Northern Ireland Assembly, 12 November 2001

156 contributions from 45 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I have two concerns, Mr Speaker. First, on Friday 2 November, when a vote was being taken, you had to leave the Chair; no one was in the Chair. Can the House have an assurance that when such circumstances arise in the future, a Deputy Speaker will be appointed, even if a vote is to be taken? That will allow those wishing to make points of order to do so.

Secondly, I understand that you have asked your officials to report to you on the incident in the Great Hall last Tuesday. When will that report be made available to the leaders of the parties in the House? It is only right, given the accusations that have been made about certain Members, that we should know what the officials of the House saw in the Great Hall.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

With regard to the first matter, I remind the Member, as I did at the time, that the reason for my having to vacate the Chair was to give advice that had been requested. Because there was some noise and commotion, it was impossible to hear what I was being asked or for the Member to hear my response. I happily assure the House and the Member concerned that a Deputy Speaker will, in future, take the Chair even more promptly than happened on that occasion.

On the day of the untoward events last week I met with the Head of Security of the Assembly and asked for a full report. That report was provided to me at the end of the week, and I was able to read it over the weekend. A further report, including recommendations, was provided to me today. I wish to ensure that the inquiries are complete, and I wish to consider the reports and the recommendations. They will come as a full report to the Assembly Commission which, as the House knows, is the body charged with responsibility for Assembly affairs.

The principal burden of that report will be to ensure that Assembly staff managed the incident appropriately and to consider how any such incidents could best be handled in the future. If Members have complaints about the conduct of other Members — or about the conduct of anyone who is the responsibility of a Member — that complaint should be taken to the Standards and Privileges Committee, where it can be considered in the context of the House. Members also have the option of legal recourse, and I understand that some may wish to take that option.

The report will go to the Assembly Commission, not to party leaders, and it is the appropriate body. If Members have complaints, the proper recourse within the Assembly is to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I trust that that is of assistance to the House.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I understand that. However, I would like an assurance that we will see the report. Members who have loudly accused other Members now say that they will not go to the police, because they do not accept them. That is not the way in which business should be conducted. Members of the House should be prepared to stand over the statements that they have made. There seems to be a way of getting out of that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As I have explained to the House, the report will go to the Assembly Commission. It is the responsibility of the Commission to decide how the situation will be handled. It is one matter for Members to get caught in an altercation with one another and another matter for Assembly staff to find themselves caught up in those circumstances. I am protective of our staff. They should not fall victim to any dispute between Members of the House. How Members choose to handle the situation is a matter for themselves. I have outlined the proper procedures.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will Members see the report after the Commission? Mr Paisley was speaking, I think, about party leaders, but it is right that all Members should see it and any recommendations that it contains.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is a matter for the Commission to decide. All Members are represented on the Commission. The minutes of the Commission’s meetings are published and made available on the Internet as soon as they are approved. Some material will therefore be widely available.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Has our gratitude to staff for their outstanding handling of the situation been conveyed to them?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have already conveyed my gratitude to the staff for the way in which they handled a difficult situation. If the Commission is satisfied that the situation was handled appropriately, suitable approbation should be forthcoming. I should not prejudge whether the Commission will make the same positive assessment as the Member has made.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I shall not ask you to go into detail about what you have already read and about the contributions that have been made to the report by staff, but I would like to know whether the report takes into consideration what was happening off camera? There was some preparation to disrupt events in the Great Hall.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The inquiry has not concentrated on what was, or was not, filmed by the television cameras, but on the observations of staff and others. If Members wish to make representations to that inquiry, they are at liberty to do so. I advise them to contact the Head of Security. I have already received a preliminary report, which I read at the weekend, and a further instalment, including some recommendations, which I will be studying. However, I would not be surprised if the Head of Security were to bring me further instalments of the report as responses are received. I trust that that clarifies the matter.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by the Chief Whip of the Official Unionist Party, surely it is dangerous to propose that something that was not seen, and which had nothing to do with what happened in the Great Hall, be included in the report. Who can judge what happened? I have heard judgements that certain individuals orchestrated the incident. I have already made a statement on who orchestrated it, which I am not withdrawing. The videotapes prove that what I said was right. People who could make up stories should not have access to the inquiry.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Let me be clear on this matter: Mr Jim Wilson’s question, as I understood it, was whether the material that was caught on camera would be the sole evidence on which the inquiry would be based. I replied to the Member, and to the House, that the material that is being gathered concerns what staff members and others saw. Whether or not the incident was recorded by camera is another matter. The inquiry is not dependent on viewing videotapes of what happened, but on the experience of staff and others who were present.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister has informed me that the incident is still being shown on Eurosport.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am tempted to become involved, but I was brought up to resist temptation, and I will do so now.

Re-designation Letters

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to advise Members that I received three letters dated 6 November from Members last Tuesday, each of which states:

"In accordance with Standing Order 3(8) as amended today, I give notice that I am changing my designation from ‘Unionist’ back to ‘Centre’ to take effect seven days from today."

The letters were signed by Mr David Ford, Mr Sean Neeson and Mrs Eileen Bell. In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, therefore, these Members will be re-designated as "Other", to take effect from Wednesday of this week.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you been assured that Mr Ford’s stomach will be back in good working condition after his re-designation back to the centre?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In this professional capacity, I do not generally enquire after the physical, or other, indisposition of Members, unless they bring it to my attention.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, what was the position of Committees after Members’ re-designation? What was their legal status, given that the proportional balances that were put in place were altered? Are any decisions that were made during that period legally acceptable?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. As far as Standing Orders are concerned, that point is wide of the issue. The membership of Committees is decided by a motion in the Assembly. There was no attempt to change that, and the detail of Committee membership is a matter for agreement and votes in the Assembly. I trust that that lays the matter to rest, although if the Member wishes further clarification, I will show him which Standing Orders apply, rather than take up the time of the House. The Member can take it from me that the functioning of Committees was not adversely affected.

September Monitoring Round

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on behalf of the Executive about public spending allocations in 2001-02 following the September monitoring round.

In this monitoring round there are some resources to distribute as a result of savings emerging in a number of spending programmes. As I have said in previous monitoring round statements, the main purpose of these exercises is to adjust the allocation of resources to meet cost pressures in priority services. As an Executive, our aim is to ensure that our financial plans are adjusted to take account of changes in the delivery of public services. In doing so, we are, of course, guided by the strategic objectives in the Programme for Government. Fortunately we are not bound by the priorities of our predecessors. I say that on behalf of the Executive, and not in any party capacity.

Around £66·2 million was available to the Executive for reallocation in the September monitoring round. That had arisen from a number of sources. The Executive agreed in July that the balance of unallocated room to manoeuvre from the June monitoring round should be held over until September to facilitate the best possible interaction with the Budget process. Some £21·7 million has been withheld for that purpose.

Added to that, some £44·2 million of savings were declared by Departments as a routine part of this monitoring round. The Department for Employment and Learning surrendered significant sums from its employment programmes and as a result of a reduction in student loan subsidies. The Department for Social Development advised that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is expecting increased receipts from house sales this year amounting to some £8 million and is also expecting an easement on Laganside expenditure plans that will release £5·2 million.

I have frequently drawn attention to the constraints that we face in planning spending. The availability of resources through savings of this nature should not deceive us into believing that our spending programmes are not under considerable pressure. As I was reminded in the Chamber last Monday, there are significant demands for spending on services that are badly needed and that would be of clear benefit to the public.

In this monitoring round, as in most others, the bids exceed the resources available. Bids on this occasion amount to £128 million. Nevertheless, given the pressure on services and the wide range of aspirations that many people have, the Executive have looked strategically and pragmatically at how best we should use those resources.

We face major problems today and tomorrow in schools, hospitals and many other important public services. There is also a long way to go in tackling the equality agenda, reducing levels of deprivation throughout the community and making a difference to the quality of life of all our people. That will be the true test of devolution. However, with the limited resources available we have sought to relieve the most immediate of those pressures, while at the same time tackling the longer-term weaknesses in infrastructure and the shortfalls in major spending programmes.

In considering those issues, we came to the view that health, education and roads were among the services facing the most acute difficulties and that they would have to be given some priority. However, the key difficulty in meeting that challenge was to find ways of addressing those priorities without simply shifting the burden to another sector.

I have said before that the Executive want to adopt a more forward-looking approach to our financial management and give spending authorities greater stability for planning purposes. We also want to get better use out of the spending power available and to take account of the Assembly’s views on how we might achieve that.

In drawing up the draft Budget for 2002-03 which I presented to the Assembly on 25 September, careful heed was taken of Members’ points about the levels of reallocation in all monitoring rounds so far and the high levels of underspending at the end of a year.

We agree that we need to make better use of our resources and improve financial planning and estimating. In the draft Budget we looked at how the pattern of underspending in monitoring rounds could be used to advantage and concluded that some £48 million of spending power could be allocated for planned carrying over into 2002-03 without undue risk and based on anticipated underspending this year. We are confident that it will be possible to manage resources in the next few monitoring rounds and through 2002-03, and to make good that requirement.

With that aim in mind, the Executive’s approach to this monitoring round has been based on the assumption that it would be prudent to set aside approximately £21 million now, leaving a balance of £27 million to be found in the December and February monitoring rounds. Based on analysis of foreseeable underspending patterns, I am confident that we can proceed.

One consequence of this approach is that the scope for meeting additional bids is less, but I am sure that we will find it preferable to use resources more effectively at the planning stage than always to face late reallocations in monitoring rounds. I am, however, especially conscious of the needs expressed by the Ministers from the Departments of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Regional Development, Social Development and the Environment. I assure Members that the issues highlighted by those Departments and others will be considered further in the December monitoring round.

Of the remaining £44·9 million available, the Executive have decided to allocate £33 million now and to earmark a further £11·9 million to meet pressures in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on which we cannot currently take a final decision. I will return to that point later.

Details of the additional allocations are set out in the table attached to my statement. While I do not propose to explain every allocation in detail, I will indicate some of the more substantial or significant items.

For the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment we will meet more of the costs associated with foot-and-mouth disease. We will also help the former to provide disabled access to Forestry Service premises.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will also receive support to provide disabled access to premises, to meet urgent health and safety requirements in the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland and to meet costs associated with the Golden Jubilee celebrations. That Department also faces some fundamental funding problems, which I will too.

In the Department of Education, provision has been made for special schools and to help ensure that meeting the commitment to deliver Classroom 2000 does not impede the drive to improve standards and raise attainment levels.

Additional allocations have been agreed for the Department for Employment and Learning to meet pay increases which were higher than planned and to support those with disabilities on Disability Advisory Service programmes.

Substantial provision is also being made to meet contractual commitments for Worktrack and to respond to the unexpected demand for individual learning accounts (ILAs). The suspension of ILAs was announced by Dr Farren on 26 October because of concerns about aggressive mis-selling by providers, and new accounts cannot therefore be opened. However, the Department for Employment and Learning still requires additional money to meet existing commitments.

For the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment we have agreed that a substantial part of the inescapable costs so far incurred in the creation of Invest Northern Ireland should be met from easements identified in other areas in the Department.

In the Department of Finance and Personnel additional funding has been provided to cover the costs of completing the census.

Health Service costs are again a major feature of the monitoring round. Some £8 million was allocated to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to address some new costs that are associated with further pay pressures that arose from contractual, legal and regrading issues and increases in the drugs bill. The Department of Finance and Personnel is providing funding to address the immediate and increasing demands for dialysis and to reduce the waiting lists for cardiac surgery.

Funding is also being provided to replace medical equipment in the Royal Group of Hospitals’ cardiac surgery unit and to provide two linear accelerators for Belvoir Park Hospital. That will replace equipment that is past its normal life expectancy and reduce waiting lists and waiting time for people who require cancer treatment.

As I indicated earlier, additional capital receipts from the Housing Executive from favourable conditions for house sales were a major source of the savings that have been redistributed in the monitoring round. That has led to reduced rental income for the Housing Executive, and the Department of Finance and Personnel is providing the Department for Social Development with funds to make up for that. It is also meeting the costs of some public liability claims.

The Department of Finance and Personnel is allocating funds to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to cover the cost of foot-and-mouth-disease advertising and to meet the commitments of the North/ South Ministerial Council.

As I indicated earlier, there are two further bids from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to cover the costs of library services. They must be given serious consideration in the coming months. In agreeing the draft Budget for 2002-03, the Executive recognised the serious consequences that would arise if the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure had to absorb the pressure from an ongoing job evaluation of library staff along with other pressures. The Executive agreed that it would be untenable to expect the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to meet the cost of implementing the results of the evaluation exercise. A consultancy study on the job evaluation was carried out to ensure that the proposed allocation of such a large sum was fully justifiable. However, it is likely that the bid will have to be met, and the final position will be clarified as soon as possible.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure also faces growing difficulty as a result of inherited deficits in museums. The sum of £1 million was included in the draft Budget proposals to address that problem in 2002-03. However, the Executive understand that further resources are required to make good the deficit up to 31 March 2002. Therefore they have agreed that resources should be set aside to cover that pressure, subject to further analysis by the Department.

The Executive have concluded that while some important issues of principle must be addressed, it is likely that we will have to meet pay arrears of £10 million for librarians and a £1·9 million deficit in the main museums. Thus, the Executive have agreed that it would be prudent to set aside £11·9 million now so that if we are satisfied on the outstanding issues, the allocations can be confirmed quickly. The outworkings of the outstanding matters will be confirmed in the December monitoring round statement, if not before.

In a similar vein, the Department for Regional Development has highlighted several difficult pressures, particularly with public transport. However, the Executive concluded that consideration of those pressures should be deferred until the December monitoring round.

It is important to reflect on the approach that we should take in future monitoring rounds. In recent times we have been extremely fortunate because considerable sums were available for reallocation through monitoring.

Indeed, this has been unprecedented when viewed against historical patterns, though we should not underestimate the effect of not having to cover security costs, which consumed substantial amounts of in-year room to manoeuvre in the years before devolution. We have, perhaps unknowingly, been enjoying the benefits of a significant peace dividend since the introduction of devolved government. The room to manoeuvre has been welcome, but the pattern cannot be expected to continue. The situation has created the expectation that we will always be able to meet a substantial amount of any emerging pressures. There is evidence that, as a result, there is a growing dependency on monitoring that we will not be able to sustain. The Executive have acted to promote more strategic forward planning by taking some in-year room to manoeuvre into the Budget planning. This means that we can use the spending power in that context when the full range of planning issues is being addressed together. This should produce a better outcome than could be achieved in the more limited context of monitoring. We will continue to apply this approach with prudence.

In addition, we have agreed that we must concentrate on addressing pressures through effective management and reprioritisation of our activities. In future Budgets and monitoring rounds, we may have to deal with unexpected increases in costs by reducing previously announced allocations. That means retaining real flexibility for the Executive and focusing more on delivering the outputs and outcomes that are being sought from public services, from existing allocations.

Inevitably, we must face up to the hard choices that lie ahead and take the tough and unavoidable decisions that confront us — that is the very essence of government. The Executive will not shirk this responsibility, and, by taking the necessary decisions, we remain determined to make a difference to the way our public services perform. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am for public services and wish to see improvement and development for the good of all those who need and depend on these services. I commend the reallocations to the Assembly.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The Department for Employment and Learning was a substantial net contributor to this monitoring round to the tune of £12 million, and that was recognised in the Minister’s statement. This does not concern me per se, but the Committee is concerned by some of the reasons that have come to light for easements in the area of the Department for Employment and Learning, particularly the New Deal easement. Some of that was engendered by the decline in unemployment, which is welcome. However, does the Minister agree that £4 million of the reduction in spending on New Deal arose from a bottleneck in the delivery system in the relevant Departments, particularly with staff vacancies in jobcentres and weaknesses in the Social Security Agency system for identifying New Deal clients?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning is right to identify the Department as a significant yielder of easements in this monitoring round. There will not be the spend on some programmes that was anticipated. In the case of the Jobskills programme, that is due to reduced training costs, and the situation with New Deal is due to the later implementation of some programmes and the bottleneck issues the Member referred to. The Department is working on all of those issues, and the Executive recognise the importance of these programmes, not least because of the more questionable economic climate that we now face.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him on his final monitoring round as Minister of Finance and Personnel. Does he agree that given the needs of our society as evidenced by the list of unmet bids, and the demands of health and education, we must find innovative ways to finance our public services? That is not only desirable, but essential.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree with the Member that there is pressure on our resources from commendable and attractive bids that we simply cannot meet. That shows that we need more money. We must try to obtain more money from the Treasury or else we must use available means to raise resources ourselves. We must also get more out of the money that we have. That means that we must have more effective procurement, not to save money, but to release to services money that would otherwise be spent on transactions.

We want to target our spending better to ensure that that money goes further to meet real need and to deliver bigger and better outcomes. We must also see what more can be done to supplement the public expenditure spending capacity with the spending capacity that the private sector can bring through public-private partnerships. Again, we do not wish to substitute public expenditure, but to supplement it and add to the investment that we undertake and sponsor in the public interest.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the Minister’s allocation of £14·3 million to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. A figure of £2·5 million has been allocated for the bill for drugs; £5·5 million for junior doctors, midwives and the Working Time Directive; and £1 million for the Fire Service. That leaves £5·3 million to address the serious shortcomings in the Health Service. Given the winter pressures that the Health Service faces, the existing waiting lists for beds and the room to manoeuvre within the Budget, can the Minister re-address the shortfall in the Health Service?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept the Member’s observations about the distribution of the £14·3 million allocated to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We must meet those real issues and pressures. The allocations for the drugs bill, junior doctors, midwives and the Working Time Directive are important in their own right. I accept that that money will not go directly to new services or to meet many of the service pressures that directly affect people. However, it will help meet some of the Department’s important cost pressures. If we did not make those allocations other services would suffer; therefore those pressures must be met. Nonetheless, we have been able to put some money into service improvements. I accept that the Member would like the amount to be greater.

Our approach has been to re-allocate moneys from this year’s Budget to next year’s Budget. However, we must remember that we are attempting to secure a £48 million carry-over in order to improve the Executive’s scope in next year’s Budget. The Executive’s tight position was reflected in the Executive position report. Our adoption of that approach has enabled us to increase the money for health and social services next year by £30 million, which is over and above the original indicative allocation for next year. The room to manoeuvre that allows us to carry over money into next year has enabled us to give further priority to the Health Service in next year’s Budget.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the additional £13·3 million allocation to the Health Service. However, does the Minister recognise the community’s concern that, despite the extra money that has been pumped into the Health Service, waiting lists are still growing? Has he asked the Health Service why those lists continue to grow, despite its additional income?

I listened to the Minister’s comments on victims’ issues, and I do not doubt his sincerity in that regard. Why was the bid by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for funding for victims’ issues unsuccessful? If the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minster was given the same criteria as other Departments, why was its bid not made on time?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive are aware of the huge pressures faced by the Health Service and the difficulties in translating the investment and priority that we offer it into performance of a standard that the public has a right to expect. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has worked very hard to resolve that problem. The Executive are carrying out a needs and effectiveness evaluation, involving the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Economic Policy Unit to examine issues such as those mentioned by the Member.

In the September monitoring round there was no bid in respect of victims’ issues, and that was indicated at last week’s debate on the draft Budget. Perhaps the Member is confusing the allocations under the September monitoring round with the Executive programme funds, from which a bid for victims’ funding was made.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the extra funding for the Health Service, but it is not nearly enough. The average person would not understand why the Minister is holding back, in other words why he is not spending £11·9 million of taxpayers’ money. Why is he not spending that now, when we all know that the Health Service is in dire straits and is getting worse?

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that priorities exist, and health is a top priority. However, is it not time to put that extra funding into health, when the public is crying out for reduced waiting times, cancer care, nurses, community care and many other services.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The £11·9 million is not simply being held over without good intentions for its use. In my statement I explained the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s serious historical underfunding. The Executive have agreed to meet that deficit so that the Department’s work can progress. Therefore in all likelihood that money will be allocated to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

In the draft Budget statement I explained the attempts to carry forward money from this year’s monitoring rounds and incorporate it into next year’s Budget. That approach has enabled us to further prioritise health in next year’s Budget.

Members may recall the indicative allocations for next year that the Assembly published last year. We have now been able to add an additional £30 million to those allocations in next year’s Budget. That increase surpasses what was already planned. The practice of carrying forward money is allowing us to invest more money in health.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I too am concerned about holding back almost one third of the current allocation — over £11 million — first, for deficits in museums and, secondly, for something that we should have known about. It is a massive sum of money, and numerous questions will undoubtedly be asked about that.

Can the Minister clarify that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s budget was to meet in total the £3·8 million for replacement equipment at the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belvoir Park Hospital? It is unfortunate that the cardiac surgery unit’s equipment was tied in with the cancer equipment at Belvoir Park Hospital. Having taken related evidence just last week, I am aware of the enormous anxiety of patients currently waiting to enter Belvoir Park Hospital. It is totally unacceptable. Will this bid now meet that cost in total? We must have answers to that. It is not good enough for us to ask those people to wait longer and longer for important information that could save their lives.

I am pleased to hear the Minister say that previously announced allocations may have to be seriously addressed. However, I am more concerned about the type of planning that is being undertaken. Will Committee members be in a position to prepare themselves for those announcements? If there are now to be cost reductions, is the Minister in any position to say where those might be?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

How, precisely, the money will be used for Belvoir Park Hospital and the cardiac facilities at the Royal Victoria Hospital will be for the Minister and the Department to detail and proceed with, working closely with the Committee. I take fully the point that Monica McWilliams has made. I recently visited some friends in Belvoir Park Hospital, and I am aware of the issues there.

Many questions will be asked about some of the wider points. Many questions have already been asked about the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s allocation-in-waiting — the term "in-waiting" has been well used recently. If we do not meet this obligation it will have severe implications for that Department and many of its programmes. We must ask if it is absolutely inescapable, and all indications now seem to point to the fact that it is. While all the questions that have been implied will be valid, and, it is to be hoped, the answers to them will also be valid, the underlying question is do we need — and it is right — to allocate money in this area? That is the question that the Executive had to answer.

In respect of the wider issue, we cannot assume that monitoring somehow makes this a "Good Ship Lollipop" — that a few extra sweeties will always turn up. There is a danger of that; people are starting to assume that there will always be some "give" in monitoring. As some Departments and Members have reflected this morning, we must recognise that we need to look not only at the easements that are coming from elsewhere to meet the pressures we face, but that we will reach a point where we must curb back. We will have to restrain spending in other areas if we are to ease those pressures. We must reach a point where our work in monitoring rounds is more pressure-led than easement-led. As a result of these pressures and priorities we will determine what happens. I am not in a position to anticipate or speculate as to what programme areas that will apply to.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to higher office over the weekend. If he is trying to wear too many hats, and needs some more, this side of the House could help him out. We might have one or two lying about that he could wear. I could supply one or two myself, because I am not wearing them at the moment.

My question has been touched upon already. It is proper to repeat it. Above all other matters that are referred to me, there is the matter of the Health Service. There is the question of the long waiting lists for pain clinics. There is the issue of psychiatric care and the issue of waiting lists in general — the list goes on and on. Another important issue — again it arises in my constituency — is the provision of clean water. I am concerned about the treatment of foul and polluted water that daily enters our freshwater systems. Is the Minister conscious of the need for increased investment in those two areas?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive are aware of the compelling case that exists for expenditure in various areas. Mr Wilson has reflected the importance of Health Service issues to him and to his constituents. Other Members have also reflected that. Our approach aims to create more space for addressing those issues. That means, however, that we are unable to fully meet the attractive and worthy bids in other areas of expenditure.

I thank the Member for his kind remarks and compliments. The number of hats I am wearing will be reduced — I will be decommissioning at least one hat in the near future. I will do so on the basis of very profound advice that was given many years ago by a character in Derry called "Wabbits". He had a fondness for removing metal that did not belong to him — metal that was doing a perfectly good job where it was — and furnishing it to scrap merchants. One apocryphal story about "Wabbits" was that he was accused of breaking into a bank and sawing off the cashier security grills and metal plates. After having spent so much time in the bank doing that, he was asked why he did not take the money that was in the drawers. "Wabbits" in reply gave the very good advice: "One man; one job".

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

Today is a very poignant occasion for many in the House, because it will probably be the last time that Mark Durkan will make a statement on monitoring rounds as Minister of Finance and Personnel. I thank him for his efforts as Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Today’s statement has been a very strong wake-up call for many people in relation to society’s needs. The bids have again outstripped the resources. Clearly there is a need — as the Minister outlined in his statement and in a reply to a Member — to ensure that all Departments scrutinise their expenditure plans to make sure that that money is going to direct core funding. Departments should not be depending on monitoring rounds to deliver on the real needs that exist.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree with Ms Lewsley’s point about the need to fundamentally re-examine departmental expenditure on an ongoing basis, rather than in a reactive way through emerging pressures in monitoring rounds. That is part of the thinking behind the needs and effectiveness evaluations that the Executive have commissioned and which will be considered early next year. The Member referred to an observation made by Monica McWilliams, and that is also valid.

Not only will the Departments have to re-examine their plans; this is an area in which the departmental Committees can make a significant contribution as well. In the past I have made the point that, when considering financial statements, a great deal of attention has been paid to bids and, in particular, to bids that have not been met. The more that Departments and Committees can focus on the quality, reality and priority of the plans for the expenditure as allocated, the better for us all.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I suppose that the allocation of extra money to any Department has to be welcomed. I am, however, disappointed that there is no allocation to the Department for Regional Development in this monitoring round. In his speech, the Minister made roads and the public transport system a priority; but he has told the House that the Department for Regional Development will have to wait until December for extra money. I encourage the Minister to put the Department for Regional Development at the top of his financial agenda when December comes.

I see that further money has been allocated for the completion of the census. Will the Minister tell us the cost of carrying out the census for Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I indicated in my statement, some of the bids by the Department for Regional Development for public transport will probably be more sensibly taken in December when a fuller picture will be available, rather than doing a bit now and a bit later. The House does not appreciate recurring bids of that nature.

In respect of roads, part of what we are doing in this monitoring round, in carrying money forward to next year, is helping to support the very significant priority allocation to roads in next year’s Budget. We are talking about a year-on-year overall increase of around 15% for the Department for Regional Development. Just as for health, the carry-over strategy that we are working on is helping to fund that priority.

Further work was required to complete the census. There were problems given the outbreak of foot-and- mouth disease that meant that there had to be tracking back to ensure coverage. That is why additional money was required.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. However, I have a number of concerns. The Department for Social Development has surrendered more than £13 million in this round and has had less than £3 million returned to it. That is a grave matter, given that this Department is specifically responsible for dealing with the most marginalised and vulnerable members of society. I refer to those people who have to rely on benefits, who cannot avail of affordable social housing and who live in communities that have suffered 30 years of discrimination. Will the Minister explain to the House — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I am having difficulty hearing the Member.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel explain to the House, given the continued absence of the Minister for Social Development from meetings of the Executive, how the Executive decide which bids to support? How do they reach their judgements on bids submitted for social development, given the huge disparity between revenue in and revenue out? Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel explain how the Executive can decide that it is more important to provide £800,000 to the Department to cover unexpected losses in rental income than to provide money for warm homes, for kitchen and bathroom replacements and for tackling the increase in homelessness and the lack of community infrastructure? Even with 17·5% of homes in Fermanagh still unfit, nothing extra has been given to meet these sorts of needs. Go raibh maith agat.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member has made a number of points. There were too many points for me to cover in one answer, particularly if I am going to be fair to other Members who wish to ask questions.

The Department for Social Development has important responsibilities for a range of services which, as Ms Gildernew said, relate to the needs and circumstances of people in need in this community and more widely. Most social need is dealt with by the benefits system, which, while it falls within the remit of that Department, is not covered in the Executive’s discretionary spend through the departmental expenditure limit but instead through the social security budget, which is part of annually managed expenditure.

Additional money above the amount expected came through from house sales. It is not that money has come in through house sales, but that it is more money than was anticipated. It is right that such receipts, wherever they emerge, should come to the Executive for consideration and not fall to the Department where they arise. Not all Departments are in a position to generate or receive such receipts, not least the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Members ask us to show due priority and not adopt an approach that allows Departments — as Seamus Close said — to receive money which is then locked up in that Department, rather than made available for wider priorities. That is exactly why the Executive are adopting this approach. The Executive take decisions on the bids and pressures set against the priorities that they have agreed for themselves and that have been endorsed by the Assembly through the Programme for Government. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Economic Policy Unit, based on work with Departments, prepare recommendations on the bids that the Executive should do most to meet. The Executive then take decisions based on those recommendations and other reflections.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the additional money allocated to the Department of Education to assist the two inescapable bids concerning special needs and Classroom 2000. However, while I note the Minister’s recognition that Northern Ireland’s schools face major problems, the Department’s initial bid for £9·3 million to help to redress those difficulties in school budgets has not been met in whole or in part. That bid reflected the need to match the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s allocations for schools in England. Will the Minister assure the House that schools in Northern Ireland will not be treated less favourably than those in England and Wales and that this matter will be rectified in the next monitoring round?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept the Member’s welcome for the allocation, and I also accept that the Education Committee feels that more could be done in relation to school budget pressures. Members must remember the overall context. I remind Mr Kennedy that the Executive are not in a position to meet all the bids that they would like to meet, and certainly not on the scale that they would like. The bid in question centres on helping schools to meet the pressures on their budgets that arise due to increases in non-teaching costs. I recognise the difficult budgeting situation of schools, but I equally recognise that there is a difficult budgeting situation for a number of other services, not least those that have been emphasised by other Members. However, at this point I cannot anticipate, or speculate on, what areas are likely to emerge in the December monitoring round, beyond those that the Executive have already agreed as areas for consideration.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I welcome the Minister’s decision to adopt a more strategic approach and to prioritise spending in Departments. Does he agree that that approach is also a necessary prerequisite to ensuring that our representations to the Treasury on the Barnett formula are more credible and more likely to attract additional funds?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept Mr Dallat’s point. Unless we can show that we manage our expenditure strategically and that more of our spending is planning-led, we will not be able to put together the sort of case that people want us to put to the Treasury. Our case for more money — or our case for more scope in the use of money — will not make much of an impression on the Treasury if we are not seen to adopt a hard-headed and wholehearted approach to ensuring that our Budget plans meet the needs of the community.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his competent stewardship of his finance portfolio to date. I welcome his statement and commend him on his election as party leader at the weekend.

As an Irish Nationalist Member, I am concerned by paragraph 20 of the Minister’s statement, which states that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is receiving extra money to meet the costs associated with the Golden Jubilee celebrations. That is happening when money would be better spent on the Health Service.

How much money is being set aside for local celebrations of the fiftieth anniversary of the British Queen’s coronation? The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is becoming very partisan. Public money has been spent on marking the bicentenary of the Act of Union. I want to give the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Minister of Finance and Personnel early notice that 2003 will mark the bicentenary of the execution of Robert Emmet.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his compliments. I knew that there was a "but" coming; there had to be. That must be the longest time that Barry McElduff has gone without making a dig.

I want to put the matter into perspective. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure covers a range of activities, including events and programmes to mark various anniversaries. The Department supports numerous commemorative events, in different ways, and it is not the case that it has assisted only the Act of Union commemorations. The exact balance and spread of such programmes are for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to decide.

Northern Ireland will be expected to participate in events and programmes that are being planned elsewhere — not just here — and various agencies and entities will want to participate in those events. There is pressure on the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to meet that demand, and the Executive have now done so.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister’s statement was full of gloomy tidings that the largesse — the largesse of the Durkan years — may be ending. What does he know that we do not?

The Minister stressed that we should expect the unexpected with regard to increases in costs and that we might have to reduce allocations, despite the fact that, hitherto, bids have tended to exceed the ability to spend the money allocated. That reflects overbidding or inaccurate budgeting — or a bit of both.

Mr Durkan makes trenchant remarks about the need for hard choices and tough and unavoidable decisions but then reminds us that someone else will have to make them. With that job description, I hope he will indeed be able to find a successor before too long.

Following Mr Durkan’s elevation to the post of Deputy First Minister, does he expect that the Executive, in not shirking their responsibilities, will be able to reach consensual decisions on these tough and unavoidable hard choices that he assures us are coming up in the future?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive can have a consensual approach in ensuring that our priorities are translated more firmly into Budget plans. It will not be easy if people approach budget-setting on the basis of assuming automatically that Departments will receive incremental increases on all existing budget lines. We will be entering a spending review next year and will have to examine not only our case to the Treasury but our own plans and patterns. The needs and effectiveness evaluation work is part of that review, which has been commissioned on behalf of the Executive. I hope that the Executive will be able to look at future plans in the light of the outcome of that evaluation work.

I hope that the Assembly and its departmental Committees will help the Executive and will also challenge and press not only Departments but the Executive.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and recognise the merit of having better matching of Budget spending plans against Departments’ actual spending, so that fewer funds are being recycled out of monitoring rounds. However, money available for redistribution is always welcome, even though difficult choices have to be made about which bids should be considered.

Given that spending bids are always in excess of the public funds available, will the Minister advise what actions, if any, each Department is taking to generate extra resources? Finally, given that an extra £200,000 was allocated to the 2001 census exercise, and in view of the importance of the results in forward planning of public services — health, education and social housing in particular — when will they be published?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The indications always were that it would be 2003 before we would have the full range of information from the census. Partial information will be available before that.

As far as strategic priorities are concerned, we need to work together to make sure that they translate cogently into our budgetary arrangements. In the debate last week, I was encouraged by the focus on priorities. I hope that we are moving away from the bid-chasing approach to these issues. There is a growing recognition that we face hard choices and that an automatic assumption that all expenditure goes up should not be made. We need to have a more mature approach than the "Does my budget look big in this?" mentality that all Departments must receive increases just because another Department receives increases.

The needs and effectiveness evaluation follows through on the Programme for Government. Committees should be locked into work on public service agreements and service delivery agreements in relation to departmental operations and plans. That will help us to achieve what Joe Byrne has suggested. Similarly, when dealing with Executive programme funds, the Executive must ensure that decisions are less incidental and that they are compatible with the wholesale priorities that have been proclaimed in the Programme for Government.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Deputy First Minister of the Assembly and leader of his party.

First, regarding the job evaluation of library staff, I believe that it is untenable that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure should have to meet the costs of the evaluation exercise. The Department should not have to pick up the tab for something that occurred before devolution, which should have been paid for by the British Exchequer. Direct rule debt should not be a matter for the Assembly. It is a disgrace that the Assembly should have to pick up that tab when money is being siphoned off from an already declining pot. The Assembly is being held responsible for pre-devolution debt. What is its legal position in that respect? Members were informed that the Assembly would not address pre-devolution matters.

Secondly, given the surrender of significant sums from the Department for Employment and Learning — and the consequent reduction in student loan subsidies — to ease pressure on the Health Service, does the Minister agree that additional money should be directed towards alleviating student debt?

Finally, as one of the unknowing on the "Good Ship Lollipop", may I ask the Minister to give details of the significance of the peace dividend since devolution?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mary Nelis for her compliments, though she moved more quickly into the "buts" than did Mr McElduff.

First, I want to address her question about the peace dividend. In monitoring rounds, the Executive deal with those services that fall to the devolved Departments. The Executive have a fixed block, so in monitoring rounds the exigencies of security costs and similar pressures do not eat into the money that allows us room to manoeuvre.

Under direct rule, incidental security costs arising from difficult circumstances had to be met from the monitoring rounds. Security matters are now in a separate block, and the Executive are able to make choices without feeling the draught of extra security costs. That is what is meant by the relative peace dividend.

Secondly, regarding the question asked about the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the £10 million, those decisions and issues were dealt with by the Departments that are now devolved, albeit larger. It is not a decision that was imposed by the British Treasury or the Exchequer. Those were issues regarding services in Northern Ireland that had implications for future spending. It is as unrealistic to say that that is a liability stemming from a decision that was made before devolution as it is to say that we are not obliged to meet public spending commitments that were made before devolution.

That is a serious issue for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. If the obligation is not met, some people may take the view that when the Department was set up, it was "set up". The bid must be met or it will have an adverse effect on the Department’s work. The Executive are determined to ensure that the priorities that have been reflected and stated in the House are carried through.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him on another job well done. I am particularly pleased that £11·9 million has been earmarked to ease pressures within the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Despite what we might hear from some Committee members, we welcome that. Does the Minister agree that the reduction of that money from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s budget would have such an impact that it would impinge directly on areas such as leisure and sport? My understanding of medicine and health, little as it is, is that prevention is better than cure and that every pound spent on activities such as sport benefits the health budget.

Although I appreciate that work must be done with that money, will the Minister assure us that he will provide as much assistance as possible to enable the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to resolve those issues quickly?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member has welcomed the pending allocation of money for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure that I announced this morning. That allocation is beneficial because it not only offers that Department the basis from which to meet an outstanding liability but it protects the scope of the rest of the Department’s budget. I hope that the Committee will be able to work with the Department to ensure that its plans, and the work that it undertakes in a variety of fields, will fulfil the ambitions of the Committee’s Chairperson.

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

Although I appreciate that there are diverse demands on the Budget, will the Minister assure us that resources for health are a priority? The Health Service is in crisis. I acknowledge that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must make her case to the Executive, but does the Minister of Finance and Personnel agree that the case might be strengthened by an audit of health services? An audit would indicate more clearly what the needs are and where there is duplication and poor management. I am acutely aware of the many health needs, but without an audit it is difficult to get a clear picture of the whole service. After an audit, the Minister would have a very clear case, which would have to be addressed.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The current work on evaluating health needs is aimed at ensuring that we see all the issues to do with need, management, efficiency and effectiveness being dealt with together — as they must be. The Executive, the House and the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee need to know more fully what should be done on a range of difficult and complicated issues that affect the Health Service in many ways. That is the approach we are taking. The Executive are undertaking these evaluations precisely because we attach such importance to health services and because the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is as determined as anyone on this issue. We hope to proceed early next year with the benefit of those evaluations.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I appreciate that the Minister is aware of the state of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, and other Members have spoken about it. Certain aspects of the Health Service are slowly disintegrating. However, I welcome the Minister’s announcement of an extra £14·3 million for the service and in particular the £3·8 million to replace cardiac surgery equipment at the Royal Group of Hospitals and the two linear accelerators at Belvoir Park Hospital. We all understand the major problems there.

Many people in Northern Ireland have relatives waiting for the development of, or an announcement about, the proposed new cancer centre at Belfast City Hospital. Are there any plans to include initial funding for the regional cancer centre in future monitoring rounds?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Getting cancer services up to standard is a top priority for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is also a top priority for the Health Committee. That has been reflected in some of its recent deliberations. Work is urgently continuing to ensure that plans for the regional cancer centre are taken forward as quickly and competently as possible. The costs are not yet totally clear, but it will receive attention as soon as possible.

The issues involved are both immense and immensely important. In committing resources for future developments, the Executive must examine issues other than the monitoring rounds. Given everything that I have said about monitoring rounds and the health warning that I gave about them, I would not imply, for the sake of giving a positive response to Dr Hendron, that the question of cancer services will be answered through future monitoring rounds alone. The issue must be given a more strategic consideration. The Committee has put forward some ideas.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

North/South Ministerial Council: Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The sixth meeting of the North/ South Ministerial Council (NSMC) for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector took place on Friday 26 October 2001 at the Great Northern Hotel in Bundoran. Following nomination by Sir Reg Empey and Mr Mallon, Mr Dermot Nesbitt and I represented Northern Ireland. Mr Frank Fahey, Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, represented the Irish Government.

The meeting opened with updates from the vice- chairman of the board of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC), Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, and the chief executive of the Loughs Agency, Mr Derick Anderson.

Lord Cooke discussed the progress on the development of the Loughs Agency’s marine tourism strategy. The board decided that the agency’s role should be to facilitate and stimulate marine tourism through the development of recreation and leisure aspects of the fisheries of the catchments, rather than to provide direct funding. Research has shown that there is already adequate funding available for the development of marine tourism, from various sources, and it is not therefore necessary for the agency to provide additional funding. Work is progressing towards the delivery of that strategy.

Lord Cooke also updated the NSMC on progress made on filling posts on the agency’s proposed advisory forum. The agency has appointed consultants, who are currently recruiting members to the forum with a view to ensuring that it is fully representative. That work is progressing well.

Mr Anderson informed the NSMC that the agency hopes to have its equality scheme approved by the Equality Commission shortly. In anticipation of approval being granted, the agency has commenced a period of public consultation on the screening of its existing policies. That process will end on 21 December and includes three days of open consultation in Belfast, Newry and the agency’s Prehen headquarters. Mr Anderson further advised the NSMC that the agency’s new targeting social need draft action plan is also currently undergoing a public consultation.

Mr Anderson also informed the NSMC of the agency’s plans to review its entire staffing structure in the near future. That will be carried out by independent human resource consultants.

The chief executive also provided the Council with details of the agency’s day-to-day operations, including the positive contribution made by the introduction of the salmon carcass tagging scheme in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. There has been a huge reduction in illegal fishing, matched by a drop in the seizure of illegal equipment and in prosecutions. The Council received a presentation on the agency’s work in monitoring shellfish in Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough and the potential for future development of the resource. With good management, the loughs have the potential to support a vibrant shellfish industry, particularly in native and Pacific oysters and in mussels.

Following those updates the Council considered several papers. First, the Council approved the making of the Foyle Area and Carlingford Area (Licensing of Fishing Engines) Regulations 2001, which will come into operation on 1 January 2002. The Regulations provide for the introduction of a coarse angling licence in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Prior to devolution, coarse angling licences were available only in the Carlingford area.

The Regulations also provide for the harmonisation of licence fees throughout the Foyle and Carlingford areas. That is required as a result of the introduction of the euro in the Moville and Louth areas. Previously, the cost of a licence has been that of the face value of the licence in the currency of the jurisdiction in which the purchase was made. Licences therefore cost less in the South in real terms because of the exchange rate between the currencies of the two jurisdictions. The regulations provide for the cost of a licence to be similar in both jurisdictions from 1 January 2002.

The Council also considered the agency’s proposals for fitting out its interpretive centre. Expenditure of £370,000 was approved, which will be met from the agency’s existing approved funding for 2001 and 2002. That expenditure will enable the agency to complete its interpretive centre using interactive audio-visual displays, and it will provide it with an important facility for educating people on the value of the fisheries resources of the Foyle and Carlingford areas.

A presentation was made to the Council on the agency’s proposals to engage in a two-year genetic study of salmon populations of the Foyle system in association with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Queen’s University of Belfast and the Marine Institute, Dublin. The study will provide the agency with the management information necessary to ensure the future sustainability of salmon stocks in the Foyle system.

The Council was also updated on the position regarding the making of legislation to enhance the functions of the Loughs Agency of FCILC in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. Officials from my Department and the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources continue to work together to progress that legislation, and I hope to be in a position to introduce a Bill to the Assembly early next year, subject to parallel progress being made in the South.

Ministers were also updated on progress in transferring the functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the FCILC. The Council learnt that a series of meetings had been held involving the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the UK Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to address the considerable legislative, corporate and financial complexities inherent in transferring the functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the FCILC. The challenge for the parties concerned is to reconcile the legal responsibilities and traditional lines of accountability to the UK Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the role envisaged for the North/South Ministerial Council under the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Order 1999. Discussions at official level, with a view to resolving those issues, are ongoing among the parties concerned.

The Council discussed the difficulties arising from an aquaculture site in Carlingford Lough licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. Mr Fahey agreed to pursue the matter with the Office of the Attorney General as a matter of priority.

The Council also agreed that better co-operation among all operators in Carlingford Lough should be encouraged through a CLAMS-style initiative. CLAMS is an acronym for co-ordinated local aquaculture management system. This is a system designed to develop an aquaculture management plan for a bay or a lough with the involvement of all interested parties. CLAMS is separate from licensing issues.

Finally, the Council agreed to meet again in February 2002, and it approved the issue of a joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Assembly Library.

I am making this statement on behalf of Mr Nesbitt and myself.

John (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement and congratulate her on her election as deputy leader of the SDLP.

As the Minister will know, the Foyle Fisheries Commission was somewhat naughty and has not produced annual reports for three years. When will we get those overdue reports? Can the Minister assure us that the new Loughs Agency will not follow the same bad practice and that we will receive its annual reports annually? I understand that the 2000 annual report is still outstanding; we are almost at the end of 2001.

My second question relates to fishing licences. As the Minister pointed out, there are two different currencies on the island — sterling and the punt. The punt is pegged to the euro, and the euro will replace the punt on 1 January. Why is it necessary to have new Regulations for the price of licences when the punt is already pegged to the euro? Can the Minister confirm that the price of licences in Northern Ireland will be in sterling, while in the Republic of Ireland it will be in euros? Does she acknowledge that the euro and the sterling price of licences will continue to float and change throughout the year, as did the prices in sterling and punts?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his congratulatory remarks and his questions. At its meeting in June the Council approved the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission’s first annual report, which covered the period from its foundation in December 1999 to the end of December 2000. The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is in the process of finalising its accounts for that period, and, following the completion of the audit of those accounts, the annual report and accounts will be published jointly. I look forward to the completion of the accounts as soon as the audit is carried out. I hope that, as the Member stated, the reports will be published annually. I have no reason to believe that that will not happen.

The decision to charge licence fees in punts and in euros was made to ensure harmonisation, so that licences would cost the same on both sides of the border.

John (UUP, Strangford)

How is that the case?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The value of the punt is indexed to the euro. If, for example, a licence cost £1 sterling, and that was the equivalent of 60 euros, the price in euros would have to be increased to create an equal cost.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement and congratulate her on being elevated to the post of deputy leader. What action has the Loughs Agency taken to counteract poaching in its area?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

With regard to the previous question, I would have thought that Lord Kilclooney would have been interested in harmony and harmonisation.

I thank Mrs Courtney for her remarks about my recent appointment and for her question. The Loughs Agency’s predecessor, the Foyle Fisheries Commission, had an effective track record in dealing with poaching in the Foyle area, and the agency’s commitment to tackling all illegal fishing activity in its areas continues.

So far this season, the agency has seized over 224 illegal nets, 24 boats and a number of salmon in the Foyle area. However, the agency’s enforcement activities were curtailed for a time, due to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, when there was a need to minimise the crossing of agricultural land by the agency’s officers. The introduction of carcass tagging for salmon has had a major — and beneficial — impact on illegal fishing.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

In her statement, the Minister referred to a significant drop in illegal fishing. How many people have been caught; how many court cases are pending; and when will the cases come to court? Will there be a restriction on the number of salmon that people are allowed to catch in the Foyle and Carlingford areas? How will the system work — will people be allowed to catch one salmon per day or one salmon per licence, for example?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I do not have the details that the Member requested, but I can provide the figures in writing. In a sense, carcass tagging sets limits for the number of salmon that are caught, because everything must now be documented and accounted for.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister on her rise to deputy leader of the SDLP at the weekend. I welcome the progress of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Minister said that her officials are continuing to process legislation. At present, people from all over Europe can come here and plunder native oyster and wild mussel along sections of Carlingford Lough. When will the enabling legislation be brought before the Assembly? Why is there such an inexcusable delay in the process? It will be nearly a year before legislation will be brought before the Assembly, and those areas will be at risk during that time.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank Mr McHugh for his remarks about my appointment.

I understand his frustration at the delay with the legislation. Progress is being made with drafting, and I intend to introduce the Bill to the Assembly as soon as possible. I am disappointed by the delay, but it is due to two factors that are outside the control of my Department. My officials are fully committed to processing the Bill as soon as possible. However, progress here is subject to parallel progress being made in the South. Also, the people who draft the legislation were unavailable for some time, and this slowed the process.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Bríd Rodgers on her appointment to the deputy leadership of the SDLP. I am very pleased to see this for a number of reasons, and it is good to see a strong woman in the leadership of a party in Northern Ireland.

Will the Minister elaborate on the difficulty that had to be referred to the Attorney General, in relation to Carlingford Lough and the agriculture site? The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety recently passed a Statutory Rule on food poisoning and shellfish. We were greatly concerned by the enormous outbreak of gastro-enteritis and other severe illnesses caused by shellfish in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister reassure us that the situation is not related to Carlingford Lough? In other words, were the shellfish in Carlingford Lough and other places unaffected? The shellfish came from the waters of Northern Ireland, so it would be good to be given some reassurance.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank Ms McWilliams for her initial remarks.

The main problems with aquaculture licensing in Carlingford Lough relate to the resolution of a number of policy issues to the satisfaction of legal advisers in both jurisdictions and to the drawing up of a comprehensive plan for a regulatory regime by the Loughs Agency.

The problems that Ms McWilliams referred to relate to a dispute over fishing rights in a mid-section of Carlingford Lough. At the moment, Northern Ireland fishermen are denied the right to fish in that section. The Minister of the Marine and Natural Resources, Mr Fahey, has assured me that officials will examine the issue seriously and are having discussions to resolve the matter.

There was a restriction on shellfishing for a time because of the presence of a poisonous substance. I am pleased to say that that restriction has now been lifted. The Food Standards Agency made that decision and has given us the all-clear. I assure the Member that shellfish are continually monitored. However, health matters are dealt with by the Food Standards Agency and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware that there are considerable opportunities to develop marine tourism on an all-Ireland basis. Can she tell me what progress the Loughs Agency has made on developing marine tourism in its areas?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Work to develop the agency’s marine tourism strategy is ongoing. The Foyle, Carlingford & Irish Lights Commission’s board has decided that the agency’s role should be to facilitate and stimulate marine tourism through the development of recreation and leisure aspects of the fisheries in the catchment areas rather than provide direct funding for tourism. Research has shown that adequate direct funding is already available for the development of marine tourism through various sources. The agency therefore intends to focus on areas such as promoting coarse angling opportunities and facilities to help marine tourism. It aims to ensure that stocks of fish, particularly unusual fish that attract tourists, are replenished — in other words, providing the amenity to attract tourists.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister state the criteria for shellfish licensing and harvesting in the Carlingford Lough area? What are the safeguards against illegal harvesting of shellfish in the Carlingford and Foyle areas that would hinder the future development of shellfish resources?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The Carlingford area is regulated by two Departments under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, and the criteria for shellfish licensing are the same for all operations. I cannot give any further details at this stage, but if I receive more details, I will pass them on to the Member.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I too congratulate the Minister on her elevation to high office. I know she is very capable of holding such a position — we come from the same constituency.

I am glad that a study of the salmon population in the Foyle system is taking place. Over several years fish numbers have declined. Is that still the case for the salmon population in the Foyle, or is it increasing?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank Mr Savage for his congratulations.

The study will provide management information, which is necessary to ensure the effective management of salmon in the Foyle area and to enable the continued sustainability of the stock. It is an important study, and I am happy to support it.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

What proposals does the agency have to assist the promotion and development of coarse angling in the Carlingford Lough area?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The agency has commenced a survey of the coarse fisheries in the Carlingford area, initially concentrating on the Newry Canal. Initial results indicate that there is a healthy population of pike. That work is ongoing. The agency has also made regulations for a coarse angling licence to become available in the area in January 2002.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the investigation into the Foyle salmon stocks. Does the Minister agree that wild salmon stock levels in Northern Ireland are in a precarious state and that we need to gather as much information as possible? Since the Foyle is the premier salmon river in Northern Ireland, is she convinced that this study will give us a benchmark to use when deciding how best to manage other rivers and waterways in Northern Ireland?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

As far as I am aware, the overall stock levels are good. We have had some good years and some bad years. However, the electronic counters are in place now, and the logbooks, particularly from the anglers, will provide another valuable source of information for the agency in order to help manage stocks. We will be able to use the study in the Foyle as a benchmark.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I congratulate Ms Rodgers on her elevation.

Following her excursion into West Tyrone, she will be well aware of the complexities of the area and how closely it is associated with the Foyle. With regard to the remarks about the qualities of the Foyle, we must remember that we are talking about the Foyle basin, which involves more rivers than the Foyle.

The statement refers to the progress in the development of the Loughs Agency’s marine tourism strategy. What stage is that development at, and what other agencies are involved, both statutory and other? Research has shown that there is adequate funding available for the development of a marine tourism strategy. If that is the case, could it be placed in the Library for the information of Members?

Work is progressing toward the delivery of this strategy. The Minister will surely agree that this will involve more agencies than just the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission? I want to know how other agencies are being involved in the development of the overall strategy.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank Mr Hussey for his initial remarks. A draft strategy is being prepared and will be cleared by the board. At this stage, therefore, I cannot comment on it in full. I will give a written answer to the Member when I have the information available to me.

As I have already said, as part of our discussions on the report that I am now presenting, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission made it clear that it will be concentrating on providing the marine amenity. It will be making sure that the rivers are stocked with fish and that the fish stocks are sustainable. Other agencies and perhaps Departments will be involved. The strategy is being prepared and must be cleared by the board.

Committee Business

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Does anyone wish to speak?

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you changed the Order Paper? According to our Order Paper, that is the second motion on the change of Committee membership.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The Clerk has read the wrong motion. I am so sorry.

Motion made:

That Mr Gregory Campbell MP should replace Mr Roger Hutchinson on the Committee for Employment and Learning.— [Mr Paisley Jnr.]

Question put.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I point out to you that a number of Members want to speak on this motion. You may be aware of that, but I am concerned that you have not called any of them to speak.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have moved to a vote, can the business be concluded please?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have no —. There is one Member who wishes to speak.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I want to say at the outset that the debate in no way reflects upon Mr Roger Hutchinson. It is simply a point of procedure that we are concerned about here.

I chaired the group of smaller parties when allocations were being made to Committees. At that time a number of smaller parties chose not to be represented on them, including the parties led by Mr Cedric Wilson and Mr Bob McCartney. There were other smaller parties led by Denis Watson and David Ervine, the Alliance Party, now David Ford’s party, and myself. It took us some considerable time to ensure that all those parties were represented on the Committees. We then put names forward, and Mr Roger Hutchinson was represented by me when I did that.

At that time he was an independent. We ensured that he got the seats on the Committees that he chose.

We are concerned that the seats that were allocated then are now to be taken from the group known in this Assembly as "the smaller parties"; that is, those parties outside the Executive. If this motion were to go through, then the group of smaller parties would have lost a seat, and our numbers would be reduced from 18 to 17. I have consulted with a number of smaller parties this morning, all of which have issues with this. I emphasise that this is not about Mr Roger Hutchinson; it is about the position. We want to put on record our concern that if this motion were to go through, the smaller parties, as a group, would be reduced. For that reason, we oppose the motion.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Three Members have indicated a wish to speak. I will call all three, and then ask Mr Paisley to wind up.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I support Ms McWilliams in her opposition to this motion.

Normally, changes of membership on Committees are simply internal housekeeping arrangements for the parties involved. Unfortunately this is more complex. It does not involve any opposition to Mr Hutchinson or Mr Morrow. It is an issue of the proper representation of the smaller parties in the House. Therefore the SDLP will be opposing this motion. We do so on a without prejudice basis. In other words, although we are opposing this motion today, we are only opposing it only until the Business Committee can examine the issue of the representation of smaller parties in the House. Although we oppose this motion today, if it were to be relaid in two weeks’ time when the Business Committee has looked at the issue, it might well be that we would support it. However, for the time being we are opposing the motion.

We are concerned that smaller parties should have proper representation. The decision by Mr Roger Hutchinson to accept the DUP Whip has caused a change in the House, and that has to be addressed. It will also be helpful where there are other numerical changes in parties in the future. The issue today will help to resolve and clarify those issues in future. I refer to Standing Order 47(6), which says:

"The Business Committee shall review the representation of the different political parties as soon as may be following any numerical changes to party memberships in the Assembly."

I hope that if this motion were to be defeated, the Business Committee would subsequently examine and review the representation of the different political parties. We are not opposed to this motion per se, or to its merits; we are opposed to it as a procedural device to have the whole issue of the smaller parties, and the change of representation, looked at in depth.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i gcoinne an rúin seo, cé go bhfuil leisce ar Shinn Féin sin a dhéanamh.

I speak against the motion on behalf of Sinn Féin, even though we are reluctant to speak against it. As Alban Maginness said, in the normal course of events such a motion would be merely a matter of a party’s internal procedure and arrangements. We do not wish to impede any party from nominating individuals to represent that party, according to the d’Hondt principles. However, as Ms McWilliams has pointed out, if the motion were to be accepted that would create an imbalance in the representation of smaller parties. That is not in line with the d’Hondt principles. The matter has arisen because of the party re-designation of an individual Member. For those reasons, we oppose the motion.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Members from other parties protest that their comments are not personal, but they are very personal. They are directed against Mr Roger Hutchinson because he changed his party Whip. That is very clear. I did not hear a substantive argument from any Members who spoke. What I did hear was their desire to hear themselves speak, rather than present any particular argument.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you called for a vote. I still wish to have your ruling on whether the vote was passed or not passed. You had gone into a voting situation, and only then did you allow a debate to commence. If ever there was a breach of Standing Orders, or a change in the running order of the House, it took place at that point. Mr Deputy Speaker, you should reflect on that.

Someone who shares the same views and holds the same position would replace Mr Roger Hutchinson. He would not be replaced by someone from a different party, or by someone who would express a different view. Mr Alban Maginness appeared to be speaking on the second motion, which indicates that he was rather confused. Mr Roger Hutchinson will be replacing another DUP Member. That should not cause Mr Maginness any concern whatsoever. Those positions on the Committee for Finance and Personnel are held by the DUP, as opposed to positions held by an independent Member of the House or by smaller parties.

In all other votes concerning membership of Committees, the House has been happy to allow parties to allocate their own Members to those Committees.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not give way.

We should continue to allow parties to allocate their own Members to Committees.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The suggestion was made that this might go to the Business Committee. Would you prefer that I put the Question?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

You did put the Question, Mr Deputy Speaker, and a voice vote was taken. I cannot understand — [Interruption]. I am on my feet.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Let us hear what Mr Paisley Jnr has to say.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Please sit down. I will hear what Mr Paisley Jnr has to say.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You had already called for a vote, and a voice vote had taken place. Hansard will show that you were in the middle of winding up a voting situation. We then moved straight into a debate. There may have been an oversight in allowing Members to speak in that debate, but the fact of the matter is that there was a vote in the House. To move to a debate after a vote has been taken, or after 75% of a vote has been taken, is something that should be reflected on. We are turning procedure on its head if we take a vote and then allow a debate to take place after that.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thought that I was entitled to make a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

You used the first point.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I used it twice.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am in the Chair in this Chamber.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK. We shall not argue over it. My point is that you accepted that the wrong motion was read out the first time, and there was no vote, because the wrong motion had been read out. That is why I asked to make a point of order. There was no vote because the wrong motion was read out. You accepted that; the correct motion was read out, and the debate was started. No vote took place.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

So the House is prepared to wipe out all the activity of the past 20 minutes?

Question put and negatived.

Assembly: Finance and Personnel Committee

Assembly: Regional Development Committee

Assembly: Committee on Procedures

First Report of the Inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the Committee for Social Development ‘First Report of the Inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland’ (2/01R).

As Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, I am pleased to bring the report to the Assembly’s attention. Members will agree that to have somewhere decent to live is one of the most basic human rights in society. We must uphold and respect that right. As elected representatives, we cannot and should not simply pay lip service to it. We must ensure that there continues to be an adequate supply of social housing.

I shall begin by explaining why the Committee felt it necessary to conduct the inquiry. I shall then outline how the Committee went about its work, before turning to the main body of the report and its recommendations.

Members will know that the present and former Ministers for Social Development have long signalled their intentions to bring a housing Bill before the Assembly. Indeed, a housing Bill was in the legislative programme for the previous Assembly session of 2000-01, but it was not brought forward.

As far back as September 2000 the Committee for Social Development was told by the former Minister and his officials that the legislative proposals would be based on a comprehensive policy review which was carried out in 1996. The Committee was led to understand that the Minister would bring forward legislative provisions to cover such matters as travellers’ sites, houses in multiple occupation, regulation of the private rented sector, appointments to the board of the Housing Executive, the private sector renewal grant scheme, rights of housing association tenants, qualifying shorthold tenancies, the sale of housing association land portfolio, housing association rents, the rights of Housing Executive tenants, homelessness, the house allocation scheme, antisocial behaviour, large-scale voluntary transfer, land acquisition for amenity purposes, emergency grants and the home insulation grant scheme.

No one could disagree that the list was impressive, but the Committee wondered if the Department was up to the challenge or if it had perhaps been a little too ambitious. With no sign of the Bill by January 2001, the Committee took the initiative and conducted an inquiry on the understanding that Members would get a deeper insight into the complexities of housing issues and a broader understanding of the views of interested groups and that there would be a sound basis on which to carry out the Committee Stage of the Bill if and when it did arrive.

The Committee decided on a three-phase approach, concentrating on six main issues. Members agreed that private sector renewal, houses in multiple occupation, regulation of the private rented sector, large-scale voluntary transfer, the role of the Housing Executive and the right to buy for housing association tenants should form the basis of its first report. There will be two further reports on antisocial behaviour in public sector housing estates and homelessness.

The report before Members is a product of the combined efforts of the Committee, its special adviser Paddy Gray of the University of Ulster and the Committee staff, all of whom stuck to the task despite interruptions by the local and general elections and an enforced but very welcome summer break. Our sessions were conducted professionally but with a wry good humour and a sense that we were dealing with matters which affect people who rely on us as politicians to reach the best decisions to ensure that they can enjoy a decent, affordable and safe standard of housing.

However, that does not tell the whole story. For a long time housing has been an emotive and highly politicised issue in Northern Ireland. Everyone has a view on it. I want it put it on record that the Committee was unanimous in its praise of the work of the Housing Executive since its establishment in 1971. The Housing Executive has been a dominant force in Northern Ireland over the last 30 years, and it is right that its achievements during that unstable period should be celebrated. However, it would be the first to recognise the need to consider change.

One question before the Committee was whether it is right to change for change’s sake or because things have changed elsewhere. The Committee decided to make a comparative analysis with other regions as well as to examine what was happening here. We looked at the direction taken recently by housing in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. We also consulted widely. Written submissions and oral evidence reinforced the need to learn from others without necessarily following in their footsteps. For that reason the Committee is grateful to everyone who took time to make submissions. Members found the comments received extremely helpful and felt it right to recognise the importance of that evidence by publishing it as part of the report.

Before I turn to our recommendations, I want to make it clear that the views expressed are those of the whole Committee and based on the premise that there should be local solutions to local problems.

I also want to stress that the report does not pretend to offer definitive answers to the housing problems or the difficulties that we face. It is more about stimulating debate and offering potential ideas, some of which will need further investigation. For that reason, the Committee will pay a great deal of attention to reactions to the report. The views expressed will further inform and influence the Committee when it scrutinises the housing Bill.

It is right, at this stage, to say that the Committee is encouraged by the fact that the Minister for Social Development has decided that it would be unwise to proceed solely on the basis of a policy review that is more than five years old. His intention to consult on the proposed housing Bill before it is brought to the Assembly is welcome. I hope that, later in the debate, he will tell the House how he proposes to go about that task.

Section 1 of the report lists the Committee’s four principal recommendations. The first relates to the renewal of private sector housing, which is dealt with in greater detail in section 4. Essentially, the Committee favours the introduction of a largely discretionary grant scheme to allow for finer targeting to help people who live in poor housing conditions. The Committee also lists further ideas that might merit consideration, and other Members may want to comment on them.

The second recommendation focuses on the regulation of the private rented sector and houses of multiple occupation. An estimated 30,000 people live in houses of multiple occupation in Northern Ireland. Most of those properties are associated with student use and are located in close proximity to the main centres of third-level education in Belfast, Londonderry, Portrush and Portstewart. They fulfil a vital role in the housing market by offering affordable, flexible accommodation. It is the Committee’s view that that sector should be managed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and that a licensing scheme should be introduced and operated by it. The Committee favours a mandatory licensing scheme but accepts that a voluntary arrangement should proceed as soon as possible.

The Committee also welcomes the review of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. Section 5 of the report includes further suggestions about how regulation of the private rented sector may operate in practice.

The Committee’s third recommendation concerns the right of housing association tenants to buy their homes. It believes that the statutory right to buy should be extended to include housing association tenants. It is strongly in favour of a review of the scheme and welcomes the action already undertaken by the Housing Executive. Section 6 of the report highlights the importance of a fair scheme and discusses some ground rules that might apply.

The fourth and main recommendation addresses what many regard to be the biggest housing question facing Northern Ireland. I have already made reference to the future role of the Housing Executive and some of the functions that it may carry out. What does the future hold for it? A large-scale voluntary transfer, and some might say the disposal, of the public sector housing stock to an existing or newly registered social landlord would bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Is that what we need or want? The Minister for Social Development indicated that large- scale voluntary transfer, and by implication the future of the Housing Executive, is on the menu for the housing Bill. The Committee welcomes that.

Decisions must be taken about the role that the Housing Executive should have, but do we need to pursue a policy of large-scale voluntary transfer? The Committee thinks not. It is the Committee’s view that there should be a single, strong, strategic housing authority which builds on the successes of the past 30 years, an authority that invested public money wisely and is held in high regard in Europe for its unprecedented achievements. It should be allowed to secure that investment so that it is not lost to Northern Ireland and especially to those who rely on social housing for the well-being of their families. It should be able to rely on future funding to cement the investment that was made in the past.

The Committee thinks that the forthcoming housing Bill must be clear about the future role of the Housing Executive. It must not be ignored, overlooked, or put on the long finger. The Bill represents the opportunity to plot a way forward for social housing provision for this and future generations.

Like any politician, I will not pass on the opportunity to stray from the issue at hand. I stray slightly, but the matter is relevant to the subject before us. Any homeowner knows about the value of regular maintenance and the need for regular investment. We do not need to be reminded that years of neglect and underinvestment in public transport have resulted in the need for a massive injection of public sector funding. It would be to our eternal shame, if we were to allow our social housing stock to go the same way. For that reason, I cannot lose the opportunity to remind Ministers from all parties that they must be clear about the continuing need for funding of our social housing stock. I commend the report to the Assembly and look forward to contributions from other Members.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Many Members wish to speak in the debate, so the time for presentations will be restricted to five minutes.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Chairperson of the Social Development Committee has clearly outlined the work that it undertook. Housing is one of those issues with a dynamic of its own — it changes, and in some cases it changes rapidly. In order to manage the issue and provide the best-quality housing, procedures and policies must be reviewed constantly and changed. With that in mind, the Committee examined all the issues involved and gathered information from different areas of experience.

There was debate about the merits of mandatory, as opposed to discretionary, grants. Many people were fearful that, by opting for discretionary grants, the mandatory quality in the grants system would be lost and that discretionary grants might mean discretionary funding for grants. That caused the Committee concern, but there was a wealth of evidence as to the value of the Housing Executive being given the freedom to target the stubborn areas that have continually resisted reform in the housing market, such as rural housing and housing for the elderly and the disabled. Those areas must be targeted, and discretionary grants give the Executive more freedom and flexibility to do that. That kind of argument eventually swayed the Committee to unanimously support this dramatic change.

No one on the Committee had any doubt that allowing for the right to buy was the right thing to do. More than anything, the private market needs a regulatory system — a licensing system that will allow the Housing Executive to regulate directly. The Committee made that recommendation very clear. The Chairperson also referred to the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That order has been around for a long time, and it has become difficult to operate. There is a real need to review that Order, and I am glad that the Committee unanimously supported that suggestion in the report. The right to buy was supported by everyone, and the Committee had no difficulty agreeing on that issue.

I reserve my last few comments for the biggest and most important issue of all — large-scale voluntary transfer. Since the housing review began five years ago, in 1996, there has been uncertainty about where certain roles in public and social housing would fall. The review recommended that the Housing Executive should become the strategic authority that would regulate all housing. That provision was included in the 1998 Bill, which Lord Dubs put on the shelf, pending deliberation in the Assembly. We still await that Bill.

That recommendation was put forward to allow housing associations to maximise their funding arrangements by bringing in private money to help subsidise the housing new build. However, that creates a problem. If the Housing Executive has no statutory power to operate as a strategic authority, how can the housing association issue be managed?

That matter can no longer be avoided. It is a major disappointment to myself and others that the proposed contents of the new Bill contain no reference to that area. Once again it has been left aside. The Minister and the Department must grasp this nettle courageously and decide the future of the Housing Executive, its relationship with the housing associations and put it into a sensible strategic framework that we can work with to provide better housing for everyone. We can no longer dodge that issue. The longer we wait, the worse the situation will become.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

I would like to begin by welcoming this debate today, and I would also like to pay tribute to the staff of the Committee for Social Development for the many hours of work which went into producing this report. It is also important that we recognise the contribution that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has made to housing since its establishment in 1971, particularly since this contribution was played out against a unique backdrop of 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Housing policy must be relative to the people and to the locality in its targeting, and it must be responsive to local needs, aiming at all times to help those who are most in need. Good housing provided well is crucial and should be a fundamental objective. A good home is a basic human right, and no one in the twenty-first century should have to live in sub-standard housing. Unfortunately, this is a reality for many people. Statistics indicate that there are around 44,000 unfit properties in Northern Ireland, 14,000 properties without central heating and 10,000 in urgent need of major repairs and improvements. The main aim, therefore, when drafting housing policy should be to target those who are socially excluded and the most vulnerable in our society. This objective must not get lost in amongst pointless red tape and bureaucracy.

The Housing Executive must be aware that change needs to happen from within the organisation itself, and this is where the role of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive comes into question. There is a potential conflict of interest in that the Housing Executive plays the role of both provider and regulator, which is effectively a gamekeeper and poacher scenario. How can the Housing Executive remain objective and unbiased? This is an area which will require in-depth examination in order to bring about a resolution.

I would like to turn my attention to the right-to-buy scheme which has successfully supported homeownership in that it has provided the opportunity for thousands of families to enter the housing market and become homeowners who otherwise would not have had the resources to contemplate ever owning their own home. There is no doubt that the scheme has been highly successful, but it must not be allowed to spiral out of control. The Housing Executive must take into account that there will be always be those who cannot afford to enter the housing market and therefore must seek to strike a balance between the housing stock which it is intending to sell off and the building of social housing.

In effect, the Housing Executive must ensure that it has examined the supply-and-demand chain. Current levels have indicated that there are less than 2,000 new social housing units being built by housing associations each year, whilst there is an annual loss of over 4,000 Housing Executive properties each year. It is therefore obvious that supply is falling short of demand, and urgent changes need to be made in order to accommodate the demand for social housing. The Housing Executive and the associations must have the ability to cope with rising housing need, and demand for social housing must never be found wanting.

I would like to conclude by stating that the future housing policy in Northern Ireland must be reflective of the particular features of the Northern Ireland housing scene and must be designed to consider the needs of the local population.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an tuairisc. I note and welcome the report, and I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development that the right to shelter, and to affordable, quality accommodation, is a basic, inalienable right. I would support the establishment of a constitutional right to proper housing for all. In the pyramid of needs — food, accommodation and heating — accommodation is central.

There is a need for a more focused housing strategy to deal with the many housing problems that afflict various communities throughout Ireland, North and South. I feel strongly about the lack of protection for the private rented sector. While private homeownership is the most common form of housing provision, a significant section of the population lives in private rented accommodation. More protection under the law must be offered to tenants in such circumstances — quality of accommodation, length of leases and rent increases.

As a rural-based Assembly Member, I am conscious of the need to address high levels of unfit rural housing, not least those homes in isolated rural areas that are not connected to public water mains. That is an important issue. In relation to waiting lists for Housing Executive homes, there should be targets in place to supply suitable accommodation within a maximum of two years, for 70% of applicants. I am also aware of the backlog of repairs that the Housing Executive is trying to address.

I support the development of the right-to-buy principle, and I join with other Members in acknowledging the continuing efforts by the Housing Executive to consult tenants on issues that affect them. In the western area, the Omagh-based officials of the Housing Executive do great work in seeking the views of tenants and homeowners. Strides are being made towards greater tenant empowerment and involvement, and that can only be a positive measure to secure greater participation of residents in estate strategy and management.

I am also conscious of special needs groups, such as travellers, people with disabilities, refugees, asylum seekers, women at risk, the elderly, the homeless and students. They all need, and have a right to, suitably tailored housing provision. The notion of having a housing ombudsman to protect the rights of homeowners has also been mentioned. That would ensure, for example, that hidden costs of auctioneers’ and solicitors’ fees are monitored. The report is a significant piece of work that will contribute to the wider housing debate.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the report because it gives the Assembly the opportunity to highlight many of the problems facing the people of Northern Ireland in relation to good-quality housing.

First, the report simply confirms what many of us already know: too much of our housing stock is still unfit. Throughout Northern Ireland 7·3% of houses are unfit, with Fermanagh, in particular, suffering badly. Fermanagh has an unfit rate of 17·5%, Cookstown has an unfit rate of 13%, and Down has an unfit rate of 10·6%. That is unacceptable.

It is no wonder that the report recommends that discretionary grant aid should be made available to ensure the promotion of high standards and that it should be targeted on an area basis.

Of course, the report does not comment on the unfitness of certain dwellings and neighbourhoods — unfitness brought on by sectarian graffiti, kerbstone painting, flying of paramilitary flags and the use of illegal and territorial symbols. Many people have to live with those trappings, and intimidation seems to be the norm. Complaints often bring on retaliatory action.

The Housing Executive, the Department for Social Development and the Assembly must do more to remove the blight that affects far too many homes and people. It is disappointing that the report makes no mention of that. I hope that that omission will not recur in the subsequent reports on antisocial behaviour and homelessness that the Chairman mentioned earlier.

The report highlights the poor provision of housing for students. There are 13,000 students in rented accommodation in Northern Ireland. However, under an anomaly in the law their residences are not considered to be houses in multiple occupancy, and they do not have the minimum protection currently provided under the law.

I am not alone in my concerns regarding the provision of stock for the rental sector. I fear that we are doing more than selling off the family silver. Two hundred and fourteen housing association dwellings and 91,000 Housing Executive homes have been sold. While we all welcome the growth of homeownership, we must also recognise that not all members of society want, or are able, to buy.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Are you against people owning their own homes?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Not at all. Listen to what I am saying.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member should address the Chair.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The man does not understand what has been said. Nearly 30% of dwellings are rented. The selling of stock to tenants has led to a decline in stock and in the standard of the housing held in stock, and we must ensure that no section of the population is discriminated against over Housing Executive sales.

There is still a need for social housing in almost every area for local people. Good, warm, affordable housing must be made available to those who need it. It is our responsibility to help those in our society who need it. We must help to facilitate that kind of housing and tackle homelessness. I am not yet convinced that the report goes far enough in recognising that need, but I am sure that it will start to tackle some of our housing problems sooner rather than later.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

It would appear from listening to Mr McCarthy that he does not realise that the key reason for the Housing Executive’s existence is social housing. If we do not recognise that, or try to confuse the issue by making it sound as though the Housing Executive is related to middle- and upper-class people, then we completely misunderstand the situation — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The Housing Executive is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary. However, it is hard to celebrate when rain is coming through ceilings, or there is an outside toilet and no bath, or if one is homeless and on a waiting list, or an older person waiting for adaptations, or there is inadequate heating or none at all. Mr McCarthy should concentrate on those things.

Let me talk about what that brilliant thing, the housing association, has done for us. The Government, in their wisdom, took the responsibility for social housing away from the Housing Executive, possibly because they had to listen to speeches such as Mr McCarthy’s. However, 1,500 houses were allocated.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry for interrupting the Member’s train of thought. Is it in order for a Member to stand up and make a contribution in the House and then, when the next Member gets up, to show him the error of his ways, to scuttle for the door? Should a Member not be required to stay for the next Member’s speech?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not a point of order.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an attack to be made on my Colleague who is now belatedly going to a council meeting?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

These are not points of order.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I hope that I will be getting a little credited time for that interlude.

The social side of housing is of key importance, and if we do not concentrate on that we will not fulfil our obligation. The Housing Executive has built 90,000 houses in the past 22 years. It was the first housing body in the United Kingdom to take the initiative to sell houses through the right-to-buy scheme, which has produced around £1,000 million for Northern Ireland, chiefly in housing.

However, a few years ago the Minister at the time decided not to bother with the Housing Executive, saying that it was only a local authority and that the funds from housing should be absorbed by Government and given back drip by drip to well-behaving local authorities. That was wrong for Northern Ireland. To repeat what I said earlier: 370 houses that should have been built last year by housing associations were not built, and that additional 370 must come from this year’s budget. That will not be achieved.

I will suggest a couple of initiatives that might be comparable to the initiative that Northern Ireland took when the right-to-buy scheme came on the stocks at the beginning of the Thatcher reign. We must think laterally. For example, I want to talk about deteriorating housing conditions in the private sector. Although I have emphasised the need in the social sector, we must not forget that many in the private sector are not well off; many are far worse off than those in the social sector. They live in houses that they cannot afford to repair, and they wait a long time for rehabilitation schemes. However, building societies and banks are now making available, at reasonable rates, advances on the residual value of houses that go on the market, especially after someone has died. They are prepared to put money into putting those houses into good condition.

Many people in the private sector paid off their mortgages years ago, and many are unaware that they have an asset that can be used for repairing their houses and putting them into good shape. Building societies and banks offer this to people whose houses are quite valuable. However, I think that situation could be improved.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member’s time is up.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

There was a lot of disturbance during my speech.

The Housing Executive goes in for housing action areas. It would be possible to encourage banks and building societies to sponsor them to enable people living in such areas to have better houses.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member’s time is up.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

At the end of that there was a relationship between the Deputy Speakers. They went over the time.

I agree with the Chairperson’s opening remarks in complimenting the role of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

The report outlines a number of points. It shows that we think that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should be the major player. There have been problems with the delay of the housing Bill. There are rumours of what is likely to happen in housing, and morale in the Housing Executive is low. It believes that it is going to lose out and, because of that, staff will lose out. It is important to bring in the Bill as quickly as possible.

The Committee totally supports the right to buy. In all areas of the report we have made an argument for the right to buy, except for old-age pensioners. That caused a great deal of debate and a vote in the Committee. Votes are not normally taken in Committees. The Chairperson has already said that we get on well with one another, and we normally have an agreed solution at the end of the day. However, there was a vote on this occasion.

If we have a report that says that there is a right to buy in all areas, and we then discriminate against one particular sector, that will come back to haunt us in the form of human rights and equality problems. That should be considered. I believe that old-age pensioners should have the right to buy. At the time, I voted with Sammy Wilson. However, when the Committee agreed to put it forward as a recommendation, I voted with the Committee.

There are a number of areas in housing that we have not touched on yet, including homelessness and antisocial behaviour. That will be the subject of a separate report. People will be wondering why we did not deal with the homeless first, because to most people, that is one of the major problems in housing at the moment. We recognise that it is a major problem, and we recognise that it should be the subject of a report on its own, and we should be coming forward with recommendations to try to solve the problems of the homeless.

With most of these recommendations, if not all of them, we are aware that when the Minister for Social Development first occupied the post, he was totally in favour and put the case to the Department on most of these points.

The majority of reports that are brought forward have a problem with funding, and I compliment the Chairperson on making those remarks. It is a major problem in housing. We have gone down the pecking order. A number of years ago we were at the top of the list for funding, but now we are well down the list. Given the comments in the Assembly from other Departments, we may well slip again.

This may be classed as a political point, but it is sincere: given the arguments that the Minister has put to us in the past, the Social Development Committee feels that it is losing out because he is not attending Executive meetings and putting the case on its behalf. Will the Minister not reconsider his position and make the case that he is capable of making for proper funding for all that is recommended in the report?

I support the report and commend it to the Assembly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is fortuitous that the housing Bill was delayed, as the delay gave the Committee the opportunity to consider some of the issues that we knew would be in the Bill and some that we were not so sure would be included. The Minister and the Department should look through the recommendations. It could be argued, after studying the four main recommendations in the report, that it is a fairly lightweight document. We looked at the four aspects of housing, and if the Minister and the Department examine the responses that we got, they will form a good idea of the matters that the Bill should deal with. I am not unhappy that the Bill has been delayed; that has given us an opportunity to ensure that there is a much more forceful input into what happens.

I am sorry that Mr McCarthy has left us. Perhaps Mr Neeson can tell us whether the Alliance Party believes that we should not give people the right to buy their houses. The right to buy has received widespread support. I am only sorry that some members of the Committee have not abided by one of our recommendations on the right to buy, namely that

"It is important, however, not to have differentials on how individuals are treated in the scheme and there should be one rule for all housing tenants".

Having agreed that, several Committee members decided to treat old-age pensioners differently from everyone else. I will not name them; they can confess later if they wish.

It is good that the Minister is here to listen to the matters that have been raised. There was considerable debate on discretionary grants, and many of us still have fears about their use. The Minister has already informed us that they will be included in the housing Bill. It is important, given the experiences elsewhere, that the Bill require the Housing Executive to monitor expenditure on discretionary grants. First, we must ensure that we do not have the underspend that happened in other parts of the United Kingdom when discretionary grants were introduced. Secondly, we must ensure that if discretionary grants are used to target an area or a problem, that discretion is effective in tackling the problem.

People should move to what the report calls "the recyclable use of grants" if having equity in their property enables them to do so. This is a grant that is given in the form of a loan so that when the property is sold on the grant can be repaid and used again to improve housing conditions. I am convinced that there is a need to tackle some of those problems in the middle of Belfast and in rural areas.

Student accommodation should be included under houses in multiple occupation. This is not the case in many other parts of the United Kingdom, and we have some of the worst student housing conditions. We must also have a clear definition of houses in multiple occupation, because that too has been a failing elsewhere.

The degree of regulation must be tight enough to improve standards to ensure that appropriate rents are paid for houses that are not up to the highest standard. However, we must not return to the over-regulation that killed the private rented sector and left tenants much worse off. That was not the intention of those who drafted the Bill.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I am not a member of the Committee for Social Development, but I am pleased with the report. However, it has been difficult to read its two huge volumes so late in the day. I appeal to the Business Committee to ensure that literature and reports from Committees that are to be debated arrive in Members’ houses a little more than one day before the debate.

There are some excellent recommendations in the report, and I am pleased at the wide-ranging number of submissions that the Committee took time to consider. I represent South Belfast, and I agree with Sammy Wilson’s comments about houses in multiple occupation. South Belfast was a mixed community, but it is becoming predominantly a community of houses in multiple occupation, and matters pertaining to that probably take up most of my time. Families in particular in that mixed housing setting feel that there has been little interaction between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development on decisions about planning, planning control and the spread of houses in multiple occupation. It appears that landlords decide that a property will be suitable for multiple occupation and develop it accordingly.

I am pleased with some of the recommendations in the report that take on board what has already happened in England. I am aware that the differences between a simple notification scheme and a scheme with special control provisions, depending on the area, are complicated. It is good that the housing Bill that Members have so long awaited will take on board what has happened in England and note where the gaps exist.

A submission from Paddy Hillyard, Paddy Gray and Ursula McAnulty points out some of the problems experienced with voluntary licensing schemes in Great Britain, and they argue that Members here should take some of those concerns on board. Ultimately, one must realise that some landlords are reluctant to participate in those schemes. I have called meetings of landlords in my area. It is always the better landlords who attend, and it will be those landlords who will be prepared to enter the voluntary licensing scheme. Questions will remain about those who refuse to do so. The Assembly must be vigilant when enacting any piece of legislation and attempt to make it as corporate and wide ranging as possible. I am pleased with the thorough work that has been carried out on houses in multiple occupation for the report.

It is important that the Housing Executive can be flexible about grants and whether they should be mandatory or discretionary. However, surely the question should be about their maximum effectiveness and whether they are reaching the remaining unfit houses. Points are constantly made about the numbers of unfit houses in rural areas. One of the concerns expressed to me by residents in a mixed community is about the number of grants that are given to private landlords to improve their properties and turn them into houses for multiple occupation. Many argue that during the summer their area turns into a building site because builders descend to renovate houses at exactly the same time. Consequently the neighbours get little peace. They can almost see a pattern in who receives grants and when they can move in and upgrade the properties. The private rented sector has grown.

Clearly there are issues about the standard of stock and management and whether some type of control over the housing benefits that are given to tenants to move into those properties can be maintained. Again, I am aware that sub-standard housing is allocated to people in receipt of housing benefit, and that creates other problems.

4.45pm

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

As someone who has been involved in local government for almost 30 years, I have seen many changes, good and bad. However, the greatest change for good has taken place in the area of housing.

Before the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was set up, the housing situation was managed in a piecemeal fashion. Local authorities managed housing without any central control, and there were allegations of unfairness, which blighted local government. The Housing Executive has, on the whole, been a success over the past three decades, and I concur with the Committee’s positive statement about that. That does not mean that I will not criticise the Housing Executive in the future, if it falls below its own high standards.

The Committee for Social Development has put a great deal of hard work into a comprehensive report, which deals with four main issues. I note that the Committee believes that the grant system should be discretionary, rather than mandatory, to allow for finer targeting. Grants have played a significant part in raising the standard of private housing. The prevailing system is somewhat ad hoc. If there are sufficient funds, the system operates effectively; if there is a shortfall in funding, the grants will dry up.

As the Committee has correctly noted, there is still an unacceptable volume of unfit housing in Northern Ireland, in the public and private sectors. The private sector is diverse, and targeting is necessary. The purpose of the new system should not be to allow owner-occupiers to make a profit on their properties, but to ensure a necessary standard of fitness and provide comfortable living accommodation. We need a transparent, discretionary system. In the circumstances, the recommendations relating to the grants system are to be welcomed, and the system should be rationalised as soon as possible.

Multiple occupation in the private rented sector has always been a controversial issue. The image of the Rachman landlord may be fading, but there is still room for abuse. Multiple occupancy can arise for various reasons: students often share facilities; a transient population can move rapidly between properties; and there are those who have fallen on hard times. Whatever the case, it is necessary that basic standards be laid down and enforced. The Housing Executive, with its experience and expertise, should have appropriate responsibility for that area.

The right-to-buy system has been a success over the past 20 years. Many tenants have taken the opportunity to move into the private housing sector. Many have seen the purchase of their previous Housing Executive property as a first step on the housing ladder. Many others have found that remaining in their original home has suited them just as well. The recommendation to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants is logical. The importance of such associations is increasing, and I fear that we could have a two-speed system, if the Housing Executive could sell properties and the housing associations could not.

Strict criteria should be laid down to prevent profiteering. Tenants should not be restricted to buying only their rented properties. In all cases involving the Housing Executive or the housing associations it should be ensured that the right to buy is for the benefit of the tenant and not a means for someone else to make a quick profit.

The final recommendation dealing with the transfer of property to social landlords raises interesting questions in a Northern Ireland context. In Great Britain there is a diversity of local authorities, while here there is only the Housing Executive.

I commenced by praising the Housing Executive, and it was pleasant to note that the Committee also has a high opinion of its capabilities. The more we can concentrate on the concerns of our constituents, the fabric of our society and its improvement, the greater will be the strength of the Assembly.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the report, and I note that the Committee for Social Development has put a great deal of effort into it. On grants, the report poses the question as to whether we should continue with the mandatory grants system or move to the discretionary system. I am not sure which is the best way to go. I have listened to the contributions, and I understand that a detailed investigation has been carried out into discretionary systems for housing grants. There seems to be a body of opinion in favour of a discretionary system.

In the responses from district councils, I noted submissions from Fermanagh District Council and Cookstown District Council. Those two district councils represent rural communities, and they both favoured the retention of the mandatory system and pointed up what they believe to be shortcomings in the discretionary system. The point was made that a grant under the discretionary system is more vulnerable when budgetary pressures come into play. There were concerns about the long delays in processing that were experienced when the discretionary system was introduced in England. Such concerns are not surprising in Fermanagh, which has a higher incidence of housing unfitness in its rural areas than anywhere else in these islands. The present rate of housing unfitness is 17·5%, and three years ago it was 21%. We were told by the then Minister — the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mr Morrow — that unfitness in that area was dropping at a faster rate than anywhere else. I have no reason to doubt that. The levels, however, are still far too high.

Whatever system we end up with, I am in favour of a system that directs the money towards those who are most in need. We await the outcome of the further deliberations on the best way to go.

The closing order issue affects the Fermanagh area particularly badly. Two out of every three closing orders issued by the Housing Executive across Northern Ireland are for buildings in County Fermanagh. There is a problem there, and some needy cases are being severely penalised. Some of the most deserving cases are then deprived of grant aid under the replacement grant initiative. I ask the members of the Committee for Social Development to revisit the area of closing orders.

There is an interesting argument in relation to the human rights aspect, because closing orders are pretty much telling individuals that they do not have a right to live in their own homes any more.

Against that is the fundamental right of every individual to have a decent standard of living in their own home. Considered in detail, the matter may not be simple, but there are finely balanced judgements to be made. I urge that they be considered again, and I ask the Committee to seek a submission from the Human Rights Commission on the matter of closing orders. I have asked both Members who have held the post of Minister for Social Development to have the system of closing orders reviewed, and I hope that the current Minister is working on that.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I commend the Committee for the work that it has done. It has highlighted some salutary points for Members to consider, involving matters that each of us deal with every week as elected representatives. Members will have some knowledge of what the Committee is trying to do.

I commend the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the admirable work that it does throughout the Province. It plays a constructive role, trying to chart a way forward for its tenants and for those who need social housing. Housing associations have taken on part of that role for the new build programme. The recommendation states that the Housing Executive should have overall responsibility for commissioning and carrying out research, drawing up district plans and regulating and scrutinising housing providers. The Housing Executive is the key organisation concerned with the provision of houses. It may not build, but it has the necessary knowledge and the necessary people. Meanwhile, housing associations are doing their best to adapt to their responsibilities for the new build programme.

I would like the Committee to take on board one issue that has not been addressed. In the Strangford constituency and Ards Borough Council area, housing associations are keen to build houses, but land is unavailable. When the housing associations seek to buy land, they find that private housing developers are able to gazump them. Housing associations are, therefore, unable to meet the demand for social housing. Given the content of recommendation 7.5 on page 20 of the report, I would like the Minister or the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development to explain how that issue could be addressed. We need co-ordination between the Department for Regional Development, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development. Without that co-operation and mutual assistance, the way forward will be difficult to find.

The recommendation about the right-to-buy scheme is welcome, and it is important that those who wish to buy a house should have that opportunity. I do not accept that every tenant who buys a house from the housing association or from the Housing Executive does so primarily to make money. They do so because it makes sound economic sense, they like the house that they live in and they want to take advantage of the scheme. People who have had long tenancies should have the right to purchase their house.

The valuation of houses is an issue that is often raised by my constituents. It usually involves the district valuer with the Housing Executive or housing association.

They do not look only at the house; they look at its potential. Many houses in the area that I represent, especially in the rural community, have large gardens. Often, the district valuer, along with the Housing Executive, decides that there is potential for building another house in the garden. I counsel caution on that, because the opportunity to build a house may not always be there, as we are aware from past examples.

The criteria that we are drawing up ought to consider that. Should the situation arise where a person tries to take advantage of a large garden to build another dwelling, then, and only then, would the extra money be taken into consideration. The person may not get planning permission for the house because of lines of sight and other planning considerations. I urge the Committee to look again at those two issues.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I congratulate the Chairperson and the Committee on the report. I am not a member of that Committee, but, like others who are not, I would like to comment on one of the issues that has a bearing on many constituencies, including mine, and that is houses in multiple occupation, which Sammy Wilson and Monica McWilliams have referred to.

Until comparatively recently houses in the multiple occupation section of the private rented sector were largely unregulated, and that was bad for the individuals and families who lived in them. In 2000 the Housing Executive estimated that roughly one third did not reach adequate fire and amenities standards. At that time, as the Chairman said, around 30,000 people lived, and presumably still live, in houses in multiple occupation.

The previous approach to this matter may also have had a negative implication for certain areas of our major cities and towns. That is because it implied an uncontrolled and unplanned expansion of population density, with its attendant problems for the residents in the areas, such as insufficient car-parking space and an insufficient provision of cleansing services. According to Housing Executive publications, that is a problem in many parts of Greater Belfast — for example, in the Antrim Road, Lisburn Road, and in the Queen’s University and Ormeau Road areas. However, it is also a matter of concern in other parts of the Province.

As the Committee’s report notes, and as some Members have noted, a fundamental issue with respect to houses in multiple occupation is that of definition. That is inherently difficult. In English case law, as the report notes, up to nine criteria have been listed as relevant in identifying whether or not a house is in multiple occupation.

Belfast City Council, in its submission to the inquiry, proposed using a definition that was suggested in 1999 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Great Britain. A house in multiple occupation is defined as

"A house occupied by persons who are not all members either of the same family or of one or other of two families."

We should consider whether that definition could be adopted here. It would be simpler than what we do at present.

I support the Committee in urging the mandatory regulation of houses in multiple occupation, but I leave open the question of whether registration should be enforced by the Housing Executive or some other agency. I support the motion.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the report. It shows the importance of devolution in Northern Ireland, and it clearly reflects the views of people who have been elected to represent the people of Northern Ireland directly.

I endorse some of Monica McWilliams’s remarks about the late receipt of the report. Although it has nothing to do with the staff or the Committee, the late issuing of reports seems to have become adopted procedure. The Committee should consider the matter when it next meets.

Like Sir John Gorman, I praise the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Some may not agree, but I firmly believe that Northern Ireland has the highest standards of public sector housing not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe. It has been widely acclaimed, largely due to the Housing Executive’s work.

Some Members misunderstood Mr McCarthy when he spoke on the controversial issue of the right to buy. The Alliance Party fully supports it. — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

All Members, if they are dedicated public representatives, should realise that the bulk of houses that are bought are in what may be termed "good" housing areas. That has reduced the housing stock in those areas.

Those of us who were members of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue will remember when it debated housing. At the time, we expressed our concerns that responsibilities for new build would be passed from the Housing Executive to housing associations. Those concerns have now more or less come to fruition because there are not enough new builds in Northern Ireland.

Formerly, budgets for new builds came directly from the Department; today housing associations largely depend on private finance. There are not as many new builds as are needed. The involvement of private finance also means that the homes that are being built are more expensive. I support the recommendation that those who live in housing association houses should, like their counterparts in Housing Executive houses, have the right to buy. I hope that that clarifies matters.

I share many of the concerns that were expressed about standards in the private sector. Monica McWilliams and Esmond Birnie mentioned houses in multiple occupancy. We must ensure that there are strong regulations on safety and facilities in private sector houses. I am also concerned about value for money. There must be some form of monitoring. We must ensure that there is a high standard of housing in rural areas, as I strongly believe in the ethos of the level playing field. I hope that the Department will give serious consideration to the issues that were raised in the report. The new urban area plan must introduce much greater use of brownfield sites.

Billy Bell (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not a member of the Committee but I have been involved in housing matters with Mr ONeill in the Northern Ireland Housing Council and on the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I welcome the Committee’s report, and I congratulate the Committee and the Chairperson, Mr Cobain, on it.

The Housing Executive has been a huge success, but even it would agree with the Committee that a fundamental review is necessary. I support the principle that every citizen has the fundamental human right to good, affordable housing. I also support the right of all — not just some — tenants to buy. At present, some tenants may have the right to buy and others may not.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Do you disagree with party policy?

Billy Bell (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I was unaware that my party had a policy on this.

I support the right of all tenants to buy, because owning a house contributes to stability.

The present policy is that if a bungalow is allocated to a tenant over the age of 60 he or she may not buy it; if it is allocated to a tenant under the age of 60 he or she may buy it. That must be changed, because everyone should have the same rights. If they do not, equality issues may be raised. All tenants must have that right.

Housing associations have a voluntary scheme that gives their tenants the right to buy. However, that should be introduced into the legislation. One voluntary housing association, the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association, operates a fifty-fifty policy — buy 50% and rent 50%. I hope that the Minister considers whether the 50% balance qualifies for the normal Housing Executive discount or whether co-owners must pay the full amount when they decide to buy their part of the balance. I hope that the Minister tackles some of those issues when he deals with the Bill.

The sale of houses brings in a huge amount of money to the Executive. Earlier, the Minister of Finance and Personnel said that he is using this major source of savings — the receipts from Housing Executive sales — to boost capital funds. Would it not be better to use those savings to reduce the huge debt that has been a millstone about the Housing Executive’s neck for several years? I want the Minister to take on board some of those points. I support the Committee’s report, at least in principle.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s important debate. I warmly commend the Committee for Social Development for completing the report. I agree with Billy Bell about the right-to-buy issue, and I seek further clarification on that from the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development and from the Minister for Social Development. There is an anomaly in the current legislation, and that is a matter that I am attempting to deal with and expedite in my constituency.

I know of two relatively young constituents who live in adjoining properties that were built as older persons’ dwellings. One of the young people inherited his tenancy from his late grandmother and, therefore, is prevented from purchasing the house. The second person was let the house through the normal allocation process and wisely bought the property. I draw the Minister’s attention to the anomaly in the legislation. It is unfair, and I ask him to take account of that when he considers the legislation. It is important, on the basis of equity and fairness, that a scheme be introduced that provides all tenants with the right to purchase a house. That is a personal view.

I am interested in the logic of the current legislation and in the view that restrictions should be in place for older persons’ dwellings. The equality argument outweighs the considerations that I have heard. I would be grateful if the Chairperson of the Committee and the Minister for Social Development could address those aspects of the report.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The debate has been interesting, and I thank all Members who participated in such a constructive and positive way. I welcome the Committee for Social Development’s interest in the issue; I commend its efforts to ensure that the policies that are being pursued meet housing need and provide good housing services. That is the thrust of the legislative proposals that form the backdrop to the Committee’s review and report.

Many individuals, organisations and groups have a range of views on how best to advance housing policy. That is a healthy situation, and I am pleased to note the number of organisations and groups that responded to the Committee’s request for submissions. The fact that those people took the time and interest to contribute to the consultation exercise demonstrates the issue’s importance. I welcome the fact that the principal recommendations of the report and the review are in line with the current policy and legislative proposals of the Department for Social Development.

Members will appreciate that my officials and I wish to take the time to consider the report fully and discuss its detail. The issue of the time that Members have had to consider the report was raised. I will look at the report in detail and carefully note comments Members have made. My officials and I will begin to consider immediately the full content of the report and the comments and questions raised today, and I will make my views known in due course.

The Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Cobain, raised the issue of the timing of the legislation. As Members are aware, the draft Bill is almost ready, and I envisage that full consultation will begin early in the new year and proceed rapidly. I expect the draft Bill to be put before the Executive in the next couple of weeks.

First, with regard to the private sector renewal recommendation, the Committee considers that the introduction of a grants system based on a largely discretionary approach, rather than a mandatory approach, should facilitate better targeting and offer more options when helping those in poor housing conditions. I am pleased to note the Committee’s positive view on this matter. The potential for being able to target those most in need in a better way is the purpose behind my current proposal.

The issue of equality was raised with particular concern in the review. Equality considerations will be a prerequisite to any new targeting proposals, in the event of a discretionary scheme being introduced and the Housing Executive considering using that discretion to target the scheme in a different manner than at present.

Mr Sammy Wilson mentioned the issue of ensuring proper monitoring, and that monitoring should ensure that problems were properly addressed. The Department will take that important point on board.

Mr Gallagher referred to closing orders. Closing orders are almost exclusively used on vacant properties. A recent legal opinion suggests that the Housing Executive may have some latitude on the use of closing orders, to the extent that they may be used less frequently in the future. When Mr Gallagher reads Hansard he will be interested in that point I have made about the issue.

The second main recommendation concerned houses in multiple occupation and the regulation of the private rented sector. In line with my proposal, the Committee thought that the responsibility for this function should be transferred from the Department for Social Development to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and that the Housing Executive should be responsible for introducing and operating a licensing scheme. This sector had been in decline and suffered from poor management and condition standards. There is evidence, however, that the sector is growing and has a valuable role to play in meeting housing needs. The current proposals are welcome, therefore, as we try to ensure that an increase in size does not bring an increase in traditional problems. The current proposals will give the Housing Executive the authority to design and operate a statutory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. I note the Committee’s endorsement of the proposal to transfer regulation of the private rented sector to the Housing Executive.

Several Members, including Mr Sammy Wilson, Dr Birnie and others, raised the issue of the definition of a house in multiple occupation, with particular reference to the matter of student accommodation. Under the proposed definition, any house that is not occupied by blood relatives would constitute a house in multiple occupation. That would include, for example, semi- detached houses that are now used for multiple occupation. Mr McCarthy raised that issue, and I assure him that the proposed revised definition of a house in multiple occupation would bring the types of properties that he mentioned into the purview of the Housing Executive and other agencies.

The third main recommendation of the report relates to the right of housing association tenants to buy. The Committee believes that, although the extension of a housing association tenant’s right to buy should proceed at this stage, a complete review of the scheme should be initiated, along the lines suggested by the Chartered Institute of Housing, Northern Ireland. The proposed right to buy of housing association tenants cannot be regarded in isolation from that of other tenants. Unless it is essential to do otherwise, the design of the scheme for housing associations will mirror that of the Housing Executive’s scheme.

I was interested in the "debate within a debate" — if you could call it that — between Mr McCarthy and Mr Neeson, neither of whom is in the Chamber now. I am not sure whether that debate represented a conflict between the Unionist and Nationalist wings of the Alliance Party — but they themselves will have to resolve that issue in due course. Presumably, one of them will re-designate as a homeowner and the other as a social housing tenant.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

A comprehensive review of the Housing Executive’s house sale scheme, which involves wide consultation, is under way. As part of that review my Department will bring to the attention of the Housing Executive the findings of the Committee and the comments of the organisations that contributed. That includes the comments that were made by Mr Kennedy and others in the "debate within a debate" on older persons’ dwellings and other issues by party Colleagues and other Members. That will form part of the review, and Members may want to draw that to the attention of the Housing Executive and the Department.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Where does the Minister stand?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I, of course, await the outcome of the review. I am sure that Members would wish me to engage in a proper consultation process to consider the issue properly before I reach any conclusions rather than preclude any outcomes — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

That would be entirely in line with all the previous recommendations by the Committee.

The Committee believes that there needs to be a body that can take a strategic role in respect of housing provision in Northern Ireland. The Committee recommends that the Housing Executive should have an enhanced strategic role and that the proposed Bill should address the conflict between such a role and the current role of the Housing Executive as the largest social landlord in Northern Ireland.

I recognise, as does the Committee in its report, that large-scale voluntary transfers are just one means of helping to attract more resources to the housing business. I am keen to explore any other suggestions or approaches that could help in that regard, including those that will be offered during the Committee’s review.

The current proposals in the housing Bill are designed to facilitate only the easier exercise of a large-scale voluntary transfer policy by the Housing Executive in the event of such a future policy decision being made. Under current legislation, if a single tenant is not in favour of a large-scale voluntary transfer scheme by which he is affected, his objections are sufficient to frustrate the scheme entirely. The proposals would allow a large- scale voluntary transfer scheme to proceed if a majority of tenants were in favour of it. That is the purpose of the legislative proposals.

I will consider the potential for conflict of interests if the Housing Executive is given a more strategic role while it retains landlord responsibilities.

The Committee itself points out that dilemma in paragraph 7.5 on page 20 of the report. It recommends that

"the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should have an enhanced strategic role and that the proposed Housing Bill should address the conflict between such a role and the part the Housing Executive plays as the largest social landlord in Northern Ireland."

It does not say how that should be addressed, but it points out the issue. It is a difficult one, and I look forward to exploring how we can address it in due course.

Mr ONeill mentioned regulation of housing associations. As he knows, associations have been regulated and monitored by the Department and by central Government for over 25 years. The Committee recognises that there remains a concern about the conflict of interest because the Housing Executive is still a major landlord.

There were some other points raised in the course of the debate in relation to funding issues generally, and to targeting of resources. Mark Robinson mentioned that, and I can assure him that resources are targeted. New build meets the needs of those who must access social housing. The grant scheme targets those in unfit housing and the disabled, who cannot afford to make necessary improvements. There are other examples of targeting of resources, such as the warm homes scheme and the scheme for travellers. It is clear that resources are being targeted, as he said.

The issue of funding in general was mentioned by the Chairperson, Mr Cobain, and by Mr Tierney and others. I readily acknowledge Members’ concerns, and, indeed, share their concerns about future funding for housing in Northern Ireland. I will make my position absolutely clear. I will be doing everything in my power to secure maximum funding for housing against a backdrop of competing priorities. I know the importance of housing, which many Members have mentioned, and its role — not just in providing homes for people, but in promoting social inclusion and in tackling a range of issues that are of immediate importance to people living in communities.

I will continue to argue strongly for funding to meet our objectives under the Programme for Government, and I look forward to, and know I will have, the support of Members in dealing with this issue. There are pressures and concerns, which Members will be aware of. Some have been flagged up in the House in relation to how some people might view the way in which the housing budget has received funding in the past and how it might be affected in the future. However, I believe, with Members, that housing is still a major priority for people in this society.

Yes, we have invested heavily over the years — and rightly so. In the rest of the UK they are now pumping in billions of pounds because of gross underinvestment over many years. In no way should we in Northern Ireland be penalised because we have taken a sensible approach to investment year on year. That investment has to continue, and I look forward to the support of Members on all sides who share my concern about getting the necessary funding to maintain the budget.

Once again I want to place on record my appreciation for the work carried out by the Committee and its members, and the contribution of other Members as well.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful for the chance to wind up this debate. It is clear from this afternoon’s proceedings that Members continue to regard housing as an important matter; the contributions from various Members are testament to that. I was especially encouraged to hear views from Members who sit on the Committee, and I will now try to respond to the issues raised. I cannot talk about housing without mentioning Larne, and let me say to Danny O’Connor that Larne has been mentioned as far as housing is concerned.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Neglecting his constituents today.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I may need his vote later on. Mr O’Connor is not well at the moment, and I am sure that the House will join me in sending him hopes for a speedy recovery.

I agree with Eamonn ONeill that the housing situation is in constant change, and the housing Bill will give us time to review that. Sammy Wilson and several other Members talked about the right-to-buy scheme and the over 60s. If we could solve the problems with the right-to-buy scheme by simply extending it to all tenants, I would be in favour, but it is not as simple as that.

There are older people in urban areas in my constituency and in the Minister’s constituency who live in accommodation that clearly does not suit their needs and who have to wait for a long time, sometimes for five to seven years, for a suitable house. Selling off all of those properties might mean that people living in unsuitable conditions might never be rehoused. However, the next time I deal with a constituent on that matter I will be able to say that Sammy Wilson believes that his house is bright and proper and that the most important issue is not his quality of life but his right to buy.

I cannot recall anyone disagreeing with the report. It will be interesting to see how many people in the House support the Committee and the Minister in the Budget debate when we look for additional funds for housing.

Prof McWilliams remarked on the licensing scheme, which will bring benefits for tenants and landlords. John Tierney raised the issue of homelessness, which, together with antisocial behaviour in Housing Executive estates, will be the subject of the Committee’s next inquiry.

Other people touched on the future of the Housing Executive, one of the major issues the Committee has dealt with. We cannot have gamekeeper and poacher, and the role of the Housing Executive has to be balanced with that of major landlord. I hope the Bill will deal with that.

In my opening remarks I talked about local solutions to local problems. Tommy Gallagher drew attention to rural areas in the Province, and he provided us with a flexible response to the needs of the people in those areas. Jim Shannon raised interesting points about joined-up government, and the Committee will need to look at that again. Dr Birnie made a valid point about the definition of houses in multiple occupation, which the Minister has dealt with in detail.

Ivan Davis talked about the right to buy and said that it should not be seen as profiteering, but that it has enabled tenants to buy their homes. Northern Ireland has the highest number of owner-occupiers, and it is beneficial to the Province. In the rest of the United Kingdom there are approximately 70% owner-occupiers.

Mr Neeson talked about brownfield sites. The Social Development Committee led the charge in pressing the Minister for Regional Development to set a more challenging brownfield target, and our views did prevail somewhat on that.

As regards the issue of accommodation, we are all concerned that people here have accommodation that meets their needs. We have had discussions, and we listened today to the Minister of Finance and Personnel talking about budgets for the future. The Housing Executive is once again facing a problem with funding. We are talking about targeting social need, which begins with proper housing for people in rural and urban areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the Committee for Social Development ‘First Report of the Inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland’ (2/01R).

Adjourned at 5.40 pm.