Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 January 2009

495 contributions from 49 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following the questions to the Minister of Education on her statement yesterday, Mr Basil McCrea and I raised points of order. As Deputy Speaker, you — quite properly, in my view —said that you would raise those matters with the Speaker. I know that it is premature to expect a ruling on any of those matters today, but, further to that point of order, I wish to raise an associated matter. At Question Time on 24 November 2008, the Minister of Education addressed questions for oral answer. On that occasion, questions to the Minister of Education lasted 29 and a half minutes, but 23 and a half minutes of that time were spent by the Minister in answering Members’ questions. One of her answers took three minutes and 20 seconds.

When the Speaker is considering yesterday’s points of order, will you ensure that that issue is raised? How is it that during Question Time, a Minister can be given such latitude that she is allowed to speak for such a long time without being asked by the Speaker — or any of the Deputy Speakers — at any time to bring her remarks to a close, address the question, keep her answer relevant or to stick to the point? I ask that you also raise that matter with the Speaker.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

You make your point well, Mr Attwood. As you know, that is a matter for the Speaker and for the Committee on Procedures. Indeed, that Committee is considering the point.

Ministerial Statement

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on public expenditure with respect to the 2008 strategic stocktake.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I wish to make a statement regarding the outcome of the strategic stocktake of the Northern Ireland Executive’s expenditure plans for the financial years 2009-2010 and 2010-11, which the Executive considered last Thursday.

The strategic stocktake was also informed by the submission of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and it incorporates the views of the other Assembly Committees. I am grateful for the constructive input of the Committee for Finance and Personnel throughout the strategic stocktake process, and in this statement, I will attempt to address as many of the Committee’s comments as I can.

In January 2008, after the outcome of the UK-wide comprehensive spending review of October 2007, the Assembly approved the expenditure plans for Northern Ireland Departments for 2008-09 to 2010-11. Those plans were drawn up in line with the Executive’s Programme for Government, and included provision for a range of measures to be developed. Those included extending free public transport to everyone aged 60 and over; improvements in mental-health and learning-disability services; moving 70,000 working-age benefit clients into employment by March 2011; reducing red tape by 25% in the agri-food sector by 2013; a more than 40% growth of the tourism industry by 2011; and reducing the maximum waiting time for hospital treatment to nine weeks for outpatients, and to 17 weeks for inpatients.

Those final Budget plans, which are at annex A of my statement, were agreed after the publication of draft plans in October 2007, and 10 weeks’ public consultation during which some 10,000 written responses were received, and high attendances were achieved at consultation events across Northern Ireland. In response to issues raised, additional funding was made available for mental health, children and youth services, the arts and social housing. The process began as far back as July 2005 when the Treasury announced its intention to conduct a comprehensive review of spending plans and priorities in 2007, rather than the normal biennial spending review.

One of the key features of the 2007 Budget process was the slowdown in growth in public spending at national level. That meant that the increase in the Executive’s block grant from the Treasury, under the 2007 comprehensive spending review, was significantly lower than in previous spending reviews, and the financial position has deteriorated further since then. The latest Treasury projections as set out in the 2008 pre-Budget report imply a further slowdown over the next spending review period, highlighting the difficult choices that will have to be made nationally and locally.

Following on from the 2007 Budget process — and on the basis that there was no expectation of any material additional resources becoming available for the financial years 2009-2010 and 2010-11 — the Executive agreed in March 2008 that there would be little to be gained from commissioning a comprehensive local Budget process for 2008-09. However, it was recognised that Northern Ireland Departments would have emerging financial issues of which early sight would be useful when considering the strategic approach to the 2009-2010 in-year process. Therefore, the Executive agreed to conduct a strategic stocktake of the Budget position for forward years in order to allow Departments to review progress against their three-year plans to date, and to register any easements or pressures for next year and the following year against Budget allocations. In setting firm expenditure plans in January 2008 for the financial years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the Executive fulfilled their legal obligations in that respect for each of the following three years. However, periodic reviews of expenditure plans for Northern Ireland Departments remain essential, and that is one of the reasons for this strategic stocktake.

On 2 April 2008, my officials informed the Committee for Finance and Personnel of the Executive’s intended approach, and no opposing views were put forward at that time, when it would have been appropriate to do so. It was intended originally that the review of expenditure plans would be based on an assessment of progress to date against the targets set out in the Programme for Government, as well as the implementation of efficiency-delivery plans. In light of the short period that had passed since the start of the new financial year, it was not possible to review actual performance. Instead, the focus was on ensuring that sufficient systems were in place to ensure delivery.

With regard to the Programme for Government targets, the available evidence suggests that although some good progress has been made in developing the overall delivery frameworks in respect of most public service agreements, further work is required in order to provide the necessary assurances that services are being delivered as planned. That is an area of concern for the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and I hope that it will be taken forward as soon as possible by the respective Departments.

Regarding achieving the Executive’s 3% per annum efficiency savings targets, there is concern at the delay in publishing efficiency delivery plans, and at the level of detail provided in some cases.

Therefore, further work will be required by Departments to provide sufficient assurance to the Assembly and the wider public that savings are being achieved through carefully planned measures to improve efficiency, rather than crude cuts in public services. The Assembly Committees have a key role, in that respect, to ensure that efficiency delivery plans are publicly available and to challenge Departments on the contents and subsequent delivery of their plans.

In relation to the strategic stocktake, I will first turn to the resources that are potentially available to the Executive over the next two years, beginning with the Barnett consequentials from UK Budgets, which — as Members will be aware — represents by far the largest source of funding to the Executive. In light of the slowdown in economic growth across the globe, the expectation is that there will be a net reduction in our block grant over the period 2009-2011, relative to the position when the Budget was agreed last January.

In addition to allocations from the 2008 Budget and pre-Budget reports, the Northern Ireland Executive have also been provided with the flexibility to accelerate £76·8 million worth of capital investment into 2009-2010, as announced in the pre-Budget report. However, if the Executive decide to avail themselves of that opportunity, that funding would not be available in 2010-11.

A further consideration that was highlighted by the Committee for Finance and Personnel is the capacity of Departments to deliver accelerated capital investment projects, although I hope that the apparent improved performance for this financial year will provide some assurance in that respect. However, the potentially more significant provision in the pre-Budget report was the £5 billion increase in efficiency savings for Whitehall Departments in 2010-11, which the Treasury intends to reflect in the level of funding to the Executive.

Although the Committee for Finance and Personnel has asked for further detail as to whether the Executive intend to increase the targeted level of efficiencies as a result, I am sure that the Committee — and the House — will appreciate that that decision must wait until we have greater certainty regarding the impact on the block grant for 2010-11, which is expected to be provided in the Chancellor’s Budget in the spring. In addition, I intend to challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that our comprehensive spending review 2007 settlement should be honoured in full and, hence, the additional efficiencies for Whitehall Departments should not impact on the Northern Ireland Executive.

However, Members will be all too aware of the current situation at Whitehall, with Conservatives proposing that further savings of around £5 billion be made in the next financial year; that is, 2009-2010. Similarly, in the Republic of Ireland, reductions in public-sector pay and staffing levels are being considered as part of plans to deliver a further €2 billion of savings for 2009. To put that in context, that would be equivalent to over £700 million in additional savings for 2009-2010 for Northern Ireland Departments, adjusting for differences in population. That sets the context in which our discussions with the Treasury will take place.

In relation to other potential sources of income, the current financial situation means that there will be further constraints on the level of access to our outstanding stock of end-year flexibility. In relation to the disposal of surplus assets, the main emphasis for Northern Ireland Departments will be on ensuring the delivery of existing plans rather than seeking additional income, a point that was recognised by the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Therefore, the overall level of resources available to the Executive over the next two years is expected to reduce rather than increase. That being the case, my ministerial colleagues and I will need to focus our efforts on making the best uses of the available resources. In that context, the main source of funding to address emerging pressures is expected to come from the resources that were allocated in the Budget process but that are no longer required for the purpose, and over the time frame, that was initially intended.

In their strategic stocktake returns, Departments declared £29·6 million in current expenditure reduced requirements for next year and a further £21·1 million for the year after. Further details are set out in my statement, which also shows that only £1·2 million of capital expenditure reduced requirements were declared by Departments. However, the Department of the Environment (DOE) has indicated that there will also be slippage in strategic waste infrastructure projects from 2010-11 into future years.

I expect further reduced requirements to be declared as we move into the respective in-year monitoring processes, particularly in respect of capital projects as market conditions provide increased value-for-money opportunities in the public procurement of capital projects. That matter was highlighted by the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Although the relatively low level of reduced requirements declared by Departments means that the Executive would be able to make additional allocations at this time only by imposing significant reductions on existing budgets, it is still important that the Executive be aware of the emerging pressures identified by Departments. It is important to stress at the outset that not all the costs identified by Departments are inescapable; nor, from previous experience, would they be expected to materialise to the full extent that has been suggested. The first source of funding in respect of emerging pressures should come from the Department’s resources.

That reflects the concern of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has suggested that Departments had provided insufficient detail in their strategic stocktake returns on how they intend to address the emerging pressures that they had identified. Departments have identified £233 million of current expenditure pressures in 2009-2010 in total, and £301·7 million in 2010-11, as detailed in my statement.

Departments will be happy to note that most Assembly Committees were broadly in agreement with the pressures that have been identified, although I urge Committees to be more challenging in respect of the prioritisation of proposals. The most significant pressures have been identified by the Department of Education (DE), the Department of Agriculture and Rural Department (DARD), and the Department for Regional Development (DRD). The Department for Regional Development is mainly pressured by the lost income from the deferral of water charges in 2009-2010. That is an additional cost over and above the non-cash costs being covered by the Treasury for 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Although the pressures identified by Departments appear to be significant in absolute terms, in relative terms the House should be aware that they are equivalent to 2·7% to 3·4% of their budget settlements for 2009-2011. That compares with the 4·8% of resources declared by Departments as surplus in reduced requirements and underspend in the 2007-08 financial year alone.

Departments have also identified £175·6 million of capital expenditure pressures in 2009-2010, and £435·4 million in 2010-11. The most significant pressures have been identified in shortfalls in capital receipts in respect of the Crossnacreevy site by DARD, and the housing programme. That reflects the concerns of the Committee for Finance and Personnel regarding the overall delivery of planned capital receipts, although I expect that the respective Departments will take all action possible in order to address any shortfalls internally as a necessary condition for support from the Executive.

In addition to departmental-specific pressures, the most significant issue facing the Executive is the equal pay claim for junior members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Although the Prime Minister has recently provided access to £100 million of current expenditure for either 2008-09 or 2009-2010 to help to address the spending pressures faced by the Executive, it needs to be clearly recognised that the extent to which the one-off cost exceeds this amount will represent a call on the Executive’s available resources at a time when the overall financial position is severely constrained. There may also be recurrent costs as the pay structures are revised to ensure that they comply with the requirements of equal pay legislation.

In addition, the enhanced access to current expenditure will have implications because it is comprised of additional borrowing power and early access to the block grant. There are a number of other less significant cross-departmental pressures, including the residual funding commitment associated with the integrated development fund; increased rating relief, as we implement further reforms to the rating system and absorb the impact of the economic downturn; and the consequences of previous overpayments of UK public-sector pensions.

The economic downturn is already having an impact on the demand for the broad range of public services, particularly as a result of the increase in the level of unemployment. The precise impact of that will only be known as the position develops. In recognition of the importance of the Assembly in relation to financial matters, the Committee for Finance and Personnel was invited to submit its own assessment of the strategic stocktake position so that it could be taken into consideration as part of this exercise.

The substantive return from the Committee incorporates the co-ordinated views of other Assembly Committees. I have already touched on many of the Committee’s points, but a number of additional matters were raised, including a request for further clarification on the recently announced financial package — which I hope has been addressed — and a concern about the ability of Departments to deliver the planned level of resources from the disposal of surplus assets and efficiency savings. There are concerns at the difference between the scale of emerging pressures, as identified by Departments, and the level of available resources. However, I remind Members that it is in the nature of budgetary exercises for Departments to bid for significantly more than is available.

There was a query as to why few of the pressures identified relate to the economic downturn. I suggest that that reflects the priority given to the economy in the 2008-2011 Budget process. However, it is expected that such pressures will increase as the full extent of the downturn feeds through. The Committee raised the issues of financial and project management, baseline reviews and access to the Executive’s end-year flexibility stock. I agree that a more constrained level of access to end-year flexibility stock underscores the importance of Departments minimising the level of end-year underspend; that should not, however, be at the expense of value for money.

Although the pressures identified by Departments as part of the strategic stocktake exceed the resources immediately available, they must be set against the scale of existing allocations and the level of resources that would normally be available to the Executive as part of the in-year monitoring process.

The two main issues for 2009-2010 concern the reduction in income from the deferral of water charges, and the one-off payment — and any initial consequential costs — of the Northern Ireland Civil Service equal pay claim. Those pressures will continue to impact on the overall financial position as we move into 2010-11, as will the reduction in resources available to the Executive as a result of the decision in the pre-Budget report to increase the efficiency target for Whitehall Departments by £5 billion.

The overall financial context for 2009-2010 and 2010-11 that I have described underpins the validity of the Executive’s decision in March 2008 not to undertake a full Budget exercise. Instead, the focus will be on managing the emerging financial position as part of next year’s in-year monitoring process. That approach will help us to manage the uncertainty that still surrounds some anticipated pressures next year — in particular, the final cost of the Civil Service equal pay settlement and the loss of income associated with the deferral of water charges.

I am sure that Members will have a number of questions regarding the approach that the Executive are adopting. In addition, the Committee for Finance and Personnel will table a take-note motion on the issue. That will provide an important opportunity for Executive Ministers to take into consideration the views of Members in advance of the 2009-2010 in-year monitoring rounds.

Looking forward to 2010-11, we still do not know when the next UK spending review will take place. In light of the pressures that I have detailed and the expected level of resources going into 2010-11, I am giving consideration as to the most appropriate form of process to manage the difficult funding position that we face, while maximising the delivery of public services.

Obviously, the circumstances that we currently face are significantly different to those that existed when the Budget was being finalised, or to any that could have been identified at that time. Clearly, we are still in a position of extreme volatility, with rising unemployment replacing the increased cost of living as the main cause for concern. Although I appreciate the scale of the pressures facing Departments, the current financial position means that the only way in which more resources could have been allocated to a particular service would have been to scale back other public services. There was no appetite among my ministerial colleagues for such an approach.

I anticipate that many Members will today, and in the take-note debate next week, press the case for additional resources to be allocated at this time to certain public services. I ask that, in doing so, they take into consideration the current financial position and identify which existing service they would cut. That would add real value to such a debate.

External factors have contrived to ensure that the early years of this Executive will be the most challenging. In that context, it is more important than ever that all Members of the Executive, with the support of the Assembly, work together to deliver a better future for all the people of Northern Ireland. I commend to the Assembly the strategic stocktake of the 2009-2010 and 2010-11 expenditure plans of the Northern Ireland Executive.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. The breadth and scope of the report that he has delivered to the House describes the challenges that are faced by the Assembly and, in particular, the Executive in meeting the Programme for Government’s targets.

The first of two key issues that have exercised the Committee is the question of capital-assets realisation targets. The Executive’s Budget for 2008-2011 includes forecast capital receipts of £1·6 billion. What is the estimated out-turn against that target? How will the Executive deal with any deficits? What is the position with regard to the recommendations of the capital-assets realisation task force’s report that was agreed in December 2007?

The Minister has dealt with the second issue in some detail in his statement. There is a question about Departments’ bids for additional resources. When giving evidence on the stocktake to the Committee, officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) said that questions remained about the scale of some bids that have been received from Departments and about whether those bids represent ongoing pressures.

That is a particularly crucial and relevant point to make at present. The initial stocktake position that was sent to the Committee showed a gap of approximately £1 billion between the bids that were submitted and the reduced requirements that have been identified for 2009-2011. Is the Minister concerned that Departments seem not to have met the stocktake’s terms of reference, which stated that they needed to demonstrate how bids could be met through the adjustment of existing plans and priorities? Is the Minister confident that the major pressures that have been declared by Departments — those that can be substantiated — can be met?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Committee Chairman for his comments, and I am grateful to the Committee for the work that it has done on that important subject.

Capital receipts are an important issue. Northern Ireland Departments have indicated, across the board, that the downturn in the property market will, of course, have a significant impact on the level of capital receipts in 2009 and in the medium term. It is hoped that at some point during the medium term, that that will turn around. I expect that, initially, all Departments that are affected will take every possible action to deal with shortfalls internally, as a necessary condition — as I said in my statement — to any future support from the Executive.

The Chairman mentioned the capital-assets realisation task force. The experience of the current financial year is that there needs to be greater certainty about the level and timing of forecast receipts before corresponding allocations are made to Departments. Therefore, it is important that Departments are incentivised to realise, where possible, assets that have been identified by the capital-assets realisation task force, and that they understand the implications of not realising those assets.

The Chairman raised the question of bids that have been submitted by Departments and made an important point about the nature of those bids. As I said in my statement, it is not surprising in such a budgeting round that Departments will submit a vast range of bids, not all of which will be inescapable. My Department must consider carefully the nature of those bids. As I indicated to the Assembly, the scale of bids that have been set out and brought forward by Departments are within approximately 3% of budget allocations. When one considers previous experience of underspend, in-year monitoring, reduced requirements, and so on, that is in the range of what is manageable.

Obviously, my Department is engaged in that exercise to take a long-term view of the situation in the next year or two.

However, things are volatile, and that is the purpose and benefit of having an in-year monitoring process that allows us to be flexible in allocating resources throughout the years, as reduced requirements come through. We can also hope to meet, and to help with, other emerging pressures and priorities.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

A considerable number of Members wish to ask questions on the Minister’s statement. I would, therefore, ask that Members should only ask questions in their contributions rather than make statements.

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

Will you take a point of order?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

No; a point of order can be made after the questions to the Minister.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will question the Minister on two areas of real concern to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The Minster will be aware — from his Department and other Departments — of the difficulty of meeting some of the efficiency targets. The Minister also mentioned the possibility that the Chancellor’s Budget in the spring will impose additional efficiency targets on UK Departments. Has his Department quantified how that might impact on Northern Ireland? Can he confirm that the Executive intend to continue with the administration savings in Northern Ireland of 5% in real terms?

Given the economic situation, it would be intolerable to have the historically high levels of underpsend, particularly with end-year flexibility stocks being increasingly eaten into by the Treasury. Can the Minister provide an outline of how confident he is that the historical trends of high underpsend will not be repeated as we move into increasingly difficult times?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Deputy Chairperson for his questions. As part of the 2008-2011 Budget, a 3% per annum efficiency savings target was agreed by the Executive and endorsed by the House. The pre-Budget report indicated that the efficiency savings for Whitehall Departments would increase by £5 billion in 2010-11. That would have implications for the level of funding available to the Executive, but we must wait for the Chancellor’s Budget in the spring to get the details.

Along with my colleagues, I intend to challenge any reduction in our block grant. That is not something that we should simply accept, although we are conscious of the context in which we are operating whereby it is not only the Government that are indicating that there will be increased efficiencies, but the Opposition are indicating that there will be even greater efficiency cuts for 2010-11 and, indeed, efficiencies for 2009-2010. Therefore, the negotiations and discussions will be difficult.

Mr Hamilton pointed out the importance of ensuring that Departments have the minimum underspend possible. Due to the difficulties of gaining access to end-year flexibility, any underpsend would be returned to Treasury and lost to Northern Ireland in the immediate future. It is imperative, therefore, to keep underpsend to a minimum. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has raised that point and examined it seriously. Indeed, I am sure that every Assembly Committee is monitoring that situation carefully.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Much has changed economically since 2008. The Minister acknowledged some of the difficulties, such as end-year flexibility constraints, fewer resources from the sale of unused assets, and capital pressures of some £611 million. Can the Minister advise whether that figure of £611 million includes the gap that is left from the termination of the 2010 process? Given that there have been such dramatic changes in the economic situations that govern the Executive, does he intend to resume the normal annual budgetary process? Will he enable greater accountability and scrutiny by allowing that process to be resumed?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. However, I have not imposed anything: the Executive, which includes Ministers from the Member’s own party, and the Assembly agreed to the process. The Member is right to point out that the economic situation — including the property market and the banking system — and the context in which we operate have changed dramatically.

Given what I have said in my statement and given the economic realities, any proposed changes to the Budget will entail Ministers giving up money so that it can be reallocated elsewhere. The Executive will consider that approach if Mr Beggs or any Member who advocates that approach can persuade a Minister of their own party, or any other Minister, to support it. However, I do not know of any Minister in the Executive who supports that idea. In fact, Ministers are entirely resistant to any suggestion of changes to their budgets. The Member, and others who take that view, should raise the matter more generally. It is a matter for other Ministers, not just me.

The Workplace 2010 issue affected capital receipts in this financial year, but it will not impact on the next two years. That will assist us. As a result of the decision to suspend the Workplace 2010 process, the £175 million receipt that was forecast for this year did not materialise. That added to the financial pressure on the Executive. However, it will not be a factor next year, when capital expenditure is forecast to increase by 6% across all Departments. Furthermore, this year’s expenditure on capital investment is 40% higher than in 2006-07. That boosts our economy and the construction industry.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am disappointed that it contained less detail than a routine monitoring round statement.

How can the Minister describe his statement as being strategic? Members are aware of the changes to the budgetary situation since last year, such as the collapse in asset sales, the change of plans on water charges, the equal pay issue and the absolute need for the Executive to respond to the massive economic downturn.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. As I pointed out, Members must ask questions of the Minister. There are 20 Members —

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

Why —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. Twenty Members want to ask questions. If Members at the beginning of the list use too much time, Members near the end of the list will not have an opportunity to ask questions. Therefore, you must ask a question.

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

Members need an opportunity to discuss major budgetary issues properly in the House. Where else can we do so?

The Minister referred to a reduced block grant —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order.

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

I ask the Minister to —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. You must ask a question, or I will move to the next Member.

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

Why was a full budget statement not provided to the Assembly? In light of the Minister’s letter of 9 January to the Minister for Social Development, in which he was genuinely responsive to the decline in house and land sales and the consequent effect on the housing budget and the house-construction industry — and I welcome his responsiveness to that matter — why did he not take any action on that matter and outline how he will strategically supply an adequate social-housing budget for the next year?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful for the Member’s question — when he eventually asked it. The point is that the Executive decision not to conduct a formal Budget exercise — which was agreed by the Executive unanimously — was taken because all of the available resources had been allocated for the three years. As I have indicated to the Assembly, it is unlikely that any additional material resources will become available; if anything, there will be pressures on the current position.

The Member mentioned the social-housing budget, and I thank him for his comments about the work carried out by the Minister for Social Development and me in relation to the recent housing position. However, the current financial position means that the only way in which a specific allocation can now be given to any Department — whether it is the Department for Regional Development, the Department for Social Development (DSD), or the Department of Education — is by scaling back other public services. Given the finite Budget available, if the Member is saying that he wants to prioritise social housing — as we all do — he must say how he intends to fund that.

We never hear the Member tell us how and where he intends to get the money from, and I would love to hear him tell us that and come forward and add real value to the debate.

We will work with DSD, and all the other Departments that face pressures, to ensure that they take internal decisions about reallocations — and I am glad that, eventually, DSD did take measures in that regard, and my Department assisted in allowing it to do that. Then, the Executive would consider the range of issues that arise, the pressures identified and the resources available, and make a strategic decision. Generally speaking, the Executive makes those decisions unanimously.

Members must realise and face up to the fact that if allocations to one Department are to be increased, there must be reduced spending in another Department.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he confirm to the House that he is declaring a funding gap of £450 million over the next two years, and that, rather than being determined by external circumstances, more than half of it is self-inflicted, resulting from the decision to defer water charges for two years? That decision was not planned for in the Programme for Government, or in the Budget that was originally set and agreed by the House. Does the Minister share my frustration that, unlike all other Governments in the world, we are not taking the opportunity to re-examine underlying Budget allocations and refocus our efforts on tackling the economic downturn?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not accept what the honourable Member says. He is advocating that water charges be imposed at a time of economic hardship — if he does not agree that the decision to defer water charges was correct, the corollary is that the charges should have been introduced. That is the simple logic of what he says. Recently, he disagreed with the decision to freeze the regional rate. We also hear other proposals from that quarter, from time to time, about tax-raising powers.

I was delighted to hear the Member yesterday welcome the announcement I made about the impact on district ratepayers, but he is now back to his usual form of advocating that water charges should have been introduced. I fundamentally disagree with that. It would have been a major imposition of hardship on hard-pressed householders at the current time. Deferring those charges was the right decision.

As regards bids, it is entirely normal for Departments, when asked to identify pressures and easements, to identify a significant level of bids and very few reduced requirements. That has been the case over the past number of years, and it is all the more certain to happen when one is looking forward two years. There is nothing surprising in what the Member has said, but it must be borne in mind that the £450 million he mentioned is well within the limits of what was declared as underspend in the financial year 2007-08, and it is entirely manageable through the in-year monitoring process.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What level of reduced requirements does the Minister project will be surrendered by Departments over the next two years?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Reduced requirements form a major element of our flexibility and our ability to deal with spending pressures that emerge during the year. As I have just said, it is extremely difficult to predict and measure those pressures with certainty before the start of each financial year — the picture will become much clearer during those years.

However, if recent years are taken as a reasonable guide to future behaviour, then between £150 million and £220 million in current expenditure-reduced requirements, and between £110 million and £260 million of capital investment, have been declared over the last three years. Those figures put the earlier comments about a funding gap into perspective. In relation to in-year reduced requirements and underspends that have been identified by Departments — not all of which are inescapable or will turn out to be genuine pressures — recent history and performance shows that we will be able to manage the situation carefully and prudently as we move forward.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In his statement and in some of the comments that he made, the Minister said that it was important that Departments minimise their levels of underspend. Will he take any pre-emptive measures to ensure that there is no risk of money going back to the Treasury?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The in-year monitoring process is designed to ensure that money that is not needed in particular areas is reallocated to areas in which it can be spent and create value for money. We are all determined to ensure that as little money as possible ends up underspent at the end of the year, as that money would go back to the Treasury. It is a priority for my Department and the Executive, and it should be a priority for every Minister and Department.

I heard a suggestion that we should have a contingency fund in case there is a black hole in the Budget. The danger of taking that approach is that unspent money could be sitting in a fund as we approach the end of a financial year. That money would be very difficult to spend as Departments would not have been able to use it during the year, and a lot of it could end up returning to the Treasury.

The best approach is the one that we have adopted, which is to use the in-year monitoring process. That approach has been tried and tested over many years. As we reach the end of a financial year, we very carefully monitor the situation to ensure that money that will not be spent is declared as early as possible so that it can be reallocated to areas in which it can be spent. I think that Members will agree that that is the message that I have consistently spelt out publicly, in the Assembly, in the Executive and to Ministers.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Despite what others say, I think that it was a very good statement. I know that the Minister touched on the matter during his statement, but what is the current position on the issue of equal pay in the Civil Service?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Equal pay for junior members of the Civil Service is probably one of the most significant issues facing the Executive, as a whole, in addition to Department-specific pressures. Negotiations are continuing with the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance with a view to reaching a negotiated settlement on the equal pay issue as soon as possible.

There are complexities associated with attempting to achieve a negotiated resolution, so it may take some time. The legal issues, the complexity of the work and the sensitivity of negotiations make it difficult to provide specific details about the timescale for such a resolution. Nevertheless, we are working on it; negotiations continue, and any settlement in relation to the one-off payment that is significantly in excess of the £100 million flexibility that was negotiated with the Prime Minister in order to meet general spending pressures will have an impact on the Executive’s spending plans.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister’s statement lacks clarity. I am not sure whether he is telling Members that there is a problem or whether there is not a problem. It appears that we will not be able to balance the books, and that we have made commitments that we will not be able to honour. There is a £700 million shortfall —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. Questions, Mr McCrea, questions.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister confirm that the pressures on current and capital expenditure over the next two years amount to £700 million, and that there are potential easements of only £60 million? In addition, given that the Minister said that he would give consideration to the most appropriate way in which to discuss the matter, what is his current thinking about that? Furthermore, it is a myth that his Executive colleagues are working together, so how does he intend to bring them together, and, although I have great confidence in the Minister, how does he intend to bring the Assembly together to deal with this difficult and serious matter?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I appreciate the Member’s confidence in me, and I heard what he said about making commitments that we cannot honour and about balancing the books. They are important points, and I am sure that he made them with all sincerity.

We are setting out a strategic stocktake for the next two years, and it should come as no great surprise to Members that when Departments are asked to put on the table the pressures that they envisage, as part of a budgetary process they will put a considerable amount on the table. As I said, not all those pressures are inescapable and, when we get down to it, not all will be to the scale or timescale that will require every penny piece to be met.

The reduced requirements envisaged now are not at the level that they will reach in two years, and the Member should bear in mind that, as I said in my statement, the pressure on Departments will be equivalent to 2·7% to 3·4% of departmental budgets, and settlements will be spread over the three-year Budget period. Moreover, 4·8% of resources were declared as surplus by Departments in 2007-08.

That demonstrates the situation; I am pointing out the range of issues and giving an overview, and it is important that the Committees, the Assembly and Members are aware of those matters in order to manage them. Furthermore, there may be demands from Whitehall for greater efficiencies. Therefore, I intend to continue to come to the Assembly to outline the changing situation as openly and as transparently as possible.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that he has painted a depressing picture of the financial situation for not only this year but for the next two years? Furthermore, will he acknowledge that the imposition of water charges is implicit in his statement, and has been stated by his party? When, exactly, did the Assembly agree to water charges, and when will it be given the opportunity to vote on the imposition of water charges?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member is right to point out the fact that direct rule Ministers decided to go ahead with water charges: the Assembly did not make that decision — I thought that that was obvious to everyone. I remember that the SDLP played a prominent role when the issue first emerged as a possibility in the earlier Assembly. In fact, it was described as the Durkan tax — something that the SDLP should remember before its Members talk about the Assembly’s role in the matter.

The Executive have taken action to relieve the burden on households. I ask the honourable Member, given her comments and those of the Alliance Member earlier, and I ask all the other Members who want to reduce, or increase, expenditure and create a greater liability for the Executive in one area, to suggest other areas in which expenditure can be cut to allow that to be done.

It is childish, irresponsible and nonsense to continually come forward with spending plans in respect of the finite Budget that is allocated to us through the block grant and say that more money is required but not say from where it can be taken. However, I look forward very soon, I understand, to proposals in that regard from that quarter as to the cuts that are going to be made in order to pay for a range of expenditure in other areas. That will allow us to get down to a serious and real debate about the issues.

The global economic situation is difficult; and Northern Ireland is not alone in that regard. The United States, British and European Governments are taking unprecedented actions and interventions because of the global credit crisis and the financial and economic situation. To pretend that Northern Ireland can be insulated from that is to engage in a fantasy and nonsense approach to politics.

The Executive are making strategic decisions that are within their power to help our industries, businesses and households. For instance, the freezing of manufacturing rates, business rates, and regional rates for households, the introduction of a relief for pensioners, and fuel credits will benefit many people, but they would not have happened under direct rule. The Executive, therefore, are taking measures to try to help people at this difficult time.

We wish that we could go further, but — as a regional devolved Administration — we are where we are with regard to the financial situation. We are not a sovereign Government, but, as Members know, even those Governments, which have borrowing and tax-raising powers, among others, are finding the going tough.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Minister referred to the legacy costs of the equal pay claim and expanded on that. Is he concerned that the settlement of that pay claim will wipe out the efficiency savings of many Departments?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

As I indicated, the equal pay settlement is an issue that faces the whole Executive; it is an addition to departmental-specific pressures. Progress has been made in that we have negotiated with the Prime Minister and the Treasury access to £100 million that will meet general spending pressures — one of which is the equal pay claim. The settlement of the pay claim will not wipe out all of the efficiency savings, because their value is of greater contribution to the Budget than the identified pressure of the equal pay claim.

However, it is worth putting on record that any settlement above £100 million will mean that there will be extra pressure on the Executive. One must remember that the equal pay claim will not be settled by a one-off payment: there will be knock-on costs to the Budget for each subsequent year.

The Member is right to identify that as a major issue for the Executive over the next year or so. However, had we not managed, a few months ago, to negotiate with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor a substantial package that has provided significant spending resources that we would not otherwise have had, the situation would be far worse, far bleaker, far gloomier and far more difficult.

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

No one will have missed the fact that, when it comes to repeating the inaccurate assertions about what happened in relation to water rates, the Minister now chooses to borrow and adopt the language of his partners in Government, Sinn Féin.

I refer the Minister to the last page of his statement, in which he states that he is:

“currently giving consideration to the most appropriate form of process to manage the difficult funding position that we face”.

Furthermore, in that statement, the Minister concedes that the Budget for 2009-2011 will be lower than the amount that was anticipated when the Budget was approved. As Mr O’Loan outlined, he also conceded to the Minister for Social Development that her failure to secure extra money for her budget has had a materially disproportionate effect on the construction industry. Given those circumstances, does he now accept the SDLP proposal that it is time to revise the priorities that were set out in the Programme for Government and the Budget, and to invest further expenditure in social housing, retraining and upskilling?

If he does not accept that proposal, is it not the case that the Minster of Finance and Personnel will be portrayed — accurately, and as the Budget stocktake confirms — as making it up as he goes along, rather than getting to grips with the crisis that the North now faces?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member’s words contained much rhetoric but little substance. He did not offer any suggestion of how any shortfall, particularly in departmental budgets, could be made up by making cuts elsewhere. He is, therefore, adopting a simplistic and childish, rather than a mature, approach. He does not identify where the cuts should be made. His policy is one of cutting expenditure to fund a priority elsewhere.

The three-year Budget sets out clear plans for expenditure on several priorities, including social housing, fuel poverty, and so forth. The Department reacted to the capital shortfall identified in the in-year monitoring by allocating £20 million this year alone to social housing. The Department has recently demonstrated flexibility on that matter and will continue to do so.

However, although social housing is important to the construction industry, it is not its sole contributor. This year alone, slightly more than £1·5 billion of public money will fund capital investment projects for roads, schools, hospitals, housing, and so forth, across Northern Ireland. It is not simply a matter of investing solely in housing to help the construction industry. That is important, but, as we speak, 40% more investment than in 2006-07 is being made in all those other areas, too.

Therefore, I am not making it up as I go along. The money is delivering capital infrastructure to improve the future for the people of Northern Ireland. As well as helping the construction industry now, it will deliver better hospitals, schools, roads and housing. That is not an airy-fairy notion of what might happen in the future; that 40% higher expenditure is being delivered to those areas now. That amount is set to increase by 6% next year, and to increase over the next 10 years. That is not a case of a Minister making it up as he goes along; it is good planning and investing for the future, which is something that I thought the party opposite, and indeed its Executive Minister, supported.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

In response to the economic downturn, other parts of the UK are investing heavily in major building projects, which is something that our construction industry is crying out for. However, a big question mark hangs over whether DSD has enough funding to complete its set target of building 1,500 new homes.

Does the Minister agree that there is a need for DFP to be more flexible to assist DSD in meeting its top priority?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member will have noted the Minister for Social Development’s recent statement acknowledging and thanking DFP for its flexibility in being prepared to see £10 million reallocated. I was glad to see DSD take a proactive approach to that, and to the £20 million allocated to that Department in this in-year monitoring process.

There is ongoing investment in capital projects in the construction industry this year, and I am confident that the five-year target for social housing will be met. Seven major projects, worth £265 million, are under construction this year for health, including the Royal Victoria Hospital, the Ulster Hospital, the Downe Hospital, projects at Portadown and Altnagelvin, and a regional adolescent child psychiatric unit.

Some £420 million is being spent this financial year on major road projects; £127 million is being spent by DRD on the Belfast sewers project, and 10 waste-water projects worth almost £90 million are under construction; £83 million is being spent by the Department for Employment and Learning on four further education projects; £200 million is being spent by the Department of Education on 14 major projects right across the Province; the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) has two major projects, worth £54 million, under construction; and DSD has urban construction under way worth £22 million. That is just some of the ongoing investment.

I have indicated already that a further £400 million will be allocated for major infrastructure going to market between the monitoring round and the end of the financial year; £115 million of that is being released out of the framework legal difficulties and going by normal procurement methods, so that that can be brought to market without any legal impairment.

All that investment shows that a considerable amount is going into the construction industry and building for the future of Northern Ireland — not just in housing, but right across the board. Every Department, including DSD, DRD and Education, could say that they could do more. However, considerably more is being achieved than was achieved under direct rule. The good thing is that that investment programme will continue year after year after year over the next 10 years as a result of good planning and good systems having been put in place.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What allocations is the North to receive as part of the Barnett consequentials in Government spending over the past year?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

As I said in my statement, the main thing that has come out of the Barnett consequentials and what Whitehall has proposed has been the flexibility to bring forward capital investment worth around £9 million from next year into this year. There is also the flexibility to bring forward capital investment worth over £75 million from 2010-11 into the next financial year, and we must decide whether we wish to do that.

I have already highlighted the issue of Whitehall efficiencies. We have taken that up with the Chancellor already, as I do not believe that it is fair to introduce the cut in the block grant for 2010-11 to Northern Ireland. However, as I have said, the context in which that discussion will happen will be difficult. Although the Government are indicating that that is how they will proceed, the Opposition at Westminster are indicating that they will go much further on spending cuts and efficiencies for 2010-11 and, indeed, would bring them in this April. That puts us in a difficult situation, but we will do our best to ease the burden on Northern Ireland.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Several times today, the Minister has insisted that Members should not ask for expenditure without identifying other expenditure that could be cut to cover their request. Given that, does he accept that he broke his own golden rule by taking the decision to defer water charges without having the resources to do so? Does he further accept that he took that decision at a time when the economic pressures that are now having such an effect on the overall economic situation were already quite evident?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not accept that at all, because the Executive took that decision. The Member seems to ascribe a tremendous omnipotence to me, but, unfortunately, I do not hold such a position in the Executive or in the Assembly. The message from the Member’s party is very clear: its members are against the deferral of water charges. Their argument and logic are very clear. The fact that the Alliance Party is continuing to labour the point about the deferral of water charges at a time of economic hardship and difficulty will not be missed by the wider electorate.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Given that the Executive funds, particularly the children’s fund, are being depleted year by year, what measures are in place to ensure that the most vulnerable groups and individuals are protected — [Interruption.] — I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that I have the Floor. My question is serious; it is not intended to be embarrassing, and Mr Peter Robinson should not get excited about it.

What measures are in place to protect the most vulnerable groups and individuals in society when short-term crises arise?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Later today, the Member will have an opportunity to take part in the debate on, and perhaps vote on, the Financial Assistance Bill, which deals with that very issue. The Bill is about ensuring that finance can be delivered speedily, if necessary, to people who are experiencing the difficulties that he has mentioned. No doubt, he will make a contribution to that debate.

The general issue that the Member raises is important. He rightly points to the need to ensure that resources help, and are allocated to help, vulnerable people. That is why one of the major themes in the Programme for Government is the importance of dealing with poverty and those in need. It is also why the Budget allocated resources to the Departments — the Department for Social Development, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education. Indeed, as this is a cross-cutting issue, the Executive regularly discuss it in their Executive meetings. We must ensure that the budgets for each of the Departments that have a role to play in the matter deliver the outcomes necessary to help people in difficult times, and it is the role of Assembly Committees to monitor departmental spending plans and delivery on those issues.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I want to ask the Minister about the decision in the 2007 Budget to end Reconnect grants. That, alongside the amendment to the building regulations, has significantly reduced demand for micro-energy systems. That, in turn, has had a disastrous impact on the sustainable energy sector and has resulted in a large number of skilled workers being made redundant. Given the increasing problems of unemployment and the small sum that would be involved, can the Minister find the resources to restore the Reconnect grants or to introduce a similar scheme to support micro-energy systems?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I hear what the Member says, and I will, obviously, consider any bids that individual Departments submit. It is not a matter for me to decide on today, nor is it for me to give any commitment to any particular policy or initiative; it is for Departments to produce proposals for spending plans.

The Member will be aware that the big energy efficiency challenge facing Northern Ireland involves the wider issue of how electricity and energy are generated. The contribution of microgeneration schemes is important. Nevertheless, when we consider the impact that that has on energy efficiency, it is clear that it is dwarfed by the issue of whether electricity should be generated from marine sources or by wind, and so on. There is a genuine and big debate as to whether the resources about which the Member talked would be better used on macrogeneration rather than microgeneration.

That is a debate that will continue. I note what the Member said. However, ultimately, that is a matter for the appropriate Department to bring forward.

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

Will the Minister state whether any further savings will be put back into front line services, given that, yesterday, a DUP motion asked for savings to be targeted on front line services, many of which have been cut to the bone by efficiency savings in the Budget?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The point about efficiency savings is that they are designed to release money by delivering services in a better, more effective and leaner way. The money that is released can be invested in front line services. As I said in my statement, it is important that Committees and the entire House monitor very carefully what is done through efficiency programmes in order to ensure that they meet their intended aims, rather than result in cuts to services.

Efficiency savings are about doing things more effectively and ensuring better value for money, not cutting back front line services. All Members agree that that is the right approach. It is up to individual Departments and Ministers to come forward with their own plans and proposals, which they must justify and promote, and which the House will then examine very carefully.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance and Personnel on his statement.

Assembly Business

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Further to Mr Attwood’s point of order. During the previous debate, you, quite rightly, gave directions about the need for brevity in questions. However, we humble Back-Benchers depend upon the Speaker for some protection in such matters. It appears impossible, under your direction, for Back-Benchers to develop a line of argument. Ministers, on the other hand, have considerable latitude to develop their argument.

Perhaps, a ministerial statement is no longer being used for its originally intended purpose; it is becoming something of a policy debate. The Office of the Speaker might like to reflect on how to look after the interests of backbenchers.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you for that point of order, Mr McCrea. As I told Mr Attwood, that issue is being considered by the Committee on Procedures, which will report on the entire issue of questions.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Perhaps you will confirm that what was before the House today was a statement and questions. There will be an opportunity next week for a lengthier debate on public expenditure, as a take-note debate has been tabled by the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

That is absolutely right, Mr Hamilton. Confusion has arisen between Question Time and questions to a Minister on a statement.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Members have raised a most important issue for the nature of democracy in the Assembly. I put it to you that, on such a serious matter as a Budget statement for next year, the previous debate was a key opportunity for Members to express their views and to ask questions. That must be understood by the Speaker. A take-note debate is what it says — merely a take-note debate; the Assembly will take no decision in relation to the Budget for next year. That is an invasion of the democracy of the Chamber, which many Members take very seriously indeed.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order.

The Member has made his point very well. However, he is also a member of the Committee on Procedures, which is reviewing that very point. [Interruption.]

Order.

Questions to a Minister after a statement last for one hour. The Speaker has a list of Members who wish to ask questions of a Minister. On this occasion, 20 Members wished to ask a question.

We at the Table must decide how much time is deemed sufficient for each Member to ask his or her question. I gave each Member who wanted to give a preamble to his or her question the opportunity to do so. However, when a preamble went beyond an acceptable length, I intervened. I hope that the Member accepts that and raises his concerns when the Committee on Procedures next discusses Question Time and questions to Ministers.

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

Further to Mr Basil McCrea’s point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Committee on Procedures is responsible for examining conduct during Question Time, and related matters. However, the Speaker and his colleagues must also assert their authority when considering the conduct of questions from the Floor. They must intervene to ensure that Ministers and Members are relevant, get to the point and conclude their remarks. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you, the Speaker and your colleagues consider that matter?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. That is an issue for the Speaker — the matter will be referred to him, and he will respond to it at a later date.

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

Executive Committee Business

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

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 11, which deal with Executive and ministerial authority to produce schemes for financial assistance, and the associated procedures.

The second debate will be on opposition to clause 2, which stands in the names of Mrs Naomi Long, Mr Danny Kennedy and Mrs Dolores Kelly.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each particular group on which they wish to comment. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (Exceptional circumstances: power to provide financial assistance)

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

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 11. As I said, those amendments deal with Executive and ministerial authority to produce schemes for financial assistance, and the associated procedures. I advise Members that amendment Nos 6 and 8 are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if amendment No 6 is made, I will not call amendment No 8.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 3, after “jointly,” insert

“and with the agreement of the Executive Committee,”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 6, leave out “and” and insert

“(bb) that arrangements to provide such financial assistance are not in place, or that such arrangements as are in place for that purpose are, or are likely to be, ineffective, inadequate or for any other reason unsatisfactory, and”. — [Mrs Long.]

No 3: In page 1, line 9, after “may” insert

“, at any time within 3 months from the date of the determination under subsection (1),”. — [The First Minister (Mr P Robinson).]

No 4: In page 1, line 14, after “jointly,” insert

“and with the agreement of the Executive Committee,”. — [Mr O’Loan.]

No 5: In page 1, line 19, leave out from “(a)” to end and insert

“require the approval of the Executive Committee.” — [Mr Kennedy.]

No 6: In page 1, line 19, at end insert

“and of any department on which functions are imposed or from which functions are removed by virtue of the regulations.” — [Mrs Long.]

No 7: In page 1, line 19, at end insert

“(4A) A department may only be designated under subsection (3)(a) with its consent.” — [Mrs Long.]

No 8: In page 1, line 19, at end insert

“( ) Regulations made by a department under this section require the approval of any other department with responsibilities for any matter dealt with by the regulations.” — [Mr Kennedy.]

No 9: In clause 2, page 2, line 16, after “may” insert

“, at any time within 6 months from the date of the determination under subsection (1),” — [The First Minister (Mr P Robinson).]

No 10: In clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (5) and insert

“(5) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.” — [The First Minister (Mr P Robinson).]

No 11: In clause 3, page 3, line 16, at end insert

“(2) A scheme contained in regulations under section 1 or 2 may provide for the scheme to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period from the date on which the regulations are made; but (without prejudice to the operation of section 28 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954) the scheme may include such saving provisions as the relevant department thinks necessary or appropriate for dealing with matters or proceedings under the scheme which are outstanding at the time the scheme ceases to have effect.” — [The First Minister (Mr P Robinson).]

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Ulster Unionist Party agreed in principle to the establishment of a statutory mechanism to make it easier for the Executive to provide financial assistance to people in exceptional circumstances. However, the Bill deviates widely from that initial goal. Regardless of the protests and attempts that Mr Robinson will use to cover up his and Mr McGuinness’s intentions, make no mistake — the Bill will put unique and far-reaching powers into the hands of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.

It is deeply regrettable that the DUP and Sinn Féin have used the vulnerable people in our society as an excuse and a cover for a personal power grab. Let no one be mistaken: this is a politburo Bill. We all want to get the agreed payments out as quickly as possible to people in need — the Executive were able to get £1,000 to all affected households that were damaged in the floods of August 2008.

The Bill contains two major clauses, the first of which is designed to allow the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to decide what constitutes an emergency and what any Department should do about it. The second major clause gives the First Minister and the deputy First Minister the power to override the policy decisions of any Department with regard to social issues if they deem it necessary. That is the only prerequisite that they need. If the First Minister and the deputy First Minister say jump, all the other Departments will have to ask how high. It is serious stuff for the Assembly; it is draconian politics, it is fundamentally undemocratic, and it is a little worrying.

Amendment No 1, which we have tabled along with other colleagues, has been laid in good faith; it genuinely seeks to improve the Bill, and I hope that Members of the DUP and Sinn Féin recognise that fact. By ensuring that the agreement of the Executive Committee is sought, the DUP and Sinn Féin will be able to remove accusations that the Bill is a power grab. If the amendment is incorporated into the Bill, it will ensure that the Executive Committee agrees on whether an exceptional circumstance exists and on whether it is desirable to provide financial assistance to address it. The amendment will in no way reduce the Executive’s ability to react to emergencies; rather it will ensure that more consensual action is taken, which will potentially lead to better and more long-lasting results.

Last week, Peter Robinson said that a revised ministerial code will ensure that the Executive would be consulted; the amendment seeks to make that commitment categorical. I also remind the First Minister that the same ministerial code has allowed Minister Ruane to wreak havoc with our education system and to praise Bobby Sands publicly — hardly grounds for instilling much confidence on these Benches. That is why we need a definitive assurance in the Bill that all decisions will be Executive decisions. It is the basis of the power-sharing arrangements that have allowed Northern Ireland to progress positively in the past 10 years; today, the DUP and Sinn Féin are jeopardising that system.

Mr Robinson also made much of the fact that his legislative draftsmen informed him that reference to the Executive cannot be put into legislation, because it is already the legal position. However, if the amendment is passed by the legislative Assembly, it will form part of this exceptional Bill. If the First Minister and the deputy First Minister do not want to be accused of control freakery, they should support the amendment and ensure Executive consent for defining exceptional circumstances and implementing schemes of financial assistance.

Amendment No 5, which was also tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party, seeks further legislative assurance that when regulations have been made by any Department or Departments, they are subject to the agreement of the whole Executive and not just the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. It is a second firewall against the emergence of a politburo Bill.

Amendment No 7, which was tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party, seeks to ensure that no Department can be forced into taking any action by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, or the larger parties, without that Department’s explicit consent. As the Bill stands, if the majority of the Executive want a scheme put in place to tackle a certain circumstance, there is nothing that the chosen Department could do to stop it. Policy and financial costs could be enforced regardless of the implications that they may have on the Department’s other priorities and agreed targets.

What would that scenario mean for public service agreements and for the Programme for Government? It could mean that rather than reaching a consensual agreement, some Ministers may have to pit some people’s needs against the perceived needs of others, as designated by the majority parties. That would be grossly unfair and deeply divisive for the Executive. That is no way to run this Government.

Amendment No 8 is an extension of that principle. It seeks to ensure that regulations that are made by a Department require the approval of any other Department with responsibilities for any matters that are dealt with by those regulations. Ministers cannot be placed in a position whereby other Departments are designated to implement policy that will directly affect how they do their jobs. For example, if a health emergency originates from the agriculture sector, we cannot have the First Minister and the deputy First Minister decreeing actions for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that the Chief Medical Officer does not agree with. That is not how effective, efficient and joined-up government works. The Financial Assistance Bill pays no heed to the principles of joined-up and co-operative government.

The Ulster Unionist Party also supports amendment Nos 2 and 6, which were tabled by the Alliance Party, and amendment No 4, which was tabled by the SDLP. I believe that those amendments seek to achieve the same ends as the Ulster Unionist Party amendments, in that they try to move clause 1 away from a power grab and towards a co-operative mechanism that is suitable for the purpose of addressing an emergency situation. That is what we agreed to, and that is what we should get. Those amendments have been tabled in an attempt to increase democratic accountability and facilitate a genuine sharing of power.

I implore the DUP Back-Benchers to think carefully about what they are doing today. They are about to create new powers for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that are well outside the norm of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Financial Assistance Bill is a thoroughly un-British Bill, which the leaders of Sinn Féin and the DUP have dreamed up together. It will effectively create a politburo office, without the constitutional constraints that are necessary in this society. Is that what those DUP Back-Benchers want to be involved in? Has the desire of their leader to grab power made the rest of that party lose control of its senses?

Mr Robinson and Mr McGuinness will suggest today that the smaller parties are getting carried away. Is that scaremongering? Yes, of course it is. I suggest in advance that all legislation can be abused, and bad legislation especially so. Why take the chance with the British parliamentary system and the people of Northern Ireland? The Ulster Unionist Party is not asking for the Bill to be thrown out; it is asking for a common-sense, realistic and co-operative approach.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, initially as Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after which I shall make some observations on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. I shall, apparently, start by being nicer.

I wish to be strictly factual. It is important for the good working and integrity of Assembly Committees that a Committee Chairperson should outline the facts of any Bill. Therefore, I will do that now.

On Monday 5 January 2009, my Committee held an emergency meeting and agreed to the junior Ministers’ request for accelerated passage of the Financial Assistance Bill. After that meeting, the Committee wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister in order to seek further information on the proposed amendment to the ministerial code and on the Executive’s decision-making process in relation to the Bill. On Wednesday 14 January 2009, prior to the Executive meeting on 15 January, the Committee was briefed by departmental officials from OFMFDM on the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s proposed amendments to the Financial Assistance Bill and to the ministerial code.

An additional meeting of the Committee was held on Monday 19 January in order to consider the Executive’s four agreed amendments, which were placed on the Marshalled List, and to consider the proposed change to the ministerial code. Mr Shannon proposed that the Committee agree amendment No 3. The Committee divided on the proposal: six members voted Aye, one member voted No, and one member did not vote. Mr Shannon proposed that the Committee agree amendment No 9. The Committee divided on the proposal: six members voted Aye, one member voted No, and one member did not vote.

Mr Shannon proposed that the Committee agree amendment No 10. Six members voted in favour of that proposal, one member voted against and one member did not vote. Mr Shannon proposed that the Committee agree amendment No 11. Five members voted in favour of that proposal, one member voted against and two members did not vote. The Committee noted the letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister regarding the proposed amendment to the ministerial code. I hope that that outlines clearly the facts of the position that was adopted by the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

I shall now make some remarks as an Ulster Unionist Member. Last Tuesday, 13 January, when questioned by the Member for East Belfast Mrs Long on whether the Bill would bring an end to departmental autonomy, the deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, said:

“I fully understand the Member’s point, and I agree with her. When it comes to implementing the decisions that will flow from the proposed legislation, it comes down to our motivation as the leaders of the two largest parties in the Executive and the Assembly.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p214, col 1-2].

That is what the Bill boils down to. If the legislation is passed in its current form, the only guarantee that Ministers will have that their Departments and policies are not overrun by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting together is to make a play to their better nature or to rely on their motivation. In the Bill’s current form, the only accountability that will be in place against the actions of the two-headed joint bearers of office, Messrs Robinson and McGuinness, is their own consciences. Taking all things into consideration —

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On a point of Order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister speaking in his capacity as Chairperson of that Committee, or is he speaking in a party political capacity?

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

I understand that the Member made that point clear.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am sorry that the Member has not followed closely what I have said. Perhaps he will now take the opportunity to listen up.

Taking everything into consideration, we should be alarmed. Amendments No 1, No 5, No 7 and No 8 seek to ensure that power is genuinely shared and that the principles of the Belfast Agreement are adhered to. If the First Minister and deputy First Minister want to allay fears, they must support those amendments. Otherwise, the Bill will represent a personal carve-up by the First Minister and deputy First Minister in the name of the most vulnerable people. That is deeply regrettable.

In any circumstances of emergency, it is obvious that every Minister will want to work together to come up with a solution. Beyond the desire of the First and deputy First Minister to grab power, I do not see the logic or the need to reserve that role exclusively for them. If the First and deputy First Minister want to remove accusations that the Bill takes a politburo approach, they should accept those amendments and prove to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland that their intentions are solely to help people in times of emergency. The Ulster Unionist Party supports completely the principle of ensuring that quick and decisive action can be taken to deal with any emergency, but the Bill is not about that.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports amendments No 2 and No 6, which were tabled exclusively by the Alliance Party, and amendment No 4, which was tabled by the SDLP. Those amendments genuinely seek to improve the Bill by increasing accountability and distributing power throughout the Executive. They will make the Bill more in tune with parliamentary conventions. The parliamentary system of government works only when power is not accumulated in a single office or with a single person.

That is true of emergencies and of general day-to-day policy decisions. The Bill is profoundly flawed and unparliamentary, and it runs contrary to the traditions of British parliamentary democracy.

I ask DUP Members not to go down this road merely to satisfy their leader’s appetite for accumulating power. Sinn Féin’s reputation for centralised control is well-known, and this Bill adds to it. The Bill, which shows Sinn Féin and the DUP acting as a tag team, is perverse and regrettable.

I support the amendments.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I oppose amendments No 1, No 4 and No 5. When I read the amendments, I ask myself whether the Members who tabled them learned anything from the debate on the Bill’s Second Stage. Mr Kennedy and Mr Elliott, along with Mrs Kelly and Mr O’Loan, sadly appear to have struggled to understand the Bill’s content.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Tell us more, Jimmy.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I will tell you more.

Even though that point was dealt with extensively last week in the Second Stage debate, those Members still fail to comprehend that their amendments are redundant in the light of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006.

Despite the best efforts of the First Minister last week to explain the intricacies of the legislation — particularly for the benefit of Mr Kennedy, who appeared to struggle with the finer detail — Mr Kennedy and his party colleague Mr Elliott tabled two amendments that lack purpose. Is that a case of slow learning? Or is it mischief making to create an opportunity for the two gentlemen in question to engage in their Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum act? I let the public decide.

For the benefit of the Members who tabled amendments No 1, No 4 and No 5, I will explain why I oppose them: they are unnecessary. The statutory basis for the ministerial code lies in the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. The code requires Ministers to bring any novel or contentious issues before the Executive. Therefore, even though the word “Executive” is not in the Bill, all those matters come to the Executive in accordance with the ministerial code.

“There is no need to have the word ‘Executive’ inserted as the legislation is already in place that requires these matters to come to the Executive.” —[Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p217, col 2].

Those were the words of the First Minister in the Chamber last week.

Moreover, Members may recall that the First Minister, in the Second Stage debate, informed the House that the word “Executive” was not to be included in the Bill, as that would duplicate the legislation. That was not his opinion, but that of the legislative draftsmen. When it comes to drafting legislation, I take the word of experts rather than that of Mr Kennedy, Mr Elliott or Mrs Kelly.

To put it beyond any doubt: an amendment to the ministerial code, already agreed by the Executive, will be brought before the House when the Bill before us has been enacted.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I will not. The Member will have plenty of time to speak shortly and I am sure that she will have her say.

I ask the Members who tabled amendments No 1, No 4 and No 5 why, in the light of the agreed change to the ministerial code and of the view taken by the legislative draftsmen that their amendments are unnecessary, they persist in a redundant course of action?

It is ironic that the Members from the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP have suddenly expressed a desire for the Executive to work together as a group. After all, those parties, as the architects of the now obsolete Belfast Agreement, created a totally unaccountable system of Government in which the Executive lacked any form of control. It is ironic indeed that those two parties now act as the guardians of collective responsibility.

I fear that some in the House who chose —

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

Order. The Member has the Floor. Members should make their remarks while on their feet and through the Chair.

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

I would if I could get a chance.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

You will have plenty of time for a chance to speak, and I have no doubt that you will take it. So will Mr Basil McCrea, whom I hear shouting from the background because he is an expert on every subject debated in the House.

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

Order. Even the Member on his feet must abide by my previous ruling. Please make your remarks through the Chair.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank Mr Spratt for declaring that I am an expert on everything. I shall take that to heart. [Laughter.]

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I fear that there are some in the House who chose to play politics with this Bill rather than support it and the benefits that it will bring to those in need in the Province. However, it is not for me but for those Members to explain that. My party and I will oppose amendments No 1, No 4 and No 5.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support amendments No 3, No 9, No 10 and No 11, and I oppose amendments No 1, No 2, No 4, No 5, No 6, No 7 and No 8.

Once again, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and sincerely hope that today’s debate can put to bed much of the ill-informed rhetoric that has surrounded it. I want to refute the suggestion that the Bill is little more than a power grab by OFMDFM. Such concerns have been expressed despite repeated assurances that they are entirely unfounded as, under the ministerial code, all proposed schemes for financial assistance must be brought before the Executive. Furthermore, as the First Minister and the deputy First Minister pointed out last week, under the provisions of the Bill the Executive will be involved fully in all decision making. Moreover, the relevant Committees will perform their normal scrutiny role and the Assembly will have control of any schemes created under the regulations.

Despite that, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have had to clarify the situation further and have tabled several amendments to deal with Members’ concerns.

Amendment No 10 deals specifically with clause 2. It states —

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

Will the Member take an intervention?

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

No. Amendment No 10 states that:

“No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.’ ”

I do not know how much clearer the Bill can be.

Amendments No 1, No 4 and No 5 ask that any scheme introduced should require the approval of the Executive. However, given that any scheme will be cross-cutting — for example, involving a bid to DFP and the delivery Department for financial assistance — it will automatically have to come to the Executive for approval. Furthermore, the Executive have given an assurance that they will amend the ministerial code; therefore amendments No 1, No 4 and No 5 are unnecessary, and I agree with Mr Spratt on that point.

Sinn Féin opposes amendment No 2 as it would slow down the process of any scheme identified for implementation. The Bill, without amendment No 2 — [Interruption.]

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

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The Bill, without amendment No 2, gives the Assembly the ability to take action and to act swiftly. The people are demanding —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

No. The people are demanding prompt action from their public representatives, as they will in any further crisis; and quite rightly so. [Interruption.] The Members will have time to have their say.

If adopted, amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8 would give any Department a veto, enabling them to refuse to implement a scheme and frustrate the role of the Executive and the Assembly. They would be able to refuse to assist another Department in implementing a scheme by denying it access to relevant data. We should not allow such resistance to frustrate the process of the Bill.

I acknowledge that, even if it did not do so in the Committee, the SDLP supported accelerated passage in the Chamber last week. One of its members said that that was:

“because of its concerns for social justice and for the people facing hardship”. — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p206, col 2].

That was a welcome recognition of what the Bill is all about — social justice and providing tangible assistance to all people. There is no ulterior motive, no hidden agenda and no power grab. If nothing else, the current economic situation demonstrates that the Executive and the Assembly need to be in a position to react quickly to unforeseen circumstances and events — otherwise, what is the point in any of us being here?

The Bill provides us with a legislative basis on which to deal with whatever eventualities we face. On this occasion, the need to legislate for fuel payments is the catalyst; it could be something else tomorrow or the day after that. None of us can predict the future, but I am sure that we all accept that the economic downturn will not be the only economic crisis to face the Executive.

People are demanding prompt action from their public representatives, just as they will in the future, and quite rightly so. The Bill will give us the ability to take that action swiftly. That is what the people elected us to do, and it is time that we all started getting on with the business of doing it. Go raibh míle maith agat.

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

Before calling Mr Declan O’Loan, I remind Members to please give other Members a fair wind when they are making their speeches.

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

Last week I described this Bill as loathsome. I see that some amendments have been proposed — they do not persuade me any more as to the appropriateness of the Bill. I merely use the term “obnoxious” for the potentially amended Bill that now comes before us. [Interruption.]

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

Order, please.

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

It is not a Bill that should be accepted by any democratic Assembly. If people want to know what this Bill is really about, they should simply consider three statements from the First Minister. Last week, he told us:

“The Financial Assistance Bill is the most important piece of legislation to be tabled since the return of devolved Government.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p218, col 1].

To reiterate, he described it as: “the most important”. Therefore, anyone who thinks that it is an occasional piece of legislation to deal with unthought of emergencies may need to start to think otherwise.

In relation to a comment that was made in last week’s debate, he said:

“I suspect that that refers to the three Departments that are not under the control of the deputy First Minister and me.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p237, col 1].

That leaves us with almost half the Executive under the control of the First Minister, and almost another half under the control of the deputy First Minister. Very often, people’s unscripted words reveal what they actually think and, in this case, those quotes demonstrate clearly what the First Minister actually thinks.

I believe that Mussolini had a phrase for this: “uno Duce, una voce”. [Laughter.] When they think that they are having internal party debates, other members of those parties must now remember where they stand.

During this morning’s questions on the strategic stocktake statement, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, working in a very different capacity, asked a question about the gap in funding in relation to the absence of the children’s fund.

We heard the First Minister say — very clearly — that the answer to that gap would be found in clause 2 of the Financial Assistance Bill.

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

By its very nature, does that statement not suggest that the DUP and Sinn Féin have admitted that they have made a mistake in doing away with the Executive fund that allowed them the capacity to deal with matters such as the children’s fund? Have they not, in effect, taken money from young people and children?

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

That point stands, and I think that that concession is implicit.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Perhaps the Member would like to take —

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

I understand that the First Minister needs to defend himself.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

For the benefit of the SDLP Members, this is an enabling Bill. It does not allocate funds; it enables a mechanism to be put in place that allows Government to respond in a joined-up way and on a cross-departmental basis to all poverty and hardship issues. I would have thought that anybody who wants to help those who are in poverty and hardship would support such a mechanism.

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

Out of courtesy, I suppose that I should thank the First Minister for his intervention. It would certainly not be the first time that a leader with dictatorial instincts used the democratic processes to forward their own instincts.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Why does the Member not say that whenever Mark Durkan is here?

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

Perhaps it is fortunate that I did not quite hear the First Minister’s comment.

I very much agree with what my colleague Dolores Kelly said about the children’s fund and the gap therein. The First Minister’s comment on that point, when taken logically, suggests that the proper mechanisms for dealing with what is identified already as a gap in Government provisions and the attendant funding for that gap are not being dealt with through the Budget — and, of course, they have not given us a Budget for next year. However, in what passes for a Budget for next year, they have not written in the mechanisms to deal with those issues or included them in a way that could be tested by the Assembly, if the process were to be done properly. Instead, they want to have this action in reserve so that they themselves can claim the credit for dealing with certain matters.

If this is not a power grab, we will soon know. We will know because the First Minister and deputy First Minister will support the amendments as they come before them and their parties. That will give the authority —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

[Interruption.]

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

The First Minister seems to be getting rather annoyed in his seat. It says something to me if he is getting annoyed; perhaps the validity of some of what I am saying is getting to him. I suggest —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Is the Member struck by the irony — we have used the term “irony”; I heard Mr Spratt using such big words — that Members on this side of the House are quite prepared to give way and to take interventions and that those Members who assure us that there is no power grab will not take a single intervention? They will not defend their position because they cannot defend their position.

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

I thank the Member, and I think that his point has been well noted by all.

I will come to the detail of the amendments in a moment, but this, broadly, is what the amendments are about: the Bill needs to protect the independence of individual Departments. We are told that the Bill is about emergency legislation, and one of my deep resentments about the Bill is the repeated reference to the fuel-poverty situation.

I will say it again, as I said last week: under the pretext of dealing with fuel poverty, a far more general measure is being proposed, and there is a deceit being perpetrated — or attempting to be perpetrated on the Assembly — and it is certainly at this moment being perpetrated on the public.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I ask you to look at the unparliamentary comments of the Member? To accuse me of deceit is unparliamentary, and the comment should be withdrawn.

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

It is my understanding, First Minister, that the Member did not accuse you of deceit. However, I will certainly look at the Hansard report.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, maybe you will tell your Clerk to listen more carefully before he gives you such advice, because the person who is bringing forward this measure is myself, and if a deceit is being perpetrated, it can only be by the person who is bringing it forward.

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

First Minister, I am making an offer to review the Hansard report. Please continue, Mr O’Loan.

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

I think that it is appropriate for a Member to point out, in any situation, that a Bill, or any measure that is brought forward, may not be all that it seems, and I do that. [Interruption.]

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

Order, please. Henceforth, I will insist that all remarks are made through the Chair.

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

Among the amendments proposed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister is one that refers to six months for regulation after designation. In addition, they are being prepared, under pressure, to bring the matter for affirmative resolution by the Assembly. Both of those argue against these being emergency provisions. One argument concerning the matter is what measure would be available if a crisis developed on the first day of the long recess. However, we can see that no remedies could be implemented until the matter came before the Assembly.

We are entitled to point out that this rushed piece of legislation and its emergency provisions come as a considerable contradiction — I know that if I were to use words such as “hypocrisy” or “hypocritical” the First Minister would protest strongly, so I will not use those words. However, there is a contradiction between those parties bringing forward this legislation and the fact that they did not call an Executive meeting for 154 days.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member correct his statement, because I sought a meeting on a number of occasions during that time? Therefore, perhaps the Member would like to rephrase his earlier remarks.

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

The First Minister and his colleague are bringing forward this legislation, and, between them, did not succeed in convening a meeting.

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

Last week, in his contributions, the First Minister said:

“The biggest crime that any Government can commit is to procrastinate in the face of a crisis.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p216, col 2].

Given that we are in the face of a crisis, particularly in the construction industry, would the First Minister not call the failure to make a decision on Maze/Long Kesh regeneration, procrastination?

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

Absolutely, and I think that that will be seen generally by the public, and internationally, as standing for one of the failures of the leadership of this Executive.

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

Order, please. May I remind the Member to address the items in the Bill.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What we see before us remains a measure by which the two parties in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister have a mechanism, if they choose to use it, to introduce measures that will suit their own purposes and their own electorates. If this legislation is passed, they will have a mechanism that will enable them to use public money to buy the votes of the electorate for themselves. That is not a good piece of public policy.

With regard to the proposed amendments, clause 1 asks that there be the agreement of the Executive Committee, in addition to that of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, as to when the powers are exercisable. We have heard it repeated today that the ministerial code looks after that. I looked at the terms of the ministerial code, and they do not convince me that they provide a guarantee. We have been told that there is an offer to alter the ministerial code. Members have not seen the wording of that alteration. Irrespective of what goes into the ministerial code, if the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are serious about a guarantee, it should be written on the face of the Bill.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Member mentioned that he had not seen the wording of amendments to the ministerial code. Perhaps he should seek a copy of that wording from his party colleague who sits on the OFMDFM Committee and, indeed, from his party colleague who is a Minister; both of whom have received copies.

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

It does not alter my view. If the Bill is as straightforward and innocuous a piece of legislation as it is purported to be, the proposed amendments to clause 1 should simply be made.

Amendment No 2, which has been tabled by the Alliance Party, provides a stronger test for the use of clause 1 of the Bill, and I welcome that.

Amendment No 3, which has been tabled by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, does not make me any more content about the legislation’s overall efficacy and appropriateness.

Amendment No 4 relates to the designation of a Department, and it asks that that be done with the Executive Committee’s agreement. Again, that will test how serious the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are about sharing power in a shared Executive.

Amendment No 5 asks that regulations:

“require the approval of the Executive Committee”,

rather than simply that of OFMDFM. That offers the same test to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Let us see if they are prepared to agree to that.

Amendment No 6 relates to the assent of the other Departments that may be affected and asks that approval be required from:

“any department on which functions are imposed or from which functions are removed by virtue of the regulations.”

Similarly, amendment No 7 relates to Departments. It asks that:

“A department may only be designated under subsection (3)(a) with its consent.”

Once again, that is, in many ways, an acid test of the seriousness of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and of whether they will not claim all power to themselves or share out the goodies among their own electorates and attempt to claim political credit for so doing. We shall see whether the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are prepared to accept those amendments.

Amendment No 8 deals, in similar terms, with giving proper rights to the Department concerned. I have already referred to amendments No 9 and No 10.

The Assembly will debate clause 2 later in the debate. At present, I want to state my party’s intention to oppose clause 2. I do so simply to present the integrity of my party’s attitude to the Bill, which is that clause 2 should be removed and clause 1 should be substantially amended in the way that I have described.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. All Members are used to the cut and thrust of political debate, and we are all big enough to handle it. However, I am concerned that that cut and thrust of debate among politicians should not be visited upon Assembly staff.

Earlier, during an intervention, the First Minister said that your Clerk should listen more carefully, and it was said in an aggressive tone and in a high-handed fashion. I have long been concerned that elements in the Chamber want to erode its authority and the independence of its staff.

Notwithstanding that matter, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to examine the Hansard report and to consider the treatment of staff on the Floor of the Chamber during the course of the debate. It was quite clear as to whom the First Minister referred.

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

Order. I have undertaken already to review what happened earlier, and I promised to look at the Hansard report. The Speaker will report back on the matter.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately on the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Naomi Long will be the first Member to speak on resumption of the debate.

The sitting was suspended at 12.40 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) —

2.00 pm

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

During last week’s debate, when Members knew that I was to speak immediately after the lunch break, few of them appeared in the Chamber. I notice that I have had the same effect this week. In future, the Chamber could be kept quiet if Members have advance warning of when I am to speak.

Given the content of this morning’s session, I want to reiterate that I do not dispute that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) and the Executive require emergency powers. I welcome the introduction of such powers. After this morning’s session, it is worth reiterating that all Members want to avoid a delay in the provision of the financial assistance that has been promised. We have our own views about which types of financial assistance might be better than simple monetary offers. Nevertheless, at this stage, that proposal seems to be the most effective way forward, and, on that score, all Members want to avoid a delay.

However, as the Alliance Party highlighted during the Second Stage, we want to address several aspects of the Bill through a series of amendments, none of which diminish the Bill’s ability to deal with current financial circumstances, or prevent Executive intervention. However, the amendments do, perhaps, safeguard and reassure Members about some of the detail of the Bill and how it could be used in future. As I stressed last week, the Assembly is not debating the first use of the Bill; rather we are debating the purposes for which it can be used thereafter.

I want to put on record some aspects of the Bill that require reconsideration. The Alliance Party and others want to avoid the centralisation of Government power in OFMDFM. Indeed, before he took up his current position, the present First Minister was nervous about the centralisation of power in OFMDFM. When that Department had no formal scrutiny Committee and no Standing Committee, he expressed concern when proposing the introduction of such a Committee.

Referring to the people in London who drafted the legislation, he said:

“It could be that they did not expect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to grab so many functions and place them in the central Department.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 2, p204, col 1].

He was, therefore, not entirely comfortable with the handling of that issue. He continued:

“As it stands, the First and Deputy First Ministers, who have the authority to issue determinations, could take more and more responsibility to the central Department. Without scrutiny, they could take key government issues away from the eyes of Members and the public.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 2, p204, col 1].

For those reasons, we are concerned that the Bill has limited scope and that there is need for people to co-operate; therefore, we have not tabled amendments with any malign intent or frustration. We want to ensure that that level of scrutiny, collaboration and co-operation in the Executive, and with the Chamber, is maintained when the legislation is passed.

Furthermore, the Alliance Party wants enhanced collectivity in the Executive and is comfortable with using a diminution of individual ministerial autonomy to achieve that end. However, we are concerned that the reduction in individual ministerial autonomy will not be replaced with enhanced collectivity but with enhanced powers in OFMDFM, which acts on behalf of the Executive. That is a weak safeguard under the current circumstances where the same parties have a majority in the Executive and in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

I will concentrate on and explain the rationale behind the Alliance Party’s amendments.

The purpose of amendment No 2 is to ensure that the powers made available are only invoked in exceptional circumstances. There can be situations in which emergency measures are necessary, and, indeed, where other assistance may be required. If it is appropriate, that should be done — as far as possible — within the existing structures of government, through the normal spending rounds, and through the normal departmental functions.

My party wishes to limit the powers made available by the legislation. I do not think that the amendment applies a significant or extreme limitation; it simply curtails the power of OFMDFM, and makes it clear that clause 5 — the catch-all clause, which states that the powers can be used even where other legislation exists — should only be used genuinely. The amendment at least copper-fastens the stipulation that it should only be done as a protective position, and that it is not the intent to use the provisions of that clause on a repeated basis to circumvent the normal procedures.

I will consider amendment Nos 6 and 7 together. The purpose of those is to define the limitations of the transfers of power. My party aims to ensure that the powers provided in the legislation lead to an enhancement of collectivity in the Executive, along with a reduction in the autonomy of Ministers. Those two things must be balanced. It is not sufficient to reduce the autonomy of Ministers without enhancing the collectivity of the Executive. It is not necessarily a measure of collectivity if OFMDFM has merely to agree with the party colleagues of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in the Executive. There should be a requirement for the agreement of the Minister — or Ministers — affected by any measures. That is particularly important for those parties with smaller numbers in the Executive.

Given the balance of Sinn Féin and the DUP in the Executive, a requirement for agreement between members of the Executive would clearly provide little protection to the Ulster Unionist Party or the SDLP.

During the Second Stage of the Bill last week, the First Minister and deputy First Minister highlighted the fact that the Executive can currently direct Ministers. My party does not dispute that that is the case. However, under normal circumstances, Ministers only bring their proposals to the Executive if they have some impact on another Department or overlap responsibilities, if they do not have sufficient funds to implement the proposals, or where the proposals are controversial. The Bill would extend the power of OFMDFM to intervene on issues that lie within the remit of a single Department, for which a budget is available — but perhaps a decision has been made not to use it for that purpose — and which do not impact on other Depart­ments, and which are not controversial. That changes the balance, at least in tone, if not more significantly — my party suggests that it is more significant.

The Bill represents an increase in centralisation and a dilution of the autonomy of Ministers, which, as the Bill stands, is not balanced by an increase in collectivity and collective working within the Executive. Amend­ment Nos 6 and 7 are aimed at achieving that balance. In order for OFMDFM to deliver on the requirements of the Bill, it would have to have the agreement of the relevant Minister. One does not foresee there being significant difficulties in getting the agreement of Ministers who belong to the parties of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I would not imagine that, in what are exceptional circumstances, there would be any difficulty in getting any Minister in the Executive to agree with reasoned and sensible proposals, whether that Minister is in the same party as the First Minister or the deputy First Minister, or any other party. In practice, there is no reason why any Minister would choose to withhold co-operation.

The amendments would provide a degree of protection. If the good and harmonious functioning of the Executive, to which the deputy First Minister aspired last week, were actually in place, there would rarely be an issue, because it would be discussed around the Executive table, Ministers would agree, and there would be no problem. However, in cases where that good and harmonious working relationship does not exist — far be it from me to suggest that there are such cases — the amendments would provide a significant confidence-building measure. It would make it clear to those Ministers who might feel threatened by the legislation that its intention is not for OFMDFM to threaten them. On the other hand, the amendments would not curtail OFMDFM from making decisions; it would merely have to co-operate with other Ministers, and we have been given assurances that that will be done anyway.

I will now discuss the amendments tabled by the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party. Amendment No 1 is a genuine attempt to state explicitly what the First Minister and deputy First Minister have already stated to be implicit in the legislation, in the context of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

I, therefore, have no real objection to amendment No 1. However, I highlight the fact that it does not provide the protection for more junior parties in Government that we — as a party — believe is necessary. Last week, I stressed that the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement allowed for a degree of autonomy. As I have already stated, the workings of the Executive and the balance of power in the Executive — being as it is — provide very little protection for the smaller parties in Government.

However, we have no particular objection to the amendment. I cannot foresee a legal difficulty in explicitly stating what is already implicit. Perhaps that issue could be dealt with in the response to the debate, because I cannot understand how making something explicit creates a difficulty if it is already implicit. I have a similar position on amendment Nos 4 and 5, as they essentially follow the same function. They simply seek to explicitly insert reference to Executive co-operation into the legislation that is — apparently — already there implicitly.

Amendment No 8 is an attempt to do what we have done with amendment Nos 6 and 7. As such, we have no real objections to that amendment and are happy to support it. It is simply a case of ensuring that it is recognised in this legislation that all Ministers have particular areas of responsibility. We should be aspiring to an Executive of equals who co-operate with one another, rather than some members of the Executive being more equal than others.

The final amendments in the group are from OFMDFM, and they are being made on behalf of the Executive as a whole. As we were informed at the OFMDFM Committee last Monday, those amendments were agreed by the Executive Committee. I will come to amendment No 11 later, but we view amendment Nos 3, 9 and 10 as improvements to the Bill and we do not intend to oppose them. Although we do not feel that they address some of our substantive concerns, nevertheless, we think that they will improve the Bill.

Amendment No 3 closes down the opportunity for people to exploit the emergency powers, of which some people were fearful. If an emergency, or exceptional circumstance, is agreed, regulations must be introduced within three months, which seems to be an entirely reasonable proposition. If a situation is so exceptional, I cannot foresee any reason why action would not be taken within three months. The amendment also prevents someone from establishing that there are exceptional circumstances and then either failing to deal with them, or using them as a reason for introducing additional regulations down the line when they have changed. It is a sensible amendment, and we will support it.

Amendment No 9 performs a similar role in respect of clause 2, although it proposes a time limit of six months as the issues in clause 2 are not as urgent. I make that point because it will be quite important in the context of the debate on the urgency of passing clause 2. The difference between the three-month and six-month time limits recognises the significant difference in how quickly action is needed in respect of the issues in clause 2 compared to those in clause 1.

Without prejudice to our opposition to clause 2 stand part of the Bill, which will be discussed during the debate on the next group of amendments, we believe that amendment No 9 will improve clause 2. Members have mentioned Executive programme funds and special programme funds. In Committee and elsewhere, we have had quite a considerable debate about how other Administrations are able to ensure that policy that is driven by the centre is delivered by Departments. I would prefer that clause 2 be debated in that context rather than as part of this Bill.

Amendment No 10 deals with an issue that I raised during the debate last week. I had some concern about the fact that the regulations were to be subject to negative resolution. In most cases, regulations do not come before a Committee, for example, until it is dealing with them retrospectively.

Bringing the regulations before the Assembly affords Members the opportunity to express their opinions about them, and that is a welcome improvement. Therefore, the Alliance Party will support amendment No 10, although it should be noted that that decision is without prejudice to our intention to oppose that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Amendment No 11, which pertains to clause 3, will permit sunset clauses to be included in schemes. It is unclear why that must be made explicit in the legislation when, implicitly, any scheme or regulation could be constructed to include a sunset clause. Nevertheless, that feature has been made explicit, when others’ concerns about the Bill have not. Why is that? Furthermore, amendment No 11 does not require schemes to include sunset clauses, so regulations could continue in perpetuity — although some will come to an end, they need not all do so.

The other element of amendment No 11 appears to be a tidying-up exercise. Although a scheme might draw to a close, a savings scheme, for example, that a Department initiated in order to free-up money for financial assistance could continue. If my interpretation is correct — I would appreciate it if the First Minister were to clarify whether it is — the Alliance Party is reasonably comfortable with amendment No 11 and will not oppose it.

The amendments drafted by the Alliance Party and, in its assessment, those drafted by other parties seek to ensure that rightful protections are afforded to everyone in the Executive — there should be no privileged elite — and it is important for confidence building that that should be the case.

As I said last week, the Good Friday Agreement mechanisms are unwieldy, and, at times, ridiculous and bizarre. Often, they have hampered, rather than facilitated, good government, and the Alliance Party has been forthright about that. I do not mean that the principles are flawed; I mean simply that the way in which parties have gone about attempting to compensate for the lack of trust when delivering those principles is often unwieldy.

Members are being asked to take OFMDFM on trust, which is, in effect, what Martina Anderson said during her intervention this morning. That is a remarkable development. If that trust now exists, I wish to be the first to say that that is fantastic. In that context, let us move rapidly towards greater collectivity, and, ultimately, let us have a voluntary coalition. If everyone in the Chamber is secure about the fact that no Member will seek to abuse his or her position, such a course of action would be sensible, efficient and effective — let us get on with it.

However, I suspect that the trust that Members would be obliged to give to OFMDFM in such a context does not regularly exist — even between the DUP and Sinn Féin — and, if the mechanisms were to be significantly unpicked, it would not only be the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party that would be expressing concerns now. The Government balance could change, so I encourage Sinn Féin and DUP Members to consider carefully the position in which this legislation could place their Ministers in any future Administration.

I am not talking about trust in Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness, in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, or even in the DUP and Sinn Féin. The Alliance Party is not seeking to impugn the integrity of any of those people or groups of people —

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

Will the Member give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will in a moment.

I am talking about whether Members are confident that anyone who may hold those posts, in all circumstances, will not seek to abuse the power given to them — for ever is a very long time.

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

The Member raises an important issue — the dynamic within the Executive. Will she agree that it is easy to envisage a situation in which the two parties that occupy OFMDFM will come to an agreement that is not based on trust but on political necessity and one in which both will have a vested interest? Furthermore, does the Member agree that the benefit of whatever decision they make will not be conferred on the other parties in the Executive? In fact, attempts will not even be made to confer the benefits on the other parties.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I could go further than simply agreeing that that is a possibility; I could quote chapter and verse of when it has happened. However, that would fall outside the remit of this debate, and I suspect that the Deputy Speaker would call me to order, so I will not go any further.

None of the proposed amendments, from any of the parties, will delay the interventions that are intended by the Executive, or diminish the OFMDFM team’s acting together in good faith with other Ministers in the Executive. There is, however, a major confidence-building opportunity available to those in OFMDFM. If they are striving to achieve increased collectivity and good and harmonious working, they should accept the amendments that have been tabled in good faith. Such acceptance will inform the Executive of their intent.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I oppose amendment No 2. Last week, we went through, in some length, the reasons for the need for the Financial Assistance Bill. There was consensus on the principle of the Bill. Therefore, it is with dismay that we find ourselves with a list of unnecessary amendments.

Amendment No 2 is one of a qualifying nature, and it seems to be unnecessary. Clause 1 of the Bill provides the power to provide financial assistance in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances are events that are out of the ordinary, such as floods — the likes of which have never been seen in our lifetimes — and not mundane happenings.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member has been at the OFMDFM Committee sessions at which the matter has been discussed. Will he concede that the definition of “exceptional” does not cover the circumstances that he has outlined, but those circumstances that OFMDFM agrees to be so?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thought that our interpretation of what was exceptional was the same, but the Member, obviously, has a different opinion to me. The Bill shows clearly what is exceptional. Floods and economic downturns —the likes of which have not been experienced before or seen in our lifetimes or in the past century — are exceptional. Exceptional circumstances mean exactly that. They are unexpected events for which we did not have the foresight to legislate. That is what the word “exceptional” means in my book.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member is in danger of arguing against the first purpose that the Bill is being used to serve — winter fuel payments. His definition of “exceptional” covers unforeseen events, such as natural or manmade disasters, but that excludes the events that will require payment of the winter fuel payments. Everyone knows that winter is coming; it has occurred every year since the beginning of the earth. A lot of discussions were held about what measures should be taken to deal with the looming winter, not only here, but in other jurisdictions across the water. Does the Member, therefore, see that as being exceptional, because, so far, his definition does not qualify for that?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I have been on my feet for a matter of seconds, and I have allowed two interventions.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

That is a third request. I will continue, if Mr O’Loan does not mind. I am content to give way, usually, but I would like to get into the thrust of my speech.

Considering the definition of “exceptional”, it would be pedantic to further qualify that there is no legislation in place. Common sense will dictate that if there were to be a Bill to cover it, the circumstances would not be exceptional, and, therefore, the Bill would not be required, to follow the line of thought of some. When legislating, we are ever under the rule that to overstate things is to add more pressure and to tie things up to a greater extent.

To add that amendment to the Bill would not, as some Members suggested, add any more protection from its misuse, if that is its intention. The opposite is true, because it would over-complicate matters. Indeed, it confirms the need for the Bill to remain as it stands to cater for unforeseen circumstances for which no provision has been made. If a scheme to assist in such circumstances were already in place, the Bill would not be needed. It is clear, therefore, that, nicely worded though the amendment is, it is unnecessary, and it adds to the length of the Bill without enhancing its quality.

Some time ago, the Minister of the Environment, Sammy Wilson, suggested in the Chamber that there was far too much paperwork. He illustrated his point by bringing a massive pile of papers into the Chamber and suggesting that Members should recycle more. I suggest to the Member that she recycle amendment No 2; the quicker the better. It is an unnecessary amendment that adds nothing to the Bill and, therefore, I suggest that Members join me in opposing it.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will speak to the first group of amendments that appears on the Marshalled List for the Consideration Stage of the Financial Assistance Bill. My colleagues and I support amendment Nos 3, 9, 10 and 11, as proposed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Amendment No 3 inserts the following:

“at any time within 3 months from the date of the determination under subsection (1)”.

This amendment ensures that any regulations made under the power in clause 1 to provide financial assistance in any exceptional circumstances have to be made within three months of the relevant determination. That limitation is welcome, because it places a discipline on designated Departments to award assistance within three months. It allows them to award financial assistance within a reasonable timescale and, ultimately, to remedy, or assist in remedying, the problems created by an unforeseen or exceptional circumstance. That will ensure —

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

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

No.

That will ensure that the problem is dealt with — [Interruption.]

Members may howl and shout; many of them will not be back after the next election.

The amendment will ensure that the problem is dealt with here and now, bearing in mind —[Interruption.]

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

Order, please. I ask the Member to confine his remarks to the Bill under discussion. I request that other Members make their remarks through the Chair; that is how the debate began this afternoon, and, from where I am sitting, it was a godsend.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am happy to comply, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Bearing in mind the exceptional circumstances of the past year, amendment No 3 ensures that any problems are dealt with immediately. It also ensures that Departments do not abuse the designation of powers at a later stage, when the original circumstance that gave rise to the determination no longer exists.

I welcome amendment No 9, which specifies that, under clause 2, the relevant Department may introduce a scheme for the provision of financial assistance:

“at any time within 6 months from the date of the determination”.

When unsatisfactory funding arrangements mean that financial assistance is required to tackle poverty, social exclusion or patterns of deprivation, amendment No 9 requires any regulations to be made within six months. As with the previous amendment, it places a discipline on all Departments that are designated to provide financial assistance when such a circumstance arises to do so swiftly and without delay. It ensures that people are awarded prompt financial assistance for their specific problem and do not have to wait for 12 or 24 months, as was the case under direct rule. Amendment No 9 ensures that Ministers deal with problems as they occur and that they are able to take remedial action quickly and efficiently.

Amendment No 10 is also beneficial because it increases the Assembly’s power by ensuring that no regulations can be made under clause 2 unless a draft of those regulations has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of the Assembly. It ensures an affirmative resolution by Members, as opposed to the negative resolution that was proposed initially.

I believe that the amendment addresses the numerous concerns expressed by many Members, and it will ensure that the proposed regulations require not only Executive agreement but the agreement of the Assembly as a whole before they can be brought into operation.

As regards amendment No 11, which refers to the schemes for financial assistance in clause 3, I welcome OFMDFM’s revision of the time limit. I endorse the fact that it allows regulations under clauses 1 and 2 to have limited shelf life. That will ensure that Departments that have implemented schemes — particularly under clause 1 — will consider whether those schemes should be time-limited. Time-limiting is logical; it ensures that if exceptional circumstances were to arise and a Department were designated powers to deal with those circumstances, they would be dealt with as and when they were required, not a year down the line. Therefore, I support amendment Nos 3, 9, 10 and 11, and I oppose amendment Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8.

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

I listened carefully to Mrs Long. She asked whether trust prevailed in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and between parties in the Chamber. In one sense, that captured some of what I was going to say. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister would want the Chamber to draw conclusions based on best hopes, good faith and good intentions, and that the legislation would be used only in a limited way and in the precise terms outlined by the First Minister. On the other hand, the First Minister can hear that when Members look at the legislation, they draw conclusions based on their worst fears; fears about the real purpose and roll-out of the legislation over the months, years and, potentially, decades to come.

In order to probe into whether we should rely on the best hopes and intentions of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister or whether we should be more cautious in our approach, I look at the evidence gathered over a long period in respect of how the parties that occupy the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister — and the characters who occupy that office — have approached certain matters. Against the weight of evidence going back a significant time, I draw the conclusion that clause 2 is evidence of a pattern and a culture, and it is about a changed approach to the nature of Government in this part of the world. I will explain why. I have always said that when it comes to negotiations, one must be up at the crack of dawn in order to deal with the DUP — if not earlier — [Interruption.]

Over a long period and around a range of issues that go to the essence of the democracy that we have or have not in the North, I have observed a culture and an approach that leads the SDLP to conclude that one needs to be very cautious about giving more power to certain offices about certain issues in this part of the world.

The DUP Members know that, at St Andrews, I saw them make an article of faith about eroding the proper authority of Ministers; they succeeded, because no one was there with the craft or the ability to compete in the negotiations to stop that happening.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Were you playing golf or were you at the negotiations?

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

I can tell you what I was doing at St Andrews. I was —

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

Order, please. I remind the Member to stick to the subject. I ask other Members to address their remarks through the Chair.

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

I can tell you about the many things that the SDLP was doing at St Andrews, and I will come to that in my speech.

We were trying to stop in its tracks what the British Government and Sinn Féin were allowing to happen — the development of an expanded role for MI5 in the North, so that they would have 400 members —

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

Order, please. I again ask the Member to concentrate on the Bill.

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

At St Andrews, I saw the First Minister, through the DUP, eroding the proper authority of Ministers and pulling back control and authority from where it properly resided — in ministerial office. This morning, Mr Spratt made cryptic references to the fact that the Executive had no control over Ministers in the past. Yet, he was referring to two decisions, and two decisions alone, that were taken by Sinn Féin. A decision was taken about the 11-plus — but not on an alternative to it — and, six years later, we are none the wiser about what is going to happen.

On the other hand, there was a decision about the maternity hospital. The Assembly and its Committees had good evidence that the decision taken by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety at that time to locate maternity provision at the site of the Royal Victoria Hospital was absolutely right, justified and evidence-based. That is what Jimmy Spratt was referring to. On that pretext, the DUP began to erode the power of Ministers. What do we see in this legislation? We see more of the same — more erosion of the power of Ministers.

However, it goes further than that. At St Andrews, we saw the exact same culture and pattern of behaviour when it came to the affairs of the North/South Ministerial Council and the various elements of North/Southery.

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

Order. For the third time, I must ask the Member to focus on the Bill.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I put it to you that the Member is developing a thesis that — [Laughter.]

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Slowly. [Laughter.]

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

I am sorry if I use —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

My thesis was 120,000 words. [Laughter.]

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

Order. Will the Member please resume his seat; that is not a point of order. Mr Attwood, please continue.

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

I knew that my speech was elaborate, but I did not think that it measured up to a thesis. [Laughter.]

In response to your point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am replying to the words of Mr Robinson in last week’s debate, when he said that he was not trying to suck out ministerial authority.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Thank you for addressing your remarks through the Chair.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Is it in order for a Member to question a ruling made by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the Member appears to be doing at the moment?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Shame. [Laughter.]

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

I have known John Dallat too long to question anything that he gets up to, so I am certainly not doing so in this context.

As we saw with ministerial authority at St Andrews and the North/South architecture —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a second; I have been very generous to other people. In his New Year’s Eve statement, the First Minister raised fundamental questions about the future of the North/South Ministerial Council; he asked whether it was a most efficient use of our resources. We can see an agenda, an approach and a culture. I suggest that Sinn Féin, which currently holds the office of the deputy First Minister, should have its eyes wide open when it comes to what the legislation might do.

Therefore, I say to the First Minister, whom I will let speak in a second, that for all the warm words — and many pages of words detail the past debates — the evidence, in as much as I have outlined it, supports a culture of control and limiting Ministers’ authority.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am very grateful to the Member for giving way. I want to examine his thesis a little more closely. The kernel of it appears to be that the Democratic Unionist Party has an agenda. Quite why any political party would have an agenda, I do not know. It seems that no political party would ever want to be accused of that.

As the Member puts it, that agenda — which he opposes — erodes ministerial powers. The DUP would put that differently and say that it brings power into the Executive. If that agenda erodes ministerial powers, why is the Member supporting an amendment that will give power to the Executive over issues that, under the provisions of the Bill, will be dealt with in a ministerial capacity and will therefore come ultimately to the Executive anyway?

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

I will reply to that in two ways.

Many of the amendments mitigate the excesses of what is proposed in the Bill. Therefore, when faced with the options of granting authority where you do not want it to go or of mitigating the proposal in question, the latter is the preferred option.

Secondly, it is curious that the First Minister raised the matter, because in replying, I rely on what he said in last week’s debate on this very issue about ministerial authority and Executive control. The contradiction in what the First Minister has said is in his words of last week, when he said:

“There is no Machiavellian plot for the deputy First Minister and I to “suck out” — I think that that was the term that was used — functions and powers from various Departments and to make their decisions for them. I suspect that that refers to the three Departments that are not under the control of the deputy First Minister and me.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p237, col 1].

If I were to draw conclusions from the First Minister having just said that clauses in the Bill will give responsibility to the Executive, I must also remind myself that in the Chamber a week ago, the First Minister said:

“I suspect that that refers to the three Departments that are not under the control of the deputy First Minister and me.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p237, col 1].

Consider those words. He did not use the words “influence”, “persuasion” or “encouragement”. In reference to DUP and Sinn Féin Ministers, the word that the First Minister used — and that I presume reflected the view of the deputy First Minister — was “control”.

Therefore, after hearing what the First Minister said about “controlling” his own Ministers, I must ask myself whether I am reassured about amendments that are related to taking matters to the Executive. I do not know what the definition of a political poodle is, but if that is not it, I do not know what a poodle is.

We know about the First Minister’s attempts to control. We know about how he tried to control the Minister for Social Development on an issue — [Interruption.]

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

Order. The Member has the Floor. First Minister, you will be the penultimate Member to speak, and you will have every opportunity to respond.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We know what control means when it comes to the First Minister, and his own Ministers must draw conclusions from that. We know how the First Minister tried to control another matter involving the Minister for Social Development. I will not comment further on that because it is going through the courts. I am sure that the Minister for Social Development will take her chances when the court’s decision becomes known.

However, the point is that the First Minister has form when it comes to issues of control — that is his choice of language. To confirm that point, I refer to other comments that Declan O’Loan made this morning about the Bill. In order to understand the scope and intention behind what the First Minister is proposing, one must consider what he has said. Last week he said:

“The Financial Assistance Bill is the most important piece of legislation to be tabled since the return of devolved Government.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p218, col 1].

As I said, I respect the First Minister and the people around him — they are very careful about their use of words. Their approach to negotiations, and to much besides, is to be precise and technical, and I respect that. They are good at it, the SDLP is also good at it, and if other parties were half as good at it, we would not be in the mess that we are in at the moment. [Laughter.]

Therefore, the First Minister meant it when he said that the Bill is:

“the most important piece of legislation to be tabled since the return of devolved Government.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 5, p218, col 1].

Those are not idle words, nor is it a casual remark. The First Minister is being deadly serious, just as he was in the summer when he somehow got the deputy First Minister to agree that a justice Minister should be appointed by cross-community vote at all times. The First Minister quickly came out and stated that “at all times” meant “at all times”.

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

Once again, I ask the Member to stick to the subject, or we will have to move on.

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

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am drawing the conclusion that the First Minister means what he says. Therefore, when the First Minister says that the Bill is an important piece of legislation, I draw conclusions about its size, scale and intentions.

I also find it very curious, as other Members surely must, that the Bill is billed as being even more important than the legislation on the Budget that the Assembly passed last year. The Assembly passed legislation for the spending of millions and millions of pounds over this year and future years, and yet the Financial Assistance Bill is somehow considered to be more important than that and all other legislation that has come to the Chamber since restoration. Therefore, be warned — the First Minister and others have plans for how the Bill will pan out.

We have a multiparty coalition, so all sorts of tensions and fractures exist. In that regard, I have some sympathy with the First Minister, because his role is to build consensus around our fledgling institutions. However, the way in which the Bill is being handled, in addition to his hectoring and the aggressive tone that he has displayed today, not least to members of Assembly staff, leads me to conclude that he is still trying to get his head around the difficult concept of building consensus around our fledgling institutions.

When I examine the Bill, I remind myself that the First Minister likes power but does not like accountability. For example, we do not have a Budget for the coming year. Furthermore, the First Minister and Martin McGuinness have proposed measures that will curtail their presence in the Chamber, where they answer to the elected representatives of the North about their actions, and that includes, I must say, explaining provisions that may arise from this Bill.

However, the First Minister has a partner in all of this — the deputy First Minister. As time passes, the deputy First Minister demonstrates more and more that he is very much a deputy. The DUP and its advisers continue to run rings around Sinn Féin across Government. If I were to look up, I am sure that I would see a smile on someone’s face: he knows it; Sinn Féin knows it; and everyone else is beginning to know it.

The Financial Assistance Bill is just another example of the DUP’s taking power on to itself, and it is doing so with Sinn Féin connivance. When Peter goes to Martin and asks him to jump, Members know what the answer is — how high? Others make the spurious, irrelevant and insulting point that Sinn Féin has signed up to administer British rule in Northern Ireland. However, in the past year and a half — in case after case — we have seen what no one would have predicted — self-proclaimed Irish republicans administering DUP rule in Northern Ireland. We shall discuss that issue over the coming months.

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

I assume that the Member has finished speaking. [Laughter.]

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I am not sure how I can attempt to follow that or to say such wonderful things about the First Minister. Nevertheless, I speak to oppose amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8. Having listened to the debate, it is obvious that those who proposed the amendments have not listened to one iota of anything that the First Minister said during the Second Stage of the Bill last Tuesday. Mind you, I am not at all surprised by some Members.

The amendments take us back to the days of the failed Belfast Agreement when rogue Ministers did whatever they wanted without any accountability. At St Andrews, the DUP ensured that there would be accountability as part of its negotiations.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I have just started. You will have plenty of time to speak.

Therefore, a Minister could no longer do what he or she wanted without the approval of the Executive. My party’s successful negotiations have ensured that those structures are now more democratic due to the fact that major decisions must be brought before the Executive and be made subject to their agreement. If we compare the Belfast Agreement to structures in which individuals are accountable to the Executive and the Assembly, I know what I prefer, and I know what the people of Northern Ireland prefer.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Presumably, the Member would argue that the decisions taken by the Sinn Féin Minister of Health and the Sinn Féin Minister of Education in the first mandate and in the current mandate are examples of rogue Ministers? Does he also recognise that the Minister of the Environment is a rogue Minister in that a decision was taken regarding the establishment of an environmental protection agency, which was supported by four parties in the Assembly, but it was opposed by the Minister’s party? Surely, that Minister is a rogue Minister from the Member’s own party.

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

I ask the Member to stick to the amendments to the Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not mind being accused of being a rogue Minister, but will the Member accept that I was not a rogue Minister in respect of the accusations that are being made here today? A former Minister was a rogue in that instance, and she engaged herself in a good piece of roguery, because an independent environmental protection agency would have been a disaster.

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

Order, please. I ask Mr Ian McCrea to continue.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I accept the comments made by both Members. Without straying further, the environmental protection agency decision was a good one.

Yesterday, during questions to the Minister of Education, Basil McCrea said that the people of Northern Ireland long for a return to the good old days of Martin McGuinness. However, I remind the Member that during that time, Martin McGuinness took the decision to abolish the 11-plus against the will of the other Ministers in the House.

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

Order, order. Please stick to the amendments to the Bill. That is what we are here to debate.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. That crisis came about through the failed negotiations of the Ulster Unionist Party concerning lack of accountability.

When the Assembly met under the structures of the Belfast Agreement, Ministers could make controversial decisions free from the control of the Executive.

As far as the DUP is concerned, any proposals for regulations will be subject to the agreement of the Executive where the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will be able to take account of the views of all Ministers.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

No, I will not. You have had plenty of time to speak all day. The days of Hitlerism are over, as this is a four-party mandatory coalition. I cannot see a situation —

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

Order. I am not sure whether that term breaches the convention on unparliamentary language, but I ask Members to be extremely careful in the terms that they use.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When you are considering whether that term is in order, will you also consider the reference to Mussolini earlier?

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

I certainly will, First Minister.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I was not speaking against any particular individual, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was just making a general comment. [Interruption.]

Yes, indeed.

I cannot see a situation in which functions would be forced onto a Department against its wishes. However, one Minister should not be allowed to frustrate the will of the Executive as a whole in their duty to provide financial assistance in exceptional circumstances or in an emergency situation.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I rise with some trepidation, because the debate has been fairly wide-ranging, and there has been mention of Hitler, Mussolini —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

McCrea.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

McCrea, but not this McCrea.

In our earlier discussion of the clauses of the Bill, we made it clear that we are not against helping people in specific circumstances. We wish to find a mechanism to do that. From our Benches, we tried to speak constructively, and said that we did not think it appropriate to take this tragedy and use it for other wider political purposes.

We have tabled these amendments in order to safeguard the proper decisions that we want Ministers to make in addressing fuel poverty and fuel payments. There is a question about trust, which was mentioned by colleagues on the Benches to my right. We are all in the political game; we know that at different times we are political opponents, and that words are said from time to time. However, this issue gives us an opportunity to do something positive. It is most distressing to realise that in every single contentious debate that we have had, whether on education, the review of public administration (RPA) or victims’ commissioners, no one ever listens to the opinion of other people that are supposed to be a part of the four-party mandatory coalition, or to those people who feel that they have a role to play as an opposition. That is the issue.

I know that some Members will shake their heads and say that that is irrelevant, but it does matter. The people of Northern Ireland expect us to find a way forward in what is a very trying set of circumstances. In tabling our amendments, we are asking, in very measured tones, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to consider the points that we have put forward and take them on board. If the issue does not matter, and if it is already implicit, as Mrs Long said, what is the problem with making it explicit? That would send a powerful message to the people of Northern Ireland that we are united in trying to deal with the issue at hand. If it is a misconception that the two big parties are simply carving up power, let us find a way of demonstrating that that is the case, and do something about it.

Let us make no bones about it: when it comes to dealing with other matters of concern that are in the background, there is no equality of esteem in the Executive. The SDLP and UUP Ministers do not receive papers on time, are not consulted properly and are not brought into the decision-making process. If that situation changed, there would be a completely different attitude in the House. We support and understand the desire to find a mechanism for getting people the money that they need, but we will not support Trojan Horses that take a tragedy and turn it into a political opportunity.

In the year or more since I became an MLA, I have witnessed a stripping away of democracy — a chipping at the edges. What was supposed to be a coalition of the willing, to be inclusive, to bring people together and to ensure that everyone had a share in this institution, has been systematically taken apart. That is why there are so many objections to the Bill.

I hope that people listen to this debate, because if we go down the route that is being proposed, we will destroy the entire Assembly.

We must find a way of working together, and I look to the First Minister, to whom I give the respect that he deserves because of his position, for leadership on the issue. I look to him to see how the Executive and the House can be brought together.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No Member wishes not to include checks and balances and a mechanism by which Members can have input into the decisions that are made by Ministers, Departments, the Executive and the Assembly. Does the Member agree that that can be done in a plethora of ways? It can be done through the work of Committees, through asking questions to Ministers, by demanding that Ministers come to the Assembly and by the requirement for weighted voting in the Executive and in the Assembly.

Surely the Member overemphasised his point when he said that all the accountability mechanisms are being removed from the Assembly. Will he be more specific and say exactly which accountability mechanisms have been removed?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me the latitude to respond to that. One of the minor but significant disappointments is that Mr Wilson was made a Minister. I say that not because I do not hold him in esteem, because I do. It is not because I do not think that he can do a good job, because he can. It is because, as he will accept, he is one of the few people prepared to speak his mind and stand up to say what is right. Unfortunately, he has been shackled by ministerial responsibility; the control freakery means that he is no longer able to speak out. He has not been able to express an opinion on important votes, but I will not embarrass him by talking about the education and skills authority.

The Ulster Unionist Party wants to find a way to help the people who need, for example, fuel payments. However, we will not accept the Bill as a Trojan Horse. If the Members opposite want to find a collective solution to the many challenges that will face us in the coming year, now is the time to start talking to people as equals and as colleagues. They should listen to what we have said, act upon the good advice that we have given and support the amendments that we have tabled.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Despite all the banter and name calling of a variety in the Chamber, the debate, which is on one of the many important issues to have come before the Assembly, is being treated correctly. We often spend time debating private Members’ motions, which, if they do call on the Executive to take action, are entirely ignored by members of the Executive. I refer not only to the actions of the former Minister of the Environment on the Environmental Protection Agency. That is why it is important to have a proper debate and why it is unfortunate that the Bill did not have a proper Committee Stage, which might have allowed some of the issues to be teased out and dealt with properly.

Basil McCrea said that Members at the other end of the Chamber were not listening; I think that he said that Members in general were not listening. I disagree with Mr McCrea on that —although I do not disagree with him on the general principles of the Bill — because some of us are listening.

I am in broad agreement with the thrust of all the amendments. I say that with some quick qualifications. Amendment No 8, which was tabled by Danny Kennedy, is not quite as good as amendment No 6, which was tabled by the Alliance Party, but it covers broadly the same area. Amendment Nos 9 and No 10, which were tabled by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, are without prejudice to our general position on clause 2. Amendment Nos 9 and No 10 need to be given proper consideration at the next Stage, and they need to receive the clarification that Naomi Long requested from the First Minister.

Some Members examined the detail of the amendments, came here to have a serious debate, engaged in a constructive debate and are prepared to make and take interventions. They understand that that is what debate is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, too many Members come into this Chamber and are not prepared to engage in debate. Their speeches are written for them by researchers, and even when you, Mr Deputy Speaker, call them to order, they cannot find a place in their speeches that is relevant to the terms of the Bill, and we run into further problems. Given the age that the Assembly has reached, it is time, when we have a debate on legislation, that Members engage in debate and do not merely read out speeches that were written a couple of days ago and which are not now relevant.

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

Order. The Member is in danger of undermining his own argument. [Laughter.]

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I trust that having made my point to the Deputy Speaker, I will have made it to Members. I will now go into detail.

I was disappointed with Mr Spratt’s speech. He listed a number of amendments to which he was opposed, but he did not list amendment Nos 2 and 6. I began to think that there was something wrong; that perhaps an amendment put forward by my party was being listened to by the DUP. Could it be that, contrary to what happened during the passage of the Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 and the Commission for Victims and Survivors Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, the parties in Government were listening to the opposition, and not just the opposition listening to the Government?

Sadly, that hope was lost when Mr Shannon began to speak. I found his comments interesting. I give him credit for understanding the concept of debate, because he takes interventions — he does not respond to them, but at least he takes them. [Laughter.]

Perhaps the next time Government Back-Benchers have a meeting, he could give a lesson on the concept of debate to Members such as Ms Anderson, though members of his own party are sometimes in the same position as her.

Some of Mr Shannon’s points were interesting. He said that amendment No 2, which adds an additional point to clause 1 about powers not existing or not being useful elsewhere, was merely a form of words. The amendment, in fact, inserts what he is agreeing to in clause 2 directly into the principles in clause 1. If that is so wrong in clause 1, why is it so acceptable in clause 2? No answer to that has been forthcoming, which means that we need to put the same phraseology into clause 1 as is being used in clause 2. It is more than just a list of words or making paper for the Environment Minister to complain about. The amendment seeks to improve the Bill — in the same way that the First Minister and deputy First Minister sought to include additional qualifications and make improvements — by applying a condition to clause 1 that is validly applied to clause 2.

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

I have an important point to make in relation to Mr Shannon’s speech. He discussed what would constitute an emergency, and Stephen Moutray said that the Bill would be for use in unforeseen circumstances. However, Mr Shannon said that we will all recognise an emergency when we see it. He gave examples, and referred to the economic downturn. The economic downturn is a major worldwide event that has been ongoing for some time and will continue for a very considerable time to come. The downturn has major ramifications for every Department. It will increase the demands upon them, and effective responses will be expected in addressing it. The only way to address it meaningfully is to revise the Programme for Government and the Budget, consulting properly with the Assembly, its Committees and the public — not by urgent, extreme, one-off remedies, the power for which, through this Bill, is to be given to OFMDFM.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am supposed to say that I am grateful for the intervention. However, I may now have to allow Mr Shannon an intervention so that he may respond to Mr O’Loan, and I am deeply reluctant to do so.

Unfortunately, I have allowed Mr O’Loan to disrupt my train of thought, which sought to attack Mr Shannon’s general inability to recognise that winter tends to happen — as Stephen Farry pointed out — once each year. Winter crises are not unprecedented. [Interruption.]

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Unfortunately, the Environment Minister seems to be unaware that climate change encompasses a variety of changes and is not a uniform change in any particular direction. Storms and climate change tend to happen in wintertime. We will, however, steer clear of that issue, in deference to the Deputy Speaker’s earlier ruling.

The issue of what is unprecedented has been over-egged by people such as Mr Shannon, who described such events as something that would never have been seen before. However, there were quite severe floods in my constituency in August 2008, and some of the areas affected were also affected by similar flooding fewer than 20 years ago. Those floods were hardly unprecedented, but they certainly created an emergency.

I am more inclined to agree with the First Minister’s definition of what constitutes an emergency rather than Mr Shannon’s. It was a good attempt from a Back-Bencher in defence of the Executive’s position, but I am afraid that he failed to persuade me.

Ms Anderson made a great deal of the point that amendment No 2, which was tabled by the Alliance Party, would result in delays. I am not sure what delays are envisaged given that we have been told by the two principal parties that all is sweetness and light, and that everything in the Executive is working well — Mr Attwood disagreed, but he is not in the Chamber to defend that position. However, if we accept that view, what delay would there be if the First Minister and deputy First Minister were to consult the relevant Minister or Ministers on what powers and finances exist and whether that particular procedure were needed? There is no delay that is realistic or feasible, and for Ms Anderson to make the point — as she read her notes and refused to take an intervention on the matter — that there will be a delay, means that the point will be argued at greater length and detail as it is clearly unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable — [Interruption.]

I would happily give way, but the fact that Ms Anderson neither makes nor receives interventions speaks for itself.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member may conclude that it has been unsubstantiated, but he cannot conclude that it is unsubstantiatable, because there is substantiation for it. Amendment No 2 would put on the face of the Bill criteria that could leave it open to judicial review and, therefore, lead to much delay.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

That point needs to be substantiated. [Laughter.]

At least we now have a member of the Administration who is prepared to argue the detail of the Bill. I welcome the intervention from the First Minister in that respect, although I suspect that clause 2(1)(b) could also be subject to judicial review. Therefore, I am not sure why that argument applies to clause 1 and not to clause 2.

Those points need to be made, because it is clear that, yet again, the Executive are unwilling to listen to any arguments emanating from this end of the Chamber. That was illustrated by the fine speech made by Mr Ian McCrea, in which he dwelt much on how the Belfast Agreement has failed, and the fact that Sinn Féin has given up ministerial authority, but did nothing to deal with the substance of the amendments tabled from this end of the Chamber.

If one examines the balance of this debate — as, hopefully, more impartial people than those who sit at the other end of this Chamber will do — it will be seen that the strong weight of argument behind the amendments tabled in an effort to make this a better Bill should be realised. Those amendments will help to ensure that the emergency provisions go through. They will also ensure that, for those of us who are still a little bit sceptical about the fine workings of the Executive, this Bill is not a Trojan horse designed to damage the workings of Departments other than those controlled, in their own terms, by the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

We seem to have run out of Members who wish to speak from the other parties, but the Assembly now has the privilege of two consecutive contributions from the Alliance Party.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will you be giving us the same message?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Of course.

I will resist the temptation to read out my 120,000-word thesis, but I will certainly pass a copy to Declan O’Loan to peruse at his leisure, at some time in the future

This is an important debate. At times, I get the impression that some Members from the DUP and Sinn Féin seem to resent the fact that the debate is taking place, and that Members — from a range of parties — have tabled reasoned and constructive amendments. This is the heart of the legislative process; this is why we have an Assembly. We should welcome the fact that we are having debates of this nature rather than trying to avoid them.

Had the Bill had a proper Committee Stage, a lot of this work could have taken place in the Committee rather than on the Floor of the Assembly, but we are where we are.

I want to make only a couple of points. The first is that there is, perhaps, a greater need to ensure the co-operation of Departments and Ministers in relation to clause 1 than in relation to clause 2. That may seem to be a slightly counter-intuitive statement. However, clause 2 deals with more medium- and long-term situations where there is a potential failing in the structures of Government to address cross-cutting issues; therefore, there may well be a situation in which the First Minister and deputy First Minister — as well as the wider Executive — must be seen to be taking action to address shortcomings and the failure of Departments to work towards commonly held objectives for the greater good of the people of Northern Ireland. In that sense, a greater sense of collectivity is to be welcomed.

There may be a danger of clause 1 stripping out any role for the relevant Ministers and Departments from the consideration process. Given the very short-term nature of the interventions and given that they are not, essentially, going to be mainstream, long-term actions, that militates in favour of having a greater degree of co-operation and ensuring that Ministers are on board.

That goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve through amendment No 2, which is about ensuring that we are not running a coach and horses through existing schemes of Departments and that whatever interventions are made — albeit in the context of there being an emergency or exceptional circumstances — are properly thought out and thought through, and we are not needlessly duplicating or ignoring systems that are already in place. However, such interventions may be an effective way of dealing with emergency situations if they can result in money being directed toward such situations.

Therefore, there is merit in having a safeguard to ensure that there is not needless duplication in Government and that Government is an efficiently operating institution — all parties in the Chamber would look toward that. This is an important debate; it is important that we give consideration to amendments. The amendments tabled by my party are certainly in no way aimed at delaying or undermining the Bill — they are designed to make the Bill more transparent and more effective. All parties should be capable of uniting around our amendments and some of the other amendments that have been tabled by other parties.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

I will be very brief. I am pleased to see that a number of amendments to the Financial Assistance Bill have been tabled. The majority of those amendments go a long way toward improving the legislation and making it a better mechanism for serving the needs and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, which the First Minister so eloquently referenced in his remarks last week.

During last week’s debate, I expressed my concerns that the legislation in its original form creates too fundamental a shift in the decision-making processes of the Assembly and the Executive to warrant accelerated passage. I was not persuaded by the First Minister’s assurance that the ministerial code would play a real role in defining the use of this legislation and limiting the powers that it bestows to OFMDFM in its unamended form.

Part of the Pledge of Office commits Ministers to participate fully in the Executive Committee, yet we find ourselves regarding this legislation as urgent because that commitment was not met for several months last year. Nonetheless, the current economic situation requires flexibility and creativity. The worldwide economic forecast suggests that the downturn in which we find ourselves may reach unprecedented levels, and Northern Ireland will not be exempt. If this legislation creates an additional tool for addressing the difficulties faced by the people of this Province, it warrants full consideration.

Looking at the specifics of the Bill and the amendments, I support those amendments that give an explicit role to the whole of the Executive in making determinations that a situation warrants the exercise of this legislation. That includes amendment Nos 1, 4 and 5. Collective responsibility and power sharing are at the core of this body’s processes — however flawed they may seem at times — and those principles need to be inserted into this Bill. That is also a more accurate reflection of the budgetary processes that the Executive follow.

I also support amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8, which create the requirement for direct engagement with those Departments that stand to gain or lose functions as a result of schemes generated by this legislation. The value of consultation is a lesson that we learn over and over again in the implementation of new policies and schemes.

I oppose the inclusion of clause 2 in the Bill. I hope that amendment Nos 9 and 10 are unnecessary. In that situation, I will support amendment No 2. Failing the removal of clause 2 from the legislation — which I hope will not be the case — I will support amendment Nos 3, 9 and 10. I share the views expressed earlier by Naomi Long regarding amendment No 11.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am very willing to give way to any Member at any stage. The Speaker indicated that there were around 31 interventions during the Second Stage of the Bill, yet, when I spoke, there was not one intervention. I encourage it this time around, particularly from those who have behaved in a positive and responsible way during the course of the debate.

I welcome the contributions that Members have made, and I intend to deal particularly with the amendments that have been tabled in the name of the deputy First Minister and me, namely amendment Nos 3, 9, 10 and 11.

Before I do that, I will make some general comments about conduct during this debate, and my disappointment with some of the parties present. In particular, it is sad that the official opposition — the Alliance Party — is seen to behave in a much more responsible way in dealing with amendments and legislation than two of the Executive parties. It is worth pointing out to those two parties that their Ministers need to get legislation through the Assembly, and, if we were to behave in the irresponsible way that those two parties have done, clearly their Ministers would not get that legislation through.