Northern Ireland Assembly, 27 May 2002

92 contributions from 23 members. The official report.

Speaker’s Business: Ruling on Suspension of Sittings

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have first to respond to a point of order from last week.

At the sitting on Monday 20 May, Mr David Ford raised a point of order concerning the decision of the Deputy Speaker to suspend the sitting, by leave of the House, for five minutes. This was as a result of the Minister of the Environment’s not being in his place to move the Second Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Mr Ford raised the issue in the light of my decision on 13 May to declare that a motion in his name would fall as he was not in his place to move the motion, but subsequently to suspend business for five minutes when a Member was not in his place to move his motion, because not to have done so would have meant the collapsing of all the business of the day. Mr Ford said that the decision of the Deputy Speaker on 20 May highlighted procedural inconsistency in handling the circumstances surrounding suspension of proceedings, and sought definitive guidance on when business on the Order Paper should or should not be suspended.

Members will be aware that the procedural convention has been that if a Minister or Member is not in his or her place to move an item of business, then that business falls and the next item of business is taken. The decisions to suspend the sittings on 13 May and 20 May were made in an effort to be helpful to the House, particularly on the first occasion, when the business of the rest of the day, save Question Time, would have collapsed. On the second occasion, the concern of the Deputy Speaker was to not obstruct legislation and other matters, those having been thin on the ground in the House. These were efforts to be helpful to the House, but they clearly introduced inconsistencies. I accept that in the wider scheme of things that can be unhelpful, albeit that the attempt at the time was to be helpful.

To avoid a recurrence of that, and after discussion with the Business Committee, I intend that in future the procedural convention of the House will be enforced as consistently as is possible, and that is the best that I can do. In doing so, I caution Ministers and Members about their responsibility for ensuring that they are in their places at the appropriate times to move items of business. It is a great discourtesy to the House to do otherwise, and to minimise the risk of such a situation occurring, Members may wish to consider putting more than one name to motions.

I hope that that clarifies the situation. I and the others who fulfil the role of Speaker and Deputy Speaker do our best to ensure not only a degree of order but also that the Assembly presents itself as well as possible to those we represent. However, we cannot do that on our own, and even with the help of others, it is sometimes difficult enough. I accept the Member’s concern and rule as I have done.

Ministerial Pledge of Office

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Wilson, you had a point of order.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During a BBC programme that was broadcast live from the Assembly last week, the former DUP Minister Mr Campbell intimated that he had either not taken the pledge or had taken a different form of pledge than that required under the terms of annex A, strand one, of the Belfast Agreement. Will you confirm that all past and presently serving Ministers have taken that pledge and are honour and legally bound to comply with its requirement to work to implement all aspects of the Executive’s Programme for Government?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I cannot speak about the particular circumstance to which the Member refers, but I can say that all Ministers who take the Pledge of Office, whether they take it in the Chamber or elsewhere, must take the same Pledge of Office: that is clear. A facility was made available for nominees to ministerial office to take the Pledge of Office outside the Chamber to ensure that there was no delay in their taking up their positions. As such occasions sometimes arise at the beginning of a recess or such like, arrangements were made for it to be done outside the Chamber.

However, because this is an important legal as well as political matter, when a Minister takes the Pledge of Office in the Chamber it is recorded in Hansard as a matter of public record. When a Minister or a nominee takes the Pledge of Office outside the Chamber, it is done in the Speaker’s office in the presence of the Clerk to the Assembly or the most senior Clerk available, and the procedure is conducted in writing. That is to say, the nominee is asked to give verbal assent and to sign the relevant forms that identify the pledge. There was no difference in respect of Ministers from any particular party who took the pledge inside or outside the Chamber. Those documents are available for anyone who wishes to verify that that was the case, in the same way that he can verify from Hansard, and there is no reason for such papers not being available to ensure that everything is done properly and is in order. I confirm that there is no legal difference between taking the pledge inside or outside the Chamber — Members could not legally be nominated successfully unless they were prepared to take that pledge.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is nothing in the pledge to do with swearing allegiance to the Executive or to fulfilling the agreement — nothing whatsoever.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is not for me to go into what is in the pledge and what is not. What is there is a matter of public record, and Members, or anyone outside who is interested to see what the pledge consists of, can read it. It is a public document and available.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The pledge is a matter of public record, and I advise Dr Paisley to look at paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of annex A, strand one, of the agreement. It is clear that there is an obligation to work to implement the programme when agreed by the Executive, whether nominees made the pledge inside or outside the Chamber.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The opportunity was taken to raise a point of order. I made it quite clear that these are all matters of public record. Members of the House and the public can read them; they are all available. I am not prepared to entertain getting into some kind of political business here. A point of order was raised, and I have tried to give a proper ruling on it.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a point of order. I want to remind the House that the DUP Members who took their seats — not as members of the Executive but who took office — made it very clear on the first occasion how they took that oath. That is a matter of record.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can only supervise whether people legally undertake their responsibilities. People have done things with their fingers crossed in other places and circumstances, but that still did not alter the fact that they carried out those actions. I cannot enter into any further discussion on the matter. As far as I am concerned, the Ministers were appointed duly and in order, took up their responsibilities and, as far as I can ascertain, fulfilled those responsibilities.

Public Procurement Policy

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on public procurement policy.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

With permission, I want to make a statement on behalf of the Executive on public procurement policy. Members will be aware that in November 2000, and in line with commitments in the Programme for Government, the Executive agreed to establish a procurement review team to review public procurement policy and purchasing arrangements in Departments and their non-departmental public bodies.

The procurement review team’s report was issued for public consultation last September to over 400 individuals and organisations. Members of the team also met with the Committee for Finance and Personnel to discuss their findings and recommendations. Team members considered the responses to the consultation and views put forward by the Committee, and they were given the opportunity to clarify or amend their original recommendations.

The Executive have recognised the need for a more strategic approach to the development and implementation of procurement policy to ensure that Executive procurement expenditure, which is around £1·2 billion a year, was being spent in the most effective and efficient manner and to ensure that the policy had due regard to equality obligations. In today’s climate of tight budgets and ever-increasing demand, it is critical that the Executive make optimum use of the resources available to them.

The Executive have, therefore, agreed to a revised public procurement policy, and they plan to initiate more than 70 measures over the period to March 2005 to implement that policy. Those measures are aimed at greater central guidance, collaboration and aggregation of procurement, with the objective of delivering increasing and sustainable value for money savings in the years to come.

The four main areas covered by the measures relate to policy; organisational structures; procurements processes and practice; and integration. I intend to spend a few minutes on the key points in each of those areas, starting with policy.

The definition adopted by the Executive describes public procurement as:

"the process of acquisition, usually by means of a contractual arrangement after public competition, of goods, services, works and other supplies by the public service".

The acquisition process spans the whole life cycle from initial conception and definition of the needs of the public service through to the end of the useful life of an asset or the end of the contract.

Both conventionally funded and more innovative types of purchases, such as public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives, are included in the definition, as is the use of the private sector to deliver services previously delivered directly by the public sector — otherwise known as contracting-out of services.

The Executive also adopted 12 principles that will be the basis of Northern Ireland procurement policy in the future. Departments, non-departmental public bodies and public corporations will be guided by those principles. They include transparency in policy and its delivery; integrity, fairness and consistency when dealing with suppliers and potential suppliers; purchasing by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary; responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of the community served by the procurement; compliance with European Union and other legal requirements; procurement staff being effective in carrying out their work, meeting the commercial, regulatory and socio-economic goals of Government in a balanced manner appropriate to each requirement, and carrying out procurement as cost-effectively as possible; and accounting officers and their equivalents in other bodies continuing to be personally accountable for procurement expenditure. Where appropriate, as part of the process of developing and implementing procurement policy, other Government economic and social policies will be integrated into procurement policy rather than cutting across it.

During the consultation process, some respondents expressed the view that the principles should contain an explicit reference to equality. While the Executive noted those concerns, Ministers believe that the principles are sufficiently clear, and it is worth repeating that the equality obligations of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are already a duty on Northern Ireland public bodies in implementing procurement policy.

However, in applying the 12 principles and our equality obligations in procurement policy, public bodies need to bear in mind that the primary objective of the policy is best value for money. That concept is central to public procurement policy. The Executive have not adopted a narrow definition, but have defined it as

"the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the customer’s requirements."

Members should note that that definition encompasses and sums up the 12 principles and allows for the inclusion, as appropriate, of social, economic and environmental goals in the procurement process.

In adopting the 12 principles, the Executive acknowledge that they will have certain implications for the development of the strategy required to implement the new procurement policy. For example, wider economic, social and environmental strategies and initiatives of the Executive should become more closely integrated into the policy. In respect of strategic procurements, and policy in general, public bodies should ensure that there is appropriate consultation with members of the public who will be directly affected by the outcome of the procurement, and with the wider community and other stakeholders in the procurement system.

To optimise efficiency gains, greater emphasis should be placed on integrating the North/South, as well as the UK and Europe-wide, procurement markets. There should be greater collaboration between Northern Ireland public bodies to meet the wider social, economic and environmental goals of procurement policy.

There is an urgent need to develop better management information systems to enable costs and savings to be measured and reported, and to make for more informed decision-making on procurement and equality matters.

Given the financial importance of procurement policy, both in terms of total spend and in relation to the Executive’s budget, the Executive have agreed that a procurement board should be established and given responsibility for the development, dissemination and co-ordination of procurement policy and practice for the Northern Ireland public sector. The board will be responsible to the Executive and accountable to the Assembly.

I shall chair the board in my capacity as Minister of Finance and Personnel, and membership will comprise, among others, the 11 departmental permanent secretaries. That high-level membership from each Department will ensure that there is compliance with the agreed policies and procedures in all Departments, their agencies, non-departmental public bodies and public corporations.

A central procurement directorate has been established to support the procurement board’s work, and a new director will be appointed. In formulating procurement policy and practices for the board, the new directorate will consult staff from several centres that have specialist procurement expertise across the public sector.

The Executive will consider the interface between that new approach to procurement and the infrastructure investment issues that will fall to the new strategic investment body. However, the principle is clear that the strategic investment body will play a core role in planning and implementing capital investment, including public-private partnerships. Much detail must be considered and agreed before the new body can come fully into being, and the general approach to procurement policy must be established and advanced in the meantime.

The procurement board will be responsible for ensuring that a wide range of operational processes and practices are introduced as appropriate. The aim is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of procurement activities for contracting authorities and suppliers.

The Executive will integrate economic, social and environmental policies within the new public procurement policy. Most respondents to the public consultation on the procurement review team’s report accepted the need for integration. The integration of social policy drew the most comment, especially a proposed pilot scheme to help the unemployed return to work. The main reservations were that the scheme would increase costs to the contracting authority and that, as is outlined in the report, the scheme may prove difficult to implement.

The Executive acknowledged those concerns and recognised that the integration of social policy is difficult in the context of European Union and international procurement law. Nevertheless, they have decided to proceed with the development and implementation of the pilot to test whether those concerns are real, and whether the proposal is worthwhile and workable. The pilot scheme will cover 20 construction or service contracts — at least one will come from each Department — and will last two years. It will not proceed until the details have been agreed with the procurement board. Before that, there will be discussions with the representatives of the affected industries, namely the construction and service sectors, and the Equality Commission, to ensure that the scheme is workable. The results of the pilot will be reported to the Executive to determine whether the policy will be mainstreamed.

Similar issues are under consideration by my Executive Colleagues Sir Reg Empey and Carmel Hanna. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has recently taken receipt of the west Belfast jobs task force report, and the Department for Employment and Learning is close to concluding the work of the task force on employability and long-term unemployment. In moving ahead with the pilot project that arises from the new procurement policy, I shall liaise with my Colleagues to ensure, as far as possible, consistency of approach.

Other integration issues that the Executive have agreed that the procurement board should be tasked with introducing are encouraging and promoting the use of special contract arrangements to help disabled workshops; environmental purchasing; actions to assists small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to compete more effectively for procurement contracts; post-contract award mechanisms to provide assurance that contract conditions are adequately monitored, including an internal mechanism for considering and resolving complaints by third parties that contract conditions have not been honoured; and the development of a database to assess the integration policy’s success.

A key area that was highlighted during consultation and in discussions with the Committee for Finance and Personnel was that of ensuring the compliance of public sector organisations and, in respect of anti-discrimination legislation, of suppliers. Although a few respondents argued strongly in favour of legislative compliance, the Executive agreed that legislation was not necessary to ensure that Departments and their non-departmental public bodies complied, because implementation can largely be achieved by means of administrative action through the membership of the procurement board. However, the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 would need to be amended to enable that sector to comply with the proposals on integration.

The district councils’ different and separate framework of accountability must be recognised. Under existing legislation, compliance is voluntary. The procurement review team’s opinion was that some uncertainty existed in current Northern Ireland legislation as to the extent to which the award of procurement contracts is subject to a requirement not to discriminate. The Executive have agreed that procurement legislation should state unambiguously that direct and indirect discrimination are prohibited on the grounds included in current Northern Ireland anti-discrimination provisions, and should allow for such provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Moreover, equivalent sanctions similar to those contained in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 will be introduced to prevent firms found guilty by a tribunal or a court of persistent and recalcitrant breaches of anti-discrimination legislation from benefiting from public procurement contracts. The Executive agreed that those matters should be covered in the single equality Bill.

To develop the public procurement policy, an equality impact assessment has been carried out, as is required under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The report stresses the limited quantitative data available on which to base the assessment. Using quantitative data and other sources of information brought to our attention during the public consultation, my Department, having consulted the Equality Unit, has concluded that the new procurement policy will not directly or indirectly discriminate against any of the categories included in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Indeed, the policy could have a positive impact on equality of opportunity with regard to religious belief, political opinion, gender and disability. Moreover, the proposals are in line with the Executive’s policy on targeting disadvantage and social need.

The procurement review team’s report was issued to more than 400 individuals and organisations for public consultation, and the policy that the Executive adopted incorporates all the recommendations contained in the revised report. The Executive have, therefore, agreed that they do not consider it appropriate to repeat the consultation process. However, given that the Executive have approved the broad thrust of the policy only, my Department is content to receive comments on how the policy might best be implemented.

I hope that this statement has been helpful to Members in highlighting the main issues involved in the new procurement policy, and the way forward. I shall issue a copy of the full policy document to Members shortly. I look forward to chairing the first meeting of the procurement board, which is scheduled for early July. Policy implementation as it develops will require the co-operation and support of my ministerial Colleagues if we are to achieve the optimum level of efficiencies and savings for the public sector. There is much to be accomplished, and, as I said earlier, the new processes and practices will be implemented up until March 2005. A successful outcome would contribute greatly to assuring the general public that every effort is being made to ensure value for money from this substantial element of Executive expenditure.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee welcomes the implementation of a co-ordinated procurement policy, particularly the setting up of a board chaired by the Minister. It is important that departmental activity is co-ordinated so that each does not operate alone.

What savings will result from the procedure? Will it end select tendering, which discriminated against many suppliers so that they found it impossible to get onto the select list? I welcome the proposal to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and I hope that it will increase the number of local suppliers. Will the Minister explain the proposed pilot projects in more detail?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I record my appreciation of the work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel during deliberations on the matter.

With regard to savings, there are signs that if we were to become as efficient as our counterpart across the water, we could save up to £24 million over three years. It may be unwise to specify a precise target until the board is in operation and the new procedures are in place; however, that record of achievement provides us with a goal. The estimate of £24 million is a scaled comparison of what would be saved in our circumstances. It will be up to the board, working with the new director and his colleagues, to set targets, which I hope they will be able to detail to the House soon.

In supporting SMEs, we are required to operate within the public procurement parameters set by the European Union. However, if we want to benefit from our membership of the European Union, we must accept that we are working in a single market and that opportunities to tender for contracts in Northern Ireland must be open to others beyond our boundaries. Nonetheless, it has been Government practice for some time to make local suppliers aware of opportunities. InterTradeIreland is bringing suppliers, North and South, to the attention of Government buyers in both parts of the island so that our suppliers can avail of contracts in the South, and vice versa. That applies also to suppliers across the water, but we are anxious to ensure that our local suppliers maximise the opportunities that are available to them. The procurement directorate will intensify initiatives to bring local suppliers in touch with Government buyers.

Details of the pilot projects are not yet available. However, recommendations are being made about how the Government can stimulate economic development in areas such as west and north Belfast. The task force in west Belfast has reported to my Colleague, Sir Reg Empey, and the task force on employability and long-term unemployment is about to report to my Colleague, Carmel Hanna. It is likely that the latter report will recommend how we might use the means at our disposal to address the needs of the unemployed more effectively.

The west Belfast task force’s recommendations are available, and we are anxious to see how we can use procurement opportunities to address some of the needs identified. We will be discussing with agencies, employers, trade unions and training agencies, where appropriate, to agree on pilot projects that would be most effective and enable us to learn relevant lessons.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that the administrative cost of the new proposal should be minimal so that savings, rather than additional costs, accrue?

Does he recognise the dangers to the Assembly of procurement policies undertaken in euros, which would not relate to departmental budgets? Will he therefore confirm that procurement will be carried out in sterling?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Overall procurement policy must be informed by a best-value approach. I assure the Member that that point will be borne in mind in administrative structures as well as in procurement practice.

I am not sure how the euro or any other currency will affect our procurement policies. Those who tender for contracts will know that we are in a sterling area. However, people from other parts of Europe may submit bids in euros. The bids will be assessed using the sterling equivalent. I doubt that we could prescribe the currency to be used in tenders. I imagine that people will bear in mind the local currency.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, the Executive’s adoption of the integration of economic, social and environmental policies within the new public procurement policy. As an expression of the integration policy, one noteworthy proposal is that to develop and implement a pilot scheme of 20 construction and service contracts to last two years each, with at least one contract from each Department. Annoucements have yet to be made in respect of the west Belfast task force. Will the Minister concur that any pilot projects awarded by the procurement board, which are designed to assist unemployed people to return to work, should be based where unemployment is an enduring issue?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

As I said earlier, that part of the procurement policy will raise several questions. Indeed, the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has already asked such a question, and I would be surprised if there were not more on that point. The Executive believe that they have an obligation to coherently and comprehensively address their policies in respect of social and environmental issues, and to do so across all of their responsibilities. That is an example of the Executive taking their responsibilities seriously.

The precise details of the pilot schemes are not yet worked out. However, I will outline some of the thinking that is currently being developed in the Department of Finance and Personnel. For example, it is proposed that a contractor will be required to submit a plan with his tender, indicating how the firm will use the unemployed in the work of the contract, including work carried out by subcontractors. Failure to submit a plan will exclude the tender from further consideration.

The successful firm will be required to comply with the plan during the term of the contract. Failure to do so will mean that appropriate penalties are applied. The pilot scheme will take place over a two-year period, and will require about 20 works and service contracts to enable a proper assessment of its value and to fully address any teething problems. At the end of the two-year period, the results of the pilot will be reported to the Executive to determine whether the policy should be mainstreamed.

Obviously, if the unemployed — in particular, the long-term unemployed — are targeted, the contracts that are identified for inclusion in the pilot will be, in many cases, contracts that relate to significant pockets of unemployment — in particular, long-term unemployment. Broadly, that is the kind of thinking that is being pursued. I will return to the House with information when the details have been decided.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

What is the difference between the principles currently being exercised for procurement, and the Minister’s 12 new principles? Does the Minister suggest that to date there has been no transparency in policy and delivery, no integrity, fairness or consistency, no purchasing by competition, no responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of the community, and no compliance with European Commission and other legal requirements?

He has advanced 12 principles. He should be able to tell the House plainly how those principles differ from the present policy. He briefly mentioned the EC. However, the EC is all-important, because — as the Minister knows — it has certain legal requirements. Money must be spent in order to meet them. Therefore, as the Assembly considers those matters, it must keep new law in mind — removing the focus from Northern Ireland and dealing with European law.

Those of us who are in the business of politics are approached continually by firms that point out the difficulties that result from EU laws, especially in this field.

How much will the new directorate cost? What salary will the newly appointed director be paid? How many more Assembly task forces will there be, despite the fact that work on the task in hand has not been accomplished? Surely some work should be completed by now.

This is perhaps the most important question: will the Minister promise the Assembly that he will initiate a full debate on the matter when he produces his other documents, so that we will be able to ask questions?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Member asked a nest of questions. I trust that I will remember most of them.

On the Member’s final point, a consultation process has been under way for some time, during which no Member was precluded from initiating a debate. The Member’s party is represented on the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has discussed the matter in some depth.

The public consultation process afforded many opportunities to make contributions, from inside and outside the House, to policy development. If the Member wishes to table a motion on the matter, it is up to the Business Committee to decide when that debate might take place.

Brevity of reference — if brevity describes my reference to the European Union framework — should not be taken as an indication that the European procurement framework lacks significance. We operate within that framework, which requires that opportunities to tender for public contracts be afforded to suppliers across the European Union. The Executive and the Administration accept that obligation.

Notwithstanding that obligation, and without violating the principles of the framework, we want to be proactive and ensure that our suppliers are made fully aware of the opportunities to compete and tender for and win contracts.

It is not for me to determine the number of task forces. I am responsible only for the task forces in my Department. If it is necessary for issues to be reviewed, task forces may be the most appropriate method. There may also be other review mechanisms. It is necessary, especially at the early stages of devolution, to conduct in-depth reviews of the practices, policies and legislation that we have inherited. Otherwise, we might be rightly accused of simply implementing what was there in the past. I doubt if that is the way that the Member, who has always been a keen proponent of devolution, would want to see devolution progress.

I trust that there will be many opportunities to review other aspects of Government policy and practice. With respect to his question on costs, I do not have the precise figure for the directorate and its associated administrative arrangements. The director has been appointed at grade three level with a salary in excess of £60,000. I believe that I have addressed all the questions from the Member.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

No. If I have not addressed all the Member’s questions, Hansard will reveal that, and I will reply to those in writing.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I draw particular attention to what the Minister said about the Executive, in initiating the new procurement policy, introducing more than 70 measures to be put in place between March 2000 and March 2005. The Minister went on to state explicitly that the Executive are adopting 12 principles as the basis for future Northern Ireland procurement policy. In other words, something is to be done that has not been done in the past.

I hoped that the hallmark of good Government in the public sector would be value for money, to be achieved through principles such as transparency, integrity, fairness, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency — the same principles that the Minister is trying to tell me are new. Can the Minister advise me which of those principles is currently not in use, and why?

I noted the Minister’s comments on potential savings. According to the Minister, public procurement has a market of £1·2 billion a year and he mentioned potential savings of £24 million over three years. He can correct me if those figures are wrong. If my mathematics are correct, that represents a saving of 2% over three years — for 70 new initiatives and the list of principles, some of which I doubt are new because they should be already in place. There is, therefore, much camouflage and verbiage in the Minister’s statement and, ultimately, not much product. Does the Minister not agree that a cost benefit analysis should be carried out in respect of anything done in the House to ensure that value for money is clearly demonstrated?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Member’s question reminded me of Dr Paisley’s first question. Given that Dr Paisley asked so many questions, it slipped my mind. However, one of them was almost the same question as that asked by Mr Close.

I have not claimed that all of the principles are new; many have been the basis for operating procurement practices. There is, however, a new emphasis in respect of integrating the principles so that future policy can be more coherent and targeted. There are some new principles, and I single out consistency, responsiveness and integration as being new or as receiving new emphasis. The overall approach will be judged on value for money and on how we contribute to the social and other cross-cutting principles upon which the Executive’s policies are based. It is to be hoped that the savings will be greater than those anticipated in the informal target that I suggested at the outset.

Mr Close is a member of the Committee that addressed the issue in considerable depth. The information supplied to me does not indicate whether the questions were posed in the same way to my officials during the consultation.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Although I thank the Minister for making the statement, it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Will the Minister confirm that the basic premise for the initiative is the belief that the £1·2 billion procurement expenditure was not being spent in the most effective and efficient manner and that the Executive were not making optimum use of the resources available to them? If that is not the case, what is the justification for the initiative?

The Minister has been loath to reply to a brutally leading question from Mr Beggs about the minimal costs of administration. He ignored that question and now tells Members that there is no estimate of what additional administrative costs will result from the establishment of the central procurement directorate and procurement board. Is the Minister telling the House that no cost analysis of any kind has been made; that there is no suggestion that fresh administrative staff and bureaucrats will be recruited rather than seconded from existing Departments? Will the Minister first confirm that the assessment of possible savings is nebulous, as it is based on a comparison of much greater public expenditure on the mainland, which statistically cannot be indicative of cost savings here and secondly the cost savings, as estimated, are minimal in relation to uncosted expenditure?

Will the Minister guarantee that Northern Ireland firms that tender for Government procurement in Northern Ireland will be given preference? Will he state how many, if any, tenders for Government procurement in the Republic are given to Northern Ireland firms?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Once again, I am faced with a series of questions. I therefore apologise in advance if I do not answer all of them. Mr Speaker, you will appreciate the difficult situation in which Ministers are placed when a plethora of questions are posed.

European Union regulations require us to be open to tenders from across the EU. The preferential treatment to which Mr McCartney referred is not open to us. As I said in answer to an earlier question, if we want to have the benefit of a single market and remain assured that our suppliers can tender for contracts elsewhere — and I am sure that all Members want our suppliers to win contracts elsewhere — the same opportunities must be afforded to suppliers from elsewhere that tender for contracts in Northern Ireland.

I underlined the fact that the Administration — going back to before devolution — has been involved in making local suppliers aware of the opportunities in the whole range of Government contracts. They have been made aware of the standards required, the likely quantities required and the general conditions of Government contracts so that they can make their bids as competitive as others.

Several people have asked whether we were operating effectively and fairly prior to this, implying that if we were, it may not have been necessary to review the process. We are always being urged, not just in the Assembly but also in life, to do better. To do so, we must examine our progress and the way in which we are operating whatever we are being urged to improve.

The Executive believe that it was necessary to improve procurement practices, which had been operating on a disparate basis across Departments, public corporations and non-departmental public bodies. The Executive had a well-founded belief that the coherence needed to maximise the opportunities for obtaining best value for money and the best goods and services was not being achieved. Providing a more coherent, centralised approach to policy development will not be a major operation that will take over the responsibilities of various Departments for procurement. That approach will deliver better value, and, as Ministers report to the House, it will be tested over time. Ministers of Finance and Personnel in particular will have that responsibility and will be open to scrutiny. If the savings that have been indicated, and best value for money, are not achieved, we will be reminded of this debate and the points that have been made.

Mr McCartney also raised questions about the involvement of companies and suppliers from south of the border in supplying to our Departments and agencies. I do not have those figures to hand. However, InterTradeIreland has been active in highlighting the opportunities for our suppliers in the South and for Southern suppliers here. I trust that the Member welcomes opportunities for our suppliers to compete for public contracts in the South.

If Hansard shows that I have overlooked any important questions —[Interruption].

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

What are the costs?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, a ruling is needed on the number of questions that can be asked. I understand that Members are allowed to ask one question. If I am asked 10 questions, it is understandable that I do not remember each one.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

On several occasions I have ruled that if Members ask more than one question, there is no requirement on the Minister to answer all the questions. Members may choose to ask several questions, but they cannot then comment on which question the Minister chooses to answer, whether it is because he or she remembers it, or for any other reason. If Members have a particular question they wish to ask, they would be well advised to put that question, rather than a whole series. The Minister may say that a series of questions is a burden, but it is also an opportunity, because he or she can then choose which questions to respond to. That is simply the nature of the process.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do not normally take points of order on ministerial statements.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The question was put three times by three different Members.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has experience of Westminster, and he knows that not just three times, but at three successive Question Times, questions can be put to which Ministers find ways of not responding. However, my advice to the House is that if there is a particular question that Members wish to ask, they ask only that question. It is then much more difficult for the Minister not to answer it. If Members ask a series of questions, they should not be surprised if the Minister chooses to take advantage of that or if his memory inadvertently chooses to take advantage of that.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am happy that the point has been made.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take the Member’s point of order at the end.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. My question revolves around a point made by Alex Attwood earlier about the engagement of unemployed labour. Does the Minister agree that it is unwise to engage untrained and unskilled workers — particularly in the construction industry, where construction sites are inherently dangerous, especially for untrained people? Does he further agree that it would be better to use public resources to put in place arrangements to provide proper training facilities for the unemployed? Finally, will the Minister give a commitment to consult fully with appropriate bodies, such as the Construction Employers Federation, before any recommendation is made to the Assembly?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I can give assurances on each of those questions. It is inappropriate for untrained people to be in any form of employment. That is why I made it clear in my statement that there will be full consultation with all appropriate interests. However, we must remember that the objective is to further key social and environmental policies, as deemed appropriate and likely to be effective, through the Government’s considerable spending power, and Members must appreciate that. In taking forward these pilot projects we will not be seeking to force the employment of untrained workers at all. We will try to ensure that appropriate training is put in place.

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

I too welcome the Minister’s statement. However, all too often procurement is thought of as a policy issue, with a perception that it applies only to big companies. We should promote local sourcing, which has already been mentioned, and local business exchanges. Is there anything in the new approach that will lend specific assistance to medium and small businesses here?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I assure the Member that we will do all in our power to ensure that local suppliers, which, for the most part, are small- and medium-sized enterprises, are aware of what is required in terms of cost and quality. The assistance available to them will be for other Departments, or, specifically, for the procurement directorate, to provide, rather than my Department. Nonetheless, we are anxious to ensure that local suppliers take maximum advantage of the considerable opportunities that exist with Government expenditure to win contracts and develop their enterprises. The point about more direct forms of assistance needs to be addressed to other Ministers — most particularly the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Minister’s statement refers to a pilot scheme. He has suggested that there is a belief that the integration of social policy may run contrary to either EU law or international procurement law. Given that belief is it not foolhardy to continue with a pilot scheme that could leave Departments vulnerable either to EU enforcement or to litigation by disgruntled companies? How can he ensure that when companies tender for those pilot schemes they do not try to fiddle the system and gain advantages by taking on long-term unemployed people on a short-term basis for the duration of the contract? If social policy is to be brought into procurement decisions, how can the Minister guarantee the long-suffering taxpayers in Northern Ireland that there is value for money in procurement?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The details of the project have still to be finalised, so it is not possible to answer the Member’s points with precision. An announcement will be made today about our policy approach.

It is normal practice to state what a policy will be, and then to highlight the areas that it will affect. It is the responsibility of those who will implement the policy to detail how it will affect those areas. Members who think that they know better than everybody else in the House should not snigger or make snide comments about the matter. We are aware of our obligations on EU Directives, and we can develop procurement policies that take account of social policies. We are not inhibited from proceeding with the pilots, although the Member suggested that we might be.

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

Wearing my agricultural hat, does the Minister share the concern of the agriculture industry that Government food purchases for schools, hospitals and departmental canteens are usually imported and do not match the standards of local quality-assured products? That practice is questionable with regard to health, and it offers no support to local producers.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I would be concerned if food were being procured that did not meet the required quality standards or take into account health considerations. Therefore, I would seek advice on the nature of the terms and conditions that apply to procurement practices in the sectors that the Member identified. I would want assurances that quality was a specified condition, and if the food were found to be unsatisfactory, the matter would have to be addressed. I thank the Member for raising an important question that needs further investigation.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister’s statement points out that

"the primary objective of the policy is ‘ best value for money’."

However, he does not inform the House how that will be achieved, an issue that has been queried on several occasions. If the Minister is not prepared to tell the House how that will be achieved, will he assure Members that he will give them that information in writing, or at least place it in the Assembly Library, so that it can be scrutinised?

The statement continues by saying that

"in order to optimise efficiency gains, greater emphasis should be placed on integrating the North/South … procurement markets".

What comfort will firms in Northern Ireland take from the Minister’s statement, particularly if they are paying off workers, only to find that businesses south of the border are securing contracts here? Should firms here not be given priority?

The Minister said that the proposed approach would be compatible with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That section does not deal with best value; it is concerned with political correctness.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I do not accept that equality issues, as the Member seems dismissively to claim, relate to political correctness. Affording equality of opportunity to all our citizens is a fundamental principle and a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement and legislation on the matter. It must be inherent in all aspects of Government policy and practice, and we must clearly demonstrate that.

With respect to the Member’s initial question on best value, I said later in my statement that the concept is central to public procurement policy, but the Executive have not adopted a narrow definition. They defined it as

"the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the customer’s requirements."

Those criteria must be applied to every contract so that we can demonstrate always that best value for the public’s money has been achieved. Therefore, we are not shying away from the question of best value.

I refer Mr Morrow to my previous answers relating to Northern Irish suppliers. Suppliers, North and South, operate within the European framework. Suppliers from the South are entitled to bid for Government contracts in Northern Ireland, as suppliers here are entitled to bid for contracts in the South of Ireland. Indeed, suppliers can bid for contracts beyond the shores of this island, and many have done so successfully. I am sure that everyone is anxious to see suppliers gain even more contracts outside Ireland. Our responsibility is to encourage and assist them to do so, while complying with the requirements of European Directives on public procurement.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Dr Paisley, you had a point of order. Do you wish to —

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is too late.

Review of Rating Policy

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the review of rating policy.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

On behalf of the Executive, I open public consultation on our local rating system.

The Executive agreed in 2000 that a full review of our revenue system was needed. After detailed research and discussion involving the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Departments and the Ministers, we launch the consultation paper on the review of rating policy. The paper that Members have is the final version of the text — although it will appear in a better, printed form in the next couple of weeks.

The Executive decided to embark on this review in recognition of the fact that the present system is unfair, out of date and does not meet our current needs. The subject is not easy to address: it is complex and provokes strong reactions. However, we are not in Government so that we can avoid the difficult issues. Any proposals for a local taxation system, which is what the rating system is, will touch the lives of all the households and businesses in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have been mindful of the consequences of radical change.

I have been asked why the Executive cannot be more imaginative in seeking ways of raising local revenue. I have been asked why we have to look to the rates. The answer is that we do not have to restrict ourselves to rating property. However, our options are limited by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — we cannot readily introduce anything like income tax or VAT.

More importantly, international experience tells us that almost all developed countries continue successfully to operate property-value-based local taxes to help pay for local services. The consultation paper focuses on such systems, but other ideas are not ruled out, providing they can be easily administered, are stable, recurring, and fair to all, and do not have undesirable economic, social or environmental effects.

The consultation paper is not exclusively a Department of Finance and Personnel product. It is an Executive paper, and all Ministers have been consulted and have had an opportunity to have an input. We have worked with the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has employed a team of rating experts from outside Northern Ireland. The Committee has helped shape the document, and I appreciate its input.

It has been our intention to address the issues in a considered, balanced, open and transparent way. The consultation paper does not make any proposals or recommendations, but it expresses the issues and available options as neutrally as possible, setting out objectively the pros and cons of the possible changes that might be considered.

Nothing was ruled in by the Executive, and nothing was ruled out, apart from domestic water metering and the rating of agricultural property. The consensus among Ministers was that those issues should not be put forward as options in the paper. I reassure Members that any decisions on changing the system, or elements of it, will take full account of the views expressed in the consultative process.

Twelve key issues are identified in the report. Although the question of how individual bills compare with what ratepayers and council-tax payers contribute in GB is addressed, the core of the review is about developing a system that distributes local revenue requirements in a fairer way.

I will not go through all the key issues covered in the paper. However, it might be useful if I mentioned two of the more difficult choices that we face — domestic rating and industrial derating. The present domestic rating system is very hard to defend. In presenting the options in the paper, we have included a dispassionate description of the existing system. However, it is quite difficult to find any defence for the existing domestic system. It does not target social need. On the contrary, in the distribution of the tax burden, it tends to disadvantage the less well off. Although there is a gradual upward curve, the amounts levied flatten out quite markedly for those in more expensive housing.

Therefore, ratepayers with low incomes that are just above the housing benefit threshold pay more than they would do under a fairer system. In taxation language, the system is not progressive. The valuation list is relatively flat and discriminates little between market levels and sectors. A revaluation is long overdue. The last one occurred in 1976 and was based on late 1960s rental values that reflected prevailing social and economic conditions.

The system lacks clarity and transparency. The figures in the valuation list are meaningless to the ratepayer. The rateable values are artificial, so most people cannot understand the basis on which they are asked to pay. That has an impact on an individual’s ability to decide whether his or her assessment is fair, and it affects the public attitude to the appeal process.

Although we have presented the options neutrally, it is widely accepted that a revaluation cannot be conducted on the basis of rental value because an active private rental market exists in only certain areas and market sectors. If the independent market evidence were not widely available, the system would be rendered arbitrary. The main case for domestic revaluation is based on redistribution and the relative contributions of those in prosperous areas compared to those in less well-off areas. However, the inequities of the current system will be exposed even more if the Assembly increases revenues significantly using the current tax base. After all, the review began after the outcry about the increases proposed in autumn 2000. For that reason, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I have given assurances that there will be no abnormal increase unless, and until, a fairer system is introduced.

If colleagues doubt the difficulty of defending the present system, they may refer to the many occasions in the Assembly when my predecessor and I faced questions on, and criticism of, the system. The calls to review the system urgently were clear and strong, as they have been for many months. Furthermore, if we agree to consider redistributing the domestic rating burden, we must ensure that there are appropriate safeguards for vulnerable groups and individuals who are beyond benefit support. That means taking into account people’s ability to pay, the avoidance of genuine hardship and ensuring that we do not distort benefit calculations to our disadvantage, by comparison with other regions.

Industrial derating has existed since 1929 and is unique to Northern Ireland — no other region provides that tax break. It costs Northern Ireland £64 million a year, an issue that is likely to generate strong views. It was felt that the matter was so sensitive that it was examined separately, with assistance from external consultants. We wanted to determine the need for industrial derating, its purpose, its continuing relevance and its effectiveness.

A copy of the report will be made available with the consultation paper to inform debate, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library today. The study found that the justification for continued industrial derating was questionable, and there are strong arguments in favour of phasing it out. Furthermore, the consultants argued that the overall economic impact of its removal would be negligible in the medium term and that it is not a cost-effective tool of economic development.

I acknowledge that there are strongly held opposing views. A variety of interested parties believe that derating is a significant incentive to attract inward investment, a useful counter-measure to the attractive fiscal regime available in the South, and a partial compensation of the additional costs faced by industries here. The review will take all those views into account.

I mentioned two of the more difficult issues in the consultation paper, which also outlines what we pay rates on, existing and potential rate relief, and how best to deal with vacant rating and/or making owners ultimately liable.

The paper includes an examination of relief for particular groups, ranging from broad reliefs, such as the single person allowance, to more selective ones, such as assistance to pensioners or those who find it hard to make ends meet. The paper also covers some ideas for new reliefs for the commercial sector, such as small business and hardship relief. The list is not exhaustive, and consideration of different reliefs may emerge from public consultation. Again, we shall welcome any views on that.

I understand that the pressure for introducing additional reliefs or a different set of reliefs will be immense and diverse, but we must maintain a careful balance. After all, the rating system is the mechanism through which businesses and households pay their contributions to regional and local services, so if reliefs are wide ranging, they put an unfair burden on remaining ratepayers.

Funding of water services is also considered in the paper. The Assembly is well aware of the investment requirements of the water and sewerage systems, and the Minister for Regional Development has estimated that investment will amount to some £3 billion over the next 15 to 20 years. Water services in Great Britain are no longer in the public sector, so we do not receive any consequential funding under the Barnett formula, and all funding must be found from within our departmental expenditure limit. We must face that difficult issue, and the paper sets out some of the options we can consider. Others may be identified during the consultation.

The Executive are not in the business of creating financial hardship for anyone, and I emphasise that for any change in the rating system after the review, there will be carefully planned transitional arrangements to avoid hardship and to allow time for those paying to adjust.

The consultation period will run beyond the summer until mid-September. Three or four public seminars will take place around Northern Ireland in June, followed by a series of meetings with interest groups and organisations. A web site is ready to provide information and elicit feedback. Assessment of the responses will begin in the early autumn, and a range of options will be identified. An impact analysis will be carried out on those options, and a report will be made to the Executive, involving the Committee for Finance and Personnel, in the autumn.

The programme will be sensitive to the results of consultation and feedback and to the extent of amendments and additional work deemed necessary. The legislative process will follow throughout 2003 and possibly early 2004 when final decisions will be made.

During the various stages, some useful links can be made between the rating policy and public administration reviews. Some aspects of those reviews, however, are distinct. I do not agree that conclusions from the review of public administration are needed before we can make progress on the rating issues. One is a matter of ratepayer contribution; the other involves distributing revenue in the most appropriate way to any new structures that emerge. We must address the basis on which we raise revenue for regional services as well as those covered by the councils. Those services will continue no matter what structures are in place.

I fully expect the consultation on rating to be complex and contentious. Time will be needed to assess the implications of the response to consultation from both an official and a political point of view. It seems realistic to plan on the basis that we will need to consider carefully when to take substantive decisions and how implementation of possible options might be phased. Responses to the consultation will clarify matters, and that in turn will affect the timetable for decisions. Furthermore, the neutrality and openness of the consultation are underscored by our deciding in the autumn the phasing on which any substantive decisions will be taken.

The recently announced reinvestment and reform initiative was not conceived until the rating review was well advanced. There is, however, a relationship between the two, in the sense that any additional revenue we decide to raise locally must come from a reformed and fairer system. The manner in which we address the review of rating will be a measure of how responsibly we are prepared to face difficult issues. The issues are complex, and the challenge is considerable. I am keen to hear Members’ views, now and over the coming months.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The moment of interruption for Question Time is 2.30 pm. Therefore I remind the House to be as concise as possible in putting and responding to questions.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is one thing to say that the current system is unfair, but it will be quite another to put an acceptable alternative in its place. I caution against the abolition of the industrial derating scheme, largely because of the negative impact that it is likely to have on small businesses in Northern Ireland. The clear inducements offered by the regime in the neighbouring jurisdiction would have an adverse impact on the Northern Ireland economy. How does the Minister envisage progress after the consultation period? Who will carry out the assessment, and who will be responsible for developing the proposals?

I ask the Minister to bear in mind the strong representations made by many people who feel that rating is a very important matter. Some people feel that small buildings — local community buildings such as Orange halls — should not be charged rates. Will the Minister pay particular attention to those representations and also to those made by the equestrian industry for the derating of equestrian centres? Many groups and individuals will want to make strong representations. Is the consultation period long enough, given that it is over the summer months, to allow such groups and individuals to make a real contribution?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before inviting the Minister to respond, I would like to point out that this is a statement on a policy issue. I must ask Members not to get into the nitty-gritty of every little bit and piece. Whether they expect the Minister to respond, or someone outside to take notice of it, is another matter, but we cannot have detailed issues of this kind on a policy statement of such a substantive order. However, the Member did ask general policy questions and I invite the Minister to respond.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I am unveiling the approach to a consultation process that will involve all interested parties and the public at large across Northern Ireland. I do not come with answers to particular questions this afternoon. The answers are to be elicited and developed during the consultation and an assessment of what the consultation provides us with thereafter. Therefore, if Members are looking to me for answers on particular aspects of rating policy, they will be somewhat disappointed. I am anxious to hear what people in the House and elsewhere have to say on the issues. The matter will advance in the usual way. The Department of Finance and Personnel has a particular responsibility in that regard.

The process will develop in consultation with the Executive and the Committees that are directly affected. For example, the Committee for Regional Development and the Minister for Regional Development will be anxious to make a contribution on the future financing of the Water Service. The Minister has told me some of his ideas on that matter, although I am not sure whether he has revealed them to the Committee.

I agree with the Member that replacing a system is difficult. It is easier to recognise the deficiencies of the existing system, but to acknowledge that the system is deficient in many ways, amounting to an inadequate account being taken of social need, places a heavy responsibility on us to address the rating system and to come up with recommendations that will remove gross inequities and make it fairer.

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

The rating policy review could well be one of the most important initiatives that the Executive will have embarked on, as it will touch the life of every person in Northern Ireland, and it could pave the way for significant increases in our ability to invest in public services. In those circumstances, it is vital that everyone has their say. Can the Minister outline in more detail how the consultation will happen, and who will be consulted? How will equality and new TSN be taken into account in the review?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I agree that this is probably one of the most significant consultation processes, and I trust that there will be considerable involvement in it.

Mr Kennedy made a point about time; the Department has set aside 14 weeks for the consultation. At this stage I do not want to make any commitment to extending that period, but I hinted earlier that we will take account of the interest generated and give consideration to ensuring that submissions are well developed and that everyone who wants to be heard, can be. Let us address the time pressures closer to the end of the formally declared consultation period.

We can try to involve everyone by highlighting the issues through public events. I am sure that district councils, which are directly affected, will be anxious to meet me or departmental officials. Assembly Member Kennedy identified several interests, but there are many more and we will be available to hear their concerns. The work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be crucial. If sections of society are being missed in the consultation process, I hope that they will be identified early on. If we are failing in any regard, I hope that Members will draw it to our attention so that we can rectify it.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minster has said that he is anxious to hear what the Assembly has to say. He has outlined how he will consult with the general public. How will the matter be debated in the Assembly? In another place, given that radical changes are involved, there would be a Green Paper, which would explain all the options, followed by a White Paper, which would indicate what the Government’s view might be in certain circumstances. Both those papers would be debated in the House.

In answer to a previous question of mine, the Minister spoke about a motion being tabled. However, this is not a matter for private Members’ business. It concerns impending Government policy. Therefore, the Government must take responsibility for the child that they will beget. They must, by way of a motion in the House, put the onus on the Assembly. The matter must be discussed thoroughly in the House, and I want an assurance from the Minister that that will happen.

The Minister knows the views of my party. The DUP does not believe that the rates system is the only system whereby money can be raised or saved.

I notice the irritation on the face of the Hon Speaker of the House. I will not fizzle his beard any further by making a speech.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I am pleased that the Member has spared the House that imposition.

I have no objection to the matter being debated in the House. I am happy to give consideration to the most appropriate timing of such a debate. It would probably be useful for the consultation process to continue for some time so that Members are informed of the views of interested parties and of the general public before the debate. Perhaps the debate should be scheduled for the early autumn. However, I am open to suggestions.

We are also open to suggestions with regard to the raising of revenue. However, legislative constraints in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 preclude the income tax route, which might be one method of raising revenue that the Member has in mind. There is no reason why the House should not debate the matter. The Executive will give serious consideration to any views expressed. They will be communicated to the Treasury, and discussions will be initiated.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome certain sections of the statement. I welcome the Executive’s recognition — at long last — that the present system is unfair, out of date and does not meet current needs. I welcome the fact that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out, and that the domestic rating system is now being seen as hard to defend.

I remain unconvinced of the genuine neutrality and openness of the consultation process. In reading this statement, and other papers associated with it, I can see the Executive’s large footprints leading in a particular direction. The idea is to scrap rental values as the basis for free rates, to introduce capital evaluation and to scrap the abolition of industrial derating. The Executive are intent on making that happen, and they are also intent on the introduction of water rates. The imprints are already there.

In that respect, an opportunity has been lost. Does the Minister not agree that energies would have been better directed towards enabling the introduction of local income tax in Northern Ireland? That is unquestionably the most fair, equitable and transparent system of taxation. Going down this route effectively slams closed the door to local income tax. Surely we are not going to spend all this money on producing documents, having consultation and introducing a new system in a year’s time only to introduce local income tax later?

Does the Minister not agree that, no matter how much we tinker with the rating system — changing the basis from rentable value to capital value — all we are doing is massaging the figures and introducing arbitrary reliefs? Does he not agree that the document is another contrived mechanism for furtively introducing a "tap tax" in which one of the only things ruled out would be water meters? Our poor consumers would not be able to assess the amount of water they use, yet they would have to pay for it.

Does the Minister not agree that an opportunity has been lost to bring about true change and demonstrate real fairness and equity?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I cannot accept the Member’s invitation to agree with him. I defend the approach adopted in the consultation paper. That approach gives opportunities for debate. It is also open to recommendations on other forms of raising revenue — that option has not been precluded. This is a democratic society, and the Member is free to articulate his views and make them known during the consultation process. Mr Close is a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and I await concerted views on alternative forms of taxation from him or, indeed, the Committee. That is not a criticism of the Committee. The Member frequently refers to local income tax, but I have not seen any firm proposals emanating from him or his party. I await such documentation and recommendations that the Member might deem worthy of putting before us.

We are constrained by current legislation. The Member is aware that, during the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement, some of us were anxious to open up the subject of taxation for wider consideration. Although that was not possible then, it may be so in the future. Issues such as those relating to local forms of taxation could be addressed in the review of the Good Friday Agreement. However, it will be an uphill struggle to achieve what he suggests.

I do not accept that a rating system is necessarily regressive. If we continue with a rating system, we must make it as progressive as possible — that is the challenge in the consultation paper. By raising issues such as industrial derating, the document reflects the view of consultants who were employed to address the issue in as objective a way as possible. The consultation paper reports their views. I emphasise that their views are not Executive policy.

We were urged that it would be appropriate to address the question of industrial derating. It should be addressed because it contains weaknesses and inadequacies, and it does not apply across the business sector. Therefore, it does not, as some Members claim, act as an incentive in attracting inward investment. Those views and conclusions result from an examination of the situation. Members and others outside may have different views, and I urge that those be made known so that all possible views and recommendations are available in the course of the consultation.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The Minister has acknowledged that the source of the current problems is the deficit of perhaps £9 to £10 billion, the result of underinvestment over the years, particularly in water and other public services. The Minister has also made it clear that the scope for raising revenue is limited to the rates and, potentially, water charging. The Minister agrees that the money received under the Barnett formula is barely sufficient to meet day-to-day running costs.

The proposals are essentially for the imposition of a wealth tax as a matter of policy. He says that that is fairer, but what he means is that he will tax, through the rates, those who have better properties. That will be justified under the guise of fairness. Will there be any end to the increases on that narrow band of water charges and rates, as interest on private finance initiatives (PFIs), other capital expenditure and borrowings from the Government under the recent arrangement clicks in? Is it not a policy under which the rates will be increased by substantial amounts year on year in order to fund the results of the Minister’s own mistakes in not having ensured, at the time of the agreement, that the black hole of underinvestment was met, to some extent, by the British Government?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The consultation document contains no proposals. Options are set out, and that is appropriate. We do not, however, claim a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom, and the Member and other interests may want to make us aware of other options.

The Member has frequently made the point that at the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement there was no commitment to, as he puts it, make good the deficit. As I recall, the Member denied us the benefit of his wisdom and recommendations in the final stages of the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. We are therefore left to speculate as to what might have been had Mr McCartney been present at that time.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister’s statement will assist in launching the review of rating policy, and I welcome it on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I also welcome the public consultation exercise. I hope that citizens and interested groups will be stimulated by the document and contribute to the review. They have an opportunity to influence what happens, and there will be no point in their making comments in several months’ or years’ time. I hope that they will be engaged and that they will make a mature and responsible contribution to the issues highlighted today and the options open to them.

I welcome rates relief and rebates for the working poor. The review will discuss the rating of vacant property. Some £48 million a year is lost through the lack of rates for vacant properties. Such a proposal would draw in significant funds even if just a proportion of the money were used. Does the Minister accept that other policy changes may be needed in tandem with changes to the rating policy? Issues might emerge during the review of the rating system, such as planning restrictions in certain areas.

The Minister stated his intention to hold several public seminars in June and to establish a web site. Will his Department co-ordinate the seminars directly or will they be facilitated by neutral organisations as was the case for the regional transportation strategy, the railways task force and the review of the Planning Service?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I welcome Mr Beggs’s suggestions for the format and the auspices under which the public seminars would take place, and I will pass them on to the officials in charge. We want the consultation to be an open process in which all views are heard. I am not sure how we can take on board the planning issues to which Mr Beggs referred. However, if he has specific ideas on how they will affect rating policy, I suggest that he writes to the Minister of the Environment and my Department. It may be that he is thinking about the valuations that are struck on particular businesses depending on whether they are situated in a town or a city. If Mr Beggs would clarify his concerns, I will ensure that they are addressed.

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

Considering the amount of debate in the House on the review of rating policy, it is clear that it will be an important addition to our thinking on fiscal matters. However, does the Minister agree that the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative has changed the context in which the review is being carried out? That initiative, together with public-private partnerships and our public expenditure create new ways to improve infrastructure. What effect will the announcement of 2 May 2002 have on the review of rating policy?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The precise connection between the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative and the review of rating policy — indeed any reform to replace a system of local revenue raising — is that borrowing under the reinvestment and reform initiative must be serviced through local revenue sources. The Treasury set that condition so that the direct relationship between what we borrow and the means that we have available to service the borrowing could be clearly seen. The reinvestment and reform initiative provides us, through that borrowing facility, with access to significant capital at gilt rates to invest in our major infrastructural projects.

Everyone in the House knows the extent of the need for investment in such projects across the major services of health, education, transport, water, roads, and so on. Our judgement on the sources that we draw on for the necessary finance must be balanced carefully. A strategic investment body will be established to advise the Executive on how best to finance those major investment projects.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think I understood the Minister correctly when he said that the revenue review would consider more than just the money that could be raised by rates and water charges. Will he assure us that any savings that accrue following the review of public administration will be allowed for in the review that he is undertaking? In addition, the Minister said:

"The main case for domestic Revaluation is about redistribution and the relative contributions of those in prosperous areas compared to those in less well off areas."

I am sure that the Minister agrees that we do not just want to see a redistribution that may result in a lopsided rating, or other, system. We must devote our energies and expertise to ensuring that we create a fair and equitable rating system. The Minister has rightly emphasised that the main thrust of the review will be to ensure that we have a fairer rating system, if that can be achieved. Will he also assure us that the Assembly will have the final say on the matter when the exercise is finished and that there will not simply be a series of statements from him?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

If Members need any assurance that the Assembly will have the final say on the allocation of public expenditure and the sources from which public money is raised that we have control over, I give it. Any such decision cannot be contained in a take-it-or-leave-it ministerial statement. I should have thought that I hardly needed to give such an assurance, but I give it.

The more we save, the less we have to borrow, and the more is available to us to spend directly from our own sources on the services and the infrastructure for which we have responsibility. We will work vigorously to achieve maximum savings across the whole Administration. We have a clear obligation, as I made clear today in my previous statement, and have made clear on other occasions. A lopsided rating system would not be fair. That is the simple response to the Member’s concern about that part of the consultation document that highlights the disproportionate contributions that the current system requires from ratepayers on low and high incomes. A fair system seeks contributions in accordance with people’s means.

Deficient and unfair as the present system might be in some respects, there are provisions to exempt people on the lowest incomes. Housing benefit is available, which enables such people to pay their rate bills. A concept of social justice must run through the entire system, and it is up to us to meet the challenge of achieving a system that adheres to such principles. The system must be as fair as we can possibly make it. Nobody likes to pay taxes.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the review of rating policy consultative paper. The issue is important; it is one that will be debated in the Assembly and across Northern Ireland for many years to come.

Several points are worth mentioning. The Minister said that he planned to hold three or four seminars across Northern Ireland in June. Is that sufficient to deal with the issue if it is so vital? Moreover, what mechanism does the Minister intend to use to consult with interested groups and organisations, and how does he intend to directly consult with local government? Given its importance, a separate or different mechanism for consultation with local government is necessary. Local government will want to be consulted.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Local government will be keen to be consulted, and it will hardly need much prompting from me — or from any other Minister — to become involved in the consultation process. It would not surprise me if the paper is circulated as soon as it falls into the hands of officials from our 26 district councils. The paper will be circulated to Members, and time will be set aside over the coming months for them to debate the issue and come to some concerted views. We shall consider any channels that we should use.

Mr Hay asked whether three or four seminars would be sufficient. I indicated in response to an earlier question that I am open to reviewing the need for such events. Public events are there to highlight the issues, and I do not imagine that decisions will be arrived at them. Such public events will draw in representatives and participants from a wide range of backgrounds. They will return to their various groups and organisations and stimulate debate. I hope that the events will be seen as a significant consultation, and that there will be considerable involvement. If Members are aware of groups to which we are failing to reach out, or groups that want to have an input and seek engagement with us during the consultation, I am happy to receive representations. I will try to see how we can meet any requests that are made.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

It never ceases to amaze me how so many Members welcome the Minister’s introduction of what is going to be an extensive hike on rates for the vast majority of our constituents. Make no mistake about it: what is being talked about today will have major and serious implications for our constituents. The Minister spoke earlier about Members being free to articulate their views during the debate in the Assembly. That will be interesting, because Members are often limited to five minutes in debates in which to articulate their views. That does not happen at Westminster when major taxation issues are being discussed. Make no mistake: this is a direct taxation on the people.

Thatcher introduced a poll tax through the front door and was frowned upon by the vast majority of people. Will taxation through the back door be more favourably accepted? Can the Minister assure us that there will no such time limit during the debate and that he will do all in his power to ensure that there is a frank and open major debate on an issue that will be of major importance to all our constituents in the future?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

One of the issues that the Member raised is really a point of order. It is not for the Minister to determine the length of debates or the length of speeches during the debates. That is entirely a matter for the Business Committee to decide. The Business Committee could determine that a motion would take all week. The Member and other Members should channel their views through their representatives on the Business Committee. In fairness, the Minister can reasonably be asked questions only about matters for which he has responsibility, and that is not one of them.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do not normally take them, but on this occasion I will hear what the Member has to say.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I did not ask the Minister to allocate the time. I asked him to use his influence to ensure that we have an open debate.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is good that I clarified the matter for the House. It will be up to several Members when the time comes, one of whom is seated not very far from the Member — and he has great influence in these matters.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Much as I might be described as having influence, I am glad that you, Mr Speaker, have indicated the way in which it is circumscribed in this instance and that this is a matter for the Business Committee. Members must be able to debate such a significant matter, and I will welcome that opportunity.

There is absolutely nothing back door about this. If there were, I would hardly have come here, made my statement and responded in the way in which I did to show that this is an open process. It will be for the Assembly to decide what form or forms of local taxation it wants to adopt and the charges that might be associated with them. It is up to us to promote the discussion.

I note the Member’s foresight in that he can tell us that we are going to have significant hikes. I have certainly made absolutely no statement in that regard. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Perhaps during the debate that the Member wants he will make proposals for the major hikes that he has referred to. I have certainly made no such proposals. During Budget debates in the future we will have to consider and determine the charges that are to be associated with our forms of revenue. There will be nothing back door about it; there is nothing back door about the process now, nor will there be during the public consultation that we are now embarking on.

Amendments to Standing Orders

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There are three motions in the Order Paper to amend Standing Orders. They all relate to the same issue. Therefore I wish to conduct one debate only — if, indeed, debate there be. I shall ask the Clerk to read the first motion and then call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move that motion. Debate will then take place on all three motions and all who wish to speak, including the mover, will speak in that single debate. When all who wish to speak have done so, I will call the Chairperson to make a winding-up speech, if there have been any interventions. I will then put the question on the first motion. I will then ask the Chairperson to formally move each motion in turn and separately put the question on each motion without further debate. If that is clear, I will proceed.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I beg to move:

In Standing Order 12(1) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)".

The following motions stood in the Order Paper:

In Standing Order 41 delete all and insert:

"41. SCRUTINY OF STATUTORY RULES

(1) Every statutory rule or draft statutory rule which:

(a) is laid before the Assembly; and

(b) is subject to Assembly proceedings, shall stand referred to the appropriate Committee for scrutiny.

(2) The appropriate Committee may also scrutinise any statutory rule which:

(a) deals with a transferred matter (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998); and

(b) is not subject to Assembly proceedings,whether or not the statutory rule is laid before the Assembly.

(3) To assist Committees in the scrutiny of instruments under this Standing Order there shall be an officer of the Assembly known as the Examiner of Statutory Rules who shall carry out any functions delegated to him/her under paragraph (4)(b).

(4) The appropriate Committee may:

(a) scrutinise the instrument itself; or

(b) delegate to the Examiner of Statutory Rules any of its functions in relation to the technical scrutiny of the instrument.

(5) Where a Committee has delegated functions to the Examiner of Statutory Rules under paragraph (4)(b), references to the Committee in the following provisions of this Standing Order, in relation to functions so delegated, include references to the Examiner.

(6) In scrutinising an instrument the appropriate Committee shall inter alia consider the instrument with a view to determining and reporting on whether it requires to be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly on any of the following grounds, namely, that:

(a) it imposes a charge on the public revenues or prescribes the amount of any such charge;

(b) it contains provisions requiring any payment to be made to any Northern Ireland department or public body in respect of any approval, authorisation, licence or consent or of any service provided or to be provided by that department or body or prescribes the amount of any such payment;

(c) the parent legislation excludes it from challenge in the courts;

(d) it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent legislation confers no express authority so to provide;

(e) there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication of it or in the laying of it before the Assembly;

(f) there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent legislation;

(g) it calls for elucidation;

(h) it appears to have defects in its drafting; or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or the policy behind it.

(7) The appropriate Committee shall where practicable report on an instrument before any resolution or motion relating to that instrument is moved in the Assembly.

(8) In this Standing Order:

"Committee" means:

(a) a Statutory Committee; or

(b) in the case of an instrument which has been made or is to be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, or by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Committee of the Centre;

"instrument" means a statutory rule or a draft statutory rule;

"the parent legislation", in relation to an instrument, means the legislation under which the instrument is made or is to be made;

"statutory rule" has the same meaning as in the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.

(9) For the purposes of this Standing Order a statutory rule or draft statutory rule is subject to Assembly proceedings if, in pursuance of the parent legislation, proceedings may be taken in the Assembly in relation to it." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

In Standing Order 54(2) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

This group of motions deals with the scrutiny of subordinate legislation and arises out of the Committee on Procedures’ report on its review of the legislative process. On 26 February 2002 the Assembly endorsed the recommendations of the report, of which this is one.

The substantive motion is to amend Standing Order 41. Due to changes in numbering, consequential amendments to Standing Orders 12 and 54 will be required.

Although the legislative review concentrated on primary legislation, the Committee found that there were several examples of subordinate legislation — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

— that is, Statutory Rules that did not come under Assembly scrutiny. It noted the recommendation by the Examiner of Statutory Rules in his report for the period December 1999 to July 2001 that Standing Orders should be amended to ensure that all subordinate legislation is subject to, or at least liable to, scrutiny by the Assembly.

The Examiner of Statutory Rules highlighted how, under existing Standing Orders, the scrutiny role of the Assembly is limited to Statutory Rules or draft Statutory Rules, which are made under the primary legislation that comes within the remit of the Assembly. The effect of that, he explained, was that many Statutory Rules, which exercise considerable power over people’s lives, escaped scrutiny by the Assembly.

He gave as an example orders made under the Diseases of Animals (Modification) Order (Northern Ireland) 1996, which are not laid before the Assembly but which regulate the way in which people conduct their business or the way animals are marketed. The Examiner highlighted the fact that that was not the case at Westminster, where procedures were in place to ensure that all legislation was subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The Committee agreed with the Examiner on the importance of the Assembly having in place procedures to ensure the closest examination of all legislation. As such, that is reflected in paragraph (2) of the proposed amendments to Standing Order 41.

The Committee considered another issue raised by the Examiner to amend Standing Orders to require a Committee, when scrutinising the Statutory Rule, to draw it to the attention of the Assembly where it requires a payment to be made in respect of a licence or consent or other service from a public body. That is not provided for in current Standing Orders.

The Examiner suggested that such a requirement should be qualified, so that an imposition of a charge, or the prescription of the amount of the charge, should be reported only where it appeared to the Committee that its imposition called for the special attention of the Assembly. The Committee agreed that the imposition of charges on the public should be drawn to the attention of the Assembly. That would bring it into line with existing practice in Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and that has been incorporated in paragraph (6) of the proposed amendment to Standing Order 41.

I commend the amendments to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

In Standing Order 12(1) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)":

Resolved (with cross-community support):

In Standing Order 41 delete all and insert:

"41. SCRUTINY OF STATUTORY RULES

(1) Every statutory rule or draft statutory rule which:

(a) is laid before the Assembly; and

(b) is subject to Assembly proceedings,shall stand referred to the appropriate Committee for scrutiny.

(2) The appropriate Committee may also scrutinise any statutory rule which:

(a) deals with a transferred matter (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998); and

(b) is not subject to Assembly proceedings, whether or not the statutory rule is laid before the Assembly.

(3) To assist Committees in the scrutiny of instruments under this Standing Order there shall be an officer of the Assembly known as the Examiner of Statutory Rules who shall carry out any functions delegated to him/her under paragraph (4)(b).

(4) The appropriate Committee may:

(a) scrutinise the instrument itself; or

(b) delegate to the Examiner of Statutory Rules any of its functions in relation to the technical scrutiny of the instrument.

(5) Where a Committee has delegated functions to the Examiner of Statutory Rules under paragraph (4)(b), references to the Committee in the following provisions of this Standing Order, in relation to functions so delegated, include references to the Examiner.

(6) In scrutinising an instrument the appropriate Committee shall inter alia consider the instrument with a view to determining and reporting on whether it requires to be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly on any of the following grounds, namely, that:

(a) it imposes a charge on the public revenues or prescribes the amount of any such charge;

(b) it contains provisions requiring any payment to be made to any Northern Ireland department or public body in respect of any approval, authorisation, licence or consent or of any service provided or to be provided by that department or body or prescribes the amount of any such payment;

(c) the parent legislation excludes it from challenge in the courts;

(d) it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent legislation confers no express authority so to provide;

(e) there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication of it or in the laying of it before the Assembly;

(f) there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent legislation;

(g) it calls for elucidation;

(h) it appears to have defects in its drafting; or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or the policy behind it.

(7) The appropriate Committee shall where practicable report on an instrument before any resolution or motion relating to that instrument is moved in the Assembly.

(8) In this Standing Order:

"Committee" means:

(a) a Statutory Committee; or

(b) in the case of an instrument which has been made or is to be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, or by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Committee of the Centre;

"instrument" means a statutory rule or a draft statutory rule;

"the parent legislation", in relation to an instrument, means the legislation under which the instrument is made or is to be made;

"statutory rule" has the same meaning as in the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.

(9) For the purposes of this Standing Order a statutory rule or draft statutory rule is subject to Assembly proceedings if, in pursuance of the parent legislation, proceedings may be taken in the Assembly in relation to it." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

Resolved (with cross-community support):

In Standing Order 54(2) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

Committee for Employment and Learning: Change of Membership

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the visit of honoured guests to the Assembly. The President, or Speaker, of the Assembly of Kosovo, Prof Nexhat Daci, is here with several Members of the Kosovan Parliament. They are in the distinguished visitors Gallery, and I am sure that the House would wish me to welcome them. They will be here for two or three days and will meet with representatives of all the Members and various Committees and bodies of the Assembly. [Applause].

The Impact of the Aggregates Tax on Businesses in Fermanagh and South Tyrone

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

The quarry tax is one of the most substantial threats ever faced by our economy. I acknowledge the work that the current Minister of Finance and Personnel, Dr Farren, his predecessor, Mark Durkan, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, have done to find an alternative to it. The Executive have put their weight behind the effort to persuade the Treasury to rethink its position on the quarry tax in Northern Ireland. The efforts to date have achieved a deferral on processed products such as concrete blocks and ready-mixed concrete. That is a useful concession.

In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, 1,000 people are dependent on the quarry industry for their livelihoods. However, since 1 April, the quarry tax has been levied on stones, gravel and sand. The demand for those products from quarries in the constituency has dropped dramatically already. I have figures that show a drop in output of 40% in some quarries, and in one, a drop of 74%, based on an average output of the same materials over the past three years.

Traditionally, this is the time of year when the demand for quarry products increases. It is a busy time for the construction industry and on farms. Farmers buy large quantities of stone for drainage work and the construction of farm roads. Since 1 April, a great deal of the material for such work has been brought across the border. The substitution of materials from quarries in the South for those from our own quarries demonstrates how ill-advised the introduction of the tax is in Northern Ireland.

The Treasury says that imported stone is also subject to a levy of £1·60 a tonne. However, everyone knows that although that seems to be the case on paper, the reality is different. The levy cannot and will not be enforced because Customs and Excise does not have the manpower to enforce it. We know from our experience with the fuel tax that Customs and Excise does not have the resources to ensure that this tax is applied.

The aggregates tax was supposed to achieve environmental improvements. However, in our case, it will not achieve those, and it is not hard to see why the initiative will fail to have the desired effect. We know from our travels through counties across the border, such as Donegal and Cavan, that, just as there are many quarries along and close to the border on the Northern side, there are also many quarries along and close to the border on the Southern side. As the volume of material extracted from quarries on this side of the border decreases, there will be a corresponding increase in the volume of material extracted a short distance away in the South. As a result, there will be no environmental gain. In that context, the aggregates tax cannot be justified for Northern Ireland. It is a punitive measure that will lead to the closure of quarries and the loss of jobs if it is not stopped.

The Chancellor cannot ignore the wishes of the Assembly — an elected body that is accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. He cannot ignore the Assembly’s concern about the effect of the quarry tax on border areas and the entire industry throughout Northern Ireland. There is a more effective way to address the environmental issues associated with the quarrying industry, and that is through North/South arrangements. There is a need for harmonisation and a level playing field for the industry, North and South. Through North/ South co-operation, we can arrive at a better outcome that will safeguard the quarry industry, protect the environment and stabilise our rural communities.

Members must remember that these border communities have not yet benefited from the peace dividend. It is well known that the fuel tax has devastated the economy in those areas. It has resulted in the closure of almost all the filling stations and many small shops in rural areas. Those areas have borne the brunt of the fuel tax, and they are now to be hammered again by an ill-conceived Treasury initiative. I ask Members for their support, and to call on Gordon Brown to abandon the aggregates tax.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This is a big issue, and it has been going on for a while now. When I was the Minister of the Environment, I remember writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the issue is an environmental one. I also met some quarry owners and the secretary of their association at the Killyhevlin Hotel in Enniskillen last year. The impact of the aggregates tax will be devastating, and I am glad, therefore, to see this Adjournment debate take place. I look forward to seeing some positive action being taken to address the problem.

The matter can be approached from both an economic and an environmental point of view, which I shall endeavour to do. First, I shall set the scene. Quarry producers have lobbied for a long time on the issue, and many meetings have taken place between our Ministers and the Treasury in London. Despite gallant efforts, the tax was introduced, albeit with a tax break for one year, which is a slight easement. However, the industry is a significant exporter to the Republic of Ireland, with as much as 90% of production from some plants being sold across the border. Export markets account for one third of asphalt produced in Northern Ireland, 50% to 70% of pre-fabricated concrete, and 30% to 40% of production from firms on the border, which can rise as high as 90% at times.

I have statistics for one company in Belcoo, County Fermanagh. In May 2001, its quarry was outputting 627 tonnes, but this year the figure has reduced dramatically to 119 tonnes — a decrease of 508 tonnes. That figure accounts for only one month. It is estimated that hundreds of jobs are at risk — up to 1,000 jobs in Tyrone and more than 700 in Fermanagh could be lost. To develop Northern Ireland’s economy, the industry is essential for construction, housing, and road construction, on which we are embarking. Over one year, it is estimated that the tax will reduce the output of aggregate from this quarry by more than 100,000 tonnes.

The aggregates tax, which was only introduced on 1 April 2002, is already having a major impact on the industry, and, as a result, job losses will follow. This Belcoo firm has predicted that up to 15 workers will have to be made redundant, which is a lot of people in a small rural area. Many of those jobs are located in rural communities that are designated as TSN areas. The problem lies in the fact that buyers are now going to quarries across the border to avoid paying the £1·60-a-tonne aggregates tax.

One quarry firm, Acheson & Glover, estimate that between 400 and 500 tonnes of aggregate material is to be moved from the Republic into Northern Ireland via Belcoo every week. Surely the Government can see the grave effect that that has on the industry. Quarries from the South of Ireland are supposed to register with Customs and Excise; however, that is not happening and they are avoiding paying the tax. Therefore, a main issue is the fact that a level playing field does not operate — there is unfair competition. The situation would be eased if quarries in the South had to pay the tax, because it would mean that buyers would not have the advantage of crossing the border to purchase aggregate.

I shall now approach the debate from an environmental perspective. The Treasury claims that the main purpose behind the tax’s introduction is to address the environmental costs associated with quarrying operations, such as noise and dust. That objective cannot be faulted. However, when one looks at the effect that the tax is having, one will see that, environmentally, the situation is deteriorating. We may ask how that is the case. As more buyers travel to the Republic of Ireland to buy their materials, it means that transportation takes longer. As a result, there will be an increase in CO2 emissions and, therefore, atmospheric pollution. Moreover, additional health costs may be incurred as the number of asthma sufferers in the rural border regions increases.

The second environmental point to note is that Northern Ireland cannot generate large volumes of recyclable material compared with Great Britain. The vast majority of available construction waste is recycled in an effective manner. Therefore, it is clear that the environmental argument for this tax being in place is nonsense when its impact is examined carefully.

I want to take this opportunity to urge Departments to encourage major public buyers of these materials to buy only from bona fide suppliers — those who have paid the aggregates tax. If that were to happen, it would transform the situation overnight and safeguard thousands of jobs in my constituency.

With a tax rate of £1·60 a tonne, Republic of Ireland producers will be able to haul their product 20 to 25 miles to compete on a local producer’s doorstep. Republic of Ireland product will flood any area within 20 miles of the border. Exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic, which once flourished, will become a thing of the past. Our Government must take cognisance of this frightening imposition, which is disastrous to the quarry industry.

I seek Government change in this process; otherwise, we lose an industry that has contributed so much to the economy over many years. I support the aim of asking the Government to appreciate the difficulties of a land boundary. Across the water it is not appreciated that we have a land boundary with another state and, therefore, the situation is not understood. This tax is a real burden; there must be another way. I support Mr Gallagher on this issue.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I too give my support. I thank Tommy Gallagher for having the foresight to bring the matter before the Assembly today. It is an emotive issue across Northern Ireland but especially in border areas. Those of us who live in, and represent, those constituencies have first-hand knowledge of the impact that the implementation of this aggregates tax will have.

Throughout Northern Ireland, the aggregates industry employs around 6,000 people. Potentially, up to 1,000 of those jobs could be lost as a result of the implementation of the aggregates tax. It is completely out of proportion, because the impact will be felt most strongly in the border constituencies, especially Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as Tommy Gallagher has rightly said.

I listened carefully to Mr Gallagher; he called for co-operation with the South on this matter. However, when the issue is examined more closely, it will be found that the real competition comes from the South of Ireland. I am sure that Mr Gallagher is aware of that. Our jobs and our industry will be lost to the South of Ireland if something is not done.

This is not a devolved matter. I am delighted to see the Minister here today. I thank him for taking an interest in the matter, and I have no doubt that he will adopt a hands-on approach to do what he can. The Assembly will be grateful to him for doing so and for the attitude that he has adopted. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that even if he wanted to do something tomorrow — and if it were entirely in his control and brief to do so, he undoubtedly would — unfortunately, he could not do so. This is not a devolved matter; it is a matter for London. If I can say anything constructive about that, I ask the Minister to continue to make representation to ensure that the impact that will be felt here is minimised as much as possible.

Sam Foster quoted some accurate figures about job losses and the potential loss in Northern Ireland, especially along the Fermanagh and Tyrone border. The average daily output for April was 401 tonnes in 1999, 2000 and 2001. However, in 2002, even before the real impact of the introduction of this tax has been felt, that has reduced to 252 tonnes. The reduction is well over 40%, and the impact on a constituency already facing difficulties will be a loss of jobs and revenue.

The average daily output for May in 1999, 2000 and 2001 was 627 tonnes. In 2002 it is 134 tonnes. That graphically illustrates the extent of the problem. It has been said that much finance will be generated by the introduction of this tax, but that does not tell the whole story. We were told that Northern Ireland would generate £35 million for the Treasury. With a potential loss of 1,000 jobs, £35 million is a hefty price to pay: the net gain will be virtually nothing, and the revenue to those towns and villages along the border will also be affected, particularly in Fermanagh and south Tyrone.

This is an emotive issue. We must plead with London and explain that this is not a level playing field and that work will be diverted across the border where it will be cheaper. It is reckoned that when the aggregates tax is fully introduced, it will put about £2,000 on the price of a new house.

The knock-on effect will be devastating. It will have an impact on road-building schemes, and Departments will have to compete in an unfair way. Sam Foster referred to that when he said that London does not fully realise that there is a land border, and the implications and impact that that will have in the coming years will be devastating. I agree with what has been said.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I too agree with all that has been said. It will bring to the attention of the Minister and others that, although they cannot do something directly about it, they cannot allow the case to be lost by default. It must not become less important — it is very important for the reasons given.

Those problems are of primary importance in areas such as Fermanagh and Tyrone where there is an abundance of quarries and great dependence on such industries. Those areas depend heavily on agriculture and tourism, both of which have been in decline in the last couple of years — especially agriculture. This is important to those who live in that part of the North. Last year the Assembly voted unanimously for Ministers to make representations to the Treasury to try to prevent the tax. It has been said that the tax would raise £35 million at the cost of 1,000 jobs. The derogation is only putting off the evil day for a short time for those involved.

The aggregates tax is designed to ensure that the negative environmental impacts of quarrying are reflected in the price, and to encourage producers to use recycled materials. Members have said that we do not have an abundance of materials to recycle and that we have not been using aggregates to any great extent compared to England, where the tax has been brought about by the green lobby. Our difficulties have been outlined. There is unfair competition across the border, which goes directly against the objectives of the tax, and the green lobby should take that into account.

It does not take that into account when writing to us or when making representations. The lobby hopes that the Ministers, and others, will stand to on the matter and that we will be forced to deal with it ourselves.

The tax is unlikely to have significant use. The difficulty is that we do not use the alternatives — unlike large urban areas in Britain, which have large brownfield sites, abundant demolished material and a different landscape to ours.

No business can make strategic plans on the basis of what is essentially a one-year stay of execution. Adequate breathing space must be given if jobs are not to be lost. Quarry owners must invest and work proactively, even though the threat of the tax and the uncertainty that surrounds it will deter them from doing so. That will cost jobs, regardless of what happens. We can do nothing about that; we can only say that we will fight on and that the fight is not over. The lack of ongoing investment in lorries, and so on, has negative effects on the environment. Roads are negatively affected when upgrading does not take place.

The Quarry Products Association (QPA) highlighted that the tax of £1·60 per tonne would raise £35·2 million a year in the North, but the potential losses total £61·4 million. That could mean the loss of as many as 4,000 jobs in the North. The ripples caused by the proposed tax levy could impact on all levels of construction. The public will be left to pick up the tab. The introduction of the tax may not simply result in the loss of 1,000 jobs; many quarries, some of which are heavily dependent on aggregate sales, may have no option but to close.

The ripple effect may be felt not only by construction workers but by subsidiary industries, including engineering, that are involved in the quarry industry. All those industries have been severely affected by the agricultural decline in the past few years. Companies such as Finlay Concrete Products, and Acheson & Glover, who supply up to 50% of their products to customers south of the border, will immediately find the market difficult — that is how they will get bitten by the tax. Quarry owners here will point out that they are already subject to the strictest environmental legislation in Europe. There is no significant problem with the quarry industry, despite the fact that one was perceived by green pressure groups such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and Friends of the Earth.

Over time, the Government aim to shift the burden of tax from "good" issues, such as labour and capital, to "bad" issues such as pollution. Environmental taxation must meet the general tests of good taxation. It must be well designed and meet objectives without causing undesirable side-effects.

The introduction of the aggregates tax here will not fulfil the objectives of the environmental tax; rather, it will have a detrimental impact on the environment. Extra miles will be travelled, as lower-cost products will be sourced from the South, which will have an impact on the environment. If those building houses or tendering for roads or large projects begin to source aggregates from across the border everyone here will suffer severely. The overall cost of products will be also raised massively for councils, local Departments and those living in border areas who are most dependent on the industry. I support Mr Gallagher on the issue. Go raibh maith agat.

4.30pm

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

I have heard nothing with which I disagree in the debate; everything that I have heard I could have said myself. There are several quarries in my constituency of South Down, and they face the same threat as those in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Quarries in County Louth and County Monaghan are only a short distance away, and there is no doubt that the business will go in that direction if the aggregates tax is introduced.

Quarry owners mainly employ rural people whose wages and salaries go back into the rural economy. I can think of several part-time farmers in my constituency who take up quarry work. The reverse can also be the case. Those jobs go hand in hand, and the people who fill them are good employees. The same families have been employed in those businesses for generations. That goes back to the 1950s, and young men are still going into the industry. That tradition would be broken if the aggregates tax were introduced. Any tax on sand, gravel or stone will result in job losses.

I often wonder about the attitude of decision makers in Westminster towards Northern Ireland. Do they act as if we did not exist, or do they impose taxes upon us regardless of the consequences? Do they adopt a "like it or lump it" attitude? They do not consider the land frontier or the threat that such taxes pose to those trying to make a living on this side of the border, and where it would drive customers.

I thank those Members who stayed for the debate and Tommy Gallagher in particular for introducing it. I commend his efforts since the dreaded aggregates tax was first mooted.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Much of what I have to say is repetitive; but as a former schoolteacher, I believe that repetition helps to hammer the message home. I thank Mr Gallagher for raising this matter, and I am glad that so many Members from the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency have stayed for the debate. I welcome the debate and support its intention.

I understand the thinking behind the Government’s scheme. Its aim is to reduce waste and carbon dioxide emissions and to lessen the impact on the environment. However, like many well-intentioned Government schemes, it is flawed. The aggregates tax was set at £1·60 a tonne in an attempt to persuade the businesses concerned to adopt a recycling agenda and to reduce the extraction of virgin aggregates.

This tax may help businesses in England, Scotland and Wales to think seriously about recycling that does not have an adverse effect on their profits. However, Northern Ireland’s case is completely different. This is the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land border with another European country. That has affected our economy in many ways; its detrimental results have included livestock and fuel smuggling. This tax will put another nail in the coffin of our businesses and industry.

The aggregates tax will be detrimental to businesses in Northern Ireland. The strategy to reduce any environmental impact in this sector of business should be left to the Assembly. Sales of aggregates rocketed in March in an attempt to store up stones and avoid the extra cost. Northern Ireland quarry businesses are doing much to address environmental issues. The quarry industries in Northern Ireland had the highest uptake of any industry of the ISO 1400 environmental standard.

In 2000, there were 1,700 confirmed cases of water pollution. However, only 11 were associated with quarrying.

The quarry business has produced a good code of environmental practice. The majority of available construction waste in Northern Ireland is being recycled. Recycling took place on site for the Odyssey project, for Belfast City Airport and at the Sirocco Works. Our quarry industry should not be penalised for environmental reasons when it has tried its best with environmental initiatives. The Government wish to be assertive on environmental issues but they are ignoring the efforts that our quarry industry has made.

The consequences of the tax must be highlighted: potential clients will seek aggregates products from quarries in the Republic of Ireland because of price and currency differentials. Some quarries in Northern Ireland are within 25 miles of the border, and they will be forced out of business just as petrol stations were. Many jobs will be lost because of that knock-on effect. Grocery stores will be affected if people move when they lose their jobs. The loss of employment will have a detrimental effect on the local economy of Fermanagh because, over the past few years, it has lost much of its industry and its economy has been affected. We must do all we can to retain what is left there.

There will be added effects and costs to departmental schemes, and that was mentioned by Mr Morrow. The projected costs for road maintenance will rise by 4%, and road capital schemes will potentially rise by 17%. The environmental cost of the tax will also be high. Quarries in Northern Ireland are close to their markets, and they have an average delivery range of about 10 miles. It has been estimated that that delivery range will double, at least, if customers order from quarries in the Republic. That upsurge in road traffic will increase, not reduce, CO2 emissions and will put more stress on our road infrastructure.

One of the stated aims of the tax was that there would be no effect on the competitiveness of Northern Ireland quarries in international markets. The reverse is the reality. The tax will affect their competitiveness and will encourage increased importation of quarry products from the Republic of Ireland.

The tax discriminates against quarries in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to abandon this course of action, as it is contrary to the interests of a devolved region of the UK. If the Government want environmental targets to be reached, I hope that it will afford the Northern Ireland Assembly the opportunity of working with the quarry industry to do just that. The issue affects all of Northern Ireland, not just Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It should be within the remit of the Assembly to redress the problem. I support the intention behind the debate.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I compliment Mr Gallagher for tabling the Adjournment debate, and for raising the important issue of aggregates tax again. I am fully conscious of the interest and concern that he and other Members have in the tax, and particularly in its impact on the local economy. I acknowledge the points that Members have made as regards the impact on the local economy especially in border areas.

I recognise that border areas such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone are at the forefront of problems in price levels and trade flows, given their location and the distortion caused by the tax. However, I wish to highlight some of the progress made on aggregates tax since the issue was first raised in the House in December 2000 and then move on to the nature and direction of future work. It is important to outline some contextual points first.

Aggregates tax is only one of several fiscal measures that have been introduced throughout the United Kingdom. However desirable Members may find it to have discretion over such issues, taxes are an excepted matter. As a result, our ability to influence versions of taxes that reflect the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland is limited. It is critically important that the Executive are engaged from the outset when tax measures that could affect Northern Ireland disproportionately are being considered. I could extend that to all tax measures, insofar as it is possible to include us, because sometimes it is not possible to assess the effect of a tax.

Regrettably, in the instance of the aggregates tax, the interests of Northern Ireland were ignored at the outset. Much effort has been expended to recover the situation, and there is still a long way to go. I am reflecting views that were communicated to officials when it was realised that the aggregates tax would have a negative impact on Northern Ireland. We were not on the radar screen as far as considering the tax’s impact was concerned; we were ignored because we were not considered relevant in any impact assessment.

My predecessor, Mr Durkan, and I have stressed in correspondence with the Treasury that the argument for introducing uniform taxes throughout the United Kingdom is not well founded and that the vision of those in Whitehall must extend beyond the Greater London area. As part of my responsibilities, I have pressed the point, on several occasions, that Northern Ireland shares a land border with another state that is now a member of the euro zone. In the Republic, there is no environmental tax, and that point has been driven home in almost all the contributions.

We have had some success in pressing home our arguments to the Treasury, and I welcome recent comments made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is a need for specific Northern Ireland research on aggregates tax. Of course, it would have been much better to conduct the analysis before the implementation of the tax.

Another indication of progress is that last November the Treasury announced in its annual pre-Budget report that, for Northern Ireland only, it intended to phase in over five years the introduction of tax on aggregates used in processing.

4.45pm

I am pleased to inform the Assembly that the measure was recently given state aid approval by the European Commission. It is important to recognise that it is not only London that has to be convinced of our arguments, but Brussels, because Northern Ireland is working increasingly within frameworks that are set down by the European Union, especially with regard to the environment and other matters that I referred to in my statement.

As industry representatives said at the time, that was only a small step, but it was a step in the right direction. Although the Assembly and the Executive can rightly claim some credit for that measure, Members should be reassured by the fact that by no means do my officials or I intend to rest on that point. Much work remains to be done. It is imperative that the Assembly and the Executive act collectively to address urgently the issues at hand.

I want to concentrate now on the present position and on what I hope to achieve in the coming months with regard to the aggregates tax. In welcoming the pre-Budget report measure, I am also aware that the main beneficiary is limited to aggregates used for processing, and that the five-year digressive approach may not be the best for the industry. A working group led by departmental officials has been established. It is engaged in detailed discussions with industry representatives on alternative options. The Minister of the Environment and I had a useful meeting earlier this afternoon with a delegation from the Quarry Products Association. The meeting had already been arranged for today and, therefore, coincided nicely with the debate. Meetings have taken place recently, and they will continue. I am aware from those meetings, and from talking to the delegation earlier today, that the Quarry Products Association appreciates its need to contribute to the protection of the environment. It seeks to work with the Assembly to ensure that those environmental objectives, which we all subscribe to and want to see promoted, can be achieved.

Although wished for by many in the House and outside, complete derogation from the aggregates tax for Northern Ireland appears to be an improbable and unrealistic outcome. Therefore, the Assembly must work within existing parameters. The Treasury has stressed that point on several occasions. The solution will be a matter of balancing the interests of the industry with legitimate concerns about the long-term protection of the environment. That will not be easy. It will involve compromise and a willingness to accept that environmental damage must be mitigated effectively. However, I am encouraged by the willingness of quarry owners to work with the Assembly to ensure that environmental protection measures are put in place.

I continue to acknowledge the real concerns, especially in border constituencies such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone, that have arisen since the introduction of the aggregates tax in April 2002. I have asked departmental officials who lead the aggregates tax working group to continue to monitor the situation and to keep me fully abreast of developments, especially in relation to distortions to trade flow and potential job losses. The aggregates tax is an important Executive priority, and will remain so until a satisfactory solution is found.

As the analysis of the working group identifies a possible way forward, I intend to correspond further with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to help achieve a version of the tax that better reflects the realities of our circumstances, both economic and environmental. What we have achieved to date, however limited it may be, is further evidence of the Assembly and its Executive effecting change for the better. Our combined efforts, together with those of the industry, have enabled us to make a strong case to the Treasury that has had to be answered.

I take the point about engaging with the North/South Ministerial Council, and I will seek advice as to how best we can combat the aggregates tax in that context. I will take an early opportunity to at least raise the issue with whoever is appointed to the finance portfolio in the new Administration in the South. I will meet that Minister in the context of the North/South Ministerial Council’s meeting on European Union programmes in June.

The issue of the responsibility of Customs & Excise was implicitly raised by some Members. I underline the fact that we do not have responsibility for Customs & Excise. The duty of Customs & Excise is to monitor the impact of the tax in Northern Ireland, especially in border areas. Any evidence of tax not being levied on imported aggregate from the South is certainly a worrying development. My officials should be given that information so that they can take it forward with Customs & Excise.

I have addressed most, if not all, of the main points in my response. If other points escaped me, I will respond to Members in writing.

Adjourned at 4.53 pm.