NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Monday 12 November 2007 Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answer to Questions: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: It is my sad duty to inform the Assembly of the death of Mr John Fee, a former Member for the Newry and Armagh constituency. I want to take this opportunity to extend my personal condolences to his wife and family circle on this very sad loss. Mr Durkan: Mr Speaker, I join with you in extending the SDLP’s condolences to Collette Fee and to John’s wider family circle. Members will recall John as being very diligent on behalf of his constituents and very dogged in his arguments. He had a sense of honour and a sense of humour, and he brought passion and compassion to politics. His only commitment was to try to make people’s lives better, and, sadly, his own life was all too short. Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I had the pleasure of knowing John Fee for some years, and I served with him during the first mandate of the Assembly. He was a very diligent and committed public representative and, when working with him, I found him to be an individual of great integrity. It is very sad, and an awful shock, that a man of such young years has passed away. As well as my personal condolences, I offer condolences on behalf of Sinn Féin to John’s extended family. The First Minister (Rev Dr Ian Paisley): I should like to associate the members of the DUP with the remarks that have been made by the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Death comes to us all, and is often sudden. It is a reminder that we are not here for ever, and it is good, in the whirl of our lives, to be reminded that there are more important things — those of eternity. Mr Kennedy: I join with others in the House in expressing my profound sympathy to Mrs Collette Fee, to John’s mother Mrs Deirdre Fee, and to the Fee family. In his time, John was able and outstanding, both as a representative of Newry and Armagh constituency and as a member of the Newry and Mourne District Council. I am profoundly saddened by his premature death. He was a man of intellect, ability and, most of all, integrity, and for that he will long be remembered in South Armagh. Mr Neeson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I express sympathy to John Fee’s family on his untimely death. John was only 43, yet in that short life, he made a major contribution to his local community and to politics in Northern Ireland. He was a man of the highest integrity. We know that, at times, he faced major difficulties head on, and he will be sadly missed by all in Northern Ireland. Pensions Bill First Stage The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg to introduce the Pensions Bill [NIA7/07], which is a Bill to make provision about pensions and other benefits payable to persons in connection with bereavement or by reference to pensionable age; to make provision about the functions of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority; and for connected purposes. Mr Speaker: That constitutes the Bill’s First Stage, and it shall now be printed. The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined. Pig Production Development Committee (Winding Up) Order The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew): I beg to move That the Pig Production Development Committee (Winding Up) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 (SR 2007/354) be approved. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I shall outline the background to the Order and the reasons for its introduction. The pig production development committee is an executive, non-departmental public body, sponsored by my Department. It is funded by statutory levy and its functions are the provision of services to the pig sector, mainly genetic testing and research and development. It comprises eight members, and the posts are unpaid. One recommendation of the review of public administration (RPA), which concluded in March 2006, was that the functions of the committee be transferred to the Livestock and Meat Commission. Following extensive consultation on the outcome of the RPA, and with those specific stakeholders involved in the proposal, the committee and the wider pig industry rejected the merger, on the grounds that it was against the best interests of the pig sector. Moreover, those consulted did not wish to see the pig levy used for any other purpose, such as funding the overheads and administration of the larger body. Accordingly, the committee recommended to the Department that it be wound up, as its parent legislation entitles it to do, and undertook to explore alternative voluntary arrangements that would better serve the pig industry. This course of action has the support of stakeholders and will ultimately provide the new body with the flexibility to collect and disburse a voluntary levy. It also meets the primary aim of the RPA, in that the number of public bodies will be reduced. The proposals have been seen by Ministers, who are content with this course of action. My Department undertook to ensure that any new voluntary body is properly constituted and that appropriate safeguards are in place, with an assurance that the new arrangements will be suitably robust and sustainable. The industry is aware that there will be no reinstatement of the present arrangements should the alternative fail. A new body, Pig ReGen Ltd, has been incorporated with the appropriate memorandum and articles of association. The Order before the House provides for the dissolution of the pig production development committee, with effect from 31 March 2008 and the transfer of its assets to Pig ReGen Ltd. It deals with the property, rights and liabilities of the committee in connection with its dissolution, with the discharge of the committee’s liabilities during the winding-up period, and with any legal proceedings to which the committee is party prior to the dissolution date. It sets out the manner in which contracts or agreements made by the committee, which are still in force at the time of dissolution, are to be dealt with, along with the committee’s records. It provides for the final report and accounts of the committee and specifies the action to be taken by its creditors. There are no human-rights or equality issues arising from the Order, and it has no impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector. There are no financial implications, as the committee posts are unpaid, and any savings to my Department will be minimal. A separate Order is being made to revoke the Pig Production Development (Levy) Order (Northern Ireland) 1996, also with effect from 31 March 2008. The primary legislation — the Pig Production Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 — will effectively become redundant, and will be removed from the statute book at the earliest opportunity. In bringing forward this legislation to assist the pig sector by allowing for the formation of a voluntary body, which is not bound by legislative constraints, I am aware that the industry is experiencing difficulties at this time. I am working directly with the industry and the unions on this matter. I am aware that the Ulster Pork and Bacon Forum is doing a great job in difficult circumstances, and I fully support it in doing so. Recently, I met the senior management team of a leading pork processor to learn at first hand about the difficulties that it faces. I have also written to every supermarket in the North about rising costs for producers due to high feed prices. I am aware that the increased cost of feed has placed additional pressure on producers, but that is a market issue, and Government cannot intervene. The situation is not confined to the North; producers across these islands are facing similar problems. I fully intend to do all that I can to support the local industry at that time. I commend the Pig Production Development Committee (Winding Up) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 to the Assembly. The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Dr W McCrea): On behalf of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, I support the motion. The Department brought its proposed legislation to the Committee in June, and we had the opportunity to put questions to departmental officials. The Committee has accepted that it is necessary to wind up the existing organisation, and is satisfied that the best way forward is to transfer its assets and functions to a new company, Pig ReGen Ltd. I believe that the directors of the new company will be drawn from three categories of pig producers, with a representative from the Ulster Farmers’ Union. On 4 September, my Committee formally recorded that it had no objection to the rule’s being made. I hope that no one in this House is under any illusion as to the current state of the pig industry in Northern Ireland. In October, we had a defining report from the red meat task force, setting out the hard facts of the future for the beef industry in Northern Ireland. If that was bad news, it does not start to describe the state of the pig industry. Just over a year ago, producers were receiving a reasonable farmgate price for finished pigs, and there was a certain confidence about the future. Unfortunately, since then, farmgate prices have fallen by 15%, while grain and feed costs have risen by more than 20%. That situation cannot be sustained. 12.15 pm The pig-farming community is under tremendous pressure. Urgent action from the Department, from processors and from retailers is needed, or else there will not be an industry for us to support. It is a case of simple economics rather than of farmers complaining when times get tough. A business that costs more money than it makes cannot and will not survive. Therefore, the Department and the Minister must take urgent action, because when crises have hit the pig industry in the past, other European countries — those considered the great Europeans — were very active in supporting their industries. Our Government, however, were unwilling to give our industry any financial support. I wish Pig ReGen Ltd well. I hope that it will make good use of the pig production development committee’s assets and its income through the levy to take the pig industry forward. I support the motion. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister and the Chairperson of the Committee have already raised most of the relevant points. I support the legislative change, as do the farming organisations. It will benefit them in their attempts to support the industry. The legislation is also consistent with the RPA’s intentions. However, for most of those in the industry, the dissolution of the pig production development committee and the transfer of its assets to Pig ReGen Ltd are not as important as the position in which the pig industry finds itself. It is a local industry, so we must support anything that can help it. The pig industry is under massive pressure, as the Chairperson has mentioned. The Minister has been very active in writing to all those bodies that can make a difference. Processors, and supermarkets in particular, must realise that, if they want there to be local food production — in this sector and in the red-meat sector — they must play their part. They must do something other than, as they have been doing for years, simply listen and sit on the sidelines. Just as has happened to the steel industry, and other industries, we risk local pig production’s coming to an end. That would not be to the good of anyone, as it would mean the quality and safety of food would suffer. I must commend the Minister for her personal efforts to ensure that everyone be made aware of the situation. We must apply pressure in order to do something on behalf of the people. Prices have been rising worldwide. The price of ordinary food in shops and supermarkets is also increasing, but retailers tend to make up for that elsewhere. Feed is one of the single biggest costs in pig production. The cost of feed is severe, having almost doubled in the past year. Therefore, the pig industry is finding it particularly difficult to continue to survive, even though those involved in it have always been under great pressure. Peaks and troughs have been the nature of the pig industry for many years. It has always been a matter of surviving until the next downward trend occurred. Farmers in every part of Ireland have always been diligent; they work with the industry and take account of price trends. Nevertheless, worldwide trends and the manner in which food is produced have led to their experiencing a very difficult time. There is no longer room for flexibility. If something is not done, we may lose the pig industry entirely, and we do not want that to happen. The Order will be beneficial. The legislative change is something that everyone supports, so it causes no great difficulty. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Savage: I support the motion and the subsequent approval of the Order. The Order ensures the dissolution of the pig production development committee and that its assets and funds will be transferred to Pig ReGen Ltd for the benefit of all those who are involved in the industry. At a time when pig meat is being bought for very low prices at the farm gate, the news that money will be recouped from the winding-up of the pig production development committee is good because that will benefit pig producers ultimately. Quite frankly, pig producers could do with being given a lot more money. I support the motion and welcome the Order. I hope that this will open new doors, and that the pork industry can be established as an important niche market. Mr P J Bradley: The SDLP supports the winding up of the pig production development committee and, like other Members who have spoken, my party wishes Pig ReGen Ltd every success. Its role is tough, and I am sure that it would welcome any assistance the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development could provide. The industry is going through a very tough time. Ms Gildernew: I am grateful to the Members who have contributed to the debate. I concur with what has been said. The pig industry has come through many changes since I was a child. Thirty years ago, a lot of farms would have kept a few pigs. However, the industry came through some very bad difficulties in the 1990s and has restructured itself, trying to become more competitive. It is a resilient part of our industry and must be respected for that. The Department wants to do all that it can to support the industry in maintaining local pork and bacon products. None of us could conceive of not having local ham with our turkey at Christmas. Indeed, given the way in which grain prices are moving, having turkey at Christmas might be in jeopardy in a few years’ time. I accept the stress and difficulties being experienced by pig producers, and I will continue to work closely with the industry to do all in my power to help it through this difficult time. I thank Members for their support, and I wish Pig ReGen Ltd every success in these challenging times. It is hoped that the industry will become stronger and more profitable in the years to come. Go raibh míle maith agat. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Pig Production Development Committee (Winding Up) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/354) be approved. Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week in the House, a Member accused the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety of misleading the Assembly. Will you give a ruling on whether that accusation was unparliamentary, and whether it should be withdrawn and an apology be given to the Minister by the Member concerned? Mr Speaker: I intend to make a ruling on the matter. However, I can do so only when the Member concerned is in her place. I ask Members not to pre-empt that ruling. Dr W McCrea: Further to that point of order. I draw the Speaker’s attention to another House — one that is superior to this House in parliamentary terms. A similar situation occurred there involving the Prime Minister and it was ruled that the language used was not unparliamentary. Mr Speaker: I hear and appreciate what Dr McCrea has said. I do not want to develop further in responding to this point of order what I will say in the House when I give my ruling. I ask Members to leave the matter at this point. Mr McNarry: I appreciate and accept what you are saying, Mr Speaker. My question relates to your powers to ensure that the Member in question will be in the House in order to hear your ruling. It would appear to me that if you do not have such powers when you wish to make a ruling, Members could disrespect you and your position as Speaker. I hope that when you are in a position to give your ruling, you will use whatever power is necessary to ensure that the Member is in the Chamber. Mr Speaker: I note what the Member has said. I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the matter. Road Deaths Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Two amendments have been received and have been published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech. Mr P J Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appeal to the proposers of the motion and of the amendments to try not to divide the House on this matter — Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. That is not an appropriate point of order. Mr Boylan: I beg to move That this Assembly calls for an all-Ireland summit to tackle the crisis on our roads, and for the integration of the Road Safety Council and the Road Safety Authority, to deal with the issue of road safety on an all-Ireland basis. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin. I welcome the Minister’s presence for the debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to propose the motion. At the outset, I ask Members and interested parties outside the Chamber to put their fears aside in respect of the mention of the term “all-Ireland” in the motion. Death and serious injury that result from road accidents do not recognise a border drawn on a map. Whether such deaths occur in County Cork or County Antrim, the waste of life and the pain and grief that are left behind are the same, and do not distinguish between religions, colour, ethnic background or gender. Sinn Féin believes that the island of Ireland should have a single strategy for road safety. We are dealing with the same road-safety issues, and there is a large number of accidents and casualties on many of the roads that are shared between the North and the South. This year, up to 8 November, there have been 89 road deaths in the North, and 280 in the South — a total of 369 tragically lost lives. Last year, a total of 493 people were killed on Ireland’s roads, and a substantial percentage of those deaths took place in the border areas of Donegal, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry, Monaghan, Louth, Armagh and Down. Of the 89 deaths so far this year on the North’s roads, 46 have occurred in the border areas — just over 50%. That highlights the importance of a comprehensive strategy to deal with road safety on an all-island basis. I have read the North of Ireland’s ‘Road Safety Strategy 2002-2012’, and I acknowledge that a target has been set to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 33% and that, within that overall target, a further target has been set of a 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured. I believe that we are making progress towards meeting those targets, but we should be aiming higher. I also acknowledge the publication in Dublin of the South’s ‘Road Safety Strategy 2007-2012,’ but I believe that those two documents are largely cosmetic exercises. Examples of co-operation include the possibility of reciprocal recognition of penalty points that have been issued on either side of the border, and continued North/South co-operation on road-safety awareness campaigns. I agree that the TV advertisement campaigns have been very effective, but there are opportunities for further co-operation. Areas for further co-operation include an agreement on the implementation of the EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications, and the publication of a consultation document on vocational driver training, in line with EU directives. The road-safety strategies make no mention of harmonisation on serious issues such as alcohol limits, ways to tackle speeding or cross-border educational initiatives. After a recent incident in the South, public opinion on alcohol limits has veered towards zero tolerance. Sinn Féin has called for zero tolerance, not only in the Twenty-six Counties, but across Ireland. Anyone who is travelling North or South with a pint on them could be dealt with in the same way, North and South, if there were one set of measures. We believe that there should be zero tolerance of drink-driving throughout Ireland, but that that will be possible only if we harmonise legislation on an all-Ireland basis. Road signs that indicate speed limits should state those limits in miles per hour and in kilometres per hour to highlight the difference. Speed is the main contributing factor in road accidents on this island. We should also consider reducing speed limits not only in and around schools, as we are currently trying to do, but on rural roads where many of those accidents take place. 12.30 pm Not enough is being done to educate young people, North or South, about road safety. Any summit that takes place should take a comprehensive look at what can be done in that area, especially in the 17- to 24-year old bracket. Most accidents involve people in that age group — as, sadly, do most of the tragedies. The list of issues that a summit could address is not endless — pedestrians, driver training, safety of children in and out of vehicles, older drivers, enforcement. All of those matters could be examined to try to improve road safety and ultimately reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads. There should also be increased North/South ministerial co-operation to look at the following: a single road safety authority; a harmonisation of speed limits and road signs; an all-Ireland licensing system; a common penalty points system; the fitting of safety-compliant speed inhibitors on all new cars; increased provision of night-time public transportation; full-time posts for road safety and road education officers throughout the island. Some measures can be simple such as a feasibility study to look at the practice in other European countries of making it compulsory to drive with headlights on all day in order to increase vehicle visibility. It should be compulsory for driving lessons to be carried out in various weather and traffic conditions, in busy traffic on motorways and in urban and rural areas. Mr P Ramsey: Given the importance of the issue and the number of deaths that the Member outlined, it would be rather unfortunate if the House were to divide. As someone who represents a constituency close to Donegal, which has the highest figures for road fatalities, I ask the Member to consider not allowing this matter to be put to a vote and so achieving consensus in the Chamber. The public would then understand that the Assembly wants an end to deaths on the road and the continuation of discussion on the themes that the Member mentioned at the road safety conference. Mr Boylan: I thank the Member for the intervention. We have been elected by our communities; therefore we must act. We must educate, legislate and eradicate. Recently I saw an analogy that stated that if we take a very conservative view that 10 people are affected emotionally and mentally by a death in a road accident, already in the North this year, 890 people are grieving and suffering a great sense of loss. Throughout the island that number rises to 3,690. If the total for last year is added, that makes over 8,500 people affected, not to mention the concern and suffering of others in those communities. It must be remembered that 10 is a conservative figure. If the number of people who have been affected over the last 10 years is taken into account, it is frightening. Any all-Ireland road safety strategy will have to look at providing proper support services to anyone affected by the death of a loved one in a road accident. Those people are usually forgotten about because the trauma is not recognised to the same extent that it is in the case of other tragic deaths. I call on all Members who are available and who wish to do so to attend an interdenominational remembrance service in Newry Cathedral on Sunday 18 November 2007 at 3.00 pm to show the Assembly’s support for those who have been affected by death or injury due to road traffic accidents. I am sure that everyone here has cause to know someone or has visited the family of someone who has been injured or killed on the roads. I hope that Members will agree that the carnage on our roads throughout this island is something that knows no boundaries and that a common-sense attitude is required. I trust that they will show common sense today and support the motion. Go raibh maith agat. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) Mr Weir: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert “notes the existing level of cooperation between the road safety authorities in Northern Ireland and those in the Republic of Ireland; further notes that a review of Northern Ireland’s road safety strategy is currently under way which can draw on experience from other countries; and calls for further measures to be taken to ensure that the current progress on improving road safety is sustained and increased.” I agree with the last comments of the Member when he said that a common-sense approach must be taken. That is why the DUP has tabled this amendment. A road death is a tragedy, wherever it occurs. It is a sad indictment that throughout the many years of the Troubles, with the exception of one year in the 1970s, the number of road fatalities was always greater than the number of people who died through terrorist action. That shows the scale of the problem that must be tackled. Therefore, it is timely for the House to be debating a motion on road deaths. Unfortunately, however, the scope of the motion is limited and is focused in the wrong direction, and I will explain later the reason that that is the case. First, it is important that we recognise, as our amendment does, that a great deal of good work is being carried out to combat road deaths. Indeed, I am glad to say that some progress has been made on that front. The Minister of the Environment is pushing a review of the road safety strategy, and we believe that that will be of benefit. Year on year we have seen how hard people in various Departments and bodies have worked to ensure that road deaths are reduced. The statistics for 2006 show that approximately 1,300 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads. That is a reduction of around 24% on the 1996-2000 average. In 2006, a total of 126 people were killed on the roads, which was the lowest figure for 60 years. By 12 November 2006, 107 people had been killed on our roads, and, until that date this year, fewer than 100 people have been killed on our roads. I acknowledge that 126 road deaths are 126 too many; however, we must recognise the hard work that many people in various Departments have done to reduce that figure. We must also recognise that a strategy exists that is starting to pay dividends, and the year-on-year reduction in fatalities illustrates that. The motion would have more merit if a lack of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland existed. However, a great deal of co-operative work is being carried out on the ground. The motion calls for “an all-Ireland summit”, but we need to move away from Reagan/Gorbachev-style summits and develop something that actually delivers for people. Department of the Environment officials and representatives from the Road Safety Authority recently jointly chaired an all-Ireland conference on road safety. Therefore, in that sense, an all-Ireland conference has taken place. Several initiatives have also been implemented; for example, there have been publicity and advertising campaigns on the matter, and the British Government and that of the Republic of Ireland have mutually agreed to recognise UK and Irish driving disqualifications and initiatives such as penalty-points systems. Indeed, the regulations that will give effect to that arrangement have also been agreed by both Governments. I understand that the Minister of the Environment will introduce those regulations. Additionally, a scoping exercise has taken place on lesser infringements of road-traffic laws, the results of which will be brought to the House. A cross-border co-operation team has existed for the past 15 years. That is a multi-agency steering committee that is involved in increasing road safety in the border counties. Therefore, a range of initiatives has been implemented, and work on them is ongoing. It is not true to say that there is a lack of co-operation on road safety. It is perhaps unfortunate that the call in the motion to integrate the Road Safety Council of Northern Ireland and the Road Safety Authority shows a lack of understanding of those two bodies. One is a small voluntary group that was established and is sponsored by the Department of the Environment, and the other is a large state authority. Merging the two is the equivalent of the developer of a set of apartments merging their project with the Housing Executive: it is not comparing like with like. In applying a common-sense solution to the problem, we should consider issues that work on the ground. I acknowledge the Alliance Party’s amendment, but although we strongly support finding the maximum level of productive co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we must look beyond these shores. The Public Accounts Committee has examined road safety closely, and its ‘Report on Northern Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy’ was published last week. That report highlighted that it has become abundantly clear that international comparisons and those with other parts of the British Isles show that both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland lag behind. We are not having the same level of success with regard to road safety. Instead of trying to co-operate across the island, we must approach the issue from a broader perspective and with a wider scope. Mr P Ramsey: I ask the Member a question similar to that which I asked earlier: does he not accept that it would be better for the House to reach a consensus today, rather than to divide on an issue that is so important to so many people across Northern Ireland and the border counties? That would enable the Assembly working group on road safety to note all the issues that are raised in the motion and the amendments. Would the Assembly working group not be able to examine the issue to a greater degree? Mr Weir: The DUP is keen to see consensus. My colleague Jeffrey Donaldson, who is a member of the road-safety group, will sum up the debate on the DUP’s amendment and will make my party’s position clear. We wish to see practical co-operation, which is why our amendment tried to encompass every angle. It is right to acknowledge North/South co-operation, not only in the work that has been done, but in looking further afield. The House should be able to unite around our amendment. I understand the Member’s concerns and, if it were possible to avoid dividing the House, I would like to see such consensus, because this issue is very important. A range of issues must be examined, some of which were highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee report. For example, driving standards must be reviewed to ensure that they are pitched at the appropriate level. We must also look at why, although there has been a massive reduction in the number of road deaths involving motor cars, the statistics on accidents involving motorcycles are much worse than those in other parts of the British Isles. We must examine quality-control issues and the roll-out of the Roadwise programme, and we must consider the matter of graduated licensing, which was identified in the Public Accounts Committee’s report, to ensure the maximum level of protection. In particular, we must examine the levels of compulsory basic training for motorcyclists. They have not always been afforded the same level of regulation as drivers, and that is one of the factors that have led to many deaths. We must also consider ways to achieve increased detection rates and enforcement. I am aware that, ahead of the debate and the road-safety review, the Department has introduced a range of additional offences, which will have the immediate effect of ensuring increased road safety. However, we must look, for example, at the safety-camera programme that has been rolling out since 2003. Some of us might be critical of the safety-camera programme and wonder whether it was designed to boost finances rather than to achieve road safety. However, if used effectively, cameras can produce a mechanism to ensure the proper screening of speed, which is one of the major killers on our roads. Above all, we must consider education and ensure that the driving culture changes in Northern Ireland. People might say that that is an impossible task, but we have only to look at how attitudes have changed since 30 or 40 years ago, when people had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to wearing seat belts. It was common — particularly for children in the back seats — not to wear a seat belt. Now, that would be regarded as utterly irresponsible. Unfortunately, people are still dying as a result of drink-driving. However, there have been changes in social attitudes towards drink-driving over the last 30 years. Perhaps 30 years ago, some people might have thought that it was OK to drive home after having a few drinks, but that attitude has greatly changed. By focusing on education and a wider remit, we can start to tackle the problem of road deaths effectively. Co–operation is important, but we must go beyond the North/South outlook and draw lessons from around the world. Mr Ford: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert “notes the cooperation between the Department of Transport in the Republic of Ireland and the Department of the Environment, as well as the rapid progress made by the Road Safety Authority in the Republic of Ireland in the past year; and calls for increased cooperation between it and the Road Safety Council in Northern Ireland to promote best practice in road safety education and enforcement across the island, including bilateral conferences not less than once a year.” On behalf of my group, I welcome the fact that this issue is being debated, and I thank Cathal Boylan for proposing the motion. 12.45 pm I also pass on apologies on behalf of Naomi Long, who is secretary of the all-party group on road safety. She is unwell and is therefore unable to take part in the debate. I make it clear that our amendment is designed to make more concrete the actions of the House in tackling the levels of fatalities and casualties on our roads. It has been pointed out that although those levels are reducing, they are still far too high. Mr Weir pointed out that fatalities have reduced. The baseline fatality figures for each million people in 2005 were: 56 in the United Kingdom and 80 in Northern Ireland, which is almost 50% higher than the UK figure. The average for the 15 EU member states was even higher at 86, and the Republic was higher still at 97. Mr Weir has beaten me to the observation that those figures may lead people to look for best practice beyond these shores. It is clear that lessons are to be learnt from elsewhere, particularly from across the water. I accept that that is a fair point. However, we must also be realistic about another point that Mr Weir highlighted: the culture of people’s behaviour in cars. There is a significant and serious problem in driving attitudes in Ireland as a whole, but specifically along the border. Pat Ramsey pointed out the kinds of events that occur virtually every weekend on the Derry and Donegal border and in other parts of that area. Some 40% of in-vehicle victims of fatal accidents are males who are under the age of 24. That is a huge percentage, considering the overall proportion of drivers that that age group comprises. We all know that the age of drivers is a significant factor in events that occur every weekend. It is important to be realistic. That is why we must consider introducing a significant and serious cross-border strategy to deal with the problem. Although it is true that we can learn from other places, simply stating that fact does not realistically assess the cultural, educational and, in some cases, road-maintenance problems that both jurisdictions on this island face. In an attempt to recognise the need for useful co-operation, by recommending more regular cross-border co-operation, our amendment addresses how that should be done. It also clearly states that it is time for action, not words. That action must begin in this Assembly through ministerial deeds and through legislation. We have already heard about the Road Safety Council’s recent annual general meeting, which was held in my constituency. A number of experts in the field of road safety spoke, including the new chief executive officer of the Road Safety Authority of the Republic, who has worked with Kent County Council. In effect, that meeting was the cross-border summit that the motion calls for. The meeting represented North and South speaking together about matters of mutual interest, and it clearly demonstrated that the cross-border co-operation that exists between the relevant authorities is alive and well. However, what role does this Assembly have? Does it have a responsibility to pass legislation and to take action that is based on all the evidence that we have gained from such co-operation? It is clear that there are limitations to what has been done so far. Mr Brett, the chief executive officer of the Road Safety Authority in the Republic, highlighted issues such as driver-licensing reform, improved road-worthiness testing, and increasing the number of garda. All those issues may or may not have relevance north of the border. He also stated that a Cabinet subcommittee on road safety, in which three Ministers are involved, has been established in the Oireachtas. Surely we can draw a direct and important lesson from that. The Government in the Republic have recently made great strides in addressing their huge road-safety problem. The Road Safety Authority is now a transformed organisation. In many senses, it is playing catch up. However, the fact that there is a drive to address the issue, with Government Ministers being involved at a key level, shows that they are treating the issue seriously. That same seriousness is not yet apparent in the workings of this Assembly. There should be co-operation on issues such as testing for drug-driving, reducing the drink-driving limit and enforcing speed limits, especially in border areas. It is a matter of deep regret that a great deal of time has been spent recently on harmonising driving penalties — penalty points in particular — across the EU, when much greater progress could and should have been made under direct rule to harmonise the only cross-border issue that has direct relevance to the vast majority of drivers in Northern Ireland: what happens across the Irish border, rather than what happens across the border between Bulgaria and Romania. This is a matter that needs to be addressed. If full harmonisation of the legislation cannot be achieved, we should strive for maximum harmonisation on this island. Northern Ireland should recognise areas in which the Republic is well ahead. The Road Safety Authority is already considering development of separate strategies — for example, for motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians — because there are differences in the nature of their involvement in accidents. The authority recently updated ‘Rules of the Road’ — the Republic’s equivalent of ‘The Official Highway Code’ — and delivered a copy to every house in the Republic. Most Members will have read ‘The Highway Code’ in the week or two before they sat their driving tests. I suspect that most of us, except those who have had the privilege of sitting beside their children as they learnt to drive, have not looked at ‘The Highway Code’ since that day. Reading that is, perhaps, something that we should institute as an example, to ensure that ‘The Highway Code’ is followed. That would help to educate our people in that respect. In the Republic, the key achievement of the Road Safety Authority has been the establishment of a Cabinet subcommittee on road safety. Three Government Ministers attend it, providing direct answers to questions and clear lines of accountability. The formation of an all-party Assembly group is a welcome step forward, but it is a long way short of the establishment of a Cabinet subcommittee with direct responsibility. We need to ensure that we get those sorts of ideas and promote co-operation to the highest extent. We have to consider the different aspects of road safety promotion: education, engineering and enforcement. In the context of the Assembly, there would be a role, not just for the Minister of the Environment, who is present, but also for the Minister of Education, the Minister for Regional Development and, as we await the possible devolution of justice, perhaps junior Ministers in OFMDFM as well. Can we have a commitment from the Executive as a whole, rather than just from the Environment Minister, that those Ministers will attend meetings of the all-party group, take road safety seriously in the Assembly and answer questions from the all-party group to ensure that there is action? The most effective form of cross-border co-operation is noting things that our neighbours are doing right and effectively and implementing them in Northern Ireland without delay. Most of all, Members should consider what they can do in the Assembly, rather than demand that others take action. Mr Weir has already highlighted the difference between the two bodies, North and South. In Northern Ireland, the Road Safety Council and the all-party group in the Assembly are voluntary groups, whereas, in the Republic, the Road Safety Authority is a statutory body with full powers. It is not realistic to talk about integration; however, we should strive to ensure the fullest possible co-operation. The Alliance Party’s difficulty with the DUP amendment is that it does not recognise that a key factor is the culture of driving, North and South, on this island. Nothing in my party’s amendment obviates the learning of lessons — whether from GB, the Netherlands, Canada or wherever. We have to face the clear cultural issue of the way that people drive on this island. That is why the Alliance Party’s amendment serves to strengthen the motion, to regularise co-operation — rather than holding a one-off summit — and to ensure that lines of co-operation between the authorities, North and South, are effective. There is no point in summits, integration or co-operation if Members, and particularly those with ministerial responsibility, are not prepared to act on the outcomes. I had left myself time to respond to Mr Ramsey’s intervention: however, he has not chosen to make it to me. We should be seeking the maximum possible level of co-operation and agreement on this vital issue. I believe that the amendment which stands in my name would be the best way of bringing the House together. However, I will listen with interest to what other Members say. Mr Armstrong: No sensible person would oppose any practical measure to reduce the horrific toll of death and injury on our roads. In 2006, 126 people lost their lives on the roads. That statistic is appalling, yet it represents an improvement — if it can be called that — on each of the previous eight years. The equivalent figure for the Republic was 368. Those are not mere numbers: each one represents a human being, a loved one who can never be replaced, and a family circle that will be diminished for ever. The difficulty with the motion is that it appears to indicate that a perceived lack of North/South co-operation on road safety is part of the problem. As a result, I am happy to support the amendment. Cross-border co-operation on matters of shared concern in order to achieve mutual benefit should be supported. There is no question that the loss of life caused by the carnage on roads in Northern Ireland and in the South of Ireland is a major problem facing the authorities and wider society in both jurisdictions. Mr Weir: The Member said that he had problems with the motion but supported the amendment. As there are two amendments, will he clarify which one he supports? Mr Armstrong: If the Member listens, he will have no problem figuring out which amendment I support. The motion appears to ignore the significant amount of cross-border road safety co-operation that has already taken place. By April 2007, there had been 12 cross-border road safety campaigns commissioned jointly by the Road Safety Authority and the Department of the Environment. Furthermore, in July 2007, it was agreed at the British-Irish Council meeting that from 2008, drivers who were disqualified from driving in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom would be banned from driving in the Republic. That decision followed the emergence of the fact that one sixth of drivers caught speeding in the Republic last year escaped penalty points because they were registered in Northern Ireland. Existing cross-border initiatives include an anti-drink driving campaign, which was launched in November 2005. In April 2007, the Road Safety Authority launched ‘Mess’, a sixty-second, hard-hitting, anti-speed television advertisement. Members may be interested to learn that in 2006, a partnership arrangement called Co-operation and Working Together, which facilitates collaborative working between health and social care organisations and staff on a cross-border basis, published findings from the Steering to Safety project. That study researched road traffic collisions in the border region of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and produced interesting results. The study demonstrated that there were marked differences between the numbers and types of accidents in counties North and South of the border, and fatal collisions in particular. The fact is that there are two separate jurisdictions on this island, with consequential differences between legal systems and penalties. In addition, the functions and remits of the Road Safety Council and the Road Safety Authority are markedly different. Therefore, a merger is more easily said than done. Rather than pursue an exclusively all-island agenda, as suggested in the motion, it would be preferable to remain within the United Kingdom’s road safety strategy, seek to work closely with our Southern counterparts, and apply best practice and new ideas from wherever they are found. Most importantly, we must constantly seek measures that will help to reduce the toll of tragedy on our roads and try our best to limit the number of families who suffer the heartbreak of losing loved ones in such a way. Mr Gallagher: I commend Cathal Boylan and Raymond McCartney for tabling the motion, which highlights an important issue. The contributions from those who support the amendments, including UUP Member Billy Armstrong, make it clear that we all share key concerns. We are at one as regards collisions on our roads across this island. It is unacceptable that hundreds of people still die every year. Thousands of families and loved ones are left damaged, broken and traumatised. I am sure that one would be hard pressed to find a community anywhere in the country that has not, at one time or another, been traumatised and numbed by the death of a local person in a road tragedy. 1.00 pm Members have heard comments from my party colleague Pat Ramsey, who is totally committed to the improvement of road safety. If there is a failure to reach a compromise, the SDLP will support the motion, because my party is particularly supportive of the notion of an all-Ireland summit that would focus attention on the problem and move it much higher up the agenda. However, an-Ireland summit should not, in any way, be qualified by the integration of one body or another. The summit must happen first; then, whatever the summit decides must be developed. I want to acknowledge the high level of co-operation and good work that takes place both North and South on the part of all those who have responsibility for road safety, who strive to reduce the statistics for road death and injury and to make the roads safer for everyone. The vast majority of people support co-operation among the PSNI and the gardaí, the two relevant Government Departments and the road safety authorities, which work closely to combat the major problems of people who speed or drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Recently, the North/South Ministerial Council carried out work to develop mutual enforcement of driving bans, which will come into force soon. It is hoped that, before long, penalty points will also be mutually recognised in the law of both jurisdictions. An all-Ireland summit would provide the opportunity to highlight some of the serious problems that drivers encounter regularly. Speed is one of the main causes of accidents. It is wrong to assume that all drivers on the island would easily be able to synchronise the speedometers on their cars with the speed limits that they are warned about when they cross the border. Some drivers do not understand metric conversions. Much more work must be done to make information available that is clearly displayed for drivers when they cross the border — drivers who not only come from here or from the South, but who, these days, could be workers from Poland, Portugal, Latvia, and so on, or some of the thousands of others who visit every year from all around the globe. Their safety must also be considered. Different rules that exist North and South — for example, about the use of hard shoulders — pose problems for road safety that must be deal with. When one drives in the Republic of Ireland, the road verge is tarmacked and smooth. A driver can pull in and allow another driver who is behind him or her to pass out safely. Once drivers cross the border, however, that is not the case. The hard shoulder usually has a poor surface and is, often, a gully or a drain. There are no signs or warnings about the risks to safety. That is a key issue; another is that of provision for learner drivers, which has been mentioned. Driving tests, North and South of the border, are outdated. They must be revised, renewed and made fit for purpose. It is time that the Assembly got down to solving those problems. Mr I McCrea: I want to make it abundantly clear to Sinn Féin, and any other party, that their desire for an all-Ireland agenda is only a dream, and will remain so. Any misconceptions that they might hold will never become reality so long as the DUP is in the Assembly. The DUP welcomes the debate. I welcome my colleague, the Environment Minister, Arlene Foster, who will respond on the serious matter of road deaths, which affects people throughout Northern Ireland. Any life that is lost on our roads is a tragedy. There are so many road deaths, and each is a great loss to the family involved. It is a disgrace that, once again, Sinn Féin is playing politics — through an all-Ireland agenda — with road safety. If that party was seriously interested in tackling road safety, it would work with the Department of the Environment to strengthen its role, rather than trying to weaken it, which is what it is trying to. Road safety must be high on our agenda, and I welcome the Minister’s announcement, early in the Assembly’s current mandate, that it is an issue that is high on her agenda too. Her recent statements have proven that to be the case. I remind Members that a number of cross-border works and joint campaigns are already taking place. I ask the Minister, when she is responding, to confirm the detail of those and to say whether she feels that they have been worthwhile. There is a vast difference between cross-border co-operation and an all-Ireland road safety body. The latter would be of no benefit to Northern Ireland. It would involve two separate jurisdictions, two separate legal systems, and different laws and restrictions. Those differences alone would result in there being too many hurdles to cross in trying to find and bring to justice someone who was at fault or had caused an accident on the roads, whether in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. Mr Boylan said that Members are elected to legislate. That is what we are here to do. We are here to legislate and to make decisions for the people of Northern Ireland, in co-operation. I do not think that anyone objects to learning from other countries about the benefits of measures that they might have taken with regard to road safety. We are here to make decisions, not to reduce our powers and pass decision-making over to another jurisdiction. We are here to strengthen those powers and to take any action necessary to reduce road deaths in Northern Ireland. I said that any accident on our roads is a tragedy. I do not believe that going down the all-Ireland route is of benefit to Northern Ireland. We can learn from the Republic of Ireland without the need to pass any of our decision-making powers to it, or vice-versa. Therefore, I support the amendment in my name and those of Mr Donaldson and Mr Weir. Mr T Clarke: I welcome the debate and support the DUP amendment. Without making the issue a parochial one, I would like to mention one of the most recent deaths in my constituency and extend my condolences to the Devlin family on the loss of their 17-year-old son. David Ford suggested how wonderfully well the Republic of Ireland is doing on the matter of road safety. I did a few sums while others were speaking. I notice, from the figures, that there is only a 9% decrease in road deaths — just the same as in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not faring any better than we are in Northern Ireland. One of the problems that we have in Northern Ireland — and with which most Members are familiar — is that of the 30 mph speed limit in built-up areas. I have been contacted at my constituency office about that matter, and its implications for safety, on numerous occasions. However, when we ask the Department to undertake surveys, it cites statistics based on averages. Unfortunately, on some estates, there are speeds of up to 46 mph. That is something that I urge the Minister to consider. Dr McCrea and I met the Minister for Regional Development to discuss the new A6 road. We were sorely disappointed when we read the Department’s response on the safety of the road, which will stretch from Randalstown to Toome and will run alongside Lough Neagh. Some 18,500 vehicles will travel on the road daily, and the Department said that there would be only momentary vision problems. I am calling into question what the Department for Regional Development is doing. Today’s motion is about tackling road deaths, and here we have a situation in which 18,500 vehicles will be travelling on a proposed new road every day, and although the Department recognises that there is a problem, that problem has just been passed over. That point was a concern for Dr McCrea and me at that meeting. Most of my points have already been covered by other Members, so there is no point in my repeating them. I support the amendment. (The Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Mr McCartney: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Éirím le tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún seo. I support the motion. Seo ár seans leis an rogha ceart agus an rud ceart a dhéanamh. The motion deals with a matter that affects us all. Hardly a day passes without road safety featuring in the media; and scarcely a week goes by without the call for more to be done to raise public awareness on road use, speed and other aspects of road safety. One could roll out statistics that are all too familiar. However, I want to avoid that and instead zero in on the core issues. Great strides have been made in raising public awareness about road safety, and, as a result, the number of deaths on our roads has been reduced. However, we must accept that much more can and needs to be done. The purpose of the motion is to help to confront the complacent attitude that road deaths are an unavoidable consequence of road use — they are not. Road deaths can be avoided, and it is worth noting that the World Health Organization has enshrined the concept that road injuries and deaths are not the inevitable consequences of increased road use. When I use the word “avoided”, I mean that very practical and straightforward measures can often be put in place to reduce the number of collisions and, therefore, the numbers of injuries and deaths. Today, no one has spoken against the need for a proper and co-ordinated strategy to tackle the problem. The Minister of the Environment and her Department are currently conducting a major review of road safety, and I welcome her presence here today. Her initiative came in the immediate aftermath of a fatal road collision, and perhaps the findings of her work will provide some indication about a proposed structure that will deal with road safety across the island. No one in the Chamber today can, or will, disagree that it is a fact of life that people from Derry have died in road accidents in Donegal and vice versa. Such experiences are common in all our counties, North and South, and they highlight the need for co-operation among the agencies involved and the need to implement measures to combat that phenomenon. I acknowledge that co-operation already exists and has had beneficial and proven results. However, now that the Assembly has been re-established, perhaps this is an appropriate time to adopt an all-Ireland approach and to take co-operation to an even higher and more qualitative level. I contend that many recommendations in the Public Accounts Committee’s report on road safety point to the need for such an initiative. Indeed, I welcome Peter Weir’s observation that the Minister has already chaired an all-Ireland meeting. In many ways, such an approach is neither a principle nor a dream but a reality. Another means of achieving greater co-operation would be through the integration of the Road Safety Council and the Road Safety Authority, as the motion proposes. Such a body could be tasked with carrying out a safety audit of road networks on an island-wide basis, with particular emphasis on what are often called the border counties. There should be a focus on that central issue. There was an instinctive reaction to any suggestion of an all-Ireland approach — that is the predictable reaction to such an approach in almost anything. However, I urge everyone to move beyond instinct and reflect on this question: if the agencies tasked with road safety on the island work together in a co-ordinated and collective way, would that improve their ability to deliver their objectives? In posing the question, I do not wish to detract from, or question, the great work that has been carried out to date by any agency working in this field, North or South. Such an approach would not detract from their ability to deliver in the future; indeed, it is my contention that it would assist delivery. 1.15 pm Great work is already being done in Ireland, North and South, to highlight the correlations among speed, alcohol, poor driving skills and the incidence of accidents. International experience and programmes have been called on in the past and, no doubt, will be employed in the future, simply because they are beneficial in reducing death and injury. That should be the only criterion on which such decisions are made. Having a framework within which to co-ordinate the work of both road-safety agencies, which will impact on each others’ work and improve it, can only be viewed as a positive step. Do not allow the usual instincts to stand in the way of logic or good sense. The integration of the Road Safety Council and the Road Safety Authority would be a logical step in improving public awareness of road safety matters and in reducing death and injuries on the roads of Ireland. A LeasCheann Comhairle, I urge Members to support the motion. Mr G Robinson: I support the DUP amendment. There can be no doubt that road safety must be a priority in Northern Ireland. That also appears to be the case for our neighbours in the South. Road safety is unquestionably one area on which the two Governments can work in tandem, targeting scarce financial resources for the Assembly and making a difference by reducing deaths and injuries. The two jurisdictions have shared road-safety campaigns for several years. Some of the hardest-hitting TV advertisements ever seen on Northern Ireland screens came about as a result of those campaigns. The Minister of the Environment has already assured me in an answer to a written question that another tough Christmas and New Year message is planned to run between 20 November 2007 and 6 January 2008. That is a joint campaign, which I welcome. Taking everything into consideration, the motion calls for something that is already a reality; therefore, it makes no sense. The motion calls for something that would put Northern Ireland into reverse gear. The DUP amendment calls for the continuation and strengthening of current measures. Northern Ireland must have an increased, sustained and adaptable attitude to road safety. A review aimed at achieving those objectives is already under way, which will lead to the adaptable strategy that I envision. The one area in which there is, perhaps, a need for greater concentration is that of other EU nationals. Particularly, eastern European nationals appear to be at greater risk. The Minister of the Environment has stated on several occasions that literature on driving and the law is available in a number of languages. However, special attention must be paid to this issue. Doubtless, that will be an integral part of the road-safety strategy that will result from the current review. We all take our road-safety responsibilities most seriously. Therefore, I ask all Members to support the DUP amendment, which supports the Minister and provides for a proactive vision for the future. Mr P J Bradley: Time is short, so I shall be brief. In July 2006, I met Ursula Quinn as she began a walk from Lurgan to Ballybrittas, County Laois — the scene of the death of her only daughter, who was killed in a road accident on the way to her first day at university in Cork. I walked some of the way with Ursula, and invited her and the group that she had set up, ‘Driving Kills’ — later renamed ‘Hidden Victims’ — to the Assembly. In October 2006, Ursula came to Stormont and gave an excellent presentation about the work of the group and what it was trying to achieve. At the end of the debate, Jeffrey Donaldson proposed the establishment of an all-party group or an Ad Hoc Committee to identify areas where we could make progress. Everyone was happy with that and, at the next meeting, Jeffrey was elected chairperson of the new working group, and Mr Boylan and I took the deputy chairperson positions. I must also pay tribute to Naomi Long, who is not present today, who became the group’s secretary. The working group has been very active, and I am proud to be a member of it. In its short lifetime, it has met several agencies, such as the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service and driving instructors, among others. It is for that reason that I attempted to intervene at the beginning of the debate. I do not want the House to divide, because this issue is too important to become a political football. Most people would agree with that. However, I am concerned, because I do not know whether the motion is intended to pre-empt the all-party group’s work or whether there was a different agenda behind the motion. I would be happy if the matter were left for the working group to deal with in the future. The working group has no powers and could be seen as toothless, but, with the co-operation of the Minister of the Environment and the Executive, its members can progress the issue in the interests of the people whom they represent. The aim is to reduce road deaths and to show some understanding to people who have suffered in the past. I appeal to the Members who have proposed the motion — and to those who have tabled the two amendments — to consider not dividing the House and instead reaching some form of agreement. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I also welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. The debate gives me the chance to restate my personal commitment to road safety and to doing everything in my power to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Northern Ireland’s roads. I have said before that road safety is a subject that is close to my heart, and since becoming the Minister of the Environment, I have become even more acutely aware of the senseless carnage on our roads. I ask the House to remember that a commitment to reduce deaths by one third by 2011 is reflected in the draft Programme for Government, which was debated in the House on 25 October. The number of people who have been killed or seriously injured on our roads has fallen substantially over the past 30 years. In the 1970s, twice as many people died or were seriously injured. The 126 road deaths in Northern Ireland in 2006 constituted the lowest total for almost 60 years. The nine child deaths constituted the lowest total on record. I am sure that the House is also interested in the latest comparisons of the positions in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In 2006, the road death rate per 100,000 people in Northern Ireland was 7·2; in the Republic of Ireland the rate was 8·7. My friend Mr Trevor Clarke stated that there was a 9% reduction in road deaths in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In fact, there have been 90 deaths on Northern Ireland roads in 2007, compared with 107 this time last year, which is a reduction of almost 16%. There have been 284 road deaths in the Republic of Ireland, compared with 318 this time last year. That is a reduction of just over 10%. However, it is easy to get caught up in statistics. I regard every death or serious injury as a tragedy. I have had the privilege of meeting many victims and their families, and I feel my responsibility intensely for trying to prevent others from facing the same pain. The review of road safety in Northern Ireland, which was announced shortly after I came into office, is ongoing. I will continue to ensure that my Department and its road-safety partners work tirelessly on measures to complement those that are currently saving lives on our roads. The fact that there is a review of the strategy does not mean that my Department will sit back. Members will know that some announcements that were made in the summer are being implemented. I now move to the thrust of today’s motion. I have no plans to establish a single road safety authority for Ireland, and, if I did, the Government of the Republic of Ireland might have something to say about that. The motion proposes to integrate the Road Safety Council of Northern Ireland with the Road Safety Authority in the Republic of Ireland to try to deal with road safety on an all-Ireland basis. I found the motion somewhat surprising, because the Road Safety Authority and the Road Safety Council are not comparable organisations in their structure, background or roles. The Road Safety Council is a voluntary-sector body and is funded by my Department to support its activities by promoting road-safety messages in the community. It promotes voluntary activity, organises competitions and other events and encourages local participation. Funding for the Road Safety Council is £160,000 a year, and it has one full-time and one part-time employee. I commend the work of the Road Safety Council. I had the privilege of attending its annual general meeting last month, which was an extremely worthwhile event. I also commend the work of the Assembly’s all-party working group on road safety. Despite being a new group, it is doing good work. In contrast, the Road Safety Authority in the Republic of Ireland has an annual budget of about €38 million and employs more than 300 people. It is a statutory body created by the Republic of Ireland’s Road Safety Authority Act 2006, which transferred functions to it from the Department of Transport, the National Roads Authority, and the National Safety Council. The Road Safety Authority is responsible for many, but not all, of the road-safety functions that my Department undertakes, such as promotion, research, driver and vehicle testing and standards and licensing. Putting aside the two organisations in question; even if I wished to do so, the creation of a single authority with responsibility for road safety across two separate EU member states would be incredibly complex, if not impossible. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have distinct legal frameworks, statutes, penalties, enforcement operations and policies. Mr Boylan called for harmonisation on all of those, but that simply could not be done — it is not an option. I noted my friend Mr Weir’s comparison of an all-island summit to the Reagan-Gorbachev summits. I welcome his likening of me to a Hollywood superstar. Mr Weir: I did not say to which of the two I likened the Minister. Mrs Foster: I would rather be a Hollywood superstar than a bald Russian. I take Mr Weir’s point about having a summit for the sake of being seen to do so. I strongly feel that road-safety outcomes are what matter, not window dressing. I have often said that I am happy to continue to work according to the established arrangements of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, both of which consider areas of co-operation that affect Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I am happy to meet my counterparts from the Republic of Ireland to discuss issues of mutual interest. I have already met Noel Brett, the chief executive of the Road Safety Authority, to whom Mr Ford referred. Officials are drafting regulations on the mutual recognition of UK and Irish driver disqualifications, with a view to laying them in Westminster and the Assembly in 2008. I noted Mr Ford’s comments on progressing the same practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I simply cannot introduce a measure to part of an EU member state. Mr Ford: I take the Minister’s point. I thought that I had referred to the United Kingdom and the Republic, given the particular difficulties between Northern Ireland and the Republic, rather than waiting for the rest of the EU. Mrs Foster: I am glad to have that clarification. I thought that Mr Ford meant moving towards mutual recognition only in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Progress is being made, and I will meet my counterparts from the Republic of Ireland and GB in early 2008 to discuss proposals on mutual recognition of the lesser road traffic infringements that incur penalty points, etc. As for the future of road safety in Northern Ireland, I have stated that the relevant authorities in the Republic of Ireland will be included in my current consultations. My officials are considering holding several safety events next year, and counterparts from the Republic of Ireland will be invited to attend. Publicity and advertising are, perhaps, the best-known areas of ongoing operational co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. In response to Ian McCrea’s request for details, 12 cross-border road-safety campaigns have been commissioned jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Road Safety Authority in the Republic of Ireland. Mr Ford made a point on the need for cultural change. The advertising campaigns have done more than anything else to tackle that issue. The percentage of people who wear seatbelts, to which Mr Weir referred, is up to 95%. Given the much lower rates of compliance in the 1970s and 1980s, that is a tremendous achievement. Cultural change will not be achieved by institutionalising road safety, but through the continuation of those highly effective road-safety campaigns. Mr Ford mentioned the subcommittee that was set up in the Republic of Ireland following some difficult days of road deaths. He said that we should have a similar committee to deal with education, engineering and enforcement. We do have a useful body, which is taking forward my road-safety strategy; and the Minister for Regional Development, a high-ranking officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and I sit on that committee. Although Mr Ford will probably say that that is not a formal Executive subcommittee, it is an effective tool. Road-safety education is a matter for me. Mr Boylan referred to the fact that 17- to 24-year-olds are not being educated about road safety, and I have to ask myself why that group is not being reached. Part of the problem is that many of them are not in formal education, so we cannot target them through that area. Therefore, how will we target that group? 1.30 pm I have had some good meetings with representatives from sporting organisations about how to address the problem. I met with representatives from the GAA, who said that they will help me to get the message to the 17- to 24-year-olds who use their facilities. Therefore, a lot of work is ongoing to educate young people, but not in the area of formal education. The Department for Transport in Great Britain is considering improvements to the driving test, and my officials are liaising with their counterparts in London to consider whether those proposals can be brought to Northern Ireland. The driving test must be looked at again. A few weeks ago, I announced changes to the motorcycle driving test, which will be introduced next year. Compulsory basic training for motorcyclists will be introduced, and Members should welcome that. Therefore, a high level of co-operation on road safety is ongoing between the relevant authorities in the Republic of Ireland and my Department. Mr Boylan said that that co-operation was cosmetic, but I do not accept that. We are doing a lot of work, and that work will continue. I have not even touched on the co-operation on engineering and enforcement that the Minister for Regional Development is engaged in; and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is doing a lot of work with the police in the South on other issues. I am content to continue with the successful working relationship that is helping to make a real difference on our roads. I appeal to Members to listen to the voices of Pat Ramsey and P J Bradley and try to achieve consensus on an issue that, thankfully, is not party political and should not be dealt with in such a way. Mr Deputy Speaker: We are experiencing considerable interference with the audio system because Members are insisting on having their phones switched on. I ask Members to switch off their mobile phones. Do not put them on silent mode. Switch them off; and the word “off” should be easily recognised. I call Trevor Lunn to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Mr Lunn: Primarily, it is for Members to deliver an improved environment for road safety in Northern Ireland. To do that, we must work with the legislation in our jurisdiction, and over which we have direct authority. However, it also makes sense to learn good practice from other places, particularly when they are on our doorstep. From that point of view, I commend the proposer and seconder for bringing the motion before the House. The issue is important and topical. I have never listened to a debate before in which there has been so much agreement. In fact, there has been little disagreement in the debate. As soon the words “all-Ireland problem” are mentioned, people’s hackles rise. However, this problem is common to the whole of Ireland. The same problem exists in Limerick as does in Lisburn — or Canterbury. Mr Weir referred to the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the road-safety strategy. I recommend it to anyone who has not yet read it. It is a good, incisive report that was launched on Friday 9 November 2007. Much of what he referred to is addressed in that report, particularly the section on motorcycles. I was glad to hear the Minister state that compulsory basic training is finally to be introduced in Northern Ireland for motorcyclists, albeit 17 years after it was introduced in England. There is a culture and attitude of carelessness on the roads in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is one of the few places where there is still motorcycle road racing, which encourages our 17- to 24-year-olds to ride motorcycles at very high speeds, with inevitable outcomes. Outside Parliament Buildings, on the grounds of the Stormont estate, one can see the evidence of the enjoyable mayhem that will take place on Thursday evening. That too points to the culture of car driving. We must try to convince our youngsters, North and South, that reckless behaviour on the roads is not acceptable. It is a question of hearts and minds and attitudes. There is such a degree of unanimity that it would be a pity if the House were to divide, and I add my voice to the others who have indicated that that is not necessary. We have expressed ourselves; now let us leave it to the Minister to carry on the necessary work. I noticed that Mr Gallagher of the SDLP said that he would support a summit, but presumably not the amendment tabled by the Alliance Party, which urges annual bilateral conferences with ministerial input. If there is a difference between that and a summit, I would like to know what it is. As soon as the word “summit” is used, some people’s hackles rise. The Minister and others said that the Road Safety Council and the Road Safety Authority are incompatible, because one has a huge budget and the other does not; one is a state-led authority and the other is not. That is no reason why some type of all-Ireland body, with a high level of co-operation, could not be established to deal with road safety. Ian McCrea rather starkly expressed why the DUP is not, for the time being, ready for that. Mr Weir: Never. Mr Lunn: Never. [Laughter.] Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland represent a special case in Europe when it comes to driving, because we have the worst imaginable driving record, and we have had it for donkey’s years. We will continue to have such a record until people’s attitudes and hearts and minds are changed. From that point of view, there is much merit in cross-border co-operation and in learning from each other. That makes good sense, and poses no threat, because this issue is about lives, and we should be able to co-operate. I also hope that Members can co-operate today and not force the matter to a division. However, I am still supporting the Alliance Party amendment. [Laughter.] Mr Deputy Speaker: There have been several references to Hollywood superstars. I remind Members that Lassie was a Hollywood superstar. Mr Donaldson: We are all trying to work out the link between Lassie and the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Lunn. I am sure that that will become clear eventually. The DUP welcomes the opportunity to debate this issue. As chairman of the all-party Assembly group on road safety, I want to see this issue given the priority that it deserves, and I welcome the comments of my colleague the Minister of the Environment. Shortly after coming to office, she initiated a review of the road-safety strategy for Northern Ireland, and that indicates that this issue is a priority at both Executive and departmental level. Therefore, I say to the Member who moved the motion and to Mr Ford that this issue is being treated with the seriousness that it deserves. However, we must make sure that we get it right. I add my voice to those of Members from the SDLP and the Alliance Party who said earlier that the motion is potentially divisive. That is unfortunate. I say to my deputy chairperson Mr Boylan that it would have been better to bring the matter before the all-party group on road safety first. The group could have had a good discussion, might have identified areas of consensus on co-operation between both parts of this island with regard to road safety and, as an all-party group, might have brought proposals to the Assembly. There is, however, no consensus, because the motion is not acceptable, either to my party or to the Alliance Party. That, too, is unfortunate because — as other Members said — we do not want to turn the issue into a political football. For that reason, the all-party group was the way to achieve consensus. Although people try to paint them in various colours at certain times, roads in Northern Ireland are neither orange nor green. They are used by everyone, regardless of religious, political, cultural or ethnic persuasion. Members, therefore, must ensure that the issue does not become a political football. Before the end of the debate, I hope that the motion’s proposers consider withdrawing it. If not, our amendment stands, because the DUP believes that it is wrong to talk about harmonisation and integration while the Northern Ireland road-safety strategy is under review. Our priority is to consider what can be done to improve that strategy, and going down a road of harmonisation and integration deflects us from the task at hand. For that reason, I repeat that Sinn Féin should consider withdrawing the motion. The motion should be discussed in the all-party road-safety group. The DUP supports the existing level of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and notes that in its amendment. The DUP is happy to draw on the experience of the Road Safety Authority. I met Senator John Ellis, who chairs the equivalent of the Assembly’s all-party group on road safety in the Irish Parliament. I am keen to see those two groups working together to explore fully how co-operation can be achieved. Surely that is the right way to advance the issue, rather than with a politically motivated motion that does not help us to arrive at that consensus. To Mr Boylan and his colleagues, I say that we should sit down and discuss the issue in the all-party group. Let us meet our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland; let us look at areas where co-operation can be enhanced; and let us talk to the Minister, the Department, the Road Safety Council of Northern Ireland, and to all interested parties. Finally, I remind Members that the public launch of the all-party Assembly group by the Minister takes place on 11 December in the Long Gallery. Would it not be good for the group to be launched on the basis of consensus? The motion detracts from that aim and I hope that it is withdrawn. If not, the DUP amendment stands. Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the work that the Minister has done so far on road safety, and the work of the Assembly’s road-safety group. As David Ford said, that group is voluntary and has met three times since its inception, but the Assembly must go much further than that. Sinn Féin does not want to see the House divided. The role of the Assembly is to legislate, and that is how affirmative action on this issue will be achieved. In the broad sense, the motion is not political; instead, it is practical and makes sense with regard to improving road safety. The amendment tabled by the Alliance Party reflects the common-sense approach that we seek, and Sinn Féin supports it. That is a compromise, and it demonstrates that the House need not divide on the matter. 1.45 pm Peter Weir said that Members must recognise the hard work that statutory bodies are doing to reduce the number of road deaths. Appropriate legislation must be implemented to ensure that those bodies do the best job possible. David Ford stressed the need to recognise that all-island co-operation is the way forward in reducing the number of road deaths, particularly in so-called border areas. Billy Armstrong said that the statistics in respect of road deaths are appalling; the Minister said that those figures have improved in recent years, but obviously a lot more can be done. As my colleague Raymond McCartney said, road deaths are not inevitable, and that is the basis on which we should move forward. Mr Donaldson: The DUP has no difficulty with the spirit of the Alliance Party’s amendment, but we are concerned that the Road Safety Council is a non-statutory body, and to ask a non-statutory body to take forward enforcement issues, for instance — which it has no power and authority to do — alongside an authority that is a statutory body, is inappropriate. The DUP is open to exploring with all parties ways to tackle the issue, but our concern is a technical one. That is why it would be more beneficial to find consensus on the issue in the Committee for the Environment and bring forward a proposal to the Assembly for its consideration, rather than put it to a vote today. I ask Mr McKay — and the Alliance Party — to consider that. Mr McKay: I thank the Member for his intervention. Mr Ford: Will the Member give way? Mr McKay: I will certainly give the Member for South Antrim the opportunity to respond. Mr Ford: I thank Daithí for giving way so that I can respond to Jeffrey. I am not sure whether that is parliamentary, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you have not pulled me up on it yet. Does Daithí accept that in referring to co-operation to promote best practice in education and enforcement, the purpose of the Alliance Party’s amendment is not to suggest that the Road Safety Council has enforcement powers but that it has a duty to promote those ideas, and that it is proper that that be done by two bodies that have different statutory responsibilities? Mr McKay: I agree with Mr Ford, and, as I said, Sinn Féin will back the Alliance Party’s amendment. Tommy Gallagher said that he supported an all-Ireland summit and that it was important that such a summit take place to push the issue up the political agenda. The number of people killed on the roads over the past 30 or 40 years is abysmal, and road traffic accidents are the biggest killer in society today. Until that is pushed up the political agenda, it is unlikely to be addressed. Mr Gallagher also mentioned driving tests. I agree that they need to be revised, in the North and in the South. We have a responsibility to ensure that young people are prepared as well as possible for driving on the roads. Research shows that high levels of accompanied practice before licensing for solo driving, involving a variety of driving circumstances, result in lower levels of fatalities. A minimum of 50 hours’ pre-licensing practice is recommended, but in one country where 120 hours was required, the number of crashes in the two years following licensing fell by about 40%. Some young people can barely afford driving lessons, and, therefore, try to pass their tests after taking as few driving lessons as possible. The price and affordability of those lessons and the severe lack of post-licensing education for young drivers — mandatory or otherwise — must be looked at. One key finding in ‘Young Drivers: The Road to Safety’ was that road safety measures are seldom popular prior to their implementation, so strong political leadership will be required to address the challenge of young driver risk. Ian McCrea began his contribution by analysing our dreams; I suggest that he wake up to the fact that his party is already involved in all-Ireland bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council. That might be a nightmare for him: I do not know, but it probably is. In regard to those all-Ireland bodies, the North/South Ministerial Council, and the fact that the DUP — Mr I McCrea: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not know whether you will class it as a dream for you or a nightmare for me, or vice versa — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. All remarks should be made through the Chair. Mr I McCrea: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will rephrase that: I do not know whether the Member is in the nightmare or I am in the dream, or vice versa. An all-Ireland agenda is a dream for Sinn Féin, whether it wants to accept that fact. However, as long as my party is involved in the Assembly, that will not be a dream for us. Mr McKay: The reason for North/South co-operation on this and other matters is quite simple: it is to improve quality of life in the North and the South. In this case, such co-operation is designed to reduce the loss of life on our roads. It is a serious issue, and Sinn Féin’s motion is practical rather than political. Trevor Clarke referred to a recent death in his constituency. I have been to the funerals of four or five people in my own locality who died in road-traffic accidents. Indeed, one such funeral took place in my village in the past two weeks. Road-traffic accidents affect all communities on the island, urban and rural. I do not think that any area has not suffered the tragedy of a road death. Road safety is in crisis, and more can be done to improve it. Elected representatives should not be reluctant to make tough decisions in order to prevent further tragedy. Human error is usually the cause of road-traffic accidents, but speed determines their outcome and whether someone lives or dies. We should face the fact that speeding is a national habit. The Road Safety Authority’s website shows that after the speed of drivers on the Galgorm Road in Ballymena was recorded, 94% of them were over the speed limit. I am not isolating drivers in Ballymena; figures were similarly high for other roads in the North that were surveyed. That should not surprise us. Raymond McCartney rightly said that a co-ordinated approach is needed, not only between Departments, but on an all-Ireland basis. As I said previously, road deaths are not inevitable, and that is the basis on which we should proceed. The Minister referred to the welcome commitment in the draft Programme for Government to reduce road deaths by one third by 2011. That is an ambitious target, and, if we are to meet it, we should be open to all suggestions for improving road safety. That may mean introducing radical measures, which we should not be reluctant to do. The Minister also said that the matter is complex and that, perhaps, it is not possible to integrate work on road safety on an all-Ireland basis. It is possible: it is a question of having the will to work on that basis to improve road safety where necessary. The Minister also said quite rightly that 17- to 24-year-olds are not being reached. I welcome the educational work — Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. You were very generous in allowing interventions. Before I put the question on amendment No 1, I advise Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall, and I shall proceed to put the Question on the motion as amended. Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the existing level of co-operation between the road safety authorities in Northern Ireland and those in the Republic of Ireland; further notes that a review of Northern Ireland’s road safety strategy is currently under way, which can draw on experience from other countries; and calls for further measures to be taken to ensure that the current progress on improving road safety is sustained and increased. Co-Ownership and Shared Equity Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Mr Gardiner: I beg to move That this Assembly calls for an expansion of housing co-ownership to at least 10% of the overall housing market in Northern Ireland, with a wide variety of shared equity options available to first-time homebuyers. I welcome the Minister for Social Development to the House to respond to the debate. The issue of affordable housing has occupied a good deal of the Assembly’s time, just as it occupies a good many column inches in newspapers and is a frequent news item on broadcast media. It is a matter of deep and immediate concern to every family in Northern Ireland, and it is a fitting subject to occupy the Assembly’s time. In a sense, all housing problems are related; the general level of house prices has an impact on the number of homes available for purchase, which, in turn, has an impact on the affordable housing stock. Two problems lie at the heart of the affordable housing issue: one is the price of the house in question; and the second is the prospective purchaser’s ability to pay for it. Many solutions have been suggested to adjust the price of houses downward. I do not intend to dwell on those issues today, other than to say that some of the solutions that have been proposed are self-defeating. It is always dangerous to interfere with the operation of a free market, as it often has unintended consequences. The price of property in the apartment and town-house market, which is the type of housing that first-time buyers find manageable, has been driven up relentlessly by the operation of buy-to-let mortgages. Such mortgages have created a level of demand that has led to inevitable rises in house prices. We must end buy-to-let mortgages that allow speculators to speculate on the cheap. People who invest in the buy-to-let market should borrow money at normal commercial bank rates. That would leave the apartment and town-house market open to first-time buyers without that disproportionate level of competition. We should also regard apartments as suitable first-time homes, much as is the case on the Continent. Every day, Northern Ireland becomes more and more like the rest of Europe. It is unreasonable that self-interested pressure groups prevent first-time buyers from getting homes by restricting infill development in urban areas. Although some areas have settled characters that are worth preserving, many others are not worth preserving. Some of our housing stock is in a sorry state, and it must be upgraded with modern, high-standard buildings. New developments will revitalise our towns and town centres with an influx of young first-time buyers into areas that are ageing and sometimes dying. I am not against some restrictions on infill development, but I totally oppose blanket bans on such development. The Assembly must protect the interests of first-time buyers against self-interested groups that want to stop all building. If we cannot build in the country or the town, where is left? I want to turn to the core issue behind the motion. The second main problem behind the affordable housing issue is how the prospective purchaser will pay for the house he or she hopes to buy. Shared ownership is the most obvious solution to that problem; however, it is one that has not been adequately or properly explored in Northern Ireland. 2.00 pm I want to see an increase in the range and diversity of options available. The issue of what is on offer must be tackled. Affordability, in the last resort, is determined by the mortgages available, and the best way to expand those is by widening the range of shared equity options. At present in Northern Ireland a shared equity homeowner will own between 40% and 75% of his or her home and pay rent for the remainder. In Great Britain, it ranges from 25% to 75%. That additional range at the lower end of the scale, from 40% down to 25%, makes an enormous difference to the number of people who qualify for the scheme and can use shared equity as a step on the ladder to home ownership. Those people could own 25% of the equity in their homes and pay rent on the rest. That could become a major weapon in our armoury in tackling the affordable housing crisis. The average house in Northern Ireland costs between £180,000 in Londonderry and Strabane and £260,000 in Lisburn. In my Upper Bann constituency, the average price is £222,000. Across Northern Ireland, the average price for a terraced house is £177,000 and for an apartment, £183,000. Taking these as the entry points for first-time buyers, with an average price of £180,000, the difference between a 40% and 25% level of equity is £27,000 — the difference between a first-time buyer’s having to find £72,000 or £45,000. That great difference of 40% in the base amount would be of enormous assistance to those who aspire to home ownership. The affordable housing landscape would be transformed in one easy and achievable move. There are good reasons why this is the right time to take action on shared equity. Shared ownership, together with an end to buy-to-let mortgages, is the mechanism to make that happen. Miss McIlveen: Sustained rises in housing prices over several years have favoured those with multiple properties, and have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of income from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. It comes as a welcome relief to those who are not on the property ladder that growth has halted, and that there is some evidence that prices are decreasing. The fact remains, however, that first-time buyers are still at a significant disadvantage. The UK average house price is almost £200,000, and given that the average Northern Ireland wage is £402 a week, or £20,904 a year, it is clear that anyone applying for a mortgage without the benefit of the equity from a previous purchase faces significant difficulties. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) states that mortgage lenders traditionally lend up to 3·5 times an applicant’s pre-tax salary; therefore, in an ideal world, the maximum loan to someone on an average salary should be £73,164. However, sometimes those eligible to self-certify their incomes overstate them, leaving themselves with considerable difficulty in repaying the loans and open to prosecution for mortgage fraud. Mortgage lenders are also sometimes prepared to lend more than three-and-a-half times the applicant’s pre-tax salary. That again leaves the homeowner working just to pay off the loan. In Northern Ireland we have only one shared-equity scheme, run by the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association (NICHA or Co-Ownership Housing), which has assisted in the provision of 20,000 homes in Northern Ireland since its inception 30 years ago. In the rest of the UK there has been a considerable expansion of shared-equity schemes, such as HomeBuy in England and Wales and Homestake in Scotland. One of the arguments against the investment of public money in such schemes has been expressed by housing charity Shelter, which said at the time of the Chancellor’s announcement establishing the HomeBuy scheme: “We are talking about subsidy being directed away from providing housing for the poorest, in favour of enabling people who very often already have adequate housing to profit out of home ownership. We question whether it’s a legitimate priority to subsidise people to acquire wealth.” I think, however, that it is a legitimate priority to assist people in this way. By investing in people we are giving them an opportunity to improve themselves, rather than to waste money in the rented sector and receive no tangible benefit after 20 or 30 years of spending. Entering into a shared-equity scheme such as that run by NICHA means that a mortgage becomes affordable. Equity increases with house-price rises, so that the homeowner can pay a lump sum towards the cost of his or her new home. A further advantage of such a scheme is that the profit made through the increase in house prices is split between the homeowner and the scheme provider. That means that after resale, the full amount of the money loaned plus a share of the profit made is repaid to the Government. According to NICHA, it has received £84 million in grants and returned £16 million over and above that. That return can go towards housing for the poorest in society, who are not able to purchase a house or even be eligible for a shared-equity scheme. Clearly, we do not want to encourage people to burden themselves with unmanageable debt, but the repossession rate for homes purchased under the scheme stands at around 0·01%. The scheme provides an extra layer of scrutiny to ensure that prospective homeowners do not get in over their heads. Such schemes need to be expanded in today’s market, given the rapid increase in property values. As I said, the average house price is around £200,000, but the property-value limit for NICHA is £225,000. In other council areas in Northern Ireland, it can be as low as £180,000. Expanding the scheme to cater for at least 10% of the housing market would require considerable investment. However, such an investment would provide substantial benefits to all the partners — homeowners, the banking sector and the public purse. For those reasons, I support the motion. Mr F McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Téann an rún seo go díreach go croí cheist na tithíochta. In many ways, this motion goes to the heart of the housing debate — namely, what exactly constitutes an affordable housing sector. I was at a conference in England last week, and some of the submissions said that, five years ago, the issue of affordability rarely surfaced in the housing debate. However, they went on to say that, in recent surveys, housing affordability has featured third in order of priority among people’s concerns, after the economy and the environment. That gives an idea of where this issue sits in people’s minds. Any debate in this Chamber on housing shows the level of concern that people have about the issue. This motion concerns me in that it is asking us to put all of our eggs into one basket. I know that quite a lot of people have gone down the road of co-ownership and are quite happy with what it delivered to them. However, there are those who say that co-ownership created problems for them. A television news item some months ago raised some of the difficulties that people faced, and I have dealt with people who have had the same difficulties. Ní hé sin an cheist ar maidin, ach caithfimid í a chur san áireamh. That is not the issue at hand this morning, but it does need to be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to ask this Assembly to pass a motion without knowing all the consequences or having all the facts. I was reading the website of Co-Ownership Housing last night. That body is obviously pushing out its boat in relation to the overall affordability debate; it says that it is ready and able to scale up rapidly to meet the escalating housing demand — subject to funding — and that it wants to play a key role in article 40 planning agreements. Were the association to do that, we would be pre-empting a fundamental question that the Semple Review will attempt to answer: how do we develop an affordable sector? A number of recommendations may come from the Semple Review. I have previously argued in the Chamber that, were land made available for housing, an affordable sector could be kick-started. Moreover, we must consider vacant dwellings and options that deal with land prices, as well as the many other suggestions on the development of an affordable sector — not least, article 40 of The Planning Order 1991, which will compel developers to set aside land for affordable and social housing. Co-ownership, shared equity and shared ownership will also be discussed in the review, but we must be clear that many options are available, not just those. To vote in favour of the motion would be to do an injustice to those who expect us to come up with answers to the many problems that are faced by those constituents who are in need of social and affordable housing. I appeal to the proposers of the motion that, rather than pursue it, they allow discussion and debate to continue in a manner that allows all options to be considered and does not simply seek out one option to solve what is a huge social problem. Let us see whether a cocktail of measures can be developed that deals with the question of affordability. To that end, I propose that we await the outcome of the Semple Review. I believe that the team’s recommendations are expected in the coming weeks. When armed with that information, we will surely be in a better position to look at real solutions to the affordability problem, instead of taking the premature decision of committing the Assembly to a call for 10% of the housing market to be taken up by one association or another. Let us not set a figure. Sinn Féin is not opposed to co-ownership in itself. However, we should wait for the affordability review’s recommendations before we commit ourselves to it. Mar gheall air sin, beidh Sinn Féin ag staonadh ar an mholadh seo. For that reason, we in Sinn Féin will abstain from the vote, purely because we believe it to be premature to commit ourselves to a particular course of action. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Burns: I support the motion. I need not say much by way of introduction other than to restate that we now find ourselves in the midst of a housing crisis. Although the problem is complex and multidimensional, we all knew that one existed. However, it was allowed to grow unchecked. Under direct rule, there was little that we could do about the problem, so we now find ourselves in a somewhat desperate situation. The problem was not of our making, but, thankfully, the solution can be. An increase in co-ownership can be part of that solution. It genuinely saddens me that many thousands of people out there with good jobs, who work very hard to get on in life, and who earn what most people would consider a good wage, simply cannot afford to buy their own home. In the current climate, those on average wages, let alone those on low incomes, have no chance of owning their own home. As I have said, it fills me with regret that so many people in our society cannot achieve their ambition. No matter how hard they work, they cannot afford their own home. Co-ownership has proved popular because the scheme is credible and has a strong track record. The scheme meets the needs of the wide range of people who face affordability problems. Simply put, co-ownership is a good way in which to get a foot on the property ladder. It is for that reason that I support that part of the motion that calls for an increase in co-ownership, whether that be to 10% of the overall housing market or to another increased figure. I suggest that most people think of co-ownership as a buy-half/rent-half deal. In fact, some variation in shared equity — from 40% to 75% — is already available. Although that offers some flexibility, Co-Ownership Housing outlined in its strategy document that it wants an expanded range of co-ownership purchase options that could be individually tailored to buyers’ needs. If the organisation believes that that would be a good thing, then I am happy to offer my support. 2.15 pm The current maximum purchase-price limits, which restrict co-ownership buyers to the lower end of the market — apartments or small houses — are not fair. I support the review of upper limits. However, I offer some words of caution. Although the market has been rising in the past few years, we have witnessed a slowdown recently, which suggests that some houses are overvalued. I do not want people to enter into co-ownership arrangements in the hope of purchasing affordable homes and then to find that the value of their houses drops. Co-ownership must be considered to be an attractive investment, and people must get a good return on their outlay. I urge Members to keep in mind the many hard-working people who cannot afford to purchase their homes. The Assembly can contribute and make a real difference to the housing crisis, and I hope that we can seize this opportunity to affect those people’s lives for the better. Ms Lo: I support the motion. There is no disputing the fact that there is a crisis in affordable housing in Northern Ireland. According to the Semple Report, property values have increased by 165% in the past five years. House prices here are above the UK average, although wages are significantly below average. There is a huge gap between incomes and house prices. Subsequently, too many people are being priced out of the Northern Ireland housing market. In particular, it is hard for young people to find a home — even at the bottom of the housing stock. I have spoken out about that problem, which is particularly acute in my constituency of South Belfast. It will not be solved unless there is more affordable housing. The Semple Report made various recommendations relating to co-ownership schemes. Such schemes can provide the means through which people can bridge the gap. Co-ownership provides people with a better long-term option than short-term rented accommodation, in which tenants feel no sense of ownership or security. However, I was surprised to read in Co-Ownership Housing literature that in the past 30 years only 20,000 homes have been provided by the association for low-income households. There must be many more such facilities for people who desire to be owner-occupiers. The Semple Report recommended the abolition of the current property-value limits, about which other Members spoke earlier; reducing the level of rent charged on the equity retained by Co-Ownership Housing; and reducing the initial minimum equity stake from 40% to 25%. Members also spoke about that. I agree with the recommendations, and their implementation would be welcomed by low-income households. Many more of them will be able to participate, thereby increasing the demand for co-ownership homes and ensuring the sustainability of such schemes. A more flexible approach will enable people to purchase bigger or better properties in more attractive areas rather than houses at the lowest end of the market. On the other hand, it may contribute to regeneration in areas of low demand. More people buying their own homes will have an impact on reducing the current lengthy social-housing waiting lists. There are resource implicat |