Mark Durkan
Foyle · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“That review involved an extensive engagement exercise with charities, regulators and funders, aimed at creating a more modern and proportionate regulatory system.”
“When the review was commenced in 2021, many organisations were still in the midst of responding to the pandemic. Since then, they have faced a succession of new and evolving challenges. The ending of European funding programmes, on which so many in our communities relied for decades, has left a significant gap.”
“<BR /> <BR />The broad principles behind the Bill are sensible. The changes will modernise charity regulation, strengthen the Charity Commission's ability to intervene where misconduct or mismanagement occurs, improve information sharing and, importantly, reduce unnecessary red tape, particularly for smaller charities with limited adminis…”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak today. Before turning to the detail of the legislation — there will not even be that much detail in the debate today at Second Stage — I pay tribute to our charity sector. Across every constituency, charities provide support that changes and saves lives every single day.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst the SDLP supports legislation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy, we should not kid ourselves that administrative reform alone will secure the future of charities and organisations in the voluntary and community sector.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Like other Members, I welcome the fact that we have reached this point. There seems to be consensus among Committee members and, I am sure, all Members that the introduction of these measures will save lives, which begs the question of whether the 10-year delay in introducing the measures had an opposi…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,938 lines we hold for Mark Durkan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 76 of 79.
“He has clearly spent a lot of time studying SDLP manifestos, but his party has been doing that for some time. I look forward to seeing the policies reflected in future manifestos from Mr Flanagan's party. <BR /> <BR />I will summarise my position: I remain committed to ensuring that the potential negative impacts of the levy on trade across this island are monitored and that prompt action is taken if any are identified. I am content that, due to the actions that I have taken, Transport Ministers will take mitigating action should firm evidence become available of an economic impact on this island from the HGV road user levy. I believe that the arrangement that I secured to enforce the levy is the best option available to us. Therefore, I do not support this motion.”
“I was relieved to hear from Mr Flanagan that Sinn Féin is not out to attack me and that this has nothing to do with me. I very much look forward to seeing the press release that says that. Let me also reassure Mr Flanagan that I would not and do not sneer in any way at the £1,000 bill for hauliers or for anyone. It is estimated that that £1,000 represents approximately 0·5% of the annual cost of running the HGV, but I am in no way dismissive of the cost. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness was clearly a red flag to Mr Flanagan's bull, and, in here, we are all familiar with Mr Flanagan's bull.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. It will be obvious to anyone in the Chamber and to anyone observing today's proceedings that there is certainly no rush to get on to the next debate in the Chamber. They have managed successfully to eat into the teatime news coverage of that debate. <BR /> <BR />Mr McAleer compared the levy to someone going from Leeds to Liverpool. Mr Maginness said that Sinn Féin wanted out of Europe. I want to get home in time to see Liverpool get out of Europe, so I will conclude very shortly. <BR /> <BR />Mr Brady asked about my view on parity and whether I had become wedded to it. This is the best that we can do, and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land. Does that sound familiar? <BR /> <BR />Then we heard from Phil Flanagan, or is it Phil-ibuster?”
“In fact, there were more of them than wanted to speak or ask questions on the draft Budget for Northern Ireland yesterday.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Weir threatened to make an uncharacteristically brief contribution. He did make a characteristically informed one, and, although he questioned whether the motivation behind this is to embarrass me, I am certain that that is not the case. If Sinn Féin did want to assassinate me, I am sure that I would know all about it. <BR /> <BR />Ms Boyle referred to a number of party colleagues in Sinn Féin. It was like a who's who of Sinn Féin. In fact, I actually had to ask "Who?" a few times because I had not heard from many of them on this issue. I accept that this issue has been very close to Mr McElduff's heart for some time, but I am extremely surprised at the volume of contributions from Sinn Féin, whose members have been queued up to speak, some at great length, on this excepted matter.”
“I am glad that Ms Lo also acknowledged our efforts to secure arrangements that would and could be more satisfactory, and, in her role as Committee Chair, she would know more than most about the efforts that have been made. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Cameron went into more technical detail around the statutory rules and quite astutely identified the fact that this is better enforced by DOE than DfT. It is better for us and, more importantly, it is better for drivers and operators. <BR /> <BR />Mr Eastwood injected a degree of reality into the debate and urged public representatives to be upfront about how little we can do about it in here. It was a very good contribution, but he will be worried to know that Lord Morrow thought so, too. <BR /> <BR />I addressed Mrs Overend's question earlier. She opposed the prayers of annulment also.”
“Was it this time last Thursday that we were not the ones who rolled over? Coming from a party that has had more rollovers than the National Lottery, that is a bit rich.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his intervention.”
“BIPA’s recent report echoes our concerns and my concerns about the impact of the levy and takes up my call for the A5 to be exempted. <BR /> <BR />Ms Lo gave a helpful account of the Committee's deliberations, particularly of representations received by the Committee.”
“However, I will not join Mr McElduff in going "Goodwill hunting". The specific example that he gave of the Lifford haulier and the impact that this would have on his business on a day-to-day basis is precisely the type of evidence that we will need to substantiate our case to DfT, and I will work with my officials, Members and hauliers to compile evidence as we progress to make our case as strong as possible. <BR /> <BR />Mr McElduff accused the DOE of proceeding with pace. That is a new one in the Chamber at least. He referred to the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I am aware of BIPA's recent report on the levy. Like BIPA, I very much support the introduction of a British-Irish regional economic space with greater cooperation across a number of economic activities, including transport.”
“I would like to make the following comments on points raised. <BR /> <BR />I will start with Mr McElduff, who proposed the prayer of annulment motions. He started by setting out his party's view, which is not too far from that of my own. While this may be bad law, as Mr McElduff put it, it is law; it is law in many jurisdictions, and it is law here. He said that DfT had not listened, and I concur entirely. However, let me reiterate the fact that it was not for want of our trying. I think that it is fair and accurate to say that our efforts here perhaps superseded those of the Southern Government. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate Mr McElduff's recognition of my efforts and those of my predecessor, particularly with regard to the A5. As a north-west native, I am keenly aware of the plight of Donegal.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Driver and Vehicle Agency is constantly engaged with the hauliers who use our roads, which means that stops will be undertaken more efficiently and safely and hauliers will be back en route more quickly than if a new enforcement agency were carrying out the work. <BR /> <BR />I have secured additional funding from DfT for a number of new enforcement jobs here. DfT will also commit to giving us £750,000 capital funding for new automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera equipment. That can be used not only for enforcing the levy but for ensuring that other transport laws that provide for road safety and fair competition are obeyed. <BR /> <BR />I listened very carefully to all Members who spoke during the debate, and I thank them for their contributions; some were longer than others.”
“<BR /> <BR />The decision about whether DVA will enforce the levy has been more difficult and one that I have not taken lightly, not least because of my continuing concerns about its potential impact. However, since the levy is now in place and, under European law, it must be enforced, I believe that, on balance, it is better that the DVA undertakes its enforcement rather than having DfT bring in its own enforcement agency. I believe that it will be better for the haulage industry as it reduces the risk that hauliers will be delayed on their journey. Multiple enforcement agencies could mean multiple stops and late deliveries or missed boats, which would definitely impact on profit margins and business.”
“<BR /> <BR />Further engagement with DfT has allayed some of my concerns about potential financial implications for transport-related businesses in the North, for example, those who service and repair HGVs for Southern operators. I can confirm that hauliers who bring vehicles to the North from the South to have them serviced or repaired do not and will not have to pay the levy. <BR /> <BR />My decision to bring forward the fixed penalty legislation was not easy. However, I am satisfied that most affected drivers would prefer to pay an on-the-spot fine rather than become tied up with the courts, as that is not only time-consuming but costly. I should stress again that DfT must, under European law, ensure that the levy is enforced.”
“Indeed, in response to my Department's consultation on the fixed penalty regime, the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association reaffirmed this view. <BR /> <BR />It is important to stress that all affected hauliers in the North are already paying the levy as part of their vehicle excise duty payment. There is also clear evidence that a significant number of Irish hauliers are already paying it, and, whilst I do not have the precise answer to Mrs Overend's question, I understand that around 51,000 levies have been purchased for around 7,000 Irish-registered vehicles in the six months since the levy became law.”
“However, we have been unable, to date, to provide any hard data to support this assertion. I have, therefore, been unable to convince DfT of the need to exempt the A5. However, I am pleased to report that, as a direct result of my engagement, DfT has given a commitment that it will consider what mitigating actions are needed to rectify any problems if and when firm evidence of adverse impact becomes available, and I will hold it to that. <BR /> <BR />The levy is generally supported by hauliers in Britain and in the North. It has long been the industry's view here that, since hauliers have to pay to use the roads in other European countries, including tolls in Ireland, hauliers from those countries should pay in the UK.”
“Although some signs of economic recovery, North and South, are beginning to emerge, this is still a very fragile process, and I am committed to doing all that I can to ensure that the levy does not have a detrimental impact on that recovery. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the exclusion of the A5 could mitigate some of the economic impact of the levy. The A5 is of significant importance to the population of County Donegal because of its geographic position. It is the main arterial route from the north-west to Dublin city, its port and beyond. I, along with hauliers from the South, those who represent them, TDs and MLAs, have highlighted that the failure to exclude certain roads, in particular the A5, would have a detrimental impact on cross-border trade and the all-island haulage industry.”
“I believe that my engagement with Minister Goodwill has given DfT greater understanding of the position on this island, and I will continue to make my views known to him or to whomever, as appropriate. I have been actively engaged with hauliers, haulage industry representatives and with Ministers in London and Dublin to identify ways to ensure that the island-wide economy is not adversely impacted on by this new levy. <BR /> <BR />Coming from the north-west, I fully understand the significant economic problems that exist in the area and know that any increased costs could have detrimental impacts, not only here but on the island-wide trade and economy.”
“I will set out my reasons for bringing forward these five statutory rules despite my continued reservations about the appropriateness of the levy itself. I have previously articulated my concerns about the levy in this House. I will also address some of the issues that Members have raised today, and there have been quite a few. <BR /> <BR />I have made it very clear to Department for Transport Ministers that the decision to introduce the levy may impact on the economies of both jurisdictions on this island. I do not believe that the UK gave proper consideration to the unique position here on this island, particularly in respect of the operation of the haulage industry and the reliance on it to maintain and grow a wide variety of businesses.”
“<BR /> <BR />Since the Department for Transport introduced the levy, it must comply with EU legislation and put an effective enforcement regime in place. The levy has been thrust on us, and we must now make sensible decisions moving forward. <BR /> <BR />Today, we are not debating the introduction of the levy but the mechanism for its enforcement here. The legislation being considered concerns whether it is appropriate that drivers of a vehicle, within the scope of the levy, receive a fixed penalty if they have not paid for their journey instead of court proceedings being instigated. <BR /> <BR />I will inform the Assembly of the actions I have taken to engage with Department for Transport Ministers in London, who are ultimately responsible for the levy.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Members of the Assembly, I welcome the opportunity today — tonight — to reply to the prayer of annulment for the five statutory rules that create a fixed penalty regime for non-payment of the HGV user levy, even though, I suspect, the motives of those who have decided to bring it to the House have possibly more to do with party politics than serious concern about the impact of the levy, despite protestations otherwise. <BR /> <BR />Let me make it very clear: the HGV levy is a tax that has been introduced by the UK Government. As a tax, it is an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act. The levy has applied across Britain and the North since 1 April this year. However, while it has been enforced in Britain, it has not been enforced here to date.”
“Unfortunately, the issue has not been addressed, which means that funding for core departmental work in my Department has been disproportionately and unfairly reduced.”
“<BR /> <BR />My Department has conducted a review of budgets across all business areas, and the measures identified to deliver the in-year cuts are those deemed to lessen the impact on the Department's ability to deliver public services. However, the impact of the cuts on my Department's programmes is magnified because of the inability of my Department to cut local government grants in-year. That means that the impact of such percentage cuts falls disproportionately and unfairly on core departmental programmes. As part of October monitoring, I put forward a bid of £0·9 million to seek the reinstatement of part of the reductions made in June and requested that the local government grants be excluded from any reductions.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his question. <BR /> <BR />My Department currently has a range of actions to deliver in-year 4·4% baseline reductions. They include the following measures: ceasing to fill vacant posts in my Department, which is 167 full-time equivalent posts; ceasing the use of contract and temporary workers; reductions in general admin expenditure across all business areas of the Department; utilisation of an in-year reduced requirement on the ring-fenced coastal communities fund; postponement of planned procurements; curtailing spend on a number of contracts; reducing grants for a range of programmes, unfortunately; and reducing the number of lower-priority environmental programmes funded. I also, unfortunately, have to stop funding to any new projects or initiatives.”
“I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I believe that we have a responsibility. It is not just for me as Minister of the Environment or Mr Hamilton as Minister of Finance and Personnel, as, ultimately, it will be his transitional rates relief scheme as opposed to mine. All Members — those who voted for the reform of local government and even those who might have voted against it — have a leadership role to play and should be doing more to allay concerns, rather than stir them up.”
“My predecessor managed to secure £30 million from the Executive to deal with the issue of rates convergence, and DFP is currently finalising what the scheme that will dish out that £30 million to mitigate any detrimental impact of rates convergence will look like.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Dunne for the question. I did indeed see the scare stories, as Mr Dunne quite accurately puts it, in the media last week. I wondered where they had come from and what had prompted them arising just last week, after we have come so far down the road towards local government reform. I would be lying if I said that there will not be or have not been issues around rates convergence, but a lot of work has been done and is being done to ensure that the impact of rates convergence on ratepayers in certain areas across the North is minimised. I know that Fermanagh is one area that could see a jump in its rates, and there are others that will see an equally large jump.”
“As I have outlined, the council will ultimately be able to say that that land is zoned for social housing. Unfortunately, it is outside my gift or ability to say that it will ultimately be developed for social housing, though. As the Member rightly identifies, that will require cooperation and collaboration between the council and social housing providers through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and ultimately the housing builders, which would be housing associations. If the demand exists in that area for social housing — I imagine that it does if it is, in any way, similar to other areas across the North — I cannot think why there would be great difficulty in getting it on to the social housing programme eventually. However, that would be a question for the Minister for Social Development.”
“OK. Well, along with the site going to the council, what will go to the council, as the Member will be aware, is the statutory function of planning. Councils will start their own planning processes, that of drawing up their own local development plans. Some councils, while still in shadow form, have commenced that work already. An important part of those area plans will be the designation of sites and zones for social housing. I know that there is acute need for it in many areas across the North, and I am sure that the Member's constituency is no exception to that. The council will have a major if not final say in what that land is zoned for.”
“I thank Mr Flanagan for his question. I have to plead complete ignorance of the application to which he refers. I always think that it is safer to admit when you do not know the answer to something. I am sure that the Member would agree with me on that. Will the site itself be passed to the council?”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. What I can assure him of — I hope that I already have — is that the concerns of residents were heard that day. As I said, some of the concerns or objections that they raised were more pertinent and had more weight in planning terms than others. Attempts have been made by my Department to, I suppose, get an improved deal for the residents who object to the scheme, but I cannot, at this stage, give the Member any assurances as to how improved that might be.”
“We looked at them and deemed that they were not perhaps sufficiently revised. We are now awaiting or have been in receipt of further revised drawings that will go some way to satisfying residents' concerns.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Campbell for that question. I do indeed remember the site visit. I still have the scars. <BR /> <BR />Subsequent to the meeting that we held with objectors to that development, an approach was made by planning officials back to the developer. It is worth bearing it in mind that the scheme was recommended for approval. However, planners have gone back to the developer to ask him to revisit the scheme, taking into consideration some of the concerns that were raised by objectors. Some of the concerns that they raised were extremely pertinent; some were less so. Bearing it in mind that there are over 6,500 planning applications in the system at a time, as far as I am aware, revised drawings have been submitted.”
“Mr Ramsey quite rightly refers to the importance of the site in the city of Derry and its position as a strategic viewpoint for the city as a whole. As I said, I have been in regular correspondence with objectors to the scheme and have therefore been made aware of negotiations between them, the landowner and statutory agencies such as the council. I am not privy to the full detail of those discussions. However, I am aware that the residents remain hopeful of a positive outcome, and I have offered them my support to achieve one.”
“Detailed design and roads matters, which historically have been the main impediment to some previous applications on the site, were by and large addressed in the application. <BR /> <BR />I have received regular correspondence from objectors, both in advance of the decision and subsequent to it. I have to say that I am heartened by the maturity that they have shown and with which they have received the decision. They accept that we were bound by policy and by planning history and that any outcome other than approval was extremely unlikely.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his question — lots. It is not an approval that was reached lightly by the planners in Derry, particularly given the high volume of objections and, indeed, high level of media interest in the application. I took a personal look at it and toiled with it for some time. However, despite the numerous objections and grounds for objection, the planners have arrived at their decision to approve. In reaching that decision, the Department has taken into account the views of statutory consultees, Derry City Council, objectors and supporters and — the key to this — the planning history on-site. From a planning perspective, the Department considers that the principle of housing development on the site has been long established.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Kelly for that supplementary question. There has been considerable debate, not only about the functions or role of the commissioner but about how the office will be funded from across the councils. Should it be done on a case-by-case basis, according to the number of cases coming to the commissioner from each council and should councils have to pay on that basis? However, it is my opinion that the money should be top-sliced to pay for it before it goes out and becomes a function.”
“Following my consideration of that legal advice, I take this opportunity to confirm to Members that I am satisfied that the current ethical standards framework can operate without further amendments and — you will be relieved to hear — there is no requirement to bring forward a further Bill. Therefore, the supporting mechanisms of investigation, adjudication and appeals, as currently provided in the 2014 Act, will not be subject to further change.”
“The ethical standards framework was brought fully into operation on 2 June this year by commencement order. <BR /> <BR />Members may recall that, in response to concerns raised by the commissioner about the effect that the introduction of a High Court appeal mechanism could have on his constitutional position, I indicated that I was considering bringing forward a further Bill to separate the investigation and adjudication functions of the ethical standards framework. During the debate on the draft code of conduct on 27 May, I informed the Assembly that I was seeking legal advice to assist in determining whether a new adjudication model would be needed.”
“Part 9 of the Local Government Act 2014 introduced a new ethical standards framework for councillors. That framework consists of a mandatory code of conduct for councillors, with supporting arrangements for investigation, adjudication and appeals. <BR /> <BR />Members may recall that, as a result of amendments agreed by the Assembly at the Bill’s Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, provisions for a High Court appeal mechanism were introduced into the Local Government Bill. That would provide for any person who is subject to further action by the commissioner as a result of their failure to comply with the code of conduct to appeal against the decision of the commissioner to the High Court if the High Court gives the person leave to do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have also become aware of difficulties around mortgage applications. Unfortunately, it is not something new. Historically, mortgage lenders have been cautious about things such as occupancy conditions, which are unique, almost, to countryside applications. However, they seem to have got a lot more cautious of late. I have instructed planning officials to intervene or assist applicants, where possible, be it through a letter of comfort or a letter of support to the lending company.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Mr McCallister for his question. I have no doubt that there have been inconsistencies across the North, not only in the implementation of this planning policy but of many others. However, the issue of perceived inconsistencies with PPS 21 has been addressed to some extent by the establishment by my predecessor of a peer review group, which will look at the more contentious or complex PPS 21 applications. That group consists of senior planners from each of the planning divisions. I think that it is a very useful tool for hearing what is going on in different areas and what views planners from those areas bring to the table. It is vital as well that there is consistency right across the board when it comes to the implementation and application of any planning policy.”
“Any development anywhere, let alone in the countryside, must be sustainable. It is important that, whatever we arrive at through the SPPS, it recognises that. We have a job to protect the countryside as well.”
“I thank Mr Elliott for his supplementary question. I indicated in my previous answer that the outcome of JRs or Planning Appeals Commission hearings inevitably has a knock-on impact on the interpretation and analysis or assessment of planning applications. Since a recent ruling, I have seen a tightening of PPS 21. It seems to have become somewhat more rigid. That is evidenced by the number of Members here who have brought constituents to me who, six or eight months ago, might have received permission, but, with the new reading of the rules, unfortunately have not. It is worth bearing in mind that there is a balance to be struck. I do not think that anyone would dispute that PPS 21 is much more permissive than its predecessor, PPS 14. However, it is there for a reason. There have to be rules.”
“They are looking for more evidence of what constitutes a working farm — sorry, it is not that they are looking for more evidence but that the sources of evidence that they are looking for have been reduced. Now, in all bar the most extreme cases, they will require the DARD active farm user number.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. My officials work constantly with their counterparts in DARD on many issues. This is certainly one. In particular, representatives from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and DARD have a lot of overlap as regards farms and the designation of areas. The Member will be well aware of that; he speaks to me often enough about it. <BR /> <BR />The definition of a working farm has caused some consternation and confusion when it comes to the interpretation and application of planning policy. Of late, subsequent to a few decisions by the Planning Appeals Commission, it seems that planners have been assessing applications under PPS 21 CTY10 more strictly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those opportunities include replacement dwellings; the conversion and reuse of non-residential buildings as dwellings; new dwellings within an existing cluster or ribbon of buildings; social and affordable housing schemes; development within designated dispersed rural communities; and a dwelling to meet compelling personal or domestic circumstances. There is certainly no moratorium on building in the countryside for non-farming dwellers. Opportunities exist, but evidently, from the contributions of Members not just today — we had a debate a few months ago on this subject — it seems that sufficient ones do not.”
“I thank Mr Dunne for his supplementary question. I recognise the needs and desires that people brought up in a particular area have to remain there. Where possible, provision should and could be made in a policy to accommodate the needs of such people. However, it is worth bearing in mind that PPS 21, as it stands, does offer considerable development opportunities for non-farming rural people wishing to live in the countryside and not just to farmers. I expect a couple of supplementaries to say "not even" to farmers.”
“I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, I look forward to our meeting on 28 October. I assure the Member that I will approach that meeting, as I do any and every meeting, with an open mind. I am always willing to hear constructive input and ideas from other Members of the Assembly and from experts in their fields, be they architects or planning agents, and, indeed, from members of the public.”
“The SPPS consolidates and, where necessary, updates existing policy provisions set out within the current suite of planning policy statements, including those in PPS 21, 'Sustainable Development in the Countryside'. As part of this process, I gave an undertaking to this Chamber that the SPPS should adequately meet the needs of current and future generations of farming and non-farming rural dwellers seeking permission to build in the countryside. <BR /> <BR />My officials are analysing all the responses, which will be carefully considered, and a synopsis will be made available to the Environment Committee. Once this exercise is complete, I will decide on the final policy direction in respect of non-farming rural dwellers and the SPPS overall.”