Northern Ireland Assembly, 26 November 2007

305 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

At the sitting on Monday 19 November 2007, Mr O’Dowd sought a ruling in relation to comments allegedly made from a seated position by Mr McNarry.

The first question that Mr O’Dowd asked was whether the language that he believed that Mr McNarry had used was appropriate. I have met Mr McNarry on at least three occasions, and he has strongly denied using the words that were quoted by Mr O’Dowd. Without any evidence to the contrary, I have accepted his denial.

The second question asked by Mr O’Dowd was why the remark was not recorded in the Official Report. As I have said, Mr McNarry denies making the remark, but it may be useful to remind Members that remarks made from a seated position are only recorded in the Official Report if they are referred to by a Member who is on his or her feet at the time or by the Speaker.

I think that this exchange simply reinforces what I said to Members last week: all Members should ensure that good temper and moderation are demonstrated in the Chamber.

Business Motion

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind Members that a suspension of Standing Orders requires cross-community support.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4), inclusive, be suspended for 26 November 2007. — [Mr McNarry.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Given that the motion has been agreed, today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm if required.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement regarding the Northern Ireland Events Company.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on the Northern Ireland Events Company (NIEC).

Members will be aware that, on 22 November, the Executive agreed to a number of immediate steps in response to the deficit identified by the NIEC. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) was first notified of the deficit on 20 September, when the acting chief executive advised officials that the company had incurred a significant financial debt. Prior to that, the company gave no indication to the Department of any impending deficit.

Earlier in 2007, the Department commissioned an internal audit to review the company’s governance and control systems, and that report was completed in August 2007. In view of the number of significant weaknesses identified, the Department engaged with NIEC on the recommendations and action points set out in the internal audit report. In that context, and in the work of the external auditors finalising the 2006-07 accounts, the staff of NIEC advised the Department of the deficit. The draft accounts prepared by the company’s external auditors for the period ending 31 March 2007 reflect a deficit of approximately £1·2 million, accumu­lated over the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

On the basis of the information provided to the Department to date, it appears that the greatest deficit arose from significant overspend against budget in several events, and the company committing itself to expenditure on the basis of assumed corporate sponsorship that failed to materialise.

The purpose of this statement is to inform Members of the background to the issue, and to set out the steps agreed by the Executive to address the matter. The NIEC is established as a company limited by guarantee, and it is bound by companies legislation. The company is treated as a non-departmental public body and has, largely, been dependent on financial support from its sponsor Department, DCAL. Grant-in-aid is paid by DCAL to the company on the terms of an approved business plan. The company is run by a group of non-executive directors, appointed by the Department, with the support of a small executive team.

The liabilities, and contingent liabilities, of the company are precisely that — that is, the liabilities of the company, and not of the Department. Prior to this, the Department has not underwritten or guaranteed the debts of the company; however, in reaching a decision on how to address the issue of this deficit, there is a wide range of factors which I, and the Executive Committee, must consider.

At this stage, there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise details of the company’s financial affairs; therefore, the information currently available must be treated with caution. As previously stated, the draft accounts for the year ending 31 March 2007 reflect a deficit of approximately £1·2 million. In addition, several potential contingent liabilities require further consideration.

I want to have available a comprehensive and authoritative audit of the company’s financial affairs to enable me fully to assess the position, and I will advise the House further when that becomes clear.

Following a meeting of NIEC’s directors on 5 October, the chairman of the company asked the Department to assist in meeting its liabilities. The Department asked the company to quantify its liabilities and set out the background to the accumulation of its deficit. The information currently available to the Department is based on the work of the company’s external auditors and on documentation provided by NIEC.

A decision on whether or not to assist the company, and in what manner, was urgent. Given the circum­stances, this required me to engage with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and, thereafter, my Executive Committee colleagues to seek agreement for my Department to assist in meeting the liabilities of NIEC. The Executive agreed on 22 November to meet the liabilities as identified by the external auditors appointed by the company. This process will be verified by an appropriate professional, appointed by my Department, who will advise on the most appropriate method of winding up the company in an orderly manner.

As Members will appreciate, this matter gave rise to a difficult policy decision for my Department and, ultimately, the Executive, since it is both significant and controversial. A range of options as to how the public interest could best be served were explored. The arguments in favour of assisting the company in meeting its liabilities included consideration of the damage to Northern Ireland’s reputation for hosting events should the company, and the events function, be put in abeyance. A number of events are due to take place in the near future, and several significant events are in the pipeline. The rationale for supporting events is to attract tourists and improve the overall standing of Northern Ireland’s image. The position in relation to the company’s creditors and staff was also an important factor in the decision.

In seeking the agreement of the Executive for this course of action, it was my judgement that the public interest is best served by assisting NIEC to meet its deficit in a manner that maintains confidence in the ability of Northern Ireland to attract and host major events. The potential strategic, long-term benefits of decisive action now outweigh the costs of meeting this immediate shortfall.

As I said earlier, I am in the process of commissioning an independent, comprehensive review of all the circumstances surrounding the deficit accumulated by NIEC. In particular, this will focus on the significant overspend against budget on a number of specific events. I will report back to the House on the findings of this review at the earliest opportunity.

I have also commissioned an external review of the monitoring arrangements between the Department and the other arm’s-length bodies for which it is responsible. This will consider what lessons can be learned in the light of the experience with NIEC.

Clearly, there is a range of sensitive legal and financial issues to be addressed. The professional financial adviser and his specialist team are best placed to bring clarity to these matters. Until I am in possession of the precise details, there is a limit on the extent to which I can assist Members at this stage. I trust that Members will appreciate the sensitivities involved and, therefore, I ask Members to take account of the fact that not all the relevant facts are yet available. It would be prudent to suspend judgement until the facts are available.

The course of action agreed by the Executive will provide full scrutiny of the circumstances leading to the deficit. It will protect Northern Ireland’s reputation for hosting major international events and secure, as far as possible, the existing portfolio of events, along with those in the pipeline. I know that Members share my keenness that events should proceed, if worthwhile, but I am adamant that this must be done within a properly controlled financial framework.

In the process of winding up the company in an orderly manner, early consideration will be given to how the events function should be delivered in the future. It is my intention to ensure that the transition from the current model to whatever new arrangements are put in place is managed in a manner that secures the continuity of attracting and hosting major events in Northern Ireland.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I call Mr Nelson McCausland, I remind the House, because of the nature of the Minister’s statement, not to stray onto any legal issues. I also ask Members not to name, either directly or indirectly, people who are associated with the company.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Have there been any complaints against the company? If so, what was the nature of those complaints, when were they made and how were they investigated?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Department received complaints from five individuals about the Northern Ireland Events Company. Those included complaints from former employees and from those who organised events. The complaints ranged from management attitude to their staff to financial management and propriety and to lack of transparency and equity in dealing with funders.

Complaints were also received about specific actions of the former chief executive, and a further complaint concerned an alleged irregular payment. Those complaints have been subject to ongoing investigations.

The Department has interviewed former members of staff, who wish to remain anonymous. A broad internal audit of the Northern Ireland Events Company was initiated to examine those areas of financial management and processes that former employees had highlighted. The audit also included an examination of all contem­poraneous records of payment.

Funding applicants who made allegations were advised to follow the NIEC complaints procedure, and they were provided with the relevant documentation on those procedures.

Additional allegations that a fifth individual made were investigated, at the Department’s request, by a retired senior civil servant, whose report concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations that had been made. After the complainant was informed of the report’s findings, a further allegation about an irregular payment was made, and the Department immediately initiated an internal audit investigation, which remains ongoing, into that specific alleged payment. Some of the queries and inquiries to which I have referred date as far back as two and a half years ago.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister will be aware that the Public Accounts Committee has asked for an interim report into the matter to be compiled. Given the comments that both the Minister and you, Mr Speaker, have made on the legalities involved, I shall keep my comments broad.

First, will the Minister let the House know why the internal audit of August 2007 did not highlight the company’s financial difficulties immediately? Does the Minister agree that there is no excuse for arm’s-length bodies finding themselves in the position in which the Events Company now finds itself?

The Minister’s statement said that the internal audit report was completed in August 2007 and that in view of a number of significant weaknesses identified, the Department had engaged with the NIEC. The significant weaknesses refer to good governance practices. A wealth of information on good governance is available to arm’s-length bodies. The Audit Office provides that information, as does the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). Indeed, I think that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) provided training only last week or the week before on the governance of such public bodies. Does the Minister agree that significant information is available out there, and, therefore, there is no reason why a public body’s governance procedures should contain weaknesses?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is a salutary lesson for those who sit as directors on such organisations that their responsibilities do not simply extend to dealing with information of which they are aware. It is also their responsibility to make themselves aware of information that they should possess. Individuals who sit on such bodies must ensure that they receive the quality of information that gives them the confidence to make decisions. I agree with the Member on that.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for detailing his proposed action and congratulate him on securing the required extra funding.

Will the Minister confirm that groups that have yet to complete their forms to draw on grants that have already been approved will receive payment? Also, what lessons can his Department and other Depart­ments learn from their not recognising sooner what was a serious financial deficit?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

First, those groups that applied for funding, were awarded it and have yet to draw on it, will still be eligible to receive it, provided that they present the appropriate and proper documentation.

We will be very careful to ensure that everything paid out is adequately documented and that appropriate spending took place. This situation will be a lesson to Departments, and there will be lessons to be learnt.

We will have our enquiry; and I expect that there will be a hearing by the Public Accounts Committee on the matter also. As we go through the process, there will be lessons for Government to learn about how non-departmental bodies are organised, and there will be lessons to be learnt by the individuals who are involved in those bodies.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I acknowledge his contribution and help in recent days in bringing a level of comfort to many on this matter. Has a commitment been given to existing programmes, activities and festivals in the incoming year? There is a level of anxiety from the organisers of good events — such as the Foyle Cup and Milk Cup, community events in my constituency and the World Police and Fire Games. There are good staff who have the capacity to deliver such events, not just in relation to funding applications but in securing private-sector sponsorship. Not all of the staff have been at fault in this matter. Therefore, can we ensure that the capacity to deliver events will remain intact?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

First, I want to ensure that genuine creditors will receive outstanding payments. That will include all applications that have been approved up to March 2008. As for the future of the Northern Ireland Events Company: it will be wound up as soon as possible after that date. It was due to transfer to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board on 1 April 2008, and the due diligence process is underway. As things stand, the transfer is still planned to take place on that date.

Secondly, I intend to make a statement to the Assembly next week on how we will deal with community festivals, as they do not seem to fit within the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. My statement should give Members some confidence on the matter.

We want to ensure that there is confidence both within and beyond Northern Ireland in our ability to deliver events. We have been bidding for significant events, which I trust will be successful. There is still a very important events function to be delivered, and we want to ensure that it is delivered in a professional way that inspires widespread confidence.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister stated that the draft accounts for the period ending 31 March 2007 were prepared. Will he tell us when the accounts for 2005-06 were published and whether they highlighted difficulties at that time? He also said that the company had committed itself to expenditure:

“on the basis of assumed corporate sponsorship that failed to materialise.”

Could the company claim funding from the bodies that did not cough up, or was there any written agreement that funding could be recouped from those bodies?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On the first point, the 2005-06 accounts were unqualified. Therefore, the auditors had not identified any issues in the 2005-06 accounts that were presented to the board. Corporate finance and corporate sponsorship was assumed but was not actually achieved. Companies had not agreed to give funding or sponsorship. However, it was assumed that such funding and sponsorship could be received on the basis of previous experience.

Unfortunately, the events company lost key members of staff who had a specialism in attracting and going after that type of corporate sponsorship. In the absence of the members of staff who were pursuing that particular sponsorship, it did not materialise.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has a large number of non-departmental public bodies. In the light of the serious financial loss incurred by the Northern Ireland Events Company, how confident is the Minister that other, similar situations could not arise? Will he confirm that a business case had been made for each event sponsored by the Northern Ireland Events Company?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

All Departments can learn from what has happened. As a consequence, DCAL has commissioned an immediate review into the monitoring arrangements with all of the arms-length bodies for which it is responsible. I cannot necessarily say that I would be confident that that is the case in other companies. It may be unlikely, but the review is being carried out to ensure that we have that confidence in place, and it is something that other Departments might wish to consider in order to identify the lessons learned in the light of that experience.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

With regard to the new arrangements that have been put in place, I ask the Minister if he believes that the events company is best suited to DCAL in the future. Has he a view on where it should be situated? Will he agree that all such bodies are best placed in DCAL, so that the Minister can keep a close eye on them? He talked about learning from the mistakes that have been made, and I hope that we can all learn from that experience. What is the position with regard to arrangements for which the events company has responsibility, including the community festivals fund?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I indicated that the company was due to move to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board on 1 April 2008. As I understand it, that is still the case, subject to due-diligence procedures. Festival funding, clearly, does not fall within the Tourist Board’s remit. We intend to make a statement next week that will deal with that issue. I am sure that the good work that has been done in that area will continue.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the diligence that he has shown in the matter. He said there was considerable uncertainty about the precise details of the company’s financial affairs. What steps were taken once the company’s financial deficit came to light?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A number of actions were taken. First of all, the Department instructed the Northern Ireland Events Company not to enter into any further commit­ments until and unless it had been given explicit approval by the Department to do so. In addition, the usual quarterly monitoring meeting between the Depart­ment and NIEC has been escalated to a monthly one for the foreseeable future. The Department has requested a full assessment of the financial deficit and financial commitments of the company up until March 2008. It has also asked for a detailed report on the extent and origin of the deficit. That is being prepared by external auditors, who are also undertaking a 100% verification of all payments against authorisation. I expect to have a report on that in the near future.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I note from the Minister’s statement that the Department was first notified on 20 September 2007. Perhaps he will tell the House when he was informed personally about the financial difficulties. Will he also indicate whether any significant contingent liabilities were entered into after that date? Given the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s reputation, will he state what quantum of costs might have to be dealt with in order to settle the contingent liabilities?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I was informed at the same time as the Department on 20 September. My accounting officer brought to my attention that which had been brought to his attention. I would have expected nothing less from him than to be informed immediately of something of that nature.

I first received information to the effect that all might not be well at the Northern Ireland Events Company in the early part of the summer, when I was approached by my colleague Ian Paisley Jnr. He indicated that he had picked up information to the effect that matters might not be as they should. In response to that, I met a former member of Northern Ireland Events Company staff. I also met the organiser of a particular event, who brought some matters to my attention, which I subsequently brought to the attention of my officials. That led to the chain of events that I outlined in my statement.

The Member asked how we intended to handle the matter. We have stated that we intend to ensure that legitimate creditors are paid in full, and we shall put in place a process whereby we can continue to ensure that quality events are brought to Northern Ireland. The organisers of those events must be able to have confidence that those events will be successful, and that whatever sponsorship is offered to them will be paid. I believe that we are in a position to do that.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Bearing in mind that the events company was in difficulties for some time, why did the Minister’s Department not become aware of those difficulties until 20 September, and why did his Department not have in place monitoring arrangements to protect the public interest in the company?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I have indicated, monitoring arrange­ments are in place, which have operated on a quarterly basis. The reason why the figures were not identified at an earlier point is a matter that must emerge from the inquiries that will take place. I trust that we will get that information and that we will learn how such a deficit could have been accumulated without it being noticed through the audit arrangements that were in place.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Bearing in mind the information that the Minister has already provided about the transfer of the Northern Ireland Events Company’s responsibilities to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, is the Minister not concerned that some board members appear to hold dual mandates? Could he also outline to the House the findings of the internal audit review?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I have clearly indicated, the transfer of responsibilities to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will be subject to prior due diligence. However, the sooner we can wind up the Northern Ireland Events Company and start the transition of its functions and responsibilities to another organisation, the sooner we will be able to gain greater certainty and clarity and ensure greater confidence in the local community, and beyond, in respect of bringing events to Northern Ireland.

As part of that process, the responsibilities of those who have been members of both bodies will have to be addressed.

The internal audit review that was completed in August 2007 concluded that risk management, control and governance arrangements in the Northern Ireland Events Company were satisfactory, in part, but contained a number of significant weaknesses that could undermine the achievement of objectives and leave the organisation vulnerable to material error and abuse.

In view of the significant weaknesses that were identified, the Department engaged with the Northern Ireland Events Company to address the recommend­ations and action points that were set out in the internal audit report.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I recognise that the Minister is dealing with problems that were in no way of his making. The Minister said that the full facts are not available. When will the full facts become available? Will the full facts be available to all Members and the wider public, so that the due diligence exercise in respect of the possible transfer of most of the events company’s functions to DETI and the Tourist Board are fully informed by those facts? To carry out a transfer on any other basis would be asking for more problems.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In addition to the work that the external auditors have been asked to do, an expert has been appointed who will be directly answerable to the Department on all of the issues at hand. I cannot be specific as to a date for the establishment of all the facts, but that will happen — comprehensively and adequately — as soon as is physically possible. We must identify how the present difficulties and problems came into being and clear them up before any consideration can be given to transferring the functions of the Northern Ireland Events Company to the Tourist Board. The work that has to be done is in good hands, and the right level of expertise has been deployed in order to identify the issues that Members need to know about. I will inform the House as soon as I receive adequate information, just as I have done in this instance.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement, in which he mentioned the non-executive directors who run the Northern Ireland Events Company. Will the Minister remind the House of the identity of those directors and state whether any assessment has been made of their management of the company?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The current board members are as follows: Mr Mervyn Elder, chairman; Mr Ian Lee; Dr Paul McWilliams; Mr Jim Rodgers; Mr Jim Clarke; Professor Eric Saunders; Mr Alan Clarke; Mr Gerry Lennon; Mr Bill White; Mrs Roberta Dunlop; and Mr Sam McGregor. Three of those appointments were made on 23 April 1997. Four appointments were made in 1999, and the remainder in 2002.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister mentioned contingent liabilities in his statement. Will he advise the House whether loans are included under that heading? Did the Northern Ireland Events Company take out any loans to enable it to operate? If that is so, when were the Minister and the Department made aware of the situation, and when was any approval sought or given?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not aware of the Northern Ireland Events Company having taken out any loans. That is not to say that that is not the case, however. I will seek to ascertain the facts and inform the Member in writing.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister said that he had received a number of complaints. Will the Minister inform the House whether he received those complaints prior to, or after 20 September 2007? Furthermore, will he tell us what the deficit was in the accounts for 2005-06? The Minister also mentioned sponsorship that failed to materialise. What action was taken when the facts of that matter were brought to his attention? Does the Minister have any details of further deficits for the period between April and October 2007?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I received first reports of these matters in June 2007. As I said, I met an event organiser and a former employee of the Northern Ireland Events Company, both of whom expressed concerns about the company. I passed those concerns on to senior staff in the Department, which brought about the internal review, and, which, ultimately, has brought the matter to the attention of the House. I will seek to ascertain the exact figures pertaining to the 2005-06 deficit and provide those to the Member. I am aware that a considerable amount of the deficit developed in that period, and I will provide that information to the Member as soon as I receive it. The Department is not aware of deficits in the financial year 2006-07 to date. However, that determination will be subject to the accounting procedures that have been put in place.

Executive Committee Business

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to introduce the Public Health (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/07], which is a Bill to amend section 2A of the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I beg to move

That the Pensions Bill [NIA 7/07] proceed under the accelerated passage procedure, in accordance with Standing Order 40(4).

This Bill will make provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provisions of the Pensions Act 2007, which received Royal Assent on 26 July 2007. The provisions in the Bill flow largely from the Independent Pensions Commission’s Turner report, and they are aimed at improving the coverage, generosity and sustainability of the state pension and simplifying private pensions.

I am sure that everyone in the House, myself included, wants to be a champion and an advocate not only for pensioners but for those who are on the threshold of receiving entitlement next year or in 10 or 15 years. Anyone who is in that category now or who will fit into it in the future will obtain the money to which they are entitled. The reforms of the state pension will benefit women and carers in particular, by providing them with better opportunities to build up pension entitlement. I will describe the proposals in greater detail later this afternoon during the Second Stage of the Bill. However, it may be helpful if I briefly go through the main provisions of the Bill.

The Bill will reduce the number of qualifying years needed for a full basic state pension and will revise and modernise contribution credits for those with caring responsibilities. It will enable a spouse or civil partner to draw a pension based on their partner’s National Insurance record, even if the partner has chosen not to retire, and will abolish adult dependency increases. It will provide for the uprating of basic state pension and the minimum guarantee element of pension credit in line with earnings. It will reform and simplify state second pension and increase state pension age gradually from 65 to 68 between 2024 and 2046. The Chairman of the Committee for Social Development raised that issue with me, and I have provided him with a written response.

The Bill also simplifies private pension arrangements and encourages saving for retirement by simplifying the structure of defined benefit contract-out schemes, abolishing contracting out in defined contribution schemes, introducing simpler internal dispute resolution procedures for occupational pension schemes and providing for the initial functions of the personal accounts delivery authority in preparation for the introduction of a personal account system to enable people to save for their retirement.

I will now turn to the reasons why this important Bill should be given accelerated passage. However, I am conscious that such a procedure may inhibit Members from conducting fuller line-by-line scrutiny. There has been a longstanding principle of parity with GB in the areas of social security and pensions. In recognition of that exceptional position, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a statutory duty on me and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to seek to maintain single systems of social security and pensions right across Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Members are aware of the constraints of parity, both in terms of what is operationally possible given the common information-technology systems, and, crucially, the very substantial funding that we receive from Britain to pay benefits here: currently around £2·4 billion per annum. That funding is predicated on the maintenance of parity — thus, there are 2·4 billion reasons for the maintenance of that arrangement. Very sound and pertinent economic imperatives under­pin the principle of parity and I hope that all parties are aware of and understand its benefits.

The majority of the provisions in the Pensions Act 2007 were brought into force when the Bill received Royal Assent, or two months afterwards, even though most of them do not have practical effect until 2010. Planning for retirement is a long-term process, and commencing the provisions of the Act in that way allows people throughout Northern Ireland and Great Britain to plan for retirement with some degree of certainty. We are already finding that the absence of corresponding legislation in Northern Ireland is causing operational difficulties, in relation to retirement pension forecasting for example. If this Bill were to be subject to the full Bill procedure, people here would, unfortunately, be disadvantaged for several months to come in that they would be unable to plan with certainty for their retirement.

Furthermore, an important provision of the Bill ensures that the standard minimum guarantee of pension credit can be operated in line with earnings. The standard minimum guarantee provides a minimum level of income for pensioners: currently £119·05 for a single person and £181·70 for a couple. Before the introduction of the Pensions Act 2007, there was no requirement to uprate the standard minimum guarantee, and uprating was carried out purely at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Pensions Act 2007 now places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to uprate the standard minimum guarantee annually in line with earnings, and that takes effect from April 2008, when the minimum guarantee is expected to rise by £5 a week for a single person and by £7·65 a week for a couple. My Department has no power to uprate benefits unilaterally in Northern Ireland. However, the Bill empowers the Department to make an Order to uprate the standard minimum guarantee in line with the rate applicable in Britain.

This Bill is essential to ensure that no one in Northern Ireland misses out on increased payments guaranteed to be available in Great Britain. Without accelerated passage, there can be no guarantee that the Bill will receive Royal Assent in time to allow the necessary Order to be made. The Department would therefore have no power to uprate the standard minimum guarantee in Northern Ireland from April 2008, and people here would be entitled to only the 2007-08 rate.

Parity covers not only the content of the legislation, but also, as far as possible, the timing of its implement­ation. To ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are given the same opportunities to plan for retirement as people in Britain are, and that they are entitled to the higher rate of the standard minimum guarantee from April, the necessary powers must be made available as soon as possible.

I do not take lightly the use of the accelerated passage procedure. I do not believe that any legislation should be free from detailed scrutiny, and I have already had that discussion with the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee and Committee members. I will consider each piece of so-called parity legislation according to its merits, and I have already given that undertaking to the Chairperson.

However, in this instance, I believe — and I hope that the Assembly will agree — that people in Northern Ireland who pay the same rates of National Insurance contributions and income tax as people in Great Britain have the right to expect the proposed changes to apply here at the same time as they apply in Britain. In particular, they should be entitled to the higher rate of pension credit in the same way as people in England and Wales are.

As I said earlier, I want all people in Northern Ireland, particularly those who are on the threshold of entitlement to their pension and those who are currently in receipt of it, to be sure that they receive all of their entitlement. That is why I launched the benefit uptake campaign earlier in 2007, which had already been successful during the previous two financial years.

Therefore, for all the reasons that I have outlined, I ask that the Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure in accordance with Standing Order 40(4). Granting the use of accelerated passage procedure means that there will not be a formal Committee Stage. I met the Committee on 8 November to explain why it was necessary to seek accelerated passage for the Pensions Bill. Of course, Members will have an opportunity to make their views on the Bill known during its Second Stage and for issues to be fully discussed during that debate, the Consideration Stage and the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Some people have experienced delays in payment of their pension credit. I have asked my officials to carry out a full investigation of the number of applications for pension credit that have been made during the past three years; how many have been approved, refused or are outstanding: and to explain why applications are outstanding and whether further information is required from the applicant in those cases. As I have said, I want to ensure that everyone who is entitled can obtain their benefits without undue stress or discomfort.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As she has mentioned, the Minister attended a meeting of the Committee for Social Development on 8 November 2007. She explained the reasons for her request that the Pensions Bill should proceed under the accelerated passage procedure. She also outlined the consequences if accelerated passage were not granted. The Committee listened carefully to her remarks.

Every part of the Bill falls under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is a 100% parity measure that will ensure the continuation of a single system of pensions for the United Kingdom. It is part of the ongoing process of pensions reform and is intended to improve the coverage, generosity and sustainability of the state pension, to simplify private pensions and also to establish a personal accounts delivery authority.

The Committee is aware of the importance of main­taining parity in order to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from changes at the same time that they are introduced in Great Britain. However, Members expressed serious reservations about the principle of bringing forward legislation without full Committee scrutiny. The Minister has agreed that she will consult intensively with the Department on how to deal with future parity legislation with the Committee’s involvement. Therefore, in the light of that undertaking by the Minister, the Committee has agreed to support her request that the Pensions Bill be granted accelerated passage.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As has been stated, accelerated passage is relevant to the Pensions Bill and has been agreed by the Committee.

The problem of pensioner poverty has resulted from years of underinvestment in the pension system. The state pension is one of the meanest in Europe. It looks set to continue as such, even under the reforms to the pension system. Unfortunately, the Government have chosen to use means-testing as the apparatus with which to tackle pensioner poverty. The system’s inherent fatal flaw is the problem of uptake. Each year, here and in Britain, over £4 billion is unclaimed by pensioners, and that does not include disability benefits.

In conclusion and in view of the huge amount of money that is unclaimed, the basic state benefit should be set at a level that takes people out of poverty rather than one that requires them to claim help. Go raibh maith agat.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I have listened carefully to the views expressed in the Chamber today, particularly to the comments made by the Chairman of the Committee for Social Development, Mr Campbell, and by Mr Brady; and I am grateful for the Committee’s support for my request for accelerated passage. I agree with Mr Campbell’s view that the handling of social security and pension legislation poses unique problems. The statutory requirement to seek to maintain single systems across Northern Ireland and Great Britain creates obvious tensions between our desire to scrutinise in-depth proposed legislation and the need to maintain the parity of timing inherent in such single systems.

The area of social security and pension legislation is highly regulated, and the Pensions Bill is the second Bill from that field that has been introduced by the Assembly: Members considered the Welfare Reform Bill back in May and June of this year. Furthermore, it is anticipated that there will be two more related Bills in this session. I acknowledge the undertaking that I made to the Committee: I will consult heavily and intensively with my departmental officials, the Committee and the Chairperson about how to progress the Pensions Bill. In addition, there was an announcement in the Queen’s speech that another pensions Bill and a national insurance contributions Bill will be progressed. I propose to consult further with the Committee as to how we can best handle parity legislation in this field, particularly given the anticipated heavy programme of legislation.

I also thank Mr Brady for his comments on pensioner poverty. I cannot disagree with him, because it should be the ultimate aim of the Executive and the Assembly to ensure that people, particularly pensioners — many of whom live in isolated rural communities and who already feel marginalised, undermined and alone — do not live in poverty. The Assembly must be there to help them, and that is why I took the opportunity to launch the benefit uptake campaign through which the advice service network will inform people of what benefits are available. The Department for Social Development (DSD) and the Social Security Agency wrote to pensioners, and other eligible people, earlier in the year to ensure that they were aware of the campaign. There is an onus of responsibility — in fact, an obligation — on Members, as public representatives, to ensure that the elderly members of society are made aware of all the benefits that are available to help remove them from poverty.

Over the next couple of days, I will have further meetings on this issue in London. I will meet a social security Minister to discuss child poverty, and I will also make further representations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on matters relating to pensions, because I am conscious of the issues involved.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That the Pensions Bill [NIA 7/07] proceed under the accelerated passage procedure, in accordance with Standing Order 40(4).

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Pensions Bill [NIA 7/07] be agreed.

I feel as if I am regurgitating some of what I said a few minutes ago. Notwithstanding that, the Pensions Bill makes provisions that correspond with those of the Pensions Act 2007. During the debate on the Bill’s proposed accelerated passage, I addressed the issue of parity with Britain and the arguments in favour of maintaining that long-standing policy — not least with regard to the financial realities. I trust that all Members accept that the policy of parity is beneficial and acknowledge that all pensioners and those who are on the threshold of receiving a pension next week, next year, or in 10 or 15 years’ time — and many Members may fall into that category — have a right to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled.

I also briefly described the content of the Bill and, with your agreement, Mr Speaker, I will provide some background to the reforms and address the Bill’s proposals in greater detail.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

In November 2005, the Independent Pensions Commission published its second report, the ‘Turner Report’, making recommendations on how the pensions system could be reformed to better meet future needs. Average pensioner outcomes today compare well with those of previous generations, and changes since 1997 have been targeted in particular at helping those on lower incomes. As I said earlier, I am sure that everybody in this House, including me, wants to be a champion and an advocate for pensioners and future generations of pensioners to ensure that they are able to avail of all the benefits to which they are entitled, including all the benefits that pensioners should be able to obtain.

The commission concluded that the demographic and social trends are creating future challenges for all of us. Life expectancy is increasing. This, along with lower birth rates, is resulting in older age groups becoming an increasingly large proportion of the population. Indeed, we are facing a situation where, for the first time, we will have more pensioners than children. Family structures are changing with single-person households now more common. The trend of women’s growing participation in the labour market is continuing and as a result of the accumulation of 60 years of pension legislation, the current pension system is complex and difficult to understand. Problems with savings incentives could develop if, in the long term, a pension system evolved in which a significant majority of pensioners had to rely on pension credit. Around seven million people across Northern Ireland and Britain are estimated to be under-saving for their retirement.

In May 2006, building on the analysis and recommend­ations made by the Independent Pensions Commission’s proposals for pension reform and the rationale for change were published in the White Paper ‘Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system’. The White Paper explained the challenges facing the pensions system and presented proposals for a long-term solution. The proposals aimed to promote personal responsibility for planning for retirement and to be fair, affordable and sustainable. The White Paper was the subject of widespread consultation both in Britain and here, and the proposals form the basis of the Pensions Bill that we are debating today.

The Pensions Bill contains a package of reformed state pensions, simplification measures and private pensions, and provides for the initial functions of the personal accounts delivery authority in preparation for the introduction of a personal accounts system to enable people to save for retirement. It is anticipated that the detail of the personal accounts scheme will be the subject of a later Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill proposes a number of changes to state pension provision. These are aimed at improving its coverage, generosity and sustainability by reducing the number of qualifying years for a full basic state pension; revising and modernising credits for caring that will apply to both the basic state pension and the state second pension; enabling a married person or civil partner to draw a pension based on the National Insurance record of a spouse or civil partner over pensionable age who has chosen not to retire; abolishing adult dependency increases; flat-rating and simplifying the state second pension; linking the up-rating of the pension credit guarantee and the basic state pension to earnings; and gradually raising the state pension age, including conseq­uential changes for other social security benefits.

The state pension reforms recognise the different ways in which people contribute to society and will particularly benefit sections of society, such as women and carers, who, arguably, are disadvantaged by the current system. Under the proposals, they will have significantly better opportunities to accrue pension entitlement.

That will be achieved primarily by reducing to 30 the number of qualifying years required for a full basic state pension for men and women and by introducing contribution credits for parents and carers. Those measures will help to address the pension effects of differences in the labour market between men and women and the impact of caring responsibilities.

Only 40% of women in Northern Ireland are entitled to a full category A pension. Under the proposals, it is anticipated that 75% of women who reach state pension age in 2010 will be entitled to a full pension, and that that figure will rise to over 90% by 2025. A fragmented career history, for example, due to caring responsibilities, will no longer necessarily have a negative impact on pension entitlement.

The Bill also provides for the basic state pension to be operated in line with earnings rather than prices. However, due to the significant cost implications, the precise date for that has not yet been fixed. The corresponding Act at Westminster provides for it to be implemented by no later than the end of the next Parliament. The measure will ensure that the basic state pension keeps its value relative to earnings and provides a solid underpinning to retirement income.

I have explained the provision in the Bill that ensures that the standard minimum guarantee element of pension credit is uprated annually in line with earnings, and that will take effect from the uprating in April 2008. During the debate on accelerated passage for the Bill, I told the House that I have asked my officials to investigate the number of applications for pension credit over the past three years and how many have not yet been processed to approval stage and why. I am particularly conscious that many pensioners are isolated and are living in poverty. The Assembly should do everything in its remit to ensure that that situation does not continue.

The new Bill provides for the reform and simplific­ation of the state second pension. The earnings-related component will be phased out, and the complex accrual mechanisms will be replaced by a flat-rate sum of £1·50 a week, in 2007-08 terms, for each qualifying year spent working or caring. Over time, the earnings-related component will decrease, and by about 2030, it will have disappeared.

The Bill will enable a spouse or civil partner to draw a pension based on their partner’s National Insurance record, even if the partner has chosen not to retire. Given the cost implications of the proposals, there are inevitable trade-offs, such as the increase in state pension age in each decade between 2020 and 2050 in response to the ageing demographic profile. Under the proposals, the state pension age will increase to 68 by 2046.

The changes to pension age merely reflect the anticipated changes in the average life expectancy. Indeed, the ratio of people of working age to those of pensionable age in the population will continue to decline, although not as sharply as it would if the state pension age were to remain unchanged. The increases in state pension age will be matched by a corresponding extension in the availability of working-age benefits to those who are below the new pension age.

The abolition of adult dependency increases in category A and category C retirement pensions will simplify state pension rules. The existing provisions governing adult dependency increases are complex and are based on the increasingly outdated post-war concept of a single-breadwinner household. Transitional protection will be provided to 2020 for the small number of people in Northern Ireland who will be affected.

Part 2 of the Bill contains measures aimed at simpl­ifying the provision of private pensions, of which there is a long history in Northern Ireland. Over time, layers of regulation have produced an extremely complicated system that makes it difficult for schemes to operate and for members of the scheme to understand. The proposals aim to provide a degree of clarity that does not currently exist and to encourage saving for retirement.

The structure of defined benefit contracted-out schemes will be simplified by permitting the conversion of guaranteed minimum pensions that relate to certain pension rights earned between 1978 and 1997 into ordinary scheme benefits of at least equal actuarial value. Contracting out in defined contributions schemes will be abolished. The amount of pension payable by a defined contribution scheme depends on a number of variables, including the age at which a person joins; the amount he or she pays in contributions; and, crucially, the performance of the scheme’s invest­ment portfolio. Given these variables, it is difficult even for experts to judge whether a person would be better off contracted out in such a scheme or remaining in the state second pension. Permitting the conversion of guaranteed minimum pensions removes the need to make that difficult decision.

Occupational pension schemes will be able to operate similar internal dispute resolution procedures, and the Department will no longer be required to approve actuarial guidance notes relating to pension schemes. Part 3 of the Bill provides for the initial functions of the personal accounts delivery authority in preparation for the introduction of a personal accounts system to enable people to save for retirement. Part 4 of the Bill provides for a report on the operation of the subsequent Act before the end of 2014, and that report will be laid before the Assembly.

The Bill represents a step in legislating for the long-term reform of our pension system. It will improve the coverage and generosity of the state pension system and ensure its sustainability, simply by private pension provision, and lay the foundation of the introduction of a new system of personal accounts, as recommended by the Independent Pensions Commission. The reforms will remove existing inequalities in state pensions and help to mitigate the consequences of labour market differences, which adversely affect women’s pension entitlement. They will also reduce the income gap in retirement between men and women.

The Bill aims to ensure that the state pension system remains affordable in both the short and long term. As envisaged by the Independent Pensions Commission, the proposals form an integrated package. None of the elements alone could successfully tackle the future pensions challenges.

With this Bill, we are aiming to build a simpler and enduring pensions system for generations to come. I hope that many, including those who are women and carers, will be able to benefit from the new Pensions Bill. I hope that all people and all Members in the House will be able to agree with the provisions contained therein. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the very technical nature of the provisions contained in the legislation, but it is my duty and responsibility to explain the content of the Bill and its consequences.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

It is on occasions such as this that eyes glaze over and brains begin to numb, and that is before we get to equal actuarial values. In all seriousness, as the Minister has outlined, there are three key components to the Bill. Improving the coverage, generosity and sustainability of the state pension; enacting simplification measures in private pensions; and establishing a personal accounts delivery authority.

The Minister and her officials have briefed the Committee in great depth on the principles and details of the Bill, and the Committee is grateful for that. The Bill is part of the preparations to meet the challenges of increasing longevity and changing demographics. In 2050, there will only be two people of working age for every one person in retirement — today, the ratio is 4 to 1. Therefore, it is clear that pension reform is vital to meet those challenges, and the Bill is only part of the ongoing process of pensions reform.

I have no intention of speaking about every provision in the Bill. Members will be glad to hear that.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

There is no need to be so enthusiastic. However, there are a number of provisions that I want to touch on.

The Bill is of particular significance and benefit to women and carers. Many women and carers are denied a full pension because their family and caring responsibilities mean that they are not in work long enough to qualify.

However, the Bill will enable people who care for children, or people with a severe disability, to build up a state pension entitlement through weekly carer credits. The Committee believes that that will provide women and carers with a fair deal, making it easier for them to balance their responsibilities. It will also recognise their important contribution to society as a whole and help to redress the gender gap that exists in pensions generally, which is just as important.

The changes would mean that around three quarters of women who retire in 2010 would be entitled to a full basic state pension — the current level is about half of that figure. By 2025, more than 90% of people who retire would be entitled to a full basic state pension. The Bill will also raise the state pension age. The first increase, from 65 to 66, will take place between 2024 and 2026. The second increase, from 66 to 67, will occur between 2034 and 2036. The third increase, from 67 to 68, will take place between 2044 and 2046. That may not be welcome news for some, but those changes are necessary to reflect increasing longevity and, hopefully, will go some way to stave off a pensions crisis in the future and secure the long-term financial stability of the pensions system.

Research has shown that poor people do not live as long as wealthy people. Therefore, any increase in the state pension age — to allow for a more generous state pension — may not benefit poorer people in our society. The Department for Social Development takes the lead on many strategies and policies that target the disadvantaged and aim to reduce the level of poverty, and the Committee will pay particular attention to those when it is scrutinising the Department’s work.

The Bill also provides for re-linking the basic state pension with earnings. It is hoped that that will go some way towards ensuring that living standards for older people keep pace with those of the rest of society and that older people do not get poorer the longer they live. The proposed abolition of contracting out defined-contribution schemes is intended to remove complexity from pension-saving decisions; due to the complex nature of pensions, it is often difficult for someone to judge whether they would be better off contracted-out or contracted-in to the state second pension. The Bill also intends to simplify private pensions: streamlining the regulation of private pensions should make it easier for people to plan and save for retirement.

I highlight the Committee’s desire to see the people of Northern Ireland benefit from changes at the same time as they are being introduced in the rest of the UK. However, as I mentioned during the debate on accelerated passage, Committee members expressed serious reservations about the principle of advancing legislation without full Committee scrutiny. The Minister has agreed that she will consult intensely in her Department on how future parity legislation is dealt with. The Committee looks forward to hearing from the Minister about the outcome of her consultation.

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

I suppose that we are the victims of our own success; the reforms initiated by the Labour Government after the Second World War created a welfare state, which provided universal health care, support for the vulnerable in society, and helped to increase living standards and life expectancy for ordinary people on the street. None of the pioneers of the welfare state anticipated that, as a result of their good work and the creation of better conditions for the ordinary in our society, people would be living a lot longer. Neither would they have anticipated the change in the ratio between those in work and older people in our society — I do not like using the term old age pensioner, particularly when the First Minister is in the Chamber as he might take exception to that. [Laughter.]

I do not want to be ageist, but I am sure that Members take the point that there is an imbalance between those people who are working and those who are older and will retire soon. Therefore, it is necessary that there be a thorough pension reform. It remains to be seen whether the Bill is such a reform, but, at first glance, it seems to be substantial and moves towards a simpler, more effective and, as the Minister has said, more generous pension for people in retirement.

Importantly, the Bill also promotes personal respons­ibility towards pensions. When one is younger, one does not think about pensions. One of the obstacles, particularly for people who are self-employed, is the complexity of private pension schemes. As a self-employed person, I have experience of that. The Bill attempts to simplify those schemes, which are baffling to those who attempt to operate them and those who are their potential beneficiaries. People simply do not understand the schemes because they are so complex. Any reform that simplifies those schemes and makes them more comprehensible to the ordinary person is to be welcomed. In that regard, the Bill is to be welcomed.

The reform of the state pension, which the Bill aims to do, is also to be welcomed. The Bill aims to improve the coverage and sustainability of the state pension. If there are not reforms to the state pension, the system will be under incredible strain, and that might impact adversely on many people. The reduction in the number of qualifying years for a full pension to 30 is to be welcomed. That is important for people whose careers have been disrupted for all sorts of reasons, but in particular for people who are caring, or have cared for, ill or elderly relatives and who, as a result, have been unable to obtain the necessary credits for a full pension at a reasonable age.

The linking of the uprating of the pension credit guarantee and the basic state pension to earnings is important. The linkage was established previously with prices. That is also a step forward. I ask the House to welcome it as a progressive step towards being fairer and more equitable to the ordinary pensioner. The uprating of the state pension in line with earnings is a significant and important step because it will maintain the value of the pension relative to earnings and will be a much more secure basis for people who are entering retirement.

The Pensions Bill is timely, and it will be of general benefit to many people in society who were disadvant­aged by the previous pension system. It strengthens the state pension, increases its value for many people, and is a progressive and welcome step forward for all those, including myself, who are approaching pension age.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I very much welcome the Bill and the simplification of the pension arrangements.

I hold several pensions from different employers, and contracting in and out is absolutely mind-boggling. I also welcome the fact that women and carers will benefit from the shortening of the qualifying period to 30 years — it is unfair for women caring for children and elderly parents or relatives to be penalised. It is a welcome step, and it is a recognition of women who stay at home to look after young people, which saves public services money. Women looking after children and sick, and perhaps disabled, relatives are actually providing a public service.

I was puzzled when the Minister said that 40% of women are entitled to a full pension in 2007, and that that figure will be increased to 75% in 2010, but then went on to say that it will take another 15 years — to 2025 — to increase it to 90%. I do not understand why it will take so long to achieve that increase. Overall, I welcome the Bill.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I have a few comments to make; before the glazed stares spread along the Benches.

I thank the Minister for bringing this important reform to the House for debate today, and I would like the Pensions Bill to proceed under the accelerated passage as previously agreed.

Members should be fully aware, as part of the ongoing process of pension reform, that Part 2 of the Bill makes provision in relation to non-state pensions. It will allow the right to a definite minimum pension accrued under a defined benefit pension scheme to be changed into ordinary-scheme benefits and provide for the abolition of contracting out for defined contribution pension schemes. The Bill also makes corrections on dispute resolution arrangements and the Department’s role in approving pension help and advice.

A number of elements of the Bill have been high­lighted, and I welcome those. They will raise the amount of pensions; ensure that those who are entitled to a pension receive it, and they will install faith in the state pension in Northern Ireland. The Bill will improve the allowance for females and carers by decreasing the requirement years for a basic state pension. It will refresh and update credits for caring that will apply to the basic state pension and the state second pension. It will enable a married person to have a pension based on the National Insurance record of a spouse who is over pensionable age and who has decided that they wish to work on.

The Bill will abolish adult dependency increases, flat rate and simplify the state second pension, and will combine the upgrading of the pension credit guarantee and the basic state pension to earnings.

The regulatory impact assessment was printed earlier this month. The proposal works towards meeting the five main reasons for pension reform.

It will encourage constituents to get involved in plans for their retirement; it will be fair to those in vulnerable sectors, through the establishment of a new contributory principle; it will make the pension system easier to understand and will ensure that a constituent’s decision to save can be made as easily as possible; it will be affordable, through examination of the financial needs of future pensioners, alongside the financial capabilities of the taxpayer, and ensuring that those needs are met economically; and it will be sustained, as many of our constituents gain trust and faith in the pension system in Northern Ireland.

The Pensions Bill will benefit our constituents. More people will receive a full basic pension; there will be a more generous state pension, with earnings uprating of the state pension; the poorest pensioners will benefit from a higher income, with earnings uprating from the pension-credit standard minimum guarantee; and there will be a simpler system of state second pension and private-pension measures, which will make it easier for people to understand the pensions that they are now accruing.

There will be an impact on employers, who will have to pay full-rate National Insurance contributions. However, a rebate will be paid through the scheme and, therefore, the extra National Insurance costs could be reflected by smaller employer contributions in the long run.

However, if we choose not to reform the pensions system, the inequalities between men and women will continue. If the minimum guarantee is uprated with increasing prices, some pensioners will fall into low income and poverty. To sustain an affordable state pension while the number of people aged 65 increases, the value of state support for pensioners will fall to incomes, and our constituents will never have a clear understanding of their retirement income.

There is no guarantee that life expectancy will not change and, therefore, it is important that we allow people time to plan for retirement. Under the reforms, the amount that is provided through the basic state pension remains constant by means of the second state pension becoming increasingly flat, with each year of work or caring earning an extra £1·40 a week, in 2006-07 terms, during retirement. The result is that individuals will move increasingly towards an underpinned weekly state pension of around £135 for working or caring from 25 years of age to state pension age.

I welcome the reform of pensions that will result from the Pensions Bill. I see no reason why we should not all support the motion.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I have listened carefully to all of the points that Members have made, and I trust that I will be able to address their concerns. Several matters were raised during the four contributions.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, Mr Campbell, raised the issue of lower life expectancy for those on low incomes. Life expectancy is increasing across the board. However, Mr Campbell raised the important issue of the need to ensure better health for everyone in society, particularly lower-income groups. Anyone who is unable to work to the new pension age will have the safeguard of the existing range of working-age benefits, and I assure Members that that is the case. Each of us has to ensure that that happens, and that those people who find themselves outside that category due to ill health before pension age should receive their full entitlement. That is our duty and responsibility.

My colleague Mr Maginness referred to the complexity of the pensions system. I am sure that we all welcome any measures that make the system easier to understand. Many Members may wonder how the system is easier to understand — particularly after listening to the various explanations of the technical details. I know that there is irony in needing such a complex Bill to simplify the pensions system. However, I hope that all Members agree that the Bill will be successful in simplifying the system.

Anna Lo referred to two matters; first, the extremely complex issue of the anticipated rise in the number of women who would be entitled to a full state pension in 2010 and 2025. I wrote to the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development on that matter.

The proportion of women who are entitled to a full basic state pension has been rising steadily. That is largely due to women’s improved work records and to the positive effect of home responsibilities protection, which was introduced in 1978. However, lower state pension entitlement is particularly acute for women who are over the age of 45 today. They did not fully benefit from home responsibilities protection and have significantly poorer contribution records than men of the same age — despite the fact that most of them have made valuable contributions to society. The Bill will allow credits to be awarded for previous years in which home responsibilities protection was awarded. That applies only for complete years, up to a maximum of 22 years.

The general issue of women was also raised. I agree with Ms Lo about the important role that women play in society, and I am pleased that this Bill will help to protect women and carers, because in many instances — although not all — women are the carers.

Ms Lo also asked about the percentage increase in the number of women who are entitled to a full state pension, and I have dealt with that.

Mr Hilditch raised various issues, and I thank him for his considered response and for his support.

In this short debate, Members have had the opportunity to discuss various aspects of this complex legislation, which I hope will improve the coverage and generosity of the state pension system. It will also ensure the system’s sustainability and remove existing inequalities, thereby reducing the retirement-income gap between men and women. Private pension provision will be simplified and the foundation of a new personal accounts system will be put in place.

I hope that I have addressed all the points that Members raised. I will carefully read Hansard to ascertain whether I have properly dealt with those points, and, if I have failed to do so adequately, I will write to the relevant Member.

This Bill will significantly improve the lives of women and carers, and I hope that I, as the Minister for Social Development, and other Members will continue in our role as champions and advocates for pensioners, whether under current legislation or this new Bill. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Pensions Bill (NIA 7/07) be agreed.

Committee Business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to six hours for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes to propose and 20 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The Minister will have 45 minutes to respond, and all other Members will have 10 minutes.

One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the draft Programme for Government 2008-2011 and the draft Investment Strategy 2008-2018.

As we embark on this potential marathon, I anticipate Members’ co-operation.

I am pleased that the Assembly has been provided with an opportunity to debate the draft Programme for Government and the draft investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI).

At the outset, I wish to make it clear that I am speaking as Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and that my comments are based on the Committee’s discussions on the draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy. While I hold personal views on many issues that will be debated today, there will be other opportunities for me to make those views known to the House.

I trust that all Members recognise the significance of this debate, because we have an opportunity to influence the priorities that will direct the £25 billion that will be spent by the Executive over the next three years. In addition, the priorities and programmes under discussion today will direct approximately £18 billion of capital investment over the next 10 years. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Members, irrespective of party differences, to ensure that the Programme for Government and investment strategy are fit for purpose and will deliver tangible improvements to the quality of life of the people whom we represent.

At the request of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, my Committee is liaising with the other Statutory Committees to produce a co-ordinated response to the draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy. We will take our new role very seriously — it will involve publishing the views and recommendations of all the Statutory Committees in a single report.

The report will identify the main strategic themes that emerge from the Committees’ responses, and, in that context, members will listen carefully to the views expressed by MLAs today on the strengths and weaknesses of the draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy.

Before commenting on the draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy in greater detail, I will mention the process of their development. My comments are not intended as excessive criticism of the Executive — I recognise that many opportunities for engagement in consultation, which would normally be available to Committees, were lost as a result of the early delays in devolution. In addition, the late announcement of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review did not facilitate the early publication of the draft Programme for Government or draft investment strategy.

However, it is important that Members recognise the limitations of the process to date and the impact of the delayed publication of the draft Programme for Govern­ment and draft investment strategy. There have been reduced opportunities for Committees to scrutinise departmental proposals and for Members to scrutinise the overall plans of the Executive. Therefore, it is more important than ever that the Executive should pay careful attention to the views expressed during today’s debate and to the conclusions and recommendations of Statutory Committees that will be detailed in my Committee’s forthcoming report. It is also crucial that the Executive take proper account of the comments that will be made during the public consultation process, and I am sure that all Committees will be seeking evidence to prove that that has been the case.

The Assembly should make certain that the final Programme for Government and investment strategy are as robust as possible. However, no plan is perfect, and we must be mindful of the need for early action to ensure that new processes for engagement in consultation are put in place for next year, so that any limitations in the Programme for Government that might emerge will be addressed quickly and effectively.

For that reason, my Committee has specifically asked for views from other Statutory Committees on how to improve the accessibility, quality and relevance of the information provided in relation to the Programme for Government and the investment strategy.

My Committee has identified some areas of potential concern and has recommended remedial action. For example, my Committee will have concluded its scrutiny of the draft Programme for Government before high-level findings on equality impacts will be available to its members.

Again, more detailed information regarding the geographical spread of new capital investments will not be available until the final version of the investment strategy is produced.

My Committee is also establishing the views of other Committees regarding how the overall process to develop the Programme for Government and the investment strategy can be improved in future years. It is imperative to ensure that any new process takes careful account of the need for the systems that are used to develop priorities and to allocate resources to be closely connected. Therefore, I will be writing to the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to seek an early meeting at which we can discuss how we, in consultation with the Executive, can take forward proposals on a timetable for the Programme for Government, the Budget and ISNI.

As I said earlier, I hope that this debate will be constructive. It offers an opportunity to highlight to the Executive the aspects of the draft Programme for Government that Members commend — and which should therefore be retained in the final strategy — and to identify areas for improvement that need to be addressed before the Programme for Government is finalised.

I am aware that the views of Members vary about the extent to which the actual strategic priorities identified in the draft Programme for Government are the most appropriate priorities. However, in general, my Committee welcomes the Executive’s effort to develop a Programme for Government that focuses on delivering cross-cutting priorities and endeavours to avoid the traditional silo mentality of many Departments.

Efforts to ensure that public service agreement (PSA) targets are aligned with the strategic priorities set out in the draft Programme for Government are also to be welcomed. My Committee has sought and received assurances from the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that its Budget allocations were determined based on an assessment of the resources required to deliver its public service agreements. That, of course, is as it should be.

Over the next few weeks, my Committee will be carefully scrutinising the extent to which the Programme for Government commitments made by OFMDFM are matched by the resources that the Department is receiving. As a prudent Committee, we will also be checking that large amounts of resources are not used to support low-priority programmes.

A specific concern that has come to the attention of my Committee is the relationship between the goals and commitments in the draft Programme for Government and the targets and actions in the public service agreements and the investment strategy. Not all of the goals and commitments for the next three years that are mentioned in the draft Programme for Government seem to have found their way into the public service agreements or the investment strategy. We have asked OFMDFM for an explanation of the status of such goals and commitments, and we encourage other Committees to explore that issue with their Departments.

Another area of interest for my Committee — as I mentioned earlier, we have had a relatively limited time to hold a discussion on the Programme for Government and ISNI — relates to the delivery of the Programme for Government. To be fair, it is unreasonable to expect the draft Programme for Government to include all the details of how the Executive intend to meet their priorities. Were that to be the case, I suspect that this debate would need to be extended even beyond its allocated time. I am not sure that my fellow MLAs would welcome that.

The public service agreements do include some of the detail that the Assembly requires in order to satisfy itself that the priorities in the draft Programme for Government are deliverable and will be delivered. However, my Committee is of the view that we need to hear more about the arrangements for monitoring and reporting progress against PSA objectives and targets. That is particularly the case regarding the cross-cutting objectives of a better future and sustainable development. Therefore, my Committee will be taking an interest in the early development of a robust performance management framework for the Programme for Government and ISNI, and we have already asked OFMDFM to explain its proposals to us in more detail at the earliest opportunity.

My Committee will also consider the action that needs to be taken in advance of the draft Programme for Government being finalised in order to ensure that the targets in that document and in the PSAs are sufficiently specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bounded (SMART). We have sought the opinions of other Committees on the robustness of those targets and we expect to include specific recommendations about that in our report.

I welcome the inclusion of longer-term goals in the draft Programme for Government. However, if we are to ensure that those are more than aspirations, it will be important to ensure that all long-term targets in the Programme for Government are supported by SMART targets that can be delivered within the three years covered by the programme.

All parties represented in the Assembly were critical of many of the policies developed under direct rule. We now have the opportunity to change those policies. I recognise that we cannot change everything overnight, and I am sure that I speak for all the members of my Committee when I say that we will be supportive of the Executive in establishing a clear set of priorities on which all Departments and agencies may be expected to focus. As an Assembly, we must ensure that, when the overall objectives and targets are changed, existing policies are also changed and improved. A quotation attributed to Albert Einstein defines as insanity:

“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

We must also ensure when setting new objectives and targets that we carefully consider the actions and resources that will be required to have them delivered. In that regard, I encourage the Executive to be clear with the public about the timescales required to deliver some of the most challenging problems that we face.

My Committee has a particular interest in the targets in the Programme for Government and the related PSA targets relating to child poverty. Members will know that my Committee has commenced its first inquiry into that subject. We, therefore, wholeheartedly support the Executive’s commitment to work towards eliminating child poverty by 2020 and halving it by 2010.

However, we wish to see more evidence of how that challenging target is to be delivered. The Committee on the Programme for Government assessed the existing anti-poverty strategy earlier this year; and, while welcoming its overall direction, the Committee was far from convinced that the associated actions were capable of delivering the objectives. My Committee will also be seeking evidence from OFMDFM that specific outputs and outcomes will be delivered as a result of the higher priority afforded to those issues. In tomorrow’s debate on the draft Budget, we will be highlighting concerns about the impact of the time lag before resources become available for some specific priorities.

I am conscious that my time is running out, but I must say that the main interest of my Committee is to ensure that the strategies developed will help to produce an improved environment; more and better-paid jobs; affordable housing; high-quality health and education facilities; reliable and sustainable transport infrastructure; and more efficient government. I therefore look forward to hearing today from Members and the First Minister about proposals for ensuring the timely and cost-effective delivery of key infrastructure projects, on time and within budget.

One specific step that could be taken is inclusion in the investment strategy of a timetable for Departments to complete production of their investment delivery plans. My Committee will take an interest in the extent to which investment delivery plans make clear how investment will contribute to tackling poverty and social exclusion.

I encourage Members to contribute to what should be a strategic and robust debate on the contribution that the draft Programme for Government and the draft investment strategy can make towards delivering a better Northern Ireland.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move the following amendment: At end insert

“; but expresses its concern at the limited vision, scope and proposals contained in the documents.”

I am aware that this debate is on a take-note motion, and I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, of which I am a member, for proposing it. Owing to his Committee role, Mr Kennedy’s comments are necessarily more fettered than mine may be. I realise that he may have searched for the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon in order to pull together a speech that fully represented the Committee’s views.

Today’s debate comes during the consultation period on the Programme for Government, so Members have an opportunity to give initial feedback. The draft Programme for Government was announced in this Chamber with much fanfare and trumpet blowing. In fact, that speech was longer by about eight pages than the document that it was announcing. The Executive told Members that it was no mean achievement to produce such a programme, and agree on its contents, five months into the new Administration. Although we recognise that devolution happened on 8 May, only five months before the publication of the Programme for Government, the current Executive parties were funded by the NIO, at taxpayers’ expense, immediately following the St Andrews Agreement last November; special advisors were presented to them, and full details of the direct rule Ministers’ plans were available so that the development of a Programme for Government could proceed.

That is the context in which we should regard this document, not simply as a short-term, cobbled-together piece of work, but rather as the product of a year’s work, which should see us through the next three years, with only a light-touch return to it over the next two years.

As the Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee has already said, the opportunities for scrutiny and input were extensively foreshortened. We understand the reasons for that, given the timelines that were available, but some of that discussion could have been held in Committees, had we received a draft at an earlier stage to allow us to have some input.

I shall focus my comments specifically on the Programme for Government for the next three years. Other Alliance Members will examine issues connected with the ISNI.

On the day of the publication of the Programme for Government, I half-jokingly asked whether some of the document had been left at the printers. My primary concern is not about quantity, but quality. The document sets out general policy areas, but there is no serious attempt to prioritise them in the accompanying public service agreements. Concrete actions are few and far between; for example, the Executive will implement measures, conduct reviews and take steps, but those measures, reviews and steps are not detailed.

The targets that should tell us in three years whether the measures have been implemented, reviews conducted and steps taken, and whether the desired outcomes have already been achieved, appear to be much the same as those that were being developed under direct rule. There are only a few areas in the PSA framework, notably health and education, where there is a read-across between what the Executive want to achieve, what they want to do, and the outcomes that the Executive are going to measure.

Last week, David Ford and others highlighted the lack of imagination and direction on legislation, and a number of areas on which action was needed. Private Members’ Bills have secured significant and, in some cases, unanimous support, such as the creation of an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland, and the introduction of free personal care for the elderly.

The same commentary could be applied to the Programme for Government. As David correctly highlighted, the little legislation that has been generated or is anticipated in the forthcoming year is mainly parity legislation, tidying-up exercises, or legislation that was already substantially progressed under direct rule — rather than new, home-grown solutions to local problems. That could also be applied to the Programme for Government, the most apparent failures of which are in connection with one of our most pressing, most pervasive local problems — that of sectarianism. Others from the Alliance Party will focus on other areas during the course of the debate, but I will concentrate my attention on that specific area.

Let me be clear: my primary concern is not about the endorsement of a certain policy, with a certain name or actions; my concern is about the lack of any policy under any name, or any attached action, to address the fault line that runs through the heart of our community and, indeed, through this Chamber. The Alliance Party recognises that the Executive’s seal of approval on any such document was important when the issue of a shared future was debated in the House on 4 June 2007. However, since then, precious little effort or progress appears to have been made in developing an alternative and equally comprehensive strategy.

A written reply that I received from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, specifically on that matter, suggests that there may be something “early in the new year”. I can already feel another question coming on — asking them to specify which new year. The level of priority and urgency that is attached to the shared future agenda does not fill me with hope for January 2008.

If people cannot live with the language of ‘A Shared Future’ — owing to its having the seal of approval of a direct rule Administration — by all means, change the name. It would be a huge mistake to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. That document was developed, with extensive consultation, to address issues that are specific to the needs of a society that is moving out of conflict and towards a more prosperous future. That policy is built on international experience, as well as local expertise.

Only this morning, the One Small Step campaign launched a new drive to produce 100 small steps that individuals can take, or have taken, to create a shared future and advance that aim in our society. The campaign’s focus is on individual actions that can be taken in our community. However, if the work that is being done by those individuals and groups in the community is to be effective, it must be acknowledged, underpinned, supported and promoted by an overall framework that secures the progress that has been made and clears the way for further progress.

The impact of division in our society is wide-ranging; there is hardly an aspect of governance that is unaffected by it. This is not the fluffy stuff that was previously dismissed, with some disdain, by John O’Dowd in earlier debates — rather, it is a realisation that the tough problems cannot be resolved in the absence of some sense of shared purpose, and some overarching framework for enhancing sharing, rather than shoring up segregation.

Does anyone truly believe that we will solve the housing crisis without strategic tools in place for tackling division and the restrictions that that places on people’s mobility? Can we tackle economic inactivity without also tackling the physical and psychological barriers that prevent people from moving freely from where they live to where employment exists?

Can we resolve the issue of declining school rolls without considering increasing the number of shared facilities? Can we deal with issues of culture and language if we fail to address the reality of a cultural and language war that is being waged? Is the basis for progress on that not the delivery of a shared future, which embraces diversity?

The cost of not tackling this issue was highlighted, quite rightly, by the Minister of Finance and Personnel in his speech on the draft Budget. Although that reference was welcome, it was disappointing that it was not followed through by the Executive in the draft Programme for Government.

The Finance Minister claimed that there were limited opportunities for major savings during the three-year financial cycle. However, in the absence of any strategy to tackle division over the next three years, it is hard to see how we will be closer to unlocking that money for better use in the future. There is not a single reference to a shared future, or good relations, in the Programme for Government or in a single public service agreement, out of the 23 that are designed to promote them.

I wrote to OFMDFM, asking that those references be highlighted for me, in case I had missed something. In the letter that I received in reply, that had not been done. In line with the Executive’s stated aims of building a stronger economy and a fairer, more just and equal society, those objectives will be best followed if we can also tackle the issues of a shared future. Stability aids inward investment, supports tourism, creates a more mobile and flexible workforce, tackles social exclusion, and helps to underpin the political structures, which is to everyone’s benefit. Instead, mention is made only of the rights and equality agenda, in the complete absence of any strategy for improving community relations.

It goes without saying that equality and human rights must underpin the building of a shared future. The Alliance Party has championed both of those critical tools and it will continue to do so. However, they cannot alone heal the divisions in the areas that have most readily spilled over into communal tension and violence, or where competing rights have failed to be resolved in the context of any wider sense of shared community.

Even before we had spoken, those of us who are critical were told that we were naysayers. However, the First Minister, in his speech last week, welcomed the fact that the Programme for Government would be examined and said that proposals could be improved, and that we could add new proposals. I simply ask that, following my party leader’s written request, we embark on that engagement. We want this to work, and we are happy to help.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

The Member for East Belfast made some derogatory comments on the work of the Programme for Government, describing it as being “cobbled together”. Do voters not choose those whom they wish to speak on their behalf in this devolved Administration? As I look around the Chamber, I note that the electorate has spoken. The Member’s party also proposes social engineering and the creation of a third-level tier of education that discriminates against the controlled sector by taking moneys that could be used to improve the lot of the children who are in that sector.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is called parental choice.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

No; it is called force. I shall ignore those remarks that have been made from a sedentary position. [Interruption.]

I shall make my remarks today in my capacity as the DUP’s health spokesperson, but I shall also touch on a few issues that affect the Strangford constituency. A draft Programme for Government that has been produced by locally elected politicians represents a significant step forward for Northern Ireland. It is also encouraging that this blueprint was unanimously endorsed by every Minister around the Executive table.

Members of the Alliance Party have argued that the conciseness of the document is worthy of criticism. I take the opposite view; it is a clear and concise document that is intentionally written in more accessible language.

The document is political rather than technical; it sets out the Executive’s strategic plan rather than, as previously, simply throwing together everything that each Minister wanted to include. The draft Programme for Government is tightly focused, with clear objectives and targets. All goals have specific measurable targets.

Unfortunately, some of the content of our predecessors’ Programme for Government was woolly and unfocused, with few action points. Previously, commitments were broad in nature and frequently offered only to review or develop strategies, policies or recommendations. There are now radical new proposals, and all Ministers must prove that they are up to the challenges in their Departments.

I welcome the fact that there is a strong focus on the economy. The previous Executive’s Programme for Government had no hierarchy of priorities. Although my overriding concern will still be health issues, it is through building and sustaining an improved economy that health and all other sectors can best be served in the longer term.

I welcome the stronger emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention, but I believe that much more can be done in this area. I support increased screening programmes, including, in particular, the introduction of a bowel-screening programme and follow-up treatments; it is intended that those measures should reduce death from bowel cancer by 10%. Similarly, an immunisation programme for the human papilloma virus should see cervical cancer decrease by 70%.

The Appleby Report found that our public-health behaviour in Northern Ireland is much worse than in GB. To that end, I welcome the intention to see, by 2010, binge drinking reduced by at least 5%, drunkenness fall by 10%, 5% fewer young adults taking illegal drugs, and a 30% reduction in the number of young girls under 17 years of age who give birth.

Efforts to reduce obesity, and the number of adults who smoke, are also sensible. I support enhanced co-ordination across different Departments to improve well-being. The public health of the people of Northern Ireland is not a matter only for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Therefore, I welcome additional funding to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to encourage leisure and exercise. That is an example of the Executive’s providing better joined-up government. I shall illustrate that point further: the draft Programme for Government has 23 public service agreements that cut across Departments; the previous Executive’s document had only 11 — one for each Department.

Everyone will welcome efforts to reduce healthcare-acquired infections. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been conducting some work on that issue.

The Committee has also been taking evidence on the issues of mental health and suicide. It is important to slash the waiting times for access to talking therapies, although that will require sustained effort and investment over a prolonged period. It is also a positive step that more people with mental-health problems can be treated in their own homes and in the community.

There is a determination to continue the good work achieved under direct rule in reducing waiting times for assessment, investigations and treatment. In particular, I applaud the proposed reduction in waits for cancer treatment.

There are commitments to improve productivity, through indicators such as bed throughput, staff absenteeism, and the ration of day cases to inpatient admissions. A strong, local, commissioning role will, however, be required in order to see improvement.

It is difficult to see how these measures can be sufficiently improved without introducing some degree of contestability into the process. Where are the real incentives and actions to sharpen performance? If a service provider is guaranteed the delivery of services to a given population, what encouragement is there to optimise performance? Similarly, for example, if a builder is guaranteed a number of houses to build — regardless of how quickly that is completed or what problems subsequently emerge — his maximum output is unlikely.

Some of the current output comparisons with other parts of the United Kingdom are poor. However, our front-line health-care staff, generally, work flat out. Clearly, the problem is in how the system operates, and that must be fixed. Efficiency savings are one thing, on a par with all other Departments, but the real challenge is in refocusing the entire Health Service to ensure much greater productivity. In that regard, the loss of David Sissling, Chief Executive Designate of the new, strategic Health and Social Services Authority, is a real hammer-blow to the province’s urgent requirement for Health Service modernisation and innovation.

Disturbingly, now, clicking on the icon for modernisation of the health and social services in Northern Ireland on the DHSSPS website leads only to a single, temporary, holding page with no information. That is not an encouraging sign, particularly given the wealth of progressive proposals that were previously accessed there.

Those fighting for funds for education, transport, and so many other worthy causes, question — quite rightly — whether huge proportions of funding for health, in the region of half of the block grant, will keep on rising at such a fast rate. Will 48% become 58%, then 68%? Where does it all end?

That is why significant reform, placing the emphasis on quality outcomes and cost-effectiveness, is so important. In an environment where there are so many worthy, competing, needs, those of us tasked with improving future health provision for Northern Ireland must prove that we are determined to squeeze every last penny’s worth from the sizeable sums invested in health.

If I may, for a few minutes, I shall flag up some issues in my own constituency, which has a historic association with Northern Ireland’s traditional industries of agriculture, fishing, textiles and shipbuilding, as well as with the aerospace industry. Over the years, the people of my constituency have suffered as a result of the demise of Harland & Wolff, the downturn in fortunes at Bombardier Shorts, and the closure of TKECC, the constituency’s largest private employer. That has had a deeply negative effect on the wider community. There is equal concern about the provision of industrial land throughout the area.

I could speak on many other issues; unfortunately, my time is running out. However, I thank the Minister for Social Development for coming to Ballybeen last week and for looking at the Renewing Communities action plan, which was completed last year. It was based on the report of a task force, which examined claims in the Protestant unionist community that, since 1998, they had lost out to nationalists in improvement programmes. Studies show that, of the 15 Northern Ireland electoral wards with the worst educational attainment, 13 are predominantly Protestant. In Strangford, areas such as Ballybeen, West Winds and Bowtown are often overlooked, because they are surrounded by areas that are perceived to be affluent. I welcome the Minister’s commitment in visiting Ballybeen last week, to see for herself the difficulties faced by local communities. She is examining strategies to help with funding.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I welcomed the opportunity to speak.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt le tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún. I support the motion.

I note the Programme for Government and am pleased with its contents. I congratulate the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on their commitment, taking as their priority the use of prosperity to tackle disadvantage so as to build an inclusive and stable society based on equality. The challenge for all of us today is to develop new and innovative measures to address existing patterns of socio-economic disadvantage and to target resources and efforts towards those in greatest objective need.

The old days have long gone, thanks to, among others, Nobel Prize winner and former vice president and chief economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz, who has dispelled — once and for all, we hope — the nonsense that a rising tide lifts all boats. In fact, it only lifts the boats of those who have boats. As he says, it is “a riptide” that destroys the smallest boats.

What is extraordinary and far-sighted about the Executive’s Programme for Government is that it more than acknowledges in its priority objectives, alongside economic growth and competitiveness, the building of a society based on partnership, equality, inclusion, regional balance and mutual respect, and the urgent need to address environmental sustainability in the world of global warming and man-made climate change that is encroaching on us. We are facing a world that is going to undergo huge changes. This Programme for Government, along with ISNI 2 and future investment strategies, must be able to cope with these changes, which threaten economic life as we know it.

If we are serious about the pillars of economic growth in ISNI 2, we must treat each in a holistic way. The essence of our investment strategy is that the pillars are interdependent and inextricably linked. Building skills, a good quality Health Service, meeting our social and environmental objectives, and striving towards regional balance and equality — they cannot be severed from each other, nor must they be in practice. That means that we should see a strong ISNI 2 after consultation.

For instance, the people of Derry want to be assured, following the consultation, that the commitment made in ISNI 1 that future investment strategies would tackle regional imbalance is addressed the next time that we in this Chamber discuss the outworkings of the consultation. Let us all be clear: striving towards regional balance is not tackling regional imbalance.

In addition, Derry people are appalled at performance reports from Invest NI, which show that assistance for investment has mainly been skewed to where invest­ment is already located. In fact, Invest NI appears to have an active policy of disinvestment west of the Bann. I am sure that all Members from that region will support the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee’s investigation of the activities of Invest NI and its continued failure to deliver on its statutory obligation to promote equality of opportunity. Thankfully, the First Minister is aware of the need for ISNI 2 to tackle regional disparities. We hope that his political commitment, given in this Chamber, is heard by those carrying out the consultation on ISNI 2.

If we are to lift all boats, we must also lift the boats of the disadvantaged, the vulnerable in society, the marginalised and the excluded, whatever community people may come from. That is the prosperity that the Programme for Government commits us to building. ISNI 2 must not dilute that. The First Minister came to Derry a few weeks ago. He said that he was struck by the wonderful potential there, but that potential has been wasted through dark days of impoverishment and neglect. That is what regional imbalance is all about.

Last Friday, some gathered around the Christmas tree at the Guildhall with their Christmas boxes to represent the presents that they want for Christmas. The boxes reflected the litany of neglect that Derry has suffered in the absence of strategic investment. Stand Up For Derry is looking for investment strategies to address the holistic neglect of our city and, indeed, the entire north-west region, which has been denied the opportunity to use the wonderful potential that the First Minister talked about.

Tá mé ag iarraidh níos mó jabanna agus tuilleadh infheistíochta i nDoire. I call for more jobs and investment in Derry. I acknowledge the political will and skill that Minister Conor Murphy has shown in pursuing the railway development for Derry and the rest of the north-west.

Infrastructural development will enable us to redress neglect. We can then begin to achieve economic growth and development, which, in the end, is all about developing the potential of the people of Derry and the entire north-west. In that sense, a present to one is a present to all. Investment for Derry and the rest of the north-west means investment for all the people who reside across the North and further afield. It would be economically incompetent not to assess that outcome when deciding where investment should go.

The boats will rise because we plan strategically to raise them. A priority is to address disadvantage. We must ensure that the opportunities that the new political dispensation affords us do not leave behind those who suffered the most. Moreover, we must ensure that the investment conference in May 2008, which OFMDFM is to lead, builds prosperity and tackles disadvantage. The Programme for Government’s aims must find expression in that conference’s aims. Without housing, good healthcare, jobs and transport, the rip tide will continue to deny that potential in Derry and in the rest of the north-west, and the boats, as before, will remain holed, sinking.

Through targeted investment to address those disadvantaged areas, we will begin to enable people in all our communities and to tackle seriously child poverty, fuel poverty and much more. Those who argued that a rising tide lifts all boats forced, at a terrible human cost, people’s resourcefulness, innovation and human potential to be wasted. It is the declared intent of the Programme for Government to free that potential by promoting tolerance and inclusion of all, and by building on, as Jim Shannon correctly stated a few weeks ago, “equality for all”.

ISNI 2 acknowledges that we need to assess and monitor continuously everyone in order to ensure that we are implementing a strategy that tackles regional disparities. We must apply clear criteria on which our success can be judged. Practical, measurable outcomes are necessary. We must carry out a root-and-branch review of the Shaping our Future strategy, in order to ascertain whether it is enhancing our future. The strategy must create a better future, not merely a shared one. Statistics can appear that show an increase in economic growth, yet those same statistics can be entirely consistent with an increase in inequality and a further waste of people’s lives.

We must judge this Executive’s success, and our people will judge it too, on the extent to which we succeed in addressing inequality and tackling regional imbalance.

Thinking must change. Human rights and — to quote Jim Shannon again — “equality for all” must be embraced so that the Executive’s Programme for Government’s values are recognised and acclaimed as being at the forefront of economic practice for development in what is an unjust and unequal world. I support the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in what they are trying to achieve through this Programme for Government and future Programmes for Government, and so does my party. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members will be aware that questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will begin at 2.30 pm. Members are being allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in the debate on the draft Programme for Government, so I suggest that they take their ease until the beginning of Question Time. This debate will recommence at 4.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

OFFICE OF THE FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

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

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail whether it will include a declaration of independence in a future Order in relation to the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People in order to improve the autonomy of this post; and to ensure that the commis­sioner, as a “constitutional watchdog”, is made answerable to an Assembly Committee rather than to a Government Department. (AQO 906/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle the review of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Order 2003, was carried out at the end of 2006. Patricia Lewsley took up post in January 2007, and we thought it only fitting to ask the commissioner for her views on the review report. We have very recently received her additional recommendations. Those are complex and wide-ranging, and we are currently considering them.

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

I understand that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) is studying the report given to them by the commissioner, Ms Lewsley. However, I emphasise that it should be the objective of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to enhance the position of the Commissioner for Children and Young People so that she is totally independent of Government and answerable not to a Government Department but to an Assembly Committee. If the Executive and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are serious about that position, they will seek to enhance her independence.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, the commiss­ioner has given her opinion of the review that has taken place. In fact, there have been two recent reviews relating to the Commissioner for Children and Young People. We will take into consideration every­thing that she has said before deciding how to move forward. The review of the 2003 Order was initially carried out by Barney McNeany, the interim commissioner, late last year with added recommendations from Patricia Lewsley received lately.

A second review was carried out by Deloitte to determine the effectiveness of the operation of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. The overall conclusion of the Deloitte review of the commissioner’s office was that it was, in the main, very positive. It recognised that the illness and untimely death of Nigel Williams had a significant impact on the staff and led inevitably to a period of uncertainty and change that affected staff morale. However, the review also reported that staff felt morale had improved. Our Department is satisfied that the commissioner is taking steps to bring about further improvements, including reducing the number of priorities and registering to begin work to achieve Investors in People status.

We take very seriously the views of the commissioner in all of those matters. When deciding how to take that forward, we will set considerable store by the experience that she has gained during her time as commissioner.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his fairly comprehensive reply. However, there is a suggestion that a vacuum has been created and in that vacuum the interests of children are paramount. What steps does OFMDFM expect to take in the interim before the details of the report and the review are fully digested to ensure that that vacuum does not expand?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are of the view that the difficulties associated with the death that occurred in the organisation created problems for Patricia Lewsley as the new commissioner. I think that she has done a good job, has dealt with the difficulties that flowed from the situation and is very much involved in suggesting measures to improve it. Certainly, from our perspective, we believe that whatever difficulties were created are now in the process of being resolved. I am very hopeful that there will be a significant improvement over time.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

How do the current powers of the Commissioner for Children and Young People compare with those in other jurisdictions?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The powers of the Commissioner for Children and Young People are, generally, wider here than those in other jurisdictions. That clearly indicates that, when the post was established, there was an absolute commitment to ensure that the Children’s Commissioner had enough powers to do a thorough job. During the course of the reviews that have taken place, issues have been raised, and it is now for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to consider the outcome of those reviews and, particularly, to reflect on the comments of the Children’s Commissioner herself.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what steps it has taken to ensure collaborative, joined-up government between Departments, both in general and on specific projects. (AQO 888/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Executive play a central role in promoting joined-up government by providing a forum for collective decision-making; for the agreement of a common position on cross-cutting issues; and for keeping Ministers informed of emerging issues in each Department. I am grateful for the Member’s question and for the opportunity to clarify the broad range of steps that the Executive have taken to ensure joined-up government.

In the Programme for Government, we will establish an agreed framework and a set of overarching priorities within which each Department can operate. We shall monitor ongoing progress against the objectives that are set out in the Programme for Government, ensuring that a high level of co-ordination and co-operation is maintained throughout its delivery.

The publication of the Executive’s legislative programme for this year represents another important step to ensure joined-up and collaborative government.

In respect of specific projects, a number of Executive subgroups have been established to consider issues such as water and sewerage, rural planning and local govern­ment reform. Those groups are also proving highly effective in ensuring that Departments work in a co-ordinated and integrated manner to address those important matters.

The junior Ministers continue to play an important role through their responsibility for the co-ordination of Executive business, including ministerial statements in the Assembly.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened carefully to the deputy First Minister’s reply, and I have no doubt that if all the measures that he outlined are implemented, we can look forward to better days — bearing in mind that, over 35 years of direct rule, we had anything but joined-up government.

Are OFMDFM and other Departments ready to take advantage of opportunities for the efficient building of infrastructure? For example, during the construction of new roads, provision for cabling could be made, even though it might seem premature. It has often been the case that, six months after a road is constructed, it is ripped up again to provide for cabling. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that those days are behind us?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The issues of roads and the type of support that is required to ensure an integrated approach are matters for Departments other than the Office of the First and deputy First Minister. However, OFMDFM has a particular responsibility to promote joined-up government within the Executive, and I believe that all Ministers recognise the importance of such an approach.

If we do not adopt a joined-up approach to important infrastructure projects, our economy and our people will suffer. We have no intention whatsoever of being part of an Executive that do not do their job on behalf of the people who sent us to this Assembly. It is a clear duty and responsibility of all Ministers, including ourselves, to work in a spirit of co-operation and in a positive and joined-up manner so that we can provide the results that our people deserve.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Does the deputy First Minister accept that collaborative joined-up government, as operated by the two currently larger parties, has so far been little more than an exercise in crude majoritarianism, which ignores the necessities and realities of enforced coalition government?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Anyone who read or listened to any of the interviews in which I have participated in the last few weeks could not fail to be aware that I am strongly of the view that some Members are in denial about the outcome of the elections earlier this year.

The electorate has charged the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin, alongside our colleagues in the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, with the responsibility to progress the business of Government. There is no point in people being in denial, because prior to the election, the electorate were told that this venture would never work and that there would never be an agreement. We do not hear that anymore. The Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionists now say that it is only a matter of time before everything collapses. We hope to confound all of you.

We have been in operation for nearly six months, and there is no doubt that during that time we have reached agreement on a range of complex and demanding issues, such as water and sewerage, rating reform, the reform of local government and the draft Programme for Government and investment strategy. The Executive have also responded collectively and highly effectively to emergencies such as the July flooding and the more recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and bluetongue in England. However, it would be unrealistic, in any democratic Administration, to expect that we would have unanimous support for every decision that is taken. The success of the Executive should be measured against our growing list of achievements rather than the tiny number of disagreements that some parties here choose to highlight in the course of recent times.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

There is a big difference between the Executive staying together and actually delivering results. The cross-departmental commitments to the shared future strategy have effectively been abandoned by the Executive in the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget. Having regard to joined-up Government, is it the view of the Executive that the shared future strategy is now solely the responsibility of OFMFDM, leaving the other Departments with nothing to do in improving good relations in Northern Ireland?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are looking for a better future. The course on which we have set over the past six months offers up a real opportunity for all those who voted to send 108 MLAs to the Assembly to have a far better future than anything that we have seen in the past. It obviously grates on the Alliance Party and some other individuals in the Assembly that, after six months, things are going well. We have presented a draft Programme for Government, a draft Budget and a draft investment strategy. People have had every opportunity to criticise, praise, knock down or applaud those developments over the course of the debates that have commenced in the Assembly and which will continue through to the Christmas recess. When we come back in January, I hope that final agreements will be reached on all of those matters so that we can move on and provide the better future that our people deserve.

Naturally, there are difficulties. We are working to a tight Budget, and all Departments are under considerable pressure. Our job as political leaders, and as a Govern­ment, is to make best use of the available resources, in the hope that we can continue to make life better and make a real difference for the people that we represent. Some­times I get a wee bit fed up coming in week after week to constant narking from the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionists. It almost seems as if some people in here would rather see the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin collapse in a heap. That is not going to happen.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what plans it has to produce proposals in relation to child protection. (AQO 969/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle we propose to develop a “Staying Safe” policy statement as part of the 10-year strategy for children and young people, which will bind together and integrate current developments and existing measures for safeguarding children, as well as examining required additional actions and policies. We have also re-established the Bichard co-ordination group, which will oversee the development of the recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry Report, particularly the establishment of the new safeguarding vulnerable groups scheme, and barring arrangements here.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that child protection issues can also be advanced through the North/South Ministerial Council?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members debated a motion on the issue of sex offenders on 9 October. We have advised the secretariats of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council of the Assembly’s wish to consider the matter at their meetings. Although the issue of child protection is in neither Council’s existing work programme, we wish to raise the matter at the next North/South Ministerial Council plenary meeting and at the next British-Irish Council summit meetings, subject to agreement from the other participating Administrations.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his comments on child protection. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has set a commitment to reduce by 20% the numbers of children on the child protection register over the next few years. How does the deputy First Minister hope to measure that success? Will targets be set to ensure that that commitment is met?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Child protection and the safeguarding of children are crucial to the Executive. Therefore, we were delighted to accept an invitation from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to provide us with expert advice for a time to help us to develop the Staying Safe commitment scheme.

We will have to explore ways in which to measure our success in reducing the number of children on the child protection register, and we are contemplating ways in which to do so in the context of decisions that are yet to be taken. At a later date, we hope to outline in more detail how we intend to move that policy on.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

What projects have the junior Ministers, as the designated champions of children, introduced in the past six months to improve children’s lives?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is early days. The junior Ministers work to a wide-ranging brief, not least on the issue of child protection and on how we deal with the issue of sexual offences against young people. It is a major issue that affects our entire society, and the Executive have charged the junior Ministers with dealing with it in a comprehensive fashion. As time progresses, we will be able to outline in great detail all the initiatives and developments in which they have been involved and in which they intend to become involved.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail whether the final Budget document for 2008-2011 requires the support of all members of the Executive, or a simple majority vote, in order to be adopted. (AQO 912/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Executive unanimously cleared the draft Budget for consultation at their meeting on 23 October 2007. I see no reason why we cannot secure the support of all members of the Executive for the final Budget.

The ministerial code places a specific responsibility on the First Minister and me, as Co-Chairpersons of the Executive Committee, to seek to reach decisions by consensus, wherever possible. It also provides for a vote to be taken on any issue should it be required.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his reply. It was clear and was worth hearing, especially from the Co-Chairman of the coalition. Does he accept that a more consensual method of operation must be found for the operation of the Executive? An inbuilt resolution procedure is necessary, given that the present coalition Government is so different from that in Westminster.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The provisions that cover the decision-making process in the current Executive are effectively set out in the statutory ministerial code, which was agreed by all parties. From our first meeting on 10 May to our most recent meeting on 22 October, the Executive have considered between 100 and 120 items of business. A decision has been taken by means of a vote on fewer than five occasions. That reflects the effort that has been made to achieve consensus on each issue and the rarity of the occasions on which that does not prove possible.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister whether he could provide any evidence that the Executive operate under the principle of collective responsibility. He did not answer — no surprise there. I wonder if the deputy First Minister can explain how an Executive can possibly implement a Budget unless there is full collective responsibility and full agreement within the Executive. In his earlier answers, he made it very clear that he takes no notice of what is said by members of my party or other Back-Benchers at this end of the Chamber. Is he now saying that he has no respect for the opinions of Ministers who are outside the two largest parties?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I fully respect the participation of all Ministers in the Executive. As co-chairperson of the Executive, I have done everything in my power — as, I believe, has the First Minister — to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to speak at, and contribute to, each Executive meeting. There is no doubt whatsoever that, in moving forward, further important decisions will have to be taken on the draft Budget, the draft Programme for Government and the draft investment strategy. Until I came to the Chamber today, I was not aware that any Alliance Party Members were members of the Executive; however, I am aware that the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Nobody said that they were.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is quite clear from contributions in the Assembly, and the Alliance Party’s rather futile efforts to portray itself as the Opposition, that you are trying to punch above your weight — and I think that you know that. [Interruption.]

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

Order. I ask that Members make their remarks through the Chair, please.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that the Member knows that, because every time he stands up in this Assembly, he makes a very serious contribution railing against the Executive, particularly the Executive as led by the First Minister and myself. His remarks are always delivered with a very serious face. However, I note that when the Member sits down, he always smiles to himself, as if he is involved in a pantomime. [Laughter.] None of us in the Executive is involved in pantomimes. We are involved in providing Government for the people who we represent. I am not interested in playing wee games with the Alliance Party in the Assembly. I am interested in working with serious political parties to build a better future and to make a difference for the people who we represent — and I believe that the four parties that make up the Executive are serious political parties.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I am sorry that the deputy First Minister feels so constantly narked. People should not be so hard on him. [Laughter.]

Will he acknowledge that the draft Budget fails to provide adequate resources to build a shared future?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is quite interesting that the leader of the Alliance Party, David Ford, thought that the response to the question was very funny. I think that he was the only person in the Building who thought that it was very funny.

The fact remains that there is a draft Budget, a draft Programme for Government and a draft investment strategy. The key word is “draft”, and the contents of all three will be debated in the Assembly over the course of the coming weeks, after which big decisions will have to be taken. Those big decisions will have to be taken in the context of a very tight budgetary situation. There is no point whatsoever in Members coming to the Chamber with grandiose notions about what can be achieved with a limited Budget. We cannot take money from a stone. We must deal with the resources that are under our control. I believe that, at the end of the debate, we will move forward, adequately and decisively, to govern in the interests of our people, to build a better future and to make a difference.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether it will give a timescale within which the review into an older people’s commissioner will be completed. (AQO 970/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The review into the case for an older people’s commissioner is currently under way. Following a competitive tendering exercise, OFMDFM recently appointed an independent organisation to consult key stakeholders and examine possible roles and responsibilities for such a post.

It is expected that the review will be substantially complete by the end of 2007, although it is envisaged that, thereafter, there may well be a need to engage further with section interests.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the deputy First Minister for his reply. Will he outline the issues that are currently being considered by the review?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The key issues that will be considered as part of the assessment include the impact and accessibility of the existing levels of advocacy and protection for older people that are provided by statutory organisations here; how existing provisions for older people here compare with those elsewhere; identification of any gaps in existing advocacy and protection; stakeholders’ views, including those of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister; and how older people will directly benefit from the establishment of an independent commissioner for older people.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I am not sure whether the First Minister and I should declare an interest in the subject. Does the deputy First Minister envisage that an action plan will be produced by the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to proactively deal with ageism, which is prevalent throughout society, both in the economy and in social and political life?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The review into the case for an older people’s commissioner, which is currently under way, will make a mighty contribution to tackling the issues that the Member clearly identifies. My mother — God bless her — is 84 years of age. Therefore, I declare an interest in the subject. I am sure that many other Assembly Members have relatives in that age group. We are their elected representatives. We have as much duty and responsibility to them as we have to our children. The Assembly must do everything in its power to ensure that the approach that it adopts is comprehensive and meets the needs of older people who, surely, deserve as much as the Assembly can deliver.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can the deputy First Minister inform the House as to when the proposed commissioner’s post will be advertised in the press? I welcome the fact that the review will conclude at the end of 2007. Perhaps, that will give hope to older people.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member must await the outcome of the review, which, as I said during my response to the initial question, will be completed by the end of the year. Therefore, by the end of 2007, Members will have a good idea of how matters are shaping up. As soon as final decisions are taken, the First Minister and I will report back to the Assembly.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether it will report on responses to the recent consultation on the gender goods and services directive. (AQO 934/08)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Consultation on the gender goods and services directive sets out the Department’s plan to transpose the European directive that implements the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. Just over 240 responses were received. The First Minister and I will take account of those responses as we make our final decisions. A consultation report is also being prepared for publication. An initial assessment of the consultation responses was provided to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in order to facilitate its response to the consultation exercise.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

With regard to the EU’s gender goods and services directive, will the deputy First Minister’s Department use available flexibility to extend exemptions from harassment provisions in order to include commercial enterprises, care and residential centres that are run in accordance with a religious ethos, church activities that are outside a church building, and medical professionals who have a conscientious objection to referring someone for gender re-assignment surgery?

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

I ask the deputy First Minister to be brief in his response as time is nearly up.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Each member state has its own obligation under EU law to implement European directives and to determine how best to do so in a way that both complies with the requirements of the directives and deals with the specific needs of the member state. Policy consideration and the appropriate transposition of EU directives into domestic law include consideration of the degree of flexibility that is available to the member state and to the devolved Administration. Given that equality is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of this Administration to consider how the requirements of equality directives affect the Assembly and to bring forward legislation that is specific to here in order to implement those directives. It is often the case that in transposing equality directives into domestic law, there is limited discretion with regard to the precise rights or obligations that must be imposed or, indeed, created.

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

Time is up for questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

employment and learning

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail the progress made in identifying funds to enable both the University of Ulster and Queen’s University Belfast to participate in Science Foundation Ireland, further to the national development plan of the Republic of Ireland. (AQO 909/08)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The two universities presented a joint paper to the Economic Development Forum, which contains a proposal to link with Science Foundation Ireland programmes. My Department has established a project board to consider the proposals contained in that paper, including those relating to North/South collaboration. Funding will be determined in light of the comprehensive spending review outcome in January 2008.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. There is a strong view that the participation of Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster in Science Foundation Ireland can bring real benefits to the North. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it will be a lost opportunity if the universities are not offered the financial assistance required to contribute to the foundation and that everyone will be denied new opportunities to join and share in research and development that will benefit everyone on this island?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I share the Member’s view. The precise mechanism for participation must be considered by the project board, and it will ensure that only projects that are of benefit to Northern Ireland are supported by moneys from this Administration. However — subject to the availability of funds — one must understand that it may be appropriate to seek an agreement with Science Foundation Ireland on what areas can be aligned with Northern Ireland priorities.

As the Member is aware, the Department for Employment and Learning is bidding through the comprehensive spending review process. We know that collaboration exists, and the universities have expressed their enthusiasm about Science Foundation Ireland to me. They have brought that forward to the Economic Development Forum, and I think that the Member is pushing at an open door. The Department for Employ­ment and Learning is concerned with trying to secure the funding, and the projects that require that money, we believe, have been established. There is an enthusiasm from the universities, and we will make progress.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The draft Programme for Government commits to providing an extra 300 places for PhD students in Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster. Is the money available to follow through on that commitment? Has consideration been given to some of those students undertaking PhDs in science-related subjects?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member has veered off to a slightly different issue, but I assure him that it is one about which I feel strongly. I want to maximise the number of people taking PhDs, and I assure the Member that the Department for Employment and Learning will support the targeting of PhDs in specific subject areas. There will not be a blunderbuss approach, because we must target the support at areas in which our representation must be maximised for the benefit of our economic interests.

An existing scheme that has been supported by European funding has helped us to provide PhD places, but some of that funding will fall away and will have to be made up through comprehensive spending review bids. That is ongoing business, and I hope that I can rely on Mr Butler’s support at the Committee for Employment and Learning when it comes to the actual Budget allocations in the coming weeks.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister inform the House what progress has been made towards the creation of an innovative funding package along the lines of that first mooted by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in November 2006.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member raises an important subject. As I understand it, the Department of Finance and Personnel is aggregating a number of streams of funding, which will be funding for innovation generally. There are two sums of money: money that will come through our own system and money that has been pledged by the Government of the Republic.

In our negotiations with the Department of Finance and Personnel, we are pursuing the interest that we have. We have made bids for the innovation money, and we are working closely with our counterparts in the Republic to maximise the amount of money that we can bring to bear on this issue because if we are to compete in a very difficult business environment, it is one of the critical areas. Therefore, I can assure the honourable Member that every effort is being made. However, at this stage, the detail of the fund, such as how it should operate, are unclear, and we have had some difficulty in trying to confirm that detail. I can assure the Member that we are working closely with others to maximise the amount of money that can be brought to bear on this subject.

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

Question number 2 has been withdrawn.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what discussions he is having with Seagate in Limavady in order to ensure that staff facing redundancy receive the necessary assistance from his department to enable them to seek alternative sustainable employment in the north west. (AQO 891/08)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Senior officials from the Department and Invest NI met with representatives of Seagate Technology Ltd, who expressed clear commitment to work with the Department for Employment and Learning. The focus is on ensuring that workers who are facing redundancy can gain alternative employment and can access advice on training, education, careers and benefits. Provision of on-site services, along with partner organisations, will be agreed with management and employee representatives.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his reply and, indeed, for his offer of assistance for Seagate. However, does the Minister agree that if the 1,000 Seagate employees, who are facing unemployment, are to successfully reintegrate into paid employment in the summer of next year, that is more likely to happen in the small- and medium-sized enterprise sector or through self-employment? Will the training and skills that the Minister plans to offer them be geared towards that direction?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I accept the analysis that the honourable Member has made as to the probabilities of where the workers will find alternative employment. That is largely due to the fact that there are so few large companies left in that sort of sector. I assure the Member that, first of all, we must understand that a 90-day consultation period is ongoing, and, clearly, we are limited in what we can say and do during that period.

However, I understand that a workers’ forum is being established. My Department will engage with that forum. We have already engaged with the company. In conjunction with Limavady Borough Council, we plan to consider measures, such as jobs fairs at the Seagate premises. My officials are happy to establish an office at the plant, and they will interview everybody on an individual basis. We are working on assessing the skills that are available, and we will talk to each individual and link them to the vacancies that we have.

Training will be a critical point, and I can assure the Member that we will do everything in our power. We are working very closely with Invest NI and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I have spoken with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and we are determined, between us, our Departments and Invest NI, to do a good job on behalf of those workers who have suffered a significant blow at a very bad time.

However, the Member will also be aware that, sadly, the Seagate employees are not alone in that area. I assure him, however, that everything that can be done will be done.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the role of his Department in alleviating the hardship being felt by former workers of Reid Transport Ltd in Cloughmills?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Unfortunately, unlike the situation at Seagate, the situation at Reid Transport Ltd has happened all of a sudden, without warning and without any time to prepare. At least in the Seagate situation, we have the benefit and the luxury of some time to at least prepare and do things in an orderly manner.

I deeply regret the timing and, indeed, the manner in which the crash closure of Reid Transport Ltd has come around. It has created an enormous difficulty, and my Department is meeting with the administrators to look at the wage records and the books to establish the number of people who are entitled to departmental help. I am meeting the administrators later this afternoon.

A short time ago, I had an opportunity to brief the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on the situation, and I have spoken, or relayed messages, to most of the North Antrim MLAs. I assure the Member that we will do everything that we can.

However, nothing will take away from the trauma that those workers have suffered due to the suddenness and unexpected nature of the closure. It is in stark contrast to the manner in which the Seagate redundancies are being handled.

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

Members, I am sure that you appreciate the Minister’s answer, but I remind you that the supplementary question should relate directly to the original question.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister has touched on the situation at Reid Transport Ltd. What has his Department done to ensure that the affected workers receive redundancy packages? Over the past four nights on the picket line, I have heard various claims being made about the company, including that many employees had been working for more than 70 hours a week. I was also told that children as young as 14 years old had been working night shifts at the plant. Does the Minister consider that those workers and their families should be given immunity from prosecution and encouraged to come forward and make statements?

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

Minister, will you please extend your generosity?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am happy to do so, because I understand the urgency of the situation. I have heard all those allegations. Officials in my Department have been made fully aware of them, and are looking very closely at them. I understand that approximately 220 people were employed by the company, but, a short time ago, only 76 people had made themselves known to staff at jobcentres in the area. I appeal to Members to encourage them to attend a jobcentre so that their details can be processed in an attempt to alleviate their situation. Over the weekend, only a few people applied for emergency loans to tide them over.

The nature of some of the allegations is such that I felt compelled to draw them to the attention of the PSNI. Others relating to the day-to-day administration of the company, such as the payment of wages, number of hours worked, and so forth are matters for the administrator because, as an officer of the court, he is obliged to report to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on how he considers the business was run and on the conduct of the directors.

The allegations are very serious, and my Department is taking them seriously. Over the weekend, and again today, all necessary steps have been taken to make progress. I appeal to the workforce to come forward as soon as possible. Employers have come to the Department’s offices to say that they have vacancies that could be filled by the former Reid Transport Ltd workforce. That would be the best solution for everyone. There will be ample opportunity to reflect on how those workers have been treated and how the company has been run, but that is for another day.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what action his Department is taking to secure apprenticeships in the building trade. (AQO 949/08)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Department’s Training for Success programme offers apprenticeships for a full range of construction skills. Through the Construction Employers Federation and the Construction Industry Training Board, the Department is working closely with the construction industry to refine the training provision, provide incentives for employers to take on apprentices, and ensure that apprentices are suitably equipped to work in the building trade.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Minister will be aware of the downturn in the construction industry; the situation at Seagate has already happened. Hundreds of workers are losing their jobs. The building trade is prone to ups and downs, but this seems to be a prolonged downturn. I hear reports of young people being unable to complete their apprenticeships. When my colleague Martina Anderson saw that I had tabled a question on the subject, she told me of such a case in Derry, and I know of one young lad who was in the third year of his apprenticeship when he lost his job.

His mother has brought him round several building sites and he cannot get other employment. His further and higher education college has told him that if he does not get an apprenticeship, it will put him out. Will the Minister make an intervention, whereby further and higher education colleges are encouraged to keep on apprentices, allowing them to finish their apprentice­ships in college?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

If Mr O’Dowd, and the Member for Foyle, have individual cases in mind, they should bring them to me, and I will ensure that they are dealt with. Mr O’Dowd is right. The building industry is cyclical. It is going through a difficult period — certainly, the house building side is at the moment. Before Training for Success was introduced in September, a Public Accounts Committee inquiry reported that many young people in the construction sector were being used on building sites for four days a week, and then spending one day at a further education college. At the end of the year, they were being dumped by their employers.

The Public Accounts Committee said that that amounted to exploitation of the workforce. That provoked the Training for Success programme, which requires young people to have contracts and be employed. In the current circumstances, we are monitoring closely the operation of the scheme since it started on 3 September. I may have more to say to the Committee in due course, but we are monitoring the scheme closely and we are prepared to be as flexible as possible.

I will draw the Member’s point to the attention of the further education sector. We are as anxious as he is that these people get proper training. However, we must get a balance between that and their being exploited. We may or may not have got the training right — it is a bit early to tell. However, I am very conscious of the point that the Member makes.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

There is a perception across the Province that different colleges provide different standards of training for apprenticeships and various aspects of the building trade. Will the Minister look at the possibility of reviewing the standards set in each of the colleges to ensure that that perception amongst employees does not continue? This would provide a set standard right across the Province, removing the perception that any one college provides better quality apprenticeships than others, particularly in areas such as joinery?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I regret if that is the perception. I will take the honourable Member’s views on board and I will write to him when I have had an opportunity to establish the facts in each area. Our aim is to have as consistent a standard as possible across the Province, because that is what people are entitled to receive. Of course, there will be variations according to the skills of the trainers. There will always be a certain amount of latitude and difference. Generally speaking, training should be of a consistent quality across the Province. I will have the matter looked into and I will write to the Member.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Minister has touched on this subject, but I would ask him if he keeping on the review the success, or otherwise, of the various aspects of the new Training for Success Programme?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Yes. The programme is a new departure, and I have explained the genesis of it, which was that the Public Accounts Committee felt that the previous arrangements were unsatisfactory because employers were exploiting the trainees.

We are anxious to avoid that. However, we are also conscious that there must be a sufficient degree of flexibility to allow for the fact that not every trainee is ready for a contract of employment. The programme includes a “job ready” strand to prepare the trainees to ensure that they are ready for such a contract. We are also monitoring the programme very closely; some amendments have been made. Therefore, I can give the Member the assurance for which he has asked.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

5. asked the Minister for Employ­ment and Learning what plans he has to establish reliable baseline figures for numeracy and literacy challenges for adults in Northern Ireland. (AQO 979/08)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Reliable baseline figures are available for Northern Ireland through the International Adult Literacy Survey 1996, which included both literacy and numeracy.

However, those are dated and the Department is considering various options for the most appropriate method of measuring an updated position of essential-skill needs in Northern Ireland’s adult population.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

What consideration has been given to conducting surveys of literacy performance in Northern Ireland, comparable to the types of measurement that are available in England?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member has touched on a matter that is at the heart of the Department’s current considerations. The International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) was last conducted in 1996 — with its results published in 1997 — and is due to be held again in 2011 or 2012. Importantly, that is an international standard, so we shall have the opportunity to measure our performance against other countries. However, the time between the last survey and the next one is too long, which means that we are a bit blind about our current position.

Other research was conducted in England, although not on a comparable basis. For us to carry out a full IALS survey, or invent another method, would be exceptionally time consuming and expensive. Consequently, the Department is closely examining alternatives to provide some early indication as to whether we are winning or losing the battle on essential skills. Although the figures for throughput are positive and above target, the danger is that we are adding to the cohort in the community who do not have essential skills and are out of school. All Members must be concerned about that — it is a big issue for the future. The Department is urgently examining that issue for the obvious reasons that the Member identified.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has mentioned how important essential skills are. Will he detail how he is working with the Department of Education on that issue? Recent reports in England have stated that the state of the comprehensive-school system there means that many young adults are leaving schools and looking for jobs without basic literacy and numeracy skills. Does the Minister agree that it would be a disaster for Northern Ireland to implement a comprehensive system that is similar to the one that is failing so spectacularly in England?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Although I share some of the Member’s views on education, sadly the evidence that we have indicates that the differences in the levels of people who do not have essential skills — literacy and numeracy — among Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain, are minimal. According to the last survey, that level was 24% in Northern Ireland, 22% in Great Britain and 23% in the Republic of Ireland. There is a cohort of the population that we are completely missing. The Department is working closely with the Department of Education; we have produced a careers-strategy consultation document, and I have spoken to the Minister of Education on a number of occasions — we are both acutely aware of the problems.

For the benefit of Members who do not know, I am talking about people who do not have the ability to fully read; for example, grasp and understand the instructions on a medicine bottle or read a bus timetable. In those terms, the problem sounds horrific, but sadly large swathes of our population have huge difficulties. That is one of our enormous tasks: how will we build a vibrant economy if we do not have those basic elements in place? There will be a huge challenge for all Members if we do not do that. I assure the Member that I am working closely with the Department of Education to ensure that we bear down on that severe problem.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

6. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning, in light of the fact that enrolments in the further education sector, delivered by the Workers’ Educational Association and the Ulster People’s College in 2005-06 was 85% for the L1 category and below and was 54% for the same category in the statutory sector, what plans he has to ensure that the success of the non-statutory sector in creating opportunities in the L1 category and below is protected and enhanced. (AQO 958/08)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

During 2005-06, statutory further education colleges enrolled 71,435 adults in provision at level 1 and below, which equated to 66% of their total adult enrolments.

During the same period, the Workers’ Educational Association (WEA) and the Ulster People’s College (UPC) enrolled 2,938 adults in provision at level one and below, which equates to 85% of its total adult enrolment. My Department is developing proposals to enable voluntary and community groups to collaborate more effectively with further education colleges to support adult learners.

There has been concern about the withdrawal of contracts from the WEA and the UPC. A number of other voluntary and community organisations have expressed an interest in delivering similar provision to that which is being purchased from the WEA and the UPC. Legal advice and Government guidelines indicate that competitive tender is the only equitable way to resolve the matter. The Department would be likely to be vulnerable to successful and costly legal challenges if it were to continue with the current single-contract arrangements.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the WEA, the UPC, and the Educational Guidance Service for Adults have a proven track record for attracting people from the hardest-to-reach groups back into education? Will he agree that interim funding should be provided for the groups to enable them to continue their work beyond March and August 2008, pending an assessment of failed CSR bids, the merits, or otherwise, of tendering for community education provision, and a full assessment of how best to deliver community education?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Department’s contracts with the WEA and the UPC have been extended to August 2008. That follows the notification that was given to both organisations in December 2006 that any future requirement for non-statutory provision would have to be on the basis of open, competitive tender. Other organisations have expressed an interest, and, therefore the Department felt that the only equitable way was to put the contracts out to tender.

We are examining how third-party organisations might better collaborate with further education colleges, and it is hoped that proposals will be brought forward on the matter in the next few weeks. I take this opportunity to say that the work that both organisations do is very important, and it cannot be assumed that they will not continue to do that work as they will have the opportunity to tender for the work if they wish. Judgement will be made by the procurement branch of the Department of Finance and Personnel, which has guided my Department in the tenders that we have conducted hitherto.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Minister agree that, although level-one qualifications are important, they are a minimum requirement and that employers are demanding level two as a minimum for entry into employment? Will he agree that a pathway from level one to levels two, three and four is necessary in order to achieve a skills base and future economic prosperity, and that those qualifications are best delivered through statutory provision?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

As the Member points out, level one is a basic qualification. However, as I said in my original answer, during the last year for which figures are available, further education colleges enrolled 71,435 people to study at level one or below. In addition, a further 3,000 people approximately were dealt with by the WEA and the UPC. That is a huge number of people. I agree entirely with the Member’s analysis that a platform and a pathway are needed to get those people through to levels two, three and four. My Department is looking at how it engages with the community sector in delivering those, but the Member is right — unless we get clear pathways to levels two, three and four, our economy will struggle in the years ahead.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My question has been answered by the Minister’s response to Mr Bradley.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

7. asked the Minister for Employ­ment and Learning how many people at universities in Northern Ireland were studying for a PhD in scientific and technological subjects. (AQO 923/08)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

In the 2005-06 academic year, there were 1,710 enrolments in PhD courses in scientific and technological subjects at Northern Ireland universities.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister indicate what progress he has made in discussions with universities in India, and other further-education colleges, in developing links with Queen’s University?

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

Time is up. I am sure that the Minister will reply in writing to Mr McCrea.

Finance and personnel

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

Questions 1 and 2 have been withdrawn.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what action he would take to increase the uptake of rate relief. (AQO 899/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member is right to highlight the relatively low uptake of both rate relief and rebate, which is available through housing benefit. That has long been the case with the system in Northern Ireland, whether because of a general lack of awareness, a misunderstanding of eligibility for relief, the perceived complexity of the application process, or the perceived stigma attached to receipt of a benefit.

The Member will be aware that I intend to make a statement to the House tomorrow outlining the outcome of the Executive’s review of the domestic rating system that was introduced in April under direct rule. When he listens to that statement, I hope that he will recognise that the Executive have agreed a package of support measures that will improve the rating system. An important element of the Executive’s report is an acknowledgment that that support will be effective only if people avail of it. The Executive will, therefore, tackle that issue as a priority so that the new measures will make a real difference, particularly for those hard-to-reach groups in greatest need.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister have a view on why more people do not claim what they are entitled to, given the significance of relief to someone’s annual rates bill?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am not sure how helpful the statistics are in this matter, but, traditionally, about 40% take-up has been consistent in the owner-occupier sector; between 60% and 70% in the private-rented sector; and up to 90% in the public-rented sector. That seems to indicate that the Housing Executive and housing associations are doing a very good job of informing people.

Therefore, on the one hand, there is a need to better communicate what entitlements are available, and, on the other hand, people are being discouraged by the complexity of applying for either benefits or relief. That leads us to considering more automatic payments.

Some people are put off by the perceived stigma, which might explain the larger figure in the owner-occupier sector, and we need to get the message across that this is a matter of entitlement, rather than a hand-out.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can the Minister ensure that sensitivities about data-protection matters will not prevent various services allowing their databases to be used to communicate information on rate relief to the people? Furthermore — without asking him to give away any of tomorrow’s statement — will the Minister pay particular regard to the needs of pensioners, who are being encouraged by Government to take up the minimum-income guarantee — the pension credit? Will he also ensure that rate relief means that no one’s income will be brought effectively below the minimum-income guarantee as the result of a rates demand?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With regard to the last element of the Member’s question, I am sure that he will want to come to the House tomorrow. He is a patient man, and I am sure that he can wait until then. However, if he has looked at the report from the Committee for Finance and Personnel, he will have seen that it paid particular regard to the role of senior citizens. Of course, I pay special attention and regard to the work of the Committee, and I shall say no more at this stage.

There is a massive need for better data sharing between Departments and agencies. There will be some concern about data sharing, given recent events at HMRC. However, I have instituted an investigation in my Department. I understand that the Minister for Social Development, who has responsibility for pension and benefit claims, is doing something similar. We want to ensure that, if there is data sharing, the same standards are being operated and that those standards are high enough to ensure the safety of all data in the public sector.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Is the Minister aware of computer difficulties that are leading to delays in dealing with rate relief applications? Does he accept that unduly long delays do not encourage others to apply, and will he ensure that those who do apply receive their assistance in a timely manner?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I was aware of the delay. I hope that, if it is not already sorted out, that it is very close to being so. The Rate Collection Agency has undergone major work during the past few years, with the intro­duction of a new system. Various Government agencies were involved in providing the necessary information for the new system, and that has caused some delay. If the Member wants to draw specific incidents to my attention, I will be happy to take them up with the appropriate people.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail whether he intends to bring forward legislation in relation to industrial derating. (AQO 903/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Amending legislation will be required to change the percentages set out in the current legislation, which was passed at Westminster under direct rule. It laid out the annual percentages that were due up until the planned date for complete removal of derating in April 2011. The legislation imposed a 15% liability on manufacturing firms for 2005-06, 25% for 2006-07, and, last year, David Hanson agreed to a slowdown to 30% for the current year, in recognition of the early review that my parliamentary colleague David Simpson and others helped to secure.

Under the legislation, we are due to move to 50% liability next year, followed by two years at 75% before reaching the full 100%. Those percentages can be changed through subordinate legislation and will be subject to affirmative resolution by the Assembly.

In due course, we will have to consider amending the primary legislation, which, although it allows the phasing in to be altered annually by regulation, still enshrines the final destination figure — full rating by April 2011.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Can the Minister explain why he proposed to cap industrial rates at 30% rather than the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland’s recommendation of 50%?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My Department received the preliminary report when we were deciding on the draft Budget. It was clear that the evidence provided in the preliminary report was useful and informed my decision. It recommended 50% but stated that it would ultimately be a matter of political judgement. My view was that there was a real risk to some of our manu­facturing firms if the rating liability were to be increased to 50%.

Subsequent events confirm that that was the right judgement to make, and I am glad that the Committee for Finance and Personnel agrees.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Minister think that tax incentives will encourage new businesses to set up in TSN areas?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We have limited tax controls. Within the scope that we have, I am happy to consider producing further incentives in conjunction with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Minister for Employment and Learning. At one time we had enterprise zones, which benefited those areas to some degree, and I am happy to consider any suggestions that might benefit the areas that are finding it most difficult to attract employment.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister acknowledge that the application of industrial rates could be the final tipping point at which manufacturing companies decide whether to close or to continue to invest? Given the recent spate of redundancies that have been announced, does the Minister agree that preventing increases in industrial rates has been a prudent decision?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree with the honourable gentleman. I have had the opportunity to meet a number of people from that sector, and I have been pleased to hear that, on the one hand, many of them believe that it has been sufficient to keep them in business, while others are saying that it was the type of decision that they needed in order to put in place investment proposals that, for a long time, had been sitting on the shelf. I hope that it will strengthen those who are finding things difficult and provide a degree of certainty and encouragement to those who are striving for a safe and stable future.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to confirm that the Budget statement made to the Assembly on 25 October 2007 was in draft form, and is subject to an ongoing process of consultation between Ministers, Committees and others before it can be ratified or amended. (AQO 940/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

No. The statement was not in draft form, nor does it need to be ratified, and it cannot be amended.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Both the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Development have confirmed the status of the draft Budget and have explicitly stated that its provisions are insufficient to meet the important demands facing their Departments. Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that the draft Budget will be revised?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Of course, that is a different question, which I am happy to answer. I was asked about my statement, and now I am being asked about the draft Budget. The purpose of a draft Budget is to allow the Committees and the public to consider the proposals in the Programme for Government, the investment strategy and the draft Budget, and to comment on them. Of course, we will be happy to hear proposals from the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Development — not just on the extra money that they think they should have, but also on where they think it should come from.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In his Budget statement, the Minister highlighted the potential savings that were identified in the Deloitte report, ‘The Cost of Division: A Shared Future Strategy’ and acknowledged that, although the scope to release money for more effective investment was limited in this three-year cycle, we must now make a start on tackling the underlying issues. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that during the current Budget consultation process it would be helpful if specific measures were added to both the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government to directly address sectarianism and division? Currently, such measures are lacking, and adding them would help his Department to move the matter forward in the next three-year cycle.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Every Member has a duty to address sectarianism and division, and I hope that they will do so. I have considered that report and, in light of the tight fiscal framework within which I must work, I am keen to search out any other possible sources of revenue.

The first difficulty with that report is that a large chunk of the funds that it relies on for its rather attractive headline figure comes from the education budget. No matter how desirable anyone thinks it would be to have one educational system for the Province, no one believes that that is likely to be resolved and the money released in a three-year period.

Secondly, the report identified another great source of funding from security and policing benefits. However, the Assembly does not enjoy funds from that element of Government expenditure. The third strand of savings was exemplified by there being a swimming pool on the Shankill Road and another one a few streets away on the Falls Road. Again, those sorts of savings go to local government as opposed to the regional Assembly.

There are clear areas where we will benefit over time. I am happy to talk to the Member about any of those issues — if she or her party colleagues wish to come and see me — and to examine how we can use the funding that results from the savings that I hope will be made as we get over the traditional divisions in our society.

Thomas Burns (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that the Budget does not allocate enough money to provide the level of social housing that everyone agrees is necessary?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I spoke in some detail on this matter when I made the Budget statement. I thought that I had shown myself to be very much on the side of the Minister for Social Development when I said that the body that we had set up to look at the possibility of realising further assets from the various Departments — the capital realisation task force — would operate from now until the Budget is finalised. I saw the Minister for Social Development’s bid for housing funding as an important recipient of any assets that we might realise during that period. I wanted to take that one further step to assure the Minister that I wanted to find additional resources for her.

In good faith, I provided the Minister with a further £20 million as a result of in-year monitoring, and the Member will hear about further steps to assist the Minister when I make a statement tomorrow.

There are several ways to address the matter. My colleague the Minister of the Environment has been meeting the Minister for Social Development to examine how the current planning regulations can be used to assist the provision of more social housing and what changes to the legislation might further assist it.

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

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make a statement on the implications for Workplace 2010 of the delay in moving to best and final offer. (AQO 898/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The judge issued a ruling on the court injunction last Friday afternoon. The Department is considering the implications of the judgement in consultation with the two remaining bidders. I can tell the Member that the Department is now in a position to invite bids. However, that is only one part of the process, as there is a further court case outstanding, which is not due to start until January.

If the procurement continues to be delayed, there will be serious implications for capital projects that rely on the funding that it will generate. The severity of the impact will depend on the extent of the delay.

As I have said before, Workplace 2010 will generate a substantial capital payment that will enable the funding of other capital projects. The receipt of that payment is planned for 2008-09, so any delay into later financial years will be a significantly limiting factor in delivering the early parts of the investment strategy, and we may have to reassess our priorities for funding.

On the operational side, the Civil Service estate continues to deteriorate. Without capital invest­ment from the private sector, we cannot implement plans to refurbish and upgrade properties in the estate.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The fact that some judgments have been made is good news as regards being able to proceed with the projects. The Minister indicated that there will possibly be capital-receipt ramifications because of the delays caused. Will he indicate what those ramifications might be?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The figure in the draft investment strategy and draft Budget for Workplace 2010 — although it could not be a precise figure — was £200 million. Therefore, if that amount is not going to be available during the 2008-09 financial year, the gap will have to be plugged, timetables will have to change or other programmes will have to be reduced. Those are the kind of issues that will have to be considered should Workplace 2010 not proceed during that financial year.

I do not want to depress the honourable gentleman. It is still possible to meet that schedule, and I hope that the court decisions will continue to go in the right direction.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Further to the Minister’s reply, and acknowledging that there may be further legal delays, will he commit to making progress on the relocation of public-sector jobs? Given the devastation there has been as a result of job losses, particularly in the north-west, the decentralisation of public-sector jobs would create a lot of confidence.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have taken forward Workplace 2010 and the displacement of public-sector jobs in parallel. I have not put the brake on the latter because of the legal issues involved in Workplace 2010.

The Executive, at their most recent meeting, approved a proposal that I submitted regarding the terms of reference of the inquiries that are going to take place on the matter, and that work will proceed. I am content for proposals to come to me in advance of the legal issues being resolved.

As I understand it, there is to be a commercial court hearing in early January 2008. I am not in a position to ascertain how long it may take before a judgement will result from that. The worst judgement would be one that would take us back to the best and final offer stage. Clearly, we want to make real progress.

The two bidders still being considered by the Department are being acquainted with the position. I had a brief meeting with both of them, and my officials are talking to them in more detail about how we might proceed in light of the fact that the injunction has, to that extent, been lifted.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister referred to a substantial capital sum. I believe that it was £200 million, which then changed to £175 million. Will he advise how that cash-back sum was determined? Furthermore, what interest repayment rate can be expected on it, in comparison with borrowing it through conventional means or through the reinvestment and reform initiative, which would have been linked to the Bank of England base rate?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The figure will be determined by those who have knowledge of the bids that have already been received, as those bids will indicate the amount of cash that the various bidders are prepared to give regarding the tender.

As Minister, I determined at the very beginning of this process that I did not want to be involved in the bidding process; that was to be left to officials, and they would make their recommendations to me. I felt that that was the right thing to do. Therefore, their judgement, on the basis of their discussions and the tenders that they have received, was that a figure in that range was appropriate.

Needless to say, I hope, as I am sure that the Member does, that when we get to the best and final offer the two bidders sharpen their pencils further and we get a better deal out of it. We are talking about funds coming from the private sector to the public sector for us to use. Thus, the second part of the Member’s question requires no answer.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what percentage of the additional resources in the Budget had been allocated to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety over the next three years. (AQO 916/08)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in bringing forward his proposal for a draft Budget, what account he took of differences in spending per head on the Health Service in Northern Ireland and England. (AQO 986/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 8 and 10 together.

Northern Ireland spends more per person on health and personal social services than England does, and it will continue to do so under the draft Budget. The draft Budget was developed over recent months, taking into account the CSR and work on a draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy. The draft Budget has involved striking a balance between promoting economic growth, which is the Executive’s top priority, and the need to continue to improve our public services, including health and education. That is demonstrated by the fact that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been allocated 51·5% of the additional resources that are available to the Executive from 2007-08 to 2010-11.

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did say that the Depart­ment of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is to receive more than the other 10 Departments added together. The public would be entitled to be disappointed if, with the largest budget for health in Northern Ireland ever, and with expert advice provided by Professor Appleby’s report to inform decisions, they were not to see significant improvements.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister will have heard, as I have, the suggestion that the Department of Finance and Personnel has accepted that the need for health spending is 14% greater in Northern Ireland than it is in England. What does the Minister think of that suggestion?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Anyone who has taken the time to read the Appleby Report will know that there is a plethora of different formulations for determining whether Northern Ireland is behind or ahead of England when it comes to health spend. It is possible to look at our health spend in terms of gross value added (GVA) or per capita, and several other, more complex, formulae have been tried. My officials have registered significant reservations about the model that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety used to calculate that figure of 14% and, in particular, about the proxy indicator that is used to measure deprivation. It is important to recognise that that figure is largely meaningless unless considered in the context of the relative level of need for other public services. My view is that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should focus on how it will spend the additional £800 million a year allocated to it in the draft Budget rather than on producing ever more desperate arguments to receive more funding.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Minister, like the rest of us, is aware of the allegation that the allocation to the Health Service has been cut in the draft Budget. The Minister has outlined some of the facts and figures already. How does he view those allegations in the light of the overall Budget that will be presented tomorrow?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Let me lay down some basic principles. The Department of Health receives more than 48% of the Northern Ireland Budget. That is a substantial sum. Its budget has almost doubled over the past seven years. I ask Members whether they believe that improvements in the Health Service have doubled in that time. Do Members believe that there has been a substantial improvement in the Health Service, simply because more money has been pumped into it?

When I met with the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I told it that I wanted a better Health Service, not a more expensive one. Therefore, it is vital that we recognise that, in the draft Budget, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety ends up with the largest amount of money that it has ever had and with a larger percentage of the Northern Ireland block than it has ever had.

Everyone agrees with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that we want Northern Ireland’s Health Service to be the very best. However, I have a finite cake that will not grow simply because people throw more appeals and bids for more money towards me.

If anyone asks for more money for one Department or another, they must be able to tell me from where I will take that money, and which other Department should be deprived of those resources. Are they asking for an additional burden on the ratepayers of Northern Ireland, like Ed Curran of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’? If so, I must inform them that, in order to fund the type of increases sought by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, we would have to triple our rates.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister for Finance and Personnel explain the Barnett formula and why, for many years, the ratios among Northern Ireland, Scotland and England have stood at 1·5, 1·1 and 1? Will he explain why it is important that there be no convergence of that formula, which would spell financial catastrophe for Northern Ireland? Will he explain the impact that convergence will have on the health budget?

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

Time is up. That concludes Question Time.

Committee Business

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was obvious to certain Members during the first session of Question Time that there was only a few seconds remaining, and I understand that you were looking at the clock. Would it not be better procedure to follow the House of Commons and allow a Minister to answer a question that has been started? As Magnus Magnusson used to say: “I’ve started so I’ll finish.”

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

I am sure that the honourable Member’s good suggestion has been listened to and will emerge at the appropriate Committee.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate that sets out the Executive’s future work plan and how we will make a difference to the lives of everyone in the North of Ireland —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify the procedure for Question Time? Will I receive an answer to the supplementary question that I asked the Minster of Finance and Personnel?

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

The Minister is not required to reply in writing, but I am sure that your question has been heard.