Northern Ireland Assembly, 9 June 2008

320 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The legislative framework that brought about the establish­ment and restoration of the House — the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews legislation — requires that there should be equality for all peoples in the North of Ireland. Given the recent comments by Mrs Robinson, does the Speaker consider that the matter should be referred to the Standards —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should take her seat. The Member is out of order, and she knows it — that is not a valid point of order.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the public statements that were made during the past week with reference to the approach that the First Minister may take to the discharge of his duties on equality and good relations, particularly where the gay and lesbian community in Northern Ireland is concerned, has he sought an opportunity to address the House to clarify his position and that of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That is not a valid point of order.

Speaker’s Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I inform Members that on Monday 2 June, I received a valid petition to refer a ministerial decision to the Executive Committee under section 28B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The petition related to the decision by the Minister of the Environment not to establish an independent environmental protection agency, as notified to the Assembly on Tuesday 27 May. Having consulted with the parties — in accordance with the Act and with Standing Order 27A — I have certified that the Minister’s decision relates to a matter of public importance.

On Wednesday 4 June I referred the decision to the Executive Committee for consideration, by way of a letter to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. When I am notified of the Executive Committee’s decision, I will announce it to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have been advised that the Minister of the Environment, Mrs Arlene Foster, will move the motion on behalf of the Executive.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) inclusive be suspended for 9 June 2008.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) inclusive be suspended for 9 June 2008.

Ministerial Statements

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement regarding the outcome of the British-Irish Council social inclusion meeting.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The third ministerial meeting of the British-Irish Council (BIC) social inclusion group was hosted by the Welsh Assembly Government in the Senedd, Cardiff on 20 May 2008. The meeting focused on the challenges presented by child poverty — particularly the issue of lone parents — in the eight member Administrations.

The British-Irish Council was established under the agreement that was reached in the multi-party negotiations in Belfast in 1998, and it provides a forum for its members to exchange information, discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest, within the competence of relevant member Administrations.

The meeting was chaired by Dr Brian Gibbons AM, the Welsh Assembly Government’s Minister for Social Justice and Local Government. The British Government were represented by the Rt Hon Stephen Timms, the Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform; the Irish Government were represented by Mr Gerry Mangan, the director of the Office for Social Inclusion; and the Scottish Government were represented by Mr Stewart Maxwell MSP, Minister for Communities and Sport. Minister Murphy and I attended on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive; the Isle of Man was represented by Mr Dudley Butt MLC, the political member for the social services division of the DHSS; Jersey was represented by Senator Paul Routier, the Minister for Social Security; and Guernsey was represented by Mr Al Brouard, the deputy Minister of the Social Security Department.

We discussed the recent developments on social inclusion in the Administrations and focused, particularly, on issues relating to child poverty. The group had an interesting discussion on the projects that were con­tributing most to progress in that area, and it reviewed the successful work that is being carried out by the BIC’s social inclusion group on child poverty — with a focus on lone parents, since that theme was chosen in 2006.

The Ministers noted the range of definitions that are used in that field and the comparison of statistics across the BIC region. We also acknowledged the findings of the literature; a review of the existing evidence based on tackling child poverty, particularly among lone-parent households; and the key challenges met by member Administrations. Furthermore, we commended the examples of good practice in tackling such challenges.

We considered the merits of each of the four potential new areas of interest to be taken forward by the BIC social inclusion group: older people in long-term care; homelessness and affordable housing; the voluntary and community sector; and migrant workers. We agreed that the work over the coming year will focus on the contribution of the voluntary and community sector in promoting social inclusion.

The work carried out by the officials will continue to seek to strengthen and consolidate the ongoing co-operation and exchange of information experienced in best practice between member Administrations. The National Assembly for Wales presented a paper on child poverty. The Ministers welcomed and noted that the next ministerial meeting will take place in Scotland; and further details are to be confirmed.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas seo agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as.

My question emanates more from my involvement in the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister than it does my chairmanship of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. As part of the OFMDFM Committee’s inquiry into child poverty, the Committee has been examining the relevant issues.

OFMDFM furnished us a copy of the report last week. Will the Minister say what action the Executive plan to take to ensure that the report leads to improve­ments in policies and actions to tackle child poverty, including, for example, joint initiatives with other Administrations? We welcome the report and statement, but where is the action plan for the Executive?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Executive remain committed to dealing with, and tackling, the issues. We will continue to work with other Administrations in the British Isles. The Department for Social Development (DSD) will take the lead in developing our plans for tackling poverty.

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) also has a key role to play. It has a unit that is dedicated full-time to the issue of child poverty. Therefore, the Executive will make the case to the Assembly for adequate support, funding and recognition, and they will do so through the Department for Social Development and OFMDFM.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

At its launch in November 2006, ‘Lifetime Opportunities: Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland’ set a target of halving child poverty by 2010-11, and its complete eradication by 2020. Will the Minister state whether those targets are being met and remain achievable?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Those targets remain achievable across the UK. I am interested in a proposal that the UK Government are considering. That proposal is to guarantee that anyone who is coming off benefits and going into employment receive at least £50 a week more than they did while on benefits. That would assist a considerable number of people living on benefits.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, and for its focus on the eradication of child poverty. The statement said that the voluntary and community sector would be looking to eradicate poverty and promote social inclusion. Given budgetary constraints, and how other funding is being diverted towards meeting the challenge of the Olympics, how does the Minister intend to support the voluntary and community sector?

On the subject of social inclusion, will the Minister comment on what has been said by his DUP colleague, Mrs Robinson, on the lesbian and gay community? Her comments further isolate that community.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I deplore Mrs Kelly’s attempt to introduce a matter that has no relevance to the issue under discussion. The Member’s behaviour demonstrates how little interest she has in social inclusion, child poverty and the voluntary sector.

Other regions in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man look to Northern Ireland for its voluntary-sector expertise, which has been built up over many years, mainly through European funding. Reduced financial support from Europe means that the voluntary sector faces challenges. The Government will try to help where we can, but many projects must become self-sustainable or face being discontinued, because the funding just does not exist.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members are reminded that this is an opportunity to ask questions on the Minister’s statement.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Older people and their long-term care are among various issues on the work programme. Bearing in mind that the Executive have failed by totally excluding free personal care from the Programme for Government, will the Minister, through the BIC — and particularly the Scottish Executive — get free personal care for older people in Northern Ireland back on to the agenda?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will be glad to know that I raised the issue of elderly people, especially the difficulties that they currently face, given their static budgets and the rising costs of living — in particular, the rising cost of home heating and food. It was agreed that, as part of the review that is being conducted on the voluntary and community sector, we will consider how that sector can contribute to the well-being of older people.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am delighted to note the four new areas that the Council will consider in the future. Given that my colleague Kieran McCarthy has just asked about the Council’s role in its deliberations on older people, I want to raise the growing problem in Northern Ireland — and right across the United Kingdom and these islands —regarding migrant workers — that is, the role of migrant workers, the conditions under which they work and their housing problems. Will the Minister specify whether the issue of migrant workers, and the problems that assail those persons, will be considered by the Council in the future?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The issue of migrant workers is one of the topics that was considered for the next discussion group. Unfortunately, only one topic could be chosen, and, on this occasion, the voluntary and community sector was selected. We recognise that migrant workers in Northern Ireland and Great Britain comprise a significant population. That brings its own problems, which we need to deal with and be aware of to ensure that immigrants can expect a reasonable quality of life and standard of living.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I also thank the Minister for his statement, and I realise that he is speaking in his capacity as a member of the Executive and respresenting the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Will the Minister state what information has been exchanged among representatives of the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government and the National Assembly for Wales that we could beneficially use given that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is currently conducting an inquiry into child poverty? Next week, the Committee will present a report on that inquiry to the House, and any available information would be very handy.

During the Minister’s statement, he mentioned the fact that the National Assembly for Wales presented a paper on child poverty in its Administration. Will the Minister indicate what targets that Assembly has set, whether they are rigid and, if so, whether they are achievable?

The Minister referred to the future work programme and help for those of a certain age, as well as the issues of homelessness and affordable housing. Will he state when those issues will be presented to the Assembly and to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, through the British-Irish Council?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are common problems and challenges in all Admin­istrations. We must explore such issues, and, in order to align policy and delivery, we share information and report on issues such as access to affordable childcare, in-work poverty, partnership and joint working with local government and other stakeholders. Study visits and good practice have been valuable to officials, and there are some successful, innovative interventions that OFMDFM, as well as other Departments, can examine more closely and possibly implement.

Other Administrations have also been learning from us. For example, initiatives such as the work being conducted on benefit uptake by the Department for Social Development are being shared with the Scottish Government. An anti-poverty strategy is currently being reviewed by Ministers before it is circulated to the Executive. In the development of that strategy, Northern Ireland Departments can examine successful projects from other jurisdictions and consider what may be appropriate for us to implement. When we are determining the way forward, we will, of course, take account of the recommendations in the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s report.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That ends questions to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The House can take its ease for a few minutes as we await the arrival of the Minister for Regional Development.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on the regional development strategy.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise for being slightly late.

My statement marks the start of our review of the regional development strategy (RDS). I want the review to be an inclusive one which will hear, and benefit from, a wide range of views and options.

Although we have differing views from time to time, we are united by our stewardship of the North, and we have a responsibility to our children to step back from the day-to-day management of Government and consider what we want for the North in the longer term. What sort of place do we want our children to inherit, and how many people will live here? How do we help to grow our economy? Where do we want our children to live, work and play? What do we mean by regional balance, and how can we work towards it? How should we respond to climate change? How can we obtain the most benefit from investment in our infrastructure? How do we position ourselves in a North/South, east-west, European and world context? Finally, how do we better respond to the speed of change around us?

Those questions take us beyond the time frame of our Programme for Government, so a long-term vision, within which all our actions can fit, is required. A vision without clear direction on how to achieve it is not worth the paper it is written on. Our vision must include clear and strategic direction on how it can be achieved by numerous small steps now and in future years. That is the role of the regional development strategy.

My Executive colleagues and I have discussed and agreed the need for a fundamental review of the regional development strategy. The new strategy will be different: it will be relevant to key stakeholders and flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances, yet robust enough for decision-making; it will set priorities and list a selected number of key infrastructure projects that are essential for economic growth; it will take account of, and be relevant to, structures and functions that emerge from the review of public administration; and it will take account of the many changes that are happening around us.

The speed of change is what strikes me: standing still is not an option. We must embrace change and be part of influencing and guiding our future. Ours is a growing population: population projections show growth greater than had previously been expected. By 2012, we will have a population of over 1·8 million in the North, and it is possible that it could exceed 2 million by 2030. However, where people choose to live is changing. Years ago, many people fled Belfast due to fear that was caused by intimidation and violence. Between 1995 and 2005, the population of Belfast fell by almost 25,000 to 268,000 — a drop of more than 7%. In that period, all other council areas experienced population increase.

For a time, Belfast was one of the greatest cities in these islands, and it should be our goal to make it great again. The success of the North depends on that. A strong Belfast is not a threat to other areas. For many years, we have argued over the allocation of funding to Belfast at the expense of other areas. There is an imbalance in the infrastructure between east and west, which I am addressing through investment in roads and rail. However, we must get away from the narrow sectional debates and look broadly at our region. We must examine how our cities, towns, villages and countryside areas support and interlink with each other, and how they are all important.

We need a discussion about what regional balance means and about how we unlock our potential to grow as a region.

Given the different political perspectives, that may be a difficult issue for us to tackle. However, it is an issue that we cannot, and should not, duck. I am determined to lead the debate, and, in doing so, will set the tone for a mature debate that is evidence driven and that will benefit the people of the North.

The original regional development strategy recognised the role of Derry — the regional capital of the north-west, a city with over 90,000 people, which sits on a magnificent setting on the banks of the Foyle, and which has a rich and long history — for the first time. I want to develop that even further.

The Executive have endorsed the cross-border work in the north-west and have recognised the linkages between Donegal, Derry, Limavady and Strabane. Joint investment by both Governments in the airport, in the road that links the north-west to Dublin, and in dualling the road from Derry to beyond Dungiven are but some of the projects that link the north-west better with the island as a whole. How can we maximise the potential of those projects? How can we attract more investment to the north-west? Those are just some of the issues that the review of the regional development strategy will consider.

In the south-east, the city of Newry has seen amazingly strong growth in recent years. Ideally sitting, as it does, between the two main cities on the island — Dublin and Belfast — it has benefited from that economic corridor. Like Derry, it is developing its cross-border linkages with Louth and Dundalk, recognising the potential of working together. Again, I want to explore how we can support and develop the further growth of Newry and its surrounding area.

Stretching north from Newry, places such as Banbridge, Craigavon, Dungannon, Cookstown and Magherafelt have experienced strong population and economic growth in recent years. Together, those council areas have experienced a population growth of more than 9%, which is well above the regional rate. The strong growth of that band, which runs through the middle of the region, brings with it new issues about the delivery of services and infrastructure.

Further west, Omagh has also performed strongly. The development of the A5 and A4 will open up new opportunities for Tyrone and Fermanagh. My role is to ensure that we maximise the potential of that investment.

In speaking about the different areas, there is always the risk of offending some people by leaving out their area. The people in the areas that I highlighted are no more important than people anywhere else. One aspect that makes this land so special is our settlement patterns: we have strong links to land and to place, and a more dispersed settlement pattern than other areas.

While that is what makes us so special, it brings with it challenges. It makes us heavily dependent on the car. Year by year, more and more cars are driven on our roads. Between 1992 and 2006, the number of cars increased by 80%. There are now 800,000 cars on our roads; more journeys are made within the region and beyond; people commute further and further to jobs and schools; and there are more routes to new destinations from our airports.

How do we manage such growth? For example, how do we improve access to our ports and airports, which are so important to an island economy? Part of the answer, undoubtedly, is better roads. Increasingly, though, we also need to focus on public transport. We need to think about reducing the need to use a car by better planning of where homes, schools and shops are built, and of where jobs are available. I am also initiating a review of the regional transportation strategy, which will consider such issues in detail.

The environment and our response to climate change will influence all our actions now and in the future. We are privileged to live in a place with a rich, natural environment, including the Causeway Coast, Rathlin Island, the Mournes and the lakes of Fermanagh, to name but a few. Our approach to the environment needs to find a balance between protecting it and unlocking the potential for tourism.

Increasing demand for new homes, sometimes in unsustainable locations, more cars on our roads and increasing demand for energy all impact on our environ­ment. Transport is a key contributor to carbon dioxide emissions: there has been a 41% increase between 1990 and 2005. We are already doing much to improve and protect the environment, but, can we do more?

Before setting out a new approach to regional development, I will make some comments on the existing regional development strategy. It was the first regional spatial plan produced in England, Scotland, Wales and the South. In many ways, it set new approaches that were later applied in those other jurisdictions. At that time, it was recognised as a best-practice document, and it reflected the emerging European thinking on planning for regional development. It is something that we can rightly be proud of, but time moves on, and it is time for change.

I inherited from the direct rule Administration a five-year review of the strategy, which considered the need for detailed adjustments, but did not address the principles in the regional framework. The results of that review are adjustments to some aspects of policy on economic development, tourism and rural areas. That work will be published this month.

The five-year review was not a fundamental assessment of the strategy. For timing reasons, the opportunity did not exist to take account of significant issues that have emerged recently and that influence how we plan for the future. Such issues include higher than expected population levels; the need for more houses; climate change; and how to plan to maximise the use of existing infrastructure and facilities in our cities and towns.

It is clear that although many of the policy directions in the existing RDS are still sound it has not had the influence that was anticipated. That was due to a combination of factors, including insufficient detail and clarity on matters such as housing need, rural development, and the growth of cities and towns.

There has also been criticism over the use of housing figures in the strategy. Many see them as unnecessary for, and restrictive to, forward planning. Others want some indication of housing need, but in a way that better reflects local need and the growth potential of particular areas.

We need to better understand the contribution that rural areas make to regional success and how we can support the cities, towns, villages and countryside beyond Belfast and the north-west to prosper and grow.

The RDS can only be delivered through the plans and programmes of individual Departments and agencies. I do not see the RDS as a Department for Regional Development (DRD) strategy, but as one for all of Government and beyond. Many of its policies are being taken forward through development plans prepared by the Department of the Environment (DOE). However, for a variety of unforeseen reasons, the roll-out of the development plan programme has been slower than hoped, and the rate of impact of many RDS policies has suffered.

There is now an opportunity to learn from experience and to prepare a new regional development strategy that is fit for purpose and takes account of recent emerging trends that affect how we plan for the future.

With the unprecedented levels of expenditure we plan to make over the next five to 10 years, we have an opportunity to influence this land much more than previous generations did. More than £3·5 billion will be spent on transportation alone. That is our challenge and our responsibility to future generations.

I am conscious of the need for this major review to be concluded quickly. It is essential that new policy directions are developed to a point where they can inform the next investment strategy, which is planned for 2009. Although the review is planned to take up two years, I will assess ways to shorten the process where possible. I am, however, very aware of the need for involvement from all Departments and key stakeholders, which will take time.

The timetable is challenging. I have set up a number of groups to take the review forward. The Executive have agreed to a ministerial subgroup; and the first meeting with ministerial colleagues is due to be held shortly. I am also keen to benefit from the considerations of the Committee for Regional Development, which received an initial briefing on 28 May.

I have also reformed an interdepartmental steering group of officials at a more senior level and I welcome Departments’ commitment to that approach. The first, and very constructive, meeting of that group was held on 28 May. I have also extended the membership of the external working group, which provided important input to our work on the five-year review.

There are other important initiatives, which I will take into account. The DOE is undertaking a reform of the planning process, and I will meet Minister Arlene Foster to discuss the important relationship between the RDS and development plans.

I am also fully aware of the need to take account of structures emerging as part of the review of public administration. Although regional planning and policy statements will remain a central Government function, it is clear that the relationships with local planning and development management must be structured in an efficient and effective way.

The strategy deals with a wide range of environ­mental, social and economic matters. It affects the working of all involved in regional development. I am therefore aware of the need to consult widely and effectively. I want to ensure that this is managed in a way that allows the timely emergence of revised policy to inform budgetary and investment decisions.

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

I said at the start of my statement that we needed a long-term vision within which our actions can fit. That vision must include a clear strategic direction about how it can be achieved. My aim is to produce a revised regional development strategy that can accommodate the economic growth now expected in the medium-to-long term. That means a strategy that sets directions for the location of jobs, houses, businesses, public services, and facilities across the whole region.

The strategy must seek to make Belfast a great city once more, build on the significant opportunities for growth in the north-west and its hinterlands, and provide connections for North/South and east-west development.

It must better recognise the role of all cities, towns, villages and the countryside, and how they all support and work together with one another. That approach may include identifying key regional projects, which are considered essential for balanced economic development.

In dealing with all those issues, the RDS must set out a clear high-level vision for the North. It will have a strategic focus. It must be an aspirational document, setting out the actions needed to translate the vision into reality. It will focus on the development of regional significance, including population, environmental issues, telecommunications, housing, economic development, and infrastructure developments.

It must be an enabling document that sets out the interventions required of the Executive to make that happen. It is not a DRD document; rather it should become the Executive’s spatial strategy and plan.

The RDS is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. It must concern implementation, and the actions and priorities necessary to deliver the vision. It must set out how connections could be made to deliver a more sustainable future development.

It will play a key role in informing how places are shaped and developed at a local level. The review is, clearly, a very challenging and timely piece of work that gives us the opportunity to shape the future of the North over the next 20 years. I look forward to working with my ministerial colleagues and the Assembly as the work develops. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

The Minister will be aware of the Committee’s interest in the relationship between brownfield sites and greenfield sites. To that end, will he explain how he intends to ensure that the maximum amount of development in our cities and towns takes place in brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Chairperson for his remarks. The existing regional target — for 60% of additional houses to be built in existing urban areas — has been successful. That figure has been exceeded since the RDS was adopted in 2001.

While the potential for building in urban areas may change over time, it is right to maintain the current approach, so that the potential for building houses in appropriate locations in existing urban areas is maximised. However, it must be recognised that building more houses in urban areas must respect the need to protect the character of residential areas. In that context, Members will be aware that — as part of the five-year review of the RDS — I have changed the definition of “brownfield development” to exclude gardens.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Members will have noted with interest the Minister’s statement on this important issue. In particular, they will have noted the concentration on Londonderry and — surprise, surprise — Newry. There is a concern that the revised RDS will concentrate resources into areas west of the Bann.

Will the Minister assure Members that resources and infrastructure will be distributed evenly across this part of the United Kingdom, with no particular bias towards any city or town?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

If the Member listened carefully — as I am sure he did — he will have noticed that I mentioned every county in the North and most of its major towns.

The Executive recognised the imbalance in regional development and set the task of redressing that imbalance as part of the Programme for Government. The rewritten regional development strategy provides a very clear opportunity — to which all Members will be given an input — to do what the Executive recognised, which is to redress the regional imbalance.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I welcome the Minister’s statement, and his commitment to areas west of the Bann in particular. Does the Minister think that the RDS will help to end regional imbalance?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In itself, the RDS cannot deliver regional balance, but it sets out the framework and actions that are required to achieve balanced growth throughout the North. That must address the important role that Belfast has as the regional economic driver, and how all parts of the North can benefit from that.

Derry city has a significant role to play in creating a prosperous north-west. Equally, it is important that the economic potential of district towns — some of which act as gateways — is maximised. The RDS has a role in setting out how those component areas can best be developed, and the priorities required to deliver growth. I am also considering the possibility of identifying regional projects that are required to deliver regional prosperity in the areas of infrastructure, development, energy, telecommunications and tourism.

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

The Minister told us that the RDS is only a strategy, and not a means to an end — we accept that. However, does the Minister agree that there are serious outstanding deficits in the north-west? Derry is the only city that is not linked to the capital city by a decent rail service. In addition, it is the only city that is not linked to Belfast by a proper motorway. Above all, the town of Dungiven has the highest carbon dioxide levels of anywhere in these islands. Does the Minister agree that additional finances are urgently needed to address those imbalances? I am sure that Mr Wells would be happy to support those basic human rights.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We have identified the finances that are needed to support those connections. As the Member is very much aware, I lifted the investment ban on the railway line between Coleraine and Derry. Money is being spent on the line between Belfast and Ballymena.

We have identified a substantial project to improve the service between Belfast and Derry — especially the morning service into Derry city — and we have brought forward the plans for the A5 and A6, including the bypass at Dungiven. The money and resources have been identified for all those projects. The importance of the north-west, and Derry’s role in the north-west as an economic driver, is recognised. Derry’s port and airport are also recognised as key features, and resources have been identified to support them.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the Minister’s comment on the definition of brownfield sites. The statistics in the RDS form a major part of the evidence base that supports long-term planning for public-sector capital investment in infrastructure. Those facts diverge from what is happening on the ground, due mainly to the area plans not having flowed in sequence. What action will the Minister and his counterpart in the Department of the Environment take to ensure that there will be a smooth transition between area plans in order to make sure that runaway speculative development does not shape the nature of development in our cities?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have scheduled an early meeting with the Minister of the Environment to discuss those matters. The regional development strategy is a high-level Government document that refers to the region as a whole and to where the Government would like to see development. Area plans then follow on from the regional development strategy. The Minister of the Environment has initiated her own review of the planning process, so it is important to ensure that the strategies dovetail.

The previous regional development strategy was a huge document, but its impact on planning and development was not as expected. When drafting the new document, we have an opportunity not just to take into account new issues that have become more important, such as the environment, imbalance and other such matters, but an ability — with a functioning Executive — to ensure that there is a read-across through all Departments.

The review will take place on several levels. For example, there will be a ministerial subcommittee that will involve others besides the Minister of the Environment and me. A high-level group of civil servants from every Department has already met, and I was pleased with the seniority of the people in that group and with its commitment to the process. An external working group also exists, and that will bring in influences and ideas from outside Government. There is a real opportunity to ensure that a joined-up Government approach is taken to the strategy and that the Department for Regional Development does not simply produce a document to see whether other people recognise it.

As I said earlier, I hope to produce an Executive document that will guide regional planning. Other strategies will then flow from that document.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the fact that the Minister’s statement has ensured that the review will take us beyond Sinn Féin’s 2016 united Ireland fantasy and that the Minister accepts that Northern Ireland will be part of the United Kingdom for the long term.

The Minister referred to the need to better recognise the role of our cities, towns and villages, and he considered population growth in places such as Banbridge and Craigavon. Will the Minister turn his attention to seeking assistance for towns such as Lurgan, which have had the heart blown out of them by terrorist bombs and have suffered economically ever since? Will he also prioritise infrastructural improvements to reflect population growth in places such as Lurgan, Banbridge and Portadown?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Whatever the constitutional future — and that is still up for question — we will still need to develop the region and we will still need good policies to govern that development. We will still need regional development strategies, whether the future is in an all-Ireland context or in the current restrictive political context within which we now operate.

Part of the current strategy recognises clearly the all-Ireland links that have developed substantially over the past few years. It is ludicrous to talk about the development of Derry in isolation from the development of the north-west as a whole, including Letterkenny and other parts of County Donegal. Similarly, it is ludicrous to talk about the development of Newry without involving Dundalk and County Louth.

The Member asked about Lurgan and other towns. It is clear that a central band of towns has experienced significant growth, and Craigavon Borough Council covers one of those areas. One of the weaknesses that was identified in the previous document was that it focused on Belfast.

It provided, for the first time, some degree of focus on the north-west and on Derry’s role, but it was less focused on the rest of the North. The strategy offers the opportunity to refocus on all areas; not by trying to be all things to all people and giving everyone a nod, a wink and a mention, but by refocusing on development and identifying the areas in which the population is concentrated, and assisting them to achieve their potential for growth. Part of the strength of the new approach is that it will involve all Departments, which ensures that any plans will be co-ordinated.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed statement, and I welcome his recognition of the growth in the mid-Ulster towns of Dungannon, Cookstown and Magherafelt. Will he examine the fact that there is, unfortunately, no linkage road, as the A29 does not link the three towns? Does he accept that, in the past, the RDS was not flexible enough to respond to the number of new homes required for the local and migrant populations? How will he address the issues of equality? In particular, how will he deal with the decentralisation of Departments to rural areas, such as mid-Ulster?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

If I could achieve all that, I would be very popular. The weakness of the last strategy document was that it did not have the required flexibility when the predicted population growth was exceeded. The document included housing-growth indicators and, in some areas, became a bar to development, rather than allowing development in areas to which people were trying to relocate due to the availability of jobs. Therefore, the RDS must be a more flexible document.

The housing-growth indicators have been a thorny issue, and perhaps there is scope for new thinking on that. Rather than trying to curtail development in certain areas, we should identify areas of increasing population and determine what must happen to support that. Development must be sustainable and not damage the character of any area, but the housing-growth indicators have a restrictive — rather than an enabling — influence. In many ways, the Department views the development of the document as enabling — rather than restricting — development. All development will be subject to new equality impact assessments that will consider how to balance development throughout the North and between east and west.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

In Newry and Armagh, which is my constituency and that of the Minister, there is a wealth of small and medium-sized rural businesses, many of which not only supply the Northern Ireland market, but export to countries throughout Europe. The Minister will accept that such businesses play a vital role in the rural economy of Northern Ireland, but does he accept that the infrastructure of roads in many rural areas requires vast improvement to assist existing businesses and encourage continued growth in the rural economy?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I accept that, if the resources were available, the roads in all rural areas could be improved. However, limited resources force the Department to prioritise the roads that are used most. I accept that, throughout rural areas, small and medium-sized enterprises sustain the population in many ways. The Member is aware of the downturn in farming in recent years, and more people are turning to small businesses to enable their families to continue living in rural areas.

The Executive’s central focus is on economic growth, not only through large inward-investment projects, but by supporting local economic growth and small and medium-sized enterprises. Francie Molloy also made a good point about rural roads, and my Department tries to employ the limited resources in the best way possible. With an awful lot more money, we could do a great deal more, but we are restricted by our budget.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

As the increasing dependence on cars and the growing demand for energy are having an impact on the environment, how will the regional development strategy bring about the required sea change, particularly the reduction in carbon emissions?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That can be done, provided that a long-term view is taken. Although carbon-emission levels in other sectors are declining, they have risen by 40% in the transport sector — it is the one area in which a significant increase in carbon emissions has occurred, and that is damaging. It is a long-term trend about which we must do something.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the commuter belt around Belfast has widened. The population is increasing further south, west and north of Belfast, whereas there has been a reduction in the population of Belfast itself. That means that more people are travelling in and out of Belfast, because that is where a huge number of jobs in the North is located. Therefore, more commuting takes place, and from greater distances. That contributes to an increase in carbon emissions.

Several factors must be taken into account. One factor concerns where jobs are located and where development is happening; another concerns public transport, in which it is clear that significant investment is required. The predictions are that, in the next 30 to 40 years, 40% of the population of Ireland will live on the east coast, in the corridor between Belfast and Dublin. That will raise some significant issues for commuting and transport. Therefore, the regional development strategy, which looks beyond current budgetary planning and investment-strategy planning, must identify, as far as is possible, emerging trends. It must also identify what needs to happen in future in order to try to reduce carbon emissions and make a real contribution to the environment.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

I thank the Minister for his statement, in particular his reference to Newry’s growth. Last week, we discussed the importance of a southern relief road in the further development of Newry, and I am sure that that will be included in any future strategy. As a point of information, my support for a southern relief road does not imply opposition to the Narrow Water bridge project, as the Minister seemed to think was the case last week.

Does the Minister agree that the possibility of enhancing the growth and development of Armagh city — including better cross-border infrastructure — must be explored? Can he confirm whether a much stronger North/South element will be a central theme throughout the revised regional development strategy? Will the strategy lend support to such cross-border projects?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

To answer the Member’s final question first — yes. The purpose of rewriting the regional development strategy is to take account of new developments, and one key development is the much stronger North/South linkages. I said that Derry and Newry’s association with the border meant that they could not be considered for development in isolation.

The Member asked about Armagh city. We want to consider development potential right across the board, and if there was a weakness in the original strategy, it was that no specific focus was placed on areas outside Belfast and Derry. Places were labelled as hubs on maps — when I last visited Armagh City and District Council, councillors wanted to know whether Armagh was still a hub. I told them that it was, but that did not mean very much. Armagh may be described as such on a map, but what does that mean? What development flows from that description? Rather than to try to be all things to all people, and to give everybody a mention, we want a regional development strategy that works. Central to that are North/South linkages, because that is where the development potential lies.

People have — foolishly — joined one camp or another over the issues of a southern relief road and the Narrow Water bridge project. I make the point that every time Mr Bradley’s counterpart and namesake gets up to flog the merits of the bridge project, someone else gets up to promote the road. Mr McCallister asked me last week whether I was signed up to building a southern relief road, because that was in the develop­ment document. However, the Narrow Water bridge project can also be found the development document. Like the Member’s party colleagues, I was happy to sign up to the document, and that means support for both projects, as Mr Bradley rightly says.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and I thank him for it. He stated that the approach that is taken to the environment must seek a balance between protecting it and unlocking its potential for tourism. The main stumbling block to the development of tourism is poor roads infrastructure. Will the strategy ensure that tourism will be given the same priority as the rest of industry? Go raibh maith agat.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

One element of the strategy is, obviously, to reflect the Executive’s Programme for Government. There is no point in having a regional development strategy that is at odds with the Programme for Government, a central aim of which is to grow the economy. Tourism development is one of the key sectors in the North and, I am sure, throughout the island.

Several Members raised the point about roads. With its current budget, the Department will continue to struggle to provide the type of roads that people believe that the North deserves. That is why there must be prioritisation to try to develop key transport corridors — the roads on which there is most traffic. Had the Department received a much greater allocation from the Treasury, which it was able to spread as best it could across all other roads, there would be a much better roads network. The Department will continue to do all that it can with the resources that is has to try to improve the roads network.

If the regional development strategy, which dovetails with the Executive’s Programme for Government, recognises that growth of the economy is at the programme’s centre and that tourist destinations are vital for economic growth, the strategy will obviously reflect the need to resource and support that development.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister has referred several times to the importance of cross-border development and to Londonderry and Newry. Most people would concede that those cities are important, particularly because of their international linkages with the country that is immediately adjacent to Northern Ireland. People will want there to be progressive development in those areas. However, will the Minister not turn his mind to — and deal with — the fact that, right across Northern Ireland, as an entity, people want development to be focused towards the particular transportation needs of communities? They want the concentration of effort and the review of the RDS to focus on ensuring that resources are deployed accordingly.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I accept the Member’s comments. I assure him that that is the way that the Department intends to approach the matter — to spread its resources as best it can. I believe that there is general recognition in the Executive — people may choose to differ — that there has been an infra­structure deficit between the east and the west. In areas of the north-west and, I am sure, in the Member’s constituency of East Derry and other rural constituencies, there is certainly a need for improved infrastructure.

Although the importance of the major city of Belfast — and of Derry for the north-west region — has been recognised as an economic driver, the role of rural areas, their contribution and the need for connectivity between them was not adequately reflected in the current RDS.

Interestingly, the Member picked up on the strategy’s focus on North/South elements. It also focuses on east-west elements. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet the Minister who has responsibility for transport in Scotland to discuss the linkages between Larne and the roads around Loch Ryan. The Member will be aware that the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and I met the First Minister of Scotland at last week’s launch of the new Stena Line terminal in Belfast. Again, we discussed the links between Belfast and Scotland, which are becoming hugely important, as is the connection through Scotland to mainland Europe.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

In seeking to grow the economy in the way that the Minister has outlined, and in drawing attention to Northern Ireland’s rich natural environment and the potential of its major tourist attractions, surely emphasis must be placed on ensuring that it is able to outcompete its nearest neighbour. Why has the Department not made a single mention of Lough Neagh’s rich natural environment and massive tourist potential?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in my statement, I am sure that, although the Department has mentioned a range of areas, it will have left some out. If Lough Neagh has been left out, it is not because its potential is not recognised — it certainly is recognised.

I do not see the issue in narrow terms as a competition with the South. If the development in Derry and Newry are anything to go by, the lessons are of co-operation, development of mutual strengths and of attracting more business together.

The South attracts many more tourists and international visitors than the North does. Perhaps the Member’s approach is to compete, rather than to work to ensure that the island as a whole enjoys the full benefit of international visitors who seek the tourist product.

I am sure that the case for Lough Neagh will be well made. Today we launch what will be an exhaustive and extensive consultation and discussion with Executive colleagues, senior officials from all Departments, external advisers, the Committee for Regional Development and the Assembly as a whole. Members will have many opportunities to stress the importance of their particular interest. The fact that Lough Neagh was not mentioned in my statement does not mean that it is not considered to be a key resource. After all, it is located smack in the centre of our region.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, during which he urged the need for better transport links to and from ports and airports. Belfast International Airport, which is located in my constituency of South Antrim, requires better public-transport links. Is the Minister still of the opinion that to build a railway link to Belfast International Airport is not economically viable, despite the fact that only a couple of miles of track would be needed in order to link with the old Knockmore line? Has he considered building a guided bus lane to that airport? Such a regular service would get people who travel to the airport in their cars out of them.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is interesting that a high-level discussion about the development of the region ends up as a discussion about local roads, but that is fair enough during an open question-and-answer session.

Transport accessibility to airports and ports is a focus of the review of the regional development strategy. I have discussed road links with those who run Belfast International Airport, and they consider that issue to be of primary importance. We have also discussed the rail link, and it is viewed as being economically viable. If there were to be an opportunity to reassess the development of the region, those priorities might change.

As I said in my statement, and given that we are an island economy, access to and from the island, including the linkages to ports and airports, is a key area to be examined. Many of the major roads projects that are being undertaken, such as the Westlink upgrade, projects in the north-west and that for a southern relief road, are concerned with port and airport accessibility. The focus on that will increase as the level of traffic increases, and the form of travel used to get to and from all the airports changes, most notably that to and from Belfast International Airport.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Minister rightly said that Belfast is a driver for the regional economy. In addition to considering the overall distribution in Northern Ireland, will the strategy also consider how Belfast can best have the critical mass to compete at European and international level when it comes to being a major city? Does the Minister recognise that it may be best to think of Belfast not only as a city but as a wider city region, which encompasses the suburbs? That would ensure adequate distribution of jobs.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

If the Member had seen some of the statistics that we have seen, he would know that, compared with other areas, much more than the lion’s share of jobs — those jobs at the higher end of the scale — are located in Belfast and those council areas that form greater Belfast.

My statement recognised that Belfast is the central driver for the region. The population of Belfast city centre has reduced over the years, and we must consider whether that depopulation is good for Belfast. It leads to much more commuting and creates more congestion on the roads. Along with propositions such as that for a rapid transit system for Belfast, consideration must be given to how, through the development of genuine brownfield sites, the population of Belfast might be increased. Such big, key strategic matters must be considered.

In the past, many people thought that the Belfast-and-Derry-versus-the-rest argument was divisive. We must get beyond that by shaping a regional development strategy that best recognises Belfast’s importance as well as the development potential of other towns and villages. Such development can support the region’s and the island’s economy.

Executive Committee Business

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I have been advised that the Minister of the Environment, Mrs Arlene Foster, will move the next two motions and the First Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill on behalf of the Executive.

Since the next two motions relate to Supply resolutions, I propose to conduct only one debate. I shall ask the Clerk to read the first motion, and I shall then call the Minister who shall move that motion. Debate will then take place on both motions. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Clerk to read the second motion into the record and the Minister to move it before putting the Question without further debate.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 45 minutes to propose and 45 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have 10 minutes.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,184,270,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2009 and that resources, not exceeding £8,474,916,000 be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2009 as summarized for each Department or other public body in Columns 3(b) and 3(a) of Table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2008-2009 that was laid before the Assembly on 30 May 2008.

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £7,224,593.19 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety – Health and Personal Social Services Superannuation, for the year ending 31 March 2007 as summarized in Part II of the Statement of Excess document that was laid before the Assembly on 30 May 2008. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is with some trepidation that I move the motions tabled by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. These important Supply resolutions seek the Assembly’s approval of the spending plans of Departments and other public bodies for 2008-09 and its approval to provide excess cash to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) for 2006-07.

I request and recommend the levels of Supply that are set out in the resolutions under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make recommend­ations to the Assembly, leading to cash appropriations from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

The first resolution, relating to the 2008-09 Supply, is based on the first year plans of the Budget 2008-2011, which was approved by the Assembly on 29 January 2008. However, as Members are well aware, Budgets set spending plans, but do not, in themselves, convey cash or resources to Departments or give them the legal authority to spend cash or use resources. That is done through Assembly approval of the Supply resolutions, the Estimates and the associated Budget Bill.

The first resolution seeks the Assembly’s approval to issue a cash sum not exceeding £7·2 billion from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of resources not exceeding £8·5 billion for 2008-09.

The amounts of cash and resources that are covered by the first resolution are in addition to the cash and resources voted on account for 2008-09 in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, which was passed by the Assembly in February. Those amounts will complete the total provision of £12·5 billion and £15 billion of resources required for 2008-09 by Departments and other public bodies, as detailed in the Main Estimates volume, which was laid before the Assembly on 30 May 2008. The public services to be funded by those allocations have been debated by the Assembly, both in the context of the debates on the Executive Budget for 2008-2011 and the Vote on Account in February.

The second resolution seeks the Assembly’s approval on the issue of a cash sum of £7·2 million from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, as detailed in the Statement of Excess, which was laid before the Assembly on 30 May 2008. That issue was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which recom­mended in its report that an excess vote should be granted by the Assembly. The resolutions, once approved by the Assembly, will be the precursor to the Budget No 2 Bill, which I hope to introduce in the Assembly later today.

The Assembly took steps along the legislative path with a similar Budget Bill just one year ago. I hesitate to state that we, as Assembly Members — or I, personally — are now all experts on the minutiae of the Estimate volumes. Of course, some Members may be experts. I know that Members will by now be familiar with the need, for logistical reasons, for accelerated passage for Budget Bills.

For the financial year that commenced in April, Departments are spending cash and using resources on the basis of a Vote on Account in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, which was passed in February. As that provided only initial allocations, it is now essential that the further Budget Bill progresses through the Assembly before the summer recess and receives Royal Assent by 31 July 2008. The con­sequences of not doing so would be that Departments would run out of cash during the summer, which clearly would have devastating implications for public services.

At this stage, I acknowledge the assistance of the Committee for Finance and Personnel in this matter. I understand that the Committee has confirmed that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the Main Estimates and the draft Bill and that it is content for the Bill to proceed by accelerated passage. The Executive and I very much appreciate the Committee’s valuable contribution to the financial process and the scrutiny role that it plays at each stage.

As I stated earlier, the 2008-09 Main Estimates are based on the first-year plans of the Budget 2008-2011, which was agreed in January. However, since the final Budget in January, some technical adjustments and departmental budget additions, regarding centrally held funding, have been made in respect of issues that were not known or resolved at that stage. I hasten to reassure the Assembly that those technical adjustments are routine and do not change the spending plans that were approved by the Assembly in January.

I remind Members that Budgets are plans for wider public-sector spending, including for arm’s-length bodies, on the full range of devolved services, while Estimates are restricted to departmental level, hence the table in the yellow section of each departmental Estimate to assist the reader to reconcile the Estimate to the Budget.

The first resolution before us today, which is supported by the 2008-09 Main Estimates, represents the cornerstone on which this legislative body not only sets limits on expenditure and the use of resources, but holds Departments accountable for managing and controlling that spending and use of resources within those limits authorised for that particular year. In that vein, if a Department exceeds any of those limits, the Comptroller and Auditor General, on examination of the accounts, will report the excess to the Public Accounts Committee, which, in turn, will examine the reasons for the excess and report the results of its examination to the Assembly.

The second resolution arises from such an excess by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety superannuation vote in 2006-07. A Statement of Excess was laid in the Assembly on 30 May 2008. The excess cash requirement of £7·2 million arose from a failure to estimate accurately changes in working capital and cash within the health and personal social services superannuation scheme. As I mentioned already, the Public Accounts Committee has examined that issue and recommended in its eighth report that the necessary sum will be provided by an excess vote in the Assembly.

It is critical that Departments manage their resources and cash within the limits that are approved by the Assembly, and a central plank of good financial management is that those limits are based on taut and realistic estimates.

I appreciate the tightrope that Departments have to walk between minimising underspend and ensuring that an excess does not occur. However, we must be ever mindful that we are dealing with taxpayers’ money, and that we have a responsibility, as custodians of the public purse, to ensure that resources are managed efficiently and effectively. The public obviously expect better from a devolved Administration, and we must deliver on financial management.

My colleague Peter Robinson, now the First Minister, rightly placed great emphasis on improving the quality of financial management in Departments. I know that the new Finance Minister wants officials in the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) to continue to work actively with all other Departments to that end. On his behalf, I urge Departments to avail themselves of the training available for staff, especially non-finance staff, in policy areas in order to ensure that decisions are taken with due regard to financial consequences.

Last week, the House received details of the provisional out-turn for 2007-08. That statement highlighted many areas of concern for the Assembly, and for my colleagues and I in the Executive in particular, with regard to the continuing level of underspend on current expenditure. Eight of the 11 Departments showed a position in excess of 2·3% of planned spend. On the capital front, six of the 11 Departments had underspends in excess of 12%. In addition, two Departments overspent.

The trajectory of spend, in both resource and capital, highlighted a significant uplift at the end of the year, which is a cause for concern. I hope that my colleagues in the Executive take this message to heart and, with the assistance of the Statutory Committees, ensure that that situation is not repeated this year. The Finance Minister will be looking closely at out-turn figures and the need to consider options for incentives for Departments in order to improve their financial management.

The Estimates that we are debating derive from the Executive’s first Budget. Agreeing and announcing plans, such as these Main Estimates, is relatively easy. Delivering within those allocations will prove more challenging. The public rightly expects delivery on the targets and outcomes that were published in the Programme for Government, and the Executive will be held to account for that delivery.

In implementing the Programme for Government, we have the opportunity to strengthen the local economy, and to improve infrastructure and public service. Performance against the commitments that were made in the Programme for Government and public service agreements will be measured and monitored to ensure and drive delivery. A key strand to that will be the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU), which has been working with colleagues in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) to develop the performance monitoring arrangements for the Programme for Government.

PEDU is available to assist the Executive, Ministers and Departments in ensuring that the commitments and targets that are set out in the Programme for Government are realised. The focus of PEDU will, therefore, be on the Executive’s priorities and on where funding has not been translated into the desired outcomes. I urge my Executive colleagues to avail themselves of PEDU’s support.

Improved public services must be delivered within the available resources and with a focus on increased efficiency. It is not an option simply to call continually, as some have done, for increased allocations, which could be funded only by an increase in the tax burden on households and businesses.

The Committees that scrutinise each Department will have a key role. The role of Assembly Members and Committees is to challenge and assist Ministers and Departments. It is also their role to hold Ministers and Departments to account. Assembly Members and Com­mittees have a vital role in ensuring that Departments deliver on the Programme for Government targets for improved services, and in driving out inefficiencies. That task should commence immediately, and continue doggedly and persistently throughout the next three years. We do not want to wait until the end of the current Budget period to discover that Departments have not delivered on targets or that efficiencies have not materialised.

I fully appreciate the enormous challenge that lies ahead in developing a culture of delivery and efficiency across the public sector and of growing a dynamic, innovative economy in the current tight fiscal environment. It is a challenge that faces us all, and we must all play our part: Ministers, Departments, accounting officers, Committees and Members of the Assembly.

The amounts of cash and resources sought in the Supply resolutions are substantial on top of the Vote on Account. The Main Estimates for 2008-09 break the total requirements down to a finer level of functional detail for each Department. Although I am presenting the Estimates on behalf of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the underlying detail reflects decisions taken by Ministers within delegated financial authority given by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Therefore, although I will endeavour to respond in my winding-up speech to as many points as possible, I hope that Members will appreciate that I may be unable to respond in detail on individual departmental issues. In those cases, I may refer the matters to the appropriate Ministers for a response.

On behalf of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I recommend the Supply resolutions and ask for the support of Assembly Members for the motions.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement and for her brevity. I, too, will be brief in outlining the Committee’s position. Senior departmental officials briefed the Committee for Finance and Personnel on 28 May 2008 and 4 June 2008 in relation to the Main Estimates for 2008-09 and the associated Budget (No 2) Bill, which gives legislative approval to the Estimates. The Bill will be introduced in the Assembly following this debate.

Advance copies of the Main Estimates were made available to Committee members at the meetings. DFP officials also provided a helpful paper to the Committee, which reconciled the figure work in the Budget to that which is included in the Main Estimates. Following those briefings, on 4 June 2008, the Committee for Finance and Personnel agreed to grant accelerated passage to the Budget (No 2) Bill. The Main Estimates and the associated Budget (No 2) Bill are the outworkings of the process to finalise the Executive’s Budget for 2008-2011, which was agreed by the Assembly in January 2008.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel published a report in December 2007 when the Budget document was at draft stage. It included substantive submissions from all the Assembly’s Statutory Committees. The Committee has since received a formal response to the report and is continuing to monitor implementation of its recommendations, especially in relation to measures to improve financial management in Departments. There was some reference to that issue in the Minister’s statement today, and, last week, Members gave their opinions on the continuing problems.

The underlying spending plans for 2008-09 brought forward in the Main Estimates reflect the position established in the first year of the Executive’s Budget for 2008-2011. Although the Budget for 2008-2011 has been agreed, the Assembly and its Statutory Committees can have input into the reprioritisation of resources in 2008-09 via the in-year quarterly monitoring rounds.

The Committee recently wrote to DFP highlighting the need for Departments to brief Statutory Committees prior to making their monitoring round submissions, as it has not been happening consistently hitherto. Therefore, I hope that DFP takes the necessary steps to ensure that the issue is addressed, including making provision for Committee scrutiny in its timetables for monitoring rounds.

We need to return to an annual financial process as soon as possible, as it gives the Assembly and its Committees maximum opportunity to scrutinise and contribute to the Budget process. That will greatly enhance the consultation process.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member and his Committee did a great job in highlighting the importance of Com­mittees’ scrutinising Departments when it comes to in-year monitoring. Does he know how many Depart­ments have made figures available to Committees for scrutiny for the June monitoring round?

Does he believe that only the Department of Education (DE) failed in that duty by supplying the information to the Committee one day before sending it to the Department of Finance and Personnel?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I do not have access to all Committees’ reports. My own Committee made a complaint, and several other Departments failed to satisfy the commitments. We will ask DFP to address that matter in order to encourage mature working relationships between Departments and their Committees; that is a constructive and helpful process. For whatever reason — and I can speak only for the Department of Finance and Personnel — the relationship did not function on that occasion. However, the Committee received an explanation, an apology and an assurance that it will not happen during future processes, which I hope has occurred in all Departments.

I accept the Member’s point; it is vital to establish sound working relationships. Sometimes, difficult decisions have to be made, and those decisions have greater authority if the relevant Committee has access to detailed information in advance — not to make the Minister’s job more difficult but to understand the rationale behind recommendations.

DFP officials are considering Budget processes to ensure that, in future years, we have earliest possible sight of the indicative information on which the Executive will develop their spending projections. Moreover, the Committee for Finance and Personnel is considering whether an inquiry on that matter is necessary and hopes to be able to outline recommend­ations to the Minister soon.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel forwarded all the information on the excess vote for DHSSPS for 2006-07 to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety for its consideration. The Comptroller and Auditor General reported on that matter, and it was the subject of an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee recommended that the excess requirement of £7·2 million should be provided by the Assembly through an excess vote. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I support both motions. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel correctly highlighted several issues that should be given particular consideration by the House. As the Minister mentioned, bringing this matter to the House is difficult. The finance issue — whether personal or related to Northern Ireland — is huge, and it is important that we understand how to engage with the budgetary process.

The programme of work for Statutory Committees in the Assembly should include a clear identification of methods to scrutinise how Departments prioritise and spend finances. The Chairperson of the Committee for Education already mentioned the difficulties encountered by his Committee when that information was not supplied. Furthermore, the Chairperson of the Com­mittee for Finance and Personnel referred to problems with the lack of information given to the Committee in order to allow it to offer meaningful input. Ministers will, undoubtedly, want to engage fully with the Committee that has a statutory responsibility to scrutinise them and their Departments.

However, if we are to believe that that is to be the case, the Ministers and the Departments have a duty and a responsibility to prove it, and to furnish the relevant Committee with information in a timely manner so that we can see how that money is being prioritised and how the bids for that monitoring round have been highlighted.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel spoke about a return to an annual financial process. We all have concerns about accelerated passage, not only with respect to the Budget, but for other Bills that have been presented to the House. As a legislature, we must not use accelerated passage as a quick fix or as a way to circumnavigate certain situations. There are times, when, unfortunately, it has to be used. However, the financial processes of the House will be improved if the financial timetable is such that the Committees and the House can scrutinise the Budget and the financial arrangements and management of Departments.

The Minister mentioned the training that would be provided by DFP for the Departments and their staff. I suggest that it might also be advantageous for that training to be extended to Members. There is a huge amount of learning and experience that we should seek to acquire when it comes to accurately and effectively dealing with budgetary issues. I support the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As the Minister said, the Budget was agreed in January 2008, and today’s vote is part of the technical process that gives legislative authority for that expenditure. I thank the departmental officials who recently briefed the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the technical adjustments that have occurred in the Budget report that has been presented to us in the Main Estimates booklet.

The officials pointed to some additional Peace II funding and some transfers of functions among Departments. Superannuation funding has been transferred from annually managed expenditure to the system of departmental expenditure limits, and all Members would agree that some additional background information on such issues would be useful. However, we trust that our civil servants, who have been trained and have the responsibility for those areas, and are taking the right decisions. There are concerns about the additional the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) funding, and an extra £266·9 million for Northern Ireland Water, which was indicated in the Budget but now appears in the departmental expenditure plans.

There are a number of questions to be asked about changes that have occurred in the detailed Estimates, some beyond the control of the Assembly and the Civil Service. For example, will the plans of the capital realisation task force be affected by the changes in the property market? In our plans, we have proposed to sell off certain assets in order to reinvest and create assets that are required. Will there be any long-term implications for that policy as a result of the changes in the property market? Can the capital investment plans be delivered, or will they have to be curtailed as a result of the likelihood of reduced funding from the sale of assets?

How will the recent disclosure of the dramatically reduced value of the DARD asset at Crossnacreevy be affected? I was shocked to learn at the weekend that an asset that had been valued at £200 million is now estimated to be worth about £6 million.

That change in value creates a significant black hole, and difficulties may arise from the £194 million shortfall. Will £90 million still be available to fund the farm nutrient management scheme, which is essential if we are to meet the European directive’s requirements? How will that scheme be funded? How did such an overestimate of the value of a Government asset occur? There has been a failure of huge proportions. How will other capital-expenditure plans be affected by the shortfall?

During the debate on the draft Budget, the under­funding of children’s services was highlighted. Other Members and I welcomed the fact that additional moneys were made available in the final Budget for projects that had been funded previously by the Executive programme fund for children. I was disappointed to discover subsequently that many laudable projects in areas of need have been awarded reduced funding. Some projects, such as breakfast and after-school clubs, have not been awarded long-term funding at all; they have not been mainstreamed.

I appreciate that, at this stage, in-year monitoring is likely to be the mechanism used to try to address some of those issues. However —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Does the Member agree that that is not only a question of the overall Budget that the Executive allocate, but also of departmental prioritisation? Breakfast clubs are, essentially, the responsibility of the Department of Education. If the Department were to reprioritise and target at breakfast clubs some of the money that it wastes in other areas, there would be sufficient funding for them.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I fully concur with the Member’s point. When additional moneys were made available, I thought that they would go to the many laudable projects that have had positive results. Such projects address areas of need by giving young people a step onto the educational ladder and providing additional childcare, which, perhaps, enables parents to return to work and give their children a positive model of working to better their families through their own efforts. I was disappointed to find that such projects remain under threat.

As yet, there has been no ministerial announcement of plans to deal with the children’s funding that had been channelled through PlayBoard to benefit some 57 projects and 2,800 children in areas of need. I should have thought that most people recognised the importance of early-years learning and the fact that giving our young people that additional step on the educational ladder is hugely significant. Perhaps the whole area of funding early-years education has somehow become lost in the more divisive education debate that has taken priority.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As recent publicity surrounding PlayBoard has targeted the Department of Education, the Member may not be aware that it has since come to light, via departmental officials, that funding for PlayBoard is the Department of Health’s responsibility. It is hoped that that Department will make a more positive announcement about PlayBoard later this week.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has just illustrated the strange ways in which our Departments and Ministers work. The junior Ministers assured the Assembly that, as a result of the allocation of additional funds, projects that had previously been funded under the children’s fund would not be at risk and should not suffer. It is entirely wrong that Ministers should argue. Rather, the junior Ministers, who have responsibility for children’s issues, should bring together the relevant people.

The Member said that PlayBoard is the responsibility of the Department of Health. It is clear that responsibility for childcare was transferred to the Department of Education in 2006. There is no great benefit in having arguments across the Chamber. The main issue is that, in removing children’s funding from the central funding body, the legs have somehow come off the stool. The Department of Education has not accepted its responsibility for childcare or made it a priority, and funding from the children’s fund has come to an end.

Long-term childcare funding must be resolved in a manner that assists our children. Verbal disputes across the Chamber or attempts at political point-scoring do not benefit those children. I want the matter to be resolved in a fashion that provides long-term benefits and better life opportunities for children and parents in areas of need. That would contribute to a reduction in child poverty, because education can benefit everyone.

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

The Member will be pleased to hear that at a recent meeting of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, it was made very clear that the Department of Education has responsibility for childcare.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member illustrates the need for the Executive to sort things out. If there is no clear way of identifying responsibility, let the junior Ministers resolve the matter. The Executive could create a new central funding mechanism to enable resolution to take place. If that spares the blushes of those Ministers who missed this element of funding, I will be content, as long as the funding continues; that is most important. I am thankful that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s Estimate ensures that there will be three month’s funding for those childcare projects, even though childcare does not fall under its departmental responsibility.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I support the Supply resolution for the 2006-07 excess vote. We should pay that sum and hope that such a failing does not occur in the future.

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

We are debating the finances for this financial year. The Assembly will not have forgotten the concerns that I and my party expressed in the debates on the Programme for Government and the Budget. I will repeat those concerns and, indeed, emphasise some of them because it is clear —

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

It is very early in my speech, but I am always prepared to give way.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member’s party support its Minister wholeheartedly, given that that Minister went through the lobbies with the rest of the Members of the House and voted for the Budget? She did not take the same cowardly stance as her party, which abdicated its responsibility and voted against the Budget.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention and, indeed, it will do no harm to clarify the matter. My party has no concerns on this issue. This form of Government requires Ministers to behave in a particular way, which the Minister for Social Development did. My party was totally united in its stance. We had serious concerns about the Programme for Government and the Budget and we still have those concerns.

Good government is not just about money; we need a coherent system of government that is joined together and has a shared approach. Is that what we witnessed in last week’s events? Within OFMDFM, Sinn Féin has, for some time, been very unhappy with the outcomes of government and its domination by the DUP.

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

Last week, we saw the OK corral behaviour of Sinn Féin Members. They rode their horses up to the corral, but then — having looked into the eyes of those opposite — quickly turned and high-tailed it out of town. [Laughter.]

Although we can see the comedy in what happened, we are entitled to ask whether that bodes well for future Government here or for the coherent government that we need.

We have major concerns over the ability of those two parties to deliver a coherent strategy of Government based on a shared society. As I said, we expressed our concerns previously about aspects of the Budget. Other Members of my party will detail that, but I want to headline some of those concerns.

We are concerned about the extent to which the Budget is predicated upon efficiency savings. As those begin to work through, we see major concerns from around the community about cuts in front-line services — only today, we see significant representation from trade unions that have come to this place to voice their concerns.

In our education system, we are seeing the biggest change to secondary education for decades — if the Minister ever gets there. There is no budgetary allocation in relation to that, and there is no greater clarity on the policy resolution of that issue than there was when we debated the Budget. That is a major worry in the community among primary-school staff and among parents. It is not credible that such a dramatic change will be cost-neutral, and we are entitled to question the Budget on that issue.

The extended schools programme has been debated, and it is absolutely vital that the disadvantaged get a good start on the educational ladder. The Minister of Education has said that she has not had the budget for that and that she has gone repeatedly to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and that money has not been made available.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member accept that that is not accurate? The Minister of Finance and Personnel has clarified that on those occasions when the Minister of Education asked for additional finance, additional money was given.

The issue has not been that the DFP Minister has refused to give money; the issue has been the inability of the Education Minister to prioritise in a way that is to the best advantage of the educational system. That was proven by the fact that in the monitoring round, the Minister gave £50 million back to DFP.

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

The Member makes valid points as to the use of money within that Department, but the fact is that money was not available to continue that very necessary programme.

I was referring to asset sales and how vital they are to the Budget. In the current context of changes in property values, that is uncertain, and it is difficult to be confident in the Minister’s — or the former Minister’s — assurance that all is OK on that front.

I will mention one or two the Department for Social Development (DSD) issues — not to the detriment of other Departments — but clearly money for housing — social housing in particular — is hugely dependent on asset sales. That includes the problem that is now making itself transparent, which is the drying-up of Housing Executive house sales.

Fuel poverty is a greater problem than it was five or six months ago. We are facing a winter of even higher fuel prices, and it is not going too far to apply the word “crisis” to what is ahead of us; it is a real crisis in many homes, and it is imperative that the Executive address that.

We must say to central Government in Westminster that there needs to be an increase — and a substantial one —in the winter fuel payment. All parties need to do what they can there, but we should do what we can within our own sphere of control — to put it simply, more money must be put into the warm homes scheme.

There is a huge and unresolved problem in relation to water charges. There are clear concerns that the Minister is going for a separate water bill and a very big one — up to £950 when those charges are fully realised. There will be no consistency in charges for identical water usage between two houses. The system is fundamentally unfair. There is a real worry among those who are on fixed, low incomes about the further burden that is evidently coming their way.

I have concerns about the quality of much of our governance. We face a major challenge, and that needs the highest quality of government.

I refer Members to an interview in yesterday’s ‘Sunday Independent’ with Professor Brendan Drumm, the chief executive of the Health Service Executive. I recommend that article to any student of government. Professor Drumm discusses how best to create a well-working health system, but his comments range wider than that. Health is of huge importance, and accounts for 50% of our Budget. It is a vital and emotive issue. The title of the article is:

“It’s not about more beds or more money, it is about accountability”.

Brendan Drumm addresses how to get the best out of the money that is invested in our public services — and there are few greater questions for the Assembly.

Clear evidence is provided in the article that one unit in the Health Service can perform dramatically better than another, sometimes with less financial input. There is a need for a more efficient structure, based on clear chains of accountability. That opens the major issue of where accountability should rest — to what degree with professional managers, and to what extent with our political system. There is a lesson for all good public services: we must be able to create and support good, independent scrutiny and management.

In that vein, I wish to express very grave concerns about one recent ministerial decision: the refusal of the Environment Minister — or should I say “the then Environment Minister” — to create an independent environmental protection agency. The Minister saw the need for independence, and she provided for some elements of independence, but did not go the whole and absolutely necessary way of creating an independent agency. That was the wrong signal to send out about the quality of government.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have made a list of around seven areas that the Member has identified as needing more expenditure, yet he is now going one step further and saying that, in order to have what he calls “quality of government”, we should have an independent environmental agency, which even its own supporters have said would be costly to Northern Ireland.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I will address Sammy Wilson’s point later on. I believe that he is the incoming Minister of the Environment.

The Alliance Party has already made clear its major concerns about public expenditure in general in Northern Ireland, and specifically the Executive’s first Budget. We voted against the Budget when it was formally debated several months ago, and, as the formal process of turning that flawed Budget into reality continues, we will once again state our objections. If, however, my party does not force repeated Divisions, I must emphasise that that should not be mistaken for consent.

I wish to highlight some of the problems with public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We are signing off on an annual Budget of £16 billion — over half of that is due to be technically authorised today. Of that £16 billion, around £7 billion comes through subvention from the UK Treasury. We are dependent on external assistance for almost half of our expenditure. Our local tax base is very small. The table set out in Varney II shows how serious this issue is — not just in the context of the regions of the United Kingdom, but internationally.

Our public sector is large, but our biggest problem is our private sector, which is simply too small. It is right to give top priority to growing our private sector. Although it is important to put into perspective the size of our public sector, there are still major problems that we have to confront.

In a wide range of aspects of life in Northern Ireland — social, economic and environmental — our society does not keep up with new demands by the Northern Ireland public for investments that are delivered elsewhere. Clearly, there are major questions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure. They include, but go beyond, the costs of division; however, as you might expect, I will begin my speech on that theme.

The Alliance Party emphasises that major distortions of public expenditure and opportunity costs arise from attempting to manage a divided society, rather than from investing in high-quality shared facilities, goods and services for the entire community. The party held a positive meeting with the outgoing Finance Minister on that subject; and its members are working on a paper for DFP officials, which, I hope, will be with them before the summer recess. However, it is a matter of continued regret that addressing the costs of division is not a core theme of the Budget and is not a feature of its approach to efficiency savings. Investment in a shared future is required, and that will lead to significant savings for society overall.

On the topic of efficiency savings in general, I make one important point. The Alliance Party fully supports the concept of efficiency savings. We believe that the 3% targets are achievable and that more can be achieved. In that respect, we support the role of PEDU. Greater targets are routinely sought and achieved each year in the private sector. However, for my party, efficiency savings must be about increasing productivity and finding new and creative ways of doing things to free up resources from outmoded purposes or activities for reinvestment in new policies and practices. However, in Northern Ireland, efficiency savings too readily become cuts. Rather than doing things differently, Departments and public bodies carry on as before, but try to do the same with less.

I want to explore the inefficiencies in the way that we spend our money and what we miss out on as a consequence. With regard to the environment, which Mr O’Loan and Mr Sammy Wilson discussed, we have recently been told that one reason we cannot have an independent environmental protection agency is the cost: the agency would cost some £2·6 million to set up and some £600,000 per annum to operate. Those are relatively small sums; however, the questions on which we must focus are the costs and consequences — financially, economically and environmentally — of not having an independent environmental protection agency. Obviously, there will still be problems, such as infraction proceedings, even if we have an environmental protection agency. However, the issue is one of scale; it is wrong to see it as a black-or-white choice. We need an environmental protection agency to have more efficient and cost-effective Government.

I give way to the incoming Minister.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member accept that, in the case of the independent Scottish Environmental Protection Agency it was concluded that, the process of decision-making was costly and became more cumbersome, and the Environmental Protection Agency was totally out of touch with local communities? If the Member looks for a different way of doing things, surely he will not consider one that makes things worse?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his points. We all wish to learn lessons from how other societies have introduced and operated environmental protection agencies. However, that does not detract from my central point. We need an environmental protection agency to challenge more efficiently how we conduct environ­mental business. If we do not have one, we will pay the economic and environmental cost.

In respect of transport, we place a heavy emphasis on roads and private cars at the expense of public transport. In his statement this morning, the Minister for Regional Development did not depart from that script. We have a major congestion problem, particularly in greater Belfast. Other societies are able to maintain a much more sustainable balance between public and private transport; there is no reason why we cannot follow suit. Incredibly, the current 10-year investment strategy puts 80% of new investment into roads — that is well out of line with the practices of most of our competitors. I fail to see how that will help us to rebalance our economy, never mind make us more environmentally sustainable.

We have natural strengths in the creative arts. However, it is staggering that we spend less per capita on culture than the UK average and well below our neighbours in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

Surely proper investment in the arts should be viewed as an essential element of growing and transforming our economy?

There are also huge inefficiencies in the education system. Despite the large budget that is allocated to the Department of Education, there are major problems, for example, with the funding of the Youth Service and resource allocation to primary schools. To put it simply: there is a high level of education expenditure per capita but a low level of expenditure per pupil. There are major inefficiencies in the schools estate that are leading to distortions in expenditure. Too much money is spent on school buildings at the expense of investment in pupils and staff.

The Alliance Party is concerned at the continued absence of a sustainable schools policy. It believes that a system is needed that values a range of options for shared schools. More specifically, the party is concerned at how integrated schools are perceived. Integrated schools, whether newbuild or transformed, are the most sustainable form of education, socially, educationally and economically. However, at present, rather than being viewed as part of the solution, they are seen as being part of the problem and are regarded as a threat to the existing schools system. However, it is the schools system that is inefficient, so we are missing an easy solution.

The Alliance Party has made the point that, in the Budget, Northern Ireland is flatlining in comparison with the budgets allocated to health elsewhere in these islands. The health budget is already the highest per capita in the UK, which, sadly, reflects our relative need.

The highest level of increase will go to health, as well as the highest level of new resources. However, none of that hides the reality that we are simply not keeping up and that, by 2011, our health budget will be £200 million short of what we need to keep pace with our neighbours. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has settled for far too little in his little political campaign.

Furthermore, attempts to plug the gap in our Health Service with monitoring rounds are flawed, for two reasons. First, monitoring round resources have no impact on baselines. Secondly, the automatic first referral to the Health Service distorts the monitoring process and the necessary redistribution of resources across the entire system. Efficiency savings in the Health Service are important. However, such savings are viewed by the general population as cuts. Indeed, that reality is confronting elected representatives across Northern Ireland — including DUP MLAs — as expressed recently in local newspapers.

Given the rising costs of drugs, technology and our ageing population, we need to keep up with the pace of investment elsewhere in the world. Efficiency savings in health are necessary and will assist in keeping up with that pace. However, those efficiency savings must be complemented with new resources and investment in areas such as mental health and free personal care for elderly people.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I wish to highlight some issues about the Department of Education’s sizeable budget of over £2 billion. The Committee has concerns that, although over £2 billion is available for education in Northern Ireland, only 62% of that ever reaches schools. That figure is substantially lower than in other parts of the UK; in England, for example, 80% of the money available for education is delegated to schools. Many problems in our education system could be addressed if there were greater delegation.

Departmental officials have told the Committee that the operation of several education initiatives means that moneys are withheld from schools. Some £190 million is ring-fenced for those initiatives, which represents 19% of the money that is allocated to our schools.

All the school principals who appeared before the Committee said that they would prefer that the money currently being held centrally for initiatives were delegated to them. They could then spend the money as they see fit in their own schools. Those principals also said that it was time-consuming to research those initiatives, complete the highly bureaucratic application forms, and to monitor, check and evaluate.

Several school principals said that some initiatives require them to buy computers — which they do not need, but they do not want to pass up the opportunity — or to engage in activities that they do not consider to be of priority, but which qualify them for the initiative. The Department must address that situation. The Committee has asked the Department to highlight the initiatives and to establish how many of them could be withdrawn without any adverse effect on the quality of what goes on in the schools, thus releasing money to the school budgets.

The Member for North Down Dr Farry said that one of the ways of making the budget work better was to do things differently. In education, for instance, he said that we spend too much money on buildings — and therein lies a contradiction. We do spend too much money on buildings; there are a lot of half-empty buildings that require money. However, Dr Farry’s simple solution is to build more. That is the meat on the bones of the Alliance Party’s verbiage. Dr Farry said that we should increase productivity, and that means looking at outmoded methods and doing things differently.

The only two examples that he provided of how things could be done differently were to build integrated schools — when there is overcapacity in the existing schools system — and to set up a costly independent environmental protection agency. It is all very well to utter fine words about increased productivity, doing things differently and testing the boundaries of how money is being spent —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will in a minute or two.

However, when one examines how things could be done differently, one finds that the different way will lead to less efficiency, more waste and greater spending.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The advocacy of integrated schools is based on the fact that enrolments are falling and the sad reality that many schools across Northern Ireland are unsustainable and will, in fact, have to be closed. Does the Member agree that in a typical village in Northern Ireland in which a controlled primary school and a Catholic maintained primary school, for instance, are under threat of closure due to falling enrolments, it makes sense to build a single shared school for the community, rather than to bus two sets of children to neighbouring towns?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will agree that that is an admirable solution, but that is not integrated education à la the Alliance Party. In the House — and at local level — Alliance Party represent­atives have said that, not only should there be a Catholic school and a controlled school, but a third school should be built. That is what most of the Alliance Party advocacy of integrated education that I have heard consists of, and it leads to a greater waste of money. It is not the way forward, and it will not lead to greater productivity.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I heard Dr Farry heckling from the side when Sammy Wilson was commenting on the building of more schools in the integrated sector. Closing schools is the Alliance Party’s position. Does the Member look forward, as I do, to the Member for North Down’s public statement containing the names of the schools in North Down that he would close?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Does he believe that the Member will not be able to put his money where his mouth is on this issue?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

He will not, probably. The comment that he made from his sedentary position is not true, because, according to officials from the Department of Education and the South Eastern Education and Library Board, Bangor alone has 1,500 more school places than are needed. That is the context that we are looking at. I could give many other examples of representations that have been made to the Committee. In one case, there was a surplus of 2,000 places, but an Alliance Party Member suggested that another school be built.

That is not the way forward and does not represent a better use of education money. However, alternatives must be examined.

The second issue that the Committee highlights is the current in-year monitoring. It is a great pity that the Department could not bring along its proposed bids to the Department of Finance for Committee scrutiny. In the event that other Committees are having the same experience, a warning should go out from this debate about the duty which rests with Departments. The recommendation was that, as part of in-year monitoring, Departments should come along with bids to see whether the Committee would support them. That is not happening, even though it might be helpful to Ministers to have Committee backing for some bids.

As far as the Department of Education is concerned, one of the things highlighted by the Committee is the need for the bid for extended schools to be met through in-year monitoring. I know that, as the Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs pointed out, that is not the best way of doing it, but if an extension of another year can be obtained through that mechanism, it will be better than the current situation, in which extended schools are being cut.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member accept that it is not only extended schools that are provided in primary schools? There are other after-school clubs, and breakfast clubs, which are also provided by the voluntary sector.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I accept that. I am making the point that, while it is not the ideal way of ensuring that the extended schools programme is financed for another year, it is better than the present situation, in which many face being cut totally and some get only a percentage of their expenditure. It was another area of concern for the Committee.

The last area about which the Committee expressed concern was the huge discrepancy in spending between primary and secondary schools. I hope that many Members will take part in a debate on a motion that will be brought to this House on the importance of getting money skewed towards primary schools in order that the disadvantage that is experienced by many youngsters in their first years in school is addressed. Later problems can be avoided through emphasis on remedial action in early years. That is something that I would like to see, and it can be done within the existing budget by looking for efficiencies — different ways of spending available money. That is how to address the huge spending gap, especially for primary schools.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Both these motions will enable Departments to draw down the necessary resources from the Consolidated Fund to deliver services. That is an important part of the Budget process, as the Main Estimates and Excess Vote resolutions are the next stages in ensuring that money goes to the various spending authorities. The process also sets limits on receipts that will be brought in, and provides authority to use those against various services.

Great concern has been expressed inside and outside this Chamber recently about the level of underspend in the budgets of Departments, which the Minister mentioned in her statement. Any form of accounting involves a margin of error, but the financial management of Departments is an area in which performance could be improved.

In essence, we are guardians of public money. Therefore, in their Committee and Assembly roles, all Members have a responsibility to hold Departments to account if local people are not receiving services to which they are entitled. Departments need to work closely with Committees to ensure that they meet those targets and to provide information on time rather than at the last minute, which has sometimes been the case.

Other Members have commented on the recent upsurge in the general cost of living, including the price of fuel and food, which has created public concern. Sometimes, the cost of living is talked about in a way which makes it seem very abstract.

For example, a meal for a family of five now costs almost £3 extra, meaning that such families are spending an extra £3 on every meal. Therefore, the issue is of real concern for people. The Executive and Departments need to be innovative in introducing measures to deal with that issue, such as working alongside energy companies to supply social tariffs and finding better ways to spend their budgets.

We are facing a period where essential front-line services that are delivered by community and voluntary organisations are being put at risk due to a lack of funding. Again, sometimes, our understanding of those services can be abstract, but they are delivered to people in local communities. When organisations that are closing due to a lack of funding see that such a large amount of money has gone unspent in departmental budgets over the past year, they have every right to be concerned. That is because some of that money was allocated to those services but was not distributed to the organisations that would have delivered them.

The Executive — along with Departments — have a responsibility to ensure the delivery of their priorities as set out in the Programme for Government. The procurement guidelines that were launched recently offer an opportunity to deliver the social outcomes that are outlined in the investment strategy, thus ensuring delivery of equality of opportunity and tackling poverty and disadvantage. That is what we need to be doing.

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

The Member is quite right when she says that those priorities should be foremost in all our minds. However, does she not agree that decisions about them should be made in this House, rather than by people running to Downing Street?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for her intervention; however, I believe that we all have a responsibility to ensure that people are not going cold or hungry. I support both motions and believe that they can be seen as a first step towards achieving our objectives. Go raibh maith agat.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for the hard and diligent work that he has done in preparing the Budget and the motion, which I support. I am fully aware that some Members have constantly moaned and groaned about the Budget and the departmental allocations. It is my hope that, today, those Members will come back to reality and support the motion to ensure that the Programme for Government that has been agreed by the Executive and the Assembly can be implemented.

The Budget has provided the Executive with an opportunity to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland by allocating resources to high-priority areas, where the funds will yield the greatest benefit. Individual Ministers will determine how the resources from the Budget are distributed in the context of the competing needs and priorities in their Departments. I have no doubt that those are vastly distinct from the priorities and the local understanding that direct rule Ministers had.

With the required approvals granted, it would be an act of complete stupidity to reject the motion. Although there is no doubt that that would appeal to some, it would ensure that all Departments were unable to carry through the programmes that they have devised according to their budget allocations. Critics of the Budget would have a few questions to answer as to how such an approach would best serve the people of Northern Ireland.

I wish to see the targets on the treatment of cancer met, the supply of new social housing achieved, and the development of our road and public transport continued. However, all that will be possible only if the Departments have the necessary funding. That is why it is essential that the motion is successful. Failure to agree the motion — especially after the recent important investment conference — would be a suicidal course of action for the Assembly, as it would damage prospective investors’ confidence in Northern Ireland. The party opposite has done enough damage to that confidence in the past few days. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the motion is agreed.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. This debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member called to speak will be Mr Dominic Bradley.

The sitting was suspended at 2.18 pm.

On resuming —

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Office Of The First Minister And Deputy First Minister

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for the number of times that a cross community vote has been triggered at meetings of the Executive. (AQO 3872/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Three cross-community votes have been triggered at meetings of the Executive. All occurred at the meeting of the Executive on 15 May 2008, and related to the same subject.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I welcome Mr Robinson to his first Question Time as First Minister.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I congratulate him on his election as First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Will the First Minister confirm whether the Executive’s decision to proceed with a separate water charge from next April was taken unanimously?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks and good wishes.

The Executive have dealt with around 228 issues since devolution in May 2007. There has been division on only four of those issues, of which only one has gone to a cross-community vote. None of the issues on which there was division included water charging.

That issue has come before the Executive on two occasions in two different ways. On the first occasion, it was as part of the premise on which Budget allocations were made. The Member will know that my Executive colleagues unanimously supported the Budget; there was no Division in the House either.

On the second — more recent — occasion, the Minister for Regional Development brought forward a paper on how those matters should be handled. Again, the Executive agreed to that without division.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I also welcome the new First Minister to his position. Does the First Minister have any plans to convene an early meeting of the leaders of the political parties who are represented on the Executive?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for Newry and Armagh for his good wishes.

Today, I, as a party leader, wrote to the other party leaders — not only those who sit on the Executive, but those who sit in the House outside the Executive — indicating that I would welcome the opportunity to speak to them about matters relating to the Assembly and beyond. I hope to take account of what they have to say.

Neither the deputy First Minister nor I would avoid meeting other party leaders; we would certainly consider it. We welcome an exchange with all Members of the House. If all Members enter into discussions in a constructive manner, it may be very useful.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I also welcome the new First Minister to the House. I wish him well for the future.

My question relates to the issue of collectivity in the Executive. Will the First Minister give us his assurances — amid the public controversy that is going on outside the House — that the Executive and OFMDFM are fully committed to their obligations to promote equality and good relations between the persons and groups listed under section 75 of Northern Ireland Act 1998, including the gay and lesbian community?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Executive have a good record on collectivity.

The figures that I outlined earlier would have done credit to any one-party Executive. The Executive have dealt with more than 228 issues; they had to vote on only four occasions in a straight vote, and once in a cross-community vote. Indeed, two of the issues in the straight voting were on the same matter, although voting took place on two separate occasions.

Very few issues have caused division in the Executive. They acted collectively on the key issues that have been brought to the Assembly; particularly those arising from the Programme for Government, which sets up the Assembly manifesto for the next three years. The Executive took the collective decision to move forward in that direction.

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is legally obliged to ensure that no one is discriminated against in our society. Even if there were no legal obligation, I would be at the forefront in defending anyone who was being discriminated against. I know that my colleague the Member for Strangford would be alongside me in doing that. As far as the community is concerned, it is absolutely essential that there is equality for people. Equality of opportunity should be at the forefront in all our minds regarding all of these issues. My colleague from East Belfast has given me the opportunity to say that I totally deplore any attacks that take place on individuals, whether it is because of their religion, their politics or their way of life.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for its assessment of the average time taken for a decision by the Planning Appeals Commission. (AQO 3865/08)

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail the budget of the Planning Appeals Commission for the last three years; and its budget for the next three years. (AQO 3848/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 3 together.

In the past financial year, the average length of time taken to determine an appeal was 82 weeks. The delay in making decisions is due to the backlog of planning appeal cases that has amassed over recent years. That backlog is of considerable concern to the deputy First Minister and me. Consequently, significant additional financial resources have been committed to enable the chief commissioner to address the backlog of planning appeals.

The budget of the Planning Appeals Commission remained constant, at £1·858 million per annum, for the last three years, 2005 to 2008. During those years, the commission was only able to retain receipts of up to £56,000; £150,000; and £241,000 respectively. For the next three years, the budget figures are £2·368 million in the current financial year; £2·378 million for 2009-2010; and £2·396 million for 2010-11.

In addition, in each of those years, the commission will be able to retain receipts of £376,000 per annum. In short, the commission has been provided with the additional spending power of over £700,000 each year, which will allow it to recruit additional commissioners. Eight commissioners have been appointed in recent months, and a competition for a further 10 panel commissioners is underway. That will be followed by a further competition for commissioners in the autumn. The deputy First Minister and I will continue to keep the situation under close review.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I add my congratulations to the First Minister on his first Question Time.

When the First Minister, in his previous capacity as Finance Minister, established the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU), he made the Planning Service one of its initial areas of focus. In light of the delays in the Planning Appeals Commission that he outlined today, does he believe that that aspect of the planning system should have an equal level of focus?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

At the outset, it should be made clear that the Planning Appeals Commission is an independent body. Moreover, it is an independent body that seems to have a very high degree of respect. It is worth pointing out that when issues such as the review of public administration (RPA) were considered, virtually all of the parties fought hard to ensure that the Planning Appeals Commission would be retained as a separate and independent body.

There are not many bodies that are still capable of gaining the support of public representatives and the wider community despite having a growing list of backlog cases. People are supportive of the role that the Planning Appeals Commission performs.

There is a relationship between the Planning Service, and the cases that it deals with, and the Planning Appeals Commission. Very often, I found that people become fed up with the delay in the Planning Service and take their cases out of the normal planning routine after the appropriate number of months pass. They then put them to the Planning Appeals Commission because they think that that might be a faster route and fear that their cases might end up with the Planning Appeals Commission anyway. That adds to the burden.

The Planning Appeals Commission is an independent body, so it would be unhelpful and unwelcome were PEDU to burst through its doors and attempt to deal with the commission’s business. The Planning Appeals Commission is required to be fit for purpose. The deputy First Minister and I will do everything that we can to assist the commission to ensure that it reduces its backlog and is able to deal with matters more expeditiously.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

What action have the Executive taken to deal with the problems that the Planning Appeals Commission faces?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I indicated that the former First Minister and the deputy First Minister recognised — presumably after discussions with the Planning Appeals Commission — that it needed further resources. The nice guy who used to be the Finance Minister readily acceded to that request, and, as a result, more funds have been allocated to the commission. However, I warn Members that a lead-in time is involved. Not only is recruitment needed — the Planning Appeals Commission has a rigorous appointment requirement, in order to ensure that its commissioners have the highest level of competence — but training then lasts for roughly one year. We will have to be patient. Even though the resources are there, and even though the Planning Appeals Commission has moved quickly to compose its recruitment panels, that requirement will remain for a long time, until trained commissioners are in post. There will be some delay, but the deputy First Minister and I will continue to review the matter.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I, too, welcome the First Minister to his first Question Time and wish him well for the future.

I listened intently to how he described the improve­ments to the Planning Appeals Commission and look forward to seeing those work in practice. When considering the Planning Appeals Commission, will the First Minister ensure that, when they appear before the commission, members of the public are afforded the same rights that developers appear to have? A developer can introduce a full team of planning experts, tree experts, bat experts — you name it — plus legal representation. A member of the public feels at a severe disadvantage when appearing before the commission.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I take the Member’s point, although I emphasise that the Planning Appeals Commission is an independent body, so it must satisfy itself on the procedures that it adopts. Members of the public have the same opportunity as others to have legal representation or to bring in experts. However, the reality is somewhat different — members of the public will not have the same resources that are available to developers. Therefore, it is important that the Planning Appeals Commission attach appropriate weight to remarks made by members of the public who have concerns about planning applications. It must also take into consideration the fact that they do not have the same expertise behind them as developers have.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the First Minister to his first Question Time in that capacity.

What action can the First Minister take in order to prioritise appeals for accommodation for severely disabled people? I was involved in an appeal recently that took up to a year and a half. That places a great deal of stress on young families with a severely disabled person in the household.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I can take no action at all. The independence of the Planning Appeals Commission is such that it would be inappropriate for the deputy First Minister and me to intervene in its caseload. However, I will draw the Member’s views to the commission’s attention. It may feel that fast-tracking is required in certain cases.

My clear message is that the Planning Appeals Commission is keen to deal expeditiously with all its cases. However, since 2003-04, the number of cases has roughly trebled. That level of increase is an indication that major planning applications will be submitted, particularly given the current circumstances in which we are coming out of a period of significant economic growth. Planning law requires public inquiries on the area plans, and that has also added significantly to the commission’s workload.

That combination of factors caused a considerable backlog of cases. In normal circumstances, the prioritisation of one type of application should not be an issue, but, until the backlog is cleared, there may be a case for the Planning Appeals Commission to consider whether any particularly sensitive cases should be prioritised and heard out of their normal order.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister if the Executive have considered the capital realisation taskforce report. (AQO 3885/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Executive considered the report at their meeting on 21 January 2008. Work is under way to progress the report’s key recommendations, which are vital to ensuring the delivery of the entire investment strategy for Northern Ireland and achieving value for money from the assets base.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

In the light of the Prime Minister’s recent offer of asset sales and given the need for capital expenditure in Northern Ireland, will the First Minister agree that early progress on capital realisation is essential?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In the Budget and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland, as supported by the Assembly, assumptions were made about asset disposal and other block grant funding. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed with careful haste on any asset sales. I enter that slight caveat because the Executive’s task is to maximise the return from any asset disposal, and they must take account of the standing of the property market at any given time.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also wish the First Minister well in his new role, and I wish the deputy Minister well in his continued role.

Will the First Minister identify the targets for the disposal of surplus assets in 2008-2011? Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The capital realisation task force identified that the Executive could dispose of £300 million of additional assets. The Budget and investment strategy took into account £200 million of that, and care was taken not to allocate money beyond the total amount possible. In addition to that, the original figures had already taken into account £1·4 billion of asset disposal and capital receipts for the three-year period to 2010-11. That is a significant sum, and it requires all Departments to examine their timetables carefully to ensure that the capital is realised during the period of the CSR.

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

I also extend my good wishes to the First Minister.

According to information that was given to the DARD Committee, a downward adjustment has reduced the valuation of the DARD-owned property at Crossnacreevy from £200 million to a mere £3 million to £6 million. Is the Minister not extremely concerned by that? How can the Assembly be confident that the Budget, on which the Programme for Government depends, will be delivered?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As someone whose background is in estate agency, I can tell the Member that any land or property is worth what a willing purchaser will pay for it on the open market. At present, there are not too many willing purchasers, and that has an impact on the price of any asset. However, the other factor is whether planning permission exists for any type of development on the site at Crossnacreevy, because the land is worth much less without it.

One of the issues that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel will have to consider is whether to apply for planning permission, and sell with that permission, or whether to simply sell the site with a hoped-for value attached to it. The lower price clearly refers to the amount without planning permission for development.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to comment on the outcomes of the economic investment conference; and to detail its plans for other, similar events. (AQO 3864/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The recent US/Northern Ireland investment conference was an enormous success. As well as the very significant dignitaries in attendance, 90 companies, represented by over 140 business leaders, were represented. At the conference, NYSE EuroNext and Cybersource announced new inward investments, which have the potential to create over 120 new high-quality jobs. Those announcements, along with major investments of some £77 million announced by Bombardier and Independent News and Media, aimed at safeguarding over 1,100 jobs, added to the success.

We are extremely encouraged by the positive reflections in the media on the immediate impact of the conference. Initial feedback from delegates is also very encouraging. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will be working hard over the coming months to capitalise on the success of the event. The full outcome of the conference will take some time to come to fruition. Invest Northern Ireland has put in place a comprehensive follow-up campaign. Since the conference has proven to be such a success, we consider it a model for potential future events in London and Dublin, to follow up with attendees and companies in those cities.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I join with my colleagues in wishing the First Minister every good health in the post of heavy responsibility to which he has been appointed.

The so-called BRIC economies — Brazil, Russia, India and China — are all expanding economies. Would it be possible to organise an Asian investment conference, targeting China, Japan and India, along the lines of the US/Northern Ireland investment conference?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I appreciate the Member’s comments. My colleague, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, has already visited India, and spoke to me of the massive potential that he saw there. Having visited the Middle East with the Westminster Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs some years ago, I see the potential of that area of the world.

Invest NI will examine where it is appropriate to establish offices. I have no doubt that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will be quite happy to consider missions to those countries. I am quite sure that the deputy First Minister and I will be very happy to offer support in that area.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I, too, warmly welcome the First Minister to his first Question Time in his new role.

The First Minister will be well aware of the importance of delivering the type of jobs that those who attended the conference can provide in helping the Executive to achieve its targets on increasing productivity and closing the gross value added gap. Will he comment on what steps he has taken to encourage employment in Northern Ireland from Bombardier’s CSeries project?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member is right that the Programme for Government prioritised economic growth, which requires us to aim to secure high-value-added jobs. That is clearly one of the factors that will have an effect on improving our gross value added (GVA). Securing better exports improves our GVA, and Bombardier is one of the corporations that clearly has a massive export potential for Northern Ireland.

The deputy First Minister and I have spoken with the Prime Minister about the Bombardier CSeries. I have had a number of conversations with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on that issue. I know that both DFP and DETI have been in touch with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) in London, and Invest Northern Ireland has been holding regular meetings. I understand that there is a very important meeting later this week on that issue.

Clearly, there are commercial issues to consider, which perhaps limit what I can say on the matter; but the CSeries would be very important for the development of Bombardier in Belfast, for potential jobs and, indeed, for the long tenure that those jobs would have.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Like other Members, I wish the First Minister well for the future in his new role.

As he realises, the organisation of the investment conference depended largely on interdepartmental co-operation. Economic growth is not the responsibility of just one Department. Will he assure me that he will ensure that that interdepartmental co-operation will continue to try to attract new investment into Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I are committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s investment potential is maximised. I indicated that the investment conference, which invited people from North America to Northern Ireland, will be a good model for further conferences. The deputy First Minister and I are examining the possibility of conferences in London and Dublin to follow up some of the contacts that were made during the investment conference.

The Member is correct: all Departments played a part. DEL was deeply involved in the event. DCAL, DETI and my former Department were also involved, as was OFMDFM, which had a central role. I am sure that DARD was also involved, because I recall that issues arose with regard to food. Had I not mentioned that, the Minister would have pointed it out quickly when she got an opportunity. Therefore, all of the Departments threw their weight behind the project in a joined-up way. I am convinced that they will do the same in any future event.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the First Minister outline targets set by the Executive to ensure that any future investment as a result of the conference will tackle deprivation and social and economic disadvantage?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Having been in the job for only a matter of a few days, one conversation that I have had with the deputy First Minister identified deprivation and need as an area that we have both prioritised and in which we share a desire that focus and energy should be applied. Too often, the Programme for Government might be identified as having a trickle-down effect; that when the economy is boosted, ultimately, people will get jobs and that will assist them. The deputy First Minister and I both believe that deprivation must be tackled immediately at ground-floor level. That will certainly be part of our aim. Of course, the location of those jobs will have an impact. There is no better way out of deprivation than to get people into employment.

Northern Ireland currently has a higher level of employment than has ever been the case before. It has one of the lowest levels of unemployment of any part of the British Isles. Therefore, opportunities exist. If additional higher-value-added jobs can be brought into Northern Ireland, I believe that the tide will rise for everyone.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what is its assessment of the forthcoming visit of the President of the United States. (AQO 3850/08)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The decision by the President of the United States to visit Belfast during his forthcoming tour of European capital cities is a clear demonstration of his personal commitment to Northern Ireland. We look forward to welcoming him here on Monday 16 June. We were pleased to learn that the first lady will accompany him. We hope that the visit will attract a significant level of positive media coverage in the United States and around the world, and that it will help to promote Northern Ireland as a place in which to invest and as a tourist destination. The timing of the visit, soon after the investment conference, is particularly useful for Invest NI, which will be able to use the attendant publicity to maintain a positive image of Northern Ireland with corporate America.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

I also want to congratulate the First Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his office. I also welcome his statement on the visit of President Bush to Northern Ireland, particularly to Parliament Buildings at Stormont. It is an historic occasion. I am sure that the Assembly wants to express again its sympathy with the American people on the great loss of life that they suffered on 9/11 and its solidarity with President Bush in his continuing efforts to protect his people from future acts of terror.

Will the First Minister use the opportunity of the President’s visit to reinforce the message that Northern Ireland is a good place in which to invest?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The community recognises the great sacrifice that has been made by many Americans, and the day in history to which the Member referred will long be regarded as being one of its darkest moments. Perhaps this is an opportunity for me to pass on condolences from the people of Northern Ireland to the families of the three soldiers who were killed in Helmand province. We all extend our sympathy to those families.

It is important to note that the President personally wished to make the visit to demonstrate his support for the devolved Administration. That identifies the fact that Northern Ireland is open for business.

Agriculture And Rural Development

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail her Department’s remit for helping to regenerate rural villages and towns. (AQO 3910/08)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department’s remit on rural settlements that have a population of fewer than 4,500 is met mainly through the village renewal measure of the new rural development programme for 2007-2013. Along with other measures in priority 3 of the programme, the village renewal measure will be implemented by local action groups working in partnership with council clusters.

The types of activities that are to be funded will depend on the priorities in the area strategy of the partnership and the types of applications that are received from the local community. I am confident that that measure will provide an excellent opportunity for the enhancement of rural settlements.

Members will be interested in the financial allocations to the seven council clusters of the first £50 million of funding for axis-3 measures, which have now been correctly calculated, based on population and deprivation. The allocations are: £6,211,991 for the north-east; £11,259,048 for the north-west; £12,721,715 for mid Ulster; £9,570,714 for the Craigavon cluster; £6,592,695 for Down; £1,793,712 for the Antrim cluster; and £1,850,124 for the Lisburn cluster.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister confirm that the amount of funding that is to be allocated to the north-west is an increased figure on an earlier announcement? I am particularly interested in whether the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) definition of “urban” and “rural” is the same as that understood by the Department for Social Development.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The initial figures were based on a miscalculation, and the Department has taken steps to address that.

For the purposes of the rural development programme, “rural” is defined as all areas that fall outside of the statutory development limit of towns with a population in excess of 4,500 inhabitants. However, the programme will retain the flexibility to support projects that are located in more urban settings, where the projects will principally benefit rural towns and where a strong case can be made for them.

Some groups have found that they have fallen between two stools in relation to funding, and the Minister for Social Development and I have asked officials to schedule an early meeting so that we can discuss and address that important issue.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her response. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the good work that has been carried out in many Protestant areas by rural groups. Can she provide an assurance that she intends to maintain, or indeed to enhance, funding to rural groups in Protestant areas?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, a pilot scheme has been running on that. As I said, the priorities that local action groups place in their clusters will decide how funding is allocated. That is a bottom-up approach, and local communities must take ownership to have flexibility in their decision-making process. The pilot schemes that I have mentioned are ongoing.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá a fhios againn gur diúltaíodh don mholadh a bhí ag Comhlucht Forbartha Foircille don seansuíomh míleata sa cheantar. An dtig liom a fhiafraí den Aire cén straitéis atá aici leis an mholadh sin a choinneáil ar an bhord nuair atá seans níos fearr ann anois go mbronnfar an suíomh sin ar an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin saor in aisce?

Given the Department of Finance and Personnel’s rejection of the Forkhill and District Development Association’s plans for the vacated army site, and considering the fact that there is a greater likelihood that such sites will be gifted to the Executive, what strategy does the Minister have to ensure that that proposal is kept alive?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

DARD’s involvement in the development of that project fits with the overall theme of the ‘Rural Strategy 2007-2013’, which is to diversify the rural economy, protect the rural environment and sustain rural communities.

In addition, the project meets one of the key aims of the Department’s ‘Strategic Plan 2006-2011’:

“to strengthen the social and economic infrastructure of rural areas”.

Furthermore, it meets with the aims of the Programme for Government, which was agreed by the Executive in January 2008, and in which DARD was charged to:

“Help rural communities improve the physical, economic and social infrastructure of their areas.”

Therefore, given that the project is consistent with the Department’s plans, I would like to see it come to fruition.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what her assessment is of the recent cases of botulism in cattle in the Armagh area; and what plans she has to increase awareness of the disease in terms of its causes and effects. (AQO 3878/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Botulism is not a notifiable disease; however, during April and May, farmers from County Armagh reported four suspected cases of botulism to private veterinary practitioners.

In 2006, there were 73 suspected cases, and, in 2007, 77 suspected cases were reported. That demonstrates a decline from the peak number of suspected cases — 138 — that were reported in 2003. To date this year, 27 cases have been reported, which suggests that, pro rata, there is no evidence of a rise in the number of suspected cases. Putting that in context, in 2003, the number of suspected cases in the North peaked at 138; in 2006, that number fell to 73; and that level was maintained in 2007.

Advisory leaflets on botulism are available from DARD for all farmers. In addition, posters are on display at local DARD veterinary offices, agricultural offices, auction marts and Ulster Farmers’ Union offices, and they alert farmers to the dangers of botulism and advise them about appropriate control measures. Furthermore, advice is available from the DARD website. Consequently, awareness among farmers of the disease, the risk factors involved and the benefit of vaccination as a control tool should now be widespread.

An effective vaccine against botulism in cattle can be obtained through private veterinary practitioners, and that vaccine has been successful in helping to control botulism in cattle here.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

The farmers in Armagh who lost valuable animals and identified the possible source of the problem to veterinary officials are unhappy — to say the least — that the Department took no action to deal with the problem. Does the Minister’s Department have any powers to take action against the people who were responsible for handling chicken manure in a manner that was unsafe for livestock?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, botulism is not a notifiable disease. However, private veterinary surgeons may submit carcasses to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) for investigation. DARD cannot comment on cases in which the evidence is anecdotal. However, if anyone has firm evidence of fraud, we would be very interested to hear about it and to act accordingly.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Considering the risk to human health from some forms of botulism, will the Minister assure the House that no risk to human health currently exists?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Risk assessments that were conducted on behalf of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food did not identify a significant risk to the public from food that is associated to botulism in cattle. That is mainly because, in the vast majority of cases, the toxins that were isolated from cattle do not affect people. Nevertheless, the advice to affected farms is that milk and meat from animals that show signs of the disease should be withheld from sale for human consumption.

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

Does the Minister support the use of incinerators to destroy chicken waste?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That question is not in any way connected to the main question, so I choose not to answer it.

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

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what action she is taking to improve the time taken between the testing for brucellosis and issuing test results. (AQO 3824/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am aware from feedback from the recent farmers’ meetings held as part of the brucellosis initiative and from talking to farmers that they have experienced delays in receiving brucellosis test results. The delays occurred because, as a result of improved surveillance, we have increased the volume of brucellosis testing by 15% from the figure for the same period last year. That increased volume has had an impact on turnaround times.

During the first quarter of 2008, the average time that it took to make a result available after having taken a sample rose to 10·7 days from 8·25 days for the same period in 2007. Moreover, there was additional pressure on staff resources and availability as, over that period, AFBI was also processing tests for bluetongue. AFBI has now redeployed staff, and I am pleased to say that there is no longer a backlog of tests for brucellosis.

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

Does the Minister agree that the time currently taken by her Department to release results is unacceptable? Will she consider applying a 30-day retention period from the day that the test results are issued?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In the first quarter of 2007, the average time from sampling to delivery at the laboratory was 4·5 days. In the same period in 2008, that figure increased slightly to five days. Again, that was due to the increased volume of testing this year, combined with peak demand by farmers for veterinary service staff to carry out sampling during the housing period. That meant that those who took the samples had less time to return to their offices to process the test results. Resource constraints also adversely affect delivery times.

The Veterinary Service is continuing to monitor performance in those areas to minimise the impact on the programme and the delays experienced by farmers. I assure the Member that I take this issue very seriously and that I wish to give farmers the maximum amount of time following receipt of their test results before they move or sell cattle. I am very aware of that issue, which has been raised in the successful meetings that we held on the brucellosis initiative earlier this year.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

Many farmers are concerned about the length of time that it takes DARD officials to remove animals that have tested positive for brucellosis. What assurance can the Minister give that her Department will speed up the removal of the infected cattle?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am very conscious of that matter. A leaflet was issued last week to outline what a farmer should do if there is a suspected case of brucellosis. We want those carcasses to be picked up as soon as possible. In the interim, farmers could double-bag them in ordinary bin bags — they should be secure until officials come to pick them up. I agree that there is a risk associated with carcasses or foetuses being on farms, and I want that situation to be improved.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What is the current incidence of brucellosis in the North?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The herd incidence where brucellosis is confirmed by bacteriological culture has remained level since October 2006 at 0·26%. More sensitive testing is identifying more potentially infected animals, hence the rise in the overall annual herd incidence from 0·6% in 2006 to the current level of 1·01%.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how her Department will use the development of energy generation from biomass energy to create jobs. (AQO 3875/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The development of biomass technology has the potential to create jobs, but that technology is in its early stages. We are encouraging its growth and promoting the opportunities for renewable energy in the agrifood and forestry sectors and wider rural community through technology transfer and demonstration prog­rammes at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) and AFBI, and via measures in the rural development programme. In particular, employment creation is central to measure 3.2 of that programme: ‘Business creation and development’.

During a recent visit to a major timber processor in the west, I saw at first hand a highly successful example of the innovative use of wood fibre for the generation of electricity and heat, and the production of wood fuel pellets for domestic and industrial use. I was particularly pleased that my Department, though the Forest Service, was involved with a commercial customer and other Government agencies in creating the circumstances that allowed investment in that renewable-energy technology.

That is underpinning the viability of the business and associated jobs, which are particularly significant in that rural area, as well as a higher-value market for timber from the Department’s forests.

My Department is also working with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) through the bioenergy interdepartmental working group in order to assess the potential market opportunities for energy from biomass and to address cost-cutting issues such as job creation relevant to the agricultural sector.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her positive response. A recent report from Action Renewables for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, to which I believe the Minister referred, highlighted the potential for job creation arising from the use of renewable energy sources. Does the Minister agree that greater co-operation is needed between her Department and DETI in order to maximise the economic and environmental benefits of energy from biomass?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Good levels of co-operation already exist, and I am not opposed to increasing that co-operation in order to benefit the rural community.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister accept, after the recent Assembly debate about the Rose Energy plant that is proposed for Glenavy, and the failure of her Department to come up with something suitable to help the farming industry, especially the poultry industry, that if that proposed application does not proceed, then thousands of jobs could be lost?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The question is about the development of energy generation from biomass energy in order to create jobs. The Member’s question is about incineration, which is not relevant to the question, and is, therefore, not appropriate.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister detail what assistance her Department is giving to landowners who want to use their land to grow willow trees, rape, maize and other sustainable biofuels?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department is involved in a number of issues, especially the creation of short-rotation coppice willow, which fits that category. I do not have the detail to hand, but I will write to the Member with details of what the Department is doing. The Department is working closely with CAFRE and AFBI in order to develop the technology and products that would fit into that source of renewable energy.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how she intends to increase the recreational use of forests; and to outline the rationale for the charging scheme for some activities. (AQO 3915/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Our forests offer great potential for the development of recreation and public access opportunities for local people and visitors. ‘Northern Ireland Forestry — A Strategy for Sustainability and Growth’, which was published in March 2006, provides the policy framework for Forest Service to make forests more widely available and to work with partners in order to achieve that.

In line with the strategy, Forest Service is developing proposals to identify partnership opportunities with private- and public-sector organisations in order to improve the quality and range of recreation provision in forests. That is expected to result in improved caravanning and camping facilities, and the creation of recreation opportunities such as tree-top adventure activities, making forests more attractive as recreational venues for new and existing visitors, and contributing to the tourism agenda in the North.

I want to see the social use of forests continue and develop. In that context, the Department will be publishing a social use and recreation strategy later this year, which will set out a framework for social use and recreation in the Department’s forests.

The rationale for charging for services falls into several distinct categories. For recreation provision similar to that which is available from the private sector, the Department’s aim is to set fees that achieve full cost recovery. For forestry recreation provision of a non-commercial nature, such as walking trails, charges are made at sites where it is cost-effective to do so. In cases where Forest Service facilitates specific events that are not directly associated with forestry provision, the aim will be to recover costs where the activities are not commercial. For those activities that generate a commercial return, the aim is to secure a share of that return that reflects the contribution made to the business by the forest asset.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that answer. She dwelt on the issue of social and recreational use. Will the Minister elaborate on whether she sees potential as regards the tourism agenda for the North?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I certainly do see such a potential, and I raised that issue at the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting that I attended with Minister Dodds last week. Our forests offer great potential to support the tourism agenda, and that is another area of opportunity that I want to explore. It is especially relevant to those forests that are included in the signature project areas, which have been identified by the Tourist Board. Forest Service officials have been involved in discussions about the possible contribution that forests can make to tourism; how that can best be delivered, and occasions in which forming partnerships with other interested providers can better realise the opportunities. I will ensure that such work continues.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her optimistic assessment of the possibilities. Was she talking merely about the possibilities in the forests that have full-time staff employed by her Department, and that we all identify as having tourism opportunities, or could more be done to add to the informal recreational opportunities in a range of forests across the whole of Northern Ireland?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Some forests are outside my Department’s control, so I will not speak about them. However, any forests that come under my Department’s remit will be open for discussion. Some high-profile forests would be a natural home for recreational activities, but I want to examine the opportunities for other forests in other parts of the North so that we can also maximise the tourism potential for those areas.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of the ever-increasing interest in mountain biking in Northern Ireland. Has the Minister had any discussions with the mountain-biking fraternity about whether our forests can be made suitable for that activity, because that would have potential tourism benefits? Has she had any discussions with her counterpart in Scotland?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not had any such discussions with my counterpart in Scotland. However, I have had several discussions about the recreational opportunities for forests with the Countryside Access and Activities Network (CAAN), which has a remit for promoting mountain biking, and I would like to develop further the potential for that activity.

We may need to seek partners, and we have spoken to district councils and others to find ways of maximising the opportunities without necessarily incurring all the cost under the DARD budget. Therefore, I am happy to engage in those types of partnerships and to talk to relevant parties about the issue.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what strategies are in place to attract young people as agricultural workers and new entrants to the farming industry. (AQO 3844/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Young people are the future of the agriculture industry, and I fully appreciate the importance of attracting young people who have the necessary skills and competences to meet the needs of agricultural businesses. My Department is doing its utmost to encourage new entrants to the industry and to supply those young people with all the skills that they need to move forward. The College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise offers 21 full- and part-time courses in agriculture and related land-based services, ranging from NVQ level 2 to honours degree level, to equip young people with the vital knowledge and skills for a successful career in farming.

College staff work closely with post-primary schools to promote careers in the industry and the CAFRE programmes. Each year, schools receive a college prospectus, associated promotional material, school visits and briefings for careers teachers. College staff attend careers conventions and major industry events and host open days for prospective students, parents and careers advisers. Promotional articles and advertisements are published regularly in the farming press.

I also commend the work of CAFRE, Lantra — the industry’s sector skills council — and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, in preparing a land-based occupational studies option for the 14- to 16-year-old age group in schools under the new entitle­ment framework and raising the profile of agriculture, food and rural environment among young people.

As well as further and higher education programmes, CAFRE will deliver agricultural training under the Department for Employment and Learning’s (DEL) new Training for Success initiative. I wish to ensure that our highly innovative and successful multi-skilling programme, which helps young people to combine off-farm employment with part-time farming, can continue under the new framework. College staff are working with DEL and the regional colleges to secure that outcome.

Furthermore, my Department offers financial assistance to new entrants to the farming industry. The new entrants’ scheme is still open to young farmers under 40 who possess adequate competence and who are setting up as head of a holding for the first time. The scheme provides an interest-rate subsidy on loans for eligible projects that add value and make a positive impact on the farming industry and the wider rural economy.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for the brevity of her answer. Despite what the Minister said, does she not agree that the new entrants’ scheme has not experienced the expected uptake? Will she ensure that greater flexibility will be built into future schemes?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We have consulted widely on the new entrants’ scheme, and I am particularly interested to hear the Young Farmers’ Clubs’ opinion on the scheme and possible improvements. We have extended the deadline for the new entrants’ scheme to encourage as many young people as possible to take up that money. Furthermore, there will be another publicity drive this week. We want to attract more new entrants, and I recognise that, last year, people were busy with the farm nutrient management scheme, which might have discouraged uptake in the interim period. However, by and large, the Department will do its utmost to attract new entrants into the industry and to ensure its long-term viability.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Given the current financial realities in the farming industry, will the Minister acknowledge the need to adopt a wider twin-track approach to that issue? The scheme is necessary to permit senior members of farming families to retire and to attract vital new blood to the industry. Has such a detailed strategy been devised and presented to the industry?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have discussed that issue with officials; in fact, in my first day in the job, that issue arose during discussions with senior members of the Department. After in-depth examination, farming organisations have told us clearly that, if the budget is limited, they would prefer an investment in young people rather than helping farmers to retire. It was felt that the single farm payment would help to cushion retiring farmers. The Member is, perhaps, thinking of the scheme in the Twenty-six Counties, whereby much more money was available, which enabled funding for both groups. Unfortunately, we do not have access to that level of funding.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. Has she assessed the payment rates outlined in the minimum wage regulations for agricultural workers?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That is a timely question because, in October 2007, the Assembly debated the Agricultural Wages Board and the protection of the minimum wage structure for agricultural workers. We accept that farmers and farm workers must receive a level of pay that encourages them to join the industry, or it will be difficult to attract and retain workers in the sector. Therefore, it is a timely issue, and I will keep my eye on the ball in that regard.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on having local action groups as part of the rural development programme 2007-2013. (AQO 3917/08)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Seven council clusters are in place, which have been conducting the animation of the rural areas and have either held — or are holding — a competitive call for the formation of a local action group. To date, four local action groups have been formed: Ards — covering Ards, Down, North Down and Banbridge council areas; Antrim — covering Antrim, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey council areas; Cookstown — covering Cookstown, Fermanagh, Magherafelt and Dungannon and South Tyrone council areas; Omagh — covering Omagh, Strabane, Limavady and Derry council areas.

Their documentation has been passed to my Department for ratification, ensuring that equality is addressed and that they represent all groups, as defined by section 75.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her answer. What progress has been made under existing arrangements?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

To date, all seven clusters have agreed, through full council, to work together to deliver the programme. As I said, four of the clusters have completed the animation process and have, through a competitive process, formed local action groups. One cluster is in the final stages of selecting a local action group, and two clusters are completing their animation phase and opening a call for a local action group. Consultants have been appointed in all areas to start work on the rural development strategies, and my Department issued an invitation to all clusters to submit strategies by 31 July 2008.

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

Will the Minister explain why all councils were not notified of the miscalculations that were made in relation to the first £50 million of the rural development fund? I know that the Minister notified all lead councils; however, would it not have been prudent to notify all councils of those serious mistakes?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, the figures were based on an erroneous application by officials of the methodology for calculating deprivation and were, therefore, incorrect. That mistake was brought to my attention by members of my party. I have instructed my officials to recalculate the figures, and I have given information about that today. My Department is working with the lead council concerned and is giving it space to do so, because there is no point in duplicating that work. The figures were announced today, and I expect the lead council to talk to the other councils in its cluster.

Culture, Arts And Leisure

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

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what support is available to subregional creative clusters in the community and voluntary sector. (AQO 3892/08)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In conjunction with other Departments and Invest Northern Ireland, my Department is developing a strategy to support and develop the creative-industries sector. I have secured £5 million over the next three years to deliver a creative-industries seed fund, which will provide support for creative businesses and sectoral initiatives. The detailed criteria for the fund are being determined, and I expect that the fund will be open to applications by autumn 2008.

Creative practitioners and businesses often develop in proximity to each other, and clustering fosters connections that are of mutual benefit. Examples of creative clusters involving the community and voluntary sectors can be found in the Cathedral Quarter of Belfast and the Nerve Centre in Londonderry. There are several sources of support for those initiatives, including the Arts Council, Northern Ireland Screen and local councils. Several councils have made significant investments in their arts infrastructures, which provide hubs for creative activities across Northern Ireland.