Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 December 2007

257 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that during a function held in Parliament Buildings on Friday evening, individuals refused to leave the Building when the fire alarm was sounded. Is the Speaker able to make a statement to the House on this serious issue today, or will he undertake to carry out an investigation and report back to the Assembly to ensure that the situation will not be repeated?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his point of order. I will look into the situation and report back to him.

At the sitting on Monday 3 December, Mr Campbell, on a point of order, asked me to establish when the Department for Social Development was aware that it was likely that his question to the Minister could not be put on the grounds that the matter in question had become sub judice on Friday 30 November. Mr Campbell was concerned that he had not been informed earlier that his question could not be put.

I can confirm that information showing that leave had been granted for a judicial review was received from the Department for Social Development last Monday morning. My officials made enquiries about the grounds on which leave had been granted. On that basis, I was satisfied that the grounds for review related to matters referred to in Mr Campbell’s question.

At approximately 1.35 pm last Monday, I ruled that the question could not be put on the grounds that the matter was sub judice. I understand that the Member was informed soon after that. I cannot say at what time the Department considered the matters raised by the Member.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you for investigating the case at my request, Mr Speaker. May I take it that the High Court proceedings that were commenced on the morning of Friday week ago — about which we are now having this discussion and about which you were informed last Monday morning by the Department — were the reason why my question was ruled inadmissible? Rather than being informed when it became apparent that my question would be inadmissible, I was notified a full working day later that my question would not be included on the Order Paper.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

In response to the Member’s point of order, my office and I were informed only on the morning of Monday 3 December 2007.

On Tuesday 4 December 2007, Mr Raymond McCartney made a point of order alleging that the word “lapdog” had been called out when a colleague had risen to ask a question. Mr McCartney asked me to rule on whether that was unparliamentary language. I did not hear the remark. However, if it was made, I do not consider that it was unparliamentary, in the context of Standing Orders.

As I have said on a number of occasions, I urge Members to consider the dignity of the Chamber before they indulge in such antics. I have repeatedly asked Members to be mindful of their language, and I do so again.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Would the term “pet poodle” be acceptable in the Chamber?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in aquaculture and marine sectoral format.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding the first meeting since restoration of the North/South Ministerial Council in aquaculture and marine sectoral format. The meeting was held in the Loughs Agency headquarters at Prehen on Wednesday 21 November 2007.

The Executive were represented by Ian Paisley Jnr and me; the Irish Government were represented by Eamon Ryan TD, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. This statement has been agreed with Ian Paisley Jnr.

The Council noted the progress that had made since the last meeting in April 2002 and welcomed the opportunity to come together to discuss co-operation in the aquaculture and marine sector. The Council welcomed the passing of legislation in both jurisdictions in 2007, which provided the Loughs Agency with the powers to regulate aquaculture and wild shell fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas.

The Council also welcomed the introduction of a hardship package to provide a measure of relief to those affected by the cessation of commercial drift-net, or draft-net, salmon fishing in the Foyle area.

The Council noted the future plans in the aquaculture and marine sector for 2008-10. Those include actions to maintain the sustainability of fisheries in the Carlingford and Foyle catchments; the introduction of a regulatory and licensing regime for aquaculture in the Foyle and Carlingford areas; the improvement of the angling licensing system; and the introduction of a marine tourism development strategy.

The Council also approved the Loughs Agency corporate plan for 2008-10 and the business plan for 2008, subject to budgetary considerations by the Executive and the Irish Government. It was noted that the St Andrews Agreement review is now under way and that the agency’s future plans may require consideration in light of the outcome of that review.

The Council approved the implementation of the Loughs Agency’s marine tourism development strategy for 2008-13, subject to the availability of funding under the EU programme for cross-border territorial co-operation. That strategy will work through partnerships with state authorities and private bodies, and it will provide support for projects, develop access infrastructure, project development, skills training, marketing and communications activities.

The Council also approved the Loughs Agency’s financial assistance policy to oversee how grant aid will be administered to support angling development, conservation and protection of fisheries, marine tourism and aquaculture.

The Council noted the Loughs Agency’s annual report and financial statements for 2006. The Council approved the agency’s proposed purchase of a monitoring vessel, subject to the availability of funding under the EU Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).

The Council approved the Foyle Area and Carlingford Area (Angling) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007, which should impact positively on the conservation and protection of salmon stocks in an area of the River Finn, noting that the regulations will now be progressed in accordance with legislative procedures in both jurisdictions.

The Council also noted the regulations being developed to improve the control of salmon and coarse angling, and for the licensing and development of aquaculture.

The Council agreed that its next meeting in the aquaculture and marine sectoral format will take in place in February 2008.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

The Minister indicated the welcome for the hardship package in respect of the cessation of commercial drift-net salmon fishing in the Foyle area. What progress has been made with the EU to ensure that those payments are made before the end of the year?

Will the Minister state whether a similar package will be paid to the oyster fishermen of Strangford, who are being forced to close their fisheries? Those fisheries have been supported in the past by the Department in order to protect the horse mussel.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Both sponsoring Departments have submitted state-aid notifications to the European Commission in respect of the hardship payments. We have been working with the Commission to expedite its approval. Following receipt of that approval, the Loughs Agency will be in a position to start processing those payments. I intend to raise that issue with EU Fisheries Commissioner, Joe Borg, when I visit Brussels this week. Like the Chairman, I would like to see the payments made before the end of the year.

As for the oyster fisheries in Strangford Lough, I do not have the relevant information at hand because my statement relates to the work of the NSMC. However, I am happy to respond in writing on that matter.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the plans for the aquaculture and marine sector for 2008-10, which are interesting. The Minister’s statement mentioned the North/South Ministerial Council’s welcome for the introduction of a hardship package to provide relief for those affected by the cessation of certain types of salmon fishing in the Foyle area.

There were two jellyfish attacks on salmon stocks on the County Antrim coast on 21 and 23 November. Can the Minister provide an update on that situation and confirm that that matter has been discussed by the Executive? What financial package will be introduced for those who have been affected?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am dealing with the North/South sectoral meeting. The Glenarm situation was not discussed at that meeting because that matter is outside the Council’s remit. As the Member knows, I have had a number of discussions with Executive colleagues, and the matter that he has raised was discussed at last week’s Executive meeting. At this point, I do not have any further news for the House on a financial package. We are still working on that. I am not sure whether that will be forthcoming.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Like the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I note the Minister’s reference to the hardship package for those forced from the industry because of the new regulations. Who was involved in drawing up the guidelines for the hardship package? Could the Loughs Agency corporate plan for 2008-10 be tampered with as a result of the review of the St Andrews Agreement?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said in my statement, we shall be examining all those matters under the review of the St Andrews Agreement. I have already addressed that issue.

The hardship package was discussed by the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, the Loughs Agency and officials from my Department. However, those discussions were very much guided by the Loughs Agency.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

My question also relates to the hardship package, which is welcome. Why can the Minister not make similar provision for the Irish Sea fishermen, such as those in Portavogie, for example, who have been crying out for such a package for quite some time? That also applies to the fishermen of Strangford Lough, who have been denied a livelihood.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Again, that does not come within the remit of my statement. However, the package is available for the salmon fishermen because it is part of measures to conserve stocks and to protect species from overfishing or exploitation. That does not automatically read across to other sectors, where the stocks are not the matter of most concern. However, I am very aware of the pressures that face the fishermen of Portavogie, as the Member has pointed out. I met those fishermen last week, and I am trying to explore ways in which we can help them.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement, and I thank her and her ministerial colleagues for the work that they did at the meeting.

The Council welcomed the legislation that was introduced this year to give the Loughs Agency powers in relation to aquaculture. Will the Minister and her counterpart in the South keep the implementation of that legislation under review, so that new anomalies do not emerge? In relation to the hardship package, the questions are how much and how soon. Similarly, how much is envisaged for the proposed tourism develop­ment strategy?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The hardship package is marginally more than that agreed in the Twenty-six Counties, due to the nature of fishing in the Foyle. We received approval for that from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) when I met the Loughs Agency earlier this year. I welcome the Council’s support for the Loughs Agency and for what it is doing, and I can reassure the Member that I will be keeping a close eye on all these developments to ensure that they are as helpful to the agency as can be.

The agency is in the process of applying to the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) for funding of approximately £13·64 million for the marine tourism project. SEUPB will only advise the agency of the proposed level of commitment after a feasibility study has been completed.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she recall her meeting, some 6 to 8 weeks ago, with the Strangford Lough Fishermen’s Association? We were looking for hardship money for them as well, and she said that she would look at the matter. She has said this morning that hardship money has been made available for conservation reasons. Since sections of Strangford Lough have been boxed off for conservation purposes, would it not be fair for the Minister to consider hardship money for the fishermen of Strangford Lough?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member says, we did have a meeting some weeks ago. The issue there was the environmental protection of the modiolus beds in Strangford Lough and the impact on them of fishing and pleasure boating. When I was in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel last week, I announced measures under the European fisheries fund. We will want to explore how we can spend that money with a view to helping all the sectors of the industry — fishermen, processors and the aquaculture and inland fisheries people. We will be trying to use the money imaginatively while keeping within state-aid rules. As the Member knows, there is quite a bit of controversy over the application of those rules.

If the Member is suggesting that the remit of the NSMC be extended to include Strangford, we can certainly consider that and the future prospects of Strangford Lough.

Executive Committee Business

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

I beg to introduce the Charities Bill [NIA 9/07], which is a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and the Charity Tribunal for Northern Ireland; to make provision about the law of charities, including provision about charitable incorporated organisations; to make further provision about public charitable collections and other fund-raising carried on in connection with charities and other institutions; to make provision about the funding of such institutions; and for connected purposes.

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.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Further Consideration Stage is intended to enable the Assembly to debate any last amendments to a Bill. As no amendments to the Pensions Bill have been tabled, there will be no opportunity today to discuss the Bill. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at the Bill’s Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Pensions Bill [NIA 7/07] is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That the Company and Business Names (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/462) be approved.

I am seeking the Assembly’s approval for regulations to add three further expressions to the list of those that require the prior approval of my Department before being included in the title of a company or business. The Department’s prior approval is required if a company or business seeks to use certain words or expressions as, or as part of, its company or business name. That control is in place to protect the public from possible harm arising from a company or business using a name that falsely or incorrectly suggests a status to which that company or business is not entitled.

The regulations before the House today add the expressions “HPSS”, HSC” and “NHS” to the abbreviations for health and personal social services, health and social care and National Health Service respectively to those words and expressions already prescribed. “HSC” and “HPSS” have both been included in the regulations at the request of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, while “NHS” is included at the request of the Department of Health in Great Britain. The Assembly approved a similar motion on 2 October 2007 in respect of regulations that added the word “Government” to the list of words already prescribed.

My Department made these regulations on 7 November 2007, and they came into operation the following day. As laid down in the parent legislation, and to ensure continuing effect, the regulations are subject to confirmatory procedure, and require approval by resolution of the Assembly within 10 sitting days or 30 days, whichever is the longer, of the laying date, 7 November.

The Department of Health in Great Britain had some concerns that an opportunist could seek to include “NHS” in a company or business name and moved to have the expression added to the list of prescribed words and expressions requiring the written permission of the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in Great Britain before a company or business may trade under a name that includes any of those words or expressions listed.

While “NHS” is a well known brand name across the whole of the United Kingdom — and I understand that the Department of Health has now registered “NHS” as a trademark — its cover does not extend to Northern Ireland. Health provision here is dispensed under the health and social care, formerly health and personal social services, banner. However, it is necessary to include the term “NHS” in regulations made here as a company registration is recognised across the United Kingdom, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated. Similarly, “HSC” and “HPSS” have also been included in the corresponding Great Britain regulations made on 5 November 2007, which were debated in the House of Lords and the House of Commons on 20 and 21 November respectively.

Since the Great Britain legislation was made under powers in its Companies Act 1985, which does not extend to Northern Ireland, my Department was asked to consider the introduction of similar legislation here under equivalent powers in the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. That is to maintain parity in company law with Great Britain, thereby removing any opportunity to exploit the lack of parallel legislation here.

These regulations amend the principal Company and Business Names Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1984, previously amended in 2004 and 2007, to add the same expressions — “HSC”, “HPSS” and “NHS” — to the list of those words and expressions requiring the written permission of the Department before being included in the name or title of a company or business. The departmental committee considered the regulations at its meeting on 15 November 2007 and recommended confirmation by the Assembly.

I hope that the motion, which is non-contentious, will be approved by the Assembly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On behalf of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I advise the House that the Committee has considered the amendment to the regulations. It believes that it is necessary and appropriate to add to the prescribed list of terms in the company and business names regulations the three terms that the Minister has outlined. Therefore, the Committee fully agrees that it is necessary and timely for the Department to act in the manner in which it has.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Company and Business Names (Amendment No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/462) be approved.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Administration of Estates (Rights of Surviving Spouse or Civil Partner) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/452) be approved.

Like the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I hope — and expect — that debate on the motion will be non-contentious.

The purpose of the Order is to increase the statutory legacy, which is the sum of money that a surviving spouse receives from the estate of his or her deceased spouse if that person dies intestate. The provisions also apply to a surviving civil partner in the same way as to a surviving spouse. The amount of the statutory legacy that is contained in the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 is set at two levels. First, a surviving spouse will be entitled to the first £125,000 of the estate if the deceased is also survived by his or her issue — that is, children and grandchildren. Secondly, if there is no surviving issue but other relatives of the deceased, such as parents or siblings, are still alive, the surviving spouse will be entitled to the first £200,000 of the deceased’s estate.

Those figures were set in 1993 and relate to deaths that occurred on or after 1 January 1994. The Order will increase the amount of the statutory legacy that is payable from £125,000 to £150,000 for cases in which the intestate is survived only by a spouse, and from £200,000 to £450,000 where the intestate is survived by a spouse and other relatives.

The level of the statutory legacy was the subject of a public consultation exercise that ran from January 2007 to April 2007. However, only four responses were received. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has considered and approved the new amounts. Clearly, no formula exists that will determine, at any given time, the appropriate levels of the statutory legacy. However, the new amounts follow on from a review of a full range of social, economic and demographic factors. I believe, therefore, that they have been set at an appropriate level for this jurisdiction and that they will allow reasonable provision for a surviving spouse.

It will be apparent from my earlier comments that the amounts of the statutory legacy have remained unchanged for 14 years. In future, I will seek to review those amounts more regularly to ensure that they keep pace with economic developments. I urge Members to support the motion, and I propose that the Order be affirmed.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

As the Minister of Finance and Personnel has explained, the Adminis­tration of Estates (Rights of Surviving Spouse or Civil Partner) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 increases the amounts that are payable from an intestate.

On 27 June 2007, the Committee for Finance and Personnel received a detailed oral briefing on the proposed Statutory Rule from the Department of Finance and Personnel’s principal legal officer in the Departmental Solicitor’s Office. The Committee considered some aspects of the Statutory Rule, and it made several recommendations to the Department. Those included increasing the statutory legacy figures that are payable from an intestate; seeking views on the new figures from the respondents to the original consultation; considering any revised figures for England and Wales; and acknowledging the need for a regular review of the statutory legacy figures and the five-year review period.

There is a case for a wider review of the intestacy laws, to ensure that arrangements are in place for an equitable distribution among all claimants, including children and dependent relatives, and to take account of societal changes since the legislation was introduced in 1955.

The Committee raised those issues formally with the Department on 4 July 2007, and received a substantive written reply on 15 October 2007. The Committee gave further consideration to the Statutory Rule on 21 Nov­ember 2007, and was content that the Department had taken on board its recommendations.

The Committee agreed unanimously to support the Department in seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the provisions of the Order. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore support the motion.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Deputy Chairperson for his comments, and I thank the Committee for its work regarding the Order. I assume that the reason that no one else wishes to speak on the matter if that everyone is satisfied — just as, having submitted only four responses, the community is clearly satisfied with our approach.

The issue is important because, in general, the belief is that were someone to die, his or her spouse automat­ically takes over the proceeds of the estate. That is not the case, and this should be a warning to everyone with considerable assets to prepare a will, and ensure that no one dies intestate.

The Minister of the Environment has arrived, so I need filibuster no longer. I encourage colleagues to support the motion. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I must thank the Minister for that.

Question, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

“That the Administration of Estates (Rights of Surviving Spouse or Civil Partner) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/452) be approved”.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Climate Change Bill [HL] to Northern Ireland.

I thank my colleague for filibustering on the adminis­tration of estates — something that few of us would take lightly.

We debate the motion because it is now accepted that climate change is the greatest environmental challenge faced by the world today. The matter is being taken very seriously at international level and, in recent days, we have heard of talks in Bali to achieve a new post-Kyoto agreement. The outcome of that conference, and future discussion, may well demand new international action.

The UK Government, and each of the devolved administrations, are committed to tackling the issue, because we in Northern Ireland must play our part. The Climate Change Bill [HL] is intended to assist the UK’s transition to a low-carbon economy. The Bill will make the UK the first economy to set a long-term legal frame­work for reducing emissions. There are no specific devolved provisions in the Bill, as the attainment of targets will require action in both reserved and devolved-policy areas.

The key provisions of the Bill are: a series of statutory targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions; a new system of legally binding five-year carbon budgets; a new statutory body, to be known as the committee on climate change, to provide independent expert advice and guidance; new powers to enable the Government more easily to implement emissions-reducing policies; a new, open and transparent system of annual reporting; and a requirement for a risk assessment of the impact of climate change, including a commitment to develop a programme to prepare for those impacts.

I have had good support for my position from the Executive and from the Committee for the Environment. Moreover, I am pleased to say that the Environment Committee supports the motion for legislative consent. However, scrutiny by the Committee has raised several issues in relation to the composition of the committee on climate change. Those were, specifically, the establishment of a Northern Ireland subcommittee, and the need for a member of the climate change committee to be from Northern Ireland.

I understand the intentions of Committee for the Environment members, who are concerned that the special and specific needs of Northern Ireland may not be recognised and taken into account. I have assured the Committee that provisions that are now in place provide for devolved Administrations’ specific needs. Members of the committee on climate change will be appointed jointly by the other relevant devolved Ministers and me, and the committee will have knowledge and experience of Northern Ireland’s circumstances. More­­over, criteria that instruct the committee on climate change must take into account Northern Ireland’s circumstances, and there must be a direct reporting line from the committee to me. I have also assured the Committee for the Environment that I will follow good practice and review the issue of a Northern Ireland subcommittee once we have evidence of assistance received.

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

The Committee for the Environment asked that a Northern Ireland member be appointed to the committee on climate change. However, this is not to be a represent­ative committee but one made up of experts in relevant fields. I can tell the House that no similar representations for an equivalent arrangement have been made in either Scotland or Wales. Therefore, it is not necessary that we have a Northern Ireland representative on the committee on climate change. Good arrangements have been made for the appointments process, for the criteria for operating the committee on climate change and for its reporting lines. Those arrangements reassure me that the committee will provide Northern Ireland with all relevant advice. I am committing significant resources — around £100,000 per annum — to the running of the committee. Therefore, I want to ensure that we get value for money through the advice provided.

The Committee for the Environment agrees that, at this stage, we should support UK targets rather than provide for Northern Ireland targets. I have given the Executive a commitment to return to the issue once I am more certain about the Northern Ireland emissions baseline and when I am better informed on the relationship between economic competitiveness and greenhouse-gas-emission reductions. Current research into those matters is progressing well, and I anticipate receiving the findings of that research by March or April 2008.

The Bill will amend the Energy Act 2004 by enabling the Secretary of State to set up a renewable transport fuel obligations (RTFO) scheme, which the Department for Transport plans to introduce from April 2008. I have agreed to inform the House on that matter on behalf of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The RTFO scheme will be the main mechanism for supporting the increased use of biofuels in transport across the UK. The 2004 Act, which provides the framework for the RTFO scheme, already extends UK-wide. That was agreed while the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended and has considerable merit, despite the fact that energy is a transferred matter. For example, the transport-fuel industry operates almost seamlessly UK-wide, and the proposed structure of the RTFO scheme is such that it will impact on the large GB-based suppliers that import fuel and refine oil rather than on our local suppliers. Furthermore, it is planned that the obligation will be applied alongside the road-fuel excise duty and the associated biofuel rebate, both of which are reserved matters.

The Department for Transport’s work to date to develop the detail of the RTFO scheme has identified a number of administrative areas in which change from the original concept, as outlined in the 2004 Act, would be preferable. Appropriate amending provisions have been included in the Climate Change Bill [HL] and must now be included in this legislative consent motion in order to enable Northern Ireland’s continued involve­ment in the UK-wide RTFO scheme. Those amendments will allow the Secretary of State or Department for Transport agencies to be the RTFO scheme’s adminis­trators; will provide for the proceeds from buyout payments to be paid into the Consolidated Fund rather than be redistributed among suppliers; will establish an information gateway between the RTFO administrator and HM Revenue and Customs; and will provide an overarching duty on the RTFO administrator to encourage the supply of sustainable biofuels.

None of those proposed legislative amendments nor the existing primary provisions specifically apply to Northern Ireland — they all apply UK-wide. From an operational perspective, the Department for Transport does not consider that any local transport-fuel supplier will be obligated under the RTFO scheme. Furthermore, the Department for Transport does not believe that there will be any appreciable impact on pump prices.

I have highlighted the significance of the Climate Change Bill [HL], including those provisions that relate to the RTFO scheme. The House’s endorsement of the principle that the Bill be extended to Northern Ireland would demonstrate that we are fully committed to playing our part in tackling the very serious global issue of climate change. I commend the motion to the House.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for the Environment, I thank the Minister for tabling the legislative consent motion to extend the provisions of the Climate Change Bill [HL] to Northern Ireland.

The Committee recognises the threat from climate change and is aware of the urgency of the problem. It is against that background that the Committee considered the extension of the Bill’s provisions. It was briefed in writing on the issue on 28 June 2007 and by the Minister in Committee on 5 July 2007. The Committee learned that the Bill provides a framework for moving to a low-carbon economy. Indeed, the Minister has outlined some of the Bill’s key provisions in the debate: a series of key statutory targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, including an overall UK target of 60% reduction by 2050, with a 26% to 32% reduction by 2020; a new system of legally binding five-year carbon budgets that are set at least 15 years in advance; a new statutory body, called the committee on climate change, that will provide independent expert advice and guidance to Government on achieving their targets and staying inside their carbon budgets; and new powers to enable the Government to more easily implement emission-reducing policies.

The Bill also contains accountability provisions that require progress reports. In early September 2007, the Committee provided a written response on the extension of the Bill’s provisions. The Committee supported the UK carbon-reduction targets that are set out in the Bill but sought a commitment to provide Northern Ireland targets in the future. The Minister subsequently advised the Committee by letter on 15 November 2007 that she will revisit the issue of Northern Ireland targets after further examination of the emissions baseline. Research into the emissions baseline is currently ongoing.

On the matter of representation on the independent committee on climate change, to which the Minister has referred, the Committee for the Environment initially held the view that the committee should have specific representation on it from the North, and that there should be an independent subcommittee structure in Northern Ireland for the independent climate change committee. However, during recent meetings, the Committee considered the issue of representation against the size of the proposed overall committee and the need for it to have specific expertise. We also sought the views of our counterpart Committees in Wales and Scotland in order to inform our point of view. The Committee for the Environment now acknowledges that the Bill currently provides for members to be appointed to the committee on climate change jointly by the national or regional authorities and notes that the proposed committee may set up its own various subcommittees. Therefore, we no longer seek the specific representation that the Minister outlined.

The Committee for the Environment takes the view that the independent committee on climate change should provide independent advice to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is acknowledged that the Bill states that the committee must give, on request, advice, analysis or information on targets, budgets, trading schemes or other requirements that relate to greenhouse-gas emissions. The Committee supports the Bill’s enabling powers, which it views as helpful, subject to Northern Ireland consent, for the introduction of other climate change initiatives. The Bill provides for Northern Ireland to set up, if required, its own trading schemes. The Committee can foresee climate-change-mitigation initiatives in the North that would use those enabling provisions. The Committee also supports the proposed reporting arrangements.

During its deliberations, the Committee for the Environment expressed an interest in examining the idea of setting up a separate local body on climate change that could harness local knowledge on the issue and through which views could be formed and expressed. The Committee will revisit that matter. Information is currently being sought on whether other similar initiatives exist. My Committee colleague Mr Ford may address that matter in more detail. However, I raise the issue because the Committee discussed it recently due to its relevance to the broader issue of dealing with climate change. I conclude that the Committee is content in principle for Westminster to legislate in the area concerned and will support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the motion and congratulate the Minister of the Environment on moving so quickly on the issue. It was important that the Committee received the extensive briefing that it got from the Minister and her officials.

It was also important that there was a real sense of engagement on the issue so that, although the Committee was unified on the broad purpose of the Bill, concerns about the detail were dealt with appropriately. That has steered us in the right direction.

As regards climate change, we are often told to think globally and act locally. The motion allows the Northern Ireland community to make a vital contribution towards meeting national targets and towards ending the international problem that is climate change. It will put us into a regulatory framework at a national level, which is appropriate, but it will also allow us a degree of flexibility to develop our own initiatives. It has been said that there has been a problem with monitoring the Northern Ireland baseline figure, and we are glad to hear that there is ongoing work to establish Northern Ireland’s position. That will help us to frame further initiatives on climate change at a later stage.

It is important that the Assembly sends out a clear message to people that no contribution is too small. Whether contributions are made at Assembly level, Government Department level, or by businesses, insti­tutions and individuals, we all have a part to play in helping to achieve the targets that are vital for the future.

Although the work of the Minister and the Department in ensuring that Northern Ireland has an input to the Bill is welcome, it would have been preferable to have had someone from here on the carbon committee that will be dealing with the matter on a UK-wide basis. However, we must be realistic when it comes to a committee that is likely to comprise eight or nine members. Whether it will happen remains open to question. However, ongoing work on co-ordinating efforts between the devolved institutions across the UK will play a vital role.

The Department has put provisions in place to ensure that Northern Ireland’s input is direct and that the committee will hear a clear voice from Northern Ireland — that is something that should be welcomed.

I also welcome the fact that we can proceed on the basis of the existing structures, and that the possibility of a review has been left open. I welcome the Minister’s commitment that, in three years time, there will be a review of how the system is actually operating and whether there may be, for example, a need for a Northern Ireland subcommittee. That can only come about when we are much more secure in our knowledge of Northern Ireland’s baseline data. However, that the option is being kept open is welcome.

Therefore, I welcome that the Minister and the Depart­ment, in taking action, have been able to meet the Committee of the Environment’s concerns. It is a positive step forward, so early in the lifetime of the Assembly’s current mandate. Reducing carbon levels is an Executive commitment, as outlined in the draft Programme for Government. I welcome the steps that have been taken and I urge everyone to support the motion.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the fact that the Minister is taking firm measures to reduce CO2 emissions here. The matter needs to be addressed urgently, as recent reports, such as the ‘Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’ and the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Fourth Assessment Report’ have outlined. Both reports have spelt out, in the clearest terms possible, the consequences that climate change is having already, and the potentially disastrous effects to come. It is also worth noting that the scientific community is united in its acknowledgement of those dangers.

The leading economist, Nicholas Stern, has endorsed the need for a 50% cut in emissions, globally. That requires the more developed world to put in place an 80% reduction in emissions, especially in places such as Ireland and across the water. Therefore, it is quite clear that there will be dire economic consequences if climate change is not taken seriously, something which Mr Stern makes clear in his report.

Although Sinn Féin believes that a target of reducing CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050 is a step in the right direction, we support following the example of the Scottish Government that have set legally binding targets to reduce the 1990 levels of emissions by 80% by 2050.

Ireland, of course, has huge potential to generate electricity from wind and wave power, as well as from biomass technologies, and we should not be reluctant to set higher targets in the Climate Change Bill [HL].

Sinn Féin also believes that all-Ireland legislation should be introduced to ensure that there is consistency across the entire island. The levels of carbon emissions North and South are closely linked through the single electricity market and the proposed single gas market, as well as through other fields. Many areas in the world have already been affected by the increase in average global temperatures, and the latest scientific evidence suggests that the next five years will be absolutely crucial if further irreversible damage is to be avoided. Even the European Union’s agreed long-term goal of limiting global warming to no more than 2ºC above the temperature in pre-industrial times might not be sufficient to avoid the significant negative effects of climate change.

In conclusion, I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought this matter to the House so soon after restoration of the Assembly. The provisions of the Climate Change Bill [HL] are a step in the right direction, but Sinn Féín would like further changes to be made, and the party believes that a review early in the new year would provide the opportunity to make those changes. Go raibh maith agat.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I support the motion.

In her opening remarks, the Minister referred to the international obligations that are again under discussion in the post-Kyoto conference at Bali. Will she agree that the challenges of climate change and reducing carbon emissions worldwide are such that whatever we in the United Kingdom and the developed industrialised world do to tackle the problems, unless the United States and the massive economies such as India and China are included in those efforts, it will amount to nothing?

Therefore, although I support the motion, I ask the Minister if she will, on behalf of the devolved Adminis­tration, bring pressure to bear on the United Kingdom Government to adopt a much wider international frame­work that incorporates China and India and does not exclude them for the foreseeable future.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As a member of the Committee for the Environment, and on behalf of my group, I welcome the proposal that the Minister has brought to the House today. It is absolutely right — and there is unanimity in the House on this — that we should be full participants in the UK climate change process. However, I have some slight concerns that by being involved with the UK structures, there is a danger that focus may be lost — particularly as this proposal comes from the Environ­ment Minister rather than the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

We have already heard that, quite reasonably, because of the size of the committee on climate change, which will cover the whole of the UK, it is unlikely that there will be specific Northern Ireland representation. How­ever, we know — and it has been acknowledged on all sides of the House — that climate change is probably the major challenge that we face in the world today. This matter has global implications.

Although I hear what Mr Burnside has said about the developing economies of the Far East, at this stage, carbon production per capita in China and India is far lower than it is in the North and in the West. We must be realistic; we are the people who have the lead to give. The Assembly has taken considerable interest in international development, yet it is a blunt fact that carbon is created in the north and the bulk of the problems are caused in the south. We have a moral obligation to provide the lead on this matter.

I ask the Minister to give an assurance that when we play our part in the UK-wide process, she will ensure that the Executive take global warming and carbon production extremely seriously. She has already talked about getting the baseline report next spring, and that is to be welcomed. However, we know from a UK-wide report that was published last week by an NGO, and which was broken down by local authority, that Northern Ireland has the worst environmental record in many areas. That is largely because of the fuels that we use for domestic heating and the fact that we are excessively reliant on private cars. We have a great deal to accomplish, and I trust that the Minister will ensure that the Executive continue to take note of today’s debate even when other pressures are on them.

I want to follow up on a point that was made by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, Patsy McGlone, who referred to advice that the Committee sought from Wales and Scotland. In particular, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, like us, Wales is covered by the UK Bill and has no specific representation on the committee on climate change, yet the Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing in the National Assembly for Wales has established a Climate Change Commission for Wales, which I understand will meet for the first time this morning.

That commission has been designed to involve the National Assembly for Wales, local government, and the business and voluntary sectors, and it will have a link to the Sustainable Development Commission Wales. By working on a voluntary basis alongside the UK committee, it will be able to maintain a focus on Welsh needs.

Rather than waiting three years for a review, I ask the Minister to establish an informal voluntary local structure that would enable a more specific focus to be directed to Northern Ireland and that would ensure that we continue to meet our obligations. That would be useful to Northern Ireland, and it would not cost a great deal more than the UK process — £100,000 — to which she has committed. I thank the Minister and her officials for the work that they have already done, and I hope that she will consider my proposal as a way forward for the future.

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

Today we are addressing the most important issue that faces us in the century ahead: climate change as a result of global warming. That is an important issue, not just for those who live on these islands, but for people everywhere in the world. We should all know from our own experience that even in winter, we have less snowfall and heavier rainfall than we had 20 years ago. For those who have not yet experienced those changes, scientific opinion supports the facts. For example, since the 1970s, the average temperature in these islands has increased by 1°C. Several Members have said that if that increase continues unchecked, there will be more catastrophes, such as floods and droughts, and infectious diseases that result from those will spread. It is therefore important to extend the Climate Change Bill [HL] to Northern Ireland, to set targets for the reduction of carbon emissions and to keep rising temperatures in check.

Findings always emerge from scientific study, not least the latest, which warns that over the next 50 years we must keep the temperature rise in check and below the critical figure of a 2% increase. Many people are of the view that a 60% reduction in carbon emissions, which is the aim of the Bill, is not enough. As another Member said earlier, that is perhaps a modest target, and we should aim to achieve an 80% reduction. In light of that, will the Minister tell the House what capacity is in the Bill for reviews to take place, lest we find out in 20 years that the 60% target was far too modest a reduction in carbon emissions? Will it be possible to aim for a greater reduction, and even to achieve a reduction of 80%?

I also seek clarification on an issue that has arisen previously when the Assembly has considered UK legislation. During the debate on the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 on 15 October 2007, I raised the matter of the single energy market. Given that local suppliers of renewable energy sources are unable to obtain credits for feeding their products into the Republic of Ireland, I discussed how oddly that Order fitted against the reality of the new single energy market, which came into being on 1 November 2007. The same disadvantage affects suppliers in the Republic of Ireland who wish to trade in this direction. If we consider that the Bill is concerned with energy production and the use of carbon, how will it fit against the background of an all-Ireland single energy market?

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I also welcome the motion. It is particularly appropriate that the motion should be introduced during the UN climate change conference in Bali. I regret that the Assembly is not represented there. The only Northern Ireland delegate is my Green Party colleague Peter Doran, who is making some input into that important decision. It also follows last Saturday’s global day of action, held at St Anne’s Cathedral, which highlighted the growing concern of people in Northern Ireland. We must listen to such legitimate demands for us to show leadership, and I therefore welcome the small step that has been indicated by the proposal to extend the provisions of the Climate Change Bill [HL] to Northern Ireland. The Green Party suggests that the Assembly should develop and implement its own climate change Bill.

The UK Climate Change Bill [HL] aims to reduce the net carbon account by at least 60% by 2050. Although we welcome that reduction, it is clear from the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change that that figure is not adequate to prevent global temperatures from rising above dangerous levels. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the Government have emphasised that that is only the minimum level of reduction to be considered. Equally worrying is that the Bill proposes that some of the CO2 reductions may be accounted for by the purchase of foreign carbon credits. The buying of such carbon indulgences must be kept to a minimum.

The Climate Change Bill [HL] consultation document recognises:

“the role of the Devolved Administrations in relation to setting, modification and achievement of the UK targets and the intervening carbon budgets”.

More significantly, it allows the devolved Administrations flexibility:

“The Bill will be amended to take account of these decisions before introduction to the UK Parliament.”

The Scottish Executive have expressed their intention to introduce a Scottish climate change Bill, which is due to set a long-term target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050. That target is 20% higher than the target proposed in the UK Bill and amounts to reductions of 3% each year. The Irish Government are also committed to reducing the amount of CO2 emissions by 3% each year. In both Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, the main reason for the more stringent CO2 targets is the input from the Green Party. If the more scientifically informed reduction of 3% per annum is good enough for our neighbours in Scotland and the Republic, and since there is explicit provision for the Assembly to devise its own legislation on climate change, I ask the House to devise climate change legislation that commits Northern Ireland to making cuts of at least 3% per annum in CO2 output.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Carbon dioxide output is determined by a lot of factors, not least changes in the climate and weather from one year to another. For example, a particularly cold winter might lead to more coal or oil being burned or more electricity being consumed. Can the Member explain how such year-on-year targets would work? There will be peaks and troughs, and the targets would become either meaningless or a rod to beat people with over an event that was beyond their control.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. Given the weather conditions that the Member refers to, there will be changes in the levels of emissions. However, the targets would be assessed over a number of years. A target of 3% a year would equate to 15% over five years. One year the emissions might be 3%, another year 5% and another year 1%, but, over a period of time, the average would be 3% per annum.

The Assembly should make that its target and, there­fore, I support the motion.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I place on record that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment was consulted on the legislative consent motion and received a written briefing and presentation by officials. The Committee supports the legislative consent motion and recognises that, as the Climate Change Bill [HL] is taken through Westminster, it is important that it clearly encompasses the situation in Northern Ireland.

The Committee has a direct interest in energy policy and recognises that, as the Bill goes through, players in the energy sector here will probably raise different angles and issues. Through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Minister of the Environ­ment, the Committee hopes to be able to factor in such considerations as the Bill proceeds. Climate change must be a major consideration that will programme and frame our energy policy, and we view the legislative consent motion as one part of that. However, we recog­nise, as other Members have expressed, that that will not be enough, and additional measures must be intro­duced. We must reflect on what people in the energy sector — both existing players and those who enter the sector with new and innovative ideas on renewable energy — have to say.

Although the Committee did not come to a formal conclusion, members had some sympathy with the view of the Committee for the Environment, and we too wanted to ensure that particular guarantees about the quality of consideration be given to Northern Ireland. I note that the Minister expressed her intent to supplement the structures to which the Bill commits Northern Ireland with further consideration.

The single electricity market is one of the issues that Committee members identified as requiring much consideration, and some Members mentioned that too. We can learn from the experience of the UK legislation on the renewables obligation: it set the framework for Northern Ireland in a way that was blind to the single electricity market. In an area as important as climate change, we simply cannot afford legislation that informs and affects how the energy market will operate, but that is blind to the single electricity market in Northern Ireland. If Members are to be considered coherent legislators, we must ensure a proper recon­ciliation between the two. If the two do not properly rhyme, we cannot back one and not back the other.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am pleased to follow the Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. At one stage, I feared that the debate was becoming a closed shop for members of the Environment Committee, despite the fact that the implications of the legislation cut across all Government actions and all sectors of society.

Several Members have expressed their concern that the target of a 60% reduction in carbon emissions is not sufficient. I appreciate that we are debating the UK Bill today and that 60% is the target that it sets. However, it seems that many of our devolved partners are more ambitious and have recognised the need to go beyond 60% by considering a figure of 80%. There is widespread concern among domestic and international non-govern­mental organisations (NGOs) that the UK is not aiming for an 80% reduction. As someone who firmly intends to be around in 2050, I hope that —

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

You are fairly round now.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I understand that the Member for Foyle was busy being Santa at the weekend. I too dressed up as Santa over the weekend, and it is all part of the act.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

You are a better Santa than he is.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I hope that I have better presents.

Anyway, with hindsight, there are genuine concerns that we may have made a mistake in not aiming for a more ambitious target of 80%. I hope that we — as a country, not just as an Assembly — do not live to regret not opting for that target.

I want to focus on what we are doing to address climate change in the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget and on the interaction between the environment and our economy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If Northern Ireland were to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, what percentage of electricity would have been generated in that time by, for example, windmills or tidal power? Is there even the capacity to achieve that target through the use of renewable forms of energy, or does the Member support many people’s position, which is that we will have to go nuclear?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I will deal with that point in more detail presently, but it is fair to say that we must invest in a wide range of alternative ways in which to generate electricity and energy. It is important that we keep an open mind.

Two conclusions are part and parcel of the Stern Report. First, the implications for our economy will be huge if we do not protect the environment and address climate change. Those consequences are becoming very real.

Secondly, genuine economic opportunities exist for us to invest in climate change technology and for our economy to reorient itself in order to become greener. In some respects, that may answer Sammy Wilson’s question. Although many forms of renewable energy may not be cost-effective at present, as time moves on and we invest in more efficient technology, that balance will change. In this part of Western Europe, we must capitalise on the opportunities that arise from our natural environment — namely, the wind and sea — and invest in them. Solar power will not become one of Northern Ireland’s main attractions.

I have concerns about whether the final Programme for Government will make a major contribution to the climate change agenda. I was disappointed that, despite the strong economic focus in the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, the green economy was not referred to; Northern Ireland needs to have a green economy.

In some respects, we are a developing economy, so there is a natural desire to invest in our infrastructure in order to bring our economy up to speed with that of many of our competitors. However, in doing so, it is critical that we bear environmental concerns in mind and that we do not allow ourselves to get trapped into the notion that a contradiction exists between economic growth and protecting the environment. As a society, we must make a choice. In fact, the two issues go hand in hand.

Transport particularly concerns me. My colleague Mr Ford referred to the Energy Saving Trust’s report, which highlighted that certain local authorities in Northern Ireland have some of the largest carbon footprints in the whole of the UK. Although there may be differences in the methodology of our baseline studies, that report indicates a number of problems, not least a heavy reliance on private transport compared with elsewhere on these islands.

The draft investment strategy for Northern Ireland states that, in the first three years, around 60% of the transport budget will be invested in private transport — that is, on roads — and only around 40% in public transport. That is almost the opposite of the situation in Great Britain. However, over the 10-year period of the investment strategy, we are to invest 80% of the transport budget in private transport and only 20% in public transport. That sounds like a twentieth-century solution to our transport problems rather than a twenty-first-century solution. In welcoming the motion, we must be realistic about what this society needs to do in order to get up to speed. We must set not only a 60% target but an 80% target; it is very much needed.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Members for their positive contributions to the debate. Some good and serious points were made on the legislative consent motion.

Mr McGlone spoke as the Chairperson of the Environ­ment Committee; I thank him and all the Members of the Committee for their constructive approach to the legislation. As I did, the Committee wanted to send out the message that it aimed to tackle the problem of climate change, which it achieved through its positive engagement with me and my officials.

Mr McGlone was correct to highlight the fact that there are enabling powers in the Bill. At the request of Northern Ireland and Wales, the Bill places a duty on me and the Welsh Minister for Environment, Sustain­ability and Housing, Jane Davidson, to report on action and adapt to climate change, which we will do.

Peter Weir, who is a Member of the Environment Committee, spoke about the broad purpose of the Bill and placed on record his thanks to officials for working with the Environment Committee. I too place my thanks on record. He acknowledged the international context and the contribution that this part of the kingdom will make in efforts to reach the national targets.

As was mentioned during the debate, the Department has a lot of work to do on Northern Ireland baselines. I hope that that information will be available in April 2008 so that we can decide how to move forward. For example, many Members have mentioned establishing a subcommittee on climate change. When the baselines are available, we will decide the best way forward. Mr Ford is correct to say that we do not have to wait for three years, but can instead objectively look at the figures when they are available next year.

The important factor will be the lines of accountability and communication between the Department and a climate change subcommittee. There will be a two-way discussion because the Department will seek expert advice on how to adapt to future climate change and deal with some of the issues to which Dr Farry referred in respect of how to meet our targets.

Mr McKay spoke of the need to deal with CO2 emissions and referred — as did other Members — to the Stern Report and the acknowledgement that, if climate change is not dealt with now, there will be “dire economic consequences.” That should be borne in mind because although many people think that combating climate change will cost the Government a lot of money, if it is not dealt with now, there will be a greater cost in the future.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister is correct to say that there will be a lot of costs involved in combating climate change, including increased building costs and increased fuel costs for individuals in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister appreciate that many people find those costs difficult to accept when those who preach about climate change — and the harmful effect of CO2 emissions — have descended on Bali in the past week and created more CO2 emissions than Chad does in a year?

Some environmental groups have sent between 40 and 50 members to that idyllic location. I doubt that the same numbers would have attended had the location been Birmingham, instead of Bali. Can the Minister understand why some people might be a little cynical about that exercise?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hope that the Member is not suggesting that politicians do not generate hot air from time to time, because there is a lot of it in the Chamber. I also hope that he appreciates that I made the sacrifice of not going to Bali. We are well represented at the conference in Bali by three Government Ministers: the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and two other Ministers are representing the UK case.

Mr McKay, Mr Gallagher and Mr Brian Wilson — among others — raised the issue of targets. It is important to recognise that, since the Royal Com­mission’s report in 2000, science has developed considerably. That is why the Bill has been amended so that, for the first review of the 2050 target, the committee on climate change will be able to take into account all developments in scientific knowledge since the Royal Commission reported in June 2000.

The committee on climate change will decide whether the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions should be increased to the 80% level that Scotland has decided to go with, and I have spoken to the sustainable develop­ment commissioner about that. The committee will look at the scientific evidence and decide, and I think that it is the right body to make that decision.

Mr Burnside also mentioned the talks in Bali. It seems that a lot of the politicians in the Chamber today wish that they were in Bali, but we are here and dealing with the issue of climate change. He said that the US has a huge impact on carbon emissions. Mr Ford responded to that when he said that most of the impact from carbon dioxide emissions is caused by one half of the world but felt most severely by the other half. The Assembly should consider that when thinking about the Climate Change Bill [HL].

Mr Ford also spoke of his worry about Northern Ireland’s focus if we were involved in the UK climate change committee but did not have our own. I listened carefully to his comments on what the Welsh are doing about climate change, and I am willing to look at that. I will look at the Welsh example, but I want to be sure of our figures. I will look at it again in April when we have those figures. I know that Mr Ford will be after me in April to see what I am planning to do.

Mr Gallagher spoke about the implications of not dealing with climate change. I agree with him: adaptation is an important issue with which the Assembly must deal. He also spoke about the all-Ireland single energy market. I will speak to him about that when I have spoken to my colleague the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about the issues he raised. I am sure that there is a problem of harmonisation in relation to HM Revenue and Customs, but I will refer the issue to the appropriate Minister.

Sammy Wilson regretted my absence from the talks in Bali. I hope that he did not mean that he would have preferred I was there rather than in the Chamber progressing the Bill. I am sure that that is not the case. He mentioned Scotland’s climate change targets; I hope that I have answered that question. Mr Durkan, Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, spoke about the many issues around climate change and its impact in the field of renewable energy. He also mentioned the all-Ireland single energy market, and — as I said to Mr Gallagher — I will speak to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about that, but I imagine that the difficulties are related to fiscal policies.

Dr Farry mentioned the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and I hope that I have addressed that. He also mentioned the interaction between climate change and the draft Programme for Government, and the need to invest in a wider range of renewable energy. Dr Farry will be aware that my Department recently put PPS 18 out for consultation. He is right to state that the Stern Report recognised the economic consequences of not doing anything about climate change. However, there are now economic opportunities for Northern Ireland, particularly with our history in engineering and innovative skills. I hope that we rise to the challenge — especially with regard to tidal and wind energy, because there are not many openings for solar energy here.

The environment is at the heart of the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government. I have been saying exactly what Dr Farry said: a better environment and a better economy are not mutually exclusive — the two can sit easily together. We have had a good debate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Climate Change Bill [HL] to Northern Ireland.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That the Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/442) be annulled.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This statutory rule is made under the powers conferred by articles 4(8) and 14(4) of the Higher Education Order 2005.

That Order capped fees at £3,000, subject only to inflationary increases. The effect of the statutory rule is the application of an annual inflationary increase to the basic and higher fees that are charged by our higher education institutions for qualifying courses in the academic year 2008-09. The statutory rule will increase the higher amount from £3,070 to £3,145, and the basic rate will increase from £1,225 to £1,255. Other rates for other specific prescribed courses will increase on a pro rata basis at around 2·5%.

Under article 4 of the Higher Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, increases to basic and higher fee rates are subject to rises linked to inflation until 2010.

I know, go raibh maith agat, that this is a basic point, but I remind Members that this motion is to annul proposed fee increases. However, it does not address the principle of variable student fees. Should the statutory rule be annulled, the current higher rate fee of £3,070 will be payable by students next year, and other fees will remain at their present levels.

The Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 were laid in the Assembly Business Office on 5 November. The Committee considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 21 November, and officials from the Department were present to explain the position. At that meeting, I forwarded a proposal that a prayer of annulment be brought to the Floor of the Assembly. It is important to note that there was Division in the Committee, with six members agreeing to the annulment motion, and three members against. During this debate, when I refer to members, I mean those who voted in favour of proposing the motion.

Members expressed a number of serious and specific concerns on the statutory rule during the Committee’s deliberations, and I will highlight those.

First, and more importantly, the Department stated that it proposed to conduct a review of student finance, including fees, some time during the academic year 2008-09. The review has been presented as a reason why fee increases should go ahead, in line with the primary legislation, in advance of the research and review findings being made available.

However, the opposing argument is surely stronger. How can fee increases be justified in advance of knowing precisely what impact they will have on take-up or drop-out rates on prospective, or existing, university students? There is a particularly serious concern that those most disadvantaged in our community are being put off by fees, particularly when they see increases coming forward in the absence of due consideration of their impact. Even before the research and review was decided on, there was evidence of a drop in the numbers applying to universities after fees were introduced in 2006. Members of the Committee agreed that the need for research and review was paramount, and I ask the Department to bring that work programme forward at the earliest opportunity.

However, to increase fees on an annual basis in an information vacuum is surely taking us down a path from which it will become increasingly difficult to retreat. Should the research show major impacts on particular categories of the population, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds, radical action would be required. Continuing on a path of increasing fees will make reform difficult.

A number of Members and I are concerned about the impact of fee increases on a particular section of the community. The Committee was informed that a full equality impact assessment would have been completed with respect to the primary legislation, and that no adverse impact was assessed at that time. The Committee was therefore told that there was no need for a full assessment of the statutory rule.

Although I accept that that approach may be procedurally correct, I am surprised that no form of — at least interim — equality impact assessment has been conducted. Student fees are an extremely important issue in our society, with major financial implications for students.

The lack of further work on the equality impact is linked to the general lack of information that I mentioned earlier. There should not be any increase in the current level of fees until the appropriate information is available.

The Committee’s briefing on the statutory rule coincided with a briefing on the draft Budget. Some Committee members, including myself, found it some­what ironic that, during the Budget briefing, officials said that the Department did not have the money to fund changes to maintenance grant provisions that would provide parity with the position in England and benefit local students. The Committee was told that, in the absence of such funding being made available locally, a university student in England whose parents had a combined income of less that £25,000 would receive £2,835, while a student here in similar circumstances would receive only £1,877. I mention that because this statutory rule is seeking parity with England. In this case, parity means that students will be penalised with fee increases — yet they will not reap the benefits of an increase in maintenance funds, since that form of parity cannot, we are told, be funded. That is clearly a lose-lose situation for local students.

The Department made the point that the equivalent Statutory Instrument in England — The Student Fees (Amounts) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 — has been passed and that students from here who choose to study in England will be penalised, as they will be paying a higher fee than if they had chosen to stay and study at our two universities. Committee members opposing this statutory rule did not necessarily accept that, and the point was made that it could be easily addressed in appropriate legislation — for example, by amending the primary legislation under which those fee increases are made.

The point was made in the Committee that the proposed review of student finance, including fees — which I referred to earlier — might result in the lifting of the cap on variable fees, thereby allowing the universities to charge whatever they wish. At present, however, there is no way of knowing the outcome of that review. Therefore, I propose that the statutory rule be annulled in advance of a full review of student finance — both fees and maintenance — so that any further detriment to the position of prospective and existing students can be avoided. I remind the House that on 21 November 2000 it backed a report from the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment — as it was then — calling for tuition fees and means-tested grants to be abolished. Go raibh maith agat.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I rise to speak against the motion as a private Member, not as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning.

When this motion was brought before the Committee, I believed strongly that the best way forward, in the interests of both the universities and the students, was to await the impending review of the whole matter. Unfortunately, some members of the Committee chose to pre-empt the review, and so we are in this position today.

Much valid concern was voiced by local universities when the Committee decided to table the motion for debate in the House. By proposing to annul rises in line with inflation for the next three years, those parties in favour of such a proposal are engaging in headline-grabbing opportunism without thinking through the consequences of their actions.

It is necessary to review some facts and figures in order to put the issue into perspective. The regulations, as they stand, provide for an inflationary increase in tuition fees with effect from 1 September 2008. Such an increase would see the fees of undergraduates rise from £3,070 to £3,145. When a rational approach is taken, it is clear that the rise is relatively small. The amount of the increase will not be the deciding factor between someone choosing to go to university and someone choosing not to go. To believe seriously such an argument is to fail to engage in reality.

Although the increase in fees for an individual may be £75, it is imperative, in the context of this debate, to consider the financial impact that that would have on local universities. Should the Assembly choose to annul the 2008-09 increase, the combined loss to Queen’s University and the University of Ulster, over those three years, will be £7 million. Furthermore, recurrent income for the universities would be reduced by that total until 2011-12.

Consider the impact of that income reduction on universities. The funding available to our two univer­sities would fall significantly behind that available to other UK universities. On such a tight settlement, our attempts to help those universities to match other UK universities’ funding, to attract the best academics, and to encourage research will be greatly inhibited, and, inevitably, students will suffer.

All parties signed up to the draft Programme for Government, which places the economy at the heart of driving Northern Ireland forward. Cutting university funding would jeopardise the competitiveness of the top-class teaching and research that the universities provide in support of the Northern Ireland economy. Any reduction in the standards of university courses here would increase, rather than solve, the brain-drain problem.

Only two weeks ago, we witnessed the First Minister’s and the deputy First Minister’s attendance at the opening of the new cancer research centre in Queen’s University — a truly world-class facility at the cutting edge of research. If university finances are cut, such ventures may be in jeopardy. We should work with universities to ensure that such projects are possible, and that Northern Ireland can be at the forefront, as it is in cancer research and care.

Under the current student-fees regime, 30% of students from a household with an income of less than £17,501 are entitled to the maximum Government maintenance grant, as well as to a university bursary. There is a sliding scale of assistance for students from households with incomes of up to £32,501. Fees are not the basis on which the disadvantaged are deterred from entering third-level education. The increased number of university applicants clearly shows that young people realise the huge academic, financial and cultural value of a third-level education.

The DUP is not in favour of any measures that would increase the burden on students. In line with fees increa­sing with inflation, we envisage proposals for maint­enance grants to rise in line with inflation. Therefore, the burden on students will not rise.

The DUP is in favour of a top-class education system that encourages our young people to stay in Northern Ireland and go on to support our economic prosperity. I implore Members to reject the motion, to set aside headline-grabbing opportunism, and to await the outcome of the impending review before engaging in debate on the whole issue. I oppose the motion.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Ulster Unionist Party asks that Members reject the prayer of annulment. However, the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning and Mr Spratt raised several issues on which there is some agreement, and it is worth investigating and discussing the right way forward.

First, there is clear evidence that students with higher qualifications earn more, have better job satisfaction, live longer and healthier lives, and contribute more to society.

Is it any wonder that Governments around the world try to encourage more and more people to achieve third-level qualifications. However, it is surprising that some people reject that premise. Perhaps they are worried about the distant promise of future potential as against an immediate pay packet, which is much more attractive to young people despite the fact that it may not be the best long-term solution for them.

People must be forgiven for thinking that way, because, regrettably, recent news has shown that some of our major employers, such as Seagate, are having difficulties competing in the global economy. Young people will ask themselves why they should invest in gaining skills when there is no certainty that those skills will be relevant in the future. Why should they take on debt when there is no guarantee that they will get a job that will get them out of that debt?

We are all keen to encourage people from socially deprived areas into further and higher education, but the accepted wisdom in such areas argues against taking risks. Strong communal ties encourage people to stay in the areas that they know. Yet that limits the opportunities that are open to young people and reduces their horizons, and that is not what we want.

The Assembly must examine ways to encourage people in those areas to take up further and higher education. It must discover what must be done to empower them and release their potential; it must examine what will enable them to succeed where earlier generations have failed. If we are to increase participation rates, many people will be the first in their families to have entered higher education. The real challenge for the Assembly is to confront lack of ambition and find ways to break the cycle of deprivation and enable all the people of Northern Ireland to unlock their potential. The answers should come from the Assembly.

People have come up with various ideas; and the recent trip to the USA, which focused on the economy, was most successful. However, improving our economy will not be sufficient to solve our problems, because we have relatively low unemployment, and we must work out how to increase productivity. Unless we can find more people, those that we do have will have to earn more or work longer. Personally, I favour the option of earning more.

No doubt others would argue that equality is the fundamental challenge facing the Assembly. However, speaking with considerable experience of international commercial activity, the world is not fair, equitable or equal; it is a competition, and we must ensure that all our young people have the skills and abilities to compete in that world.

The only enduring, competitive edge is having a good education. That is why the process is fundamental to us. The Ulster Unionist Party is committed to ensuring the increased participation of all of our people in all stages of education, but particularly in further and higher education.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning alluded to evidence that some potential students from areas of social disadvantage might be put off going to college by debt. The trouble is that we do not have all the evidence yet. Top-up fees were introduced only one year ago, and their impact is by no means certain. As I understand from the current figures — and, no doubt, the Minister will clarify this — it is not possible to see a trend at this stage.

Nevertheless, there is a genuine concern. That is why my colleague on the Committee for Employment and Learning, David McClarty, voted with other members to try to find a way of not passing on fee increases. He did it with the best of intentions in the hope that the resources could be made up elsewhere. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case. If the prayer of annulment is passed, universities will lose £2·5 million this year.

In the proposed tight CSR (comprehensive spending review) settlement, that will impact significantly on our universities. It is by no means certain that it will have any particular benefit for the students whom we are trying to help. Therefore, there is definitely a loss and no particular gain. The sum of money that has been referred to represents only a modest increase, in line with inflationary pressures. As my colleague Mr Spratt has mentioned, that will be offset by other measures.

The most fundamental problem with the proposal — which smacks of tokenism — is that it is untargeted and will not address the issues that ought to be addressed. Student fees represent only a fraction of what it costs to deliver courses. Many students’ earning power will be increased as a result of going on to further education. The type of uplift to which I am referring is approximately 80%, or £13,000 per annum. Therefore, there is a real economic reason as to why individuals should pay the fees and go on to higher education.

Those fees help our universities to compete in a modern world — and they must compete. The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning has spoken about parity. However, there is an anomaly in that; even if the Assembly accepts this prayer of annulment, the fees paid by students from Northern Ireland who go to universities in Great Britain will increase, but our ability to give them support will not increase. Therefore, that will lead to a lack of parity between two sets of students, which surely is unhelpful.

Many of the issues that have been raised are linked, which indicates that some form of integrated fundamental review of the process is required. That is exactly what the Minister has suggested should happen.

We are blessed to live in a land of outstanding natural beauty. However, we lack natural resources. The only natural resource that we have is human capital, which is what will enable Northern Ireland and its people to compete in the world. If our people are going to compete, it will be on the basis of knowledge-based industries.

Our universities are our global brands and our champions, and they will take the lead in enabling people to compete. Now is not the time to remove their resources or those of students; now is the time to invest. If the Assembly does not reject this prayer of annulment, money that is badly needed by students and universities will be taken away.

I have made a conscious effort to try to address issues that Members have raised. All Members want to move in the right direction. However, this hotchpotch, chancing-one’s-arm approach is not the right way to proceed. A fundamental review of fees, higher education and further education is required, and that is what is going to happen. Therefore, I urge all Members to reject the prayer of annulment.

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

As Mr Spratt and Mr McCrea have outlined in their contributions, our further and higher education colleges will have to be at the heart of the economic and wider development of this part of Ireland. All Members should agree with that.

As Mr Spratt said, the economy has to be at the heart of driving this part of the world forward. Unfortunately, the draft Budget does not reflect that. Although DETI (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment) was the clear winner in the Budget stakes, it is clear that our further and higher education colleges are the also-rans.

I would take seriously what Mr Spratt said, had he also stated that the Department for Employment and Learning should receive more money in the final Budget than it had been allocated in the draft Budget, to ensure that Queen’s University, the University of UIster, the Open University and the FE (furthur education) colleges are at the heart of the economy. The draft Budget does not send out that message. It states that there will be 300 more PhDs by 2011, yet there is not 1p in the draft Budget to fund those PhDs.

The Irish Government have offered the Assembly £34 million of their money to enable Queen’s University and the University of Ulster to participate in an all-Ireland science foundation, yet there is no money in the draft Budget for that.

I could demonstrate my point in other ways. Regard­less of the motion, there should be agreement throughout the Chamber that if the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is to be the driver of the economy, the Department for Employment and Learning, and FE and HE (higher education) colleges, must be its partners. That is not reflected in the draft Budget.

Regardless of the loss that might be incurred by Queen’s University and the University of Ulster if the prayer of annulment is agreed to, it is not as significant as the funds that FE and HE colleges need from this year’s Budget to ensure that they are at the heart of the economy, producing the PhDs and the innovation that will be the engine of growth and opportunity for all our people.

I do not wish to detract from the universities’ need for proper funding, but why is that not demonstrated in the draft Budget? Why is the Minister of Finance not funding the initiatives that have been taken by the Minister for Employment and Learning to put development at the heart of the North’s economy?

I wish to deal with some arguments that have been advanced in respect of the motion. I thought that we could have a debate that would be free from more exaggerated terms. However, Basil McCrea used the term “tokenism” and Mr Spratt referred to “headline-grabbing opportunism”. This is a more substantive debate than such terms suggest.

I accept and understand that if the annulment motion is passed, there will be a loss of funds to universities in the North. I have said to Queen’s University that it should fund that loss from its reserves, so that universities in the North send out the message to the students, pupils and parents that those institutions acknowledge that student debt and loans are a major concern.

Queen’s University will avail itself of any opportunity to increase student fees when the cap is removed, or even before that. The universities, and Queen’s University in particular, should send out a message to students and their parents that they understand the problem and accept that, for a period of time, there will be a shortfall in their budgets. In that way, those institutions will indicate their best intentions with respect to student funding. I am concerned that one university in the North intends, over time, to try to increase its fees to a premium. I say that because Queen’s University has joined an elite school of universities, known as the Russell Group. It follows that it will try to increase fees.

There is another reason why it is important that the Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 be annulled. It is said that there is no evidence as to how access to universities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds is being affected. If that were the case, why has the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) in England — the sister Department of the Department for Employment and Learning — announced major reforms to student funding, even though fees have just been introduced?

Therefore, despite fees having been introduced recently, that Department has already recognised that there is a need to respond to the perception, and to the reality that people who wish to go to university may be put in a disadvantageous position. DIUS has announced higher income thresholds in order to increase the number of students eligible for maintenance grants; a repayment holiday for up to five years after graduation for students in receipt of loans; and the introduction of HE student-support guarantees for students who are in receipt of an educational maintenance allowance.

To be fair to the Minister, he is aware of all that, is examining it and is working through the potential consequences. However, even though fees have only recently been introduced, DIUS is already taking remedial action, because evidence of a problem has already come to light. In that context, it would be fair for the House to annul regulations that introduce fees, because to do so would be to send out a message to our students and their parents —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a moment, Sammy.

The message that would be sent out would be that Members are concerned and will be seen to respond. Yes, we should be seen to respond in much more fundamental ways, and for that reason I welcome the review, which the Minister says will be initiated in the next academic year.

However, at the present time in the development of our education system, for the Assembly to pray against the regulations would be a strong and appropriate symbol to project to our students and their parents of how Members see the future of student finance.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I took the opportunity to look at the Member’s contribution on the subject when student tuition fees were introduced in the Assembly in November 2000 by his SDLP colleague the then Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Dr Seán Farren. Interestingly, the Member was arguing back then that the abolition of not only the increase but of student fees entirely would not necessarily help the disadvantaged. Indeed, he said of a Sinn Féin Member in that debate:

“However, he ignored the evidence from the Republic of Ireland on the abolition of tuition fees and the fact that access is still being denied to under-represented groups”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 7, p263, col 1].

Therefore, if, in 2000, the abolition of student fees would not help, and was not perceived as a way in which to help disadvantaged individuals, why does the Member now claim that to do away with the increase would help disadvantaged groups?

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

I thank the Member for his point and for reminding me of what I said, which is consistent with what I am saying today, for the following good reason: when it comes to guaranteeing access to third-level education, a menu of options must be put in place in order to ensure that students — those from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular — are able to avail themselves of educational opportunities. One size does not fit all: a number of options must be available in order to ensure that a person whose family has had no member go on to higher or further education receives every encouragement to do so. It is a matter of ensuring that the fees do not exist, or are set at a smaller level; that grants are set at a higher level; and that childcare facilities are available for those who require them. When it comes to guaranteeing access for disadvantaged people, there must be a menu of options, which is the same point that I made in November 2000.

In any case, the evidence from England is that intervention is necessary to mitigate the impact of student fees, so surely we should also realise that we should intervene to mitigate their impact. That will come in part through the Minister’s review, but we can take other measures now, such as stopping the student-fee increase on the basis of inflation, in order to send out a strong, clear message to students and their parents.

I shall now return to the Chairperson of the Committee for Education’s comments. Those students from here who study in England, where the fees have already been introduced, face a problem. It is not beyond the wit of the Assembly draftsmen to draft regulations to assist those students who would be disadvantaged otherwise, while at the same time advantaging our own students by not increasing the fees in line with inflation.

My final point is this —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

No. I have given way already.

This issue nearly brought down a Government. When the Bill that introduced student fees was going through Parliament, it came down to a handful of votes. For that reason alone, it is not opportunism to state that we should annul fee increases. This issue runs so deep and has such an impact on people’s decisions about going into higher education that — on its own merits, never mind the wider context that I have outlined — the Assembly should vote to annul fee increases as outlined in the motion.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Alliance Party supports the prayer of annulment.

In the past, there has been all-party support in the Assembly for the abolition of university tuition fees. I note, in particular, the DUP’s past support for that goal.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

No.

Tuition fees are not a product of Northern Ireland’s political system; they are a product of New Labour’s bankrupt social policies, one of the hallmarks of which has been to be more Thatcherite than Thatcher herself would have ever dared to be. We should also remember that tuition fees have trebled in the past few years, and we are in danger of moving to the American model whereby universities are for the rich, and where social mobility is frozen.

Northern Ireland has been vastly more successful than England in ensuring that young people from low-income backgrounds go to university. Given that context in particular, we must develop a Northern Ireland solution that reflects our unique circumstances. We should look towards the Scottish system for a working model. That system expects those who have benefited financially from higher education to make a contribution to society and future generations of students after they graduate. That system does not encumber students with upfront debt, and would free those who have received higher education but who choose to go into poorly-paid but socially worthwhile occupations such as social work, the clergy and the voluntary sector from carrying debt for the span of their adult life.

I appreciate the argument that universities should not be penalised for the sins of the Westminster Government, or indeed for those of our own Minister of Finance and Personnel. I appreciate that the draft Budget has already set a very tough first year for universities in the next spending round. However, no injustice can be corrected by its continuance. If we agree with the principle that tuition fees are unjust —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way, and I note what she said about all-party consensus. Would she accept that tuition fees were introduced by a party that is now going to support the prayer of annulment? Over the past number of years, the percentage of people from all classes in Northern Ireland going into higher education has increased. Where is the injustice?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Many students emerge from university with debts of between £12,000 and £20,000. That is very worrying for many low-income and middle-income families. The Member’s view would certainly discourage that section of society from attending university.

If we agree with the principle that tuition fees are unjust, no Northern Irish students should have to pay them. It is not logical to add to the burden of a system that we have committed to abolish.

As Basil McCrea said, Northern Ireland has no significant mineral resources. Our most significant natural resource is the skills base of our people. In a world where global competition is ever more cut-throat, we must have the best-educated workforce possible. In that context, the perpetuation of a system that puts off some of our brightest young people, simply because they come from a poor family, is a false economy.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I believe that, if the costs of segregation were tackled, the resource constraints that face the higher education sector could be addressed. If the draft financial settlement for universities is poor, the solution to the problem lies with the Executive and the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Students should not be penalised for the failures of our political leaders.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Student fees are a serious issue that should be examined when we are in possession of all the facts, figures and costings. It is interesting that the motion on the prayer of annulment was proposed to the Committee for Employment and Learning before all those facts and figures were available.

Members from all parties asked questions of the Department for Employment and Learning about how many young people were now applying to university compared with the number before the introduction of student fees. Members asked how many people dropped out of university because of financial problems and also about the specific costs of freezing tuition fees. Many of those questions were not answered. The Department either did not have the information available or stated that it was far too early to answer some of the questions. Most of the available information stated that, in recent years, university admissions were on the rise. In the Chairperson’s opening remarks, she used the phrase “should the research show”. That demonstrates the fact that the motion is not based on fact or research.

Many elements of DEL’s budget bid are not being funded, yet Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and the Alliance Party — the parties that supported the motion in Committee — wish to create an additional shortfall of some £2·5 million. The DUP is not advocating an increase in student fees per se. However, this statutory rule would allow student fees to rise at the same level as inflation and in parallel with student maintenance grants, which are rising at the same rate. It concerns financial responsibility. The DUP believes that an increase in tuition fees would not create additional barriers that would prevent young people from lower-income families from going to university. As my colleague Sammy Wilson said, there is evidence that more young people from lower-income families in Northern Ireland go to university than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

It would be interesting to know what cuts those parties that wish to freeze tuition fees will make to other areas of the DEL budget. Sinn Féin opposes this statutory rule because the rule might be perceived as support for student fees, which the party in fact wishes to abolish. Sinn Féin has not explained from where it would find the £2·5 million shortfall if fees were to be capped let alone the £90 million to £100 million shortfall if student fees were abolished.

Questions about the financial impact of decisions in this area are not new. My colleague Sammy Wilson referred to Mr Farren’s actions in 2000. In November 2000, the then Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Seán Farren, tried to stop a motion —

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Is it not the case that the SDLP introduced tuition fees? Is its position today not one of political hypocrisy and budgetary irresponsibility?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

That is correct. The SDLP did introduce tuition fees.

In November 2000, the then Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Seán Farren, stopped a motion because it left a number of questions about cost unanswered. Today’s motion is supported by the SDLP, but those issues of cost are still left unanswered.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given that the Member has done his research on Seán Farren and his statement to the House in November 2000, will he note that the point that the current Minister for Employment and Learning makes about anomalies was also made by the former Minister?

Mr Attwood said that the parliamentary draftsmen must be able to find some legal way around the problem. However, the former SDLP Minister Dr Farren found that there was no such way around the anomaly, and he concluded that if his proposals were not accepted, the result would be disadvantage to — and discrimination against — those who wished to study outside Northern Ireland.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, as always on such matters, he is absolutely correct.

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

I succeeded Seán Farren as Minister for Employment and Learning. Our student-support package was built around raising the thresholds at which students and their families pay fees. We are keenly aware that middle-income families often suffer most: people just above the benefits threshold. Our policy was to continually raise those thresholds. Indeed, our policy was supported by NUS (National Union of Students) and USI (Union of Students in Ireland) as the best student-support package in these islands.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for her intervention. It seems as though the SDLP policy has changed ever so slightly over the years, depending on what positions it holds. However, at least the SDLP has changed its policy over a number of years; the Ulster Unionist Party, on the other hand, changed its policy in a matter of weeks. Only a fortnight ago, the Ulster Unionist representative on the Committee for Employment and Learning supported the annulment, yet today we heard Basil McCrea argue against it. There seems to have been a change of opinion by the UUP in only a matter of weeks, whereas the DUP Committee members have taken a financially responsible view, which we maintain today. That is a consistent theme of the DUP in the Administration: we are financially responsible in all areas of government.

The Committee had the Minister before it only a few weeks ago. He confirmed during that meeting that a review of the entire area of student finance was is to take place that would include consideration of fees and grants. That, of course, is to be welcomed. We should all be patient and wait to see the findings of that review before we make any decisions that would result in a tighter squeeze on the departmental budget. I listened to Mr Attwood argue that there was not enough money in the DEL budget, and that we needed more for this, that, and the other. However, he then went on to say that we should create a further shortfall in that budget by supporting the motion. That seems hypocritical.

If the motion were passed, universities would lose a substantial amount of funding, which is used to ensure that the quality of courses is at the right standard, that the range of available courses is at the right level, and that there is adequate funding for research and develop­ment. My colleague Mr Spratt mentioned the cancer centre in Belfast, which is widely recognised as a centre of excellence. Such developments come, in part, from our universities, and that shows the important role that our universities play.

The draft Programme for Government places a strong emphasis on the economy; indeed, it has the economy at its heart. Considering the size of Northern Ireland, our two campus universities play a vital role in that economy. Northern Ireland cannot afford to see our universities fall behind others in Scotland, England and Wales in respect of funding. I congratulate Queen’s University on joining the Russell Group. Rather than viewing that as a bad thing, I contend that that is a very good thing.

We must realise that the barriers that prevent young people from going to university are not all financial — there are social issues that prevent young people from going to university, and, of course, many simply do not achieve the necessary grades. There is a problem of underachievement in working-class areas, particularly unionist areas, and that must be addressed.

I listened to the Alliance Member Anna Lo talk about not wanting a system for the rich. That is somewhat bizarre, considering the fact that her party supports an education system that will lead to just that. Rather than academically gifted children from working-class areas being able to go to grammar schools, the Alliance Party supports a system that would see only those who can afford houses close to the good schools gaining places at grammar schools. That is a little bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Alliance party.

Ms Lo also mentioned the cost of segregation. That is another point on which the Alliance Party is hypocritical because it supports the setting up of Irish-medium schools, which cost a substantial amount of money, and cater for only one section of the community.

In conclusion, I do not support the motion — I do not see how it can be funded within the current depart­mental budget, and I do not wish to see other DEL initiatives going unfunded in order to make up the shortfall. None of us wants to see students in financial hardship, or barriers put in place to prevent people from learning. However, we should act responsibly and work within the resources available to us. I look forward to the launch of the review next year, and hope that Members will wait until then, rather than acting irresponsibly now to create another financial shortfall in the DEL budget.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún i dtaca le táillí múinte. Nuair a bhí an t-ábhar seo os coinne an Choiste labhair mé ina choinnne.

I am disappointed that some parties that gave a commitment a couple of years ago to oppose tuition fees have now done a U-turn. This debate concerns the fundamental issue of how we fund the further-education sector. Creating a well-educated workforce is all about creating a good student experience, but we do not have that at the moment. Some parties on the Benches opposite are making excuses about why universities should be able to charge tuition fees. In the past year, we have seen students incurring far more debt than ever before. There is an agenda to bring the marketplace to universities. There is talk about some universities in Britain wanting to increase tuition fees by as much as £10,000. There is division between vice-chancellors, particularly in England, over whether tuition fees are the right option. Go raibh maith agat.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Obviously, in an ideal world, we would want university education to be free at the point of use. However, we must live within budgetary constraints. With what policy would the Member fill the gap that would be left if tuition fees were not charged in Northern Ireland? What impact would that have on the many disadvantaged people who gain university places through bursaries and other forms of help with tuition fees? The universities would not be able to pay for those if the fee income were not available.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Well, first of all, we do not know the impact of tuition fees. We can say that there should be a rise because of inflation, yet the Minister — and I have written to him several times — does not know what the impact on disadvantaged groups would be. He does not even know whether there is going to be an increase in variable tuition fees. Queen’s University and the University of Ulster could raise those fees. If we do not know that, why are some parties advocating the defeat of this motion?

I am concerned about the proposed review. Will it be independent? Will students have an input? I hope — after listening to Basil McCrea, for example — that this matter is not going to be manipulated in such a way as to show that tuition fees can be justified. I have real concerns about how we can have a totally independent review of tuition fees. If the review is entirely indepen­dent, and if it shows that tuition fees discourage people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, will the Assembly abolish them? We must examine those issues.

Tuition fees bring the marketplace to universities. Some Members on the other Benches are trying to justify that, but it is unacceptable. Third-level education should be there for people from all backgrounds, particularly disadvantaged backgrounds, to avail themselves of, without being lumbered with debt when they go out into the workforce after three or four years at university.

Queen’s University has received somewhere in the region of £90 million in one year. What is the quality of the education that students are receiving? Have the courses improved? What about the facilities? Has employability improved? We do not know the answers to any of those questions.

Nevertheless, the Assembly has gathered to debate an increase to tuition fees, albeit at the rate of inflation. The Assembly must, however, send out the message, as Mr Attwood said earlier, that it is opposed to tuition fees. That has been Sinn Féin’s consistent position throughout the ongoing debate on tuition fees of the past several years. Indeed, my party has proposed the motion. I appeal to Members to oppose an increase in tuition fees.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

This has been an interesting debate. I do not wish to repeat other Members’ arguments. However, there are so many issues that relate to tuition fees that what is really needed — as Ms Ramsey said — is a full review of the entire matter. I note with interest that every party seems to have opposed tuition fees back in 2000 and 2001 — long before I was elected to the Assembly. A bit of consistency is not a bad thing. Ideally, there should be — and I get the feeling that there is — unanimity on that issue. Theoretically, perhaps, it is impossible to take a decision, because the Assembly does not know from where the necessary finance will come.

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

Does the Member agree that, before the establishment of the current Assembly, the DUP promised the electorate a £1 billion bonanza from Gordon Brown, which has not materialised?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

That could be the answer. Many promises are made at certain times during a four-year cycle. Another £1 billion is represented by the cost of segregation, which was identified by my party and is continually referred to in the Chamber. Recently, that figure was amplified to £1·5 billion by Deloitte. Perhaps there is scope for the necessary money to come from that total.

In the meantime, however, my party believes that the situation is characterised by too many imponderables and questions that must be answered by a proper review. Therefore, the only sensible course of action is to support the prayer of annulment and not to add any further burden to graduates, even if that burden might be small, in hard cash terms. The Assembly must send out a signal that, if the amount involved is just £2·5 million, which is not a huge amount, surely it could be covered by the universities for one year. Alternatively, perhaps, if the Minister were to obtain a better deal from the Department of Finance and Personnel, that shortfall could be covered by the DEL budget. I certainly hope so. In the meantime, the Alliance Party will support the prayer of annulment.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Standing Orders require that Question Time must take place at 2.30 pm. Therefore, I propose that Members take their ease until that time. This debate will recommence at 4.00 pm, when the Minister for Employment and Learning, Sir Reg Empey, will speak.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Office of the first Minister and deputy First minister

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement on a single equality Bill, in light of the draft Programme for Government. (AQO 1204/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The single equality Bill was a Programme for Government commitment of the previous Executive, and a significant amount of work has been completed as a consequence. Since that commitment was made, additional equality legislation has been introduced that provides further protections across a range of grounds. We have not yet taken decisions on policy proposals; any policy proposals for single equality legislation will be considered in consultation with the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) and the Executive.

As I said, the single equality Bill was a Programme for Government commitment of the previous Executive. The intention was that it would provide a clear and accessible framework of equality law for Northern Ireland in one legal instrument, which, as far as was practicable, would harmonise existing provisions. Northern Ireland has a significant body of equality legislation, so this represents a significant and complex piece of work.

There have been significant consultations to date on the Bill, and two public consultations were held — in 2001 and in 2004. In line with the commitment in the St Andrews Agreement to develop policy proposals for an incoming Executive, there was further engagement with key stakeholders. Subject to a ministerial decision, it is anticipated that there will be a formal public consult­ation on final policy proposals. At present, officials are engaging with advisers and preparing a submission for Ministers on potential options.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for his response.

Given that there is not a single mention of a single equality Bill in the three-year draft Programme for Government, is this another case of the political differ­ences between the First Minister and the deputy First Minister leading to a freeze on any legislation that they regard as controversial?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I have given the full position of our stand on this issue and the work that is being done on it. Our targets are to introduce measures to work towards the total elimination of the gender pay gap and to work across Government to reform the tribunals system to enhance the enforcement of rights.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Given that the Equality Commission is the enforcer of any equality legislation and that it is a body for which the First Minister has oversight responsibility, what significant steps will the First Minister take to ensure that the commission will address the problem that its staff is 34·5% male compared with 65·5% female, and is made up of 35·43% Protestants compared with 63·3% Roman Catholics, despite its declared mission to advance equality and promote equality of opportunity?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am glad that the Member has raised this matter. I will take it up with the chief commis­sioner, and we will test it out with her.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

With him.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the First Minister clarify whether Members would be wrong to read his earlier response as an indication that all the statements on equality in the draft Programme for Government do not amount to a commitment to a single equality Bill?

Does the First Minister agree that the various state­ments on equality in the draft Programme for Government provide a policy cover, or policy basis, for the statement that was made by the Minister of Education last week regarding the future of post-primary education?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is for the Executive Committee and the Assembly to take action on those matters. This is the place in which to settle those matters — they cannot be settled by something done in the past. This House is the final appeal court of the country.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement on its recent participation in the third international conference on services and innovation. (AQO 1193/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The third international conference on services and innovation was an important event, which focused on the significant economic opportunities presented by the growth of the services sector, and on how innovation can help to build competitiveness in that sector and drive overall economic growth. It took place at the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin, on 7 and 8 November 2007 and was attended by represent­atives from business, policy agencies and development agencies from most EU member states.

The deputy First Minister and Mr Brian Cowen TD delivered the opening addresses of the conference. A press release outlining the deputy First Minister’s attendance at the conference was issued at the time and is available from our joint Office’s website.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I note that on day two of the conference, the delegates discussed how to develop a supportive and flexible enterprise environment for service providers. What is the First Minister, in his role as the Executive’s economic policy co-ordinator, doing to achieve that objective in his draft Programme for Government?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We must address structural weaknesses in our economy and become innovative and productive. Our focus will be on growing the private sector, including attracting high-value foreign direct investment, supporting indigenous enterprises and promoting growth in well-paid, high-skilled jobs that will be sustainable in the longer term. The draft Programme for Government aims to increase the skills of our workforce, reduce economic inactivity and enable our companies to become more innovative and invest more in research and development.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for his answers on this important issue, but I want to probe a little further. He has commented at length on the private sector, but I would like to draw attention to the public sector and our Civil Service. Is he aware of the current state of progress on e-Government? What plans are there to implement modern electronic methods of customer service by our Departments? I realise that this is a complicated question, but will OFMFDM make an early statement on the matter?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member admits that it is a complicated business. It must be discussed carefully and thoroughly by the Executive and debated by the Assembly. We will take any opportunity that arises to announce progress, but we must make progress before issuing statements. There is no use in making covering statements. Let us get to the heart of the matter.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the First Minister tell the House which key industries are being targeted by the Executive in order to attract new investment to Northern Ireland?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Being greedy, we are targeting all of them. Many parts of our economy need help, and as I have said elsewhere, we must lift our economy from dependence on so many low-paid jobs and strengthen its infrastructure.

It is not a job that is done in a day. I might say that Rome was not built in a day, although that is a bad analogy in this affair.

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

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to confirm that all public appointments should be based on the principle of merit. (AQO 1258/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Ministerial appointments to public bodies are, where appropriate, made in accordance with the code of practice published by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. The code of practice sets out appointment procedures, which are founded on the principles of selection based on merit, independent scrutiny in the selection process, equality of opportunity and a process that is open and transparent. The code of practice also requires Departments to comply with their statutory duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 when making ministerial appointments to public bodies.

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

Can the First Minister assure the House that that will be the case in respect of the appointment of the Victims Commissioner? Will the Minister give an update on the appointment process?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On 8 October 2007, the deputy First Minister and I announced our intention to extend the appointments process for the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. That process is almost complete, and we hope to announce the appointment before the end of the year.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

If the First Minister accepts the principle of merit as pre-eminent in public appointments, does his Office’s insistence in reopening the process of appointing a Victim’s Commissioner not constitute political interference, given that the persons who made the shortlist under the previous selection process were all deemed — in his own words — to be:

“appointable and of high calibre and commitment”?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

My office is dedicated to the defence of victims, and we believe that, having seen a change in the political background of our country, the people who would not have put forward their names under the last regime of direct rule, will do so now, and they have done so. Everyone should co-operate with that fact, and everyone is entitled to put his or her name forward. I believe in merit, and I regret that the beginning of the process did not stick to merit. If it had stuck to merit, the facts that have been given by an honourable Member today for investigation would not be before the House.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

The First Minister has answered part of my question; nevertheless, I shall ask it. Will he explain how appointments are made to the central appointments unit in OFMDFM, how many officials are involved in the unit, how they are recruited, to whom they are answerable, what audits have been carried out on their performance in the past five years, and whether those audits are made public?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I will be happy to write to the honourable Member and give him all the facts that he wants. We have nothing to hide. In fact, I have not yet met some of the officials that I am supposed to be dealing with. When there are over 500 of them, that cannot be done in a day.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement on its recent trip to the USA. (AQO 1173/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Last week, the deputy First Minister and I visited New York and Washington DC at the invitation of President Bush.

We met political and business leaders to promote the clear message that we had come to develop economic opportunities and to invite companies to invest in Northern Ireland and also to attend the investment conference here next year. The junior Minister Ian Paisley Jnr accompanied us throughout the programme, Minister Nigel Dodds joined us in New York, and Mr Danny Kennedy met up with us in Washington DC.

We attended over 20 meetings and met more than 150 chief executives from companies that are involved in the financial services, information technology and services sectors. The businesspeople confirmed their intention to visit us and were supportive of our new message that Northern Ireland is open for business and that Northern Ireland is good for business. Our mission generated substantial publicity in the targeted business media.

New York’s business community invited the deputy First Minister and me to open day trading at NASDAQ. CNN, Bloomberg Television and Fox News broadcast live television coverage of the event to many millions of viewers, and our message that Northern Ireland is open for business and is good for business was seen across the world. That event was also displayed on a seven-storey-high screen that overlooks Times Square in New York. The two people who appeared on the screen may not have enhanced the message, but the proof of the propaganda was there for all to see.

We met the editorial boards of ‘The Wall Street Journal’ and ‘The Washington Post’, who questioned us at great length on our business proposition and on why US companies should consider working with us. We were able to convince those hard-nosed business journalists that Northern Ireland offers a viable product.

We were fortunate to meet New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who is an extremely busy man and a successful businessperson in his own right. He accepted our invitation to lead a business delegation to Northern Ireland next year to build on our economic relationship with the United States. We also met the Secretary of Commerce, who committed his Department to supporting the conference next May.

Several private meetings were held with senior business leaders who are interested in visiting Northern Ireland to investigate business opportunities. My colleagues and I invited them to contact us any time if there is anything that we can do to assist them to locate here.

The political attention that we received in Washington DC was unprecedented. Over 20 Members of Congress broke off from an important debate to meet us. They congratulated the Assembly on its work and pledged their support for strengthening the links between the Assembly and Congress. Indeed, the Speaker of the House of Representatives left the Chair to spend some time with us.

Senator Kennedy hosted a briefing with eight Senators, with whom we had an open discussion on future work priorities. The Senators asked how they could be of use to the Executive, and we discussed several economic issues and funding opportunities. Everyone in the Chamber is aware of the pressures that politicians face during election campaigns, and we were delighted when Senator Clinton took time out from her campaign to meet us — usually people go to see her, but she came to see us. The Senator was delighted with the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland and said that, if she becomes President, the door of the White House will always be open to us.

Senator Chris Dodd broke off from his election campaign to meet us and offer his support. We were delighted to receive an invitation to meet the President, and we were so engaged in those discussions that the meeting lasted for over an hour, even though it was due to last for only 12 minutes. We asked the President to consider sending senior representatives of his Admini­stration to the conference, and he agreed to use his personal influence to encourage companies to come to see us.

The political access that we had throughout the visit was a surprise to many. Even Senator Kennedy said that he was amazed at our level of access and at the people whom we met. That is a solid demonstration of the interest from the United States, and we must build on that for the good of our people. Many business people and politicians who spoke to us about our investment message said that we were now speaking the language that they wanted to hear. We have made many new friends and potential business partners, and we look forward to their visiting us and investing in us.

I thank all my Assembly colleagues who accompanied us and who helped to make the visit so successful. I include the deputy First Minister in that remark, as he would wish to be associated with it.

A man came up to speak to me at a conference and told me that he was my third cousin, so we traced back our history. Then, I was told afterwards — I wish that I had known at the time — that he had just sold his business for over £700 million.

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

He was definitely a relation. [Laughter.]

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I would not say that, but I hope that he will do what he promised, which is to help us to get businesses to invest in Northern Ireland. That man will be attending the conference.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for his detailed reply. Does he feel confident that Northern Ireland will benefit from this trip? Could I suggest that North Down might be a good location for a golf course?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I hope that a certain billionaire will also think along those lines, and will come to help us.

There were a number of purposes to our visit: first, to raise the general awareness of Northern Ireland as a business investment location among the wider US business population — we think that we moved forward on that difficult proposition; secondly, to open the doors to specific business boardrooms to gain access to the key decision-makers and to present tailored propositions; thirdly, to talk to individual business leaders and invite them to come to the investment conference; and, finally, to provide ministerial support and endorsement to businesses that are in discussions with Invest NI.

A number of firms are in negotiations with Invest NI, and we have assured them of the Executive’s support in coming to Northern Ireland. We hope to continue our contact with the chief executives of those companies and to support Invest Northern Ireland in securing that investment over the coming years.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I congratulate the First Minister and thank him for his detailed reply. I, too, commend the important economic initiative that took place last week in the United States of America. I express my personal thanks to the First Minister, his deputy, and their ministerial colleagues for the consideration that was shown to me during the Washington leg of that visit.

How does the First Minister see external relationships being developed by the Executive, the Assembly and the Committees?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee that, from time to time, looks at and investi­gates what we are doing. I am glad that he was able to join us and that he saw the benefits that we can reap from what we have sown in the harvest that will come.

Of the many propositions that were discussed, one of the most interesting was the revival of the Scotch-Irish lobby in America. Even those on the other side said that we should help to develop that lobby. It will be most helpful when both parts of Ireland have people in the United States working together for their benefit. Therefore, I would like to see the Scotch-Irish lobby being developed.

When speaking at meetings, I had to keep reminding those present to remember the Scotch-Irish. One man told me that he was Scotch-Irish but that he had not known some of what we had said about the Presidents that the Scotch-Irish have sent to the White House. I replied that I had not said whether those Presidents had been good, bad or indifferent. Although we met politicians, we kept out of the political arena — just as we would not want people interfering in our land, they did not want us to interfere in theirs, particularly during an election camp­aign. We kept clear of that, but we did meet represent­atives from all sections of the community, and we found universal interest and hope that Ulster would come through and that we would succeed in our aims.

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

I thank the First Minister for the detailed report that he gave in the short time available to him. Was the plight of the undocumented Irish in America raised with President Bush? If so, was there a satisfactory response?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes; that matter was raised with the Senators who came to see us. There was a discussion on the issue, and our views were strongly expressed.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what discussions it has had on constitutional issues with the First Minister of Scotland. (AQO 1157/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member will be aware that the deputy First Minister and I met the First Minister of Scotland earlier this year. At that meeting, we acknow­ledged our shared culture, history and interests, and discussed greater co-operation between our two Administrations for mutual benefit.

By “constitutional issues”, I assume that the Member means the position of Scotland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. Such issues were not discussed. The Union is secure. The First Minister of Scotland has well-known views on the future constitutional position of his country. However, that is for him — and his party — to take forward with the people of Scotland, and has no bearing on the future government of our country.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the First Minister withdraw his support for the Scottish First Minister’s statement that he wished in the future that The Queen should become queen of Scotland? That could only take place after the ending of the 1707 Act of Union. Will he disassociate himself from those remarks and give a commitment that the only queen that we will have in the future in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will hold a unitary crown — one crown, and one queen for the whole of the United Kingdom?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Please be brief, First Minister.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Queen is the queen of Scotland, and I would like her always to be the queen of Scotland. However, Scotland has a right to decide for itself, and whatever it decides is not our business. Everybody knows that I believe in the Union and stand for the Union; a union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, that does not prevent me from speaking to the First Minister of Scotland. The First Minister of Scotland is a member of the Privy Council, and I would advise the honourable Member to read the oath of the Privy Council and then decide a person’s loyalty.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail what progress is being made in securing a strategy of procurement of local produce by other Departments. (AQO 1216/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Strict restraints on public procure­ment are set out in EU legislation. Nevertheless, I believe that the North produces a wholesome quality product that more than meets the public procurement criteria. Our challenge is to ensure that the agrifood industry is in a strong position to tender for contracts and that contracts are accessible for small and medium-sized businesses to deliver.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education are key players in the procurement of food contracts, and that is why I met recently with Ministers Ruane and McGimpsey to discuss the possibilities for increasing public-sector procurement for local food. My officials are working with the Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) and Central Services Agency (CSA) to assist in the develop­ment of a range of guidance to support and encourage the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in competition for Government business. They are also looking at how to integrate sustainable development considerations into public-sector contracts.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. What action is her Department taking to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can engage in public procurement contracts? Go raibh maith agat.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Departmental staff are continuing to provide technical support and advice to individual farmers, processors, producer groups or co-operatives — large and small — to help them engage in public-sector contracts. I have also approved a new processing and marketing scheme under the 2007-2013 rural develop­ment programme, which will provide assistance to improve competitiveness of the agrifood sector and enable it to compete for such contracts.

Staff from the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) at the Loughrey campus have supported CPD by providing advice on the specifications for public food contracts. In addition, they have had an input to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s initiative that aims to improve the nutritional quality of food in hospitals. CAFRE also provides a comprehensive range of education and training programmes for producers and processors to develop technical and business management skills. College staff can assist with product specification, product development and the adoption of new technology. In addition, the college benchmarking programmes can be used to monitor and identify opportunities for improved efficiency and competitiveness in production systems.

My Department is also contributing to the success of the renaissance of Atlantic food authenticity and economic links (RAFAEL) project that aims to encourage local authentic food producers to develop new markets. The aim of the initiative is to promote the use of local food as a firm foundation for public health and ensuring that local food has been brought to the attention of consumers.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

On 22 October, I wrote to the Minister — in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development — asking about her Department and other Executive Departments taking the lead in the promotion and purchasing of Northern Ireland-sourced products.

As yet, the Committee has not received any response. Will the Minister indicate whether she will formally resp­ond to my Committee, or is it now a matter of policy that it will not be consulted? Is this strategy the only ministerial response to the dire findings of the Red Meat Industry Task Force, or is the Minister insisting that diversification is the only salvation for the farming industry?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On the first point, I have signed that letter of response, and the Committee should receive it today or tomorrow.

Secondly, the strategy is not a response to the Red Meat Industry Task Force, but represents one of the points in the UFU’s (Ulster Farmers’ Union) five-point plan, which it put to all the parties before the last Assembly election.

My departmental officials are working very closely with the Central Procurement Directorate, which has a key role to play. To date, we have developed guidance to support and encourage integration of sustainable-development considerations into public-sector contracts. That work is not being done solely in response to the Red Meat Industry Task Force, but in response to several issues.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can the Minister assure the House that all meat, fish and vegetables that are served in canteens in DARD (Department of Agriculture and Rural Develop­ment) premises are procured locally?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible for managing the Civil Service contract-catering arrangements. There are three DARD catering contracts that incorporate the Government’s aims and objectives for sustainability in farming and food sectors, and they are contributing to a better environment and to healthy and prosperous communities.

Where appropriate, or possible, the contractors should use products that are environmentally friendly and that have been recycled or organically produced. There is also a stipulation that the use of local produce should be considered, where possible, and the Department wants to see that enhanced. The answer to your question is yes.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what money is available to deliver a phased decommissioning package for the prawn-boat sector. (AQO 1210/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have no plans to introduce a decommis­sioning package for the prawn fleet. The rationale for such schemes is to combat overfishing, and achieve a better balance between fishing effort and available fishing opportunities.

Irish Sea prawns are being fished sustainably and, just last year, the European Commission raised the total allowable catch for nephrops by 17%, based on the scientific evidence gathered by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute. There is, therefore, no reason to introduce decommissioning for the prawn fleet, and the Commission has proposed that the same total allowable catch be set for 2008.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What financial help might be available from the European Fisheries Fund? Will the Minister visit the Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative Society in Toomebridge, and perhaps encourage the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to do the same? Go raibh maith agat.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The European Fisheries Fund (EEF) will make £12·76 million available for the local fishing industry, and that will help us to achieve the overall aim of a strong fishing industry that supports local communities in the long term.

The EFF can also be used for processing in aquaculture, and I hope that we will work with DCAL (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure) on some inland fisheries. I will certainly be pleased to accept an invitation from the Lough Neagh co-op.

We are required to match the money that is available from the EU with national funding, and there are a number of activities that can be supported under EFF, including marketing, vessel modernisation, etc. The focus will be on providing a sustainable future for the fishing industry through innovation and technology, and that will be achieved in a number of ways, including new investment, and wider use of the latest technologies, alongside improvements in the supply chain and environmental awareness. Some of that new funding will be used to help tackle social exclusion and promote prosperity in areas that are traditionally dependent on the fishing industry, when support cannot be provided in any other way.

My Department is currently working on a draft operational programme that will guide the implementation of the EFF. That will be subject to a 12-week public consultation beginning in February 2008.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I know that the Minister is aware of the dire problems facing the prawn-boat sector of the fishing industry due to red-diesel fuel costs and that fishermen are working for 78p an hour as a result. Will she confirm what money is available through any grant or otherwise to ensure that assistance is given to enable our fishing fleet to remain?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have received several questions for written answer and other correspondence on the matter of high input costs in the fishing sector. I am aware that the sector is facing difficulty because of the lower price for prawns and increasing fuel bills. Under current arrangements, fishermen enjoy derogation from the EU to use rebated red diesel in their boats. Beyond that, it is not possible to offer any further direct fuel subsidy to fishing vessels. The European Commission confirmed last year that member-state subsidy of the cost of fuel constituted uprating aid and would, therefore, be incompatible with EU law.

It is also likely that fuel costs will continue to rise. That has been the trend over the past few years. The fishing industry must devise how to adapt to the longer-term economic situation and the most preferable means of dealing with rising fuel prices by becoming more fuel efficient.

The new EFF will provide opportunities for the fishing industry to become energy efficient through measures such as grant aid for the purchase of more fuel-efficient engines. Other fuel-saving measures might include the use of biofuels in fishing vessels, gear technology that reduces fuel consumption, the audit of vessels to identify where fuel can be saved and vessel engineering solutions that reduce fuel consumption. The Department will look at how it can tackle the problem. I am aware of the hardship that high fuel costs are causing fishermen at the moment.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I thank Mr McElduff for raising the issue. I am sure that he will be disappointed, given the impact that prawn-boat fishing has on his West Tyrone constituency.

Has the Minister held any discussions with her fellow Ministers from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and with the European Commission about getting support for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland with respect to the forthcoming European decisions on fishing quotas and days at sea?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I want to be a strong voice for the fishing industry here, and I have been working closely with ministerial colleagues Richard Lochhead MSP, Elin Jones AM and Jonathan Shaw in DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) to ensure that Irish Sea issues are given due importance in the forth­coming December Fisheries Council from a negotiating position. I visited the three ports last week to hear the views of local fishermen. Last Friday I met with Mary Coughlan to discuss how we could work together on issues of common interest at the forthcoming EU Council. I also had a video conference this morning with Jonathan Shaw and Richard Lochhead in advance of our meeting with Joe Borg on Thursday. The fishing issue is taking up a lot of time in the run-up to the Fisheries Council. I am pleased to say that we have had a very good level of engagement with all Ministers involved.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the business case for the proposed sale of Crossnacreevy. (AQO 1185/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I announced to the Assembly Committee on 12 June that I was seeking the strategic disposal of land at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute’s (AFBI) site at Crossnacreevy. That followed a review of AFBI’s needs and utilisation of the estate, the conclusion of which opened up the possibility that the current site could be disposed off without any adverse impact on AFBI’s activities. The Department has moved to the next phase of the study, which includes the preparation of the business case and relocation plan. At this stage, the business case has not yet been fully developed, but when completed it will be made available at an appropriate date.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for writing to me recently in English only, as I requested. It was deeply appreciated.

Crossnacreevy is in my glorious constituency of Strangford, and I find the Minister’s reply somewhat disturbing. I wonder about her interpretation of “strategic”, and I am sorry that she has not, as yet, reached the ability to have a business case put together. I hope that she will come back to me on that.

Has the Minister considered any alternatives to the sale of the entire Crossnacreevy site — such as selling only a portion of the site? In addition, beyond what is required for the farm-nutrient management scheme, can DARD — as I would wish — retain any excess money from the Crossnacreevy sale?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

When considering solutions to the problems with the farm-nutrient management scheme, we obviously considered not only the Crossnacreevy land but the entire DARD estate. As the Member knows, I negotiated with the Department of Finance and Personnel and got its agreement to my continuing to approve applications and give commitments to farmers for grant aid for the farm-nutrient management scheme. Obviously, any money left over from the sale of the AFBI site — and, at this stage, I do not know how much that is likely to be — will go back to the central pot, and I, along with other Ministers, will be able to bid for part of it. I am content with the fact that Government Departments must be as pragmatic and sensible as possible when dealing with such problems —

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Why sell more than you need?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The discussions with DFP concerned the site itself. I am satisfied that we have solved the problems with the farm-nutrient management scheme and that we have given commitments to find an alternative site for the valuable work of the AFBI staff at Cross­nacreevy, which we wish to continue.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. However, I share Mr McNarry’s bafflement. Although it has been selected as the ideal site to sell, is the Minister telling Members that, as yet, there is no firm business case for the sale of Crossnacreevy? Furthermore, is the Minister suggesting that more money than that required by the farm-nutrient management scheme will be received from the sale of Crossnacreevy, and that that money will be returned to DFP and not retained for urgent requirements within DARD? If those are the facts, how does the Minister expect Members to believe that the issue has been seriously considered?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

None of that should be new to the Members; I am sure that they were present when I previously answered questions on the subject.

In advance of the 12 June announcement, DARD and ABFI jointly committed to a review of ABFI’s needs and the utilisation of the estate that it occupies. As part of the initial scoping study of that review, the usage of land and buildings at Crossnacreevy were examined. That scoping study concluded that the relocation of the activities and facilities at Crossnacreevy was feasible, which opened up the possibility that the current site could be disposed of without an adverse impact on ABFI’s activities.

Members must also recognise that the Executive are working on behalf of all of our people. Although I would have loved to have been able to retain the additional money, we do not know how much money there will be, how the land will be valued, and what planning issues might arise. We hear from all the parties about the other financial pressures around the Executive table, and, therefore, we must be wise about how Government money is spent for the betterment of all people. A joined-up approach from the Executive will be of real benefit to the people of this place.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

What benefit does the Minister envisage for the people of Crossnacreevy in particular, and Strangford in general, from the sale of this land?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, the land is currently agricultural land. There are several potential benefits. Having land available for further economic development can bring benefits to the people of both Crossnacreevy and the wider Strangford constituency. I hope that whoever buys the land will consider the needs of, and how they might interact with, the community. Therefore, there will certainly be benefits.

We are looking carefully at how staff are affected by the sale as well as the people who live in the cottages at Crossnacreevy. I am taking all that into consideration and keeping a close eye on how the situation develops.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what assistance is being given by her Department to the pig meat sector. (AQO 1223/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. My Department continues to support the pig sector in every way in which it can. The Department’s pig technologists are dealing with individual farmers to assess areas of potential improvement in production efficiency on farms. The pig grading information system (PiGIS), which I launched in June 2007, was developed jointly by the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute. PiGIS has been widely used by producers to assess carcass specifications. Already there is evidence that, through the use of various measures, significant savings can be made on farms.

CAFRE provides a comprehensive range of education and training programmes that develop technical and business-management skills for producers and processors. It provides benchmarking support and delivers the pig challenge to address inefficiencies and maximise competitiveness at farm level. College staff also assist with product specification, product development and the adoption of new technology. Furthermore, over the past four years, the Department’s supply-chain awareness programme has seen the involvement of farmers and others in investigating supply-chain issues and marketing models in Ireland, Britain and Germany.

The Department has agreed with the industry to co-fund a review of key issues that impact on the pig sector, and that review will be undertaken by the Ulster Pork and Bacon Forum.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat. To what extent will the introduction of export refunds help to stabilise pig prices?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I met with industry representatives recently, after which I was left in no doubt about the pig sector’s extreme financial situation, which has largely been caused by the increased production costs as a result of high cereal prices. The private storage aid scheme that the EU Commission introduced at the end of October failed to bring about stability. I am delighted that the EU management committee for pigmeat has agreed to reintroduce export refunds for pig meat. That illustrates that the major difficulties facing pig producers across the EU have been recognised. The commencement of that subsidy is an essential first step in trying to restore some balance and stability to the sector. It will increase the amount of pig meat that is exported from the EU and, hence, increase market prices. I hope that that marks a turning point for the sector, and I will continue to monitor the situation closely over the coming weeks and months.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Has the Minister discussed with the Ulster Farmers’ Union possible ways in which to help pig farmers who are suffering unsustainable losses? Will she assure the House that she will leave no stone unturned when examining ways in which to help the pig sector at this time?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely. EU funding and support will be available for the industry to develop and expand profitable and sustainable markets and to encourage better co-operation and communications among all sectors of the food industry. That support will be delivered under axis 1 of our rural development programme through the agricultural marketing development grant scheme and the supply-chain development programme.

The industry has also undertaken activities to help itself. Food Promotion Northern Ireland is a group that has been formed from a range of sectors, including the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Livestock and Meat Commission, to take forward jointly and fund a domestic marketing campaign. One of its objectives is to develop and deliver a domestic promotion and marketing campaign that is aimed at delivering sustained growth, increased market share and maximisation of profitability for businesses here. It complements the regional food programme, which aims to promote quality regional food by assisting the industry to develop and expand profitable and sustainable markets, and by encouraging better co-operation and communication among all sectors of the food industry.

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

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the crisis in the pig-meat industry requires a great deal more than a nod or a grunt. Will she explain why the gap between the farmgate price and the price that the consumer pays is widening? Does she have a solution, and will she support an inquiry into the cause of that disgraceful state of affairs?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

First, as the Member knows, I do not control prices. However, I have been working hard with all levels of the supply chain in order to get the best deal for producers. I wrote to all the supermarkets to express my concerns about returns at producer level, given the rising cost of feed. I am aware that there has been a subsequent rise, albeit a small one, in some retail prices.

That is a welcome trend, as it provides an opportunity for increased returns to work their way back through the supply line to the farm-gate price.

Additionally, I met the senior management team of a leading pork processor to learn at first hand of the difficulties in that sector. I have also been working with the UFU and the industries to ascertain how to narrow the gap to which the Member has referred.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the business case for the continued processing and financing of the farm nutrient management scheme. (AQO 1186/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The business case for the continued processing and financing of the farm nutrient management scheme (FNMS) provides economic justification for funding all FNMS applicants and quantifies the additional funding that is required for the scheme. The economic analysis demonstrated the value for money that can be achieved by enabling the agriculture industry to invest in slurry storage facilities in order to comply with the EU nitrates directive while maintaining livestock numbers and viability.

The funding gap was estimated to be £89 million above the existing scheme’s budget, and a bid for that amount has been submitted through the investment strategy for Northern Ireland. The additional funding will prevent a reduction in livestock numbers to comply with the EU nitrates directive and the consequent loss of the value added to the economy from those livestock. Unsatisfactory implementation of the nitrates directive could result in European Commission infraction proceedings against the North, with a possibility of daily fines.

DFP approved the business case in June 2007. Since then, I have allocated additional staff resources to the scheme, and I am happy to say that good progress has been made. To date, some 3,200 pre-approval inspections have been completed, and over 2,400 FNMS applicants have been issued with approvals and offers of grant aid.

All eligible applicants should have received an initial visit from an inspector or DARD adviser before Christmas. All approvals should be issued by the end of March 2008, provided that farmers supply any new information that is needed following a pre-approval inspection. More than 1,000 claims for completed tanks have been submitted so far. Therefore, a significant increase in the construction rate is necessary. The Department’s target of issuing all approvals by March 2008 gives a clear indication to the construction industry of the urgency in getting the works completed by 31 December 2008. It is vital that that deadline is observed, as there is no prospect of allowing the 60% grant to be extended beyond that date.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her long-winded answer. Given the importance of the farm nutrient management scheme, has the Minister considered what options are available for financing the scheme, especially given the problem of the sale of the Cross­nacreevy site? Furthermore, is the Minister of a mind to extend the scheme beyond 2008, bearing in mind the environmental impact that would result if there were not enough tanks for farmers to store their farm nutrients in?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That was a long-winded question.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, that was a long-winded supplementary question, and I thank the Member for it. I think the Member was asking whether further money will be made available. That cannot happen; the Depart­ment can give only the 60% grant. To do otherwise would be extremely unfair to the people who received a 60% grant one year ago and built a tank.

There will be problems with building all the tanks for which we will be giving approval. I accept that finding the 40% to go along with the 60% that the Department is making available will be a financial consideration for some. However, it is important that farmers build those tanks as quickly as possible if they are going to avail themselves of that 60% grant aid.

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

With strong winds blowing here and from the other side of the Chamber, I am in the eye of the storm.

Will the Minister tell the House whether she has been in touch with her ministerial colleague in the Department of the Environment regarding planning applications for storage tanks? It is important that approvals are granted in time to allow the work to be completed before the December 2008 deadline.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department has had discussions with the Department of the Environment. Planning permission is no longer necessary for the majority of tanks. Therefore, that should not be a consideration in holding up the work. Other factors are holding up the work, including getting contractors out and making slots available in order that it can be completed. That means that finishing the work is becoming problematic.

In answer to the previous supplementary question, which I did not catch in full, from January 2008, we will be in the period of extension. The original deadline for the work to be completed was December 2007. One year’s extension has been granted. I have made enquiries, both in Europe and among my ministerial colleagues, and I have been told that the extension is to December 2008 only, and that we will not be able to go beyond that. I am trying to get that point across to farmers, some of whom still feel that there might be two or three months’ grace. There will not be.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The Minister has already answered my supplementary question.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member whose name is next on the list of those to ask questions is not in his place.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps her Department is taking to encourage the growing of energy crops. (AQO 1202/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department has assessed the potential for energy production from crops in its renewable energy action plan. In 2004, Forest Service established a three-year challenge fund to encourage landowners to establish willow coppice for an energy end-use. Under that scheme, 950 hectares of willow coppice were established, or approved for establishment, by 45 rural businesses. A short-rotation coppice scheme, as outlined in the rural development programme, will replace the challenge fund.

The Department supports the growth of crops for energy under the EU aid for energy crops scheme. Uptake for that scheme has been limited. At present, the arable sector can secure a better return from growing cereals than energy crops. Work is currently under way to establish a renewables centre of excellence at the AFBI site in Hillsborough. That demonstration and research facility will further identify the potential for energy production from crops.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

What encouragement is given to farmers to co-operate in the growing and marketing of energy crops? Will the Minister take account of what is happening in the South of Ireland to see how co-operation in this sphere can be encouraged and expanded?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Minister to keep her response brief. Time is almost up.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will.

My Department, AFBI and Teagasc have worked together closely on how to develop markets. We will also have to work on the taxation of biofuels to ensure that the scheme is cheap enough for farmers to take up. We are working very closely across the island on this issue.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

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

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to comment on whether the sports strategy can be implemented, in the context of the funding allocations in the draft Budget. (AQO 1231/08)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sport Northern Ireland will have an important role in the delivery of the sports strategy for Northern Ireland. The funding allocation to sport in the draft Budget will help to ensure that a start can be made on imple­menting the 10-year sports strategy. Under the draft Budget, it is proposed that core funding, including capital, for sport should rise by £23 million in 2008-09, over £29 million in 2009-10, and £42 million in 2010-11.

However, full implementation of the strategy also depends on the willingness and ability of all stakeholders to contribute to its delivery. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and Sport Northern Ireland, therefore, seek commitment from the stakeholders to implement the sports strategy as part of the current consultation exercise on the draft Northern Ireland strategy for sport and physical recreation 2007-17.

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

We are all particularly concerned about the loss of local sports and aware of the importance of sport in participation and promotion of better health. Does the Minister anticipate the closure of any local facilities? That would reduce capacity and the potential for financial remuneration for local clubs and sporting facilities.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

One can never rule out the closure of facilities. I am confident, however, that over the period of the strategy, new facilities will be opened and others will be enhanced. Within the budget that has been allocated, we can have an improvement in the sporting infrastructure.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

The Minister’s responses so far have been interesting. He has said that we need to raise the current level of sports funding by £206 million to realise the 10-year sports strategy. Has he developed strategies to acquire that very substantial funding? What performance targets will be built into the strategy to measure whether we have realised the 24 priorities that he seeks to establish and which I support?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The first building block of the required additional funding comes from the central block Budget. Over three years, and in year 3 in particular, we will see a significant uplift in that central Budget. I will continue to make the case, and put the argument, that sport and physical recreation can contribute to significant savings, in particular in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. My Department will take that matter into consideration regarding funding; we will also consider the private sector and the delivery of sport and physical recreation by local government. I hope that we can get a combination that will produce the required figures to develop and deliver sport as identified in the draft sports strategy.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister will be aware that, last year, there was a huge underspend in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s budget. Will the Minister assure the House that that money will be used for other capital schemes in sports and the arts, including the sports strategy, and will not be snatched away by the Minister of Finance and Personnel, or the Treasury across the water?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Were the Member aware of his facts before he put his question, he would have realised that a significant element of that money related to the Ulster Museum. The development of the Ulster Museum would have started sooner had it received earlier planning permission, but there were objections to the planning permission. The objections concerned the removal of a shuttered wall, a structure that is like a silo wall. Ultimately, that was a key reason that that funding did not go ahead.

Another reason for some capital funding not going ahead is that the Department is waiting for the Lyric Theatre and the Old Museum Arts Centre — which have been allocated funding — to come up with other funding. The Department is using public, central Budget money to leverage other funding that should come from the private sector and from Belfast City Council, which will make a decision soon. Dr Martin Naughton has donated £1 million to the Lyric Theatre, which is very welcome, and other private donations have been received.

Let us use our money wisely and bring as much as possible into the central pot to redistribute throughout the fields of arts and sports. I would rather spend money wisely than spend it quickly.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will that money be handed back to the Treasury?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

No, it will not.

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

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to confirm whether sports clubs in Northern Ireland, whose parent bodies are not associated with the Olympic Games, will receive grant aid for their development programmes, due to lottery funding’s being redirected to the 2012 Games. (AQO 1149/08)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sport Northern Ireland is responsible for the distribution of grant aid to sport in Northern Ireland. It will be able to continue to invest in development programmes for non-Olympic sports clubs through a combination of lottery and Exchequer funding.

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

A range of groups in my constituency has raised a number of concerns about the redirection of funds. It is easy to understand their frustration, because they were told that their development plans had been accepted and that their applications for funding had been successful, only to learn that the funding identified for their projects is London-bound. What are the Minister’s financial proposals to allow those clubs to pursue their five- and 10-year development plans?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I share the disappointment of a number of clubs that money is being diverted to the Olympics. That decision was taken in London — not by me. Nonetheless, we are left with the aftermath: a number of clubs would not have been eligible in any case, but some clubs were eligible and should have received funding, but they did not.

We are looking to the capital realisation task force to see what Government capital assets may be realised over the next few years. Should we be successful in that realisation, for which clear targets have been set, the money may be used to reinvest in sport, which is something that we wish to pursue.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

To what extent does the Minister feel that the diversion of lottery funding to the 2012 Olympics will derail or delay his sports strategy for 2007-17 and will weaken participation rates at club and local level in all sports?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The diversion of lottery funding to the Olympics will certainly neither derail nor delay the strategy. The sports strategy is still a draft document, which does not have the Assembly’s final approval. That has yet to be achieved.

On the basis that the Assembly approves the strategy, significant funding is available in the early years to assist the Department in its delivery. The required rises in spend must be incremental. The Department must continue to ensure that further funding and increases are achieved beyond 2011 in order to allow the sports strategy to be fully developed. The Department did not anticipate, for example, that there would be a £206 million spend over a 10-year period. It did not anticipate spending £20 million per annum during the first three years in any event: that will have to be built up. Ultimately, therefore, I do not envisage that the strategy will be either derailed or delayed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what progress has been made on the Olympic elite participation programme. (AQO 1153/08)

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

10. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail (i) the original amount of funding announced by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to Olympic Centres of Excellence; and (ii) the amount of funding that is available under the draft Budget for these centres. (AQO 1244/08)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Mr Wilson’s and Mr Burns’s questions together. In March 2006, the then Sports Minister, David Hanson MP, announced that approximately £50 million had been provisionally allocated for high sports priority infra­structure projects. Since then, two separate competitions have been held, seeking expressions of interest from anyone who is interested in developing elite Olympic and Paralympic facilities in Northern Ireland.

As a result of the first competition, North Down Borough Council has been identified as the preferred developer for Northern Ireland’s first 50m swimming pool. As a result of the second competition, a further 15 projects have been identified as being suitable to proceed to the next stage of the competition. There will then be a further shortlisting exercise to determine the final list of approved projects.

The proposed Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure capital investment during the next three years under the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland 2, which was published in November 2007, identifies £218 million of capital projects, of which £112 million relates to sports projects. I will consider priorities carefully during coming months and, in particular, any comments that are received during the current consult­ation. That consideration will include elite facilities.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Some applicants who have got through the second round are concerned that, although the next step is to present their business case and assessments, submit their planning applications, etc., to the Department, they have been told not to do anything at present. Time is running out. Can the Minister tell the House when it is envisaged that the second-round applicants must have submitted all the necessary paperwork to the Department? What is the time limit before which allocated money must be spent? Is the Minister sure that, apart from large local authority projects, smaller clubs will have the time and the resources to be able to compete fairly in the second round of the competition?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Deliverability by 2010 was one of the elite programme’s key criteria. I understand the Member’s concerns on that particular issue, especially where, in some instances, applicants could become engaged in protracted planning applications that could cause considerable delay. I speak, in particular, of some cases in which the Environment and Heritage Service is involved and in which pressing issues must be dealt with. The Assembly must be cognisant of that. I assure the Member that I will work closely with Sport NI and clubs that are making applications. I am happy to discuss the matter with him in due course to identify how progress can be made.

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

Can the Minister confirm that it will still be possible to fund all the shortlisted projects if the draft Budget is approved? If not, what impact will that have on the draft Programme for Government’s plans to host 10 international teams in Northern Ireland during their Olympic Games preparations?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are arguing that capital-realisation funds should be directed towards elite facilities, in conjunction with the funding that has already been achieved. Therefore, I do not intend to opt for any diminution in the amount of funding for which we have applied. Although we do not have the full £53 million at present, I will continue to pursue that.

The significant factor in the proposals is that many of them can be delivered on time. That is somewhat different from many other capital projects that are being proposed. In future years, capital money that has not been spent must be returned to Westminster. Therefore, it is in our interests to take forward projects that can be turned around quickly, to use up capital that might otherwise be lost to Northern Ireland. I intend to use that argument as a means of leveraging further funding for that important project.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

The Minister made a good point about the £53 million that was allocated for those elite facilities: if planning decisions were delayed and the right business-plan proposals did not win, we might not secure the amount of money that is available. Will he re-emphasise the point that those facilities are available and the finances are available to make a considerable contribution to the Olympic Games?

How does our funding allocation compare with that of Scotland and Wales?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

One of the most significant benefits of spending money from the Northern Ireland block Budget in the way that I have outlined is that that will actually lever further money from the clubs or the local authorities that are involved. Therefore, the return on the money that we invest is significant, and much greater than the original outlay. That is hugely beneficial for Northern Ireland.

Scotland is in a completely different situation because not only is it preparing for the Olympic Games in 2012, and how it can benefit from that through the development of its facilities — it has won the right to stage the Commonwealth Games in 2014. Therefore, Scotland will have a more significant financial outlay. I confirm that I am meeting my counterpart in Scotland later in December and that we will be discussing the Common­wealth Games and what opportunities they might present for Northern Ireland — whether in acclimatisation for competitors, or other elements of that event — considering that Belfast is the closest capital city to Glasgow. There should be significant opportunities for Northern Ireland.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether he plans to host a reception for David Healy, following his record achievement of scoring the most goals in a European Championship qualifying campaign. (AQO 1190/08)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I place on record my congratulations to David Healy on what is a magnificent achievement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

To become the highest goal scorer in the European Championship qualifying campaign is a remarkable feat, by any standards. I have already written to David to offer my congratulations. I confirm that it is my intention to host a reception for David and his fellow team members as soon as that can be arranged. We are in discussions with the Irish Football Association (IFA) about the details of those arrangements.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. That is something that everyone has wanted to hear. Many believe that his reward should go even further, and that he should be awarded an MBE. I am one of a growing number of people who believes that. He has also received the BBC Northern Ireland Sports Personality of the Year award.

He comes from Killyleagh, which is part of the constituency of Strangford, which I have the pleasure and privilege of representing. Killyleagh is the only village in Northern Ireland that has ever produced three Northern Ireland international footballers who have played in matches against England: Hugh Davey, who played for Northern Ireland in the 1920s and 1930s, when they lost 2-1; Terry Cochrane, who played for Northern Ireland against England —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I detect that a question is coming.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

A question is coming. Terry Cochrane played for Northern Ireland against England, in a match that ended in a 1-1 draw. Of course, David Healy scored that magnificent goal in Windsor Park, not so long ago, in that famous victory over the mighty English.

David Healy’s success has been as a player in the Northern Ireland team — and this is the question, Mr Speaker, you will be glad to hear. Can the Minister comment on FIFA’s eligibility proposal, which would dismantle the very process that enabled David Healy to excel? What steps is the Minister taking to address that issue?