances, it is accepted. However, it is not, in fact, a compensatory payment: that should be made clear. That view has been expressed to the Ad Hoc Committee and to the House, and I think it is incorrect. Yes, in circumstances where the recommendation is rejected, the complainant can go to the County Court in order to have it determine what payment can, in fact, be made and effectively imposed upon the person or body complained about, but that is an entirely different situation. I just wanted to clarify that point, because I think it is important that the legal and factual situation be properly expressed in the House so that people outside are properly informed of the situation.

Mr Allister: There are three groups of amendments to the Bill, and I am going to speak primarily to amendment No 54 initially, because I think it raises a very important issue, touching upon the publication and outcome of complaints.

The presumption at the moment, contrary to the situation that prevails in some other jurisdictions, is that when a complaint is investigated by the ombudsman, the ombudsman's report effectively remains secret. It is not publicised. Indeed, those who bring complaints receive, along with the report, what to them, being unfamiliar with the territory, appears quite an intimidatory letter warning them that they must not disclose the content of the report. I do not think that that is in the public interest.

The issue came to my attention particularly in the aftermath of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) saga, when a complainant made a very legitimate complaint, which was upheld, about how the Department had handled matters touching upon the PMS, yet he got a report in his favour with a severe warning not to publicise the report. Why? Because of the statutory presumption against publication. Was that in the public interest? I think not. I think that there were issues there that required and could have benefited from public knowledge and ventilation.

Then, when a constituent made a very serious and proper complaint against the Northern Trust and had the findings upheld, I asked the Department what action it takes on foot of reports from the ombudsman on health issues. I tabled that question, and it was answered on 17 October 2013. The question was:

I will pause there to suggest that I would have thought that most members of the public would expect that, if there is an adverse finding in respect of how something is being done in the health service, the Minister of Health and the Department of Health would be in a position to monitor how matters have improved and to act upon, and ensure that the trust acts upon, the matters on which they were found wanting. However, the amazing answer from the Minister was:

Here we have a situation under the current regime, which the Bill seeks to preserve, whereby a complaint — to the Northern Trust in this case — finds failures from which others can learn, yet that report is not even within the knowledge of the Department. That is appalling.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. Surely he recognises that, under our proposals, the NIPSO will have the right and the ability to publish when he believes that it is in the public interest.

Mr Allister: I understand that, but, at the moment, there has been no recourse to publication in the public interest. This is about the starting point. What is the starting point? Surely, the starting point should be a presumption in favour of publication, and that is what my amendment says. In circumstances when it is not in the public interest to publicise, you do not do so, but the presumption should be in favour of publication. I find it astounding, in the examples I have given, that there has been no publication of those reports and no assurance under this legislation that there would be publication.

What is the purpose, and where is the public interest, in concealing from the Department of Health findings against some of its arm's-length bodies? Yet, that is what has been happening and could continue to happen unless we take the initiative, reverse the onus and make presumption in favour of publication and cause non-publication to be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

Amendment No 54 is couched in the way it is to reverse that presumption and cause all reports to be publicised on the website, with personal details redacted where that is the request of the individual, organisation or staff within the organisation, unless the ombudsman thinks it would not be in the public interest to publicise the report at all.

What is there to lose with this approach? It is the commonsense, sensible approach to end the nonsense situation in which affected Departments may not even know about reports or that they should be monitoring the implementation of steps taken on the foot of those reports. At present, they are kept in the dark. That is in no one's interests. This is the logic that lies behind amendment No 54. I heard some people comment on it adversely. I trust that they will reconsider and take these points on board.

I was very surprised to hear that the ombudsman raised an objection on resource implications. This amendment calls for the report to be put on the website. Where are the resource implications in putting a report on the ombudsman's website so that anyone can view it, learn from it and avoid the mistakes that were made? There cannot be serious resource implications.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. He has taken good time to make a point he feels strongly about. The Chair of the Committee for OFMDFM responded to make it clear that the power to publish would be provided for in the Bill on the decision of the ombudsman.

One concern raised with the Committee was that the approach being proposed by Mr Allister may, in some way, impede open and frank engagement in the process, while the prospect of greater guaranteed publicity could be a corresponding disincentive. Does he have any view in relation to those concerns?

Mr Allister: It is precisely because of there being some validity attaching to those concerns that the amendment is worded as it is, with the proviso that personal details are redacted upon the request of the person affected. So, yes, someone making a complaint but not wanting to be named across the media as the complainant, or have their details generally publicised, is protected in this amendment to, upon request, have their details redacted, so that no one need, or would, know who they are. Likewise, the person within the establishment who is being complained against, or whoever the individual is, could make that request.

The concern about disincentive is removed by the protection built into the amendment of allowing personal details to be redacted.

The further safety net is the giving to the ombudsperson the right to prevent publication if he thinks that that is in the public interest.

To me, this amendment turns the matter in the right direction by making the presumption and starting point publication subject to redaction, with the public interest recourse only used to prevent publication, rather than saying that there will be no publication unless, in the eyes of the ombudsman and no one else, in the public interest there can be publication. In what is supposed to be an open, transparent society where government and agencies are subject to scrutiny, I have to say that, logically and properly, the onus and the starting point should be a presumption of publication rather than a presumption of concealment. That is what this legislation presently makes as its starting point: concealment of the outcome of reports. I do not think that that is in the public interest. For the reasons that I have given, I recommend that amendment to the House.

The point on amendment Nos 22 and 23 is very simple. Within the education system, there are provisions for staff etc who feel wronged in how they have been treated. However, it is in-house supervision, where the visitors are appointed by the university. It lacks the transparency of a proper public scrutiny. I think it is appropriate that, if we are bringing the universities into the ambit of this Bill, we should bring all of their administration within the ambit of this Bill; not just how they deal with students but how they deal with staff. There have been a number of pretty dissatisfactory outcomes in respect of staff and visitor arrangements, so I think that there is nothing to lose by that.

On amendment Nos 58 and 59 I simply make the point that if local Ministers are to have the power under clause 41 to serve a notice preventing disclosure of documents prejudiced to the safety of Northern Ireland and therefore contrary to the public interest, it strikes me as rather incongruous that, if the Secretary of State is to exercise that function, she exercises it within the ambit of a memorandum of understanding with the ombudsman, but, if the local Minister is to exercise that function of preventing disclosure of documentation, he can do it at large with no restraint of any memorandum of understanding. I want to balance up that territory and say, if a memorandum of understanding is required for one, why not the other? Within both, there may need to be the protections that a memorandum of understanding would provide against unwarranted recourse to preventing disclosure by adopting the language that is easy to adopt, namely that this would be prejudicial to the interests or safety of Northern Ireland. Just as you would expect it for the Secretary of State, I would expect for any of the Ministers given that power the same memorandum of understanding or a parallel one to cover them. That is the logic and reason for those two amendments.

Mr Lyttle (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I welcome the opportunity to wind up this group of amendments. I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. There has been a constructive engagement on the amendments throughout.

The Chairperson of the Committee for OFMDFM set out its position on the amendments in effective detail, and I will not go through that again. Lord Morrow, as Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee, did the same. In particular, in response to the seeking of clarity on provisions relating to universities and theological colleges, he expressed reassurance. We then heard from a number of Members on the amendments.

Mr Maskey, on behalf of Sinn Féin, outlined support for the Bill, notwithstanding the objections consistently presented at Committee Stage to the appointment process and provisions for arrangements with the Secretary of State. He stated that the bringing together of the Commissioner for Complaints and the ombudsman was positive and that he hoped that that would enhance protection for the public in the delivery of public services. He also noted, helpfully, that the majority of our public servants seek to deliver an effective service with the utmost integrity at all times. He noted, as the Committee did, that Sinn Féin will oppose amendment Nos 22, 23, 54, 58 and 59.

Mr Maginness, on behalf of the SDLP, raised important points on clause 32(1)(2). He outlined how concerns about legal privilege, which were raised by stakeholders such as the BMA, the Bar Council and the Law Society, have been capably addressed. We also heard from the Chairperson, who spoke to reassure those bodies that legal professional privilege would not be altered by the Bill.

Mr Maginness also addressed clause 30 (7)(b) and asked for reflection on the introduction of discretion for the ombudsman to permit legal representation. The Chairperson of the Committee for OFMDFM gave the helpful example of the arrangements in place for the chair of the historical abuse inquiry, which may be worth examining.

Mr Allister spoke to the amendments that he tabled, and the Chairperson of the Committee for OFMDFM and I responded. On amendment No 54, the Chairperson and members of the Committee for OFMDFM are content that clause 34(2)(d) makes provision for a report to be provided to any person whom the ombudsman considers appropriate. Indeed, it creates the power for the ombudsman to publish a report when it is in the public interest to do so.

The Committee did not feel that the case had been made to reverse that arrangement, and we certainly do not agree with Mr Allister that the provisions proposed are in any way akin to concealment. This is very much about creating a system in which members of the public feel at ease and have a clear pathway to raising with the ombudsman's office their concerns about the delivery of public services. Of course, it is also about ensuring that, where the findings of any investigation are in the public interest, they are made fully and publicly available, and that any other persons whom the ombudsman considers appropriate are notified.

The Committee did not think that the case had been made for amendment Nos 22, 23, 58 and 59, and, as mentioned, will oppose them at this stage.

In closing, I add my thanks to the officials who worked tirelessly on this group of amendments; the ombudsman, who engaged effectively; all stakeholders; the Ad Hoc Committee; and Members who contributed to this stage of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: You are getting good at this, Mr Nesbitt.

The Question is that clause 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say Aye.

Mr Nesbitt: Aye.

Mr Speaker: Contrary, No.

Mr Speaker: I am glad that the Ulster-Scots vote has been heard there.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Nesbitt to move formally amendment No. 15.

Mr Nesbitt: Moved.

Mr Speaker: That is very moving.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 21 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 22.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 22, as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 21, which has been made.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Nesbitt to move formally amendment No 24. Amendment proposed —

I call Mr Nesbitt to move formally amendment —

I beg your pardon. Amendment No 24.

Mr Nesbitt: I thought that we were getting good at this. Moved, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: You are getting good at it. I am getting worse.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 25 has already been debated.

Mr Speaker: You know that the Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm. We can either take our ease until then or start the next group. I see you nodding. We will proceed and go as far as we can.

We now come to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 27, it will be convenient to debate the other amendments in this group that deal with the complaints handling procedure. Members should note that amendments Nos 46 and 47 are both consequential to amendment No 45; amendment No 48 is consequential to amendment No 47; amendment No 49 is consequential to amendments Nos 47 and 48; amendment No 51 is consequential to amendments Nos 46 and 48; amendment No 65 is consequential to amendment No 44; amendment No 67 is consequential to amendment No 47; amendment No 69 is consequential to amendment No 45; amendment No 71 is consequential to amendment No 44; and amendment No 75 is consequential to amendments Nos 45 to 52.

If all that is clear, I call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, Mr Mike Nesbitt, to move amendment No 27 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Nesbitt: I beg to move amendment No 27:

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These amendments were brought forward by the Committee for OFMDFM in the light of submissions received by the Ad Hoc Committee in relation to provisions for complaints handling procedures that were introduced in Scotland by the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The Scottish ombudsman made a submission to the Ad Hoc Committee and with reference to the ombudsman’s complaints standards team, which implemented changes, the ombudsman had this to say:

The Ad Hoc Committee also sought the views of the ombudsman on the proposal, who advised that his office’s research suggested the need for common complaints standards, principles and procedures across the public sector in Northern Ireland.

He believed that a complaints standards role for the NIPSO would not only facilitate the development of complaints handling in Northern Ireland, but would allow the Assembly and the Executive to make meaningful comparisons between the performance of bodies in each sector.

In light of the broad support for the proposals, the OFMDFM Committee agreed to bring these amendments. While the cost of introducing these changes in Scotland was relatively modest, the Committee agreed to leave commencement of these provisions to the Assembly Commission in light of current and ongoing financial constraints and with the hope that they will be commenced as soon as the necessary resources can be reasonably found.

Amendment No 27 aims to replace the phrase "complaints procedure" in clause 24 with the phrase "complaints handling procedure", as do amendment Nos 29, 30 to 33 and 35. These amendments would pave the way for the new Part 3 of the Bill, which would deal with complaints handling procedure, as, indeed, would amendment No 34.

Amendments No 44 to 52 inclusive aim to introduce the new Part 3 into the Bill. That is closely modelled on the system in place in Scotland. Amendment No 44 aims to define the meaning of a complaints handling procedure (CHP). Amendment No 45 would require the NIPSO to consult Ministers and others on a draft statement of principles concerning complaints handling procedures and to have regard to any representations made. The NIPSO would then have to lay a draft statement of principles before the Assembly for approval and, subject to that approval, publish it. A similar procedure would apply to any revisions of those principles.

Amendment No 46 would require a listed authority to have a complaints handling procedure that complies with the statement of principles. Amendment No 47 would authorise the NIPSO to publish model complaints handling procedures that comply with the statement of principles after consultation with such listed authorities and others as the NIPSO thinks fit. Any revisions, again, would follow a similar process.

Amendment No 48 would provide that, where the NIPSO specifies a listed authority to which a model complaints handling procedure is relevant, that authority must ensure that its procedure complies with the model CHP and send a description of its procedure to the NIPSO within six months. Amendment No 49 would provide that the NIPSO may make a declaration that a procedure does not comply with a specified model CHP or with a statement of principles. The NIPSO would then have to give reasons and specify required modifications. A listed authority would then have to resubmit its procedure within two months, having taken account of the modifications.

Amendment No 50 would provide a general duty for a listed authority to submit a copy of its CHP to the NIPSO within three months of the NIPSO so directing, and such additional information in relation to the procedure as the NIPSO may reasonably request. Amendment No 51 would provide that the duties in amendment Nos 46, 47 and 48 would not apply where this would be inconsistent with any other statutory provision or where the listed authority would lack the necessary powers to ensure compliance with the duties.

Amendment No 52 would require the NIPSO to monitor the complaints handling practices of listed authorities and identify trends, promote best practice, and encourage cooperation and the sharing of best practice. Listed authorities would have to cooperate with the NIPSO in that regard, unless they lacked the power to do so or so doing would be inconsistent with any other statutory provision.

Mr Speaker, let me just amend what I said about amendment No 51: it would apply to duties in amendment Nos 46 and 48, not No 47.

Amendment Nos 65, 67 and 69 point the reader towards the relevant provisions that define key terms dealing with complaints handling procedures. Amendment No 71 would provide for commencement on the day after Royal Assent of the proposed new clause that would be inserted by amendment No 44, which would define "complaints handling procedure". That is necessary because the definition is required for other provisions of the Bill, not just the new Part 3.

Finally, amendment No 75 would provide that the other provisions in the proposed new Part 3 of the Bill would come into operation on such day as the Assembly Commission may, by order, appoint. That concludes my remarks on the third group of amendments.

Lord Morrow: The Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill did not have sight of these amendments prior to its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny, and therefore there is no Ad Hoc Committee position on these amendments. However, I do wish to outline briefly the Committee's consideration of the role of the NIPSO in respect of complaints handling procedure.

The Committee noted ongoing communication between the Northern Ireland Ombudsman and the Committee for OFMDFM in relation to the potential for the NIPSO to play a design authority role in the public-sector complaints process and noted, indeed, that this was one of the themes in the Committee for OFMDFM's original consultation in 2010. The Committee noted that the Committee for OFMDFM and the ombudsman were initially of the view that the improvement of public complaint handling would be addressed through the investigation of complaints and resultant recommendations to the listed authorities involved, and noted that both were mindful of the potential resource implications for that additional role in the current financial climate.

The Ad Hoc Committee received correspondence from the ombudsman in June, providing details of legislation introduced in Scotland in 2010 that provided for the Scottish ombudsman to publish a model complaints handling procedure for listed authorities and compel bodies to adopt the model complaints handling policy. The NI Ombudsman regards uniformity of approach to complaints handling across all public services to be important, as the public are then aware of a simple streamlined approach and their right to complain to the ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied having exhausted the internal process of the listed authority.

The ombudsman's office published research into complaints handling in public-sector bodies in 2014, and the report on that research highlighted the need for complaints standards procedures, given the confusion experienced by the public when attempting to negotiate what the ombudsman referred to as "the complaints maze". The Committee noted that, as a result, the ombudsman now believes that such a complaints standards authority role for the NIPSO would facilitate refinement and development in handling public-sector complaints in Northern Ireland and noted that the Committee for OFMDFM, in consideration of the ombudsman's views, now also sees merit in such a role for the NIPSO, modelled on that of the Scottish ombudsman and subject to commencement by the Assembly Commission, dependent on the availability of resources for implementation.

The Ad Hoc Committee noted those developments but did not have sight of the Committee for OFMDFM's amendments on that additional role for the NIPSO prior to the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and, therefore, did not take a view on those amendments.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. When we return, the first item of business will be Question Time.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): The operational effectiveness of the 11 new PSNI district command units, established to match the current council structure, is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Policing Board. While fully respecting his operational independence, I have regular discussions with the Chief Constable in relation to the outcome of operational decisions properly taken by him and what steps I might take to support the PSNI in delivering its policing plan.

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Minister for his answer. I would like to record my dismay at the Minister failing to respond to the Adjournment debate on the topic that I tabled back in March about how the new structures would affect my constituents. Does the Minister not share the concerns of my constituents and of businesses about a town the size of Banbridge that is left without any response units?

Mr Ford: I am sorry, Deputy Speaker, but, as Minister, I simply cannot respond to points that are operational issues for the Chief Constable. Members may have a certain frustration about that, but that is the reality of the policing structures that exist in Northern Ireland. Indeed, if we look back at events perhaps 40 years ago in our history, we can see that there are good reasons why politicians should not get involved in operational policing issues. Whilst Mrs Dobson may well have genuine and reasonable concerns about policing in Banbridge, that is an issue that she must raise with the district commander and/or with the Chief Constable, but, I am afraid, not with me.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I omitted to advise Members that question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr Ford: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the comments that were recently attributed to me in the Belfast 'News Letter'. I should start by setting the context for the meeting at which the alleged comment was made. It was arranged to discuss a specific life sentence prisoner who could benefit from early release arrangements as a result of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. It was not a discussion on the workings of the historical investigations unit (HIU).

In response to a question about the potential for changing the legislation in the area of home leave for early releases, I advised that that would require a change to Westminster legislation and that the issue in the future may affect only a very small number of prisoners. The comment was not made in relation to the likely number of convictions or the potential for prosecutions resulting from any investigations by the proposed HIU, as has been erroneously reported. A letter was published by the 'News Letter' correcting this serious misrepresentation of my comments on 10 October.

I have said previously and I emphasise again today that the HIU presents a unique opportunity for us to ensure that victims and relatives receive an independent, article 2-compliant investigation into the death of their loved one. I again urge my political colleagues to work together to resolve the current political challenges and ensure that the Stormont House Agreement is implemented in full in order that victims can receive the truth and justice that they deserve.

Mr Allister: Is the Minister not attempting but failing to be too smart by half in suggesting that he was talking about those who might, because of early release, be subject to these provisions of weekend release etc, when the reality is that people are going to be in that position only on foot of being convicted and subject to the 1998 arrangements through which they get early release? Therefore, it is a matter of the Justice Minister effectively saying that he expects only one or two convictions that would put people in that position. Does that not suggest that the HIU is window dressing, meant to placate victims, but that, in fact, it will ultimately deliver very little, at huge expense, and create further frustration for innocent victims?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has asked his question.

Mr Allister: Is it not clear that that is the Minister's position?

Mr Ford: I am not sure that I should take any lessons about being too smart by half from Mr Allister, who seems to manage that quite frequently. I said exactly what I believe to be the truth, and I repeat that that was a truthful account of the circumstances. We were talking about the specifics of the possibility of somebody who, in the context of that particular case, lived close to the widow of the person who had been murdered, and who received home leave because of a quirk in the arrangements for those who receive life sentences being entitled to early release, even though they may also benefit from the Sentences Act, but it cannot be certain at any point that they will receive the benefit. It is a very limited number and is nothing to do with the principle of the HIU.

Whatever Mr Allister may wish to denigrate the attempts that some of us are making to ensure that victims receive justice or, if they cannot receive justice, receive the truth, I will continue to do that regardless of his attempts to denigrate it.

Mr A Maginness: Despite Mr Allister's negative approach to the HIU, will the Minister reassure the House that it is a valuable and necessary part of the Stormont House Agreement in addressing the past and giving some clear answers to the relatives of those who were slain during the Troubles?

Mr Ford: I am happy to agree with Mr Maginness's point. There is no doubt that there are those who continue to suffer, not least because of the fact that they have not received answers to matters relating to the death of their loved ones. I believe that the HIU has a very significant role that it can fulfill. It emphasises the importance, particularly on a day like today, of ensuring that we address those issues, meet the needs of those families who are suffering and get away from some of the misrepresentation about the HIU and what its effect would be and the kind of talk that has appeared in some of the media about amnesties. People need to look at the reality of what was agreed at Stormont House, and the politicians who are involved in the ongoing discussions need to ensure that we deliver and deliver speedily for the benefit of those bereaved families.

Mr Lyttle: Will the Minister of Justice confirm that there is no provision for amnesties in any part of the legacy arrangements proposed in the Stormont House Agreement? Will he also confirm that the core aim of that work is to improve access to justice, information and services for victims and survivors?

Mr Ford: I am happy to confirm that point. As I hinted in my response to Mr Maginness; unfortunately, there was a suggestion in one particular newspaper, which should not be dignified by being named here, that the proposals for the HIU would amount to an amnesty. A few days later, it announced that, as a result of its campaign, there would not be an amnesty.

Anybody who reads the words of the Stormont House Agreement will be absolutely clear that the provisions for limited immunity relate to only the information provided by an individual. If prosecutions are possible against that individual because of other information, those prosecutions will be taken. It is not an amnesty; it is a proper article 2 compliant investigation, and I want to see it in place as soon as possible.

Mr Ford: My Department is responsible for progressing the establishment of the independent historical investigations unit, which will investigate outstanding Troubles-related deaths and take on the legacy work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police Ombudsman. My officials continue to work with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to finalise the legislation that will, among other things, establish the HIU.

The legislation to deliver those elements, in the form of the Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill, is, of course, subject to the ongoing political talks. My officials have also commenced work on preparing for the implementation of the HIU, and, subject to political talks, that work will progress whilst the legislation is being debated in Parliament.

I have stated previously that the Stormont House Agreement Bill, and the HIU in particular, represents a unique opportunity to address some of the difficult issues of our past. I once again urge the parties to work creatively to reach political agreement. We simply cannot afford to miss the chance finally to build structures that are capable of dealing with our troubled past.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister for that. Given the publication earlier today of the assessment of parliamentary groups in Northern Ireland that was commissioned by the Secretary of State and the suggestion — the clear suggestion — that the deputy First Minister takes his instructions from the army council of the Provisional IRA, will the Minister agree with me that there can be no role for OFMDFM in the appointment of the director of the historical investigations unit?

Mr Ford: I am happy to agree with the point that Mr Nesbitt made — although I made that point before we got today's report — on the clear basis that I am keen to see the HIU operating as a policing body in line with the structures that we have for policing in Northern Ireland. On that basis, the appropriate body to make the appointment would be the Policing Board; not the DOJ, not OFMDFM, and not OFMDFM in consultation with the DOJ. I am quite happy to endorse Mr Nesbitt's points, although I think that I preceded him.

Mr B McCrea: I listened carefully to the Minister's answer when he said that we had to deal with our troubled past. I will follow on from Mr Nesbitt's question: where does the Minister think that we go from here, given that we have now discovered that everybody is still around and active in one shape or another? How can we deal with our troubled past if we will not accept what is going on in the present?

Mr Ford: Before people make detailed comments on the issues in today's report, I think that we need to look at the detail of the report and how it reflects on the activities and structures of a range of organisations. It is clear from the report that the leadership of all the organisations named, apart from the dissidents, is clearly on a path to a different future. I believe that that puts us into a different place, but, sadly, there does not seem to have been a great deal of progress since the last report from the Independent Monitoring Commission in 2011. The important issue is that we see leadership from political parties, complete the journey away from paramilitarism and violence and ensure that we provide an entirely normal and peaceful democratic society for our people in as short a time as is possible and realistic.

Mr Ford: The specific financial impact of alcohol and drugs to my Department has not been formally assessed. However, I have no doubt that substance misuse has an impact on expenditure in my Department, the Executive and the wider public sector.

Research on the impact of alcohol alone identified the cost to Northern Ireland to be around £900 million a year, with an annual cost to the Fire Service and the Police Service of up to £280 million and a cost of up to £104 million to the courts and prisons. Clearly, if costs associated with drug misuse were included, those figures would be significantly higher.

Responding to the overall impacts of substance misuse is a key focus of the Executive’s new strategic direction on alcohol and drugs. Although the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety leads on delivery, my Department is a key contributor to that work. That contribution includes the work of the Probation Board and the Youth Justice Agency to assess the treatment needs of offenders and to refer them to the appropriate support services. The Prison Service, working with health partners, also provides a continuum of treatment and support for those returning to the community.

While working in an environment of financial constraints, my Department remains committed to working with others to tackle the misuse of these substances across Northern Ireland.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh míle maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer thus far. The issue is certainly getting worse in many communities across the North. What type of strategy has the Minister put in place with other Departments and agencies to try to deal effectively with this most serious of problems?

Mr Ford: As I said in my preliminary answer, the key issue is the Executive's new strategic direction on alcohol and drugs, whereby my Department plays a secondary role to the Department of Health — these issues predominantly relate to health — although, clearly, significant issues of criminal activity related to drug use also need to be addressed. There has been an increase in the number of drug seizures and prosecutions in recent years. It is not entirely clear whether that is an indication of increased criminal activity or whether better police activity is leading to more prosecutions. It is certainly a major priority for the PSNI and for a number of policing and community safety partnerships as well as the wider issues relating to Health and other Departments.

Mr Ford: Members will know that, as chair of the Organised Crime Task Force and as Justice Minister, I welcomed the passage of the legislation to give the National Crime Agency (NCA) a role here, which fits within our policing structures, in the devolved sphere from 20 May. I know — I discussed this with the director general on 1 October — that the NCA is making a significant contribution. That is reflected in the breadth and nature of its new activity and the enhanced support that it has been able to provide to law enforcement partners, especially the PSNI.

Significant elements of that include a joint PSNI and NCA investigation into the online access to and sharing of indecent images of children, which resulted in a number of searches and arrests. There have also been complex investigations originating outside Northern Ireland, which have spread to Northern Ireland, involving crimes such as drug offences. Those investigations have benefited from the NCA's broader reach across jurisdictions, as well as its ability to exercise constabulary powers within Northern Ireland.

Mr Rogers: I thank the Minister for his response. Given the Secretary of State's statement today, which says that members of parliamentary groups continue to be engaged in violent activity that is directed by local leadership and conducted without sanction, will the PSNI be able to work with the NCA to deal with this problem?

Mr Ford: Mr Rogers make a valid point about today's report, but I am not sure whether the PSNI and the NCA cooperating on issues like this required that report. Of course, the NCA has other powers that were not available before 20 May, such as asset seizures, and I have no doubt that there will be movement in an area in which progress had slowed because of the inability of the NCA to operate for 18 months. Clearly, there are a number of issues. It also relates to a number of cross-border or near-border crimes, in particular. Fuel laundering has a habit of being concentrated around the border, and there is no doubt that the smuggling of tobacco and fuel is a significant issue. It is not simply a matter of the NCA cooperating with the PSNI; it is also about good work with other bodies, particularly an Garda Síochána, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and HMRC, to ensure a joined-up approach against all of those crimes.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Given the undoubted success of the National Crime Agency in tackling serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that the parties that thwarted efforts to enable the NCA to operate fully in the war against crime here made a major tactical blunder ?

Mr Ford: I thank Mrs Overend for the support that she and her colleagues gave to my efforts to get the NCA operational. Time will tell whether the lengthy debates on the fine-tuning of the details of police accountability mechanisms achieved significant changes beyond what was achieved from the early contact that I had with the Home Office. The important thing is that the NCA is now fully operational and is able to carry out its operations in the devolved sphere and work in the kind of partnerships that I just outlined to Mr Rogers.

Mr Ford: Section 8 of the Coroners Act 1959 places a duty on the PSNI to support the coroner's investigation into a death by providing him with all relevant information that it holds concerning that death. I fully recognise the importance of that disclosure in ensuring an effective investigation into a death, compliant with article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The process can be challenging, given the volume of material that may be relevant and the need for any redactions to protect individuals' rights under article 2 or article 8, or to protect national security.

The current draft Stormont House Agreement Bill includes proposals to regulate the onward disclosure of information by the historical investigations unit. The proposals remain subject to political discussion.

I am working to ensure that inquests can proceed in as timely a way as possible. Yesterday, I signed a commencement order that will make the Lord Chief Justice president of the Coroners' Courts with effect from 1 November. That will provide significant judicial leadership in addressing the problems and support a judicially led assessment of the state of readiness of the legacy inquest caseload.

To complement that work, I am inviting Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) to undertake a review of the PSNI disclosure arrangements in support of the inquest and in discharge of its statutory duty.

I previously informed the House of other measures to improve the operation of inquests. There is no single answer to the challenge of legacy inquests. I am, however, taking all reasonable measures within my power, and working with other bodies and the judiciary, to improve the system so that it better delivers for bereaved families.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that, where disclosure is prevented, there is the probability of an attempt to pervert the course of justice by covering up the criminal activity that was endemic due to the policy of collusion?

Mr Ford: No, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Kennedy: I welcome the Minister's remarks. Can he outline the steps and measures that he is prepared to take to ensure that in legacy inquests at the Coroners' Court there will not be an exclusive and unfair focus on the state and security forces? How does he intend to address the concerns of a great many of us that there are those in political parties and other groups who seek to use the coronial system to simply rewrite the history of the Troubles?

Mr Ford: While I appreciate the point that Mr Kennedy is trying to make, I am not sure whether I actually have any powers to deal with the issues to which he refers. There is no doubt that the issue of the reopening of inquests is something which falls entirely to the Attorney General. Members may have seen the recent legal challenge around that point. I understand that something like 32 of those cases which have been re-referred by the Attorney General involve military witnesses, so there may well be a perception in some quarters. The reality is that the Attorney General reorders inquests on the basis of his best responsibilities as law officer. On that basis, the Courts and Tribunals Service makes the practical arrangements, working with coroners, to deliver those inquests. It is an issue that I believe might perhaps have been better addressed if there had been something like the historical institutional abuse inquiry to deal with legacy inquests, but we are where we are on the basis that there was no political agreement. In the meantime, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary will, I am sure, continue to carry out their obligations without any favour in either direction.

Mr Ford: Significant achievements have been made under the tackling violence at home strategy since it was introduced in 2005. These have included the introduction of multi-agency risk assessment conferencing; a 24-hour domestic-violence Freephone helpline, which expanded last year to include sexual violence; a number of domestic-violence media campaigns; and the introduction of routine enquiry in maternity units to encourage disclosure of domestic violence.

Within my Department, I have increased access to legal aid for victims to apply for non-molestation orders and piloted a new court listing arrangement in Derry, which seeks to improve the victim experience at court. In addition, integrated domestic abuse programmes, which encourage convicted perpetrators of domestic violence to take responsibility for their behaviour, have been developed and delivered.

I made provision in the Justice Act 2015 for domestic violence protection notices and orders, which protect victims of domestic violence who may be at risk of immediate harm and danger.

Looking to the future, my Department aims to build on these successes. On 24 September, an official briefed the Committee for Justice on the stopping domestic and sexual violence and abuse strategy. Consideration continues to be given as to how the aims of this strategy may be progressed by my Department and DHSSPS in the current difficult financial environment. The publication of the final strategy will be subject to clearance by the Health Minister and the Executive. In the meantime, I have instructed officials to take forward the implementation of justice priorities within that strategy.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome many of the steps which many agencies have taken in relation to domestic violence, and the Minister has outlined a number of them. In the absence of the strategy being rolled out, would the Minister give the House an assurance that it is not a budgetary requirement or deficit that prevents him from rolling out the strategy?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr McCartney for his general support of the process as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee. I cannot say whether it is a budgetary issue. The reality is that the budgetary costs to the Department of Justice are, I believe, manageable given the priority which we have put to dealing with domestic and sexual violence. It is not for me to speak for the Health Minister — when we have one — as to the priorities of that Department. I believe that the work that we are doing, which has been outlined to the Committee, whether on issues like the court listing arrangements, looking at domestic homicide reviews or looking at disclosure arrangements, is important for my Department to carry through. We will continue to do that work whilst hoping that we can get agreement about a joined-up strategy that will be fully comprehensive and better meet the needs of society.

Mr Dallat: I have listened very carefully to the Minister from this gathering of exclusively male political intellectuals. I just wonder whether he accepts that the vast majority of domestic violence cases are against women?

Does he recognise the wonderful work of Women's Aid, and has he sought its advice on putting together a strategy that might well address a very serious problem that, for most of the time, is kept quiet and under the carpet?

Mr Ford: Mr Dallat recounts that this is currently an exclusively male gathering, and it appears to be the case. I am sure, however, that he was glued to Radio Ulster at 6.05 pm last Friday to hear his colleague Dolores Kelly discuss the issue of domestic violence with me. Indeed, he might have noticed how full of praise Mrs Kelly was for the work that is being done by the DOJ, and I am sad that he did not manage to quote that.

It is certainly the case that the vast majority of victims of domestic and sexual violence are female, or, indeed, their children. They also suffer, whether directly or indirectly, because of violence in the home. On that basis, my understanding is that, as the strategy was being prepared, Women's Aid was one of a number of organisations that contributed. The challenge at this stage is not to have prepared the strategy but to put it into action. That is why, as I said to Mr McCartney, the DOJ is doing what it can on its responsible actions, but we really need agreement from the Minister of Health and the Executive, in a fully working arrangement, to ensure that we can carry the strategy forward in a comprehensive way.

Mr McCarthy: Does the Minister agree that the lack of Executive agreement on a domestic and sexual violence strategy is a direct consequence of the DUP's crazy in-out shenanigans over its ministerial responsibilities?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr McCarthy for his question. The current position is a consequence of the in-out ministerial thing, where, sadly, for a few minutes a week, we seem to have a Minister of Health, and so on. The Minister of Health has not found time to engage on the issue. Unfortunately, however, there were issues before now, and we did not deal with the matter as speedily as we should have done. I believe that my Department did all that it could on the work on the joint strategy but it is not for me to speak for the Department of Health. I just want to see Ministers back at work, the Executive functioning, the strategy agreed and all the action plans — the health bits as well as the justice bits, and also those bits that relate to other Departments in smaller areas — fully implemented.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Patsy McGlone is not in his place. Michael McGimpsey is not in his place. Pat Ramsey is not in his place. I call Colum Eastwood.

Mr Ford: The annual cross-border organised crime conference, attended by law enforcement officers and policymakers, was held on 30 September and 1 October. Over 100 delegates from North and South attended. This year's conference title was 'One step ahead — jointly meeting the threat'. The conference was opened by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald TD; the Garda Commissioner, Nóirín O'Sullivan; the Chief Constable of the PSNI, George Hamilton; and me.

There were presentations and workshops on the illegal production of counterfeit goods, emerging technologies, foreign-national organised crime groups and the new fuel marker. The aim was to identify and consider new and developing organised crime threats; to further develop cooperation and partnership working across the border; to exchange ideas on best practice; and to consider lessons learned in order to enhance the response to organised crime in both jurisdictions.

Mr Eastwood: I thank the Minister for his answer thus far. Given the very recent tragedy of the murder of the guard across the border and the fact that the culprit was somebody from the North, is he confident that appropriate levels of intelligence-sharing are happening to ensure that those kinds of things cannot happen again?

Mr Ford: I think that Mr Eastwood has slightly expanded beyond the remit of the original question, Mr Deputy Speaker. The death of Garda Tony Golden was a great tragedy and the result of criminal activity perpetrated by somebody who originally lived in Northern Ireland and was then living in the Republic.

The issue of the organised crime response is not particularly relevant to such things, but, as I said, in the context of how we ensure the best possible public protection and how we deal with issues that relate to domestic and sexual violence, it may well be that we have a greater need to see matters joined up across the border when people move in that way.

I am not sure that I can say that the intelligence was necessarily shared exactly as it might have been in that particular case, but it is something that I have given a commitment to look at with my Department and in conjunction with the Department of Justice and Equality as part of our ongoing cross-border work.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of our period for listed questions. We will now move to topical questions.

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Allen for the question, and I think that I can now formally welcome him to his first time at Justice questions and to his first chance to ask a question.

The ongoing work on the details of getting rid of peace walls has been fairly significant for my Department. Work has been done by staff from Ulster University looking at how that is operating, and there is ongoing work looking at the best way of joining up the work that we do with that of other agencies. I am not in a position to present a formal report at this stage, but I believe that the contribution of the academics who have looked at the work from a slightly external position has been of benefit to my staff. There has certainly been very close engagement over the last while in dealing with that, and I think that it is something that shows the benefits of looking in a slightly wider way at some of the responsibilities that we have in government and of learning from that.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his response. Can the Minister outline when he expects the results of the attitudes to peace walls survey to be released?

Mr Ford: I think that the next round of that survey is due to be released within the next few weeks. I will certainly see that, whenever it is released, it is placed in the Assembly Library, and Members will be informed of that. It is clear that, when he talked about attitudes to peace walls, Mr Allen raised a very significant issue, because there is no doubt that there are still those who feel the need for physical protection, particularly if they live close to interface structures, yet there are many others who recognise that the best interests of society are served by the removal of those structures, when we can deal with those genuine fears amongst those who live close to them. We will not develop a normal society, we will not grow our economy and we will not be able to move away from the issues of the past if we cannot continue the action that has seen six interface structures removed during my time as Minister and significant engagement on many others.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member listed for topical question 2 has withdrawn his name.

Mr Ford: That sounds like a question that has a well-prepared supplementary, and I congratulate Mr Rogers for that. I cannot at this stage give an assessment of expenditure in Northern Ireland compared with other neighbouring jurisdictions in the way that he has asked. Sadly, Ministers do not always have every last bit of detail at their fingertips when they answer topical questions, but if he wishes to expand on it in a supplementary, I will do my best either to answer or to see that we provide the information later.

Mr Rogers: You guessed right. Do you believe, Minister, that effective early intervention in the home and school would have a significant impact on the spend of your budget and that you could spend it in other ways, rather than having so much spent on education?

Mr Ford: I am certainly happy to agree with Mr Rogers on the point about the need for early intervention, which is a critical issue. When I look at early intervention, I can see it in two different categories. One is the very early life interventions, and the Department of Justice contributes to some of those projects on a cross-departmental basis even though, in very blunt terms, we are unlikely to see the benefit of that intervention in the DOJ for 12 or 14 years until young children have grown up and might become nuisances or criminals, whereas Education and Health will see their response back very quickly. I believe that, as part of a commitment to a joined-up approach, that is necessary.

I also think that, particularly through the work of PCSPs and others, we are seeing some good being done with young teenagers who are in danger of getting into trouble. I remember that, a couple of years ago, I saw three different projects within the space of about six weeks that were all doing that kind of work. They were organised by different organisations in different parts of Northern Ireland, but each was, fundamentally, about establishing personal relationships and providing good role models for young people. They were all excellent examples of how very modest investments were helping young people to stay out of trouble. I am committed to supporting that as best I can, given current budgetary constraints.

Mr Ford: I am not in a position to give any assessment of what the public interest would be in that particular context. Ms Boyle, as a relevant constituency MLA, may have some slightly more specific ideas than I do, but the reality is that there are reasons why, at times, public interest immunity certificates are granted. Those do not fall to me — they tend to fall to the Secretary of State — so it would be very difficult for me to give any detail on that.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat. Minister, obviously you are the Minister, and people will look to you for public confidence. I am sure that you will join with me at this time in saying that our thoughts and prayers go out to the Arkinson family in seeking justice for Arlene. However, Minister, do you accept that many people believe that Robert Howard was an RUC Special Branch informant who was shielded by it from prosecution at that time and that the Chief Constable should state why public interest immunity has been sought?

Mr Ford: I cannot possibly answer that question. It may well be the case that individuals have concerns, but my Department does not have any responsibility for that issue.

Mr Ford: I share the concerns that Mr Dallat has expressed about the behaviour of the UDA in his constituency and in the north Antrim area. Clearly, there are still those who think that they have rights to act in a way that they never legitimately had. When we look at the report just published by the Secretary of State this afternoon and see the discussion on the statement that was happening in the House of Commons as I came into the Chamber, it is clear that there is now a major issue to be addressed in recognising that organisations that have moved to some extent since Good Friday 1998 need to complete the journey away from paramilitarism, violence, threat and the criminal activities that so many of them are involved in.

Mr Dallat: I thank the Minister for what I think is a very honest answer. Does he agree with me that there has never been a greater yearning to face a future that embraces everybody and leaves behind a past that failed everybody? Does he have the resources to be part of that? Is he on board?

Mr Ford: Mr Dallat can rest assured that the Department of Justice and the agencies with which we work are on board to establish a peaceful, lawful society. It is not just an issue for the criminal justice system; it is an issue that requires a joined-up approach and which, most of all, requires the five parties and the two Governments meeting in Stormont House — I trust, tomorrow morning — to get on with dealing with those issues in a realistic, meaningful, joined-up way so that we can put paramilitarism behind us and see, in the shortest timescale possible, an end to those activities that were reported as still being in existence today.

Mr Ford: I cannot say that any specific assessment has been given. Mr McKinney speaks about Ballymena, and there are issues around the Railway Street project, which was funded in part by the Department of Justice. Frankly, it was not possible to continue to fund that at the previous level. There was no pleasure in withdrawing funding from that; it was the reality of the world in which we live. The failure to resolve significant financial issues and the problems that the Executive have had collectively in setting up a Budget has made it very difficult to do the work that we need to do. It is difficult to put the money into prevention in the way that we wish when we do not have the money that we need to deal with today's problems

Mr McKinney: Earlier, the Minister reflected on how it might take 12 to 14 years to feel the benefit of an education intervention, but, clearly, this type of intervention could pitch up on the Minister's desk much sooner than that. Does he recognise that fact, and what conversations could he have with the Department of Health to mitigate it?

Mr Ford: I take Mr McKinney's point slightly. I think that I actually said that, in the context of early childhood interventions, the Department of Justice might well take 12 to 14 years to get its benefit, whereas the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education could see the benefits within two to three years. He is right to highlight that there can well be problems if we fail to deal with issues like addiction and that it can lead to costs for the criminal justice system at a fairly speedy rate. Nonetheless, the fact remains that we do not have the budget to do all that we need to do. Difficult decisions have been made. Prioritisation has happened. His colleague has just highlighted the issue of ongoing paramilitary violence, and that also needs to be considered. We cannot do all that we wish in current circumstances, but, if Members could see their way to ensuring that we get the necessary financial arrangements made, if we could see workable budgets and if we could set out plans that actually put into practice what the Programme for Government is supposed to talk about, we would be in a better position.

Mr Ford: I cannot give any specific assessment of that, but Members will be well aware of assessments that have been made by others, notably in the Republic in recent times, that suggest that substantial assets are held. That is another reason why it was good to get the NCA operational. It is also the reason why we need all the relevant bodies. It is not just about the PSNI and the Garda Síochána; a range of bodies on both sides of the border need to carry out actions against those who hoard assets as a result of criminal activity directed against this society.

Mr Eastwood: I thank the Minister for his answer. He is right: it was good to get the NCA operational. It was only after a lot of work was done by this party to ensure that it was properly accountable. Can he give us his assessment of how much in criminal assets has actually been recovered by the NCA, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) or anybody else?

Mr Ford: I do not have the historical figures for the Assets Recovery Agency and SOCA. My understanding is that nothing specific has been recovered by the NCA at this point, although there is preliminary work ongoing, partly because the NCA staff who were dealing with that kind of work were, until May, committed to supporting their colleagues in England, Wales and Scotland in the work that they were doing there. They will continue to do some of that work in the meantime. It is clear, now that we have the focus of the NCA fully operational in Northern Ireland, it will be in a position to follow up on those matters, and I understand that a number of cases are now under serious investigation.

Mr Ford: If the Member is asking what the Minister is doing, the Minister is supporting a number of operational agencies. There is very significant work being done on cybercrime by the National Crime Agency. I highlighted earlier the work being done on child exploitation and the horrendous issues of child sexual abuse. Ongoing work is being done by the police, in conjunction with the NCA, across a range of criminal activities. There is no doubt that, if any crime is possible these days, it is either possible to carry it out on a cyber basis or else electronic communications assist the carrying out of that crime.

People have discovered that it is sometimes easier to rob a bank through cyber activity than by putting on a balaclava and walking in with a big bag. I spoke at a conference on cyber crime in Lisburn a couple of weeks ago, and significant efforts are being made by a range of organisations to make people more aware and advise them to be cautious of what they see in emails and even what they get in telephone calls. Things that promise too much are almost certainly too good to be true, and people need to be aware of that. At the same time, the agencies need to take resolute action.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The next item of business is questions to the Minister for Regional Development. As there is a vacancy in the ministerial office, Question Time cannot proceed. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change staff at the Table.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill. As a new member on the Committee, I have relied heavily on the Bill Office and Committee staff for advice and guidance on the range, depth and remit of the Bill, so thanks to them and my colleague Bronwyn McGahan, who is now in pastures new, as they say.

The Chair outlined succinctly the remit of the amendments in group 3, so I will not go into them in any great detail, except to say that the experience of the Ad Hoc Committee in making suggestions and the relationship with the office of the Scottish ombudsman's office highlight what can be done when Departments and agencies work together. That is something we look forward to. Such co-design will strengthen, I think, the complaints procedure outlined in the new clause in Part 3. There would have been some issue around cost, but it is welcome that the commencement will not happen until the Assembly Commission deems it is more economically wise to do so, as outlined in amendment No 75.

To a large extent, the amendments are just a synchronising of terminology to pave the way for the new clause in Part 3. If the wider principle is to maximise the effect of addressing a complaint, Part 3 is at the heart of the process, and it is for these amendments to do that.

Sinn Féin supports each of the new amendments, including the new clauses, and looks forward to the rest of the debate.

Mr Lyttle (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): This has been a short but constructive debate on this group of amendments. The amendments are positive and, as Members mentioned, demonstrate the good use that can be made of drawing from best practice in other jurisdictions on these islands.

The amendments, as mentioned, will focus on complaints handling procedures drawn from best practice in Scotland, such as the use of a small complaints standards team, common complaints standards, principles and procedures, model complaints handling procedures and the ability of the ombudsman to compel good practice in complaints handling procedures with listed authorities.

The Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee has capably set that out in detail. Lord Morrow, the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee, raised concerns about the resource implications of these provisions. However, he also acknowledged that uniformity, consistency and clarity are needed for the public when presenting complaints about public services and that, while the Ad Hoc Committee was not able to form a collective view at this stage, he could see merit in these proposals. Chris Hazzard also referred to those provisions in a positive light. I give the Committee's support to these amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 46 is consequential to amendment No 45.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 48 is consequential to amendment No 47.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 49 is consequential to amendment Nos 47 and 48.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 51 is consequential to amendment Nos 46 and 48.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 59, as it is consequential to amendment No 58, which has not been made.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 65 is consequential to amendment No 44, which has been agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 67 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 47, which has been agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 69 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 45, which has been agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's opposition to clause 52 has already been debated, but, as usual, the Question will be put in the positive.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 71 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 44.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 75 is consequential to amendment Nos 45 to 52, which have been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 108 is consequential to amendment No 24, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Thank you for bearing with me. I was just seeking some advice.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment Nos 113 and 114 are technical amendments to schedule 6. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the amendments for the Question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 119 has already been debated and is mutually exclusive with amendment No 120.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 120 has already been debated and is mutually exclusive with amendment No 119, which was not made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment Nos 121 to 123 have already been debated, and all propose changing references from "Ombudsperson" to "Commissioner" in schedule 7. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group these amendments for the Question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 128 is consequential to amendment No 115.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): As a valid petition of concern was presented on Monday 19 October, the vote will be on a cross-community basis.

Mr McKay: I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I start by saying that it is one of the most extraordinary abuses that we have seen in the Assembly for this Bill and this issue to be subjected to a petition of concern and a cross-community vote. The public find extraordinary the levels to which some Members will stoop to torpedo such a proposal. The Bill, in effect, is torpedoed before the debate even starts. Some may ask, "So what is the point?". Members in certain parties should consider how abusive they are of this mechanism and of the Assembly. I hear some Members tutting, but that is exactly what it is.

It is a great shame that the DUP, knowing that many MLAs would support this measure, has decided to kill the Bill. Why? We will probably hear a number of red herrings. We have already heard a number of red herrings about state aid cases in England and the views of the hospitality sector, and I will return to those. However, this question also has to be asked: is it because the Minister, as she has already suggested, wants to bring her own Bill forward? Going by what members of her party have said on social media and on the radio today, that appears to be the case. We are coming rapidly to the end of this term. Legislation is no doubt piling up, and the Minister is bringing forward a Bill that may not even get to the Floor to be passed. It is important that community amateur sports clubs know that. I certainly hope that it is not because certain vested interests or businesses close to the DUP do not see it as being in their interests, although that would not surprise me.

The party opposite has also said that the consultation was not appropriate and did not go far enough, but the Department and the Minister have said that, in bringing forward their Bill, they want to skip the Committee Stage. We have a Bill in front of us that, if passed today, would go to the Finance and Personnel Committee for proper Committee scrutiny. The party opposite has indicated that it wants to bring forward a Bill that would not be subject to such scrutiny. The appropriate mechanism for moving forward the issue of appropriate support for amateur sports clubs is this Bill. I believe that the party opposite knows that this is the only opportunity that we will get to put in place proper and effective support for our community amateur sports clubs, which are suffering. I believe that most parties in the Assembly recognise that this is a straightforward and simple proposal and one that we should vote for today.

What I find astonishing is the accusation that we are rushing into this: anything but. My constituency colleague Robin Swann MLA moved a motion in November 2011, which read:

what he refers to as —

The motion was amended by the DUP to call upon the then Minister, Mr Sammy Wilson, to:

There was no doubt at that time that the general view of Members was that an increase from 80% to 100% was a good thing. That was four years ago. If you go back nine years, there was a view that sports halls should have been included in the Rates Order 2006. I remember well my party colleague Barry McElduff raising that issue at the time on behalf of sports clubs in the locality. This is not a proposal that has been rushed into. Cearly, the opposite is the case.

At the outset, I thank the gentleman from Armoy who first gave me the idea of undertaking this work some three years ago. He shall remain anonymous, but I can assure Members that it is not Mervyn Storey. I also thank the Sports Forum, Ms Katie Nixon, Mr Ciaran Kearney and Mr Ken Armstrong, the manager of Belfast Bowls Club, and Patrice Hardy, who ably assisted me in our first presentation to the Finance Committee in May 2014.

There was huge support for the Bill. We received in excess of 1,000 responses in support — I am taking a sip of water for a reason — including Fermanagh District Council; Ballyclare Golf Club; Culbann Clay Pigeon Club; Lagan Valley Orienteers; St Brigid's Cross Community Amateur Boxing Club; Bernardines Cycling Club; Salto Gymnastics Centre; Glendowan Football Club; Dungannon Rugby Club; Aghalee Taekwondo Club; Saints Amateur Boxing Club; and Abbey Gymnastics. I read out all these names because these groups will not have an opportunity to contribute to the Committee Stage of the Bill by writing or by giving oral evidence. It is important that their contributions are put on the record.

There was also the Ulster Clay Pigeon Shooting Association; Greenisland Ladies Hockey Club; Valley Rangers Football Club; the Ulster Angling Federation; Coleraine Rugby Football and Cricket Club; Oak Athletic Football Club;

British Gymnastics; Slaughtneil GAC; Ballymoney Gymnastics; Twisters Gymnastics; the Asylum Weightlifting Club in Newtownards; Warrenpoint Town Football Club; Flight Gymnastics Academy; Ardmore Cricket and Football Club; Brigade Cricket Club; Banbridge Rugby Football Club; Belfast Shotokan Karate Club; Malone Rugby; Clogher Valley Rugby Football Club; Ulster Gliding Club; Pan-Disability Lisburn Badminton Club; NI Orienteering; Coleraine Yacht Club; Antrim Hockey Club; the Ulster branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union; the Ulster Seaplane Association; Ballyclare Rugby Football Club; Kazoku Karate; Carrickfergus Rugby Football Club; Sandy Hill Football Club; McQuillan GAC Ballycastle; Belfast Canoe Club; Armagh Rugby Club; Lurgan Institute FC; Beragh Red Knights from west Tyrone; Donaghadee Ladies Netball Club; Ballymena Rugby Club; Loughgiel Shamrocks; Craigavon City Football Club; Duffin Transport Cycling Club; Carrickfergus Ladies Junior Hockey Club; St Joseph's Amateur Boxing Club; University of Ulster Jordanstown Canoe Club; Causeway Coast Kayak Association; Ballymena Road Club; Banbridge District Council; Mossley Hockey Club; North Down Cycling Club; Apollo Cycling Team; Banbridge Hockey Club; Larne Rugby Football Club; Belfast Harlequins; Dunbarton Bowling Club; Randalstown Ladies Hockey Club; Lakeland Cycling Club; Strabane Lifford Cycling Club; Rainey Old Boys Rugby Football Club; City of Derry Rugby Football Club; North Down Cycling Club; Tyrone GAA; Bangor Men's Hockey Club; East Coast Athletic Club; Armagh City FC; Portglenone GAC and Geraldine's Camogie Club; Killyclooney Cricket Club; Strabane Cricket Club; Fivemiletown United; Pegasus Hockey Club; Moyola Park Football Club; Limavady Cricket and Rugby Club; Bready Cricket Club; Holywood Ladies Hockey Club; Coleraine Ladies Hockey Club; Bann Rowing Club; Downpatrick Cricket Club; Riverdale Football Club; Redhog Wrestling Club; Chimney Corner FC; Kaizen Ju-Jitsu Association; Randalstown Rugby Football Club; Falls Bowling Club; St Mary's GAC Rasharkin; Grosvenor Rugby Football Club; Dundrum Cricket Club; Laurel Vale Cricket Club; Carnmoney Ladies Football Club; Portadown Tennis Club; Carniny Amateur and Youth Football Club; Loughgiel Camogie Club; Maghera Cricket Club; GoLift Weightlifting, Newtownabbey; Omagh Thunder Basketball Club; Cuchullains Dunloy; Tandragee Rovers; Splits and Flips Gymnastics; Glentoran Football Club; East Belfast Yacht Club; Lisburn Racquets; Ballynafeigh Tennis and Squash Club; Comber Recreation Football Club; Ballynagross FC; Aquinas FC; Larne Football Club; Sydenham United Football Club; Causeway Netball Club; Ardglass Football Club; the NI Ju-Jitsu Association; Northend United FC; Swim Ulster; The Star Amateur Boxing Club; Carnlough Swifts Football Club; St Mary's GAC, Ahoghill; Ulster GAA; and Ballykelly Cross-community Amateur Boxing Club. They are all in favour of the Bill.

That is to name but a few. I could have put Members through a lot more names of clubs that responded to the consultation.

In total, out of 1,033 replies to the consultation, 1,022 supported the proposal, five were against and six were unsure. It is supported by the NI Sports Forum, the Irish Football Association, the Gaelic Athletic Association and Ulster Rugby. The Sports Forum carried out a survey of members that showed that the move would help to relieve stress on clubs and would result in huge benefits for the entire community. We also had overwhelming support at public consultations, which we held in Enniskillen, Dungannon, Omagh, Strabane and Belfast. What was quite clear from those public consultations is that clubs are suffering. There has been an economic downturn and there is less money for sponsorship. I know of a rugby club in my constituency that had quite a significant sponsor who fell on hard times, and the club now has to try to fill the gap that has been left.

There is less support in place here for community amateur sports clubs than there is for such clubs in the South or indeed across the water. That is outlined in excellent research by Colin Pidgeon, which was produced in this Building. In the South, the Valuation Act, 2001 outlined the grand design that sport is exempt from rates. That refers to outdoor surfaces, including football pitches, tennis courts, racecourses and golf courses, but not fixed buildings and structures. However, a further rates exemption in the same Act concerns properties that are used as community halls. They are not used primarily for profit or gain, but involve the participation of local inhabitants for recreational or other social purposes. It excludes halls that sell alcohol but, all in all, there is a much better deal in the South for clubs than there is in the North.

Under the community amateur sports club (CASC) scheme in Britain, clubs can avail of an 80% relief from non-domestic rates, and there is discretion for the remaining 20% to be relieved by local authorities. Again, we do not have such an option in the North.

Amateur clubs and their volunteers save us millions of pounds. They save money for central government, here at the Assembly, and local government. If those clubs were not there, and if they did not fundraise and put in place pitches and halls for sporting activities, then local councils would have to provide the facilities instead. So, local councils have saved millions of pounds over the years through the activities, voluntary work and fundraising in the community that clubs have carried out.

Such clubs have also saved us significant money in physical and mental health costs. Clubs clearly prevent health problems, such as obesity, from developing. This is not appreciated enough. Recent figures showed that, in 2006-07, spending on sport contributed £452 million per annum to the economy, or 2% of GDP. The 2010 DCAL and Sport NI publication, 'Economic Importance of Sport in NI', found that sport-related activity adds £638·6 million to the economy, which is 2·3% of total gross value added (GVA).

For me, the real benefit is public health. This Bill will help to deliver better health outcomes, because sport tackles obesity, sport tackles diabetes and sport improves our mental health and well-being. What is the cost of obesity? In 2012, an estimate put the cost of treating obesity at £3 million per annum. It put the cost of lost earnings due to premature death at £22 million, and the cost of lost earnings due to illness at £47 million. The total economic cost between 2007 and 2008 — and it would have risen significantly since then — was estimated at £350 million. The indirect costs of being overweight and obese are estimated at £7·4 million.

A 2012 all-Ireland study concluded:

At a recent knowledge exchange seminar in the Assembly, Hassan and Hughes stated:

The evidence is overwhelming. Sports clubs provide a public service, yet they get little in return. I urge Members to use their foresight to see the benefits. A lot of clubs are holding back on capital build and investment because of the additional rates burden. With a full rates exemption and extra finance, the Bill would give the green light for new changing rooms, new stands, new pitches and new facilities for communities in rural and urban areas alike.

I hope that the Assembly will support the Bill today. It is quite clear that the Bill will not apply to bars. There has been a bit of confusion out there, and it has been deliberately put about that the Bill will cover bars, but it will not. Existing legislation is in place, but I have taken into account the views of those in the hospitality sector. I have spoken to bar owners who are supporters of amateur sports clubs and amateur sport, and they have no issue with the Bill. They believe that it is fair and balanced. The fact that 100% relief will not apply to licensed premises on clubs is the common-sense way forward. I do not understand — maybe I do understand — some approaches that have been taken, but they certainly do not stand up to scrutiny.

It has been said that this was bad consultation. We had over 1,000 replies. How many consultations by the Department of Finance and Personnel get over 100 replies never mind 1,000? The consultation has been comprehensive. Over the summer, the Committee put out a call for witnesses to come forward. There were no responses to that, but no concerns were raised. The impression is given that there is huge concern out there about the Bill. There is not huge concern, and the public overwhelmingly support it. The reaction on social media and Twitter last night backs that up.

I tried to get figures from the Department on costs. The latest DFP figure for the cost of community amateur sports clubs — I need to attach caution to this — is £420,000 per annum. I recognise that, with the introduction of rates relief and the number of clubs applying to join CASC schemes, that figure would certainly rise. All in all, if the cost is £1 million, £2 million or £3 million, you are getting more back in return than you are losing in revenue.

This is a public service that delivers health and well-being. I represent a rural constituency, and I know that a number of clubs in rural areas have diversified more and more in recent years to offer more health and well-being activities. Events such as the biggest loser —a competition to lose weight — involve a lot of physical activity, including running. Competition in a community helps to bring it together and increase social cohesion. Community and amateur sports clubs organise marathons, half-marathons, cycling events and health awareness days. They increase suicide awareness, which is a big issue in rural areas. They offer critical support to young people at a very vulnerable time in their life. They teach young people leadership and provide life skills. That, taken as a whole, is a significant public service that needs to be recognised.

The Bill would amend the Rates (NI) Order 1977. At present, amateur sports clubs can avail themselves of rates relief of 80%. To qualify for the relief, an amateur sports club must comply with the requirements of article 31 and, in particular, fall within the definition of a prescribed recreation, as outlined in legislation. My amendments to the 1977 order would exempt community amateur sports clubs from the payment of rates.

CASC schemes were introduced in 2002 to support grass-roots sport and encourage local amateur sports clubs to register with HMRC as a sports club, rather than a business, for rates and tax purposes. Clubs that are not community amateur sports clubs would continue to be able to avail themselves of the 80% rates relief, and clubs registered as CASCs would get 100% rates relief. The 100% rate would not apply to any part of a club that sold alcohol, other than by way of occasional licence, but would apply to the rest of the club premises — halls, gym facilities, playing fields etc.
The Bill has four clauses. Clause 1 would amend article 31 of the 1977 order. Clause 1(2) to clause 1)(6) would amend article 31 to outline two categories of hereditament: one that includes CASCs; and one that applies to other clubs that currently benefit from relief.

Clause 1(7) inserts a new paragraph that would effect 100% relief for CASCs. Clause 1(8) would apply the apportionment provisions for CASCs. In other words, where part of the hereditament was shown on the net annual value list as not being used for qualifying purposes, it would be valued at the normal rate.

Clause 1(9) and 1(10) would add new definitions of licensed premises, qualifying purposes and registered CASCs and make clear that licensed premises cannot be considered for qualifying purposes.

Clause 2 would amend article 44 of the 1977 order and allow for apportionment of net annual value between parts used for qualifying purposes and other parts. It simply states that such apportionment should be shown on the list.

Clause 3 states that the Bill would come into operation the day after it completes the legislative process.

Clause 4 provides the short title, and that is all there is to it.

The Bill would not cost the earth. It would, on the basis of the CASC list, cost £420,000, as I said. If you were to take into consideration community amateur sports clubs and amateur sports clubs not covered by the CASC definition, the cost, going by the latest figures, would be somewhere in the region of £1·4 million. At the public meetings that we held, a lot of clubs said that they wanted to expand their services and build new stands and new club rooms. They are factoring in the additional rates costs that they would have year-on-year.

It is preventing them from doing those things. Although they would gladly meet the upfront capital cost for such expansions, they are wary of having the additional rates cost year on year, and they believe that that is putting those projects beyond their reach.

One respondent to the consultation referred to the epidemic of obesity, especially among the youth. They said that it is the promotion of:

I think there is no better way of putting it. Amateur sports clubs give proactive healthcare to our communities.

To cite another example, Ken Armstrong of Belfast Indoor Bowls Club outlined to the Finance Committee that it has a rates bill of some £13,000 per annum, even with the existing rates relief. That does not include increases in utility costs, such as lighting and electricity, that they are also struggling with. They want to invest, but the rates overheads are blocking that.

To conclude, this is a progressive Bill. It is a potential good news story for the Assembly and the Administration. It is a minimal cost for significant health and social impact. In terms of the process, this is the Bill's Second Stage. We have a Committee Stage, where all of the parties in the Chamber, if they have issues with the Bill, can tease them out. We have Consideration Stage, where the Department or any party in the House can put forward amendments to the Bill. We have Further Consideration Stage, where any party in the House or the Department can put forward amendments to the Bill, and we have Final Stage, so if some parties are not happy, they can vote against it at that stage.

I believe that it is a great shame that the DUP has not allowed us to have that debate. They have abused the process, the Assembly and the Chamber. Once again today, they give this place a bad name, because amateur sports clubs across the North will be disappointed that we could not even have the conversation and debate applying that much-needed relief to our grass-roots communities. I look forward to what the Minister says. I do not believe that she can provide any reasonable excuse for the petition of concern, but, at the end of the day, the Bill is on the table and should have been given consideration like any other Bill. Had Members wanted to vote the Bill down today, I would have been happy enough to accept that, but it is not a Bill that should ever have been subject to a petition of concern.

I look forward to the debate among Members this afternoon.

Mr D Bradley (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel): Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Éirím le labhairt ar son an Choiste Airgeadais agus Pearsanra ar an Dara Céim den Bhille faoiseamh rátaí do chlubanna spóirt amaitéaracha. I dtús báire, beidh mé ag labhairt ar son an Choiste agus, ina dhiaidh sin, ar son mo pháirtí féin.

I rise to speak, initially, on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the Rates (Relief for Community Amateur Sports Clubs) Bill and, subsequently, on behalf of my own party.

I want to begin by thanking the Member for outlining the general principles of his Bill and his rationale for bringing forward the proposed legislation. I also welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which, unfortunately, it seems, will now not have the opportunity to scrutinise it because of the laying of a petition of concern.

Rather than rehearse the main principles of the Bill, as the sponsor has already outlined them, I shall briefly refer to the main points that arose from the Committee's preliminary consideration of the policy proposals in the Bill. In undertaking its preliminary scrutiny of the proposals, the Committee found itself in the unusual, if not unique, position of the Committee's Chairperson also being the Bill's sponsor. Procedural advice was received on good practice for handling such a scenario, and that resulted in the Chairperson stepping aside from the Chair and declaring the necessary interest during the discussions on the proposed Bill. I take the opportunity to declare an interest as a member of St Patrick's Gaelic Football Club, Carrickcruppen. I expect that that approach would be continued by the Chair were the Bill to be referred to Committee Stage, but, as I said earlier, it appears that that will not be the case.

The Committee received an initial oral briefing from the Bill's sponsor on 7 May 2014. Mr McKay was accompanied by Mr Ken Armstrong, who represented the Belfast Indoor Bowls Club, and Miss Katie Nixon, who represented the Northern Ireland Sports Forum. During that session, the witness highlighted a number of points, including the important contribution that is made to local communities by amateur sports clubs, including the value of volunteering. He also mentioned the public, physical and mental health benefits of sport, including preventive spending on conditions such as obesity and diabetes. The other social benefits included better community relations, a stronger community spirit and activities for young people that lead to a reduction in antisocial behaviour.

The Bill's sponsor referred to the comparatively more generous arrangements in other places. He also referred to the increased financial pressures on amateur sport clubs, with increased utility costs and other overheads, and reduced opportunities for commercial sponsorship. The witnesses also pointed to the diversity of sports cubs that responded to the policy consultation and the overwhelmingly positive response in that regard. Finally, the point was made that the cost of increasing the rates relief from 80% to 100% would be modest in comparison with the potential benefits.

Another issue that was identified during the evidence session on 7 May 2014 was the potential for sports clubs that are registered as community amateur sports clubs — CASCs — to be disadvantaged in comparison with those that are registered charities, with the latter being able to avail themselves of 100% rates relief. A further issue was raised about circumstances in which professionals and amateurs share premises.

In pursuing those and the other issues that were discussed, the Committee commissioned the Assembly's Research and Information Service to examine the position in Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The research found that, on the additional discretionary 20% relief that is offered by authorities in Britain, the criteria varied considerably from authority to authority. While the most frequently used criterion relates to a club's provision of licensed bar facilities, such a provision does not necessarily prevent the club from receiving relief.

Also, clubs do not necessarily have to own the facilities they use to qualify for CASC status. Amateur clubs that share facilities with professional clubs are not automatically prevented from receiving CASC status. In that regard, CASCs are allowed to pay professional members up to a limit of £10,000 per year to coach, work in the club and play.

Following the introduction of the Bill before the summer recess and with a view to maximising the use of the time available, the Committee issued a call for evidence, which ran from 8 July to 2 September 2015. While that included public notices being placed in provincial papers and on digital media, only one submission was received. That was from Hospitality Ulster, formerly known as Pubs of Ulster. In its submission, which was circulated to Committee members ahead of today's debate, Hospitality Ulster raised concerns that many of the clubs that will benefit under the Bill are licensed premises and that many of them operate as commercial businesses in direct competition with pubs, hotels and restaurants.

Hospitality Ulster further argued:

Given that concern, I note that the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states:

In more recent correspondence circulated to Committee members yesterday, Hospitality Ulster acknowledges that point but calls for the Assembly to delay the Bill and to include this matter in the review of business rates, which is to be undertaken by DFP. I expect, therefore, that Members will want to consider this issue further during today's debate. No doubt, if the Bill were to move to Committee Stage, there would be a further opportunity for all stakeholders, including the business community, to provide their views on the proposals and to put forward suggestions for any necessary amendments.

Finally, the Committee is aware that DFP raised concerns about the Bill that were outlined in correspondence from the Minister of Finance and during oral evidence from departmental officials on 15 September 2015. Indeed, the Department indicated that it would oppose the Bill as drafted. I expect that the Minister will explain that in more detail today, but from the briefing received on 15 September, the opposition appears to be on the basis of DFP seeing a need for further consultation and policy development to take account of the views of the business community and some other Departments. The Department has argued that a more suitable vehicle would be its proposed Rates (Amendment) Bill, which would include an enabling power to allow provision to be made for enhanced relief through subordinate legislation at a later date and following consultation with the business community.

In closing, I look forward to further contributions from other Members, and I am sure that, if the Bill were to progress to Committee Stage, the Committee would ensure that it would receive robust scrutiny and that the views of all the stakeholders, including the sports bodies, as well as the business groups, would be heard.

That finishes my contribution on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

I move now to my comments on behalf of the SDLP. The SDLP supports the general principles behind the Bill and will be voting in favour of it at this its Second Stage. The reasons for that are clear: we believe that the general principles behind the Bill are worthwhile, positive and beneficial to the whole community in Northern Ireland. The health benefits — physical and mental — have been outlined by the sponsor of the Bill. He referred to the beneficial effects that the provisions of the Bill could have on such illnesses as diabetes and obesity, in general, so one could say that the Bill could be categorised as an invest-to-save measure.

It is clear that community sports clubs contribute hugely to community cohesion. We all know that sport brings people together, not only in a single-identity community but on a cross-community basis. Sport improves community spirits and lifts communities, and the health benefits from sport range across all age groups, from the young to older people.

The voluntary effort that is put into the work of community sports clubs is huge; it is difficult to quantify in monetary terms, but it is huge. It is only but right that government should repay that effort in the small way that the Bill proposes. As I said earlier, the investment is miniscule compared with the huge advantages that could ensue from the Bill. The provisions of the Bill would enable community sports clubs to provide greater investment in better facilities and equipment for their members.

We heard from the sponsor the wide and diverse support that there is from sports clubs across Northern Ireland and the community. Indeed, he said that the list that he read out, which took some time, was not exhaustive. So there is a huge groundswell of support for this measure among sports clubs and sportspeople, and I think that the Department and the House should take cognisance of that.

I regret that it looks as if the Bill will not benefit from robust Committee Stage scrutiny. I am sure that the Committee Stage would have enabled members of the Committee to iron out any anomalies and to fine-tune the Bill. Indeed, amendments could have been brought forward at Consideration Stage and at Further Consideration Stage. The laying of a petition of concern is highly inappropriate. I believe that it is anti-democratic in so far as it denies the democratic institutions here the opportunity to examine, improve and scrutinise an important piece of legislation that would benefit the whole community.

Last night, I watched a programme on BBC Two. It was called 'Taobh Thiar den Gheansaí' or 'Behind the Jersey'. A young man from Belfast, Ainle Ó Cairealláin, looked at the problem of suicide among young sportspeople in the GAA. He also examined the measures that were taken by the organisation to improve the mental health of its young members. The message that constantly came from the various sections in that programme was that it is OK to talk. That is an example of the type of work that community sports clubs do for the mental health of young people. I believe that this measure would give them even more facility to do even more work and to improve even more the mental health of the young people who use their facilities and who are their members.

It is the cause of some regret that the petition of concern that has been laid will not allow us to progress this Bill. That having been said, the SDLP agrees with its general principles. We commend the Member for bringing it forward, and we urge all Members of the House to support it.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, críochnóidh mé ar an phointe sin. Go raibh céad maith agat.

Mr Somerville: The Bill deals with a subject that has previously been before the House. In November 2011, an Ulster Unionist motion called:

The arguments advanced in favour of this measure in 2011 still hold true today. The Bill that is currently before us has the same intent, and therefore I am happy to say at the outset that it will receive support from the Ulster Unionist Party.

However, it is a matter of deep disappointment that the DUP has chosen to table a petition of concern against this Bill. As a result, it is doomed to failure. This is nothing less than an abuse of the process. Petitions of concern were designed to protect minorities from being discriminated against. They were never intended to be used as a mechanism to thwart what one might term "run-of-the-mill" legislation. It is precisely this type of action that helps to bring the Assembly into disrepute. In recent weeks, we have witnessed the unedifying spectacle of DUP Ministers signing in and resigning. We have had empty Benches as the Assembly debated waiting lists and autism, yet the DUP managed to turn up to protect the pay and conditions of its highly paid special advisers. By the end of the day, the public will draw their own conclusion on who and what the DUP exists to serve.

Had the DUP not taken the action to table a petition of concern, we would have been here today debating a Bill that would make a real, positive difference to the lives of many citizens. Sadly, the actions of the DUP have rendered the debate academic. A rates reduction would have been a great boost to dozens of sports clubs throughout Northern Ireland. Currently, amateur sports clubs in Northern Ireland can, under article 31 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, qualify for a rate relief of 80%. This Bill would amend the 1977 Order to make them exempt from rates; a measure which would have been of great financial benefit to them. It is undoubtedly the case that, in recent years, many sports clubs have been struggling to make ends meet.

The community amateur sports clubs scheme was introduced in April 2002 to support grass-roots sport. It enables local amateur sports clubs to register with Revenue and Customs as a sports club rather than as a business so that they can benefit from a range of tax reliefs, including gift aid. The conditions for becoming a community amateur sports club are as follows: a club must be open to the whole community; be organised on an amateur basis; have as its main purpose providing facilities for and promoting participation in one or more eligible sports; meet the location requirement; and meet the management conditions.

There is no question that such clubs play a positive role in their communities. They help to improve public health by encouraging participation in healthy sporting activities. They promote individual self-discipline, build the concept of teamwork, help to reduce antisocial behaviour, promote local pride and draw in young people. There are obvious benefits in terms of physical and mental health and in the prevention of obesity and illnesses such as diabetes.

There are an estimated 37,000 volunteers in community sports in Northern Ireland, and a wide variety of sports are affected, ranging from football, rugby and Gaelic games right through to badminton, athletics, tennis, squash and sailing, to name but a few. As Mr McKay has already noted, my party colleague Robin Swann has been working closely with the Northern Ireland pigeon association to bring forward an amendment that would have seen homing pigeon club halls across Northern Ireland being exempt from rates.

The DUP will have to explain its reasoning to that association and every other sports club in the country whose hopes of a major economic boost have been dashed. Figures from 2010-11 indicated that the figure for the cost of this measure was £1·4 million. This is not a massive figure in terms of the overall Northern Ireland Budget, and, bearing in mind the existing and projected costs to the health budget of diabetes and obesity, it would be money very well spent on prevention.

No doubt, the DUP will try to explain why it has chosen to vote this measure down. One excuse that is not open to it is the notion that the Department of Finance and Personnel is planning to bring its own Bill forward. The Department has had almost four years, since 22 November 2011, to do that. How much time does it need?

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to commend Daithí McKay for moving the Second Stage of the Rates (Relief for Community Amateur Sports Clubs) Bill. At the outset of my contribution, I want to note that the objective of the Bill is to exempt community amateur sports clubs from the payment of rates.

I am very heartened by the comments of Neil Somerville and Dominic Bradley in the debate. There is a consensus, one would suggest, on the importance of this issue. The tabling of a petition of concern by the DUP, to effectively guillotine it from this point onwards, has been criticised in this discussion of the Bill. The sponsor of the Bill said that that amounted to an extraordinary abuse. Other Members have suggested that robust scrutiny lay ahead at different stages of consideration, not least the Committee Stage of the Bill. "Truly astonishing" is another phrase that has been used to describe the blocking of the Bill.

I want to amplify that there is huge support for the Bill in the community. That is why the question that has already been presented for those bringing the petition of concern is this: who do you exist to serve, when such a blatant abuse of the petition of concern mechanism has taken place?

As Daithí explained, well over a thousand responses came in. I attended an event at the Strule Arts Centre in Omagh, which was very well attended and participated in by clubs in our community across numerous sporting codes. I distinctly remember the enthusiasm of Omagh Lawn Tennis Club for this Bill, and also that of Omagh Bowling Club and Drumragh Sarsfields GAC. Those are three of the clubs that I remember being particularly enthusiastic at the Omagh consultation event. I thought that it was appropriate that Daithí should read from the list because it is clear from the geography and the sporting codes that he referred to that this is absolutely cross-community in its character.

Other Members have talked about the important contribution to local communities made by sports clubs, and it is not too great an exaggeration to say that, in many communities, the sports club is the community — the very essence of the community. That sports club takes on many more functions than merely providing sport and recreation. In my community, GAA clubs in particular are increasingly becoming the health promotion agency in our communities. They are synonymous with the fight against obesity, the fight against diabetes and increasing people's participation in sport in a very targeted way. Football for mums and all of these types of initiatives are emanating from community-rooted sports clubs. I believe that this society in the North and all over the island of Ireland could go forward as an exemplar for the rest of Europe and, indeed, the world, in community rootedness in sport.

I also welcome the fact that the sponsor of the Bill was very clear in his assertion that this does not refer to public bar aspects of club rooms, for example, and that that would be dealt with separately. Indeed, certainly in my community, very few clubs actually have bars. In fact, the ones that are most successful on the field of play tend not to have bars. I could be entering into stormy waters there if there is a tight scrutiny on that in Tyrone. For example, Trillick St Macartan's won the county title this year, and that club does not have a bar. The entire community got behind the Trillick club in its quest for glory this year. On the day of the county final, you would have needed somebody left behind in the community to act as a caretaker because there would not have been a sinner in Trillick that day. The McCanns and the Donnellys and the Gormleys were all in Omagh; every single one of them. This is proper community-rooted stuff, and I have to say that I cannot understand the rationale for opposing it. That is why I was heartened by Neil Somerville's contribution, which reinforced my notion that the idea that this would be blocked defies any rationale. It was a very good process that Daithí McKay undertook. It was a very robust consultation exercise, with strong public interest.

I also agree with the argument that has been made that increasing or retaining the rates burden on amateur sports clubs prevents their capacity for capital development. That is a very strong point. During the debate on the Bill, I noticed some people from my community who I believe are here this evening for a local government event. Some of them are involved in the hospitality industry, and I signalled to one or two of them that I would like to have a chat with them outside. I conducted my own vox pop with those hospitality providers in our community about their views on this Bill. They were universally supportive of it.

I have to ask this question: how representative is Hospitality Ulster, with its grand title? I do not think that it can presume to speak for the hospitality industry in the Province of Ulster. I think that it is out of touch and is way off beam here. It ignores the good working relations between publicans and sporting clubs. I would just —

Mr D Bradley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McElduff: Certainly.

Mr D Bradley: Does the Member agree that many sports clubs hold their annual awards ceremonies in the local hotel, restaurant, lounge or whatever? So, many sports clubs increase, rather take away, trade to the hospitality industry.

Mr McElduff: Absolutely. There are countless examples of that. Gala dinners are taken to hotels, by and large. Take a small community like Beragh: it is my understanding that 800 people attended the Beragh Red Knights' gala dinner. The Member for Newry and Armagh will be glad to hear that some Tyrone people even go to Armagh for those dinners. On occasion, we go to the Armagh City Hotel and such places to have these big gala dinners. Sometimes — and I ask DUP Members to close their ears — we go South to the Hillgrove in Monaghan, to Ballybofey or to Bundoran. Sports clubs are massive contributors to the hospitality industry. For me, I seriously question the bona fides of this outfit that describes itself as Hospitality Ulster, because it is misrepresenting the communities that I come from. It is a stranger to my experience.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. Lest I get a complaint later on, I must remind the Member that that particular organisation is not present.

Mr McElduff: That is fine. Nonetheless, I am happy to stand over my general sense here that Hospitality Ulster does not deserve that title. I call on it to abandon that title because it does not represent anybody I know; it is a stranger to my experience. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I take it, Mr McElduff, that you are finished.

Mr McElduff: Yes.

Ms McGahan: A Cheann Comhairle, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of full rates relief for amateur sports clubs. As a former Gaelic footballer and member of Gaelic4Mothers, which belongs to the Oonagh Celts club in Tyrone, and as a keen cyclist involved with my local club, I have a deep personal interest in the issue.

Amateur sporting groups are part of the fabric of our communities and are essential to the future welfare of our young people, in particular. For many of our citizens, the maxim "Club is Life" rings very true. As we know only too well, amateur sports clubs, rural and urban, are currently under pressure financially, and we know that one of the main reasons for that is the economic downturn, as well as the opportunistic and deliberate British Government policy of austerity, which is having a negative effect on fundraising in the communities in which amateur clubs are organised.

The drying up of sponsorship from local construction firms with deep ties to their local communities has, in particular, affected rugby and GAA clubs. My party colleague Daithí McKay referred to a number of submissions to the consultation from clubs in my constituency such as Fivemiletown United, Clogher Valley Rugby Football Club, Dungannon Rugby Club and, of course, Tyrone GAA. I also attended a very interesting and important consultation event in Dungannon with Daithí.

I know the pressures of fundraising to be true, as I spend a lot of time in my constituency signposting local clubs to new sources of money by way of grants when funding opportunities are opening up at local government and European Union levels.

That funding is open for a club's plans for sports provision offered, which enhances youth development, healthy living, community cohesion and other important goals, including peace building and tackling racism. It is my belief that the money saved by not paying any rates would be better spent on offering the range of measures that try to achieve the goals that I mentioned, especially on offering healthy alternatives for our young people to pursue as well as enhancing well-being in our society generally for young and old.

As was mentioned, there is a public health aspect to the issue, and I believe that, by providing full rates relief for clubs, we are investing in public health. In particular, we are investing in young people who are supported by the clubs, and we will receive a societal return in many ways by ensuring that those clubs are supported. Our clubs not only encourage participation in sport and promote healthy lifestyles but make a positive contribution to the reduction of crime and antisocial behaviour and promote community relations, acting as a driver for positive community activity in our villages, towns and parishes.

Today's debate allows us to promote a progressive agenda that seeks to advance public knowledge by exploring the challenges and opportunities for sport to act as a driver for change in our society. We know the importance of sport and of our leading sportspeople in opening up awareness of important issues such as the need for promoting good mental health among all our citizens. Let there be no doubt that the introduction of full rates relief for our sports clubs will help to enhance public health further and promote well-being.

Mr Rogers: It is important to speak on the Rates (Relief for Community Amateur Sports Clubs) Bill. As legislators, we have a responsibility to everyone out there and a particular responsibility to our young people. I come from an educational background, and we always talked about developing the whole person. Sport is very much part of that. Young people spend only a small part of their day in school, but the opportunities that they have in sport develop a lot of skills, whether teamwork or, as other people referred to, health and fitness, getting involved in volunteering and so on. All those things are very important. As others said, amateur sports clubs make a huge contribution to our society. Amateur sports are about participating without getting paid. Currently, all amateur sports clubs can avail themselves of 80% rates relief, which is legislated for under the Rates Order 1977 and was introduced to support grass-roots sports.

Mr McElduff talked about sports clubs promoting health in the community. I will go further than that and say that, in many of our rural communities, it is the glue of those communities. If you travel through north Antrim, you will see young people out with their hurls. If you are in south Down, you will find them playing football. In other parts, they will be there with a rugby ball, a soccer ball or whatever. Some sports organisations provide fantastic opportunities for the disabled. I can think of a group in my area that does sailing for the disabled. As I go through Newcastle tonight, Newcastle Athletics Club will be out running the roads. I can think of the volunteerism and work that has brought people along, including people of the calibre of a past pupil of mine, Kerry O'Flaherty, who represented Ireland recently in athletics.

Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr Rogers: I will surely.

Mr McElduff: I do not want to be too facetious, but, when I mentioned the distinguished Trillick families, I forgot to mention the Kellys and the Brennans. You know those type of people from County Down.

Mr Rogers: Yes, I do. One thing that I learned from Mr McElduff's contribution is who will not be sponsoring the Tyrone GAA team next year.

Under schedule 4 to the Valuation Act, 2001, the rest of Ireland is exempt from paying commercial rates if the land is developed for sport. Like us, Scotland, England and Wales receive 80% rates relief, but local authorities have the discretion to increase the relief up to 100%. Community amateur sports clubs relief was introduced by HMRC in 2002, enabling many local sports clubs to register with HMRC and benefit from a range of tax reliefs, including gift aid. We all have people calling at our door, collecting £1 for their lotto and so on, but one sports club in my area, even with rates relief, has to pay £1,000 a year in rates. There are a lot of £1 coins in that £1,000. There is a lot of collecting, and that is down to a lot of volunteers.

Community amateur sports clubs must be open to the whole community, organised on an amateur basis and have as their main purpose providing facilities for, and promoting participation in, one or more eligible sports, while meeting the location requirements and management conditions.

Amateur sports clubs have had their income severely reduced in recent years. That is for many reasons, including the economic downturn that has led to less support from local businesses and the emigration of members.

In 2011, the Assembly debated a motion calling for rates relief for amateur sports clubs to be extended from 80% to 100%. The Assembly agreed to call on the Finance Minister to examine the rates relief afforded to those clubs. Others have spoken about the Bill, and, in the interests of brevity, I will leave that part of my speech out.

Let us go to some of the health-related benefits. The legislation is about much more than saving money. Sport and physical exercise improve people's lives in so many ways. As other Members said, sports clubs do not facilitate just young people; our clubs look after all ages. I should have declared my lifelong interest in and support of the GAA, but, irrespective of the sport, whether you are eight or 80, there is a place for you and something meaningful that you can do. Others referred to mental health issues, particularly among the older generation who have retired, and they mentioned the "man shed" and other ideas that keep people gainfully occupied. If it were not for sports clubs, and the volunteers keeping them open by collecting that £1 or using Gift Aid to keep the electricity and heating on, this would not happen in our communities.

Physical activity contributes generally to health and well-being. It saves society millions of pounds annually, and it saves hundreds of lives. On the other hand, physical inactivity costs us millions year-on-year.

Sports and physical activity improve people's mental health and create social capital, which is the cement that binds society together and creates a more cohesive society. Those who participate in sporting activities provided by sports clubs not only benefit from the physical activity but learn other important skills. Those include teamwork, loyalty, selflessness and volunteering, which can be transferred to others in the family, school, workplace and community.

It is impossible to place a monetary value on the benefits that we can gain from sports clubs. I think of the great work of the volunteers right across my South Down constituency who run the soccer, athletics, rugby and the GAA. Who could do it without the volunteers?

The Bill calls for the rates relief afforded to CASCs to rise from 80% to 100% to ensure parity with equivalent clubs in other parts of the UK. We all recognise that the provision of 100% rates relief in the UK is discretionary and that it is up to the local authority to decide whether it should be awarded.

I, too, regret the petition of concern. The Chamber is the place to debate and argue out this issue so that we can get a Bill, even though it may need a few amendments. Let us debate it here to ensure that we have something meaningful for our community that we can pass on to future generations.

I fully support the Bill and believe that rates relief should be introduced in full and not be discretionary. I commend Daithí McKay for introducing it. Like my colleague Dominic, I support the Bill moving to Committee Stage for further scrutiny.

Mrs Cochrane: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Rates (Relief for Community Amateur Sports Clubs) Bill. I commend the Member for his hard work thus far. I am taking a private Member's Bill through, and I know that, when you do not have the power of the Department behind you, it takes a lot of effort.

There is no doubt that our community amateur sports clubs play an important role in Northern Ireland. Having been a member of a women's hockey club for many years — some would say well past when my playing career should have ended — I know the positive impact that being involved in sports can have on physical and mental health.

These clubs also provide activities for young people, and many are involved in positive community relations work. It is important, therefore, that we, as an Assembly, do all that we can to support these clubs in their growth and sustainability.

Like many businesses, organisations and households, our amateur sports clubs have faced greater overheads in recent years through, for example, the rise in utility costs. Furthermore, many of these clubs have been hit by the loss of sponsorship due to the general downturn in the economy and, as a result, are struggling to balance their books.

As has already been stated, under article 31 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, amateur sports clubs in Northern Ireland can qualify for a reduction in rates of 80%. To qualify for it, amateur sports clubs must comply with the requirement in article 31 and meet the required definition in the legislation. This Bill would seek to exempt the registered community amateur sports clubs from the payment of rates. Those clubs that are not registered as such would still be able to continue to avail themselves of the 80% rate relief. Furthermore, as has been discussed by the Member, the proposal would ensure that the 100% rate relief would not apply to the part of the club that sells alcohol other than by way of an occasional licence, but will apply to the rest of the club premises; for example, the gyms and changing rooms and stuff.

While I support the Bill in principle, a number of issues would require further input. However, given the tabling of the petition of concern, it is unclear whether we are going to have the opportunity to do that. Should the Bill pass Second Stage, I would question whether the proposal to exempt the bar area from receiving 100% relief actually goes far enough. Perhaps it would be necessary to further explore the mechanism by which rates are assessed to determine whether the 80% relief is excessive in clubs that benefit from extensive social facilities. I know — and it has already been discussed — that there is a view in the hospitality trade that clubs with successful social components are already getting a good deal.

Various Departments have raised a number of other issues in relation to the Bill. The Department of Justice, for instance, expressed concern that the 100% rate relief could, in certain circumstances, act as a passport for different treatment under criminal damage legislation. The Department of the Environment suggested that enhanced relief could have a potential impact on the de-rating grant. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment raised the matter of potential non-compliance with state aid rules. I appreciate that the proposer of the Bill has said that these are red herrings, however I feel that more work would need to be done to iron out some of those issues.

I believe that the Bill comes forward with a proposal that could be refined at later stages. In the absence of any legislation coming forward from the Department of Finance and Personnel, I would support its passage today in order to scrutinise it further.

Mr McCallister: I congratulate Mr McKay in bringing the Bill to this stage. Most of the legislation that has been debated in recent days has come from Back-Benchers. There was also a Committee Bill earlier today. Yet, I suppose that the main reason for blocking the Bill is the hope that our Executive will somehow bring an enhanced policy option to the table. I have a concern about that when I look at all the intentions of the Bill. I fully accept Mrs Cochrane's points that any Bill aims to take advantage of the processes of the Assembly, including a Committee Stage. Yet, we are effectively being told, "We need more time to consult, but we are going to do it by accelerated passage." The very point of having a Committee Stage is that it allows the Committee to consult. That is one of the key points.

The driving policy objective that Mr McKay has outlined from the start of this process is to help amateur sports clubs. Over recent weeks, we have had huge reason to have sporting pride in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across Ireland, with our rugby and football teams doing so well. Every one of those people will have started the early days of their career playing in an amateur sports club. One club that I know very well is, of course, Banbridge Rugby Football Club. You may have heard of a player who started his career there: Rory Best. That is the contribution that amateur sports clubs make to Northern Ireland.

Points have been made about the knock-on effect, the drive and the volunteerism that amateur sports clubs create. People give so much to clubs— their time and their talents — to raise money and coach youngsters. That, I believe, is the driving policy, and that is why I have supported the policy objectives that Mr McKay set out.

In response to Mr Bradley, Mr McElduff mentioned the knock-on effect of sports clubs holding events and functions in various hotels. Of course, I disapprove strongly of people going over the border to take advantage of the weak euro, but that is a debate for another day. We must not underestimate the huge knock-on effect or the sheer number of people involved in sporting clubs. Virtually all of them give freely of their time to help to create a significant — a mammoth — benefit to society by keeping young people occupied in improving their health and fitness, and the link between good physical health and good mental health is long established.

Mr Hazzard: I thank the Member for giving way. At various local sports clubs in south Down, the Member has, along with Mr Rogers, other MLAs and MPs and me, attended events on suicide awareness, mental health awareness and even road safety. Gaps that should be filled by Departments and the Government are being filled by clubs holding these extracurricular events. However, in light of emigration and the tight economic times, clubs are having to turn way from such events because they need to look after their own sporting events. This really needs to be addressed. No doubt, the Member will agree that we should do everything that we can to alleviate these hard times for our amateur sports clubs.

Mr McCallister: I agree completely. They are the point of contact, whether it is for first-aid training or giving community police officers a way in to speak and engage with communities. All that work is vital.

I am hugely disappointed, but I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister and her party will reconsider the application of a petition of concern. The difficulty with that is that, on 9 September, when DFP officials attended the Committee, they were in broad agreement with some of the policy aims but wanted to extend and improve the Bill. Look at other examples: the first private Member's Bill that Mr McKay introduced was on the plastic bags tax. The Department engaged with him and changed his Bill but used it to bring in the legislation and make it work.

The Minister responded to Mr Agnew's Children's Services Co-operation Bill by engaging with Departments and changing the Bill significantly. That is why I urge the Department to use Mr McKay's Bill so that it can go through its Assembly processes. There is broad agreement around the Chamber from all other parties that this is a good policy direction. There is broad agreement that we should do this, so use the Bill as a vehicle. My only doubt is that we have now been told by departmental officials, "We will introduce our own Bill. That gives us more time to consult, but, then, we will ask the Committee and the House to agree to accelerated passage".

I am not a huge fan of accelerated passage because I think it bypasses and short-circuits the good processes and the type of scrutiny that a Committee can bring to a Bill — any Bill. Even departmental Bills, with all the machinery of government and a Bill team behind them, need technical amendments, changes and answers to questions about policy direction. There was ample time for that. Mr McKay did not exactly pull this Bill out of thin air a few weeks ago; it has been consulted on and has been through processes. He has had meetings with people and meetings about meetings on dealing with this Bill and these issues. Yet we are now faced with a choice — if only we had a bit more of a choice — of letting the Bill go through today, getting nothing or possibly getting a Bill from the Department and then ending up with nothing. We might get a Bill; we might not. I know that Mr Nesbitt was to bring a Bill about defamation. That was conveniently killed off by DFP, which promised that it would take a look at the issue, but no such Bill has come before the House.

My huge concern is this: we are about to kill this Bill at Second Stage with no idea of an exact timeline or what all is going to be in the Department's Bill to address this. That is a major problem for us. We could very well end up at the end of the mandate with nothing and no help for the amateur sports clubs that Mr McKay wants to help. We might end up with nothing.

We have an Executive that are not meeting, and there are very few Ministers in office. We do not know when that is going to end or when the Executive will start to meet. We do not know when the Minister can get her Bill fully drafted, out and approved by the Executive. All those things give us a major difficulty in dealing with this.

I plead with the Minister to support the Second Stage of the Bill and to use it as a vehicle to deliver on some of the changes that I know the Department would like to see. If necessary, the Minister should bring a Bill to make the changes to the shopping centre issues that I know the Department wants to make. If those changes cannot be fitted into this Bill, she should bring a separate Bill to do that. However, it makes absolutely no sense to kill a Bill that is before the Chamber and that has support from all the other political parties because it does not fit in with a process that the Department wants and to then consult and ask the House and Committee for accelerated passage. It makes no sense to do that.

I support the broad principles of the Bill, and I certainly hope that the Minister has a rethink on it.

Mrs Foster (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): There is a wide range of issues that I need to cover, so I hope that Members will bear with me just as I have borne with them. I have listened to some points that are factually not correct, but I stopped myself from intervening because I knew that I was going to be able to address them in my speech.

I am certainly not going to take lectures from Sinn Féin on the misuse of the petition of concern. We had a petition of concern to stop the House from sanctioning Gerry Kelly when he was on top of a Land Rover — a police Land Rover at that. We have had Sinn Féin using a petition of concern to exclude us when we wanted to change the definition of a victim. And, indeed, Sinn Féin joined with the SDLP in a petition of concern on welfare reform. So, "Physician, heal thyself" is what I say about the petition of concern on these matters. People need to think of that —

Mr McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to check that the Minister is indeed speaking as Minister, or perhaps she could make it clear if she is speaking in a party political capacity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I understand that the Minister is speaking as the Minister.

Mrs Foster: The Minister is addressing issues that have been raised, and I thought that I was going to answer them, because, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was asked direct questions about the petition of concern, and therefore I am answering them.

Before I forget, I also want to apologise to those Members who may have noticed that I had to pop out of the Chamber for a little while, but there is a very important function in the Long Gallery on mid-Ulster's economic development plan. They were very upset that I had to leave when Mr McElduff was speaking, but I assured them that I had someone here to take copious notes of his speech and that I would address it when I returned.

The Bill presents a number of issues, and I am afraid that I will not be supporting it. I have two main issues and a number of ancillary issues. One is to do with due process. It is important to highlight first of all that in presenting the Bill to the Assembly there has been a distinct lack of meaningful consultation. We had a long, long list of amateur sports clubs. I cannot say that I was incredibly surprised that they wanted to see a reduction in their rates. I did not hear whether any of the hospitality associations, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association (NIRTA) or the Hotels Federation had a view on the Bill. To my mind, asking a number of sports associations if they would like to pay lower rates does not really fall within the definition of meaningful consultation. I will give way, even though I said that I would not.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Minister for her generosity on this occasion. Perhaps she can clarify to the House whether the DUP, which she represents, received a copy of the consultation document and whether the party submitted a response to the consultation.

Mrs Foster: I am going to talk about the consultation document, because I think that people need to understand what it consisted of. Just so that Members are aware, the consultation document, which was described by Mr McElduff as "a very good process", has the following specific content: less than one page on the existing framework; less than one page on the proposal; and then three pages of questions. I want to read out some of the incisive questions put to those who wanted to respond. The first is:

That question was asked of amateur sports clubs. It is followed by:

and:

Those questions about impact are really incisive and to the point. It is a side issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, but can you imagine the reception that my Department would get in presenting such shallow proposals for change to the Finance Committee, of which Mr McKay is Chairman? Some analysis of cost would have been helpful, I have to say. There may be only about 200 registered community and amateur sports clubs in Northern Ireland, but if they are all to get 100% relief through the Bill we can expect a surge in additional registrations.

If we are not careful, every well-meaning group will seek a willing MLA to promote a Bill giving more rates relief. We have already heard from Mr Somerville, who, unintentionally amusing as usual, talked about empty Benches. He was sitting on one. He then went on to tell us that his colleague wanted homing pigeons and their associations involved in rates relief as well. You can see that we are entering into this realm without a proper assessment of need and affordability.

The ratings system is an intrinsic part of the public expenditure system. It is not something that should deliver support under the counter and outside the priorities of the Executive, which, of course, set the Programme for Government. If we do not exercise caution, we will soon be playing "spot the ratepayer" in Northern Ireland. We give so many reliefs right across the piece, and we have to act responsibly. This is not the first time that you have heard me talking about acting responsibly, but, obviously, people think that they can give everyone rates relief and we will not notice it in our public finances.

Mr McKay's party wants extra money for welfare reform, and, at the same time, he comes knocking on the door of the rating system to increase already generous support for sports clubs. Listening to some of the Members today, you would think that sports clubs do not get any assistance or any help at all. Of course, that is not the case. They get 80% relief in relation to their rating bill.

Does the Member realise that people are practically queued up every week at the Department of Finance and Personnel for rate relief on one issue or another? You only have to listen to my questions during Question Time to hear, "What are we doing about rates relief for x, y or z?" It may be worth remembering that rates are a devolved tax and that central and local government need a stable tax base in order to plan and to be able to pay money out for our public services.

I heard that there has been some commentary — not in the House tonight, I have to say — in relation to whether this was an orange and green issue earlier, which was absolute rubbish, of course, but some particular broadcasters and newspapers love it when you mention orange and green. Let us put the matter straight, and I want to put it on the record. What the Member is proposing is a completely different beast to what people are calling "Orange hall exemptions". First, the exemptions are not just for Orange halls. They are for community halls, and that includes Orange halls and Hibernian halls. Secondly, they are conditional on them being able to use it for the wider community. Thirdly, and most importantly, they do not have a liquor licence and are not being occupied by a registered club. Any club with a liquor licence will have a regular stream of income and can afford to pay some rates, and they also have membership fees. I am amenable to looking at a model like that for CASCs, but only after the necessary due diligence, which is absolutely lacking from the work that Mr McKay claims to have carried out.

Then we come to the state aid issue, which apparently is a red herring. Apparently, state aid is now a red herring. Clearly, the Member has not given any thought to the issue at all, by the fact that he calls it a red herring. Rate relief for community amateur sports clubs was the subject of a recent state aid case in Great Britain taken against Her Majesty's Government, and the decision was not reported until the end of April. I listened to Mr Somerville ask, "Why has she not done anything for four years in relation to this issue?" I actually take state aid as quite an important issue in relation to legislation. It remains an issue for us, and an assessment needs to be made so that we do not fall foul of the state aid rules.

It is a finely balanced judgement —

Mr McKay: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Foster: No, I will not.

It is a finely balanced judgement, although I am sure that Mr McKay would stand shoulder to shoulder with me if my Department had to claw back rate relief from ratepayers if we did fall foul of state aid rules, because that would happen, and we would have to go out and get that money from the ratepayers.

It is an issue that was raised by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I am only too aware of it, given my eight years in that role. However, other Ministers and their Departments also have further concerns. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had the concern over state aid. The Department of the Environment, of course, will have consequential costs in relation to its derating grant. I notice that the Minister of the Environment is happy with the Bill, but then the Minister of the Environment also wants me to find the increased costs to facilitate him to make exactly the same grant. So it is "Give the money away, but give me the same money, because I want to give the same amount of money to the DOE."

What about the issues in relation to the DOJ and the policy on criminal damage compensation? Have those been addressed? No, they have not been addressed.

Finally, what has been done to address the issues raised by his party colleague, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in her Department's letter to the Finance Committee in May last year, which raised vital issues around social clauses, maximum relief assessment, bar facilities — similar to the concerns raised by the hospitality sector? Again, surprise, surprise, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure said that there should be no impact on DCAL's budget baseline. So, everybody wants relief, but nobody wants to pay for it. That is the fundamental issue. It does not surprise me, but again we come up against that with Sinn Féin.

Another party colleague of his, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, stated at the Committee in September:

That was his colleague Máirtín Ó Muilleoir. Mr McKay’s response to that is to apportion out the bars, lounges, restaurants and function rooms so that only sporting facilities get 100% relief. That sounds attractive, but when you look into it properly, you will find that the rates levied on club rooms are based on cost, which already leads to a hidden subsidy when you compare that to rates paid per square foot by licensed premises and hotels, because they pay their rates based on receipts and expenditures.

It is hard enough. I completely reject — it does not surprise me — the sort of nonsense that is thrown out from Sinn Féin that we are beholden to the business community and that it must be some hidden interest. I completely reject that. This is anti-competitive, and it is hard enough for some — [Interruption.]

Mrs Foster: I beg your pardon.

Mr Flanagan: I am laughing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order. The Minister will resume her seat. I ask Members please not to make any remarks from a sedentary position. When Members were addressing the Assembly, the Minister did not do that, so I would expect others to do the same.

Mrs Foster: I would expect nothing less, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is hard enough for pubs and restaurants to compete as matters stand. It is not just for food and drink. It is the whole function trade in some areas. It is not just the licensed trade either. I have had numerous representations in relation to privately owned golf clubs, for example. In fact, one of them in the Member's constituency is very exercised by the fact that amateur sports clubs get relief on their rates, yet they have to compete while paying full rates. Those are people who have diversified out of farming and have ploughed their money into a new enterprise, yet the Bill would further disadvantage them.

We simply cannot make an uneven playing field more uneven. Asking clubs with successful social facilities to pay just 20% rates on the sporting facilities strikes me as a not-unreasonable balance. That is the question we should be asking ourselves today.

What I would support is a model along the lines that applies to community halls, which would allow community amateur sports clubs to get 100% relief if they do not have a permanent licence. However, I put that to the sponsor when I met him earlier this month, and he refused to consider it. To Mr McCallister's point, perhaps the Assembly would take a different view of it if it knew that I asked the Member whether the Department could take over his legislation and deal with those issues, and he refused.

As things stand, I cannot support the Bill. It would set a precedent for well-meaning but ill-conceived proposals being thrown together in private Member's Bills in order to introduce new rate relief. I will be here every week making changes to rating legislation unless we insist on some standards in relation to policy development.

That is in relation to due process. There is also the separate issue relating to the drafting of the private Member's Bill. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to move on to that.

Mr McKay’s Bill requires the community and amateur sports club designation to be shown in the non-domestic valuation list. You may ask what the problem is with that. It will not work, because that is a statutory public document and contains no such designation. Again, that underlines the lack of care in bringing forward the Bill.

I have outlined the fundamental problems that I have with the Bill. They are problems that I brought to the attention of the sponsor of the Bill many months ago and that have been ignored. The issue now needs to come back to the Department. It is nothing to do with taking credit for legislation, but the Assembly cannot pass legislation that does not take full account of consequences and risks — consequences for the business community and risks to my Department that the legislation will be challenged. It is my assessment that there will need to be a further consultation, targeted and over eight weeks, to allow the Department to assess and bottom out those issues.

Out of necessity, the Department's approach will be run on a parallel process, with one process associated with the progression of the primary enabling power and another to complete the due process work on the consultation. Of course, that all depends on how the Committee for Finance and Personnel is going to react. They may well decide, "No. We don't want to play ball. We're going to huff because you wouldn't allow the Bill to proceed." I urge them to look at the bigger prize, which is having legislation that is properly thought out and that properly deals with the risks and assessments. We will be able to do that if they allow us to deal with them in a proactive way.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does she have a definite timeline for when she thinks she could produce that draft Bill?

Mrs Foster: We have drafting already completed. We are keen to move on this as quickly as possible but, of course, there is very little point in us moving ahead if the Committee decides that they will block accelerated passage and do not allow us to move forward.

The window dressing rates relief issue that was brought to us by the manager of the Buttercrane Shopping Centre has been consulted on and is ready to go; we do not need to consult on that point. Of course, the Bill that we are proposing is an enabling piece of legislation. It is not detailed legislation, so we would be able to move on it quickly. However, that is a matter for the Committee. I am happy to work with them on that matter but, as things stand, we will be voting against this Bill. I will be voting against this Bill as Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I rise to respond to the debate. I will come back later to some of the inaccurate comments that have been made; they were certainly misleading to this House.

The first Member who spoke was the Deputy Chair of the Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the Committee for its work and, indeed, the Deputy Chair for his work. I understand that he is moving on to pastures green and is escaping this place. I wish him well for the future in that regard. Unfortunately, as Dominic outlined, it looks like the Bill will not go to the Committee. He also touched on the issue of preventative spending. An issue for the Finance and Personnel Committee has been the concept of investing to save and MLAs and, indeed, the Executive taking a more long-term strategic view about how we spend public money and how we can reap dividends in terms of social impact and value for money in the longer term. In the areas of obesity and diabetes, this certainly would be preventative spending.

He also referred to the cross-community benefits of community and amateur sports clubs. I know of one example in my community where a local GAA club and a rugby club have worked together to build bridges in a community where there had been cross-community issues. That has reaped dividends, developed friendships and built links. Sport clubs play a vital role in bringing the entire community together. He also referred to the issue of clubs that are registered as charities. Of course, those that are registered as charities get 100% relief, so more clubs may decide to go down that road if 100% relief is not open to them.

He also referred to the call for the evidence that the Committee — not me; the Committee — put out over the summer period, in which no concerns were raised. Some concerns have been raised by those on the other side of the House, but no concerns were raised by any organisations over the summer period. It was only yesterday that a response was received from Hospitality Ulster to express some of its concerns at a very late stage. There has been quite a significant reaction to that not only from sports clubs but from some businesses, including some bars and restaurants.

As the Deputy Chair rightly said, Committee Stage would give businesses another opportunity to reply. It would also give organisations that represent the business community an opportunity to respond. That is what Committee Stage is for. We are only at Second Stage, and there have been many times in the past when Members from all parties have agreed to the principles of the Bill — the very broad principles of the Bill — and agreed that we need to look at amendments elsewhere. The more reasoned position that the party opposite should have taken was that outlined by Mrs Cochrane. Yes, she has concerns around the Bill, some of them similar to what the Minister has outlined; but the place to deal with them is at Committee Stage, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage.

The Deputy Chair indicated that the SDLP agrees with the general principles of the Bill and said the deployment of this petition of concern is anti-democratic. I think that that will prove to be the case, because it is quite clear that the majority of MLAs in the House, and the majority of parties bar one, support this proposal moving forward in the House.

I will also say that the programme last night about suicide in the GAA was a great example. It is a big issue not just for the GAA but for all sporting organisations and for rural communities such as I come from. All sporting codes and organisations do fantastic work in the area of suicide prevention.

Neil Somerville responded on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. I take the opportunity to welcome Mr Somerville to the Assembly. Our paths have not crossed since he took up his post. He also outlined the fact that this is an abuse of the petition of concern. He rightly said that the petition of concern was never intended to thwart run-of-the mill legislation. Some of the issues outlined about Mr Kelly, a Member of the House, are more controversial. However, community and amateur sports clubs, and the work they do, are not controversial in any way. He also said that there would not be a massive cost, and of course, the DUP have had four years to introduce a Bill and nothing happened until this Bill came to the House.

Mr McElduff indicated that there is huge support for the Bill in the community and referred to the public engagement in Strule Arts Centre in Omagh. I remember well the variety of sporting clubs that attended that evening, including tennis, bowling and the GAC. He rightly said that we should be an exemplar for Europe and the rest of the world in supporting community sports. So, there is an opportunity here to show that we can do something different and something good, without it being shot down here today. He also took the opportunity to speak to hospitality providers, who are universally supportive of it, and he was strongly critical of Hospitality Ulster for being out of touch and not representative.

In his intervention, the Deputy Chair, rightly, said that, in terms of amateur and community sports clubs — I have lost count of the amount of dinners I have been at for amateur sports clubs in Ballymena, Ballycastle and Portglenone, sometimes on quite a regular basis. That goes on in our communities all the time, and it makes those hotels, restaurants and bars a lot of profit. So, this goes both ways. The bars in clubs are staffed mainly voluntarily. They are not people who are going out to make a profit. They are people who are volunteering their time to better their club and ensure that money can be raised for good purposes, for supporting their young people, for sports equipment, and so on and so forth. It is a very worthwhile cause.

Bronwyn McGahan opened by stating that she is a former Gaelic footballer and a cyclist. She did say that she is a very good cyclist and is often seen going up and down the hills of Tyrone on a Sunday afternoon. She rightly talked about the effects that austerity and the Tory Government policy are having throughout the entire community; and that should not be forgotten either. She also referred to the various grant schemes that clubs apply to. They repeatedly go back to different organisations to get a couple of hundred pounds here and there. The Sports Forum did some work and research regarding this, and most sports clubs would like something simple and direct. If they were to have a rates exemption of 100%, that would be a lot better than filling out 20- or 30-page forms every year to try and scrape by year in and year out.

The Bill is designed to be simple, which is why it would be so effective.

Seán Rogers rightly said that sports clubs are the glue of our communities. I can assure him that there are many young people with a hurl running up and down the streets of north Antrim — and parts of County Down, I hasten to add.

There is a variety of sports in other communities. Running and cycling have taken off in recent years, and there is football, rugby and boxing, which is a big sport where I am from. That should not be forgotten, especially in view of the success that we have generated in areas such as rugby, as Mr McCallister mentioned, and boxing. We have produced some world-class athletes. Pardon me for saying this, but they started off in some of the dirtiest, most run-down facilities you could imagine. I can think of boxing clubs in my constituency that are covered in damp. They cannot get facilities and find it hard to scrape by and get support. They deserve extra money so that they can improve the environment in which they are delivering this service for our young people and communities. Some are hard-to-reach young people and some come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so this is a big opportunity for many of them. Sport gives them the opportunity to move on in life and to develop skills. Many young people whom I know of credit the sporting code that they are involved in with turning their life around. We should not forget that or the impact that these clubs truly have on our communities.

Judith Cochrane informed us that she is a former hockey player. I do not know how good she was; she might tell us later. She outlined the importance for youth and community relations. She also spoke of the loss of sponsorship for clubs. She supports the Bill in principle but would go further on bars and social clubs. She also rightly said that there are concerns from Departments. She would welcome further scrutiny — as would I — because there are concerns that I want to be addressed. I am not running away from them in any way, so they should be responded to in the way that our legislative process was designed to do by way of Committee Stage, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. If the DUP had wanted to torpedo the Bill at Final Stage, it could have done that. It is a bit disingenuous to outline concerns and not even to take the opportunity to address them through the stages of the Bill.

John McCallister referred to the fact that the purpose of Committee Stage is to allow the Committee to consult. He rightly referred to the sporting pride that we have seen in recent weeks not only in the North but across the island through rugby and soccer alike. We have produced some fine, fine rugby and soccer players. He is right that they all started in amateur clubs. Rory Best started at Banbridge Rugby Football Club, which, of course, responded to the consultation in support of the Bill. That club deserves the support to produce more Rory Bests. That is what we want to see: more success on the international stage. Being stingy is not the way to do that. This is a drop in the ocean compared with the overall Budget, and these clubs deserve our support.

Chris Hazzard referred to the extracurricular activities that clubs hold such as road safety events. I know of a number of clubs that engage with the PSNI in holding road safety events on their grounds as well as events on suicide awareness and mental health. It is not sport exclusively that happens in these clubs; it is more holistic. If councils or health trusts were doing that, it would cost hundreds — even thousands — of pounds in employees' time and all the rest of it. These are volunteers who do it for nothing. They give up their time, open up facilities and staff them at no cost, yet we are complaining about a few hundred pounds to a club here or a few thousand pounds to a club there.

We need to look at the costs in the round, not just rates but the cost that we would have to pay through central government and local government if these clubs were not there.

Rightly, Mr McCallister flagged the example of the plastic bag levy Bill, which, by the end, had morphed into the Carrier Bags Act 2014. That Bill was totally transformed, and that is the art of making legislation, which has been compared with making sausages: you do not necessarily want to see the ins and outs of it. That, in itself, outlines the ridiculousness of the position outlined from the other side of the Floor. If they were serious about making the changes that they outlined, they could have simply tabled amendments. Taking their ball and running home in the way that they are doing today is totally disingenuous.

Mr McCallister outlined his concern, rightly, that the Department might or might not get a Bill through and that we could end up with nothing for community and amateur sports clubs at the end of the mandate. I share that concern.

Mrs Foster, the Minister, outlined two main issues, and my consultation drew a lot of criticism. I quickly googled consultations by DUP Members who have had a private Member's' Bill. I am not picking on Mr McIlveen just because he is sitting there, but his consultation was pretty similar to the structure that I used. Mr Givan's consultation had seven questions. That is the nature of a private Members' Bill: we do not have a Department behind us to give us a 200-page document. The Department has produced 100- and 200-page consultation documents that did not even get five responses. I produced a short, sharp consultation document that got over 1,000 responses. That, I think, speaks for itself. Members can nitpick over the quality, but it was designed to be simple. We are talking about a Bill with four clauses. We are not talking about something complex; we are talking about a simple change to the 1977 order.

As far as a cost analysis is concerned, we had very little from the Department to work on. We were told that there were no up-to-date figures and that certain things cannot be calculated, so I find it highly ironic that the Minister is criticising me for that when her Department could not produce one. The Department could have been more helpful. My understanding was that, because of the way in which LPS is designed and statistics are gathered, there was genuine difficulty in getting these statistics. I certainly gave the Department the benefit of the doubt. If Minister Foster is saying that I should have been able to get a better analysis, maybe her officials should have been able to do the same. That is another red herring from the Minister.

The Minister referred to orange and green issues. That is not an avenue that I have gone down. The provisions for halls were in the 2006 order. That is in the past and an issue for others to debate. We want to deal with community and amateur sports clubs because they deliver for all communities: orange, green, black, yellow, purple or whatever. We want all GAA clubs, rugby clubs and boxing clubs, and clubs in unionist, nationalist and other communities to receive support — across the board. I do not think that anybody should oppose that.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for giving way. It is probably best to declare an interest as a member of an amateur sports club that pays rates of £1,700 a year. I was at a meeting of that organisation last night, and people were aghast at the proposed petition of concern from the DUP. I have fielded a number of calls in the past 24 hours from amateur sporting clubs in my constituency. They had been delighted to hear that the Bill was going through and are now furious that it will not happen.

The Member is talking about red herrings and issues of that nature that the Minister raised. One of the issues that she kept falling back on was the issue of competition between hotels and amateur sports clubs, as if they were competing on a level playing field. Does the Member think that hotels, which are there to generate a profit for their owners or shareholders, are comparable to amateur sports clubs, which reinvest any kind of surplus at all that they get into playing facilities and service for their local communities, or does he think that hotels compete with amateur sports clubs for trade in a local community?

Mr McKay: The Member is right; you are comparing apples and pears, really. The amateur sports clubs are staffed by volunteers, and the hospitality industry operates in a completely different environment. What was most concerning in the debate today, yesterday and earlier in the week is that there is an assumption that those who run hotels, bars and restaurants are automatically against the Bill. Since last night, I have been inundated with messages from bar managers — people I know who are involved in sport — saying that what was being said does not represent them. That needs to be taken into consideration in the Minister's consultation if she wants to bring something similar forward. It is unfortunate that that is how things have developed over the past couple of days, but all voices need to be listened to.

The Committee Stage, as it has been for most Bills in the Assembly, is when people, groups and organisations, such as Hospitality Ulster, can come and give evidence. The Committee can listen to what they are saying, and it can propose amendments. That is the way this process works. I say again that it is disingenuous for the Minister to come here and make her point and then not even have the courtesy to stay to hear my response to her comments. That she has not stayed for the duration of the debate ahead of the vote shows you how seriously she takes community amateur sports clubs.

Of course, she raised other issues to do with the Bill and said that it is anti-competitive. Well, I think that for the DUP to vote this down and torpedo the Bill is anti-community. As Mr Rogers outlined earlier, the community amateur sports clubs are the glue that holds many of our communities together. They deserve this recognition and support, and if Members want to tweak around the edges of the support that is put in place, they can table amendments to the Bill. What the Minister outlined that she wants could have been done through amendments to this Bill, which is already at Second Stage. I do not understand — well, I do understand — why she could not have done that.

She also referred to the proposal to get a permanent exemption from rates for CASCs if they do not have a bar. That is the first I have heard of it. She said that that was discussed with me in a private meeting; that is wrong. That is the first I have heard of it. At the meeting with the Minister last week, I said that I would be happy to work with the Department if it or the Minister wanted to introduce amendments and we could consider that and the House can make a decision in that regard. That is new to me. I would like to see more detail on that, and perhaps the Finance Committee would like to see more detail on what the Minister has in mind.

At the moment — Mr McCallister referred to this earlier — we have had no indication of a timeline for the Minister's Bill. We were told that the Department's Bill could not be brought forward because my Bill was already in the House, but that was wrong as well. That Bill could have come forward anyway. We have had no indication of a timeline, and the commitment from the Minister is a bit unwieldy. Of course, she wants to bring a Bill to the House without it going through Committee Stage. That is bad legislation; that is a Bill that has not had proper consultation if it does not go through the Committees of this House.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. She not only wants accelerated passage, bypassing the procedures of the House, but she wants to bring in enabling legislation, in which case we would not have the same oversight over the regulations or what we are being asked to do further down the track.

By taking the legislative approach that you propose, we would at least have oversight and control in the proper democratic place — in this Chamber.

Mr McKay: I thank the Member for his intervention. He is spot on. With this Bill, what you see is what you get. With enabling legislation, the Minister could give the impression that she is going to give support to community and amateur sports clubs but leave that for regulations to deal with somewhere down the line, at a date to be confirmed. The devil is in the detail, and the detail is not there. I would have considered withdrawing the Bill today if I had had that detail, but the Minister did not give me it. It was quite disingenuous for her to come here and outline a proposal that was put to me that was not put to me. She should stop playing silly buggers and stop trying to mislead the public. I challenge the Minister to outline to the public and outline to the rugby clubs, the soccer clubs, the boxing clubs — all amateur sports clubs — what exactly she is proposing to do. If it is enabling legislation, she should give us a date on which she is going to give us something of substance. We have not got that here today. I was going to say that the Minister has taken her ball and gone home, and she clearly has.

I think that this is immature. I knew that the Department had a Bill in the offing. My Bill was already ahead of it. I knew that the Minister wanted to include in her Bill an amendment on window dressing in shops. I think that that is what it comes down to: she did not want to support the Bill because she wants to put forward her own Bill with window dressing on it. That is what it comes down to. It is immature and bad politics, and it is a bad abuse of the petition of concern. At the end of today's debate, community and amateur sports clubs will be left in the dark about what support they may or may not get from the Department of Finance and Personnel. The challenge is there.

I will conclude on this point. The Minister —

Mr Flanagan: Will the Member give way before he concludes?

Mr McKay: Yes.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for giving way. Having listened to the Member's speech and, indeed, having read the Hansard report of the recent presentation by departmental officials to the Finance and Personnel Committee, I find what the Minister said to be confusing and contradictory. On the one hand, she said that this is not the right way to go about it, that the consultation document and the consultation process were allegedly flawed and that there is a better way in which to introduce an extension of rate relief for clubs. On the other hand, she said that we cannot afford it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I am expecting the Member at some stage to ask Mr McKay a question. Otherwise, I will be put in the very difficult position of the debate having opened up again. I am trying to avoid that at this late hour.

Mr Flanagan: I hear what you are saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, and far be it from me to put a man of your stature into a difficult position at this hour of the night.

My question concerns whether the Member has any understanding of whether the party opposite is opposed to the proposal to offer 100% rate relief to community and amateur sports clubs or whether its opposition stems from the fact that it is Mr McKay who brought forward the proposal.

Mr McKay: I think that it is the latter. The Minister had an opportunity here today to outline her proposal in detail, yet we are left with a proposal that is bereft of detail. That may change, and I hope that it does change, because what I want is full support for community and amateur sports clubs.

At the end of the day, the challenge to the Minister is this: if she is serious about providing support for community and amateur sports clubs, outline what that support is, instead of bringing forward some silly piece of enabling legislation, with no date for when clubs will get the support. Those community and amateur sports clubs did not come up the Lagan in a bubble. They know when they are being played. If the Minister is serious, she needs to bring forward legislation, outline what the support is and outline when the clubs will get it. That is the challenge for the Minister. She has, along with her party, abused the processes of the House, and she is also proposing to abuse the democratic process by bypassing Committee Stage, as Mr McCallister said. I hope that she reflects on the very strong views that are out there among community and amateur sports clubs and comes back with a proper, detailed proposal that is subject to proper consultation, not a process that is bereft of consultation in the House, as she proposed.

So she needs to come back with that, go out to the community, have a proper consultation on it like I have done and like I proposed through a consultation stage on the Bill and ensure that that is done by the time the elections are held next year.

At the end of the day, communities are struggling out there. Clubs from across the community that represent people of different religions, genders and sporting codes are struggling, and they need that support and deserve it. The party and the Minister opposite really need to reflect on how they have abused not only the House but the clubs that are the heart and the glue of our communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that a valid petition of concern has been presented. The vote on the Second Stage of the Bill, therefore, requires cross-community support.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Some Members: The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I do not think so. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Bear with us for a moment while we change the top Table.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed with any further business, I have some announcements.

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the Assembly that I have received a letter from the First Minister, dated today, revoking with immediate effect his letter of 10 September 2015 in which he designated the Minister of Finance and Personnel to exercise the functions of the office of First Minister.

Mr Speaker: I can also advise the House that the Rt Hon Peter Robinson, as nominating officer for the DUP, nominated Mr Jonathan Bell MLA as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment; Mr Simon Hamilton MLA as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA as Minister for Regional Development; and Mr Mervyn Storey MLA as Minister for Social Development.

Mr Bell, Mr Hamilton, Miss McIlveen and Mr Storey each accepted the nomination and affirmed the Pledge of Office in the presence of the Principal Deputy Speaker and the Clerk/Chief Executive at 4.30 pm today. I am satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met. Let us move on.

Mr Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Speaker, in conjunction with the Business Committee, give consideration to arranging the Question Time sequences so that those Departments that have not been subject to Question Time in recent weeks can now be?

Mr Speaker: I will take note of your point of order. It is not for me to respond directly. As you will understand, it is a matter for the Business Committee. We will refer your point of order to the Business Committee, and it can decide its course of action. I think that, at its meeting today, it agreed provisional agendas for the period after the recess.

Ms Ruane: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be a good idea to start with DRD.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order, as I am sure you are aware.

Mr Speaker: Before the debate commences, I would like to inform the House that the Minister wrote to me this afternoon to indicate that he is unavailable to respond to the Adjournment debate as he is unable to accommodate the later start. I have responded to the Minister reminding him of my expectation that Ministers should endeavour to attend the House whenever possible and to inform the Business Committee at the earliest opportunity should they find themselves unavailable.

Returning to the debate, the proposer of the topic will have 15 minutes and all other Members who speak will have approximately seven minutes.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Business Committee for allowing this debate. On these dark autumn nights, beaches are a long way from most of our minds. However, what we are going to discuss is very important, not just for the tourism and leisure facilities of the south Down area but for the environment, wildlife and economic growth and prosperity. I thank those MLAs, constituency colleagues and others who have stayed behind.

I want to place on record special thanks to local campaigners who, for a number of months, have been quite vociferous in their call that government is not doing enough. We have an empty chair tonight where a Minister should have been sitting. Local people will be disappointed that the Department of the Environment and the Minister of the Environment are not here to listen to some of these points and to respond. They will be doubly disappointed given that, with the Minister of the Environment not here, we could perhaps have had the Minister for Regional Development here, as a lot of the issues that we are going to talk about relate to DRD, but, of course, political games mean that we are left with no Minister for Regional Development. It is local people and local communities who are coming to the fore to tackle long-standing neglect. It is disappointing, and I just want to place that disappointment on record.

When walking around this Building, Members will have seen various references to the Great War of 1914-18 and, of course, the Second World War. Many people may not be aware that the British military dumped vast quantities of armaments and munitions into the Irish Sea following these wars. In 1945 alone, more than one million tons of munitions were dumped into Beaufort's Dyke, a long trough in the seabed of the Irish Sea. Included in this dump were mortars, grenades, rockets, cluster bombs, anti-aircraft shells, mustard gas, sarin gas and more than 15,000 phosgene chemical warheads. In the 1950s and 1960s, radioactive munitions were dumped again as each Cold War modification of weaponry deemed various types of bombs obsolete. Stormont's Environment Ministers and Department at the time simply turned their back on the potential impact of such actions. It was a case of out of sight, out of mind. We have had more than 50 incidents of these dangerous munitions washing ashore in south Down in the last five years alone. It is quite simple, and the local community is saying that it is quite simple: we can no longer tolerate the laissez-faire approach of the Department of the Environment to those incidents. They cannot be out of sight, out of mind. Munitions is just one issue relating to the beaches, but it needs to be brought to the fore.

Another issue is litter. A recent marine litter survey indicated that it is still a real and severe issue in South Down. Look at the case of Ballyhornan — a beach owned by the Department of the Environment. The NIEA controls Ballyhornan beach. There is twice as much litter on Ballyhornan beach than on all the beaches on the north Antrim coast combined. For a beach that is controlled by the Department of the Environment, it is absolutely unacceptable that that is the case. Various strategies have been put in place by the Department in recent years. Some of them, such as Fishing for Litter, have had limited success. We know that there are issues with the fishing industry, and some of the beaches adjacent to some of our harbours have the highest amount of litter, but we need to see more being done. We have had only limited success.

Tyrella, Cranfield, Murlough and Newcastle seem to feature in the good beach summits. I will focus mostly on Lecale tonight, and my colleague Caitríona Ruane will talk about some of the other areas. There are 13 beaches along Lecale, and those are the ones that we need to concentrate on. The potential for growth and tourism on those beaches and the protection of our environment is huge, but that is simply not getting the attention that it deserves from government. There is a phrase that best sums up the approach, which is simply "a poverty of aspiration". Nowhere is that more keenly felt than in the lack of EU bathing status for a number of those beaches. That is severely disappointing.

The people of Lecale and the wider South Down constituency believe that they are being treated as second-class citizens, and I agree with them. It is intolerable that every single beach in north Down and north Antrim was simply gifted EU bathing status. They did not have to apply — the Department did that for them — and they did not have to reach any sort of standard of bathing water; they were simply gifted that status. As I will come on to later, none of those beaches have bathing management plans in place, yet the local community in Lecale, and in places like Ballyhornan, Killough, Ardglass and Kilclief, have to jump through hoops to gain that sort of recognition. Again, I think that is a direct result of decades of neglect and mismanagement.

Directly feeding into that is a long tradition of NI Water pumping grade two sewage into the water at Audley's Castle. Coney Island is very popular with local surfers, yet we pump sewage into the water. Ballyhornan is an area of scientific interest with special flora and fauna, yet we pump sewage into the water. Dundrum Bay has potential and there are various business interests in developing oysters and mussels, yet we pump sewage into the water. If we look at Ardglass, we see a very active fishing harbour. There is great potential for tourism, but the amount of pollution and industrial waste that is washed onto east Ardglass beach is just not acceptable, and we need to do something about it. Minerstown is a very significant beach that has ecological value. We have a seal colony that comes ashore to give birth, but the council has been looking at the water and it is not coming up to scratch. We have to ask why that is allowed to be the case.

For various reasons, EU bathing status will be the catalyst for growth in all of this. If we can get EU bathing status, NI Water simply will not be allowed to pump the sewage into the water. That means that we will see an upgrade in the sewerage infrastructure. For areas such as Dunsford, Killough and Ballyhornan, which have not been able to get housing developments passed or any sort of industrial growth because of the poor sewerage infrastructure, this could be a real catalyst. So, it is not just for the beach; it is for the wider area.

The neglect from central government means that the community has had to take the lead. The community has been brilliant and I pay great tribute to it. Over the last couple of years, it has organised mass swims on the beaches to highlight that the beaches are being used in Ballyhornan, Kilclief and Killough. Hundreds of people have participated, and the positive media coverage has gone all around the world. That is tied into another local Lecale campaign about saving the heritage of our lighthouse.

Again, there is a very vibrant community that wants to step into the area that government is neglecting and take control. I think that, in an era of co-design and wanting to work with various agencies, this has great potential to let local communities, which have a real interest in conservation and environmental protections for local areas, play a key role.

The infrastructure is largely there. There are no serious resource implications for EU bathing status. It is a matter of providing new signage about bathing water. Obligations are fairly light touch. Unlike our blue flag beaches, there is no demand that you have to have lifeguards etc. For those who are not aware of EU bathing-water designation, it simply acknowledges that waters where people bathe require more monitoring and clear reporting to the public. The marine policy division of the DOE manages the whole process in the North. The designation, as I said earlier, first appeared in 2011, when 23 beaches were identified by NIEA and automatically designated. All the north Down and north Antrim coast beaches were designated. The bathing waters, once designated, have undergone a rigorous water-monitoring regime ever since. The regime was tightened up in 2015. The people of Lecale and the wider south Down area deserve something similar.

Designations, though, for EU status — and this highlights the urgency of the situation — happen only every six years. Given that the last designation was at the end of 2011, the next designation process will be at the end of the 2017 bathing season. It takes two full years to undergo the monitoring process as a candidate beach. Therefore, the application must be submitted by the end of 2015 to meet the deadline for the next process. This highlights the urgency about this matter. We have to see action from the Department. In partnership with the local council, the Department will be the people who facilitate this. I am delighted to see that the Chair of the Environment Committee is here; perhaps this is a vehicle that the local community may be able to use to ensure that something as important as this gets the attention it deserves. The north Down and Ards beaches were put forward by designation, as I said. The council did not have to be proactive at all. No management plans were created and, in most cases, there remain no active management plans whatsoever. Not a single beach that was designated in 2011 has a comprehensive management plan, yet these are the sort of challenges that local communities in Killough and Ballyhornan are putting forward.

As I have said, it is the local community that has come forward, and I am delighted that my Sinn Féin colleagues in Newry, Mourne and Down Council took some of these demands on board and were successful in a motion creating a local beaches forum that can be a real driver, not only in securing the EU bathing status but — and this is one of the links, I suppose — we have the potential for a Mourne coastal path. This aspect taps into tourism. There is now no better body to drive forward, in tandem with the local community, than this beaches forum when it comes to the coastal path. Litter has very often been left to the local community, which does a massive number of litter picks on all those beaches. Now we have the statutory footing, whereby the beaches forum can perhaps take this on.

Another exciting venture, I think, is the EU's Coastwatch, whereby the local community gets involved and looks after its own particular stretch or few hundred metres of the coast. When you think of the potential for local schools and organisations, and the need for healthy and active local communities, this is a no-brainer. For me, the beaches forum has potential, in that fourfold way, to drive this forward. As I have said, EU bathing status is the catalyst for all the improvements.

Look at the issue of sewage. It is an issue not just for industry and big housing developments, but for local, small housing developments. We all know the sewage issues that arise at Ballyhornan, the former military camp. Yesterday, we were with a number of schoolchildren from south Down and we were talking about the debate we would be having tonight. They wanted to know what it was about, so we explained about the pumping of sewage into the sea. The kids asked the obvious question, as kids do at times: why not just stop? It is a very simplified approach, but it is right. It simply should not be allowed.

Look at a beach like Ballyhornan: it just beggars belief that at a beach, controlled by the Department, in a designated area of special scientific interest (ASSI) for flora and fauna and everything else, we tolerate sewage being pumped into the sea. I think that the Department simply slaps a fine on NI Water for that. I see that the previous Minister is here and he can let us know whether it is any different; but, as far as I am aware, the Department simply slaps a fine onto NI Water and thinks that that will do. It is simply unacceptable and has to change.

I mentioned active communities, which often do not have the best sports facilities and are looking for improved ones. These are fantastic beaches and local ventures to get involved in.

Tourism is a big thing, and it will be the real driver of change for the south Down and Lecale area. However, if we do not give tourism the building blocks, we are simply operating with our hands tied behind our backs. How will we attract tourists to absolutely stunning places? Ballyhornan is stunning, and there is such potential in Kilclief and Killough, yet we are saying to tourists to come along, but, when you get into the water, you might have to watch out for sanitary towels. It is simply not acceptable, and we should not be doing that. If it is not good enough for people in north Down, it should not be good enough for people in south Down. For local businesses and everybody else, the importance of this cannot be overstated. For far too long, it has been a case of out of sight, out of mind when it comes to the beaches in south Down, particularly in Lecale.

It is great that the council was able to vote through a beaches forum. What we now need from the Department and the Minister is the dedication to make sure that the process of applying for EU bathing status for the three beaches — Killough, Kilclief and Ballyhornan — begins by the end of this year. If we have to wait for another six years, I do not think that local people will forgive us.

I thank all of you for coming here tonight and participating in the debate. I pay tribute to the local people who tirelessly campaign on the issue, and I am very proud to play a part in that.

Mr Speaker: I call Ms Anna Lo, the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.

Ms Lo: Mr Speaker, I am not speaking as Chairperson of the Environment Committee. May I go ahead?

Mr Speaker: No. I have to give preference to constituency MLAs. I call Mr Seán Rogers.

Mr Rogers: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the topic and thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. South Down is widely known for some of the best beaches in Ireland. The outstanding beauty and excellence of our beaches is internationally recognised. The blue flag award, for example, is a voluntary eco-label awarded to over 4,000 beaches and marinas in 49 countries, and it seeks to promote sustainable development. In 2015, blue flags were awarded to 12 beaches in Northern Ireland, four of which are in County Down: Crawfordsburn, Tyrella, Murlough and Cranfield. The success for Down beaches was replicated in the Northern Ireland seaside awards, in which three of the six resort beaches were in County Down: Crawfordsburn, Tyrella and Cranfield. Murlough was awarded as a rural beach.

Last month, the Department of the Environment released its report on better beaches, revealing that all 23 of Northern Ireland's bathing beaches have passed new stricter European standards. Of the 23 beaches, 14 were classed as excellent, seven as good and two as sufficient, which means that none of the bathing beaches in Northern Ireland was classed as poor. Northern Ireland is now home to some of the best bathing beaches in Europe, a fact that is clearly reflected in Down, as four of the excellent beaches are at Crawfordsburn, Tyrella, Murlough and Cranfield. Beaches represent a vital part of Down's tourism economy, and all these beaches are high on the lists of top places to visit in Northern Ireland.

The maintenance of high standards at Down's beaches is crucial to maintaining and expanding our water-based tourism and leisure industry. Unfortunately, the Minister of the Environment cannot be here tonight because of a prior engagement, but he has indicated that he remains fully committed to the ongoing development of our beaches, and I believe that Down's record of excellence will continue. As Mr Hazzard said, we have such potential in our tourism, but the question is how we develop that potential.

I have highlighted the positives, but we also have to think of the negatives. We have to raise the bar. I concur with the Member's sentiments that all beaches in Down should strive for better levels of cleanliness, as should all beaches in Northern Ireland, but I do not agree that nothing has been done. Clear progress has been made on the poor beaches, and it would appear that, through the better beach framework, we can get even better. I acknowledge the work of Northern Ireland Water, particularly at Ballymartin, where the new treatment works has improved water quality. We have a problem in Annalong, along the lines that Mr Hazzard mentioned, with all kinds of things going into the sea and people not being able to swim.

I do not want to dismiss concerns about the state of our beaches or the impact of littering, but it is worth noting that Northern Ireland beaches have met stricter standards for water quality.

In places such as Cranfield, we have to look after the tourists, but, in the management of our beaches, car parking and so on, we also have to look after residents.

Mr Hazzard referred to littering, and it is a blight on the natural beauty of any environment. The key aim for all beaches should be cleanliness. The Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful marine litter survey is alarming for certain parts of our coastline. Ballyhornan, as he mentioned, is a clear cause for concern, as are the litter and waste on beaches near fishing harbours such as Ardglass and Kilkeel. The survey also noted litter dumps near some of our leading beaches, which demonstrates the clear threat of waste to our beach health and industries. It is vital that programmes such as Litter Less, Bag it and Bin it, and Live Here, Love Here are supported so that we can reclaim those areas.

The extent of rubbish can be alarming, but the Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful survey noted that the winter storms were partially to blame for dumping large quantities of litter on our shores. In a recent survey, a French road sign was found along the beach, indicating that a significant amount of the litter comes from the seas around Britain and further afield. It is vital that litter deposits in the marine environment are extracted and reduced. It is unfortunate that such rubbish deposits exist, and a new emphasis on joint approaches to rubbish disposal across these islands and Europe may be required.

The good thing about today's debate is that it brings the matter to the attention of the public. Certainly, more needs to be done, but I believe that, for real change to occur, we must reiterate the importance of our collective responsibility to look after our beaches. Community engagement and greater education are crucial in raising awareness of the damage that litter can cause. I commend the many schools and community groups that get involved in beach clean-ups. Locals and businesses alike have a duty to respect our beaches and dispose of rubbish in a responsible and ethical manner. I commend the progress that the Environment Minister has made so far, but I believe that community and environmental organisations, such as Beach NI and Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful, remain vital in helping to guide the population to accept and champion that approach. Above all, improving our beaches is everyone's responsibility.

Mr McCallister: I congratulate Mr Hazzard on securing this evening's debate. One of several issues flagged is that we need to do significantly better as a collective, not only on the big waste and sewage problems for which Northern Ireland Water is the lead agency but in educating people that, when they access beaches and other beauty spots, they must take their waste home with them. That is a huge issue.

Colleagues across the Chamber and Ms Lo will probably know that, overall in Northern Ireland, we spend something like £30 million a year dealing with litter and clearing up other people's waste. That is a huge cost to the taxpayer and the public purse. As Mr Rogers rightly pointed out, this is everybody's responsibility.

In opening the debate, Mr Hazzard mentioned almost every beach in South Down. We are blessed in the constituency of South Down. Having been born and bred there and lived there all my life, I can certainly say, with a completely unbiased view, that it is the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom. We have everything — as well as the mountains, we have a coastline that stretches from Carlingford lough to Strangford lough, with many superb beaches in between. It is an absolute tragedy that so many are not in the condition that we want them to be in. We have to remind ourselves that many of them are in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and, given that some are even in an area of special scientific interest, we have to ask ourselves this: what is being done?

It is a great shame that the Minister is not here to respond to the debate.

We have to look at what has been done if we are serious about developing a tourism product and caring for our environment in the way that we want it to be cared for and the way it deserves to be cared for. If we are serious about all of those aspirations, we have to really up our game in developing a tourism product where we have the mountains and where we have made huge and significant investments in developing mountain-bike trails and creating a product to bring people in.

Northern Ireland, across the board, lags way behind other parts of the UK and Ireland in the number of overnight stays of visitors outside Belfast and tourist spend outside Belfast, yet tourism is hailed as one of the key drivers of our economy and of revitalising it.

From the environmental perspective, the last thing anyone wants is our environment being constantly damaged and potential public health risks when we access beaches. We want our beaches to be very accessible. We want them to be places where people can go at all times of the year to get out and enjoy the great outdoors, and we want to make sure that they are safe. It is about keeping pressure on the Department, on agencies and on Northern Ireland Water to make sure that a collective approach is taken and that agencies that are directly responsible for improving water quality are held to account and made to live up to the standards that we expect and want to see set for our beaches.

It is positive that it is at least being debated. I hope that we do not have to keep returning to this in an effort to make sure that something is done about it, because it is not only the people who live in south Down who want to see that improved, so do the people — the tourists — who we want to come and visit to enjoy the scenery and what we have to offer. We want it in a fit state for all people to enjoy, with no public health issues and no environmental damage.

I join Mr Rogers and pay tribute to the probably thousands of people who volunteer every year. I, like my colleagues, have been out on various beach cleans in various parts of the constituency. I want to pay tribute to those people. Many of them sometimes travel to do it. I know of one school in Belfast that does an annual trip to south Down for a beach clean as part of its Duke of Edinburgh award, giving something back when they have been to the constituency and enjoyed outdoor pursuits and other activities there. I want to pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers who give up time to go out and lift rubbish of everyday things. The one thing that has always struck me any time I have been on a beach clean is how much stuff there is to be lifted. It never fails to surprise me how quickly a bag can be filled.

This is an important issue to bring to the House. Regrettably, the Minister is unable to respond, but I hope that he reads the Hansard report and that his officials go through it and provide some reassurance to Members that the Department is taking the issue with the seriousness with which it needs and deserves to be taken.

Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaí, Chris Hazzard, as an rún seo a chur faoi bhráid an Tí anocht. I welcome this Adjournment debate and would like to thank my colleague Chris Hazzard for bringing it to the House. I have to say that I agree with John. South Down is a very beautiful area. Where I disagree with him is that he thinks it is in the United Kingdom and I think it is in Ireland, but we will not fall out over that.

Mr McCallister: We may both be right.

Ms Ruane: Maybe we are both right, John. Notwithstanding that, wherever you consider it to be, it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and our beaches are a major part of that.

I look not just at south Down but at Carlingford lough and Louth and at the building of tourism in both counties. They are different sides of the same coin.

We want to see EU bathing water status there. We want to see NI Water, the Department of the Environment and the various agencies working together. Although some work has been done, it is not enough. It simply is not good enough that sewage is pouring out into the sea. NI Water has a job to do, and I look forward to hearing from the ex-Minister about the work that his former Department maybe could or should have done in the past and about where improvements can be made. We want a place where we have safe bathing environments for us and our children. It does not make sense that the gold coast beaches in north Down have the highest level of protection by NI Water yet the beaches in south Down have some of the least protection.

I welcome Newry, Mourne and Down District Council's cross-party motion for it to help in having our beaches nominated for EU bathing water status. Six of the beaches, including those at Coney Island, Ballyhornan, Killough and Kilclief, took part in the Lecale Big Swim and Paddle in August to highlight their campaigns.

We need just look at how Ballyhornan has been treated by the authorities. It has been treated disgracefully by the British Ministry of Defence, with former military housing sold off willy-nilly, without any protection. That shows what the authorities thought of the people of south Down. We need just look at what happened at Sellafield, or Windscale as they called it — change the name if there is an accident — and what happened to the waters of south Down and Louth. Again, that shows the disdain with which local people have been treated.

The villages that I mentioned — Kilclief, Coney Island, Killough and Ballyhornan — have now gained funding through the Strangford Lough and Lecale Partnership to pursue applications for the Green Coast Award and EU bathing water status. At Carlingford lough, we have a Love Your Lough campaign that has been ongoing for months, with clean-ups taking place in Killowen, Rostrevor, Warrenpoint, Omeath and Carlingford. I have been on some of those clean-ups on both sides of the lough, at Greenore and Omeath. I have been on various beaches, such as Templetown and those on the northern side of the lough. That is people power. Like John, I was amazed at what we picked up on the beach — the amount of rubbish. I felt like a beachcomber, because you did not know what you would find. One of our councillors, Sinéad Ennis, and I have met representatives of Love Your Lough on a number of occasions to discuss its work and what can be done to help our coastlines.

As my colleague Chris Hazzard said, Sinn Féin brought a motion to council this month that proposed a task force to tackle the recommendations of the recent report on the state of the coastline. Love Your Lough is documenting every single piece of waste that it has picked up on the beaches. It has found industrial waste, netting that is dangerous to animals, lobster pots and corrosive materials. We need to take the improvement of our beaches very seriously, because it will benefit tourism across south Down and north Louth. Investing in our beaches is good for people, the environment, tourism and the welfare of animals.

I share everyone in the House's disappointment that the Minister is not here. I look forward to hearing what he will do about the debate. We had been informed that he would be available, and now, unfortunately, he is not. He owes us an explanation as to why he is not in the House. I am sure that he has a very good reason, but it would be good for him to share that with us, because he is the Minister of the Environment and has a job of work to do on our beaches.

Mr Kennedy: This is an important debate. Although I do not represent South Down, I spend quite a lot of leisure and holiday time in the south Down coastal area, including at some of the very beautiful beaches there. It is undeniable that the beaches do not belong just to the people of south Down, they belong to all of us. The value of these magnificent areas of natural beauty is that they are a vital resource, not only for people who live in the immediate area but for all the people of Northern Ireland and tourism generally.

The beaches from Warrenpoint to Ballyhornan offer a space of relaxation and enjoyment for everyone; thankfully, all free of charge. I was gravely concerned to read about the worrying levels of litter on those and other beaches in the marine litter survey published by Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful. It is worrying and of concern that places such as Ballyhornan have been allowed to fall into the state that they are in now. It is unbelievable that more than 20,000 items of litter were found per square kilometre in that area, and over 9,000 per square kilometre on the beach at Tyrella is equally concerning. I am pleased to read that there are much better figures for other beaches, including Rostrevor, but, even then, over 2,000 items per square kilometre is hardly a record to be overly proud of.

Previous Members to speak have referred to the contribution that is expected from NI Water. There was a suggestion that I should speak on behalf of NI Water, which I am no longer qualified to do, but I have some insight. There are great infrastructural needs across the water industry throughout Northern Ireland, not least in coastal areas. However, that needs proper funding, and my experience, particularly in recent years, has been that that funding has been denied and not provided by the Executive and, indeed, by the Assembly. So there are questions for all the political parties when they begin to apportion blame for the lack of money spent.

The importance of the issue should not be underestimated. The litter and damage to the environment is very serious. Tourism is discouraged, as a dirty beach is unlikely to bring people even from close by, never mind from other places, including other parts of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland and beyond. Therefore, it is depriving the local economy of its fair share of revenue from that source. Equally importantly, the waste is damaging Northern Ireland sea life. Plastic bags, bottles and other waste cause the death of fish, seabirds and other animal life that are vital to the environmental health of Northern Ireland generally. We should not stand idly by and watch our bountiful sea life be degraded in such a manner.

South Down's beaches are important and historical. Therefore, action must be taken to ensure that they are not allowed to degenerate further. I want to take a moment to commend the hard-working volunteers who are seeking to improve the situation; for instance, the Ardglass Festival Association, the Kilbroney Residents Association, McDonalds in Downpatrick and St Patrick's Primary School near Tyrella. They have done excellent work in removing tons of rubbish from those beaches. It is impressive that, for example, in places such as Rostrevor, volunteers have given more than 140 hours and collected over 100 bags of litter. The excellent work of schoolchildren in particular is an inspiration. It clearly shows a commitment from local people and children to simply not allow their local beaches to be polluted. More support and guidance should be given to groups such as those, and I commend their actions wholeheartedly.

However, we should not have to rely on the goodwill of volunteers to keep our beaches clean. It is vital that cooperation is fostered between all relevant organisations and agencies. The quickest way to address this issue is by bringing together all the relevant stakeholders and ensuring that every effort is focused on cleaning beaches. I therefore encourage the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, and other agencies and volunteers to work together. By working as one team, with the goodwill and shared goal of keeping south Down's beaches clean and inviting, I am certain that the situation can be improved. Therefore I hope that all relevant bodies make efforts to reach out to one another and leverage the wide range of skills and capabilities that they can collectively offer. I am sure that I am not alone in offering my best wishes for that endeavour. Of course, I am happy to help in any reasonable manner.

I bring my remarks to a close by saying that I am immensely proud of our beaches in Northern Ireland; I believe them still to be world-class, and I believe that people travel from around the world to experience them. Our coasts are a vital legacy that we must hold dear, and I hope that the south Down coastline is kept free of rubbish and remains a beautiful shared resource for everyone. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Finally, Ms Anna Lo.

Ms Lo: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for having the patience to wait to join us.

Ms Lo: I am very sorry to have confused you earlier, but I assure you that the Committee is very conscious of the importance of keeping our environment clean and healthy for all of us to enjoy. I am not a South Down MLA, but I spent many happy years with my young family in a rented cottage near the Silent Valley. We loved the mountains and the beaches in south Down.

Marine littering poses a growing threat to the marine and coastal environment. Since most marine litter takes such a long time to degrade, if it degrades at all, constant littering results in a gradual build-up in the marine and coastal environment. Studies clearly indicate that marine littering is getting worse. Having read the 2014 marine survey, I can understand why Mr Hazzard has brought this debate to the House, and I thank him for doing so. The survey shows that some beaches are particularly heavily burdened with litter. The 14 litter types shown include materials like plastic and glass, and Ballyhornan had the highest levels of seven of those during 2014. There are also some very concerning results a few miles south at Ardglass.

If you continue even further south to Tyrella beach — my children's favourite beach for many years until they got sick of following their parents to beaches when they got to their early teens and refused to come with us — you will find that areas of it are in the top three most littered beaches for 10 of the litter types. The report mentions that the stretch of Tyrella beach surveyed was several hundred metres from the designated swimming area. That shows the significant resources needed to maintain its blue flag status.

The survey, which was highlighted during Question Time last week, makes reference to the continual pumping of raw sewage into the sea at Ballyhornan. Mr Kennedy mentioned NI Water. The Environment Committee is aware of the number of instances of NI Water polluting our rivers, and the Committee is looking into that. This is clearly an issue for the council, the DOE and the Department for Regional Development. I will be asking what plans they have for a joined-up, coordinated approach to safeguard our beaches and waters. It is certainly something that needs to be looked at urgently.

Like others, I would like to pay tribute to the many volunteers who come out tirelessly to lift litter from our beaches; the schoolchildren and families who come out to collect bags and bags of litter. Shame on those people who leave litter on our beautiful beaches.

Last week, I presented an award from the NGO Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful to the Mill Strand Integrated Primary School in Coleraine — I confess that it is not in south Down; it is in Coleraine — for their dedication in removing litter from the beaches. Every Friday, those pupils go to the beach to pick up litter, come rain or shine. If it is wet, they put on their macs and they still go out. It is a wonderful example from which we can all learn.

One of Northern Ireland's greatest assets is its environment. We need to protect it. The increase in marine litter is yet another example of why we really do need an independent environmental protection agency.

Mr Speaker: I thank all the contributors. It was a very interesting discussion.