Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 March 2008

318 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the February monitoring outcome.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With permission, I wish to make a statement about the Executive’s decisions on the February monitoring round. This is the fourth and final monitoring round of the 2007-08 financial year, and Members will be aware that the role and purpose of the in-year process is to help the Executive to make the most of the resources at their disposal. At the Executive’s meeting on 28 February 2008, they decided on some reallocations of expenditure for the short time remaining in the current financial year.

It is also important to note that this monitoring round follows the departmental spring Supplementary Estimates, which were debated in the Assembly on 12 February 2008. Departments are constrained by the spring Supplementary Estimates and associated Budget Bill position, because no allocation can be made in the February monitoring round above the position for which legislative authority has been sought. The first stage in each monitoring round is the identification by Departments of resources allocated in previous Budget processes that, for a variety of reasons, will not be spent in this financial year.

In overview terms, reduced requirements declared by Departments in this monitoring round amount to £51·7 million in respect of current expenditure and £61·7 million in respect of capital investment. The level of reduced requirements declared in this round is much greater than the levels that were identified at the corresponding time in previous years. That continues the trend from the previous monitoring round, with the result that the amount declared for this financial year is some 41% greater than the reduced requirements that were declared last year.

Although I commended Departments for the significant level of reduced requirements identified as part of the December monitoring round, the context for the February monitoring round is quite different, because there is significantly less scope to utilise the resources that become available in the February round than in earlier ones. I, therefore, urge Departments to redouble their efforts, as we move into the 2008-09 financial year, to declare reduced requirements as early as possible in the year so that the opportunity to redeploy funds into priority areas is not missed.

Statutory Committees will have a key role to play by regularly monitoring the financial performance of their respective Departments and identifying, as early as possible in each year, those areas where less spending is expected to take place than had been planned for.

I recognise that a primary focus of Departments is to spend as much of the moneys that have been allocated in the Budget process as possible at the first stage in order to deliver the associated improvements in public services. However, where that is not possible, there is an equal responsibility to ensure that any resources not needed by a particular business area can be redeployed.

Although there is an issue that significant levels of reduced requirements reflect poor planning at the Budget stage, it is much better that Departments and Committees identify reduced requirements earlier rather than later in the financial year or, indeed, allow them to fall as end-of-year underspend. Details of all the reduced requirements declared by Departments are set out in table 1 of my statement, which is available to Members.

The largest reduced requirement in current expenditure — £8·7 million — has been declared by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), following on from the delay in the decision on the review of public administration (RPA). The Department for Social Development (DSD) has declared a £22 million reduced requirement in capital expenditure from additional land sales, and the Department for Regional Development (DRD) has identified a £10 million slippage in the funding required to Northern Ireland Water for this financial year.

The December monitoring round concluded with some £57 million unallocated capital resources, which included anticipated access to our end-year flexibility stock in the 2007-08 block. In the context of such significant sums being available for allocation, but with no corresponding pressures expected, a prudent approach was adopted to minimise underspend and hence facilitate future discussions with the Treasury regarding access to end-year flexibility stock.

Overall, therefore, £69 million was available for allocation in this monitoring round for capital expenditure, and £39 million could reasonably have been allocated for resource spend. Against that level of resources available for allocation, Departments have submitted current expenditure bids in the amount of £1·6 million and capital investment bids amounting to £63·4 million.

Turning first to the position as regards current expenditure, in light of the late stage of the financial year, only two bids were put forward, both by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL). The Executive have agreed that £0·9 million should be allocated for the purchase of additional book stock to assist library boards in meeting published targets, and a further £0·7 million has been allocated to provide for the winding-up of the Northern Ireland Events Company.

With regard to capital investment, the Executive have agreed to allocate £58·9 million to Departments. That includes £6·9 million to the Department for Regional Development to meet a pressure resulting from delay in planned receipts from asset sales as well as additional cost from a change in accounting treatment for insurance costs associated with the first design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) roads capital programme.

The most significant capital pressure, however, has arisen with respect to DSD because of lower than expected capital receipts from house sales as a result of the more constrained credit environment, and the sale of land at Ballee in Ballymena is not now expected to be finalised until 2008-09.

Although DSD has taken measures to ameliorate the revenue shortfall, the Executive have agreed to meet the net capital pressure of £52 million. That follows on from the £50 million allocated in the December monitoring round to the Department for Social Development for a range of social housing initiatives, including co-ownership; the warm homes scheme; and the social housing development programme.

The consequence of the level of reduced requirements and bids met is that for current expenditure, the level of planned overcommitment is now £13·3 million. This is significantly below our target of £50 million at the conclusion of the February monitoring round and highlights once again the need for Departments to declare all reduced requirements as early in the year as possible. In terms of capital investment, we now have unallocated resources of some £10 million. However, all underspend resource will continue to be available to be carried forward for use by the Executive in the future.

Looking forward, 2008-09 will be the first time in a stable political environment that Northern Ireland Departments will be implementing the spending plans that have been developed by local politicians as opposed to direct rule Ministers. Although the main indicator of success will be improved services, a key milestone will be that resources are used for the purpose intended and in the timescales envisaged.

In conclusion, I recognise the progress that has been made during 2007-08 to improve financial management and hence ensure a more effective allocation of resources. This work will need to accelerate next year in light of the more challenging fiscal environment faced by the Northern Ireland Executive.

I commend the February monitoring position to the Assembly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. The Minister plans to reduce overcommitment, year on year, over the Budget period to £100 million in 2008-09; to £80 million in 2009-2010; and to £60 million by 2010-11. The high levels of reduced requirements declared by the Departments at this stage have been managed by overcommitment provision. Will the Minister comment on how underspend will be managed in the future if this pattern of returning resources late in the financial year continues, especially given the plan to reduce overcommitment?

In addition to the important role of each Assembly Statutory Committee in scrutinising its Department’s monitoring round returns, to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of financial forecasting processes, is there also a need for the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) to challenge Departments more robustly on the reasons for return of resources and on the timing of those returns? Also, in a statement on the June monitoring round with regard to underspend, the Minister stated that the optimum would be to reduce current underspends close to 1%. Given that today’s statement marks the last monitoring round of the financial year, will the Minister comment further on the way forward to reduce current resource and capital underspend?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Deputy Chairman of the Committee for his questions. I wish that it were possible to give clear answers to them all.

Mr Storey is right to say that there is a pattern: Departments are leaving their underspend declarations to late — almost too late — in the year. Unfortunately, that is where the patterns seem to end. As I indicated in my statement, the amount of underspend this year is significantly greater than it was in previous years. One can only judge the future by the past and present, and therefore DFP, in looking at the degree of overcom­mitment, looks at it in terms of what has been the previous pattern. That puts the Department in a difficult position if the pattern changes, because it has set the amount of overcommitment to eat up in the various monitoring rounds on the basis of previous patterns. If this year’s pattern were to be followed in future years, there might in the June monitoring round be more of an effort to spend some of the additional funds than was the case in June of this year, when we committed nothing.

We need to watch the patterns very carefully. The Deputy Chairperson is right to say that there is a role for all the Committees — not just the Finance and Personnel Committee, although it has the key role — in monitoring the spend of their Departments to ensure that money is spent on time for the purposes that have been set out, and that any likely underspend is declared as early as possible. In that way, we can make the best use of our funds and have them reallocated for the proper purpose.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Is the Minister aware that the Housing Executive has, for a number of weeks, been suspending repairs until the new financial year? Will he tell us whether this monitoring outcome can be used to ensure that Housing Executive tenants have their repairs carried out, especially new-tenant repairs, without which people cannot move into houses?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member will know from my statement that we met all the bids that were made. If there had been an additional bid from the Housing Executive, it would have been looked at very seriously. The difficulty that the Housing Executive — and the Minister for Social Development — will have is that there is a very short period in which to spend this money. That is why it is important that underspending be identified earlier, so that programmes can be put in place, whether it be planned maintenance or whatever else. The only caveat that has to be entered at this stage is whether the Housing Executive could have spent the money, had it been allocated as a result of today’s monitoring round. With only a month left to spend the money, it is too late in the year. Also, the Assembly has already accepted the spring Supplementary Estimates.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that, in an ideal world, there would not be under-expenditure on the part of Departments? Regrettably, that has happened. Given this continuing issue, there may be a need to review the amount of funding that is held back for over-expenditure, so that we can be certain that the money that is allocated to Northern Ireland is put to good use here.

I am particularly interested in funding for children and young people. Why was £3·8 million returned unspent at this late stage?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. No matter how well a Department might plan for the incoming year, there will always be legal issues, planning issues or other regulatory issues that will mean that plans do not go forward as quickly as expected. There will be pressures on Departments from various areas for more funding. One can never contem­plate, a year — or, in many cases, three years — out, exactly how each Department will spend money. There will always be a level of underspend. What is important is that we have the best management systems, in order to identify as early as possible what underspend there is, so that we can reallocate the funds to priority purposes. I suspect that there is not one Government Department that, if notified back in June that funds were going to be available, could not have identified some worthy purpose, whether it be children and young people or some other issue.

The money, however, is not lost. While it does go back, on paper at least, to the Treasury, we can, of course, negotiate with the Treasury in order to get access to it. I will be doing that. As far as this CSR period is concerned, we successfully negotiated to have all the end-year flexibility stock that is available to the Executive allocated within those three years.

I assume that I will have to go back to the Treasury at the end of the financial year to argue for the inclusion of the money that will be underspent this year.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the fact that any money not spent during this financial year will be carried forward for use by the Executive. I welcome also the allocation of new money to the Department for Social Development, given that the Ballee land sale is not expected to go ahead during this financial year.

As has been said, these are large releases of money at this time of the year, and that is to be regretted. The low level of bids, particularly on the resource side, indicates that Departments were not confident that they could spend the money during this financial year, and I welcome the indication that steps are being taken to improve the management of that aspect. What confidence can the Minister give us that receiving Departments will be able to spend the money during this financial year? It will not look well for the Assembly, after a Budget round in which there was a great deal of clamour for money and public concern in certain areas, if we declare a significant underspend at the end of the financial year. That will create a situation that the public will not understand.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member makes the point well. It is not just the public who will not understand that situation; I am the one who has sore ribs and a sore arm, having had it twisted up my back over the past few months by Ministers. They told me that they did not have half enough money in their budgets and that they needed more, and then I find that that they are handing money back to me during two monitoring rounds. It may be a bit difficult to understand, but, ultimately, it is down to financial management.

It is essential that the Committees play a significant role: we did not have the benefit of them during the direct rule period. We are developing a template for Committees to enable them to examine departmental spending throughout the year, so that it is not left until the tail end of the year to find out that money that could have been used in a Department is not going to be used. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is co-ordinating that work.

We will be in complete control of our Budget during the incoming financial year, having set it ourselves and having the opportunity to implement it ourselves, and we want to improve on the current end-year underspend.

As regards the contemplated asset sale at Ballee, in many ways, we could welcome that situation because if the sale had gone ahead, it would have left more end-year flexibility to be dealt with. The present situation means that the money is likely to be available during the next financial year. Therefore, we will have to look carefully, with the Department, to see where to make the best use of those additional resources.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I return to the subject of patterns that was raised by Mr Storey. What investigation is the Minister carrying out into the pattern of some Departments regularly declaring large underspends and others regularly receiving additional moneys from those underspends? What consideration is he giving to ensuring that services could be funded in a more strategic way rather than their living, essentially, on scraps from someone else’s table? I have in mind the current situation in which quite a lot of Northern Ireland appears to be coned off due to roadworks. The public’s perception is that Roads Service is not only spending its own money but that of other Departments by carrying out roadworks at the end of each financial year.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not agree that £50-odd million could be said to be scraps. If we had a lot of such “scraps” we could do quite well. The Committee for Finance and Personnel will want to work with all the other Committees to ensure that underspends are identified as early as possible. I do not believe that Departments wilfully allow money to be underspent at the end of the financial year; I believe that they are over-optimistic about being able to spend the money and, therefore, do not want to return it to the centre in case another Department gets hold of it.

However, from where I sit, looking across all the Departments, I would clearly rather that another Department used the funds than send them back to HM Treasury. That would mean that we would have to fight to get the money in a future financial year.

Some Departments find it much easier to spend money quickly. DHSSPS and DRD are two such Departments. For example, money can be spent on road maintenance in a relatively short time — that is probably why the Member has encountered some difficulties when driving around Northern Ireland.

However, I would not like to see what our end-year underspend would be if we did not have our present monitoring round mechanisms, particularly given our Health Service and health boards and the activities of DRD and its Roads Service. We should use funding wherever we can, and Northern Ireland plc would benefit from any improvements in those Departments.

We will be interested to see what will happen as a result of the new treatment that is being granted to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That will be very much a learning curve for all of us, given that that Department will be able to use and identify its own underspend earlier without fear of having to return the funds to the centre. Consequently, those funds can be used for other purposes, either because of pressures in other areas or, indeed, because the Department wants to develop new programmes. It will be interesting to see how that works over the year; indeed, it may provide a model that we can adopt in other areas.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

How will the special dispensation that has been afforded to the Department of Health affect next year’s monitoring process?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Where the Health Service is concerned, the first point is that half of Northern Ireland’s Budget will not be part of the monitoring process. Obviously, monitoring will continue, but the benefits or losses in the Department of Health that might result from underspend or additional pressures will be borne by that Department. As I said to the Member’s North Down colleague, it is an interesting experiment, and it will be worthwhile examining its results. The Department need not be concerned that some other Department will walk off with any of its early declared underspend; it will be able to use those funds for its own pressures or to develop new programmes. That is a massive gain for the Department, and it will be interesting to see how that experiment works out through the year.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am like other Members in that, when I hear of an underspend of so many millions of pounds, I wonder what is wrong with the system. I was heartened to hear some Members who know more about finance than me say that they did not understand the process. I was also heartened to hear the Minister of Finance and Personnel agree with Mr O’Loan that it is difficult to understand.

Given that Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) has set tackling poverty as a priority, is there any opportunity for the Executive to earmark any of the underspend — which goes across several Departments — in order that poverty specifically can be tackled? Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The money is at the disposal of the Executive until the end of the financial year, when it goes back to the Treasury and we have to bid for it again.

I share the Member’s view: when faced with constituents proposing various community schemes that require Government funding, I find it difficult to explain the situation. Through Departments, the Government will indicate to those people that they do not have the resources in this financial year to assist the proposed schemes. However, those people will then read in their newspapers or see on television that there is a massive underspend in the very Department from which they were seeking funding. In those circumstances, it is difficult to explain to people why their proposed scheme has not been given the go-ahead.

Departments have a massive fear of overspending, but I criticise them if they underspend, as do the general public. However, so far as the Treasury is concerned, overspending is the unpardonable sin: the wrath of the Treasury will be poured on Departments if they overspend. Therefore, there is always an attempt to err towards underspend than overspend, but that should be confined to much smaller amounts than is currently the case, and I believe that underspend to that extent comes down to poor financial management.

If underspend were identified at an earlier stage, programmes such as those that the Member mentioned could have been funded at that early stage. However, now that the spring Supplementary Estimates have been dealt with and there is only one month left in the financial year, it will be difficult for Departments to spend in that constrained time frame.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I note that, at this late stage in the financial year, there is a significant number of reduced requirements, and Departments will have grave difficulty in spending the results of that in the available time limit. I also note that that difficulty is much greater than it has been in the corresponding period of previous years. What action will the Minister take to ensure that future reduced requirements are declared much earlier in the year?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Committees will have a key role in ensuring that that happens. As I understand it, my officials are already working with the Committee for Finance and Personnel to develop a template that will allow each Committee to track how resources are working through the system. The Committees will be able not only to do that, but they will be able to question their Minister and departmental officials as to why spending is falling behind. In areas for which there has been no expenditure, each Minister and his or her officials must give commitments that the moneys will be used within the required time frame. The present financial year began under direct rule, with the result that Committees have not yet had that essential role to play.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I note with considerable interest the £1·6 million — which is essentially for two projects — that has been allocated to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Will the Minister tell the House whether the £0·9 million that has been allocated for the purchase of additional books to assist the education and library boards is a recognition that, with the establishment of the single library authority, not enough money has been made available for books and for the delivery of front-line services? The Committee is hearing that message from all the education and library boards, and I hope that the Minister can confirm that there is an acceptance in the Executive that that has been the case.

Secondly, following on from Claire McGill’s question, is the Minister concerned about the so-called culture of underspend in Departments? If so, what is he doing to turn that around?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Executive have met the only two bids that were made for resource expenditure, both of which came from DCAL. My understanding is that the amount that was allocated to DCAL enables it to meet its book stock targets. As Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Member will have considerable influence on future targets. However, that allocation has meant that the current target has now been met.

I repeat: a process is being established to allow the Member and his Committee — and all other Committee members — to have a greater role in keeping their Departments to account and to ensure that they are meeting the spending targets that were allocated in the Budget. Departments fought for more money, they helped their Ministers to get the funds that are available to them, and now it is their duty to make sure that their Ministers spend the money within the set time frame.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. Several Members have mentioned the significant sums of money that various Departments are handing back. What actions will the Minister take to ensure that, in future years, there is access to the 2007-08 underspend funds?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The process is not automatic. The Treasury recognises and identifies a stock of end-year flexibility, and, in order to receive the underspend for a given financial year, the case must be argued with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. However, such end-year flexibility stocks are counted as ours.

We reached agreement with the Treasury concerning the significant underspends that had built up; those funds will be allocated over the three years of the compre­hensive spending review. Therefore, all underspend that has been identified to date has been allocated to the next three financial years. In addition, this financial year’s underspend will be added to our end-year flexibility stock, and I will have to negotiate separately its allocation over following years.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister confirm that discussions concerning the purchase of the former Forkhill military base are ongoing with Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) officials, and that no final decision has been taken? Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Sufficient underspend funding was available to have covered what the Minister sought for the Forkhill site. However, before reaching that stage, a business case must be submitted and approved by Department of Finance and Personnel officials. That is a highly technical matter — I have not the slightest idea about how the figures are produced. However, I have met the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, who has been informed about the business plan’s failings, particularly about how costs might be reduced by additional funding from other sources and/or by reducing the amount of bells and whistles on the proposal. My officials will consider any resubmitted proposal. Of course, should a business plan be approved, funding is available for the Department.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister provide an assessment of this financial year’s underspend?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member’s question invites me to put my head on the block. I can tell him what the Departments have told me the year-end underspends will be, although, in the past, those Departments gave me figures that would not have led to the underspend available for this monitoring round. Therefore, I emphasise caution. However, the figures indicate that there will be £104 million in current expenditure and £49 million in capital expenditure. Both figures are considerably less than those for the previous year; however, I will wait until the end of the financial year to ascertain whether the Departments meet the figures that have been submitted. In addition, Committees should question their Departments about likely underspends for this financial year in order that, at the end of the year, they can compare those with the targets set.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeaCheann Comhairle. If I may have the liberty to raise a couple of issues, I would first like to further explore the matter raised by my colleague from West Belfast Mr McCann. The Housing Executive has apparently run out of money for remedial work. The Minister did give a full answer, but I would like to know whether, in the past two monit­oring rounds, the Minister for Social Development told the Finance Minister that the Housing Executive was in danger of running out of money for repairs. Housing Executive houses are sitting empty because the Housing Executive does not have enough money to repair them.

In addition, what measures will the Department of Finance put in place to ensure that the public purse will get value for money from the land sale at Ballee, Ballymena?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Very often, I get criticised for control freakery and micromanaging Departments; yet there are times when people ask why I allow a Department to do one thing, when it should be doing something else. We cannot have it both ways.

On the Housing Executive issue, all I can tell the Member is that, as he knows, every bid received from the Department for Social Development in relation to that matter has been met. If further moneys are required, it is up to DSD, in its discussions with the Housing Executive, to make a bid for those. I cannot second-guess what the discussions were in the Department. Those questions are more appropriately asked of the DSD Minister.

As far as the more general issue is concerned, I again emphasise that I can allocate resources to Departments, but it requires them to put in bids. Departments will put in bids only if they are sure that they can spend that money during the course of the financial year. Therefore, the earlier that an underspend is recognised by a Department, the earlier we can reallocate that funding and make it available for the use of other Departments. I cannot spell it out enough; early identification is down to the Departments. I cannot do it myself — it must be done by the Departments.

The Ballee land issue is a matter for the Department for Social Development. The funds will be available in the next financial year. That gives a longer opportunity for officials to look at how to spend that money, because it was expected that that money would be available in this financial year, rather than in the next. I hope that some financial-management benefits will arise from that.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I ask the Minister to explain the under­spend of 5·9%, which amounts to £13·9 million, and the forecast for capital investment, which amounts to 25·4%. That is sad news for the agriculture industry. Will he explain how he arrived at those figures?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I did not arrive at those figures — they were provided by the Department of Agri­culture and Rural Development. Throughout the monitoring rounds, we have been able to meet bids — with the exception of the Forkhill bid, for the reasons that I stated earlier. If there are specific issues that the Member wants to raise about the way that the Department of Agriculture has dealt with matters, I suggest, as diplomatically as possible, that he raises them with the Minister for that Department.

Executive Committee Business

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008.

The Order today is not simply about setting the level of rates for the next financial year; it is about setting a new approach to how we address financial issues in Northern Ireland. The days of asking the people of Northern Ireland to make an ever-increasing financial contribution to efficient public services are over. Now it is time for Government to deliver.

The Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) is a vital part of the annual financial cycle. The form of devolution that we have in Northern Ireland means that most tax-raising powers remain with the national Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, this Order provides the Assembly with its only mechanism to raise additional resources to fund key areas of central expenditure.

As I indicated previously, devolution is about making a difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland, and there is no clearer signal of that than our approach to the regional rate. The days of increases in the regional rate compounding to 62% over five years are long gone. Instead, we are steering a new direction for the future, which will benefit every household and business in Northern Ireland. For the first time in many years, instead of the householder being asked to bear the burden, our key focus is to ensure that the public sector delivers.

In my speech to the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV) in Belfast in 2007, I stated that one of my priorities was to control the level of the regional rate in Northern Ireland. The Department of Finance and Personnel has delivered on that commitment.

Northern Ireland faces major challenges, none more so than in our public spending plans, which must reflect reality and the fact that we will have to manage our finances within a framework that has, at its foundation, a commitment to delivery, innovation and efficiency.

During the draft Budget debate, I highlighted that, in the last three years of direct rule, Northern Ireland had regional rate increases of 9%, 19% and 6% respectively, with more planned for the years to come. During the Budget debate on 12 February, I emphasised that a 60% increase in the regional rate over five years was unacceptable. In that context, and with the pending introduction of water charges in 2009, I announced that the domestic regional rate should be frozen for the next three years.

The business regional rate increases have been more modest, averaging about 3·3% over the past five years. However, businesses will also be faced with water charges. Therefore, in the draft Budget, I announced an average increase in those rates of 2·7% a year for the next three years. That is in line with the expected rate of inflation and, therefore, in real terms, amounts to a freeze.

That level of regional rate is expected to generate revenue of £530 million. At the same time, we must continue to consider our methods. There is a real challenge to address head-on the efficiencies that we need to make so that more resources can be redirected to the front-line services that need them.

I want to see how we can achieve even greater efficiencies beyond the 3% a year targets that have already been set. Members are aware of how much emphasis I want to be placed on that matter. The new performance and efficiency delivery unit will be in the front line of the battle to strip out waste and identify where we can achieve significant savings of public money.

Some Members have argued that, notwithstanding the 60% increase over the past five years and the introduction of water charges, householders should contribute even more to public expenditure. I disagree, not simply as a matter of political philosophy but because of the relatively modest contribution that such an increase would make to public expenditure.

The regional rate contributes less than 6% of all funding available to the Executive each year. Therefore, if I had sought a 1% increase in the rate, that would have raised about £2·7 million of additional revenue. Similarly, some have suggested that the Department should maintain the domestic rates in real terms. To do that at the current inflation rate of 2·7% would raise only £5·86 million. Therefore, generating significant extra revenues through the regional rate would require increases in rate levels that no one would consider acceptable. The modest sums that could be raised through rate increases can be compared with the resources that will be released through efficiency savings made by Departments. Departments plan to deliver £790 million in efficiency gains by 2010-11.

I now turn to the detail of the Order, and I shall briefly describe each article.

This short statutory rule specifies the regional rate poundages for the financial year 2008-09. Article 1 provides the title of the Order and gives the operational date as the day after it is affirmed by the Assembly.

Article 2 provides for the duration of the Order, and it will apply until 31 March 2009. Article 3 specifies 29·89 pence in the pound as the commercial regional rate poundage and 0·3608 pence in the pound as the domestic regional rate poundage. Today, we are not only setting the rates for Northern Ireland for the next year but, more fundamentally, charting a new direction for the people of Northern Ireland with our approach to Government. The Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 not only gives the Northern Ireland householder a well-deserved break from large increases but it lays out a challenge for Departments to deliver a more efficient form of Government. I, therefore, commend the Order to the Assembly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I thank him for his opening remarks. The purpose of the statutory rule is to fix the amount of the regional rates for the year ending 31 March 2009. Members will be aware that, as part of the draft Budget announcement of 25 October 2007, regional rates for domestic properties were frozen for the next three years, and the rate for non-domestic properties was increased only in line with inflation.

When the Minister announced the draft Budget, he mentioned that the past three years have seen regional rate increases of 9%, 19% and 6% respectively, and that the average regional rates bill had increased by 62% since 2002. The Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report on the Executive’s draft Budget welcomed the proposals not to increase the regional domestic rate, especially given the significant increase in that element of the rates during the recent period of direct rule. The Committee also acknowledged the proposal to hold the increase in the non-domestic sector in line with inflation and, therefore, minimise the burden on business. That is in line with the Executive’s wider priority of promoting economic growth.

On 6 February, officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel briefed the Committee on the proposals contained in the statutory rule. The Com­mittee formally considered the rule at its meeting on 20 February, at which a motion to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly was approved by a majority vote. I, therefore, support today’s motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I wish to put on record that I am content that the rates should continue at the levels indicated.

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

I support the motion.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I shall not be as brief as the two Members who spoke before me. The Alliance Party is opposed to this statutory rule.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Alliance Party says no again.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party says yes to proper public services in Northern Ireland and to taking a responsible and realistic approach on issues regarding taxation and expenditure. As the opposition in the Chamber, it would be easy for the party, on the one hand, to point out all the deficiencies about public spending and investment in sustainable public services and rebalancing the economy, and, on the other hand, simply buy in to decisions being taken on households and other taxation. However, that would be opportunistic and irresponsible.

The Alliance Party has not provided a fully costed alternative to the Budget. It does not have access to the resources and the information to conduct such an exercise. If and when the Alliance Party is in Govern­ment, it will be up to the party to make its own choices about how it will balance income and resources. However, party members want to highlight, with a greater sense of realism, the choices that have to be made and the potential consequences of the choices that those in Government are making.

I want to stress two important points. First, the Alliance Party is opposed to the regional rate. It would replace it with an alternative measure that is based on ability to pay, such as local income tax. Property values are not an accurate assessment of ability to pay. We are all aware of those people who are asset rich and income poor.

Secondly, like everyone else, the Alliance Party wants —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given that the Member has identified an issue here — that some people are asset rich and income poor — surely that is an even more compelling argument to support this Order in that it is designed to help people to avoid huge rate increases?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

If one is talking about an increase in the rates at the level of inflation, which is probably the most sensible way forward, then that would amount to 25p to 30p in the pound per week for the average household. That is quite a small amount. It is also worth recognising that not every household in Northern Ireland pays rates. Therefore, this benefit from the Executive will assist only some people. The people who do not pay rates tend to be those who are most dependent on public services, and the Alliance Party is concerned about the level at which public services have been funded.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Member has indicated that he is concerned that ratepayers will be paying while others will not: is he advocating the introduction of the poll tax here? [Laughter.]

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member is well aware of the Alliance Party’s proposals in this regard. My point is that some people will not benefit from what is, in effect, a cut in the level of the regional rate. However, there are some who very much depend on public services, in particular the Health Service, and who will suffer as a consequence of the underfunding of the Health Service.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Just a moment, Simon. It is important that Members bear what I have said in mind, not least when MLAs from all parties are commenting on the lack of funding in the Health Service.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

That was a good lead-in as the Member mentioned lack of funding. Precisely how much additional investment, on top of the many hundreds of millions of pounds of additional money that has already been poured in, does the Alliance Party want to pump into public services?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I have already addressed that point in my opening remarks, and the Member can look at previous Hansard Reports. It is interesting to note that Members from all parties are raising concerns about the amount of funding available to the Health Service. In the North Down constituency, a DUP councillor has been extremely vocal in pointing out the difficulties that the local health trust is having in dealing with so-called efficiency savings and is saying that they amount to cuts. He is calling for additional investment in the Health Service. Therefore, it is important to recognise that all parties seem to be concerned with the issue, although some seem to be a bit straighter with the people about the choices that are being advocated for Northern Ireland.

In the past, the Alliance Party has criticised rates increases of between 8% and 19% and has voted against them in this Chamber. They are a huge burden on people, and we join with the Minister in recognising that. However, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, along with all his Executive colleagues and their parties, has now gone to the other extreme, with a freeze on the regional rate for the next three years. In practice, that amounts to a cut.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member not acknowledge that although rating levels are being held for this year, that reflects the large increases of previous years? Does he not recognise that huge burdens will be placed on householders in the next two years with the intro­duction of water rates? Does he want higher household rates on top of water charging? Does he not recognise that that would be extremely burdensome and would cause particular hurt to the working poor — those who are just above the threshold for receiving rates relief? People who have to work and have to pay their full rates would accept that continuing to increase rates will adversely affect the working poor.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

We are all conscious in this House of the ticking time bomb of water charges — an issue which, in many respects, puts this debate into context. However, there are fundamental reasons why we need to take a responsible approach to the level of the regional rates. On the one hand, going for large increases is irrespon­sible; however, at the same time, going for what is, in effect, a cut is also irresponsible in light of the pressing need for investment in public services. There is also the issue of the other financial consequences it will have in our dealings with the Treasury.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has given way a number of times, and I appreciate his doing so again. I am trying to understand his logic. An 8% increase in the rates was such a huge burden that the Alliance Party, and, indeed, the then Member for Lagan Valley Seamus Close opposed it vehemently during a previous mandate. However, Dr Farry is now arguing that a freeze in the rates, which, as he said, would save about 25p a week, should be opposed. The 8% increase represented a weekly increase of 75p — which was a huge burden that the Alliance Party was totally opposed to — but a saving of 25p per week is being dismissed. Will the Member explain the logic of that?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

We want to avoid a situation in which we are swinging from one extreme to the other. A planned strategic approach should be taken on issues such as the regional rate. The regional rate is one element of public service funding in Northern Ireland, and it is important that it is addressed in a balanced and sustainable manner.

The extremes of having major hikes and unrealistic freezes in the regional rate are unfair and will, potentially, have to be addressed. Planning for an increase in the regional rate of around the rate of inflation is the responsible approach and will fund public services. The people of Northern Ireland are intelligent: they realise what is happening.

Northern Ireland faces a difficult financial starting point. Public expenditure here is already heavily skewed because of the distortions that result from trying to manage a divided society. It is worth putting on record that the Alliance Party will be meeting the Minister of Finance and Personnel next week to discuss how the cost of division in Northern Ireland can be addressed.

Unnecessary duplication of services carries opportunity costs for the possibility of providing quality public services for the whole community. Sadly, the Executive are not yet prepared to face up to the challenge of creating a shared future despite the clear social, economic and financial imperatives for doing so. A shared future is a marginal theme in the Programme for Government and the Budget.

The British Government have produced a tight comprehensive spending review (CSR) settlement for Northern Ireland — the Barnett formula gradually works against the interests of Northern Ireland also. The regional rate is supposed to reflect the differences between the sources of service delivery in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In Britain much more is delivered by local authorities. The regional rate, therefore, is a vital component in the funding of local services. However, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Executive, through their decisions on tax, have made a tight financial settlement even tighter. Rather than investing in public services, or rebalancing the regional economy, they have used available resources as a tax giveaway.

The Alliance Party has criticised the Budget for its shortcomings on investment in a number of service areas. Health is the major area of concern. By 2011, Northern Ireland will be £200 million behind where it needs to be to keep up with service provision levels in the rest of the UK.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is now getting the lion’s share of the Budget. Nonetheless, we are flatlining compared to those in the rest of the UK. People here will pick up on that point when they see the quality of the health services that are available to them.

I have pointed out that the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust is wrestling with the need to deliver the so-called efficiency savings. I am sure that other health trusts are in a similar position. Such efficiency savings appear awfully like cuts to services.

In due course a lot of political parties and Members from different constituencies will be pointing out the problems in local health provision and will be making claims for additional resources or the retention of service levels. When that situation arises, I will say to them that they have made their beds and must lie in them.

The Alliance Party has also highlighted mental-health provision. In Northern Ireland only 8% of the overall health budget is spent on mental-health provision. In the rest of the UK the figure is 12%. Everyone across the political spectrum is conscious of the need for additional investment in mental-health services in Northern Ireland. However, yet again, there is a reluctance to match rhetoric with actions where finance is concerned.

I could highlight others issues including environmental protection; arts funding; public transport; transport infrastructure in general; and investing in the economy. The list of public services that are being underfunded is substantial.

It is worth noting once again that several organisations, including the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), have challenged the approach that has been taken in the Budget to household taxation. I appreciate that the Minister has outlined recently his reasons for disagreeing with those organisations’ analysis; he is perfectly entitled to do so, and, no doubt, I will also disagree with their analysis in some respects. However, it is worth recognising that important, credible organisations in our society believe that we have taken a populist, rather than an evidence-based, approach to local taxation.

For different reasons, those organisations recognise that additional resources should be reinvested in either first, rebalancing the economy — the belief of the CBI and ERINI — or secondly, in addressing social problems — the belief of NICVA. The Alliance Party does not want to see the tax burden here become any more arduous than it currently is, but serious questions must be asked about an approach to local taxation that is based on populism rather than evidence.

Clearly, the Alliance Party’s proposals would not be able to cover all areas of investment, but they would make more of a start than the Executive have done to date. To clarify the Alliance Party’s position on income issues, it would involve a focus on three areas. First, the cost of segregation would have to be addressed and funds for reinvestment elsewhere should be released, thus potentially reducing taxation in the long run. Secondly, the Alliance Party would also pursue efficiency savings, although in that regard a subtle distinction should be made — for the Alliance Party, efficiency savings do not involve merely doing the same with fewer resources, but rather ensuring that resources are transferred from inefficient old priorities to more efficient new priorities and to meeting new demands. Thirdly, we would follow an evidence-based approach to local taxation. Rather than going from one extreme that comprises rates hikes to the other, effectively cutting rates, we would take a balanced approach, striving to keep rates in and around at the level of inflation.

Another consequence of the policy that has been adopted is that the parity principle may be under threat. For almost 60 years, Northern Ireland has matched the levels of social security provision in Great Britain. However, an assumption that the tax burden should be standardised as far as possible throughout the United Kingdom is behind part of the bargain that the Executive wish to make. How will the Treasury react to the approach that has been taken on local taxation?

Furthermore, how will this — or any future — Executive be able to argue credibly for favourable funding, given that the resources that we receive are used for a populist approach to taxation, rather than for further investment in sustainable public services? That is a strange approach for unionists to take, to say the least. I am also concerned about the message that the Executive are sending out to wider society: they are creating unrealistic expectations regarding local taxation issues. The Executive may be placing themselves in a financial straitjacket. There will be a time when the Executive will need to raise funds from the regional rate to pay for local services, and I fear that they are making things more difficult for themselves in the long run. A rise in rates in or around the rate of inflation would be more sustainable and would be a way to avoid those difficulties. Above all, this argument is academic, given the debacle concerning Northern Ireland Water and the very steep charges that people in Northern Ireland may now be facing.

The Executive have agreed what is effectively a right-wing Budget, and I congratulate the Minister’s success in getting the other three Executive parties to sign up to it. They have all made their choices in that regard. However, I remind the members of all the political parties that are in the Executive that they must be careful about how they argue for things over the months and years to come. They have all made their choices to sign up to the Budget, and, by implication, to the approach that has been taken to the regional rate. In so doing, they have no credibility when they raise issues regarding the underfunding of health, education or transport. People cannot have it both ways when they are in Government. I note that all the Executive parties have made that point in the past: we cannot have it both ways.

The Alliance Party’s approach is the reasonable and realistic one, and I think that the people of Northern Ireland appreciate and understand it. my colleagues and I are hearing on doorsteps and in our constituency offices about people’s concerns for the future of the public services in Northern Ireland, particularly the Health Service. People need to be realistic when they consider the parties in this Assembly and the decisions that they are making. They must ask themselves whether those decisions add up.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Dr Farry’s contribution was longer than the two that preceded it. My contribution may be slightly longer than those of Mr O’Loan and Mr Beggs, but it will not be as lengthy as that of the Member for North Down. That will be another relief for the rate­payers of Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It took that long for the Alliance Party to explain its position.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member is absolutely right.

Lest there be any doubt, I welcome the introduction of the Order. It is my rule of thumb that if rates are to be frozen, it is a good idea to vote for and support that. One reason that I became involved in politics was to help, in whatever small way I can, to ease the burden faced by ratepayers, particularly hard-pressed working families, who have endured phenomenal rate rises in recent years.

The rise in the regional rate of over 60% has been mentioned, and in one year there was an increase of almost 20%. In its own small way, and within the limited scope that it has, the Assembly is helping to ease that burden. When the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced the proposal in his Budget statement towards the end of last year, I thought that all parties would support it.

However, much to my surprise and that of many others, the Alliance Party has consistently opposed the proposal. At meetings of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Alliance Party was joined by the PUP in voting against the Order and by the SDLP in voting against the cap on industrial rates that will be discussed later. If such a cap were introduced, businesses would not pay any higher rates than they do now.

Many Members view the Alliance Party’s conversion to old-style tax-and-spend socialism as somewhat curious. It is a strange switch, and it has resulted in some DUP Members branding the Alliance Party’s spokesman on finance “Fidel” Farry. However, given the winds of change that are sweeping through Cuba, that is perhaps no longer an appropriate name.

Even though this is a serious subject, the Alliance Party’s contributions have resulted in it taking on a comic quality, to the extent that a more appropriate title would be “Bruce Forsyth” Farry. Dr Farry takes every opportunity in the Assembly, at meetings of the Committee for Finance and Personnel or when addressing the general public to say “Higher, higher.” He wants people’s rates bills to be even higher than they are now. However, perhaps “Bruce Forsyth” Farry is not an appropriate name either, because not too many people will say “Good game, good game” or “Didn’t he do well?” to him when he talks to them on their doorsteps during the run-up to the next election.

The Alliance Party states that it merely seeks a rise in the regional rate that is based on the rate of inflation, which, it argues would be a more measured option. However, when Members of the Alliance Party are pressed on how much the rise should be, they do not come up with an answer. Dr Farry repeatedly referred to health, and the Alliance Party subscribes to the claptrap that there is an annual £200 million shortfall in funding for health over the period of the Budget, totalling £600 million over the three years. To raise that money through a rise in the regional rate would require an increase of over 200%.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The figure of a £200 million shortfall in funding came from the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland: was it talking claptrap?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The amount of money that has consistently been allocated to the health budget over the years has resulted in the current situation in which, compared with the start of the decade, its budget has doubled. The money involved is not a small amount: it has doubled from £2 billion to over £4 billion. There are massive inefficiencies in the Health Service.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member accept that the Member for North Down said that the Alliance Party was perfectly justified and right in opposing an 8% increase in the regional rate during the Assembly’s previous mandate because it meant a 75p increase a week per household? Now, however, Dr Farry advocates that a further £200 million be raised through an increase in the regional rate. That would mean an increase well in excess of 8% in rate bills, but during the current mandate he can justify that.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Mr Wilson is correct. An increase based on inflation would raise a paltry figure relative to the massive increase in spending that the Alliance Party seeks. It would not even scratch the surface of the amount that their spending plans require. Even to raise the £200 million to meet the shortfall over the three-year period would require an increase of over 200% in the regional rate. The average bill would increase by £920 from the current figure of just over £400. The Alliance Party wants to inflict that burden on people.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I understand that the Member studied accountancy at Queen’s at the same time that I read political philosophy, so I will perhaps challenge his point about socialism and communism later. He said that the Northern Ireland regional rate raises some £590 million per annum, and yet he referred to an increase of £200 million as a doubling of the regional rate. Surely £200 million is merely a fraction of £590 million, rather than a multiple? That is not to say, of course, that the Alliance Party advocates the funding of that gap from the regional rate. However, given that he has an accountancy degree, can the Member explain how he does his sums?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. It is not, of course, a blanket total of £200 million that has been asked for; rather, the figure is £200 million per year, totalling £600 million over the period. When I heard of that demand coming from the Alliance Party, and from other Benches, I asked the Department of Finance and Personnel by how much that would increase the regional rate. The answer was that the regional rate would have to increase by 228% to £920. That is how much it would cost; that would be the burden on the taxpayer. Indeed, that is only a fraction of the burden that would be incurred if Alliance Members’ wishes were granted. They want a litany of things, from environmental protection to the arts, and everything in between. They want more and more —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Tractor farms.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Tractor farms and the euro. [Laughter.]

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Gulags for — [Laughter.]

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Yes, maybe they could break down the cost of division with an integrated gulag.

That £600 million, and the doubling or even trebling of the regional rate, would only be the start of the Alliance Party’s plans. Those of us who listened for years to the Alliance Party crying out for devolution under any circumstances, so that a difference could be made from the direct rule state of affairs, are bewildered by the latest nonsense coming from their Benches.

This is a difference from direct rule. If direct rule had been in place today, the people of Northern Ireland would have faced a massive increase in their regional rate, on top of what they have already paid over the years. Businesses too would, undoubtedly, already be facing the prospect of 50% industrial rates, rising to 100% in a few years. That is the difference that this Assembly is making; that is the difference that devolution is making. I warmly welcome the introduction of this Order, and give it my wholehearted support.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Mr Hamilton, thank you for the insight into your level of television viewing.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I am glad of the opportunity to question the Minister on this subject. I welcome his report and the opportunity for local involvement, at Assembly level, on the issue of regional rates. Some time ago, I brought the matter of regional rates for properties with agricultural occupancy clauses to the Minister’s attention, and there was discussion between us and with other bodies about it. Estate agents have opined that the value of properties with such clauses is 40% to 50% less than it would otherwise be.

Is the Minister now in a position to tell the Assembly whether he has addressed that anomaly in the rating system? It has already had, and will continue to have, a great effect on a number of people in my constituency of Strangford, and, indeed, on people throughout the Province. I am not sure exactly how many people are affected, but it impacts on anyone who has a property with an agricultural occupancy clause.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome a couple of things in what the Finance Minister said. He said that this was about setting out a new approach to the regional rate so as to avoid the massive increases that we have had in the last number of years, and to ensure that the public sector delivers. I do not believe that there is an elected representative in this Chamber who would wish that we did otherwise.

However, he also talked about controlling the level of the regional rate.

Although the sentiment is admirable, my party’s concern is not about the current level of the regional rate but about the creation of a boom-and-bust cycle in which huge hikes for several years will be followed by a complete freeze that will then force another couple of huge hikes. The Alliance Party does not believe that that way forward is sustainable. My party’s concern is that, for the public’s sake, rates bills are properly managed.

My party also welcomes efficiency savings. No one who sits in the Chamber believes that there is no room for efficiency savings in the public sector — no one is arguing otherwise. However, the Assembly must carefully consider areas in the public sector where the problem is underfunding, not lack of efficiency, and must confront that wherever it exists. No one argues against efficiency savings, because everyone wants to have efficient public services. However, to achieve efficiency, the Assembly must control spending and must not get into a negative cycle in which it freezes rates while knowing that doing so will put it under pressure later. It is a matter of long-term planning.

Several Members asked valid questions during the debate. However, I disagree with them in interpretation. For example, everyone agrees that some of the rates hikes that occurred during direct rule were excessive. There is no question about that, and a particular political point was being made. Dr Farry made a significant point when he highlighted the fact that the Government, which still retains control of the Treasury and the allocations that the Assembly receives from that quarter, are the same Government who believe that the contribution level from local householders in Northern Ireland must be increased.

The Assembly is now in control and cannot be forced to raise those funds through rates in the sort of measure that the Government have during the past three years. However, it will not go unnoticed if the Assembly freezes rates and then goes to the Treasury to ask for additional resources. The Assembly must be careful to ensure that when it approaches the Treasury, it does so with a rational and reasonable argument and can defend its position.

Roy Beggs Jnr mentioned poverty and the working poor. It is right that those matters be raised. Part of my concern is that people who fall into the category of the working poor will be those most damaged by the unpredictability of their future finances; the boom-and-bust cycle in which rates are fine for two years and then become outrageously expensive at the next top-up.

When those issues were debated in Belfast City Hall, colleagues who sit to my left in the Chamber made the point repeatedly that the problem was the lack of a measured approach towards rates — 19% increases and so forth — which damages people because they cannot plan for their future effectively. Therefore, for the sake of the working poor, there must be some predictability about what rates increases are likely to be — not only during the next year or three years, but in the long term.

Simon Hamilton quite rightly identified the fact that it would be easy to support the argument for no rates increase. Of course, it would be easier to tell the public that the Assembly will not be asking them for any more money. If the Assembly stopped at that point, it would be incredibly easy. However, the Alliance Party believes that the Assembly must be responsible and must tell the public that rates must be managed in a regular and measured way in order that it can deliver public services. Dr Farry clearly explained the consequences of not raising the required amount of money.

It would be easy and popular for the Assembly to simply back the notion of having no rates increase. It would be easy to put one’s hand up in favour of such a move. However, what is difficult to do is to articulate a constructive argument as to why rates must be managed differently. The Alliance Party has been accused of saying no again — in fact, that is not true. My party does not want to be destructive and negative: it wants to put forward constructive, alternative arguments, which is the opposition’s role in this place.

My party has also been accused of wanting to spend a huge amount of money. Frankly, that makes me want to laugh. If one examines the manifestoes of every party in the Chamber, it is clear that all of them made considerable commitments to the public. The difference is that the Alliance Party thought through the consequences of the commitments that it made and was aware of what must be done differently in order to meet those commitments.

Realistically, all parties must be serious when they write their manifestos and make their promises, because — since devolution — private Members’ motions have consistently called for more money for this, more money for that and more investment in the other. Those motions have come from all the parties, and the majority of them have not come from the Alliance Party — that is a false statement. Members constantly call for extra money, and I look forward to future private Members’ motions that explain from where the money will be taken.

That is the challenge that has been put to those of us in opposition, and I put it back to those in Government.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Believe it or not, I am grateful to all the Members who contributed to the debate.

As I said earlier, the Order provides the Administration with a vital tool to raise much-needed additional revenue to fund public expenditure on key services and provisions. Therefore, it is imperative that we use it wisely and get the correct balance between what is reasonable to levy on households and commercial premises, while raising sufficient funds to meet our spending requirements. We have that balance right this year and in the years of the CSR period; the public will see an Administration that makes a difference to their lives by delivering on its promises and being in touch with what is required to improve our services.

As custodians of the money raised through the regional rate, it is our job to ensure that that money is used to its maximum potential. That way, we will be able to realise a more vibrant economy and better quality services for all our people.

The main arguments on the amount set in the Order have been covered in previous debates on the Budget. Dr Farry used the same speech that he used on two or three occasions — it does not improve the more that one hears it. He stated, correctly, that parties cannot have it both ways. However, while he was saying that he was attempting to have it both ways. We must have an open, transparent and honest debate on the issue.

Dr Farry deliberately does not say how much additional revenue is required to meet his aspirations for health, transport and education. Every now and again, he makes inaccurate quips about the amount of underfund. People in Northern Ireland have 7% more money a head spent on them in health than people in Great Britain — not less. If Dr Farry is going to enter the debate, he should at least do so with accurate figures.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will give way in a moment. However, the Member might want to wait for a while because, as I continue there will be a few more questions for him to answer.

I agreed with one thing that Dr Farry said. The public are intelligent and able to see what politicians are up to. We have seen what the Alliance Party is up to — they try to show that they can meet their requirements for health, education and transport with an inflation-based increase in the regional rate for householders in Northern Ireland. In my statement, I said that — taking inflation at 2·7% — an inflation-based increase would realise £5·86 million. Will Dr Farry tell me how the £5·86 million, which — as he says he wants — would be raised by an inflation-based increase in the regional rate, will pay for the £200 million that he wants to spend in health, not to mention the millions he wants to spend in education or transport? His shopping list may be even longer than that. The Member must be straight with the people of Northern Ireland — if he asks for large sums of money for those worthy causes, the cost of which he would add onto the rates, he must tell people that he will treble their rates, rather than double them.

The answer to the question that he put to my colleague is that the £590 million is not the amount of money from the regional rate from households but from households and non-domestic properties. Therefore, my friend is right to say that the £200 million would have doubled the regional rate. That is what the Alliance Party wants. Not content with a 62% increase over the past five years, it wants to more than double the regional rate for the next few years.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I have two points to make. First, I freely recognise that more money is spent per capita on health provision in Northern Ireland than is spent elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The reason for that is, sadly, that we have greater health need per capita in Northern Ireland, and, therefore, the Budget allocations reflect that need. The Alliance Party’s point is that, as a result of the current Budget, our inability to keep up with healthcare standards in the rest of the UK has led to our falling behind. We are flatlining.

Secondly, I made it clear that the Alliance Party does not have the resources or access to the detailed information that is needed to provide a fully costed Budget. However, I have sought to highlight three areas to do with income: first, the costs of a having a divided society must be dealt with, and no doubt we shall return to that point in our meeting with the Minister next week; secondly, possible efficiency savings must be highlighted; and, thirdly, a more responsible approach to the regional rate must be sought.

The Alliance Party has not sought, at this stage, to address how it would fund the underfunding of our public services. However, the several different income strands that we have set out for Northern Ireland can be dealt with.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member has no shame whatsoever. He tells us that he does not possess the resources to garner together an argument, yet he states his approach as if it were fact. He has admitted that he does not have the resources at his disposal to realise what the real financial position is. Perhaps he should use Assembly facilities —Committee and Library resources — to obtain the facts so that he might return with answers. However, I suspect that to do so would scuttle his argument.

The Member accuses me of adopting a popular rather than an evidence-based approach. Let me give him that evidence. The increases under direct rule have been significantly higher than anybody in Northern Ireland should have been asked to bear. A 62% increase over the past five years is unacceptable, but the Member evidently does not think so. If we are to redress the balance, we are right to do what we have done — freeze rates. I would have thought that, after his recent radio broadcast, the Member would have recognised that people do not support his stance. I do not know what doors he has been knocking on, but people to whom I have spoken welcome the fact that they are to experience some relief from the massive rates hikes of previous years.

I listened to the contribution from the deputy leader of the Alliance Party. She should have listened to the old saying that one never refers to rope in the house of a hanged man. It was unwise for her to start to refer to manifestos. She has obviously forgotten that the Alliance Party’s manifesto for the local government and Assembly elections stated that there should be rates reductions. Her party advised people to watch out for the parties that would be in Government, because they would attempt to hike the rates in Northern Ireland. The exact opposite has now happened; the parties in Govern­ment want to freeze the rates in Northern Ireland. The Alliance Party has torn the page out of its election manifesto and now wants to hike the rates in Northern Ireland.

I will take no lectures from her about the need to show consistency on the issue. She argues that to have a hike one day and a freeze the next day leads to a hike in the future.

She should know — if she does not, she should speak to her husband, who will tell her — that Castlereagh Borough Council has dealt with precisely those issues. That is why Castlereagh Borough Council has the lowest rates in Northern Ireland and the lowest increases. The council consistently gives the best value to its ratepayers through precisely the same programme that the Assembly is adopting. We cannot simply pull more money out of the pockets of the people of Northern Ireland.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Minister give way?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will be happy to give way to the Member in one second.

We will get the additional required resources by making efficiencies in the system. We will save £790 million through efficiencies. That is the way to do it, rather than asking for more money from people before we remove the waste from the system. People will welcome that policy.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Minister has drawn a parallel between his budgetary approaches for Castlereagh Borough Council and Northern Ireland. Will he concede that the difference is that, unlike in Castlereagh, where people can hop on a bus and go to Belfast to use the services that are provided there, people in Northern Ireland will not have the option to go elsewhere when times become difficult and service provision is low, as it has been in Castlereagh?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If the Member knew a bit more about the subject, she would know that more people hop on buses to go to facilities in Castlereagh than the other way around. Recreation facilities in Castlereagh make money for the council, whereas facilities in Belfast lose money. The Member might wish to take some lessons from Castlereagh in that respect. The Member for East Antrim Mr Wilson found it so difficult to pay the rates in Belfast that he decided to move to Larne, so Mrs Long should not try to egg him on to intervene in the debate.

Mrs Long raised the issue of unpredictability. How can she talk about the unpredictability of future rating when — for the first time ever — a Minister has given predictability to the business sector and to householders in Northern Ireland? We have told people what the regional rate will be for the next three years. That is total predictability until the end of the mandate of this Assembly. No previous Minister has offered householders or the business sector that degree of predictability so that they can plan their finances in the longer term. I would have thought that, instead of criticising that, the Member would have thanked the Executive for providing people with a longer run-in time in which to assess their finances for the next three years.

The Member for Strangford Mr Shannon mentioned what I will describe as a “horticulture allowance”, which would be an extension of the existing farmhouse allowance. The Member came to see me with one of his constituents, and he made a strong case. He pointed out the similarities between the horticulture and farming sectors. My officials have been tasked with assessing how widespread that issue is and examining ways in which we might best address it. Addressing the matter in the way in which the Member has suggested will probably require primary legislation. Therefore, my Department is gathering evidence, and officials have written to the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service about the number of houses that have user restrictions imposed by the planning system for horticultural reasons.

I have covered the issues that were raised during the debate, and I hope that I have at least covered Members’ substantive points. If, on reading Hansard, I discover some issue that I have not covered, I will write to the Member concerned.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put,

The Assembly divided: Ayes 79; Noes 8.

AYES

NATIONALIST

Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Doherty, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maginness, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr Molloy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane.

UNIONIST

Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Burnside, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Bresland and Mr Storey.

NOES

UNIONIST

Ms Purvis.

OTHER

Dr Farry, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Dr Farry and Mr McCarthy

Total Votes 87 Total Ayes 79 [90.8%]

Nationalist Votes 31 Nationalist Ayes 31 [100.0%]

Unionist Votes 49 Unionist Ayes 48 [98.0%]

Other Votes 7 Other Ayes 0 [0.0%]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That this Assembly approves the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the Rates (Industrial Hereditaments) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008.

The Order will enable us to hold the rates for commercial premises at 30% for the next three years. It is a short but important Order that marks a significant break with the direct rule policy. The Order is a sign that devolution is delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. There are some who have said that devolution is no different than direct rule and that we may as well be governed from Westminster. However, those who wanted to see a continuation of direct rule, and the Labour Party setting policy in the Province, were playing a part in punishing the manufacturing sector and costing Northern Ireland much-needed jobs.

The agenda of this Administration is not the same as that of the direct rule Labour Government. Those who oppose devolution are supporting the return of a failed Labour Party policy in Northern Ireland. That agenda was to increase taxes on business: our agenda is to ensure better delivery from the public sector.

Making the economy the Executive’s top priority is not only about words, but actions. Therefore, the Rates (Industrial Hereditaments) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 is not only important for the much-needed relief for the manufacturing sector but for the message that it sends from the Administration to those who want to do business in Northern Ireland.

The policy of industrial derating dates back to 1929. The decision to phase out that relief was announced in April 2003 by direct rule Ministers who wished to phase it out entirely. That process began on 1 April 2005, with full rates on industrial property due on 1 April 2011.

Members will be aware that, since then, there has been concern that the measure will have a detrimental effect on business. As a result, the Department of Finance and Personnel commissioned a review by the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland, which was published in early November 2007. I am grateful to the institute for its work, but, as its report emphasised, the decision on the level of industrial rates must lie with democratically elected politicians.

During the debate on the draft Budget, I announced that we should hold the current level of industrial rates at 30%. The Order will facilitate that until 2011, and changes will have to be made to primary legislation to deal with the issue beyond that date.

I have already stated that the Administration have set economic growth as a top priority. We must demonstrate that to our manufacturing sector, and, by approving the Order, we will do precisely that. In making my decision in October, I was confident that the Assembly would support such a move, because I had read carefully the views expressed by all the parties during the June 2006 debate on freezing industrial rates, when the motion was passed unanimously.

I see that the Member for North Down is getting a little cautious — and so he should be, in case he takes the same line as he took in the Committee and hears quoted back to him some of the things that the Alliance Party and others said during that debate in June 2007.

Furthermore, I am grateful to the Committee for Finance and Personnel and to the Executive, who have endorsed my position on both the policy and the draft legislation that I present to the House. Although it is not a perfect solution, few ways remain open to us to support local industry, given the extent to which our hands are tied by the European Union. In fact, EU state aid rules do not allow us to return to 100% derating.

With regard to the longer term, I hope to bring before the Assembly an amendment to the primary rating Order to deal with the situation after 2011 and to hold the level of industrial rates at 30% for the longer term. Our current provision is, to quote the ERINI report, a “blunt instrument”. Were we starting from scratch, we might not introduce such a provision; nevertheless, in providing relief to our manufacturing sector on an annual fixed cost, this Order will give industry some confidence in financial planning. We must give a positive signal at this time.

The ERINI study included a survey of manufacturing firms, which revealed what a significant number said they would do in the event of future rate increases. Approximately 25% thought that they would transfer production to locations outside Northern Ireland. Other consequences included abandoning or scaling down future expansion plans, as well as pay freezes or reducing employment. Most firms who responded said that full implementation of industrial rates would have adverse effects on employment, with a freeze on replacing employees who leave and restrictions on recruitment.

Given the tough time our manufacturing sector is experiencing, we cannot ignore the comments of those in the front line who, in partnership with Government, are creating wealth and revitalising our economy. Equally, when there are serious issues of political and administrative bureaucracy to address, we should not ask the business sector to pay for such inefficiency.

I shall briefly describe each of the articles of the Order. Article 1 provides the title of the Order and gives its operational date as the day following that of its affirmation by this Assembly. Article 2 amends the current provision in schedule 7 to the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which provides the level of industrial rates for the next three financial years. The level will be 30% of the net annual value of for each of those years. The current levels set out in the legislation are 50% for the year beginning 1 April 2008, and 75% for the years beginning 1 April 2009 and 1 April 2010.

I commend the Order to the Assembly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for bringing the motion to the House. The purpose of the statutory rule is to determine that the non-domestic rates on an industrial property will be assessed on 30% of its net annual value over the next three financial years from April 2008. Members will be aware that, when devolution returned, the Minister of Finance and Personnel decided to await the outcome of ERINI’s review of industrial derating before taking any decision on the issue.

Having studied ERINI’s preliminary report, and in light of ERINI’s assessment that to phase out derating would indeed pose a risk to some of our manufacturing firms, the Minister announced as part of his draft Budget statement that the current level of rates would be held at 30% over the next three years.

Following the Minister’s announcement, both DFP officials and ERINI briefed the Committee on 14 November 2007 as part of the Committee’s consideration of the draft Budget. The Committee considered the proposal carefully and concluded in its report as follows:

“The proposal to freeze industrial rate liability at 30% across the Budget period is in keeping with the increased focus on the economy. However, [...] the ERINI report found little evidence to suggest that full industrial rating would lead to a collapse in manufacturing with substantial loss of output and jobs beyond existing trends in the sector. [...] ERINI also suggested that proceeding to a 50% liability would incur only a relatively small risk to industry as a whole.”

The Committee, therefore, noted in its report on the draft Budget:

“scope exists for a future review of the 30% liability.”

However, it supported the Minister in proposing the retention of the 30% manufacturing liability for the time being.

The Committee emphasised in its report that, though mindful that industrial derating represents one of the few fiscal tools at the Executive’s disposal, it considered this policy to be:

“outdated and a blunt instrument in terms of promoting economic development and sustainability in the long term.”

The Committee therefore formally recommended that DFP further consider:

“the scope for modifying the industrial derating scheme in the longer term to encourage increased business activity in areas which would lead to higher productivity”

such as research and development and exporting marketing.

In the event that the scheme could not be modified without contravening EC state aid rules, the Committee further agreed to support ERINI’s suggestion that the Executive take:

“the opportunity afforded by the review of industrial derating to build a new concordat between industry and Government which will specify what each can expect from the other in obligation and support.”

DFP’s response to the Committee’s report on the draft Budget is being presented to the Committee on 12 March. Members will look forward to what is being proposed in relation to this recommendation.

In relation to the provisions in the statutory rule, DFP officials briefed the Committee on the proposals on 6 February and the Committee formally considered the rule on 20 February. At that meeting, a motion to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly was approved by a majority vote of the Committee. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, I therefore support the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Ulster Unionist Party and I support the retention of industrial rating at 30% and oppose the escalator that had been implemented in the direct rule Ministers’ legislation. In the last couple of years I have visited a number of industrial sites, and I have learned that the increased cost of rates for industrial manufacturing companies would result in a reduction of R&D and put at risk future investment in sizeable plants, and even smaller ones. Ultimately, it would reduce employment. This is a real issue; it is not a theoretical question as to whether it would have an effect or not. Anyone who speaks to most of the companies in Northern Ireland will understand that they have to make profits in order to spend money on R&D and make investments in the future. In Committee, the Alliance Party opposed the freeze at 30%. I warn the public, and Alliance voters, that the implementation of that policy would be unfortunate. I support the retention of rating at 30%.

There are a limited number of things that this Assembly can do, with immediate effect, to improve the prospects of local companies. The Varney Review II is under way, and we all hope that it will identify some tax changes to assist the local economy. This matter is within our remit and control, and so I urge the Assembly, particularly in the run-up to the investment conference in May, to give a clear direction that it wishes to encourage private business. That will mean real jobs in the economy. For that reason, I support the motion.

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

I agree with the Minister that our manufacturing industry requires support. Although this measure is a blunt instrument, it is one of the few available to the Minister. Manufacturing requires long-term assurances, and the ERINI report recommended that, whatever the level struck, industrial rates should be held for several years. Therefore, I support the Minister when he refers to considering the long term.

My only one concern, which I expressed in the Committee, is that an issue raised in the ERINI report has not been adequately addressed. It is not my intention to allow that to cause a Division; on the contrary, I support the Order’s intention to freeze industrial rates at 30%.

I mentioned that point during the Budget debate, and I quoted from the ERINI report. In essence, when gathering industry evidence, ERNI’s experience, particularly with the manufacturing industry, was that the relationship between industry and Government was poor and that industry was not understood and supported. I therefore welcome the emphasis on that matter from the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Storey. The Committee’s ‘Report on the Executive’s Draft Budget 2008-2011’ states:

“The Committee recommends that DFP considers further the scope for modifying the industrial derating scheme in the longer term to encourage increased business activity in areas which lead to higher productivity (e.g. research & development, export marketing). In the event that the scheme cannot be modified directly without contravening EC state aid rules, the Committee would support the approach, suggested in the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI) report, of the Executive taking the opportunity of the review of industrial derating to build a new concordat between industry and government, which will specify what each can expect from the other in obligation and support.”

To that end, I call for action from the Assembly, and, given that ERINI’s report came first to the Department of Finance and Personnel and that the Committee has expressed its desire for the Department to play a role, it clearly must do so. In addition, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) are also fundamentally involved. All those Departments must acknowledge that a real need exists and begin to put in place measures that might create such a concordat. Forming a new relationship between industry and Government is not just a task for Government; the manufacturing industry also has a responsibility.

The Northern Ireland Manufacturing Focus Group campaigned powerfully on industrial derating, and it now has an opportunity, and a challenge, to do a much more interesting and, in the long term, significant job, which will be to work alongside the Government here in order to put the manufacturing industry in a better position to compete in the global marketplace.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It always strikes me as a paradox that we debate Private Members’ Business for hours, with many Members contributing, whereas, when it comes to discussing formal legislation and making it a reality, the debates are rather limited. I recognise that both the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP have contributed a little more to this debate than they did to the last; however, I note that Sinn Féin members have still to speak, and I hope that that will be addressed later. It is important that these matters are not only debated by the Alliance Party and the DUP and that other parties nail their colours to the mast.

The Alliance Party has major concerns about this statutory rule, and there is neither a sound economic nor financial rationale behind the policy articulated by the Minister.

In his introductory remarks, he articulated a very selective reading of the ERINI report. It is worth noting that the report suggested that it was safe to raise the level to 50% and that the risks would be minimal. It pointed out that not doing so would lead to opportunity costs for the public purse and for wider economic policy. ERINI also raised concerns about the nature of the survey that it conducted with the manufacturers.

Industrial derating is an old-fashioned and outmoded form of industrial support, as the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance Committee recognised in his opening remarks. It was introduced on a UK-wide level in 1929, the year of the Great Depression — although I am not sure whether there is a direct link between those two events. The practice was phased out in England in 1963 and in Scotland in 1995, and few other modern economies deploy it. Thus it is an old-fashioned form of support. It is too much of a blunt instrument to be effective. It is not about creating a modern economy; frankly, it is about preserving what we have rather than trying to rebalance the economy and engage with the new global realities.

There have been comments on the Varney Review’s very sound analysis of the situation in Northern Ireland — although its recommendations were not overly sound. It is worth noting that it does not view industrial derating as a major advantage to the Northern Ireland economy. I am concerned about remarks that have been made about this policy being critical as we look towards the investment conference. Frankly, industrial derating is not a major issue for investors. They want to see a modern-looking, forward-thinking economic policy, not one that is designed to hold back the tide of international trends.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has said that he believes that the policy is not critical. Does he accept that as well as determining whether there will be new investment from foreign direct investors, this policy can impact on where existing companies invest? Many Northern Ireland companies are linked to sister companies in other parts of the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland. Whether those companies decide to invest will be determined by a range of factors. Regrettably, our energy and transports costs are generally slightly higher than the costs in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Member accept that, in order to ensure that there will be continued investment in R&D and plant — thereby making our economy efficient — it is important to encourage existing local companies that operate in Northern Ireland?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I would encourage the Member to read the ERINI report. It sets out that the major cost issues facing manufacturing in Northern Ireland are labour, transport and energy. Property is quite far down the list. The analysis from ERINI — and also in the regional forecasts — pointed out that the level of risk was quite minimal in that respect. If the argument is being made that this policy should be in place as some sort of counter-subsidy for our energy, transportation and labour costs, the answer is to address those problems rather than allow this policy to create a further problem.

As regards the investment conference, rather than look backwards, it is important to look to the future competitiveness of Northern Ireland and how well it sells itself. The policy is not an effective way of attracting foreign direct investment or of engaging with the global economy.

It is also worth reflecting that industrial derating applies to some sectors of the economy but not others. Some commercial activities benefit, while others do not. That in itself is not fair, but it also begs the question as to whether the correct sectors are being subsidised. Indeed, while manufacturing contributes a considerable amount of gross value added (GVA) to the Northern Ireland economy, it is worth noting that many of the potentially higher GVA-producing activities would not be covered by the industrial derating policy. In that respect, it does not help to rebalance the economy and to encourage those GVA conversions that the Executive are rightly talking about.

The EU market rules mean that industrial derating would be classified as a form of state aid. Industrial derating is permitted only as a legacy policy that predates the UK’s accession to the European Union.

Mr Hamilton was handing out quite a lot of labels this morning, particularly in my direction. The DUP and the other parties that have been vocal in supporting that policy are effectively defending an industrial policy that is old fashioned and that has an element of statism about it. The Alliance Party is articulating a pro-market and liberal approach. When I was speaking during the previous debate, I was also reflecting a liberal approach to economics.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member tell the House what industrial experience any member of the Alliance Party has? I have rarely heard such an amount of drivel from people who do not know what they are talking about. Dr Farry has rehashed issues that have been gone over and over again.

Had he talked to people, he would understand the challenges that the manufacturing industry is faced with. He simply does not understand what he is talking about when he refers to sunset industries and so on.

The key challenge facing Northern Ireland is productivity. The only area that enhances productivity is manufacturing. The GVA is £49,000 per employee. Dr Farry is completely wrong. Will he please tell Members what he bases his arguments on?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It was a relief that towards the end of his intervention Mr McCrea got round to some points of actual substance, as opposed to simply engaging in abuse. The Member should read the ERINI report, which was commissioned by the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Although I have stated that the manufacturing industry makes a considerable contribution to GVA, the Member is ignorant in making the comment that only manufacturing contributes to productivity. That statement is patently false. If the Member had any understanding of the nature of the UK economy —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that there is a misunderstanding, and I ask that the Member withdraws his remarks. I actually talked about productivity increases. I did not say that manufacturing was the only contributor to productivity. Perhaps the Member should listen more carefully.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Hansard report can be read to clarify that.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

That was more of a point of information under the guise of a point of order.

The biggest increase in GVA in the UK economy over the past 10 years has come in the areas of financial services, which have become the main driver of productivity across the UK. Although some aspects of the service sector produce low GVA, other aspects produce high GVA.

Therefore, I am suggesting that although it is important that Northern Ireland continues to have a strong manufacturing presence, it is also important that the economy is further balanced by appealing to a wider range activities.

It is important to consider the differences between the Northern Ireland economy and that of the Republic of Ireland and the nature of economic activity in both jurisdictions. Radical changes have occurred in the Republic of Ireland over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, few changes have taken place in Northern Ireland during the same period.

The arguments for the retention of the policy are weak, and that was highlighted in Mr Storey’s opening remarks. The ERINI report stated that:

“if Northern Ireland was starting from a clean sheet and could choose what form of support to provide for industry there is not the slightest possibility that we would suggest adopting a policy of industrial derating.”

That is an important point.

The main argument for retention is essentially about the alleged damage that could otherwise be caused to the economy. Of course manufacturing is still an important element of the local economy. The fear is that an increase in industrial rating will have a negative impact on employment and output. Although that may be the case in some areas, the analysis from ERINI and Regional Forecasts Ltd suggests that those dangers are significantly overstated; they are perceptions rather than realities.

It is forecast that, at a rating of 50%, no more than 10% of companies would face rates bills that equate to more than 15% of their profits. Labour, transportation and energy costs are bigger issues for industry. Some may argue that although, under EU state rules, industrial derating cannot be introduced, it is permitted as a legacy policy. Therefore, if Northern Ireland were to reduce the level of subsidy to manufacturing, it could not return to the current policy.

The biggest risk lies in not changing policies. The more responsible approach is to seek to rebalance the economy — not to preserve the status quo. There is a risk involved in not taking the opportunity to do so using the available resources.

Industrial derating of 30% produces £22 million per annum, and full derating would produce approximately £70 million per annum. The Alliance Party proposes a level of 50%, as suggested by ERINI, as the more responsible approach. That would produce a further £13 million per annum for the local economy, which equates to approximately £40 million over the period of the incoming Budget.

The critical economic argument is that the lost resources and income could be better invested in economic drivers for the general good of the economy, including manufacturing. I am not a fan of selective financial assistance, but the ERINI report makes it clear that investing resources in that way would be a more effective means of providing financial support to the economy.

At a more general level, the central issue in relation to business taxation is corporation tax. Members often talk about foreign direct investment. An adjustment in the rate of corporation tax would greatly transform the economy. The Alliance Party remains concerned by the lack of fiscal and tax-varying powers that could be used wisely to modernise and rebalance the local economy and address the regional disparities in the UK economy and the economic imbalances on the island of Ireland.

It is worth nothing that the Executive seem to have given up the fight when it comes to corporation tax. No statement has been made to the Assembly either by the Executive or the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. Members are aware that Question Time begins at 2.30 pm and nothing — not even Dr Farry — will get in the way of that. Dr Farry, you may continue your contribution after Question Time, when you will be called to speak again. Members, please take your ease until 2.30 pm, when Question Time will begin with questions to the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

The debate stood suspended.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair)

office of the first minister and deputy first minister

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail when a decision will be made in relation to the lifetime opportunities strategy. (AQO 2374/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Executive’s commitment to tackling poverty is clearly outlined in public service agreement (PSA) 7 in the Programme for Government entitled ‘Making People’s Lives Better’. The PSA includes challenging commit­ments to work towards a 50% reduction in child poverty in Northern Ireland by 2010 and its elimination by 2020.

In line with its statutory obligation under section 16 of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Executive Committee will soon receive proposals for the adoption of a strategy to tackle poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation in Northern Ireland based on objective need. First, however, the adoption proposals will be presented to the OFMDFM Committee in advance of the Executive Committee’s considerations.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chéad-Aire, as an fhreagra sin. Did the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister take into account the recommendations of the all-party Preparation for Government Committee when devising the strategy?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Our ears are open to all. All suggestions that are fed into OFMDFM will be considered seriously, as they need to be. We hope to produce a plan that is acceptable and that is capable of achieving the objectives.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The lifetime opportunities strategy was introduced in 2006 against a background in which 327,000 people live in poverty, of whom 102,000 are children and 54,000 are pensioners. With those sobering figures in mind, will the First Minister explain what he will do to offset the effect of his new water tax and rates increases on the life opportunities of the poorest people in the community, while some of his millionaire friends have their rates capped at £400,000?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I must point out that I have introduced no new water tax. I do not know where the Member got the idea that I have produced some new water tax. I wish that I had a bucket of cold water to pour over him so that he might make sensible remarks in the House. All that I can say to him is that the Assembly cannot heal the sore of poverty overnight. There must be a proper plan and the ability to put that plan into operation in order to achieve everyone’s goal.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Many of the policy strategies that were adopted under direct rule have been shelved or abandoned. Would it not be better to review and amend those policies rather than simply abandon them?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I assure the Member that she can bring any such amendments before the House and we will listen to what she has to say.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the progress made in ensuring that Northern Ireland is effectively engaged in relevant European bodies and committees, in order to maximise available financial benefits. (AQO 2327/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

From its inception, President Barroso’s task force has presented a considerable opportunity to enhance Northern Ireland’s participation in European Union initiatives, both financial and non-financial. Tremendous support and co-operation has been shown to the Assembly by the European institutions, in particular the Commission. The task force’s work is well advanced.

Ministers have visited Brussels to keep the interest of key decision-makers, influential people and the European Commission. We are also using those contacts to ramp up our European engagement, and that is not just about financial benefits; it is about building networks, participating in programmes and enhancing the exchange of experience and expertise.

The Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels builds and strengthens contacts with a wide range of Brussels-based organisations, member-state representatives and other regional offices. It also raises our positive profile at major events in Brussels such as the Open Days initiative, whereby organisations across all sectors are informed of the opportunity to work with partnership organisations throughout the European Union.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for his answer and his efforts that secured the support of the European Commission for the task force and its work. Will he inform the House when the task force will publish its findings?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I hope to receive the task force’s draft report soon. Following a technical assessment of its recommendations, the European Commission will engage with Ministers in the spring to discuss our response. Junior Ministers will oversee that work, including the preparation of our formal response to the report’s findings and recommendations. The monitoring of actions plans and reporting against targets will be ongoing.

The Executive have a key role in ensuring that all Departments play a full part in Northern Ireland’s constructive and beneficial engagement with Europe.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the First Minister for his reply. I welcome the junior Minister to his first Question Time — he is, of course, a former colleague of mine.

Since May 2007, what steps has the First Minister taken to engage Northern Ireland as a region within Europe and create direct links with the EU, as opposed to national links through Whitehall, which have not always served Northern Ireland well?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I remind the Member that we have spoken to people at the highest level, such as the European commissioners, and successfully got a representative from Northern Ireland onto one of the main bodies in Europe — Northern Ireland will now have a direct input into that body. We are doing our best to build every bridge to Europe that we can, and we trust that it will not be a one-way street and that member states will start to bring some of their good things to Northern Ireland.

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

I also welcome Mr Donaldson, as a former resident of south Down, in his new role.

What arrangements does OFMDFM have for working with the MEPs from Northern Ireland?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Northern Ireland MEPs are entitled to be heard; however, I wish that some of them were heard in Europe and not in Northern Ireland.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the discussions it has had with the Northern Ireland Office in relation to ending the automatic 50% remission for prisoners. (AQO 2293/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The ending of automatic 50% remission for prisoners is a reserved matter. That, therefore, is a decision for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make.

I wish that I had the power to make the decision on the matter, but unfortunately, I do not. However, the Member will be aware that last November the Northern Ireland Office published for consultation the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. Among the proposals in the draft Order is that to end automatic 50% remission on custodial sentences. Earlier last month, we advised the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of our support for that proposal.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Does the First Minister agree that there is widespread concern and alarm throughout the whole community in Northern Ireland about automatic 50% remission? Does he agree that changes to legislation should be introduced sooner rather than later, particularly where violent crime is concerned?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I agree with the Member. However, we do not have the power to change the legislation. Nevertheless, we can make representations to the Secretary of State, and, as I have said, we have already done so, and we will continue to do so.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Given that the First Minister has stated that automatic 50% remission is a reserved matter, he should note that in December 2006, the then Minister with responsibility for criminal justice, David Hanson, announced that in future the courts would determine the period that is spent in custody. That time must be completed in full and without remission before the offender is released under licence. Some 15 months later, it would be good to know whether that new situation applies in Northern Ireland. If it does not, can the First Minister find out why?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

That subject has been discussed with the Secretary of State. I will write to the honourable Member as to the current position on that.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The devolution of policing and justice has caught the public imagination recently. Given the many calls, demands and threats that have been made about that issue, can the First Minister assure the House that it will not be addressed until there is confidence in the community?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

There will be no devolution of policing and justice until there is sufficient community confidence. That has been stated clearly to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister. The Member is aware of the triple lock that the British Government put on that matter. He is also aware that at no time did my party say at St Andrews — or anywhere else — that it would move quickly on that matter. Many issues have yet to be completed to give confidence to the entire community that the time has come to devolve policing and justice.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the recent changes made to PSA targets for children, as a result of the funding allocation for children and young people’s priorities. (AQO 2378/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

All our children will reap the benefits when we achieve our overarching Programme for Government aim of building:

“a peaceful, fair, and prosperous society in Northern Ireland, with respect for the rule of law and where everyone can enjoy a better quality of life”.

We do not underestimate the importance of the public service agreements that have been set in all Departments in order to work towards that aim. Our Department, through the junior Ministers, has a role in co-ordinating policy for children and young people. Changes have been made in some Departments’ targets. There are several such changes, and, rather than take up time now, I will arrange for their details to be forwarded to the Member.

Those challenging targets relate to key departmental priorities and must be funded appropriately from the Budget allocations.

The three Departments most closely involved in providing services for children and young people, and which have received additional funding allocations in the Budget, are the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Department of Education; and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer. I look forward to receiving that information in writing. That was what I was going to ask in my supplementary question.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I will just say to the honourable lady that ensuring that children are cared for, live in safety, are protected from abuse and receive the support that they need to achieve their full potential becomes our aim, and we will work towards achieving those ends.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

What action is being taken by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that all Ministers make timely decisions on the allocation of resources for children and young people’s priorities? Will the First Minister explain why his Department was found guilty of an underspend of £3·8 million, which was returned in the February monitoring round due to being unallocated from the children and young people’s fund?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Junior Ministers have been given special responsibility for the co-ordination of policy and the promotion of the rights and needs of children and young people. They are driving forward children’s issues; they are taking the lead in reviewing the 10-year strategy, and they will chair the newly reformed ministerial subcommittee. Junior Ministers have also had a series of engagements with several voluntary-sector organisations; they liaise with the Commissioner for Children and Young People, and they will take part in a series of direct engagements with children and young people.

Junior Ministers will shortly submit a detailed work plan, outlining their proposed actions for the next 12 months. I will write to the honourable Member about his specific enquiry.

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

Will the First Minister confirm that, although there was additional money, there was no new money for children and young people in the Budget? Will he provide details about how Departments will be compelled to ring-fence money for children and young people’s funding?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

That is not a question for me, but for my friend the Rt Hon Peter Robinson, who is sitting beside me. I am sure that he will be glad to answer that question for the lady at any time.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the planned working relationship between the department and the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. (AQO 2323/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We recently announced our decision to appoint four commissioners designate and to introduce legislation to establish a commission for victims and survivors. The commission will be inde­pendent of Government in its day-to-day operation. Our Department will sponsor the commission, and it is intended that a work programme, which will give a strategic context to their work, will be agreed with the commissioners.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the First Minister inform the House of the position of the legislation that is required to establish the new victims’ commission?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

All I can say is that that matter is under consideration, and we hope that we will soon be in a position to sponsor the legislation in the House that will be necessary to carry out the objectives that we have in mind.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In the same vein as the previous question, will the First Minister tell the House what planned working relationships within the commission for victims and survivors are envisaged by his Department? Will he give the House some indication about the status of the current victims’ commissioners designate, who been appointed but who do not have a legislative framework in which to work? What limitations, if any, does that place on their activities?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The legislation will deal with the matters that the honourable lady mentioned, and they need to be dealt with.

I regret that there is a hold-up, and I hope that it will be overcome as quickly as possible, so that the needs of those victims can be dealt with.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the First Minister corporately, on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, confirm that it is the opinion of that unitary office, that those who took part as members of proscribed, illegal, terrorist organisations — whether republican or loyalist — in the Troubles of the last 35 years will not be defined as victims or relatives, or receive taxpayers’ money, and that the concentration of taxpayers’ money that might be devoted to that purpose, will be for the innocent victims of terrorism and members of the security forces and their families?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I hope that the honourable Member will believe me this time. I have already answered that question, and I answered it as I have always done. We are talking about victims, and not about those who made them victims. It is the victims that we will look after.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the steps being taken to ensure that all sections of the community are sufficiently resourced and informed to avail of future European funding. (AQO 2312/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Equality of opportunity is an important issue for the Executive and for our society in Northern Ireland. The Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), as managing authority for Peace II, is responsible for allocating EU Peace funding to eligible programmes, and for maintaining a high level of public awareness, among all sections of the community, of Peace II finding. To that end, the Special EU Programmes Body will, again, strongly encourage funding applications from all sections of the community, through the delivery of awareness seminars and the provision of advice and guidance to prospective applicants. For the INTERREG IIIA programme, the Special EU Programmes Body will play a similar role, promoting the available funding opportunities.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

It is pleasing to know that that will be done. The First Minister is aware of the problems that beset previous European funding applications, particularly for the unionist community, that may or may not have been due to the overtly political nature of the funding regime. Can he outline further steps that can be taken to ensure that all sections of the community benefit from European funding?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I agree that there have been difficulties in the past, and those must be solved. All sections of society must be safeguarded. When I was in the European Parliament, I advocated that a line should be drawn on that matter, so that all sections of the community got their share of the money. We must now take steps to see that that arrangement can be put into operation for everyone, so that all can share in what comes from Europe.

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

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in commending the Special EU Programmes Body for its successful efforts to ensure that all sections of the community have the capacity to apply for European funding. Will he confirm that programmes will be designed and allocations made solely on the basis of objective need?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I give the Member that assurance. The Minister of Finance and Personnel has had talks with Mr Cowen from Dublin on those matters, as far as they concern both parts of this island.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for the content of his answer. Will he look at the possibility of developing rural EU networks, with a view to using EU funding to enhance rural development and to help address the social, employment and educational disadvantage created by remoteness?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. I would like to receive further correspondence from the Member on that matter so that we can take it up and push on with it as quickly as possible.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the efforts it is making to secure the transfer to the Executive of the Lisanelly Ministry of Defence military site in Omagh. (AQO 2383/08)

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

OFMDFM continues to press the British Government strongly about the transfer of Lisanelly and other military sites to the Executive. We are waiting for a response from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We recently met the Secretary of State to discuss that important issue, and we clearly set out our view that an MOD requirement for the Executive to purchase such sites at market value is a retraction from the joint declaration position. Furthermore, we pointed out the substantial impact that such an approach will have on our investment capacity, and we asked for the Secretary of State’s urgent personal intervention and support. Clearly, we want to see whether the Secretary of State is able to persuade his colleagues that the sites can be purchased at market value. The availability of funding for Government to deliver any development proposals at redundant military bases is a major difficulty. We will press the issue again shortly — directly with the Prime Minister if need be.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the First Minister’s answer, and I acknowledge that he and his office are taking the matter seriously. I want to ensure that OFMDFM continues to intervene in that way because considerable influence must be exerted in respect of the project.

Will the First Minister join me in applauding the efforts of educationalists, the local government sector in Omagh, and the MP for West Tyrone, who are centrally involved in trying to make that project a reality?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I was going to ask the Member what the MLA for West Tyrone was doing about that matter. [Laughter.]

OFMDFM is of the mind that this is an urgent matter and that the promises that were made by the then Chancellor — who is now the Prime Minister — that we would benefit from the sale of those properties must be kept. The time for keeping promises has come, and we intend to push with all our might to get what we were promised.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Chéad-Aire cá huair a dhéanfar cinneadh i dtaobh athnuachan láithreán macasamhail na Ceise Faide agus bheairic Foircille.

Can the First Minister be more specific and tell the House when a decision will be made on the regeneration of such sites, including the Maze/Long Kesh site and Forkhill barracks?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I cannot give the Member dates in respect of those matters. The principle must first be established that we will benefit, and we must put our hearts and minds to that. The promise that was made by the British Government must be fulfilled, and the people of Northern Ireland must benefit from what happens to those sites.

Agriculture and rural development

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the number of cases of bluetongue recorded in the East Derry/Londonderry constituency. (AQO 2284/08)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

11. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the restrictions in place for the importation of live animals from bluetongue-infected areas. (AQO 2353/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer question 1 and question 11 together.

I can confirm that there have been no cases of bluetongue in the East Derry constituency. Members are aware of the animal that was imported to a north Antrim farm, which, on post-import testing, gave a positive reaction to a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, indicating the presence of the virus. A total of 30 animals have been culled as a consequence.

Preliminary scientific evidence from that case suggests that trans-placental transmission of the bluetongue virus may play a part in the spread of the disease. The findings of the Veterinary Service and AFBI have been supported by the community reference laboratory at Pirbright.

The evidence for vertical and/or oral virus transmission was presented to a European Commission bluetongue expert working group on 27 February. As a result of discussions at that meeting, Commission authorities will now consider introducing proposals on controls, in addition to those in the EU Bluetongue Regulation (EC No 1266/2007), at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) meeting tomorrow. The emerging signs indicate that it is necessary to strengthen the controls in regulation 1266. However, the Commission will not introduce any additional controls ahead of tomorrow’s meeting. In view of that, and in order to protect our cattle herd and sheep flock from the introduction of the bluetongue virus, I signed a declaration last week to temporarily suspend the import of female cattle over 12 months and female sheep over six months from bluetongue restriction zones. That preliminary action is pending the outcome of the SCoFCAH meeting and further evaluation of the scientific findings.

The suspension of imports came into effect at 6.00 pm on Saturday 1 March. The decision was taken by the Executive, and it will be reviewed this week. The suspension, which is in line with action taken in the South, does not include animals intended for direct slaughter. All other cattle and sheep imported for breeding and production from outside the island of Ireland are restricted on farms and tested at 10 and 30 days after arrival, as a matter of routine. Restrictions on subsequent movement are lifted only after receipt of clear test results.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking, and what steps farmers may be able to take, in the fight against the spread of bluetongue?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department has been proactive in the surveillance and monitoring of the situation as it has unfolded. The most decisive action that the Department could have taken was the recommendation to the Executive that we ban imports. Thankfully, that decision mirrors what the industry is doing. Some farming groups have already called on the industry to impose a voluntary ban on imports from bluetongue restriction areas. That is a good example of how we have worked together to try to protect the industry from this awful disease for as long as we can.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her initial response. Will she confirm that she has had discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) about banning live animals from bluetongue-infected areas? Will she confirm that the action taken by the Executive last week — and recommended by her and her Department — is legal? If Northern Ireland were to suffer an outbreak of bluetongue and other countries in the EU banned Northern Ireland exports, what would the legal implications be?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is not helpful to deal with hypothetical questions, so at this stage we will deal with what we actually know. With regard to my discussions with DEFRA, we have been working at official level and I spoke to Ministers Hilary Benn and Jonathan Shaw last Thursday afternoon and told them the action that I was planning to take to the Executive that day. I discussed the issue with them, and we will keep in close contact with ministerial colleagues.

In taking the action that I took last week to suspend the importation of certain animals, I have given due regard to the fact that the EU Bluetongue Regulation (EC No 1266/2007) was introduced when vectors were perceived as the sole route of virus transmission. That science is now changing. The EU experts’ group has considered the evidence from the north Antrim case, and the Commission will put a recommendation to SCoFCAH tomorrow to amend regulation 1266. Therefore, following a decision by the Executive last Thursday, I have invoked powers in domestic legislation to suspend imports of female cattle over 12 months and sheep over six months. The Executive will review the position after the meeting tomorrow. I trust and hope that this will only be a temporary, precautionary measure. My action, therefore, anticipates appropriate tightening of the EU rules.

It is also a proportionate response to the unfolding situation. The decision was made after the bluetongue expert working group meeting, because we awaited the outcome of that meeting before acting. We have, therefore, been measured and proportionate in our response, but we have acted decisively to protect the industry.

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

If it is decided that vaccination against bluetongue becomes the only option to stem the virus, will the Minister confirm that arrangements are in place to ensure that there is an adequate supply of vaccine available to meet local demand; that there will not be any delay in issuing a supply to our farms; and that some herd and flock sizes and location will not be prioritised at the expense of others?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are working with DEFRA and officials in the Department of Agriculture , Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) to ascertain how best to respond to the situation, and we are talking about what to do if an outbreak is confirmed. That is hypothetical at this stage. However, we must keep the situation under review and act decisively.

As I said during the debate on 19 February, vaccination is permitted only when a disease is confirmed to be circulating in a country, and it may be administered in the protection and surveillance zones only. Thankfully, we are not in that position.

We are working closely with our counterparts in England, Scotland, Wales and the South to develop a vaccination strategy that will be appropriate to vaccinate against the spread of disease if the need arises. We are also continuing to monitor the situation carefully, and we will order vaccine if we consider that necessary. Vaccine has a limited shelf life. It is not available currently, and we want to be prudent and proportionate with regard to its purchase. However, we are keeping everything under constant review and acting accordingly.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that information. Will the Minister outline the details of compensation — or lack thereof — that will be paid to farmers who have bluetongue-infected animals, including those that were imported and those that are based locally?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is under no obligation to pay compensation for imported animals that have been affected by, or exposed to, the bluetongue virus, in accordance with The Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. That position has been made abundantly clear to the agriculture industry more times than I can remember, and it is supported by industry leaders.

If an infected animal was not imported from another country, compensation will be payable if the Depart­ment requires it to be slaughtered. Compensation for such affected animals is paid at 50% of the value of the animal, and compensation at 100% of the animal’s value is paid on unaffected animals.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what her assessment is of the current policy of the Northern Ireland Forest Service in relation to recreation at sites under its management. (AQO 2291/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The new forestry strategy that was published in March 2006 recognises the importance of forests in providing public access, quiet enjoyment and recreation opportunities for local people and visitors. The strategy provides the policy framework for the Forest Service to make forests available to as many people as possible and to achieve that by working with partners who have similar interests.

There are up to two million visits per year to forests that fall within the remit of the Forest Service. The Forest Service operates six forest parks and many forests, all of which provide open public access and which are well used by walkers. Many of those forests also host events organised by local mountain biking and motor sports clubs, for example. The forest parks provide car-parking facilities and a range of activities, including graded and way-marked walking trails and family cycle trails. Furthermore, Castlewellan, Tollymore and Gosford offer pony trekking, camping and caravanning facilities. There are also scenic drives at Ballypatrick, Slieve Gullion and Lough Navar.

The Forest Service employs a number of forest guides to facilitate educational trips by schools and other groups. At Castlewellan Forest Park, the Forest Service has leased facilities to the Bluelough Adventure Centre — an outdoors adventure company that provides a range of activities, including water sports.

I want to see further development in the social use of forests, and, in that context, the Forest Service plans to publish a recreation strategy during the next business year, which will set out a policy on recreation in forests and a framework within which recreation provision can be taken forward.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her response. Given that the Forest Service appears to be keen to promote the use of forest parks, can the Minister explain why it has started to charge mountain-bike clubs £500 a day for running events? Those charges could wipe out the sport, as clubs cannot afford the fees.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Forest Service imposes charges in order to maintain facilities such as paths and toilet blocks. It is hoped that we will be able to consider charging in the context of the recreation strategy and take the matter further. If the Member would like, I can come back to her with more detail about that part of the strategy.

Forests need to be used more broadly, and I would like them to be utilised fully. We are aware of the changing demands for and expectations of recreation, specifically the requirement to cater for more high-activity pursuits. The recreation strategy will take account of those demands and expectations, and we are working with other partnership arrangements on the matter. Proper maintenance must be provided in order to ensure a safe environment for the people who use those facilities, and such provision may result in Forest Service’s imposing a cost. As I said, we will consider the matter carefully, and I can provide the Member with more details.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I have raised the issue of motor-home facilities in our forest parks with the Minister in the past. I am sure that she is aware that a growing number of motor homes is being registered in Northern Ireland and that a vast number of people with motor homes visits Northern Ireland from across the water and elsewhere. I am aware that the Department is presently reviewing recreational provision, including facilities for motor homes. Will the Minister state what progress is being made on that review, and will she give any indication of what its likely conclusions will be?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Obviously, we are working through the review. Officials are meeting with several like-minded groups in order to implement its recommendations, but it would probably be pre-emptive to comment further at this stage. I am happy to come back to the Assembly with the proposals at a later date when they have been better fleshed out.

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

Is the Minister aware that some of the participants in the Department’s forestry scheme have not received their annual payments? If so, can she tell us roughly when they can expect to receive them?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member knows that that supplementary question does not relate in any way to the original question; however, I applaud his creativity.

In answer to his question, there have been administrative difficulties in getting those payments through, and we are hopeful that they can be made in the not-too-distant future.

Given that I answered the question, I congratulate the Member for using his imagination.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the improvements that have been made in relation to rural childcare. (AQO 2330/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. Under the 2001-06 rural development programme, 57 childcare projects received funding, with the result that a total of 170 jobs were created or safeguarded. Some 54 projects were supported under various projects, including Building Sustainable Prosperity (BSP), LEADER+, Peace II, and Peace II extension measures, with a total allocation of just over £1·9 million. In addition, three cross-border projects received funds amounting to €15,000 under Peace II measure 5.6a. Childcare initiatives will also be eligible for funds under the new rural development programme for 2007–13.

However, I am conscious that women living in rural areas still face a barrier to accessing proper childcare. For that reason, I set up a stakeholder group to examine the key issues that relate to rural childcare provision. That group is chaired by the chief executive of NIPPA, which is the early years organisation, and the remainder of the group is made up of representatives from various organisations with an interest in, or knowledge of, rural childcare issues.

Importantly, the group also includes representatives from other relevant Departments, such as OFMDFM and the Department of Education, to ensure that other relevant strategies are taken into account. The group has been examining circumstances in rural areas that affect childcare, such as accessibility and transport difficulties, childcare models that are already working in rural areas, and the cost of childcare.

One of the group’s most important emerging findings is the isolation of some rural communities regarding access to facilities that others take for granted, such as affordable and accessible childcare, and transport to and from school for children. I have received the group’s draft report, I am considering its recommendations on how current and future provision can be improved, and I expect the final report to be available within a few weeks. I will want to discuss those recommendations with other Departments and with Executive colleagues to ensure that a joined-up approach is taken to overcome some of the childcare difficulties that people in rural areas face. That approach will, in turn, make a huge difference to families who live in rural areas.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister tell us why her Department is responsible for childcare in rural areas?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Access to proper childcare facilities is a must for all parents. One of my roles as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is to be a champion for rural areas and to ensure that rural dwellers have equitable access to facilities. Rural childcare is also a priority for me, because it underpins economic and social sustainability in rural areas. The Rural Stake­holders Forum was established to examine current rural childcare provision and to suggest possible solutions to highlighted difficulties.

Of course, childcare is not solely my responsibility. Other Departments have strategies and actions in place that deal with childcare issues, but my focus, and the focus of the report and any subsequent DARD action, is on rural childcare and on ensuring that those in need in rural areas have the same opportunities that are afforded to those in urban areas. I shall be working with other Departments that have responsibilities in that area to ensure that rural issues are included in their policies and strategies, and to ensure that — collectively — we work to improve childcare in rural areas.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her detailed response to the first question. Although I welcome the figures that she outlined clearly for us, it would seem, from what she said, that the need for improvements has not been totally met. She is well aware that one of the priorities of the Executive and Assembly is to tackle child poverty. The lack of rural childcare is one problem that leads to child poverty. Has the Minister set aside enough finance to assist rural childcare opportunities, especially since the Executive have set that priority but also because need exists?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

DARD has received an allocation of £10 million to tackle poverty and social exclusion in rural areas over the next CSR period. That will provide us with the opportunity to work with others inside and outside Government to deal with a range of issues that affect rural areas, including rural childcare.

I agree that if we enable people to return to work or to get back into training or education, they can improve their economic status. The two go together, and I am very pleased that we have £10 million with which to tackle poverty in rural areas. Of course, we would love to have more, but £10 million well spent will make a real difference.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Most of Northern Ireland is considered to be rural, so will the Minister more clearly define “rural childcare”? Can she tell us which children qualify as being “rural”?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Has the Member got all day? A great deal is contained in that question. Four out of 10 people live in rural areas. That figure means that four out of 10 children also live in rural areas. For children who live near towns, where there is a critical mass, childcare facilities can be made available where there are enough children to make them worthwhile. Difficulties in rural areas include isolation, lack of registered childminders, and people not having access to childcare voucher schemes.

Although I have the draft report only at this stage, it contains a number of recommendations on how to tackle rural childcare. People who live in Derrygonnelly, Aghyarn or Rathfriland need access to quality, affordable childcare. Discussions are ongoing with the Department for Social Development, which believes that populations under 4,500 are defined as rural. That accounts for a significant section of the population. An emphasis must be placed on rural issues and on how we facilitate services, and service providers, in rural areas to ensure that people have the same access to services as those who live in towns.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to give a timescale within which the group, established by her Department and the Department of the Environment to reduce bureaucracy, will report; and to detail any progress to date. (AQO 2362/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. The review panel, as a result of a number of meetings that it has held with stakeholders and departmental officials, now has a measure of its task. A questionnaire has been issued to stakeholders that seeks evidence of over-regulation and their assessment of which regulations that DARD and the Department of the Environment are placing on the agrifood industry are unnecessarily burdensome. Once the responses to the questionnaire have been analysed, the review panel proposes to conduct workshops — bringing together stakeholders, policy-makers and inspectors — to explore the issues raised and to identify where there is scope to reduce the administrative burden on the industry. Those workshops will be conducted at the beginning of April.

The panel anticipates that it will be able to complete that stage of the work by the end of May 2008 and will spend June drafting its final report, which it expects to publish by the middle of July 2008. As I told the House previously, the targets that have been set are 25% by 2013 and an interim target of 15% by 2011.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given that 2011 and 2013 are a long way off, what is the Minister doing in the short term to reduce red tape and bureaucracy? Go raibh maith agat.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The review will result in a plan that will make recommendations for the simplification of administrative processes, aimed at maintaining policy effectiveness and public accountability and identifying areas where the associated administrative burdens can be reduced. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment will then develop action plans to implement the recommendations outlined in the simplification plan. I anticipate that some recommendations can be implemented reasonably quickly but that others will take longer. Every effort will be made to deliver the benefits as quickly as possible, and farmers will see the benefits long before 2013.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Why has it taken the Minister so long to identify bureaucracy savings in her Department when overstaffing and bureaucratic inefficiency is so apparent? Does the Minister really believe that it is not possible to identify savings in a system that needs up to nine officials, and takes nine months, to process a single farm payment application?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member will agree that farmers find it difficult to deal with the fact that many of the Department’s regulations come from Europe. The Department needs to consider how it can reduce bureaucracy and the administrative burden on farmers, and it is discussing ways to achieve that with EU officials. One of the first things that the Department did as a result of the Ulster Farmers’ Union’s (UFU) Cut it Out campaign was to address bureaucracy. Although the Department took some time to agree the composition of the panel with the Department of the Environment, it is now working, and we will soon see positive results. However, we cannot solve all problems immediately.

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

The reduction of paperwork is one of the five basic recommendations outlined in the UFU’s ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’ to cut down on red tape in the farming industry. Can the Minister tell us how many of the five recommendations she has implemented to date?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Work on four of the five recommendations is ongoing, and they are works in progress. I examined, and consulted widely on, the Agricultural Wages Board, and I decided that I would not progress that recommendation.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the reasons for her Department’s plans to withdraw the Master of Science communications course at Loughry College; and what plans it has to hold discussions with the Department for Employment and Learning in order to retain this course in the Cookstown/Tyrone area. (AQO 2365/08)

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the number of full-time students who are currently studying at agricultural colleges. (AQO 2260/08)

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

13. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the reasons for ending all undergraduate and postgraduate communications courses at Loughry College. (AQO 2360/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 5, 6 and 13 together. To put the issue in context and in response to question 6, the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) enrolled 1,561 students in October 2007 across its three campuses at Enniskillen, Loughry and Greenmount. Of those students, 641 are full-time and 920 are part-time.

In response to questions 5 and 13, no decision has been taken to end any of CAFRE’s courses. A proposal has been made to withdraw the undergraduate and postgraduate communications courses at the Loughry campus. That proposal reflects the budgetary pressures that my Department and other Departments face under the new Programme for Government. The proposal to cease the communications courses has raised several queries from Members as well as CAFRE students. I have received an invitation to meet students, and I hope to do so on Wednesday 5 March. My officials attended a Committee for Agriculture and Rural Develop­ment meeting to discuss the issue, and I subsequently asked them to consult the key stakeholders. I will take on board the views of CAFRE students and other key stakeholders in making my decision.

Over the next year, my Department will be implementing an ambitious work programme, which will include the roll-out of the new rural development programme and a series of anti-poverty measures. All of that must take place on top of our existing workload, and, at the same time, we must accommodate major efficiency savings of £6 million, £12 million and £18 million across the next three years. Although the future of the communication course programmes might not lie in DARD given the current priorities, I have written to the Minister for Employment and Learning, Sir Reg Empey, to seek a meeting with him as they might fit better in the mainstream provision that is provided by the Department for Employment and Learning.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the fact that the Minister has plans to meet with students in the coming week. If the decision were taken to withdraw the communication course programmes, where would that leave Loughrey College?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Loughrey campus will continue to offer a range of education and training programmes focused on meeting the needs of the local food industry. Graduates from the campus have good employment prospects and I encourage any young person who is interested in a career in the food industry to consider Loughrey as their place of study. The Member and I live quite close to Loughrey and we know the type of work that the college does. Loughrey’s position in mid-Ulster is no coincidence: there are many high-profile food companies in the area, and Loughrey provides a range of well-trained graduates who are eminently capable of working in the industry. Loughrey is a huge benefit to the Department and I have every confidence in the college.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

There is considerable concern in the farming community about the future of the agricultural colleges. Will the Minister confirm whether her Department has a long-term strategy for the provision of full-time agriculture courses in Northern Ireland?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely: yes. Agriculture courses, particularly the third-level education element, should be in my Department’s remit. We have an unshakeable commitment to deliver courses that will help to support our agrifood and agriculture industries.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I am concerned that the communication course programmes are being removed from the Loughrey campus, especially as the college has helped to fashion a generation of agrifood leaders and advisers in the agriculture industry. We would have been better served had the Minister first consulted the local community on whether the course needed to close, rather than act first and talk later.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member ask his question?

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Given that the Minister is going to meet the students, will she give an assurance that she will consider their views and, if need be, reinstate the course?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

First, the decision on the course has not yet been taken. To implement the ambitious programme of work that is planned for my Department, which includes the ‘Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme 2007-2013’, significant planning is required, and on that my officials are engaged. Discussions on the proposal to withdraw the communication course programmes are ongoing, including with the trade union side. Officials met the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and I have asked them to consult widely with key stakeholders. I am meeting students later in the week. Firm decisions will be taken only when their full implications have been assessed, including consideration of equality implications. If — and at this stage it is an “if” — the proposals are adopted, anyone at present on a communications course will be finishing their study. This is not something that is happening today, or next week, or next month. We are looking at the issue but everyone who is on that course will get the chance to finish it.

Culture, ARts and Leisure

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether or not consideration is being given to establishing a navigational authority on Lough Neagh. (AQO 2265/08)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department is finalising the terms of reference for commissioning an economic appraisal to assess the viability of establishing some form of navigation authority on Lough Neagh and the rivers Blackwater and Upper Bann.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Obviously this issue has huge potential for recreation and tourism.

What is the estimated cost of establishing a navigation authority for Lough Neagh?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A feasibility study in 2004 envisaged a cost of £13·2 million for a two-stage development plan to establish a navigation authority. In addition, there would have been an annual maintenance cost of £776,000. Subsequently, a number of capital infra­structure projects or commitments, primarily sponsored by local authorities, Lough Neagh Partnership and DCAL, have significantly reduced those proposed costs. Examples of such projects include the provision of a replacement navigable bridge at Maghery Cut and improved jetty moorings at Kinnego, Ballyronan, Sandy Bay, Cranfield, Ram’s Island and Antrim. Until an economic appraisal is carried out, I cannot say what the revised cost will be. However, ISNI II includes provision of £11·7 million in year 6 for this purpose.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

My question has already been answered.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Has the Minister taken any action to acquire ownership of the bed of Lough Neagh from the Shaftesbury estate, and will he consider the possibility of creating a Lough Neagh authority, charged with the development of the tourist and business potential of the lough and its surrounding region?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

No action has been taken to acquire the bed of Lough Neagh.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail his plans for the future of the Titanic Quarter. (AQO 2295/08)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Titanic Quarter belongs to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners; any plans for the future of the area would in the first instance be a matter for them.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his very brief answer. He is well aware of my interest in maritime heritage, which I have previously declared in this House. Will the Minister tell me, and the House, whether he is satisfied with the involvement of DCAL in the development of the Titanic signature project? Secondly, as the Minister knows, there is no Department in Northern Ireland with responsibility for maritime heritage as such. Can he assure me that he and his colleagues will try to resolve this matter as soon as possible?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Titanic signature project is being led by DETI and is the responsibility of that Department.

I have consulted the Northern Ireland Museums Council with a view to what could potentially be achieved with regard to the maritime heritage of Northern Ireland. Maritime heritage is something that is synonymous with Northern Ireland. It stretches as far back as the plantation of Ulster — much of the purpose of which was to produce timber to make ships — and the early Presbyterians, who left from the Ulster Scots areas to travel to the United States and make that country what it has become, right through to the building of the Titanic and the role of Northern Ireland in the First and Second World Wars. There is a huge maritime history in Northern Ireland that we have failed to reflect, and that is something that I should like to see changed in the future.