northern ireland assembly Monday 21 January 2008 Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: During the sitting on Monday 14 January 2008, Mr Spratt raised a point of order, suggesting that there was something wrong with the microphones in the Chamber and that they should be checked. Mr Spratt is not in the Chamber, but I thank him for that point of order. Another Member had approached the Table earlier that day, also suggesting that there had been a problem with the sound. Checks have now been conducted, and I am advised that the interference about which Members have complained is being caused by mobile phones being in active mode. If Members persist in leaving their mobile phones on — even in silent mode — while they are in the Chamber, those problems will continue. Without looking at any specific Members, I understand why some are very attached to their mobile phones. However, I urge Members to manage without them when they are in the Chamber. The Whips have consistently raised this issue. We should try to reach a point where Members leave their mobile phones outside the Chamber, but, if that cannot be achieved, the Business Committee needs to consider the issue further to try to resolve it. Statutory Committee Membership Mr Speaker: The next item of business is the motion on Statutory Committee membership, which has been brought forward by the Business Committee. As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate. Mr P J Bradley: I beg to move That Mr Pat Doherty replace Mr Gerry McHugh as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development; that Mr Gerry McHugh replace Mr Francie Molloy as a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment; and that Mr Alastair Ross replace Mr Alex Maskey as a member of the Committee for the Environment. Some Members may be wondering why I am proposing this motion. For those who are not familiar with the workings of the Business Committee, I should explain that if a Member from a particular party is named in such a motion, it is preferred that that party does not lend its name to the motion. That is why the motion stands in my name. I am not involved in the internal politics of Sinn Féin — that is for sure. However, I wish to pay tribute to Gerry McHugh, who has been an active member of the Agriculture Committee since 1998. I have sat alongside him, and he was a well-informed member who kept a good attendance record. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That Mr Pat Doherty replace Mr Gerry McHugh as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development; that Mr Gerry McHugh replace Mr Francie Molloy as a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment; and that Mr Alastair Ross replace Mr Alex Maskey as a member of the Committee for the Environment. Mr Speaker: The next item of business concerns the membership of a Standing Committee. The motion has been proposed by the Business Committee — it is a business motion, and, therefore, there will be no debate. Resolved: That Mr Ian McCrea replace Mr Mickey Brady as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. — [Mr P J Bradley.] Mr A Maginness: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to today’s first business motion. Is it in order for a long-standing member of a Committee to be forced off that Committee because of his leaving a party, rather than to consent to his removal? Is it in order for a Member to be pushed off a Committee in a rather brutal fashion? Mr Speaker: The Business Committee was unanimously agreed on how to deal with that matter. Standing Orders state that all Members must be offered membership of one Statutory Committee. Mr A Maginness: I do not wish to prolong proceedings, but a Member has an opportunity and a right to be a member of a Statutory Committee. If that person expresses the view that he or she is quite happy to stay on that Committee, can he or she not do so? Why must such a Member be forced off a Statutory Committee? Surely it should be a matter of consent to removal. Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order for the House. I am satisfied that the Business Committee has dealt with the issue. 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 a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): I beg to move That this Assembly recognises the positive work of voluntary and statutory organisations in installing smoke alarms in homes; expresses concern that many dwellings in both the private- and social-housing sectors still do not have adequate working smoke alarms; and calls on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel, to undertake a coordinated programme to ensure the provision of working smoke detectors in every home. As Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I am pleased to propose the motion on this important public-safety issue. Concerns about this issue were raised by the Committee after the horrific deaths of seven members of the McElhill and McGovern family in a recent house fire in Omagh. I appreciate fully that the circumstances of those tragic deaths are still under investigation and are the subject of an independent review that was announced by the Minister last week. I welcome that review. Whatever the particular circumstances of that tragic case, it is a sad fact that, according to figures from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, there were 833 accidental house fires in Northern Ireland last year, in which eight people lost their lives and more than 250 were injured. The motion is about smoke alarms, and, without question, smoke alarms save lives. In a house fire, the real killer is often not the fire itself but smoke. It is well known that fires happen when people least expect them, often during the night. It is a shocking fact that if people are asleep when a fire starts and there is no smoke alarm to wake them, they are unlikely to survive. Smoke suffocates quickly, and people can die before the flames reach them. A smoke alarm gives vital minutes of warning that help people to get out safely. Surveys suggest that Northern Ireland has the highest number of smoke alarms in homes of any part of the United Kingdom. That is very good news and is due in no small measure to the ongoing work of our statutory and voluntary organisations. I pay tribute to the work that they do. Three main factors have contributed to the high level of smoke alarms. First, the Fire and Rescue Service, in conjunction with a range of voluntary organisations, undertook a campaign a few years ago entitled Elderly at Risk, during which approximately 65,000 free smoke alarms were fitted in the homes of elderly and vulnerable people. That made a significant impact. I cannot praise too highly the valuable work of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, which continues to undertake comprehensive fire-prevention work, including the provision of fire-safety advice. Members will be familiar with the hard-hitting advertisements that appear on our screens and remind us regularly of the terrible consequences of not having a working smoke alarm. The second factor that has contributed to the high level of smoke alarms is changes in recent years to the building regulations, which mean that all new dwellings must now have a smoke alarm that is connected to the electricity supply. That removes the concern about batteries not working, being removed or not being replaced when they run out. The same requirement to fit a hard-wired smoke alarm applies where major renovations are carried out to existing buildings. The third contributing factor is the Northern Ireland Housing Executive’s programme, which has been in place for quite a number of years, of fitting smoke alarms to its properties. As a result, the level of death and injury in fires in private dwellings is lower in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, there is no room for complacency, and a number of factors has caused the Committee to be concerned about the issue and to bring forward this motion for debate. In relation to the number of homes with a smoke alarm, a Northern Ireland omnibus survey, carried out in 2004, found that 96% of respondents stated that they had an alarm. Of those, 72% reported that they checked their smoke alarms at least weekly or monthly. As a result, the Fire and Rescue Service estimated at that time that 19% of homes may not have a reliable, working smoke alarm. It is clear that a headline figure of 96% of homes having a smoke alarm can mask the true picture. A more recent study, based on interviews carried out in 1,000 homes, found that 94% reported having a smoke alarm. The level of ownership of smoke alarms may be quite high, but the crucial factor is whether those have been maintained and whether they have a working battery. The Fire and Rescue Service has found many cases of the alarm being fitted but not maintained, or the batteries removed. The focus of the Fire and Rescue Service’s media campaigns has, quite rightly, been on reminding people to check their smoke alarms regularly and warning of the consequences of removing batteries for other use. 12.15 pm However, general statistics about the number of homes with smoke alarms can give a misleading impression and, perhaps, lead to a false sense of security. In addition to the number of smoke alarms that have not been maintained, there are still many homes that do not have alarms. That is particularly worrying, and the Committee is calling for a co-ordinated programme to tackle the issue. For example, figures from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive show that just fewer than three-quarters of all social housing stock have smoke alarms fitted, which leaves nearly 23,000 homes in the social-housing sector with no smoke alarms. The situation must be addressed urgently, and I am sure that we will hear further views on that point from Members during the debate. I will turn briefly to an analysis that was carried out by the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service on house fires in Northern Ireland over the past four years, which shows that there has been a gradual reduction in the overall number of fires during that period. The number has fallen from just over 1,000 in 2005 to 830 last year. When the type of dwelling is examined, over the same period, one finds that nearly 40% of all house fires were in terraced houses. That was followed by 16%, which were in flats, and 14%, which occurred in semi-detached houses. As well as over 1,000 casualties, there were 33 accidental deaths in fires during the past four years. When the smoke alarm status of the 33 dwellings in which those deaths took place is examined, one finds that 14 of them had no smoke alarms, and in eight other cases, the alarms were not working. Ensuring that every home in Northern Ireland has a working smoke alarm is first and foremost down to individuals to take responsibility for their own safety. At departmental level, it is an issue that requires action by a number of Departments. Although the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has primary responsibility for public safety, the Department for Social Development (DSD) has a role in relation to social housing in the public- or private-rental sectors and the Department of Finance and Personnel has a role in relation to building regulations. The Committee is, therefore, calling for concerted action from all three Departments to tackle the issue. In conclusion, I will leave Members with a positive and encouraging statistic from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. In 333 homes in which fires occurred last year, the occupants were alerted by a smoke alarm. That shows that smoke alarms can, and do, save lives, and I urge Members to support the motion. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. As a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I am happy to add my name and give my support and that of Sinn Féin to the motion. As the Chairperson has just said, I hope that we receive the support of the House today because the motion is proactive. I commend the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and although part of the motion calls on him to do specific things, it is recognised that other Departments must play their parts, too. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the time frame in which the programme will be achieved. I also take this opportunity to commend both the Fire and Rescue Service for its ongoing work and those groups in the community and voluntary sector that have been working over past years to ensure that homes that are occupied by the most vulnerable in our society are fitted with smoke detectors. Without that work, the figures highlighted by the Chairperson would be greater. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety received a briefing paper on smoke alarms from Dr Janice Thompson, and I thank her for her report. She gave the Committee statistics and compared what is happening here with the work that is taking place in some local authority areas in England. The report informed us that a survey carried out by the Fire and Rescue Service shows that 96% of respondents said that they had smoke alarms in their homes. Of those, 72% said that they check their smoke alarms either weekly or monthly. The Fire and Rescue Service, based on those responses, estimated that 19% of homes may not have a reliable, working smoke alarm. With that figure in mind, and in light of recent deaths, I support the motion. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety gave statistics, and, for some years, it has been Housing Executive policy to install smoke alarms in all its flats, maisonettes and bungalows. That is to be commended; however, the figures show that smoke alarms are not fitted in just over 23,000 properties. If that figure applies only to the public sector, how many private-sector homes are without reliable smoke detectors? That must be changed. There were 830 house fires in 2007, resulting in the loss of eight lives. Many others were injured. I have no doubt that more would have died, had residents not been given early warning by smoke detectors. I stress again that fitting a smoke detector is all well and good; however, it must be checked regularly. It is good that today is Monday: I close with the Fire and Rescue Service campaign slogan “Thumbs Up On Monday”. Go raibh maith agat. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety for bringing the motion to the Assembly. Should it achieve nothing else, it will heighten public awareness of the smoke-alarm issue. I congratulate the two Members who spoke previously on their presentation of the statistics. An increase of 98% in ownership of smoke alarms is welcome; however, only 72% of those are checked regularly. Therefore, the question is not the problem of finance to supply smoke alarms, but the finance necessary to educate people to check their alarms regularly. It seems that the real problem with inefficient smoke alarms is that, in many cases, the batteries have run down, and the householders have not renewed them. Would it not, therefore, be better if all smoke alarms were hard wired? A further statistic that has, rightly, been quoted is the number of privately owned homes with either no smoke alarm, or whose alarm is inefficient. Should this Assembly not recommend that all private homes be statutorily bound to have smoke alarms fitted and hard wired? Furthermore, should it not be the case that smoke alarms are fitted all public-sector houses? The statistics for deaths in house fires are alarming. Although we may congratulate ourselves that the number of deaths has gone down, even one fatality from a fire in a house with no working smoke alarm is one too many. Rather than bore Members by going over the statistics again, suffice it to say that, in the draft Budget, the Fire and Rescue Service is almost at a standstill. If we are to ask that service to go a bit further, we must look again at supporting resources for its educational programme for householders with smoke alarms. I support the motion, both personally and as a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and, again, I thank the Chairperson for bringing it to the Floor of the Assembly. Mr McCarthy: On behalf of the United Community group of the Assembly, I support this important motion. Ninety-six per cent of our population have smoke alarms, and congratulations are due to those services who worked to achieve that figure. Compared to where we were not that long ago, that statistic is excellent. One fire in a property is one too many, as is one fatality as a result of a fire. We must avoid those outcomes at all costs. It is to be hoped that by debating the matter in the Assembly, everyone will be encouraged to ensure that working smoke alarms are fitted in their properties. As representatives of our communities, the onus is on us to tell people as often as possible that they must ensure that their smoke alarms work. Even if we say as much to those who come into our offices, we will contribute to a further reduction of fire-related fatalities and fires in the home. Rev Dr Robert Coulter said that if we want to ensure the adoption of a co-ordinated approach to the provision of working smoke alarms, we must make sure that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has sufficient funding to encourage everyone in the community to fit their homes with smoke-detection devices. It has been a pleasure for me to speak to the motion, which I support fully. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Campbell): The Committee for Social Development welcomes the motion tabled by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, asking the Assembly to recognise the positive work of the voluntary and statutory organisations in installing smoke alarms in homes. The motion also calls on relevant Departments to implement a co-ordinated programme to ensure the provision of working smoke detectors in every home in Northern Ireland. Smoke alarms save lives: there is no doubt about that. Fire strikes when it is least expected, and it can spread rapidly, damaging property, personal possessions and, of course, lives, for ever. The real killer, however, is smoke. Smoke suffocates people quickly, and lives are often lost before flames can even take hold. Smoke alarms act as early warning systems and give some extra escape time, which can be precious. Many lives have been saved by smoke alarms that have wakened families before they were overcome by the smoke that was created by a fire. Sadly, some people have not been so fortunate. Smoke alarms save lives, but that is true only if the devices are working. Apart from houses in multiple occupation (HMO), there is no requirement for smoke detectors to be fitted in private-rented dwellings. In this day and age, especially given our knowledge about the important role that smoke detectors play in saving lives, it is almost incomprehensible that there is no requirement to fit them in such dwellings. It would be interesting and, I must say, heartbreaking, to find out how many lives could have been saved had there been such a requirement. The current fitness standard for homes as provided in The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 does not refer to smoke detection. However, the Committee understands that that will be considered in the context of an imminent review of the private-rented sector strategy. The Committee members and, I am sure, other Members will expect the installation of smoke alarms in private-rented dwellings to become a requirement in the near future. Under the ‘Housing Association Guide’ and relevant building regulations, mains-powered smoke detectors must be installed in all new social housing or housing that is being altered significantly. An estimated 95% of housing association properties have had mains-powered smoke alarms installed. It is disturbing that no target to reach an installation rate of 100% has been set; the ‘Housing Association Guide’ simply states that associations: “should take the first opportunity to have mains-powered smoke alarms fitted”. That is simply not good enough. A target of no fewer than 100% ought to be set. Since the 1990s, the Housing Executive’s policy has been to install mains-powered smoke alarms in all its flats, maisonettes and bungalows. If the electrics of a house are being upgraded, mains-powered smoke alarms are installed as standard. Mr Speaker, considerable progress has been made, but let me dig a little deeper and provide you with some figures that the Chairperson of the Health Committee has already mentioned. She said that approximately 65,000 Housing Executive dwellings have had mains-powered smoke alarms fitted. That is significant progress, and it must be welcomed. 12.30 pm However, given that the Housing Executive’s total net tenanted stock stands at 87,500 properties, that means that almost 23,000 properties do not have such smoke alarms. How many people are at serious risk as a result? There may be over 50,000 people at risk in Housing Executive properties. These figures are absolutely shocking and extremely serious. The issue needs immediate and urgent attention. Finally, I want to pay tribute to the statutory sector, particularly the Fire and Rescue Service, as well as all the voluntary agencies involved, for the sterling work that has been done over recent years to install smoke alarms in homes. As Mrs Robinson said, surveys suggest that Northern Ireland has the highest level of smoke alarms in homes of any part of the UK. I have no doubt that that can be attributed to the dedication and hard work of the Fire and Rescue Service and the voluntary agencies. There is much more hard work to be done. In conclusion, the Committee for Social Development fully supports the motion and congratulates the Health Committee on its proposing of it. Mr F McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also commend the Member for bringing such an important motion to the Floor of the House. The matter of fire prevention and the necessity of smoke alarms in homes has been an issue for many years, yet we still hear of the terrible tragedies that occur as the result of house fires — loss of life, horrific injuries, and damage to the lives of entire families. How many times have we heard the Fire and Rescue Service, the police and others on television appealing to people to install smoke alarms in their homes? However, in many instances, the appeals fall on deaf ears. How many people are living in homes with no smoke alarms? According to statistics, the answer is thousands. The motion asks the Departments with shared responsibility for fire prevention resources and expertise to undertake a co-ordinated approach and develop a programme that will result in working smoke alarms being fitted in every home. The motion also recognises the excellent work carried out by the voluntary and statutory sectors to educate people about fire prevention and to install smoke alarms in thousands of homes across the North of Ireland. There is no doubt that many people owe their lives to the fact that some people care enough to have highlighted the importance of having a smoke alarm in every dwelling and have taken the appropriate action to ensure that smoke alarms were installed. I also commend the many community groups who work in partnership with the voluntary and statutory sectors. Often, the work that they do goes unrecognised, but we should remember the hours of work that such people carry out on a voluntary basis. They are the people who plod the streets, carrying out the surveys and providing the information to ensure that an effective programme is completed. The partnership between statutory agencies and the voluntary and community sector has proven invaluable in the battle to have smoke alarms installed. When one considers the cost of not accepting this motion in the sense of loss of life or injuries, full support is essential. If one considers the damage to property, then, again, we need to rally behind the motion. The statistics paint a bleak picture. Over the past four years, an estimated 3,600 fires have taken place in various dwelling types, while in the past three years, the number of house fires has fallen by 175, from 1,005 in 2004 to 830 in 2007. In that period, we have seen a casualty list of 1,052 people. We must do all in our power to drive those figures down. In my lifetime, I have seen the devastating and heartbreaking consequences of house fires and I have seen the impact that they leave on communities. I am sure that everyone in the House can tell similar stories. We have it in our power to ensure that at least one effective smoke alarm is installed in every home. In many countries, it is recommended that smoke alarms should be fitted in every room, while other countries ask that smoke alarms be strategically placed in several rooms. In the June 2004 Northern Ireland omnibus survey, 96% of respondents stated that they had a smoke alarm in their home, and 72% stated that they checked their alarm on a weekly or monthly basis. In a leaflet published in 2006, the Fire and Rescue Service stated that 98% of people said that they had a smoke alarm in their house — that is a very high figure that needs some research. I would be interested in finding out how many people responded to each of those surveys, as well as how widely and in which areas of Northern Ireland they were carried out. That type of information is essential if an effective campaign is to be carried out. The figures provided by the Fire and Rescue Service do not correspond to other statistics that are available. Take the private-rented sector: I have seen it reported that, although houses in multiple occupation are covered by the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1993, there is no requirement for smoke alarms to be fitted in private-rented dwellings. That has already been touched on. An increasing number of dwellings fall into that category. Also, many HMOs are older than the legislation that now guides them. How many of those are without smoke alarms? I hope that, on the passing of this motion, Departments will start to tackle the serious problems that these figures show up in relation to the private-rented sector. This House supported a motion several months ago calling for mandatory registration in the private-rented sector. In light of crucial issues, such as the one that this motion highlights, it is all the more urgent that the motion passed all those months ago be implemented as soon as possible. Tenants in Housing Executive and housing association dwellings — Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is almost up. Mr F McCann: Thank you very much. Mr Craig: As a member of the Social Development Committee, I agree that this motion is very relevant. No one should underestimate the danger of fire. We have heard some statistics already; in the UK each year, 60,000 fires occur in homes, killing almost 700 people and injuring over 7,000 more. Many of those deaths and injuries could be prevented if only those involved were alerted sooner. This is where smoke alarms can help. They do not stop fires, nor can they put fires out, but, if properly installed and looked after, they can give early warning of a fire and provide time to escape. I welcome the good work that has been done by all the various stakeholders, such as housing associations, the Housing Executive and the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. However, there are still far too many homes in both the private- and public-housing sectors that do not have smoke alarms. My colleague Mr Campbell has already mentioned the good work that has been done by the Housing Executive. However, it is alarming that 23,000 Housing Executive homes still do not have smoke alarms. Almost 74% of Housing Executive properties are covered, which is good, but a lot more work still needs to be done. The Housing Executive must take note of the need to put much more effort in there. The housing associations are in a better position. When they started to build new homes, the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 were already in place, so they were forced to put hard-wired smoke alarms in every home. A study that was published only last week estimated that 95% of all housing association properties are covered by such alarms. Housing associations look after 28,000 homes in Northern Ireland. A lot of good work has been done, but a lot more is required. The Chairman of the Social Development Committee also mentioned the private sector, which has what might be the biggest problem of all. There is no real requirement for a smoke alarm to be put in any private-rented house. That is a major issue. It is good to see that there is going to be a review of the regulations around the rental of private properties. Perhaps at that stage, the House will be able to change the fact that there are no requirements for smoke alarms. There have been frequent advertising campaigns, some of which have taken place in recent years, and DSD has contributed to them. In fact, funding from the Department for Social Development enabled the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service to install smoke alarms in people’s homes. That was almost 10 years ago, and many of those alarms are still in place today. The Fire and Rescue Service still runs a home fire-safety check scheme, where the public can request a safety check to be carried out. It can be booked either via the Internet or by calling the Fire and Rescue Service directly. Not only is a check carried out, the householder is given a free smoke alarm. The Fire and Rescue Service actively seeks out and targets high-risk areas, and officers will carry out leaflet drops that detail the fire-safety scheme. Lessons have been learned from giving out smoke alarms in the past. The free smoke alarm has a 10-year life and — much more importantly — its battery will not fit any other device, so there is no risk of its being used for anything else. A great deal of work has been carried out by many of the stakeholders, but much more needs to be done. I, therefore, commend the motion. Mrs Hanna: I support the motion, as a member of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. Figures for fire deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland have fallen in recent years, but they are still too high. Many domestic fires could have been prevented, had working smoke alarms been fitted in those homes. Every life lost in a fire is a tragedy, and, in some cases, the tragedy could have been prevented. It is important that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service works in partnership with all Departments, statutory and local, which have a part to play, especially council departments such as environmental health, and with voluntary organisations on a programme aimed at fire prevention in both private and social housing. It is widely advertised by the Fire and Rescue Service that one is twice as likely to die in a fire at home if a smoke alarm has not been fitted. It is the simplest way of warning someone of a fire, giving precious time to escape. I am sure that we have all seen the “Thumbs Up On Monday” advertisement from the Fire and Rescue Service. It is a very good way of reminding people to test their alarms. The Fire and Rescue Service has various multimedia campaigns that encourage people to take positive steps to protect themselves and their families; its constant aim being to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by house fires. Various messages include, for example, the need to check smoke alarm batteries; the need to ensure that candles are well extinguished; the need for householders to have an escape plan in case of fire; and the dangers of using a chip pan. That type of education must continue: people must be reminded of the dangers of fire, and warned that complacency and carelessness will increase the risk of fire in the home. Regulation and inspection is important, and nowhere more so than in private-rented accommodation, and in houses in multiple occupation. Landlords have a legal responsibility to provide fire escapes and, depending on the size of the property, smoke alarms and fire extinguishers may also provided. Furthermore, they must ensure that gas and electricity supplies are safe. However, it can be a mistake to leave all these matters to landlords. Equipment must be regulated and regularly examined. In the previous Assembly, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, when he was Minister for Regional Development, introduced a regulation that made hard-wired smoke alarms mandatory in new houses and in houses where the electric supply was being updated. That should be the case for all newly installed smoke alarms, because research tells us that hard-wired smoke alarms save more lives. People must take responsibility for their own safety, and it is important to be prepared, whether one lives in shared accommodation or a family house, to be responsible for fire safety at home. Voluntary and statutory organisations carry out very positive work in installing smoke alarms, and that can be built upon. Mr Easton: I, too, support the motion as a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. From time to time, we are shocked and disturbed to hear of tragedies involving fire in the home. The loss of innocent lives is always regrettable and depressing. It has a lasting impact on families and communities and gives dreadful pain long after the reporting of the events has ceased to be in the news. Part of that impact comes from the realisation that death from fire or smoke inhalation is often the outcome of a momentary act of carelessness and might have been easily prevented. In that context, we must congratulate the voluntary and statutory agencies — particularly the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service — for the enormous work that they have done in developing and implementing fire prevention programmes and strategies across Northern Ireland. 12.45 pm In the North Down constituency, many people have approached me and asked me to thank the local fire and rescue personnel for their proactive work in visiting homes to make fire-risk assessments, install or reposition alarms, or give invaluable advice on advance action to minimise the risk of a house fire. We must also be thankful that, since 2000, building regulations have required that buildings be designed and built with automatic fire detection, not only to give warning of fires but to facilitate evacuation in an emergency. Much has been achieved through television in making the public aware of the dangers and causes of fire, the need to have working alarms and how to train and plan for emergencies. Everyone is aware of the dangers posed by chip pans, candles, matches, smoking and — in particular — alcohol, which is a major factor in more than one third of fires in which there is a fatality. Many schools do good work in providing pupils with health and safety programmes that develop their experience and awareness. The schools that incorporate work on such issues into the curriculum must be rewarded. As a result of the good work that is being done, approximately 96% of homes have smoke alarms. Much remains to be done to ensure that alarms are properly fitted, located and functioning. The statistics are a credit to those who have engaged in a joined-up effort and worked hard in co-operation with various Government agencies, but there is still much to be done. We cannot be complacent. One death by fire or smoke inhalation — often the real killer — is a death too many. As we applaud and recognise the positive efforts of voluntary and statutory agencies, we must be concerned that some dwellings in the private- and social-housing sectors do not have properly fitted or functioning smoke alarms. The Assembly must ensure that appropriate equipment is provided for those whose physical or sensory disability necessitates special measures and consideration. It is imperative that the various Departments continue to encourage and support the actions already being taken and co-operate in ensuring that a cost-effective and co-ordinated programme is in place to ensure the provision of working smoke detectors in every home in Northern Ireland. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): This important motion calls on my Department, as sponsor of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, to join the Department for Social Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) in a co-ordinated programme to ensure the provision of working smoke detectors in every home. The Health Committee has rightly recognised the positive work of voluntary and statutory organisations in promoting the installation of smoke alarms in homes. I also appreciate the efforts of everyone involved in promoting fire safety. Everyone knows that the causes of fires — both accidental and deliberate — are many and varied, and they all have potentially devastating consequences. It is, therefore, important that we do everything necessary to prevent accidental fires in homes. The Fire and Rescue Service has a statutory duty to provide information and encourage steps that might be taken to prevent fires and death or injury by fire. It carries out that duty in a range of ways, such as providing information on the prevention of chip-pan fires and the importance of smoke alarms, and visiting homes and schools to advise on fire safety and prevention. Most people who die in fires succumb to smoke inhalation long before the fire reaches them. Smoke alarms are the simple answer to alerting people when a fire starts, giving them valuable time to escape. An independent face-to-face fire-safety survey carried out last year showed that 94% of houses in Northern Ireland are fitted with smoke alarms, but we cannot be complacent. It is not enough to have a smoke alarm fitted in every house; occupants must ensure that the devices are working and that they remain working. It is worth noting that as today is Monday, we should remember the “Thumbs Up On Monday” campaign. Indeed, I hope that everyone tests their smoke alarms every week. Northern Ireland can pride itself on having among the fewest fire-related deaths in the UK. Building regulations already require the installation of mains-powered smoke alarms in all newly built dwellings. In dwellings for which significant alterations are required, such as the upgrading of electrical systems, mains-powered smoke alarms are also installed as standard. An estimated 97% of housing association properties now have such alarms. Since the 1990s, the Housing Executive’s policy has been to install mains-powered smoke alarms in all its flats, maisonettes and bungalows. That work continues, and, to date, 74% of Housing Executive dwellings have had mains-powered smoke alarms fitted. The Fire and Rescue Service has also adopted several approaches that are aimed at reducing the number of deaths that occur as a result of fire. Included in those approaches is the free fitting of smoke alarms in domestic premises; indeed, around 6,000 were fitted in 2006-07. In the same year, over 7,500 free home fire-safety checks were carried out. The efforts of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service have resulted in the number of accidental fires in dwellings decreasing from 1,005 in 2004 to 830 in 2007. Accidental fire-related deaths decreased from 30 in 1999 to 14 in 2006-07. I am sad to say that it is still the case that some firefighters who have been called to incidents find that older smoke alarms may not have working batteries fitted or that the battery has been removed for use in another appliance. New smoke alarms have integral batteries that are either unsuitable for other appliances or are hard-wired to the mains electricity supply. We must persevere with the public awareness campaigns. The “Thumbs Up On Monday” campaign highlights the need to acquire and fit a smoke alarm; the No Battery, No Chance strategy urges us to check the battery in our smoke alarms; the “Writing on the Wall” campaign highlights fire risks in the home; and the approach behind the “Smoke Kills” slogan brings home dramatically the consequences of not having a working smoke alarm. When public services act for the public good, some people will always fail to recognise the risk that is involved in not complying with either legislation or common sense. Part of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service’s remit is a duty to educate the public on fire safety. I am sure that all Members agree that prevention is better than cure. Finally, to address the point that was made about collaboration between DSD and DFP, I have already outlined the areas of departmental responsibility that have an impact on fire safety. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service is the expert body in firefighting and prevention. In accordance with national guidance, the service evaluates the risk that fire and other dangers have for life, property and the environment, and it seeks to deploy resources that will address those risks. In the spirit of the motion, I am content to order officials to examine more closely the work on the matter that DSD and DFP are doing. That work should be advanced, because we can never be too complacent. A recent survey on smoke detectors in homes showed that, sadly, 23% of people who did not have a smoke alarm said that they would be unlikely to purchase one. That shows that some resistance remains. It is, therefore, right that the Committee highlights one of the hurdles that prevents us from reaching the point where we can, as far as possible, eliminate accidental fires and deaths that are related to such fires. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I commend my colleagues in the Health Committee for tabling the motion. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, including members of the Health Committee and the Committee for Social Development. I thank the Minister for attending the debate. The motion calls for concerted action by three Departments, and I am pleased that the Minister has been able to respond. Perhaps he also responded on behalf of the other two Departments. In opening the debate, the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Mrs Robinson, rightly paid tribute to the work of the statutory and voluntary organisations, which have helped to put us at the top of the league table for ownership of smoke alarms. The work of the Fire and Rescue Service, the Housing Executive and others — and the recent changes in building regulations — have contributed to that. However, as Mrs Robinson and other Members pointed out, it is not just a matter of owning or fitting a smoke alarm; it is also crucial to maintain it and keep it in working order. As well as the number of fitted smoke alarms that are not maintained, we must consider the many homes that still do not have a working smoke alarm. The Chairperson set out some very stark statistics about the consequences of not having a working smoke alarm. She told us that there were 830 accidental house fires last year — eight people lost their lives and more than 250 were injured. A total of 33 people have lost their lives in house fires during the past four years. The most shocking statistic is that 14 of those homes did not have a smoke alarm, and in eight other cases, although smoke alarms were fitted, they were not working. Mrs Robinson mentioned an issue that was taken up by other Members, including Sue Ramsey and Gregory Campbell. Since 1990, the Housing Executive has had a policy of fitting mains-powered smoke alarms in its properties. Despite that, so far, only three quarters of all Housing Executive properties have smoke alarms. That means that almost 23,000 homes in the social-housing sector are without a smoke alarm. That situation places a large number of people at serious and unnecessary risk, and it must be tackled urgently. Housing Executive figures show that although 95% of bungalows, 92% of flats, and 90% of maisonettes have smoke alarms, the figure for houses is just 60% — a stark variation. Sue Ramsey commended the Housing Executive for its policy of fitting smoke alarms over a number of years, but expressed concern about the number of houses still without a working smoke alarm. She also raised the issue of the number of private-sector houses that still do not have a working smoke alarm. Bob Coulter and several other Members expressed concern about the number of people who do not regularly check the batteries of their smoke alarms. He said that it would be better if smoke alarms were wired to the electricity supply, rather than powered by battery. He also supported the good work of the Fire and Rescue Service. Kieran McCarthy also referred to the good work of the Fire and Rescue Service, and said that one fatality was one too many. He called for the resourcing for smoke alarms to be adequate for the job, and he expressed concern about funding for the Fire and Rescue Service — a concern that is shared by the Committee. The Committee is not only calling for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to take action, but the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department for Social Development. The Committee firmly commends the good work of the Fire and Rescue Service. Gregory Campbell highlighted the shocking fact that, apart from houses in multiple occupation, there is no requirement to fit smoke detectors in privately rented dwellings. That is particularly worrying, since research has shown that those most at risk of fire are those who live in rented accommodation, and pensioners who live alone. That situation is unacceptable and it must be addressed urgently. Fra McCann highlighted the thousands of homes without a working smoke alarm and called for more detailed information. He referred to the practice in other countries, whereby a fire alarm in every room is a standard requirement. He also referred to the problems in the private-rented sector and in houses in multiple occupation, and how they are regulated. Carmel Hanna said that someone is twice as likely to die in a house fire if a smoke alarm is not fitted. She highly commended the Fire and Rescue Service for its good work on media campaigns — and several Members referred to the “Thumbs Up On Monday” campaign. She also said that privately rented properties required regulation. Alex Easton praised the good work of the Fire and Rescue Service and welcomed changes in building regulations. He said that much has been achieved, but more needs to be done. He also praised the ongoing good work in schools to educate children on this matter. Jonathan Craig spoke about the important and welcome fact that a new type of smoke alarm has become available. It has a 10-year lifespan and uses batteries that cannot be used for any other purpose. 1.00 pm The Minister set out the Fire and Rescue Service’s role, praised its good work, and referred to the “Thumbs Up On Monday” campaign. He also spoke about changes to building control regulations, and he made a commitment to liaise with DFP and DSD in order to advance the work that has been done on the matter. In conclusion, many Members have reminded us that in most house fires, it is not fire, but smoke, that kills. A working smoke alarm can provide vital time to allow people to escape, and it can save lives. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety calls for concerted action to be taken in order to ensure that every family is protected by a smoke alarm. I, therefore, ask Members to support the motion. Go raibh maith agat. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises the positive work of voluntary and statutory organisations in installing smoke alarms in homes; expresses concern that many dwellings in both the private- and social-housing sectors still do not have adequate working smoke alarms; and calls on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel, to undertake a coordinated programme to ensure the provision of working smoke detectors in every home. Compensation for Farmers 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 to make the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Mr P J Bradley: I beg to move That this Assembly supports the case for compensation to be provided to farmers and livestock owners who were subjected to their homes being raided, and who endured financial loss, due to the misunderstanding by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which has now been confirmed, in relation to the source of alpha-nortestosterone discovered in injured male cattle presented for slaughter. Although I may not have many kind words to say to her later, I welcome the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to the Chamber. It is regrettable that I have had to table such a motion in order to obtain justice for the farming families that were wrongly victimised during the alpha-nortestosterone debacle in 2006. If the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) had the courage to say that it was wrong for them to assume that people were guilty until proven innocent at that time, we would not find ourselves seeking justice for the farmers and livestock owners who were caught up in the consequences of the Department’s wrongful conclusions. In the aftermath of those events, DARD engaged the services of Professor Patrick Wall of University College Dublin to investigate the sampling and testing procedures that were used to detect illegal hormone residues in cattle. In his October 2006 report, Professor Wall found those procedures to be in order and compliant with all EU directives. He also highlighted the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) excellent work in that report, and I share the conclusions that he arrived at in both those findings. The Department commissioned a second report, and, in November 2007, Joan Ruddock, a non-executive member of the DARD board, published her review into the events of spring 2006. Mrs Ruddock’s findings confirmed what many of us said in the immediate aftermath of the raids on the homes of innocent families, and she commented on how DARD might improve its approach to enforcement in the future. It is regrettable that an official report was required in order to confirm that such defamatory intrusions had occurred, but at least Mrs Ruddock’s report vindicated the wrongly accused livestock owners. Those of us on the political front who supported the farmers remain satisfied that that was the correct thing to do. However, the sampling and testing procedures and the analytical work carried out by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute were never the main issues. The main — and, it could be said, the only — issue was DARD’s over-the-top reaction to the discovery of alpha-nortestosterone in male-casualty animals that were presented for slaughter. DARD simply got it wrong, and it is disappointing that, to date, the Minister and the Department have failed to admit that. It was the opinion of DARD inspectors that, given that the subject animals were hurriedly presented for slaughter and that alpha-nortestosterone was discovered in the carcasses, the only conclusion was that all the owners were introducing illegal growth promoters into their cattle. Indeed, some farmers were blatantly told that it was obvious that they had been using growth promoters and had simply been caught in the act. I have one owner’s permission to describe his case. That beef producer is a constituent of mine, and he is a highly respected family man and a popular figure in the neighbourhood. On the morning of Friday 31 March 2006, he had just finished attending to stock on an out farm and was making his way back to his home farm. As he neared his residence, he was alerted by the flashing lights on the many police cars that were in the immediate vicinity of his home. That was an introduction to the nightmare that was to follow; indeed, some might say that that nightmare remains. On arriving at the bottom of his lane, he saw several people in white protective clothing and masks going to and from the buildings in his farmyard. If that was not frightening enough, he next saw uniformed police officers looking out of his upstairs bedroom windows. He described the scene as one that we would normally associate with the preliminary investigation of a murder or major criminal incident, not one that is commonly identified with the day-to-day activities of a family farm. Other farming families had similar traumatic experiences, and the Department should not attempt to conveniently overlook the way in which many of them were stigmatised in their respective localities. Therefore, I ask the Assembly to agree that the victims should be compensated in accordance with their individual experiences and in keeping with their individual financial losses. By financial losses, I refer to those farmers whose holdings were closed due to the incorrect assumption of drug use, as a result of which they incurred additional cost against the animals that they were unable to sell. Some animals crossed the 30-month deadline in the period of enforced closure, which also led to substantial financial losses. I will repeat the comments that I made when I received a written answer from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on 14 December 2007. The Minister said that she had arranged for goodwill payments to be made to those affected, and that that was beyond her statutory obligation. The Minister has stated on several occasions that she had no obligation to make any payments to the victims. That comment would have been correct, and quite acceptable, had drug use been detected at slaughter. However, this is a completely different situation, because the slaughtered animals were thrown into skips on the erroneous assumption that they had all been subjected to growth-promoting drugs. The payment was an obligation, not a goodwill gesture. It served to stall the legal action that some of the wrongly accused livestock owners had planned to take. I remain committed to seeking justice and compensation, where appropriate, for the victims. It is not that I take any delight in doing so, but I feel obliged, on behalf of the farming community, to remind the Minister that, on the hustings in Cookstown last March, on behalf of Sinn Féin she promised the farmers who were caught up in the issue that, if she were returned to the Assembly, she would leave no stone unturned until they got justice. Other candidates represented the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party; I represented the SDLP. All five of us assured the victims of the testosterone case that we were fully behind them in their quest for justice. All the candidates who were on that platform in Cookstown were re-elected, but we find ourselves at different levels in the Assembly structure. The Minister is the only one who can make the conscientious decision to compensate, and that would demonstrate, albeit late in the day, the sincerity of the pre-election promise that she made last March in Cookstown. In conclusion, as a mere Member, I ask my Assembly colleagues to support the motion, and I make one more appeal to the Minister simply to do what is right in the matter. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Elliott): I apologise for arriving late. I have just been told that I must speak on behalf of the Committee because the Chairperson is absent, for which he sends his apologies. I thank Mr Bradley for proposing the motion. I welcome and support it, and I endorse the call for compensation for those involved in what can only be called a witch-hunt against perfectly innocent people. The Department of Agriculture must strike a balance — as the Minister realises — between ensuring that nothing untoward goes on in the Department, or in the actions of farmers, and ensuring that the security of premises and animals, which leads to the security of the people who eat the produce, is protected at all times. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has been interested in the compensation issue for some time, and, like Mr Bradley, I have taken a personal interest in the matter. On 13 November 2007, the Committee received Joan Ruddock’s report in private session, and it listened to a presentation on the outcome of her review. Mrs Ruddock’s review concerned the Department’s handling of the matter in response to the findings of the hormone in cattle presented at meat plants after on-farm emergency slaughter. As Members may know, legislation banning the use of anabolic steroids has been in place since 1988. On 10 March 2006, a sample from an emergency on-farm slaughter tested positive for that hormone. Further tests and samples from similar animals were also positive. However, the Department’s reaction was over the top and was, in many cases, unnecessary. I reiterate that I support the Department taking significant action against those who are guilty of offences. However, in this instance, those people were not found guilty of any offence, and that is where the difficulty arises. I have had a blow-by-blow account from the people who were affected by what happened. They told me that enforcement officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development arrived on-farm with a huge security presence. They almost sealed off the farm; they searched the farm buildings, and, in some cases, the farmhouses. Such actions were totally unnecessary, especially in situations in which a farmer happened to be an elderly person who was running the farm on their own. The opportunity for such a person to deliberately administer alpha-nortestosterone was practically impossible. Therefore, a common-sense approach is required in such situations. I am also aware, because people in my constituency had this problem, that farmers were prevented from moving stock off farms, and that that included moving stock directly to abattoirs. As some of the cattle involved were approaching 30 months old, and as farmers were unable to sell them directly to the factories or abattoirs, it meant that as soon as they became 30 months old, their prices were cut automatically when they went to the factory. Therefore, there are two immediate issues: the extra cost of keeping those cattle on-farm for up to four months, and the additional cost of losing money, because once cattle are over 30 months old there is an automatic penalty from the factories regarding the price they give to the farmer. Therefore, farmers lost twice on such occasions. I am not asking the Department to take any major action in this instance; I am asking it to consider the small number of cases involved on an individual basis and to compensate those farmers who have been hard done by. Mr T Clarke: I thank P J Bradley for tabling the motion. On 7 June 2007, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development met with farmers to explain why such an aggressive course of action had been adopted as regards the slaughter of cattle that had tested positive for what I will simply call alpha-N — I cannot get that big word out. During the meeting, the Minister informed representatives that because there was no evidence to support illegal administration of the substance, and, indeed, because it was highly likely that alpha-N is a naturally occurring chemical, a goodwill payment would be made to any farmer where no criminality was suspected. That would apply to the vast majority, if not all, the cases in question. Although I acknowledge fully that consumer protection in the agri-food industry is essential, and that on-farm enforcement is vital to remove animals from the food chain, I have to question the heavy-handed approach to enforcement that was taken by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, I do welcome the review that the Minister undertook — as a result of farmers’ deep-seated disquiet at the implementation of on-farm testing — to try and learn lessons from the debacle of last year. Although compensation for loss of animals is essential where no illegality was evident, the Minister must also recognise that some farmers suffered further financial loss because of the stringency of her Department’s approach, legal though it may have been. The simple point is that farmers lost out financially due to the disruption of selling animals, having to keep them fed and because of the shadow of suspicion hanging over them as supposed wrongdoers. The Minister must realise that farmers cannot take those financial losses and that it was her Department’s rigorous, if not over-zealous, approach that caused financial hardship. 1.15 pm I urge the Minister to rethink her approach and to ensure, as a matter of urgency and priority, that farmers suffer no financial loss whatsoever as a result of her Department’s actions. I support the motion. Mr Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is a pity that Mr P J Bradley did not deal with all the facts when he proposed the motion. The incidents happened in the year before the Assembly was re-established — the year before Michelle Gildernew was appointed Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. When Professor Patrick Wall produced scientific evidence that alpha-N — I could try to improve on Mr Clarke’s pronunciation, but I am almost as bad — could be produced naturally, particularly in male cattle, one of Ms Gildernew’s first actions as Minister was to initiate a review. She did not have to do that. She brought the farmers together at Cookstown. She brought all of her senior officials, including her new permanent secretary, to the meeting, and gave a very clear explanation to the farmers. An official apology was offered, and a goodwill payment was made, although the Department was not legally bound to do so. A review into the whole incident was initiated so that lessons could be learned. The results of that review were made known to the affected farmers, and were published on the DARD website. Some of the raids, particularly those in Newry, in which not only the PSNI but the British Army were involved, with helicopters flying overhead, were entirely over the top. That was entirely unnecessary. However, the question of compensation must be directed at the NIO and the Police Ombudsman. That is where responsibility for the heavy-handedness lies. The Minister took a good and solid initiative to deal with the issue. To have a go at her and her party is to play politics, rather than to deal with the facts of the matter. The events in question happened a year before the Minister came into office. She did not have to initiate a review, but did so because it was the right thing to do, and she offered goodwill payments. The Department has been told that, legally, it cannot go beyond that. There is an issue in respect of compensation, but the proposer is taking aim at the wrong Department. The demand for compensation should be aimed at the NIO and the Police Ombudsman, since it is with those agencies that responsibility for heavy-handedness, rough treatment and sullying — if not destruction — of reputations, lies. Members who propose motions should deal with and stick to the facts, and stop trying to score political points. Mr Ford: I join other Members in congratulating P J Bradley on securing this debate. I welcome the fact that the House has a chance to discuss this matter, although we may comprise rather a thin gathering at this stage of the afternoon. A small number of people suffered significantly because of the problems created by alpha-nortestosterone — I will try that pronunciation, and see whether I can beat Mr Clarke to it. The first issue that was highlighted by a number of Members is the alleged criminalisation of honest farmers. We have heard about some of the heavy-handedness, and the way in which police raids were conducted. That created enormous difficulties for people who were decent law-abiding citizens. However, the reputations of those honest citizens are undamaged. They have been entirely vindicated by the work that has been done. Today, we are dealing with the secondary issue — the financial loss that those individuals suffered because they had been wrongly suspected. They lost the value of cattle, their herds were closed, and, as Mr Elliott said, in some cases, they lost the value of other cattle. He referred to indirect losses, whereby cattle were retained for longer than 30 months. That is the only proper issue that can be debated by the Assembly. Over the years, we have seen that, with regard to other animal disease issues — brucellosis, TB and foot-and-mouth disease — appropriate compensation has been paid. However, when it comes to this issue, which involves a remarkably small number of people, the Minister appears reluctant to offer realistic compensation for losses suffered. Trevor Clarke and other Members mentioned public health. There is no doubt that when action was taken by DARD, it was taken in accordance with the best understanding of the existing science. However, now that science has moved on, it is clear that a small number of people suffered grievous unnecessary loss. In his introductory remarks, P J Bradley rightly highlighted the Cookstown hustings meeting that was organised by the Ulster Farmers’ Union in February 2007. Representatives from five parties supported the case of those who had suffered wrongs, and they agreed that action must be taken. Two of those representatives are now Ministers. Mr Poots is no longer the DUP’s agriculture spokesperson. However, the DUP view has been adequately represented by Trevor Clarke. I am almost in complete agreement with everything that has been said by P J Bradley, Tom Elliott and Trevor Clarke. At that meeting, it was agreed that something must be done. The meeting was held in order to discuss agricultural issues — not police presence, harassment or criminalisation — and appropriate compensation. Account must be taken of the type of costs that were highlighted by Tom Elliott — direct costs that were lost when particular animals were taken, which were compounded by, in some cases, the significant lost value for individuals who may have lost several animals that had passed the 30-month deadline. The Minister has offered a goodwill payment. However, in some senses, that has blunted the issue. The concern is appropriate compensation for the losses that have been suffered, not that of a goodwill payment, which suggests that there is some slight doubt about what happened, but the Minister is still prepared to express her goodwill. Real loss was suffered; therefore, real action must be taken, not a goodwill effort that will simply fudge the issue. I find Pat Doherty’s remarks somewhat surprising. He certainly outlined the actions that have been taken by the Minister. There is probably a case to say that, so far, the new Minister has been more forthcoming than a direct rule Minister might have been. However, that is not to say that her actions have been satisfactory. I cannot understand how Mr Doherty can talk about getting compensation from the NIO: many other people have been subjected to police raids when they were suspected of criminal activity. If the police act in accordance with the facts as they understand them, there is no question of compensation. The compensation that is being sought is for agricultural loss. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, who reports to the Assembly, is the person who is responsible now. In that context, the Assembly’s call for proper compensation and not a fudged goodwill scheme is entirely reasonable and should be supported by the House. Mr Bresland: I support the motion that has been proposed by Mr P J Bradley. The action that has been taken by Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials has clearly caused considerable distress to the farmers and their families whose properties were raided. To date, the Minister has implemented a review of her Department’s handling of the issue and has set aside £80,000 to compensate the farmers involved. That is not acceptable. The economic loss far outstrips the value of individual animals that tested positive. The excessive movement restrictions that were imposed by the Department have had a considerable effect on those farmers’ incomes. Livestock farmers in Northern Ireland continue to face economic difficulties. The farmers who have been involved in the alpha-nortestosterone debacle have had to face further economic hardship because of herd restrictions. The good name of those farmers and their families has also been defaced by DARD. It is simply unacceptable that the Minister can prejudge the findings of the investigation and set aside a small amount of money in the hope that the farmers and the issue will go away. The farmers and their families need an acknowledgement from the Minister that their loss has gone beyond the actual value of the animals involved and that any compensation should include the loss of earnings because of herd restrictions that were imposed by DARD, and recognition of the costs that farmers incurred because of those herd restrictions, such as the feed costs that are associated with keeping cattle in sheds. DARD officials adopted a heavy-handed approach, blackened the names of farmers, destroyed their standing in the community, and inflicted stress on them and their families. It is time that the Minister acknowledged that and acted accordingly. I support the motion. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat. In 2006, following the discovery of the hormone alpha-N in a number of cattle, DARD conducted an investigation, based on the scientific evidence of the day, which stated that the hormone could be present only if it were administered illegally. That led to a number of heavy-handed searches of farms, two of which occurred in Newry, one in Banbridge and one in Tandragee. All of those raids involved DARD officials who were accompanied by the PSNI and, in the case of the Newry raids, by British troops in helicopters. The families who were involved were left shocked and traumatised by those events. Following the initial raids, there were a further 156 discoveries — across the Six Counties — of the hormone, and the cattle that were identified as having the hormone were seized and destroyed. Later that year, all of the farmers were vindicated when Professor Patrick Wall produced a report that proved that the hormone occurred naturally in injured animals. There was justifiable anger at the way in which the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had handled the affair. Even more damning was the attitude that the Department had done nothing wrong, despite the fact that the raids had been carried out on farms that belonged to people who were innocent of any wrongdoing. As time passed, there was little focus on the issue, except for the work of one journalist. As far as I can establish, the SDLP was silent throughout the affair. On coming into office, the Minister, Ms Gildernew, stated that it was an issue that she would address retrospectively — much to the dismay and annoyance of DARD officials. The Minister wrote to all of the farmers who were affected by the matter and invited them to a meeting in Cookstown where senior officials and the new permanent secretary listened to the farmers’ stories and their expressions of anger about the way in which the Department had handled the issue. At the end of that meeting, the Minister and the permanent secretary apologised to the farmers whose homes had been raided. The Minister announced that DARD would issue an apology. The Department undertook a review, which was head by Joan Ruddock. Its findings will be made public. Moreover, all of the review’s recommendations are currently being implemented. The Minister explored the possibility of compensating farmers. However, the legal position was clear: DARD has a statutory duty to investigate and pursue any potential administration of illegal substances. Although the raids were legitimate, the heavy-handed manner in which they were conducted, and the trauma that was caused to the families who were involved, is a matter for the Police Ombudsman and the NIO. The Minister has gone as far as she is legally permitted to go. In many respects, she has gone much further than that. The vast majority of farmers who were the victims of the raids welcomed the initiative to address the issue. Some have approached the Minister and thanked her for her assistance. They are more than satisfied by the initiative that was created by the Minister. However, some of the families who were subjected to the raids are still, rightly, angry about what happened. Their hurt will never go away. The reputations of some of those people were tarnished. That grievance requires a real willingness on behalf of the Department and the Minister to understand the feelings of those people. P J Bradley has turned what was a positive initiative full circle. He knows full well that the legal argument on compensation means that the Minister’s hands are tied. Of course, that does not mean that we are in any way defending the actions of the Department on the matter. The nature of the raids is a major cause for concern, which is something that we made clear when we criticised the PSNI and the British Army at the time. However, the Minister — Mr T Clarke: Will the Member give way? Mr W Clarke: I have only a short time left in which to speak. I believe that the Minister should be congratulated on her initiative. We should continue to examine ways of addressing the matter and of alleviating the hurt. Go raibh maith agat. 1.30 pm Mr Irwin: I thank Mr P J Bradley for bringing this motion to the House. As a dairy farmer, I declare an interest in this matter. I was contacted by a farmer from my constituency who was extremely distressed, frustrated and incensed by the actions of the Department of Agriculture when his premises were searched by departmental officials, in conjunction with the police. The searches followed tests carried out in early April 2006 on an on-farm emergency slaughter animal registered to him, which were positive for alpha-nortestosterone. However, as we are all now well aware, the animal that tested positive had not been subject to any form of hormone abuse. In fact, it has since been proven that alpha-nortestosterone is produced when an animal is injured, hence its presence in injured on-farm emergency slaughter animals. As that research concluded that not all cases of positive testing were the result of malpractice by farmers, an additional test has been introduced to distinguish between normal presence and abnormal presence. That, of course, is a welcome procedure and should spare conscientious, hardworking farm families from any further instances of hurt and distress. However, it remains the case that the Department, accompanied by the PSNI, searched four farm premises in the belief that illegal activity had taken place. On 17 November 2007, the Minister said: “The Review states that the actions taken by DARD in respect of the surprise on-farm searches were in compliance with legislation.” However, the account of the search given to me by my constituent leaves me feeling extremely annoyed by the attitude and actions of the departmental officials who went to the premises. Although the Minister said that she believed that the Department acted in good faith and in line with the legislation, I find it unacceptable that, even though DARD and ABFI raised the possibility of natural occurrence a full two weeks before searching my constituent’s premises, they still went in full steam ahead, with a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude. That is extremely unfortunate, given the scientific research that was emerging at the time, to which reference is made in the report. Indeed, as regards malpractice, paragraph 3 of section 2.1 of the report on the review carried out by Joan Ruddock states: “The Department must have significant evidence to the contrary, therefore before it can conclude that the farmer has not been guilty of such administration.” Given that scientific evidence was beginning to pile up to show that there was a strong possibility that natural occurrence through injury was the more likely reason for a positive test, surely the Department should have taken a much more realistic and rational approach to any planned searches. I ask the Minister to give a full account of why a more level-headed approach was not adopted in the circumstances. The fallout from the search of my constituent’s premises has been dramatic. The family name has been blackened around the country, and false allegations and accusations have abounded. This was not simply a farm search; my constituent stated that he could not even watch the staff carry out their searches and procedures as their attitude towards him was shocking. I doubt that that is in line with any legislation. I fully understand that the Department is bound by law to carry out such tests. However, it is the manner in which the searches were carried out, and the assumption of wrongdoing, that is most untenable. Mr Doherty talked about political point-scoring. I am certainly not trying to score political points, but the police raided those farms in conjunction with, and at the behest of, the Department of Agriculture. That must be taken into account. The Department had the lead role in this affair. The ex-gratia payments offered for the condemned cattle were welcomed by the farmers as a small gesture. However, many farmers are considerably out of pocket due to herd closure and the associated expenses. Great hurt still exists among those farming families, and I support the case for compensation for the loss of those animals, where it has been proven that no malpractice had taken place. Can the Minister confirm what steps the Department is taking in examining its approach to searches? How many more cases of positive testing have been discovered that have been proven, through the new test, to be in no way related to hormone abuse? Farmers remain out of pocket as a direct result of the actions of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I fully support the need for a fair payout to those farmers who had herds closed and who incurred significant expense, not to mention the distress and the hurt caused by the decision to search their premises. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is almost up. Mr Irwin: The Department must act now to rectify this matter and to restore the trust of the farmers involved. I support the motion. Mr Savage: I declare an interest as a farmer, and commend the Member for South Down Mr Bradley for securing the debate on such an important issue. The use of hormonal substances for animal growth production was prohibited by the EU in 1988, and legislation was introduced to prescribe measures for monitoring residues and for the actions to be taken on the discovery of positive results. The use of anabolic agents is prohibited for a variety of reasons, including possible adverse human health effects, consumer resistance, the negative effects on animal welfare and the impact of residues on the environment. Nortestosterone is a well-known anabolic steroid. It was first synthesised in the 1950s and was believed initially to have no natural source. Subsequently, it was shown to occur naturally in boars, stallions, pregnant cows and veal calves. Its presence in adult male bovines is currently deemed illegal under EU law. In light of the events that have taken place regarding the use of nortestosterone in cattle, I wish to put on record my recognition of the Minister’s swift action in meeting the farmers associated with those cases just one month after she took office. I welcome the fact that she has recognised the plight of the farmers who lost animals without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, and that goodwill payments will be made to those who were affected. It must also be recognised and put on the record that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is making those goodwill payments on a moral basis. That is because, under the law, it has no statutory obligation to do so. The Ulster Farmers’ Union has welcomed those goodwill payments along with the review that was ordered by the Minister. It is pleasing that in the wake of Joan Ruddock’s report on the issue, the Department has developed an action plan including mechanisms that will be built into the management process to facilitate earlier and speedier responses to findings arising from emerging science. In that regard, the Department will also adopt a project management approach. I commend the Minister for her endeavours, and I trust that all sides of the House will unite around farmers who have been hard done by in this instance. I support the motion. Mr Shannon: Ther isnae ocht that a can sae farther than whut his’ a’ready bin saed, wi’ ither memmers o’ tha semmilie. I wud jist laek tae agree wi’ whut tha depertment saes aboot tha tratemunt o’ fermers. There is not much to add to that which has already been said by other Members of the Assembly. I simply wish to endorse what the Department has said in its report about the treatment of farmers. The Minister received a great deal of kudos for her responses to the BSE and bluetongue crises. However, she is only as good as her last win, and, with respect, the Department must continue to address the issues. The review of the Department’s handling of the alpha-nortestosterone issue recommended: “That DARD examines the manner in which it approaches on-farm searches with particular emphasis on communication, taking into account that not all farmers subject to surprise searches will have engaged in illegal activity”. The Department’s statement and Members’ descriptions of some cases have highlighted the fact that, sadly, something went wrong. However, the Department’s statement is at odds with the reality of the cases concerned. For many hard-working farmers, the most disturbing aspect of that dreadful and costly mistake was that they had done nothing wrong, yet they were treated with the utmost disrespect and with more suspicion than most criminals are subjected to during an interview. Those men and women had their homes and livelihoods subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, and they were presumed guilty until they were proven innocent. I do not profess to have a law degree, but I know that in this country, in law, one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Why was that not presumed of the farmers? The farmers do not want ex-gratia payments; they want realistic compensation. Compensation has been requested, it is morally needed, and paying it is the least that the Department can do. They do not want goodwill payments but real, honest-to-goodness compensation. As well as paying the farmers the compensation that they are rightly due, the Minister must carry out a review in order that a real and practical change can be made to the way in which her Department treats people and handles issues. In my constituency, I am aware of many instances of departmental officials calling at farms and showing a certain disregard for the farmers and other farm workers. That behaviour has been a bone of contention for some time, and I have made that known to the Department. It is important that the farming community has a relationship with the Minister; indeed, I encourage that relationship, as, I am sure, does the Minister. However, in this instance, not only was the Department proved wrong, but its actions have made the farming community lose even more faith in it. DARD is supposedly there to help farmers, not to harm their future prospects and make life difficult for them. The Department is not doing its job correctly, and, as a matter of urgency, it is up to the Minister to recognise and change that fact. I support the motion. Mr Kennedy: I thank and congratulate P J Bradley for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. It is important that we debate the matter because it raises major questions about how Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials handled the episode. In the view of the majority of Members who have spoken so far, it is clear that important lessons must be learnt as a consequence of the actions that departmental officials took in April 2007. The episode has caused considerable distress to several of my constituents, and my constituency colleague William Irwin rightly highlighted that point. Reputations have been severely damaged, and farmers who are well respected in the areas in which they have lived and operated their farm business for many years have found themselves to be the subject of speculation, ridicule and criticism. All that negativity is unfounded and is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The episode is a case in point that proves that science does not always get it right, and Members have given examples of that in the evidence that they have produced today. I will briefly outline some of the deep-seated criticisms that were made by farmers who were caught up in the episode. 1.45 pm The constituent who raised the subject with me had his bullock killed on 3 April 2006. Approximately three weeks later, on 27 April 2006, departmental officials and the PSNI raided his farm. Some Members find it hugely ironic that, had the raids taken place pre-devolution, there would have been a major political row over the actions of the PSNI and departmental officials. Happily, there is no such row today, and the Minister presumably supports the PSNI on those matters. However, the approach of the departmental officials in the first instance raises serious issues. Some 11 staff, accompanied by 11 PSNI officers, took part in the raid on my constituent’s home, and back-up was available in the form of additional PSNI officers who waited in minibuses on the road. One questions the logic of that and, given the outcome, whether it was effective use of police time. To the distress of the farmer and his family, the farmhouse was ransacked and all manner of personal material was searched. He told me that even the attic was searched. My constituent took advice to contact his solicitor and to avail himself of independent tests on his cattle, for which he had to pay. He also incurred additional feeding costs, because he was not allowed to move other livestock. Any rogue operators must be dealt with, but the Department should learn hard lessons from those incidents, be prepared to own up to its failings and at least compensate those farmers who suffered considerable distress and whose reputations were damaged. Mr Armstrong: I declare an interest in today’s debate because I was one of the last farmers to have a young male animal taken to the abattoir and found to have an excess of that hormone in his blood. I assume that the Department did not feel it necessary to visit my farm on the suspicion that I was keeping hormones there. The events that Members are debating today illustrate what happens when an inflexible bureaucracy gets things wrong. In this instance, things went horribly wrong, with terrible consequences for innocent people. No doubt Members will hear that lessons have been learned, and systems have been modified to ensure that it will not happen again. However, that is of little comfort to the affected farmers and their families. A fundamental legal principle of law is that someone is innocent until proven guilty. In this sorry tale, raids were carried out on the homes of law-abiding farmers as though the DARD officials were looking for drugs or illegal weapons. The officials should have appreciated that they were dealing with hard-working, honest farmers, not terrorist godfathers or criminals — there appears to be a marked reluctance to carry out searches on the homes of those individuals, but farmers are a nice, soft target. The only problem was that the farmers in Northern Ireland were innocent. I am not naive enough to believe that all farmers are angels and free from any taint of wrongdoing. Farmers are the same as any professionals, be they doctors, lawyers, teachers and perhaps even politicians, and there are some bad apples among us. However, I am confident that the majority of farmers are law-abiding individuals seeking to do an honest day’s work and to provide for their families. The Ruddock review concluded that surprise on-site searches are a necessary tool to ensure enforcement of regulations, but greater emphasis must be placed on the need for sensitivity in conducting such searches. That will allow a spirit of partnership to develop between the Department and the farmers and a good working relationship to develop for the benefit of all sides. It goes without saying that fair compensation must be paid to the farmers affected. The second key point is that science was not correct in this case. That is a lesson for all those who operate in a bureaucracy. Box ticking is the order of the day for many bureaucrats. There is no room for common sense, or for questioning whether their actions are right — just as long as the information fits the form that they are checking. This case shows starkly that the so-called experts — whether they be in Dundonald House or in Brussels — are not infallible. Not only do they get things wrong, but the fundamentals on which they base their directions can also be wrong. When the experts accepted that they were wrong, I was left wondering what other central tenets of science on which they base decisions affecting farmers are also wrong. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have listened with interest to the points raised by Members, and I wish to put a few facts straight. On becoming Minister, there was no requirement for me to reopen the issue as the Department was in the process of implementing the Wall report, which concluded that the Department had acted on the best scientific advice available at the time and that it had acted within the legislation. However, I was acutely aware of the anger and frustration in the farming community; therefore, I made it an early priority to deal with the issue on taking up office. I took immediate action on the alpha-nortestosterone issue. I met with affected farmers to explain my Department’s position and to hear their views face to face. I apologised for the disruption and distress caused by the on-farm searches. I took the additional step of going beyond our statutory obligation and authorising a goodwill payment to cover the cost of condemned animals. I also commissioned Joan Ruddock to carry out an independent review of the Department’s handling of the issue. All the recommendations have been accepted, and work is under way to implement each of them as they apply to the Department to ensure better handling arrangements in future. The events happened the year before I took up office, but when I came into office I acted immediately to rectify the matter to ensure that it would not happen again. I am well aware of the issues raised. I intend to summarise the main points of the alpha-nortestosterone issue, to clarify the details of the goodwill payment made to farmers, and to explain the rationale behind my decision not to pay compensation. The alpha-nortestosterone issue began in March 2006 when a male on-farm emergency slaughter (OFES) animal that presented at a meat plant tested positive for the illegal growth-promoting hormone alpha-nortestosterone. The opinion of the highest scientific authority in Europe at that time stated that a finding of alpha-nortestosterone in a male bovine indicated illegal administration. EU legislation requires that where the substance is found, the animal must be excluded from the food chain and an investigation into the herd of origin carried out. As a result of two previous cases of illegal use of alpha-nortestosterone where legal hormones were found in farm dwelling houses, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Veterinary Service carried out a search of a dwelling house and farm under the authorisation of a warrant signed by a resident magistrate. Three further cases were investigated in a similar manner. P J Bradley has made numerous comments in the press about my support for the police raids. This is not the forum to discuss my views on policing, but rather an opportunity for me to explain how I dealt with the unique situation. Subsequent investigations did not involve unannounced visits or searches under warrant. Some of the comments by Members today have capitalised on people’s distress. I have also been struck by the absolute hypocrisy of some Members who would not have been too annoyed about nationalists or republicans being raided by police in the past. In order to protect public health and to fulfil EU statutory obligations, 100% testing of male on-farm emergency slaughter cattle was initiated in April 2006. That resulted in herd restrictions, and although I appreciate that such restrictions can cause management difficulties on farms, they are a necessary component of the Department’s enforcement action. Restrictions are not intended to penalise farmers, and our aim is to de-restrict herds at the earliest opportunity. However, restrictions are essential in ensuring that potential problems are contained on individual farms and that the interests of the wider agrifood industry are protected. The matter was not restricted to south Down, it occurred throughout the North: there were a high number of positives identified in all of the Six Counties, but no evidence of illegal administration was detected during follow-up, on-farm investigations. All of the animals that tested positive were condemned and were removed from the food chain, with the herd owner incurring the financial loss. Following criticism from industry and public representatives, who suggested that the Department’s sampling and testing procedures may not have been sufficiently robust, the Department commissioned Professor Patrick Wall of University College Dublin to carry out a full assessment of its procedures for hormone testing. Professor Wall’s report was published in October 2006 and confirmed the integrity and legitimacy of the Department’s sampling and testing procedures. He also concluded that the accepted scientific opinion, which states that alpha-nortestosterone does not occur naturally in male cattle, should be reviewed in light of increasing evidence that the hormone may occur naturally as a result of stress or injury. In March 2007, and as a result of Professor Wall’s findings and following detailed discussions with the relevant regulatory authorities, the Department reduced testing of male OFES cattle from 100% to a risk-related approach based on the opinion of the official vet at the meat plant. Legal advice was sought from the departmental solicitor’s office on a number of occasions as the issue developed. That advice confirmed that, under EU law, the Department must remove male cattle that test positive for alpha-nortestosterone from the food chain regardless of whether evidence of illegal administration has been found. It also confirmed that the Department must carry out appropriate follow-up investigations into the herd of origin. Legal advice was clear that the Department can discharge that responsibility without incurring legal liability to pay any compensation, which is a vital point in the context of the debate. Departmental lawyers also confirmed that the enforcement action taken by the Department was reasonable and proportionate, was based on the best scientific knowledge available at the time, and was in line with the Department’s community obligations. Mr Elliott: Will the Minister give way? Ms Gildernew: No, I will not. In June 2007, I met farmers who had been affected and announced that, although the Department had no legal obligation to pay compensation, I would make a goodwill payment to those whose animals had been condemned. That payment was recognition that farmers had suffered financial loss through no fault of their own — it was a gesture of goodwill towards the farming community and was not an acceptance of liability by the Department to pay compensation. The payments were equivalent to the market value of the animals at the time of slaughter, and over £87,000 was paid to 139 herd owners in July 2007. I became the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in May 2007, and the payments were made in June and July. Therefore, I dealt with the issue immediately after coming into post. At the meeting in Cookstown, which a number of Members alluded to, I apologised wholeheartedly for the disturbance and stress caused by the on-farm searches. I am acutely aware of the trauma that was caused — particularly the experience recounted by Bridget Morris — and undertook to initiate a review of the Department’s handling of the alpha-nortestosterone issue to see what lessons could be learned. I appointed Joan Ruddock, a non-executive member of the departmental board, to carry out the review. Her task was to examine all aspects of the issue, including the scientific basis for the initiation of action and the follow-up on-farm investigations. The Ruddock Review was published in November 2007 and concluded that the actions taken by the Department regarding on-farm searches were in compliance with the legislation and were reasonable in the context of the scientific knowledge available at the time, and of previous experience of illegal administration of growth-promoting hormones. The review confirmed that the Department is permitted to enforce its statutory obligations without incurring liability to pay compensation, and that there is no statutory provision for the authorisation of compensation in those circumstances. Joan Ruddock also made a number of recommendations on how the Department could improve the handling of similar situations in the future. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Those recommendations present a constructive way forward and will improve future handling arrangements. I have accepted the recommendations, and they are currently being implemented. I want to reiterate that point to ensure that this situation does not arise again. 2.00 pm There is now emerging EU recognition that alpha-nortestosterone is likely to occur naturally in injured or stressed male bovines. We expect that the European Community Reference Laboratory will draft a guidance paper to reflect that position. Further scientific work to inform the evidence base in this area is expected to be completed by the end of February 2008. Officials are reviewing and updating the standard operating procedures, which detail how DARD approaches on-farm searches, in order to ensure that best practice is being followed. It is envisaged that that will be finalised by March 2008. As the review highlights, meat processors are an important link between retailers and consumers. My Department is committed to involving them more fully via their representative bodies in developing future contingency plans. DARD’s procedures and actions have been the subject of two independent investigations: Professor Wall confirmed the legitimacy and integrity of our sampling and testing procedures; and Joan Ruddock concluded that enforcement actions were reasonable, given the circumstances that prevailed at the time. Legal advice further confirmed that the legislation was implemented in a fair and proportionate manner and that DARD is not liable to pay compensation. Furthermore, I took the additional step of authorising a goodwill payment to farmers to cover the cost of condemned animals. There was absolutely no statutory obligation to do so, and, in my view, that decision fully satisfied the moral obligation under a unique and unusual set of circumstances that had not been seen elsewhere. As the issue unfolded, I had to balance two main priorities. First, there is DARD’s statutory obligation to protect public health and to maintain the reputation of the local livestock industry; my Department must be permitted to enforce robustly the law for the greater good. Secondly, I had to ensure that, when DARD enforces the law, no one is unreasonably or unfairly treated. My Department handled the alpha-nortestosterone issue in the most reasonable manner possible, given the unique circumstances that prevailed at that time. As the Minister, I am content that I dealt with the issue proactively when I came into office: I met the farmers involved, apologised for the trauma caused and went beyond DARD’s statutory obligations by making a goodwill payment to those farmers to cover the cost of condemned animals and to help to alleviate any hardship that they were facing. I contend that that was an honourable, balanced and correct response that recognised the financial implications to the livestock owner. The Ruddock Report gives us a positive way forward, and the Department will implement its recommendations in order to ensure better handling arrangements in the future. For that reason, and because DARD’s actions were proportionate and in line with legal requirements, I cannot support the motion. Go raibh maith agat. Mr P J Bradley: Almost every Member who contributed to the debate to support the motion was singing from the same hymn sheet, so I will not repeat all their comments. However, I want to thank Mr Elliott, Mr Trevor Clarke, Mr Ford, Mr Bresland, Mr Irwin, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Kennedy and Mr Armstrong; I will deal with the contributions from two other Members later. Every Member in the former category referred to DARD’s over-the-top reaction to the situation and related the experiences of their own constituents, which are more important than anything that Members have to say. It is those experiences on the ground that really count, and some farmers are still suffering from the ordeals that they endured on those terrible mornings. I ask the Minister and DARD officials to read Hansard, where they will find the words of responsible Members who are trying to do what is right for their constituents. Those Members are simply seeking justice for victims, a phrase that has been bandied about for the past 40 years. The Department can do something for those victims, and I urge it to do so. The contributions from Mr Doherty and my colleague the Member for South Down Mr Willie Clarke clearly indicate that they have no knowledge or understanding of the farming community. I do not know whether they spoke to any farmers who had been raided or heard any experiences at first hand. Pat Doherty was certainly not aware of the thrust of the motion, which does not concern which Minister was in situ or when the raids took place. The motion simply concerns farmers who were wrongly accused by DARD, not any subsequent reports. We could debate the issue until Tib’s Eve, and the message would still not get across: this debate was about farmers. I remind Mr Pat Doherty that it was not the Northern Ireland Office that told farmers that they had been caught red-handed, nor was it police officers. In my constituency, it was DARD vets who told people that they had been caught red-handed. Therefore, there is no reason to direct blame at the Northern Ireland Office. Earlier today, Mr Doherty was appointed to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I am already asking myself why he has been slotted into that Committee if it is not to help farmers. Ms Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, P J Bradley proposed a motion on behalf of the Business Committee. He should refrain from making political points; he was happy enough to move that motion. I would like a ruling on that matter. Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr P J Bradley: My DARD Committee colleague Willie Clarke made a comment about the heavy-handedness of the raids, but it took Mr Irwin to remind him that it was DARD that called in the helicopters and the Police Service. He also criticised a journalist for keeping the issue alive. That was very unfair to the journalist, who cannot defend himself. I would like to think that I — and many colleagues from neighbouring areas that were affected — also kept the issue alive. I intend to continue to keep the issue alive. I do not know how much further the issue can be taken by the House, but if there is reconsideration on the part of the Minister and her Department, it might not be necessary to take it any further. The issue is not going to go away. I wish to thank everyone who supported the motion. Before Members vote, I ask them to consider the position of the farmers who had their homes raided and the way in which they and their families have been stigmatised in their local communities. They deserve better. Mr Elliott: Does the Member accept that, although the Minister indicated that the raids and incidents took place before she took office, she is in office now, and the opportunity exists for her to do something about it? Mr P J Bradley: That is exactly the point. There is no question that the Minister is the person with the power. She mentioned goodwill payments. I ask her to use her goodwill chequebook to offer the compensation that this House demands on behalf of the farmers. Mr T Clarke: Does the Member accept that the Minister said earlier that she was making a political point, from her own point of view, about her support for the police? Does the Member accept that the Minister might perhaps be a dab hand at getting compensation from the security forces for the farmers, because she and her party have been a dab hand at that? Mr P J Bradley: I do not wish to relate this issue to any politics other than the politics of the reason that we are here: on behalf of the farmers who have been victimised. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly supports the case for compensation to be provided to farmers and livestock owners who were subjected to their homes being raided, and who endured financial loss, due to the misunderstanding by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which has now been confirmed, in relation to the source of alpha-nortestosterone discovered in injured male cattle presented for slaughter. Mr Deputy Speaker: Question Time is at 2.30 pm, so I propose to suspend this sitting until that time. After Question Time, the next item of business will be the Adjournment debate. The sitting was suspended at 2.08 pm. On resuming — (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) 2.30 pm Office Of The First Minister And Deputy First Minister Mr Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notification from the First Minister that, owing to business at Westminster, he will not be present in the Chamber today for questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). As scheduled, the deputy First Minister will respond to questions. Shared Future 1. Mrs Long asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what its assessment is of the Executive’s plans to promote a shared future in light of the draft Programme for Government. (AQO 1444/08) The deputy First Minister (Mr M McGuinness): A shared future policy and strategic framework for good relations for here is an inherited policy from the previous Administration. However, as stated previously, we are fully committed to promoting the interests of the whole community towards the goal of a shared and better future and a prosperous, peaceful and settled society. It is, therefore, a key priority of the Executive to increase budgets dramatically in order to resource work to achieve those objectives. Having considered the progress, we are working on detailed proposals for a programme of cohesion and integration, which we will bring to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for consideration. Key objectives, actions and targets will be developed in the context of those proposals. Mrs Long: Will the deputy First Minister give any indication of the timescale for the publication of that programme? In the draft Programme for Government, it was referred to as a programme to promote societal relations. Previous answers indicated that there would be some detail in the new year. Can a more definite timescale be provided? The deputy First Minister: There is work to be undertaken on that matter. When that work has been completed, we will be able to outline for the Assembly the time frame for moving forward. There has been significant progress in the past three years with improved relationships and historically low levels of violence and tension. We want to ensure that relationships in the community continue to improve. We also wish to address the challenges that face new and host communities. The objective of improving societal relations is specifically addressed within the public service agreement framework. By contributing to the Executive’s aim of building a peaceful, fair and prosperous society, with respect for the rule of law, all the key goals outlined in the draft Programme for Government can be seen to set the context for the promotion of good relations. As I said, we have witnessed low levels of violence and tension, and we must ensure that those gains are sustained. We must ensure that our communities, our economic and business sectors, and our public services are equipped and resourced at local level to face the challenge of increased numbers of newcomers, because newcomers will enrich our cultural diversity and our prosperity. We must ensure that newcomers are integrated into communities that are not divided, separate or unequal. We are committed to building and shaping a society that is free of sectarianism, racism and any form of intolerance. Mrs D Kelly: Is the deputy First Minister saying that an absence of violence is the only standard by which to judge whether relationships have improved? In my constituency last week, anti-Catholic and anti-Pope leaflets were distributed. Given that he has said that there are dramatically increased budgets in the draft Programme for Government for building community relations, will the deputy First Minister comment on the £0·6 million that his Department proposes to take away from the Community Relations Council? Has he made an assessment of the impact that that will have and of the implications of such a move? The deputy First Minister: I, along with every Member of the Assembly, condemn any form of sectarianism, whether it is the kind that took place in the Member’s constituency or the kind that occurred in the Serpentine Road area of Belfast over the weekend. The d |