Northern Ireland Assembly, 26 January 2009

325 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I would be grateful for the attention of Members for a few minutes. Last Tuesday evening, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that numerous points of order had been raised during that day’s sitting. I indicated that I would return to those points of order that were legitimate in due course. Before I come to those matters, I will address the general issue of points of order that are raised in the House.

I shall repeat what I said last week: too often, issues are raised as points of order that would be better dealt with outside the Chamber. It is regrettable that time is spent having to deal with such issues in the Chamber; however, I am even more concerned about the tendency toward points of order being used to challenge the authority of the Chair. I cannot put it more plainly than to state that that simply will not be tolerated.

For the avoidance of doubt, Members should note that I will not take any points of order on any of the matters on which I am ruling today. If Members wish to consult me about any matter that is not clear, they should do so outside the Chamber.

I will move on to matters that were raised last week. On reading the Official Report, it appeared to me that there was some confusion in Members’ minds about the difference between questions following a ministerial statement, and debates. I remind the House that although questions are provided for in Standing Orders, they are not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

There are some Members of this House who seem to want to turn ministerial statements into take-note debates. In fact, last week, several Members indicated that the statement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Nigel Dodds, was important to the House. Every ministerial statement is important to the House, yet those Members felt the need to make long introductions to their questions. Let me make it absolutely clear that that will not be allowed.

Members may want to make very short introductions to their questions, but they should then come to their questions. The convention in this House has always been that after a ministerial statement is delivered, the Chairperson of the appropriate Committee is called, and of course the Chairperson, because he is called as Chairperson, is allowed some latitude in introducing his question. However, it stops at that. From then on, it should be questions on that ministerial statement, and questions only. Members here who are Members of another place will tell you that that would not be allowed anywhere else.

There seems to be some confusion on this issue. There should not be. I direct Members to Standing Order 18, which sets out clearly the role of a ministerial statement to the House. This issue has been raised several times in points of order, over a long period. From here on in, I will not be taking any points of order on an issue concerning a ministerial statement, and neither will my deputies. Ministerial statements give Members the opportunity to ask questions about those statements; that is what they do. They are also opportunities for the House to hold Ministers and the Executive to account. I cannot be any clearer on the issue.

I now turn to related matters, concerning the role of the Chair during Question Time and questions on ministerial statements. The Chair has always resisted making judgements on the extent to which Ministers have answered Members’ questions. Whether the Minister has given a satisfactory answer is for the Member asking the question, and other Members, to judge. If a Member is not satisfied with an answer, he or she may pursue it by way of a supplementary question, through a question for written answer, by going through the Committee, or by tabling a motion for debate.

Once again, some Members continually get up on that particular point of order, and want me as Speaker, or my Deputy Speakers, to sit in judgement on whether a Minister has answered a question to the Members’ satisfaction. Members will know that that would be a total and absolute minefield for me as Speaker or for my deputies. That is something that we are not going to do. There are a number of avenues open to Members in how they might address an issue if they feel that they are not getting a genuine answer from a Minister. Once again, I make it absolutely clear that neither I nor my deputies will take any points of order on that issue again.

Last Tuesday, 18 points of order were made in the House, almost all in one debate. That must be a record for this House. Some of the Members who raised issues concerning Question Time or questions on ministerial statements sit on the Procedures Committee. My understanding is that the Procedures Committee has been looking at a number of issues in and around questions. That is where the arguments should be made, not in this House. There is a unique opportunity within the Procedures Committee for members of that Committee to bring forward points about Question Time or ministerial statements on which they feel they can agree. They should not be raised as points of order in this House when Members sit on a Committee that is currently examining those issues.

Once again, let us be absolutely clear where we stand in this House on issues concerning whatever it may be. Most of the points of order that are raised are spurious, and Members know that they are spurious and do not relate to the business of the House that is being discussed at that time. A point of order should be absolutely clear; it should relate to the issue that is being discussed in the House at that time. Unfortunately, Members will raise a point of order and talk about almost anything. All of that needs to finish, because my job as Speaker is to protect the integrity of the House and protect the business that goes through this House. That is my role.

I will now move on to a further issue, which I touched on briefly last Tuesday: the First Minister’s reference to the Clerk at Table. I remind Members again that Assembly staff should not be referred to at any time. Adverse references to staff cannot be tolerated. The House should be clear that the Chair is entirely responsible for the conduct of the business. The Deputy Speakers and I are grateful for the advice and assistance that we receive from the Clerks, but we have no doubt where the responsibility lies. I have said to some Members with whom I was discussing these issues this morning that you would almost need the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon to try to resolve some of these issues.

Finally, I remind the House that I will take no points of order on any of the issues to which I refer today.

I will now turn to the serious matter of expressions that were used in the Chamber last week. The First Minister indicated that, in his opinion, Mr Declan O’Loan accused him of deceit. I have reflected on the comments that were made by Mr O’Loan, and consider that although he alleged deceit, he did not allege it against any particular Member, or name any particular Member. That being the case, I am content that his comments were not unparliamentary.

Later in that debate, the First Minister made certain references to Mr Elliott, and used the expression:

“attempt to mislead and con people” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 7, Part 1, p335, col 2].

Although I have ruled before on allegations of misleading, I have not done so on allegations of attempting to mislead. Therefore, I will not rule its use as unparliamentary on this occasion. However, on the basis of the guiding principles that apply to parliamentary language here and in another House, Members should, in future, avoid any language that questions the honesty or integrity of another Member. If a Member has a genuine concern about such matters, advice should be sought from the Business Office on whether any procedural approaches are available to that Member.

I will now turn to Mr Durkan’s accusation that the First Minister was misleading the House. To accuse another Member of misleading the House is, clearly, unparliamentary, and as I indicated last Tuesday, I will call the Member to withdraw the remark.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked by the Deputy Speaker to address the offending term, so I did. I am being asked by the Speaker to withdraw the offending term, so I will. If, in my challenge to the First Minister, I used a handful of words that were procedurally incorrect, I withdraw the handful of words that are procedurally incorrect. However, my challenge to the First Minister remains a challenge that he invited after he made statements that misrepresented a ministerial colleague. I believe that the accuracy and the veracity of those statements can clearly be questioned —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to come to a close very quickly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can be questioned when set against available facts, including previous statements in this House by the Minister for Social Development. So, as I withdraw my words, which were procedurally incorrect, I ask the First Minister to withdraw his words, which were factually incorrect.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Those are two completely different issues, and I will not allow any Member to rise on a point of order or to widen this debate. The House is grateful to the Member for withdrawing the remark. There are different avenues that the Member can pursue in how he might deal with this issue, but certainly not this morning, and not this afternoon, through this House, and I say that to all sides of the House. There are different avenues that Members and Ministers can go down for examining issues if they have a genuine concern about allegations that are made against Members or Ministers in this House.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let me make it absolutely clear: I said at the very start that I will not take any points of order on what I have ruled on this morning, or on what Members may say in relation to that. That would open up the entire debate, and I do not think that that would be helpful to the House. I am extremely happy to talk to Members outside the Chamber if they are dissatisfied with what has been said in the Chamber.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a new point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to indicate that the facts were misleading when that Member is not in possession of the facts, and, by his own admission, was relying on a leak from a dishonourable and –

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I would ask the Member to take his seat. Once again, I made it absolutely clear that I will take no points of order on the rulings that I have made this morning. I very much hear what the First Minister has said, and I am, as I said, happy enough to talk to any Member outside the Chamber about what avenues are available to Members with regard to what has been said or done.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, which is not about this matter in particular. However, when a Member is told that he or she must withdraw a remark, must the Member not withdraw it unconditionally? He or she cannot say –

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let me make it absolutely clear: Members in this House will know that when the word “misleading” is directed generally at a Member and that Member is named, I have allowed some latitude. I have allowed Members some latitude to make a short introduction and then to say what they want to say. That has been the convention in the Assembly. This afternoon, I have done the same. Yes, I could have made a strong ruling and insisted that the Member withdraw his remarks and say nothing else. However, the convention in the House has been to allow the Member to make a brief introduction and then to let he or she decide what action to take. I am on record as ruling in that way.

I shall finish by saying that, sometimes, I approach these matters with a heavy heart. It gives me no pleasure to make the rulings that I have made this afternoon. However, I always say that the guiding principles of adherence to Standing Orders and good business of the House are very much policed by Members. Do not be mistaken in thinking that because some latitude is given, there is some weakness. Let me make it absolutely clear: if any Member oversteps the line in the House — and Members are aware when they do so — I will deal with that, irrespective of who the Member is.

As Speaker, I have given Members from all sides of the House quite a bit of latitude during Question Time, debates on ministerial statements, and so on. However, some Members continue to abuse that latitude. I wish to be absolutely clear that when Members cross the line, they must face up to that, and such matters will be dealt with. We will now move on.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I inform Members that the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 became law on 21 January 2009.

Assembly Business

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 26 January 2009.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 26 January 2009.

Executive Committee Business

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

That the Further Consideration Stage of the Financial Assistance Bill be agreed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members have been provided with a copy of the Marshalled List, which details the order of amendments for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments. The Assembly will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3, which deal with imposing additional responsibilites, by notifications, approvals and reports, upon Departments to Committees and to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The second debate will be on amendment Nos 4 to 11, which deal with the power to provide financial assistance where unsatisfactory funding arrangements exist.

The third debate will be on amendment Nos 12 and 13, which deal with schemes for financial assistance.

I remind Members who intend to speak that during the debates on the three groups of amendments, they must address all the amendments in the particular group on which they wish to comment. When 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.

I also remind Members that this is the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill. Under Standing Order 37(2), this Stage is restricted to debating any further amendments tabled to the Bill.

If that is clear, we shall proceed.

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. In the debate on amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 and 3.

These amendments deal with imposing additional responsibilities, by notifications, approvals and reports, on Departments to Committees and to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

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

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 18, at end insert

“(3A) The relevant department shall notify, as soon as is practicable, the appropriate statutory committee of any designation under this section.”

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 20, at end insert

“(4A) Regulations made under this section, if made by a department other than the Department of Finance and Personnel, require the approval of that department.” — [Mr O’Loan.]

No 3: In page 2, line 4, at end insert

“(8) The relevant department shall, within 1 year of the commencement of the scheme, provide a report on the operation of the scheme to the appropriate statutory committee.” — [Mrs D Kelly.]

It was well articulated last week, particularly by the SDLP, and also by the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party, that we have no desire to hold up the process and that we fully recognise the need for legislative cover to provide assistance in an emergency situation. In your opening remarks, Mr Speaker, you pointed out quite rightly that these amendments seek to ensure that the relevant Committee, which may fall under the legislation of any of the schemes to be introduced, shall have full sight of the scheme when it is introduced, at the point of designation. Amendment No 1 seeks to ensure that the matter is brought before the relevant Committee as soon as the scheme is initiated.

Amendment No 2 looks to the financial situation in which a Department might find itself. If there are no Executive funds or contingency funds, the approval of the Minister of Finance and Personnel should be sought, and the Executive should give consideration to where a Department’s money might come from. There is concern that this legislation will give the First Minister and the deputy First Minister the authority to instruct a Department on how it should use its money, without regard having been given to the Programme for Government or any other money having been secured. It is incumbent on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to indicate at an early stage — during the monitoring rounds, for example — what contingency fund he hopes to introduce to provide the money.

When the Executive and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are considering the introduction of a scheme, consideration must be given to where the money will come from so that the relevant Minister has an opportunity to indicate what impact that loss of finance will have if there is no additional or new money. It is also important that the legislation should oblige a Department to provide a report to the relevant Committee within one year of the scheme’s commencement, because Committees need to have oversight.

Mr Speaker, you have spoken many times about the primacy of the Assembly and the scrutiny Committees, and other Members have said that Committees have a clear role and remit and that they welcome their scrutiny.

These amendments seek to improve the legislation and should not cause the First Minister or the deputy First Minister any concern. The amendments seek to put the relevant Committees in good stead in respect of the scheme’s introduction, outworking, evaluation and impact. That may also inform future debates concerning the Programme for Government and any decision on whether those should be mainstreamed at the next Budget round. It is our party’s wish that Members, particularly those from Sinn Féin and the DUP, will give consideration to our concerns and support these genuine attempts to improve the legislation.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I rise to speak on the first group of amendments that appear on the Marshalled List for the Further Consideration Stage of the Financial Assistance Bill. At the outset, I wish to state that my colleagues and I oppose amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3. Last week, the Assembly held a marathon debate concerning the Financial Assistance Bill and its context. Having read the long list of purposeless amendments that have been tabled this week, I believe that this could be another marathon debate.

I have no problem with a marathon debate. However, the same point is being made time and time again, and some Members are using the debate as a political football. Are the Members who have tabled the amendments not listening to the First Minister?

The amendments that are listed in group 1 undoubtedly attempt to use the Bill as a political point-scoring exercise and attempt to sabotage its ability to assist those who are most in need. Although those Members are trying to score points, they are hindering and deterring the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) and the Executive in assisting those who are most in need.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

No.

Amendment No 1 requires a Department that has been designated under clause 1 by the First Minister and deputy First Minister to inform its Assembly Committee of any designation. Is that procedure not already in operation? The Members are surely aware of the ongoing liaison between Departments and Committees. That is standard protocol. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary because it calls for the introduction of a process that already exists.

Likewise, amendment No 2 requires the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) to approve any regulations made under clause 1. That amendment is totally unnecessary, because the Minister of Finance and Personnel will make his views known when the Executive — I repeat, the Executive — are asked to agree a proposed scheme. Once again, duplication is being introduced.

I oppose the content of amendment No 3, which lacks purpose and rationale. The amendment, in effect, says that — and I am sure that Members will, at some stage, try to attack my interpretation — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I apologise to the Member. Mobile phones must be switched off, if possible. None of us is innocent; we all make that mistake with mobile phones. However, mobile phones must be switched off, if possible.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, will you clarify whether that instruction is optional or mandatory?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. We are all to blame, and Members must switch off mobile phones or, at least, put them on silent mode.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I reject amendment No 3 on the basis that there should be a statutory duty to report on a scheme. Furthermore, that report should be made to the Assembly, rather than directly to the relevant Committee. In any event, Members should be aware that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister can, as part of its scrutiny role, seek information or an update on the operation or roll-out of any scheme at any time. Members are again choosing to play politics with the Bill rather than supporting its content and the benefits that it will bring to those who are most in need. I oppose the amendments.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I oppose amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3. The policy objectives and the purpose of the Financial Assistance Bill have been addressed; it will deal with emergency situations that arise extraordinarily. Amendment No 1 —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

No.

Amendment No 1 is superfluous. As Mr Moutray said, there was a marathon debate last week on the amendments, which are largely irrelevant. Points have been reiterated, and the debate has almost become political theatre. Some parties seem to be tabling amendments and filibustering rather than addressing the reason for the legislation. In my experience, those who are fuel poor, vulnerable, on benefits or elderly are constantly asking when they will receive the money.

The Minister previously said:

“Show me the money, and I will do the business”.

People are now asking when they will receive the money — the sooner the better, I say, because people are suffering daily as a result of all this discussion, which is really of no benefit to those people at whom the legislation is aimed.

The purpose of amendment No 2 is to seek to require the Minister of Finance and Personnel and his Department to approve for other Departments money that may or may not be available. However, the Executive operate on the principle of collective responsibility, so anything that happens will be the Executive’s responsibility. No single Minister should be in a position in which he or she can hold back legislation that is most necessary.

The statutory duty sought under amendment No 3 is already in place — the appropriate Committee must consider any proposed scheme, and all proposed schemes will eventually come before the Executive. My colleagues will deal with the other amendments. I reject the amendments, which are largely superfluous and of no benefit to those people most in need. Go raibh maith agat.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

At the outset, I totally reject Mr Moutray’s opening remarks about other parties not wanting to help those most in need. The Ulster Unionist Party has made it clear throughout the debates on the Bill that we are very much committed — as I accept that everyone in the House is committed — to helping those most in need.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Does the Member agree that not one of the debates that has taken place on the subject has delayed fuel payments by one day? Protocol requires that the Bill go through all the legislative Stages. Mr Moutray has exposed only his own lack of understanding of the legislative process.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Member for her intervention, and what she says is absolutely true. During last week’s Consideration Stage debate, the First Minister pointed out that it was very unparliamentary for Members to leave the Chamber during the course of the debate. Debate is not delaying the Bill; rather, it is an important part of the democratic process.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should return to addressing the proposed amendments to clause 1.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

For clarification, in case anyone thinks that I want everyone to stay in the Chamber all day for the entire debate, there is a general courtesy that a Member who speaks should remain in the Chamber until the Member who speaks next has completed his or her speech.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will return to discussing the Bill immediately. I am not sure whether the First Minister’s colleague Mr Moutray stayed in the Chamber until the next Member to speak had finished.

The SDLP, along with the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party, has attempted to table amendments that will improve the Bill’s democratic accountability. The amendments would bring the legislation more into line with the power-sharing character of the unique Government institutions that we have in Northern Ireland. The amendments that were proposed last week were an attempt to ensure that decisions made in any emergency situation be made by the entire Executive, with the consent of the relevant Departments.

The amendments that the SDLP tabled for today are aimed at ensuring that the Assembly appropriately scrutinises designations of financial assistance. Despite the ill-tempered reception that the amendments received last week, the SDLP has proposed others that will improve the Bill. Amendment No 1 seeks to ensure that the relevant Statutory Committee be notified by the related Department of any designation of financial assistance under clause 1. Designations under clause 1 are subject to negative resolution, and that will result in limited, or no, opportunity for Members to scrutinise proposals. Amendment No 1 would ensure that the relevant Department would be able to examine, and have input into, proposals if appropriate.

I see no reason for rejecting that amendment, over and above the fact that, to date, the DUP and Sinn Féin have yet to accept any amendment to a Bill that received accelerated passage. Not only would amendment No 1 enable Committees to scrutinise proposals on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, but they would be able to add their diverse, and often expert, experience, which, in many instances, would help to improve pieces of legislation that all Committees in this place consider.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member share my wry sense of amusement that not only will people not accept amendments but — save for the First Minister — they will not even take interventions, so unsure are they of their positions? The point was made to Members opposite that they do not even understand the legislative process; they will not even let us debate the matter, never mind listening to what we have to say.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to my honourable friend for that intervention — he is absolutely right. As the debate progresses, it will be interesting to see whether Members of the two main parties in Government — bar the First Minister and the deputy First Minister — take interventions.

All Ministers are aware of the positive input that Committees can make to proposals. It will be a lost opportunity if amendment No 1 is not accepted. I hope that the deputy First Minister will be more receptive than the co-holder of his office to the recommendations that will be made by Members today.

The deputy First Minister will probably make reference to over-legislating and over-complicating the Bill. However, amendment No 1 is an important and worthwhile addition, which the deputy First Minister would accept if he were more in tune with the implications of accelerated passage.

Amendment No 2 seeks to ensure that the Bill does not impinge on the ability of Departments to manage their budgets and to meet their settled targets and public service agreements. The recent strategic stocktake highlighted the tight fiscal position in which all Departments find themselves. The amendment will provide Ministers with the peace of mind that they will be able to continue to manage their own budgets.

Amendment No 3 is another sensible proposal that will ensure that the success or failure of any scheme can be examined by the Assembly. For policy to be implemented successfully, it must be monitored and evaluated throughout its life and afterwards. The amendment provides an opportunity for Departments to learn from their mistakes and to share successes with other Departments, Committees and non-governmental organisations.

To not accept the amendments will make little sense. They are reasonable and constructive, and they will benefit this piece of legislation. I thank the SDLP Members who tabled the amendments, and I look forward to the deputy First Minister’s response.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I support amendment Nos 1 and 3, and I seek some clarification on amendment No 2. Today’s debate is important. It is certainly well within the procedures of the House to have it as it is part and parcel of the legislative process. The debate needs to be more constructive, brief and to the point than was the case last week, when we had extensive discussions about these matters.

My party appreciates that Members can discuss amendments at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage and that we do not have the guillotine system that exists in the House of Commons. In the context of Northern Ireland’s divided society and the multi-party system, it is important that free and open exchange takes place, but with that comes a responsibility on Members about how they approach debates.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

May I check that the Member is encouraging debate and that he welcomes interventions? We recommend that the two parties to which the First Minister and the deputy First Minister belong should take interventions and listen to what we have to say.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. On at least two occasions during the debate, Members have almost forced others to take interventions. It is up to the Member who has the Floor whether he or she decides to take an intervention. That could be rather risky, but Members decide whether they want to take interventions. This issue has been raised on several occasions; nobody can force the Member who has the Floor to take an intervention if he or she does not want to.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you for your points, Mr Speaker. I am more than happy to take interventions, as was just demonstrated when I took one from Mr Basil McCrea.

Nevertheless, Mr Speaker’s point touches on the fact that, more than 18 months into this mandate, we await the commencement of free and open debates. If Members continue to merely read out their speeches, rather than other Members having to listen to them, those making the speeches may as well just hand them to the Office of the Official Report for printing.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Surely the Member will acknowledge that conducting a debate in the Chamber does not depend simply on the occurrence of interventions. A debate consists of a Member speaking, followed by subsequent Members dealing with the comments that he or she has made.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I fully concur with the First Minister’s remarks, and his Back-Bench colleagues, and those belonging to Sinn Féin, would do well to listen to them. I recognise that the First Minister engages in debate, and such conduct should be encouraged in respect of all Members.

Returning to the substance of the amendments, it is important that we do not rehearse the arguments made last week, when there was a full debate on clause 1 and, although not to the same extent, on clause 2.

The Alliance Party takes a slightly different approach to clause 1 than it does to clause 2. We envisage that clause 1 would deal with short-term and exceptional circumstances, in which case more checks and balances would ensure that relevant Departments and Ministers act in accordance with them.

Furthermore, Mr Brady said that the Bill is designed to deal with emergency situations; however, we should focus on it dealing with exceptional circumstances. Winter-fuel payments are not emergency provisions — winter happens every year. However, circumstances might be exceptional, particularly, for example, in the present economic situation, and it is important that we make that distinction.

My colleague Naomi Long will discuss clause 2, and she will demonstrate that a different approach might be appropriate when dealing with longer-term systemic situations that pertain to delivering policies throughout Departments. I can envisage circumstances — for example, if a Department or a Minister is not operating in line with a policy direction that has been centrally agreed by the Executive — in which it might be possible, indeed, necessary, to make progress without the consent of the relevant Department or Minister.

Nevertheless, we should move more cautiously with clause 1 in order to ensure that all parties sign up to it, and that is why I am sympathetic to the thrust of amendment No 2, although more explanation is required about whether the final “department” contained in it refers to the Department of Finance and Personnel or to the first Department mentioned. If it refers to the first Department mentioned, the amendment’s drafting might be tautological, but if it refers to the second, the amendment would be acceptable to the Alliance Party. I shall await clarification at the end of the debate from those who tabled that amendment.

An argument may be made that the actions stipulated in amendment Nos 1 and 3 would happen in any event; however, there is no reason why they should not be added to the Bill to provide additional reassurance and to ensure proper reporting and accountability in Committees and in the Assembly. Therefore, the Alliance Party has no difficulty in accepting them both. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I look forward to a free exchange of ideas among Members during the rest of the debate.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Having read the Official Report of last week’s seven-hour Consideration Stage, I should not be entirely surprised that an even greater number of amendments have been tabled for the Bill’s Further Consideration Stage. I intend to oppose the three amendments in group 1.

Amendment No 1 would require a Department to inform its Committee that it had been designated by the First Minister and deputy First Minister under clause 1 for the purpose of creating a scheme. Amendment No 1 is unnecessary because such notification would occur in any event as part of ongoing liaison between a Department and its Committee.

During the Bill’s Second Stage and Consideration Stage, it was emphasised that any regulations made under clause 1 or clause 2 would be subject to normal Committee consideration, including any proposal by a Department to make regulations using the powers provided for in the Bill. It is normal practice for a Department that is proposing to make regulations to write to its departmental Committee Clerk to advise the Committee of a proposed statutory rule.

That practice will be no different in the case of regulations being made under clause 1 to deal with exceptional circumstances. The letter to the Committee will provide sufficient information for it to carry out an informed policy scrutiny. That notification procedure is set out in the handbook on subordinate legislation.

In addition to that formal communication, I would expect that departmental Assembly liaison officers would contact their departmental Committee Clerk to alert them immediately once they become aware that their Department had been designated under this legislation. In view of that, I reject amendment No 1, because it is unnecessary. Committees will be aware from an early stage that a Department has been designated to make regulations under this legislation.

Amendment No 2 would require the Department of Finance and Personnel to approve any regulations made under clause 1 of the Bill. When viewed in isolation, amendment No 2 does not seem unreasonable. However, it has to be viewed in the wider context of decision-making under clause 1. As we have said in previous debates on the Bill, any proposal for a determination, designation or scheme will have to come to the Executive for consideration and agreement. The views of all Ministers — including the Minister of Finance and Personnel — will have to be considered in reaching decisions. I reject amendment No 2, because the Minister of Finance and Personnel will have made his views known when the Executive were asked to agree to a proposed scheme.

Amendment No 3 would require the relevant Department to report on the scheme, to its Committee, within a year of the scheme’s commencement. The Members who tabled this amendment and amendment No 1 seem to believe that the Committees will be kept in the dark or ignored by their Departments; that will not be the case. However, if there is to be a statutory duty to report on a scheme, such a report would be to the Assembly and not to the relevant Committee.

In any event, a Committee could seek information on the operation of the scheme at any time, as part of its scrutiny role. Therefore, it is unnecessary to place a statutory duty on relevant Departments to produce a report on the operation of a scheme to a Committee. I ask Members to reject amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on the first group of amendments and to summarise the debate. As several Members said, a substantial debate on the Bill was held in the Chamber last week, and that debate was seen by many of us as being necessary.

I have used the words “loathsome” and “obnoxious” in relation to the legislation, but, today, I describe it as “dangerous”. That description should be taken at least as seriously, because, as legislators in a democratic Assembly, we should guard vigilantly the rights of that Assembly and its elements — particularly, in the context of this debate, its Committees. That is true in any legislature, and it is particularly true in a society that remains unstable and which has parliamentary institutions that are still subject to the test. Anyone who challenges that contention should remember that the Executive did not meet for 154 days, as has been referred to often.

Therefore, any measure that proposes significant changes to how the Assembly runs itself should be subject to close scrutiny. No one should misrepresent that as an attempt to hold up payments to those who are in need. It is for that reason that I am disappointed in the reaction of OFMDFM and its representative parties to the amendments. If OFMDFM was of a mind to assuage the concerns of others, it would have been willing to listen to these modest amendments.

Members will know well that we sought more substantial changes. We wished to delete clause 2 and await a more considered introduction of its provisions before the relevant Committee.

OFMDFM resisted that utterly and successfully. The changes that we sought to make to clause 1 of the Bill were also rejected. We are now submitting very modest changes to clause 1, the first of which is that we want a report of the designation to be made to the relevant Committee. Secondly, we want DFP to approve the regulations. Thirdly, a report on a scheme should be made to the relevant departmental Committee within a year. The unwillingness of the parties in OFMDFM to assent to those modest changes brings no comfort to those who table the amendments, or to their parties, that they will be given a fair crack of the whip in the relationships and decision-making in the Executive.

In proposing the amendments, Dolores Kelly outlined the reasons for tabling them with absolute clarity. She emphasised that there is no desire to hold up the financial measures that will represent the first use of the Bill. Naomi Long pointed out correctly that the amendments have not held up the proceedings of the Assembly or the payments even by one day. Other factors, to which I referred earlier, have held up those payments considerably.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Would the Member like to give way on that issue?

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

I could give way to the First Minister.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Member. He is right, and, in fact, that point was raised on 18 occasions during debates on the earlier Stages of the Bill. The erroneous argument was made that the Bill required accelerated passage because the Executive had not met for 154 days. In support of that argument, the leader of Mr O’Loan’s party relayed to the House leaked information that had been provided to him by some dishonourable person whom he has not named. [Interruption.]

I am sure that everyone agrees that someone who leaks a confidential Government document is, unquestionably, dishonourable. I am sure that the Member will accept that the document dated 2 October 2008 may not have signalled the end of the issue and that his Minister came to her Executive colleagues and said that her officials were pursuing with the Departmental Solicitor’s Office and officials from other Departments whether another Department had the power to make the payments. There is a fistful of correspondence that demonstrates that right up to December 2008, the matter had not been closed. Therefore, the challenge has been answered, and I hope that there will not only be a withdrawal but an apology from the leader of the SDLP.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. It is important to return to the debate and to the business on the Floor of the House.

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

I have no difficulty in getting back to the debate, and I am sure that everything that the First Minister said will be studied closely. Undoubtedly, the leader of the SDLP, in due course and in the proper place, will respond.

I noted that the deputy First Minister was sent out to speak on the Bill today, but the First Minister evidently felt it necessary to come to his rescue when the nature of the Bill and its progress was challenged.

I turn now to the responses to the amendment.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

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

Certainly; I am pleased to give way to the deputy First Minister.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member knows that the deputy First Minister does not need to be rescued by anyone.

He mentioned the Executive not meeting for 154 days, although when they finally met, they did so after reaching an important agreement on the transfer of policing and justice powers. Given that he raised that issue, he should recall the period from the summer of 1998 to the winter of 1999 when the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister were held by David Trimble and Séamus Mallon. Under their stewardship, the Executive failed to meet for a period of 500 days.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I must remind Members that good practice dictates that interventions must relate to the issues being debated on the Floor, which are the amendments.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member take an intervention from this side of the House?

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

I will take the intervention.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member share with me the relief that the deputy First Minister does not need to be rescued, because he and the First Minister are in the same boat? Will he also join me in saying that whenever we discussed leaks and various other things, issues of public interest were involved? I recall that in another place —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I remind Members once again that good practice in interventions is that they must relate to the business being discussed in the House.

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

Thank you. I will be glad to pursue my own remarks.

I believe that the deputy First Minister misrepresents the historical record. If, at some point, he wishes to outline the gains that his party made during those 154 days, and his precise timetable for the devolution of policing and justice, I will be happy —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must return to the debate.

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

I accept what you say, Mr Speaker.

I was disappointed by Stephen Moutray’s responses to the individual amendments. He said that reporting the designation to the Committee was already standard protocol. If it is in place already, why is there resistance to writing this simple amendment into the Bill?

Amendment No 2 is important. In relation to the point that Stephen Farry raised, the exact wording has been properly verified by those who are competent to do so, as far as parliamentary drafting is concerned; therefore, the Member can be confident that the words, “of that department”, clearly refer to the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is a necessary provision. As John McCallister said, it will give Ministers peace of mind that they will retain control over their own budgets. Again, if the two parties want to give the assurance that they are working in partnership with others in the Executive, they can support this amendment.

Without amendment No 2, we could find ourselves in the situation where the Public Accounts Committee, the Government auditor, or other oversight bodies would, later on, find themselves looking at the scheme and the regulations and saying that there were financial deficits or irregularities. DFP would be put in the position of saying that it had nothing to do with creating the scheme; it simply allocated a certain sum of money, but was not involved in how that money would be spent. That is not good Government. Amendment No 2 is valid.

Stephen Moutray — surprisingly for a democrat speaking in a democratic Chamber — was not happy that the Committee that was set up to scrutinise that activity should report on the scheme within a year. He said that it would be better if the matter were to come to the Assembly as a whole. Where is the provision in the Bill that a report be made to the Assembly as a whole? It is not there.

We have made our points cogently in relation to the amendments, and the Bill would be better if those amendments were included.

The deputy First Minister referred to existing protocols around informing Committees. He used the words, “I would expect”. He believes that everything is covered by ordinary procedure. Once again, the SDLP wants much more confidence on the issue and the clarity that would be expressed by writing those straightforward amendments into the Bill.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. The deputy First Minister referred to the fact that Committees receive information and advice on subordinate legislation. However, many Committees have complained about the terms in which they receive that information, and its timing. Rather than to expect things simply to happen, it is the business of legislation to be very clear about what is required to happen.

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

I thank the Member for that useful intervention. I rest my case, and I support the three amendments.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 55.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Mr Beggs, Mr D Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Burnside, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Cree, Mr Durkan, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mr Gardiner, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr A Maginness, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGlone, Mr Neeson, Mr O’Loan, Ms Purvis, Mr P Ramsey, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr D Bradley and Mr O’Loan.

NOES

Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mr Brady, Mr Bresland, Mr Brolly, Lord Browne, Mr Butler, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Dodds, Mr Doherty, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr M McGuinness, Miss McIlveen, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brolly and Mr Moutray.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That amendment No 2 be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 56.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Mr Beggs, Mr D Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Burnside, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Cree, Mr Durkan, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mr Gardiner, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr A Maginness, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGlone, Mr Neeson, Mr O’Loan, Ms Purvis, Mr P Ramsey, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr D Bradley and Mr O’Loan.

NOES

Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mr Brady, Mr Bresland, Mr Brolly, Lord Browne, Mr Butler, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Dodds, Mr Doherty, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr M McGuinness, Miss McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brolly and Mr Moutray.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That amendment No 3 be made, put and negatived.

Clause 2 (Unsatisfactory funding arrangements: power to provide financial assistance)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 4, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 5 to 11. I advise Members that amendment Nos 5 and 6 are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if amendment No 5 is made, I will not call amendment No 6. The second debate deals with the power to provide financial assistance where unsatisfactory funding agreements exist.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 4: In page 2, line 7, after “acting jointly,” insert

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

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 5: In page 2, line 7, at end insert “( ) that exceptional circumstances exist,”. — [Mr O’ Loan.]

No 6: In page 2 line 8, leave out “a” and insert “an unforeseen”. — [Mr Elliott.]

No 7: In page 2, line 13, leave out line 13 and insert “be ineffective or inadequate, and”. — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 8: In page 2, line 16, leave out “6 months” and insert “3 months”. — [Mr Elliott.]

No 9: In page 2, line 25, at end insert

“(3A) The relevant department shall notify, as soon as is practicable, the appropriate statutory committee of any designation under this section.” — [Mrs D Kelly.]

No 10: In page 2, line 27, at end insert

“(4A) Regulations made under this section, if made by a department other than the Department of Finance and Personnel, require the approval of that department.” — [Mr O’Loan.]

No 11: In page 2, line 35, at end insert

“(8) The relevant department shall, within 1 year of the commencement of the scheme, provide a report on the operation of the scheme to the appropriate statutory committee.” — [Mrs D Kelly.]

During last week’s Consideration Stage of the Financial Assistance Bill, I noted with interest that the First Minister informed the House that clause 2 of the Bill did not represent a power grab. He said that:

“one cannot grab power that one already has. That power is already resident in OFMDFM.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 7, Part 1, p359, col 1].

The First Minister’s view is that clause 2 is a tidying-up exercise that makes explicit what is already implicit. He even suggested that, when undertaking that tidying-up exercise, clause 2 is the:

“more open, transparent and democratic way”. — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 7, p360, col 1].

I thank the First Minister, because his reasoning provides the rationale for the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment — amendment No 4 — which proposes that consent be required of the Executive Committee for the exercise of the powers conferred on OFMDFM by clause 2.

Today, the deputy First Minister may tell the House that amendment No 4 is unnecessary. He may even take a leaf out of the First Minister’s book and accuse those of us who support it of not having two brain cells to rub together, but that is not the point. Amendment No 4 is merely intended as a tidying-up exercise, and in tabling it, we are trying to be helpful and constructive to the Bill. A power grab is not being carried out by the Executive Committee; one cannot grab power that one already has. That power is already resident in the Executive Committee, and, as the First Minister said last week:

“any determination that is made under that clause goes to the Executive for agreement; any designation goes to the Executive for agreement; and any scheme that is reached goes to the Executive for agreement.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 7, p358, col 1].

Given that that is the case, amendment No 4 is an open, transparent and democratic way of making explicit what the First Minister has already said. After all, who would wish to argue against making processes in the Chamber more open, transparent and democratic? To reject amendment No 4 suggests that the Member for Foyle Ms Anderson was correct in her boast that clause 2 represents a “significant sea change”, and is not merely a tidying-up exercise; it will be saying that clause 2 is not merely making explicit what is implicit but is a significant sea change in the workings of the Executive.

The overriding message that has been picked up by the media and the public is that the Bill is exclusively designed to provide financial assistance to address emergency situations. Neither I nor my party wishes to go against that, and neither do the majority of Members. However, the manner in which the Bill has been presented has led people to believe that that is the Bill’s only purpose.

Clause 2 is not designed to address emergency situations. Regardless of all the previous protestations of the First Minister, clause 2 is designed to significantly change the role of his Department, as the Member for Foyle Martina Anderson has stated.

The Bill is called the Financial Assistance Bill, but at Consideration Stage, it appeared that the First Minister could not decipher whether clause 2 was designed to provide specific instances of financial assistance, or whether it should be used as a tool to promote his Department’s co-ordinating role on the cross-cutting themes of poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation. The First Minister made much of the fact that his Department already has a cross-cutting role to co-ordinate those and other issues. Is the Bill concerned merely with enhancing policy co-ordination, or does it represent a significant sea change in the role of OFMDFM?

These devolved institutions should seek to ensure that all parties, which represent different sections of society in Northern Ireland, work together for the common good of all in light of our collective past. The role of First Minister and deputy First Minister, as representatives of the largest parties, is to co-ordinate and provide innovation on the cross-cutting themes that affect more than one Department, be they child poverty, sustainability, and the other issues that regularly come before the House. Indeed, the first objective in the public service agreement outlined on the OFMDFM website is to assist Government in making and implementing well-informed decisions and improving public services. The word used is “assist”, not “dictate”.

I disagree with the First Minister’s interpretation of clause 2. To suggest that it is a continuation of the powers of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is not correct. Clause 2 moves the role of the First Minister and deputy First Minister beyond providing co-ordination to overriding the power of Departments for any reason they deem necessary.

Have the decisions that Sinn Féin and the DUP have made to date been conducive to a shared and normalised future for Northern Ireland? The Bill will give the DUP and Sinn Féin more power to produce and implement policy on an us-and-them basis. We are slowly moving away from co-operation to an enforced carve-up on all these issues.

The Ulster Unionist Party has tabled further amendments to clause 2 that will move the Bill closer to the original intention, namely, to provide financial assistance to people who are suffering from unforeseen events and actions. Amendment No 6 will ensure that clause 2 is not used as a normal policy tool by OFMDFM to override Departments and the Programme for Government. It will ensure that only poverty, social exclusion or deprivation not foreseen or factored into the Programme for Government and Departments’ own schemes and policies can be addressed. Failure to accept the amendment will justify Sinn Féin’s interpretation of the Bill as a sea change in the way we do business in this House.

I draw the deputy First Minister’s attention to the fact that, whereas clause 2 stipulates that the First and deputy First Minister may exercise their powers when a situation exists which “requires” financial assistance to be provided, clause 1 states that they should act on an exceptional circumstance only if and when they deem it to be “desirable”. The word “requires” implies compulsion; “desirable” implies a lower threshold of need. I want clarification of those terms. The Assembly should be informed why different words have been selected for each clause, and exactly what the ramifications are.

Clause 2(1)(b) states that financial assistance can be provided when the First Minister and deputy First Minister deem that existing arrangements and policies are “for any other reason unsatisfactory”. That should sound alarm bells. What is meant by “any other reason”?

If the Bill is genuinely about financial assistance to people in exceptional circumstances or unforeseen situations of poverty, social exclusion or deprivation — rather than to effect a sea change in the way that the Executive create and implement policy — we must act quickly in each circumstance. However, during the Consideration Stage, the First Minister stated that:

“The time limits of three to six months will provide a discipline for the relevant Department to act promptly to put a scheme in place and to avoid any suggestion that the determination might be used inappropriately at a much later date when the original circumstances no longer apply.” — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 7, Part 1, p342].

Poverty, social exclusion and deprivation are likely to be with us for the foreseeable future and many years to come. How, then, can a situation that is unforeseen or out of the ordinary be given a timescale for reaction? The Ulster Unionist Party’s amendments will clarify the intention of the Bill and give it definitive boundaries and purpose.

By reducing the time to react under clause 2, amendment No 8 reflects the urgency that should be shown in reacting to a critical situation. If clause 2 is not to be used exclusively for emergency situations, we should all ask where the money will come from.

Last week, in his ministerial statement, the Minister of Finance and Personnel said that:

“the main source of funding to address emerging pressures is expected to come from the resources that were allocated in the Budget process”. — [Official Report, Vol 36, No 7, Part 1, p301].

However, we have been told that the shortfall between what Departments need to meet their Programme for Government targets and what is actually available is over £1 billion. At this stage, there will be a difficult balancing act between reduced requirements and emerging pressures. The clause has the potential to add a duplicating spending pressure to our already stretched Budget. I ask the deputy First Minister whether, if he uses the powers of clause 2 to give significant financial assistance, reductions will have to be made in other areas.

If clause 2 is to stand, it is crucial that it be used only for unforeseen circumstances of poverty, deprivation or social exclusion that require immediate action. Otherwise, the Bill, rather than better co-ordinating Government in Northern Ireland, will further divide parties and Ministers in the Executive.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I oppose the proposed amendments to clause 2. My colleague will speak to amendment Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7, and I will speak to amendment Nos 8, 9, 10 and 11. We want to dismiss the supposed need for those amendments as quickly as possible so that the Assembly, rather than holding things back, can get down to the business of helping the people of this Province. That is what I am about, and I hope that I can persuade other Members to be of the same opinion.

In this time of recession, people need good legislators who see their needs, and they need good legislation that will meet those needs. The Bill will show the public that we have both. I am anxious to get the Bill in place so that when the need arises, it can do the job that it is designed to do, which is to help people.

Amendment No 8 proposes to reduce the time limit from six months to three months from when a determination is made under clause 2 to the making of any consequent regulations. Given the time that is required for consultation, for example, that would mean that the relevant Department could run the risk of not meeting its proposed deadline. We all know that it can take some time for consultations to be completed and for the Assembly to approve regulations in draft form. Meanwhile, the people in the street would be worse off. I believe that amendment No 8, if agreed to, would reduce the effectiveness of the legislation and would be a backward step.

Amendment No 9 is as unnecessary as amendment No 1, which relates to clause 1. Amendment No 9 would require that a Department that has been designated by the Office of the First Minster and deputy First Minster inform its Assembly Committee of that designation. The amendment is unnecessary because notification will take place in any event as part of the ongoing liaison between a Department and its Assembly Committee. For example, when the junior Ministers have been requested to attend the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, they have done so. Very clearly, all the Committees liaise, particularly —

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

I thank Mr Shannon for giving way. I am sure that he will acknowledge the fact that much of the work of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has had to be changed because of the failure of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to send papers on time. Will he also acknowledge that that office overuses the phrases “a paper to follow” and “something to be decided shortly”?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention. Obviously, we are still bedding in and there are still things to do. [Laughter.]

We are not entirely happy with everything; however, we are all keen to see things move forward, and I am very keen to see that happen. I oppose amendment Nos 8 and 9 because I believe that they are unnecessary.

Amendment No 10 —

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Several Sinn Féin and DUP Members made the point that their opposing the amendments will speed up the process. Will the Member state clearly how many extra days would be added to the process if the amendments were agreed to?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I was going to say that I am glad to accept the Member’s interventions, but that is not entirely true. In the Assembly, the DUP and the First Minister and deputy First Minister have tried to ensure that all Committees have representation. During the previous Assembly mandate, when roles were reversed, contact from the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP left a lot to be desired.

Amendment No 10 proposes that the Department of Finance and Personnel is required to approve any regulations that are made under clause 2. That amendment is unnecessary, because the Minister of Finance and Personnel will make his views well known to the Executive when they ask him to approve a proposed scheme.

Like amendment No 3, amendment No 11 proposes that:

“The relevant department shall, within 1 year of the commencement of the scheme, provide a report on the operation of the scheme to the appropriate statutory committee.”

If there were to be a statutory duty to report on a scheme, it should be to the Assembly as a whole and not directly to the Assembly Committee concerned. In any event, the Committee could seek information on the operation of any scheme at any time as part of its scrutiny role, especially if that scheme were to run for longer than the period that the amendment envisages. It has been made abundantly clear today that OFMDFM is not attempting to pull the wool over people’s eyes. We are ensuring that the Bill really meets people’s needs and circumstances.

The amendments that have been proposed do not give adequate protection. Indeed, they do the opposite — they merely add red tape and, in some cases, take away from the purpose of the Bill, which is to help people at times when they most need it.

I reject the proposed amendments and ask that all Members in the Chamber do the same to ensure that the Bill has the power to do what it is designed to do — that is, to step into the breach and make a real difference to the lives of those in need.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I object to all 13 amendments, and particularly wish to comment on amendment Nos 4 to 11. Amendment No 4 is entirely unnecessary. The joint First Ministers have already told the House that they will be bringing proposals for an amendment to the ministerial code. That will ensure that determinations of the scheme under the Bill must be agreed by the Executive, therefore ensuring the rights of all Ministers.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6 would impose additional requirements that would, effectively, defeat the current intention of the Bill, which is to identify the capability gap where a scheme is required.

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

Will the Member give way?

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Absolutely not. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It is abundantly clear to me that those gaps exist already. The OFMDFM Committee heard a wealth of evidence that exposed clearly the fact that the current programmes and policies are not delivering. There are programmes and policies that replicate the failed outcomes of the past. That is precisely the reason why the Committee, in its report on the inquiry into child poverty, concluded that OFMDFM, as lead office, should:

“have a role in challenging departmental Delivery Agreements to ensure the relevance and robustness of departmental targets and actions”.

I will repeat that. OFMDFM should:

“have a role in challenging departmental Delivery Agreements to ensure the relevance and robustness of departmental targets and actions”.

In fact, the Committee went even further and recommended that OFMDFM, along with DFP, should consider the introduction of a system of financial incentives and penalties to ensure that cross-departmental priorities, such as child poverty, are delivered on.

I find it strange that parties that endorsed those recommendations in the Committee now seem to feel that OFMDFM should have no role in identifying and implementing cross-departmental priorities. It is also strange that those parties argue that OFMDFM should not challenge any Department’s ability to tackle poverty yet, in the report on the inquiry into child poverty, they recommended that OFMDFM should take on that role.

Similarly, amendment No 7 would restrict the ability of the Bill to make a genuine and swift intervention by providing financial assistance to tackle poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation when funding arrangements are unsatisfactory.

I must admit that I find amendment No 8 curious, but I am sure that some of the opposing parties will explain it. On the one hand, we have parties in the Chamber complaining about the alleged plot to undermine the influence and authority of individual Ministers, yet the original six-month time frame would allow sufficient time for consultation and engagement with the relevant Minister and to get the approval of the Executive and the Assembly. I oppose that amendment.

Amendment No 9 is entirely unnecessary. It is part of any Committee’s normal role and remit to scrutinise the work of relevant Departments. Any Committee can ask for the kind of notification that is referred to in the amendment at any time. The Committees should be doing that anyway, and I would have grave concerns if the SDLP feels that it needs additional legislation to carry out the role that it should have been performing for the past 18 months.

Amendment No 10 is also unnecessary, because the Bill ensures that all potential schemes must be agreed at the Executive, thereby allowing all Ministers to make their views known.

My objection to amendment No 11 is similar to my objection to amendment No 9 in that any statutory Committee can request such a report at any stage. Not only that, it is the responsibility of the Committees to get an update on the progress of any relevant report, programme, project or policy. That is what MLAs — particularly as Committee members — are paid to do; therefore, they should be getting on with their job.

In rejecting those amendments, I find it regrettable that the SDLP, the Alliance party and the UUP seem intent on trying to take over the Bill — which is, clearly, designed to tackling poverty, social exclusion and deprivation, providing much-needed assistance —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you ascertain, Mr Speaker, whether it is in order for a Member to make statements about the position of another party when that party has not contributed to this portion of the debate, and when the Member is not willing to accept an intervention to clarify that point?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am sure that the Member will be quite able to defend his party and himself at this or future debates. I have to say again, to all sides of the House, that Members should not persist in interventions. It is up to the Member who has the Floor whether he or she wants to take that intervention. Members should not persist. [Interruption.] Order, Members should not persist.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Maybe they understand that now.

Those parties seem intent on trying to take over the Bill — which is, clearly, designed to tackle poverty, social exclusion and deprivation, providing much-needed assistance to our people — in order to pursue their own narrow political agendas of opposing Sinn Féin on the one hand and the DUP on the other.

Yesterday’s men and women are still recovering from the shock that the people relegated them to third and fourth place. Today’s men and women have moved on to build a better society, and we are doing so without you. The vast majority of the people are standing with us because they want a new and better society for all.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to speak to the amendments.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Just as the people could see, at the last election, who will be delivering for them, I am confident that the people of the North will see this wreckers’ charter for what it is.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I must insist that the Member speaks directly to the amendments.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

For that reason, I will oppose emotions [Laughter.] — this motion — and I oppose amendments —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I oppose amendment No 4 to amendment No 11. Go raibh maith agat.

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

Follow that.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way? [Laughter.]

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

Of course.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. This is an important debate. Does the Member agree that it is the convention in other Parliaments around the world — and I appreciate that we are an immature democracy, but trying to learn — that there is a proper give and take in debate with regard to interventions?

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

Of course, I completely endorse what Dr Farry has said. As a matter of curiosity, however, and it may be helpful for Dr Farry to know, that although Ms Anderson does not take interventions here, she prints on the Sinn Féin website something that one is alleged to have said. That is how they reply, as I have found to be the case.

With regard to the amendments, clause 2 of the Bill is entirely unnecessary, and it is a false pretence to include it in a financial assistance Bill. It is, and remains, a power grab by Sinn Féin and the DUP. In her contribution, Ms Anderson said that they have moved on, and the voluntary coalition that exists between Sinn Féin and the DUP is how this society will be governed. She suggested, rather erroneously, that our party’s Minister had failed in her ability to deliver. I believe that the record shows that Ms Ritchie, as the sole SDLP Minister of the Executive, has delivered despite the fact that Sinn Féin and the DUP took £30 million off the social development budget.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Should not the Member also speak to the Bill?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have warned all sides of the House, and I am prepared to give Members some latitude when they are speaking to the amendments, but, really, some Members are almost stretching it to a point. I remind Members: please, as far as possible, try to speak to the business that is on the Floor at this moment, and that business is amendments to the Financial Assistance Bill.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I was merely responding to some of the accusations that Ms Anderson made. It was Ms Anderson who let the cat out of the bag when she said that the Bill was going to be a “significant sea change”.

Clause 2 does have the potential to bring about a significant sea change. None of the parties are opposed to the Bill in its entirety, they do not want to see any delay, nor indeed, are they causing any such delay.

Unfortunately, Mr Shannon has left, but in answer to his question, the legislative process has not been delayed by one day. It is a matter of public record that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister agreed to the accelerated passage of the Bill. It is entirely untrue and unfair to give the impression that a delay has been caused by any of the other parties in their attempts to make a bad piece of legislation better.

Ms Anderson suggested that clause 2 is aimed at addressing capability gaps. Surely, if there are capability gaps in the Programme for Government, or indeed, in the Budget, an annual Budget review would identify those gaps within each Department. Legislation enabling a power grab by the First Minister and deputy First Minister is, therefore, not required.

Proposed amendment Nos 4 to 11, which we support, attempt to try to ensure that the Executive remains at the heart of Government. Proposed amendment No 4 stipulates that power should not simply be confined to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, but that the agreement of the Executive Committee is required. In an interview, Mr Molloy said that Sinn Féin and the DUP would have the majority vote in the Executive, and, as Ms Anderson pointed out, that is obviously the case as we move towards a new future which is Sinn Féin and DUP controlled.

It is entirely erroneous to suggest, as Mr Shannon did, that clause 2 is designed to help the people of the Province in their time of need. It is not about that at all; we all know that it is about directing money to areas where there is poverty, social exclusion and deprivation. Mr Kelly informed the House that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister would bring forward legislation by November 2008; surely their failure to do that constitutes a capability gap in the building of a better and more inclusive society.

I note that in the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, Sinn Féin and the DUP now accept the findings of the Lifetime Opportunities strategy, something which they have bad-mouthed on a regular and routine basis over the past couple of years because it was created under direct rule. If clause 2 is to deal, in some way, with social exclusion, deprivation and poverty, one wonders why Sinn Féin and the DUP were not doing what they were supposed to do, and why, 18 months into a new Administration, none of those strategies have been produced. For example, many Members will accept that the victims and survivors of the conflict are often disadvantaged — through the loss of the main wage earner and so on — and yet there is further procrastination in bringing forward the strategy for victims and survivors. Although that strategy is now being put out to consultation, albeit on a limited basis, no precise dates have been given.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I must once again remind the Member to try, as far as possible, to keep her remarks to the amendments that are being discussed.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to finish my last remarks by saying that a capability gap exists within the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Ms Anderson, and others, asked why amendment No 8 seeks to remove “6 months” from clause 2 and insert “3 months”. The purpose of the legislation is to respond quickly to emergency situations. One would have to ask whether it is really an emergency if six months is the length of time that it takes to act. Therefore, it is an attempt to improve the Bill, and to put it on the footing that the DUP and Sinn Féin have suggested that it already is. To a certain extent, we accept their rationale, but we want to improve upon it.

Proposed amendment No 10 concerns determining where the budget will come from, and relates to clause 1 in which an attempt is made to identify the money prior to any scheme being initiated. Proposed amendment No 11 is aimed at ensuring that all Members of the Assembly and the Committees have the opportunity to scrutinise the outworkings of any scheme under this initiative. Other parties will do well to remember that majorities can be created in all shapes and forms.

During his contribution to the debate on the Bill’s Consideration Stage, the First Minister suggested that it could determine who has responsibility for preschool-aged children, which could, clearly, fall upon the Minister of Education, Caitríona Ruane. That may well be an area in which the scheme might be used and action taken.

The SDLP takes its responsibilities of scrutiny and public accountability seriously. It does not sell itself out nor do deals behind closed doors for its own party-political advantage. It works for the greater good of the community.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I rise to give the Alliance Party’s position on the second group of amendments. I will preface my party’s response to those amendments by reiterating its stance on two particular matters.

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

The First Minister refers continually to his frustration that my party does not listen to him. Mr Moutray also expressed his concern. It may be news to Members on the DUP Benches that, unlike them, the rest of the House can still exercise its right to hear what the First Minister says and not agree with him. However frustrating or novel that concept might be for them, to hear is not to obey. It is worth putting on record that the Assembly has free thought and speech: long may that continue.

The other issue is the differences between parties’ positions on clauses 1 and 2. The Alliance Party’s position on clause 2 is quite different to those of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. Had Ms Anderson conceded the politeness and courtesy of giving way, her misapprehension that the Alliance Party supports all of the amendments in the second group could have been corrected. Clearly, however, Ms Anderson does not believe that she needs correction on any matter.

Clause 2 deals with a cross-cutting theme for which OFMDFM already has direct departmental responsibility. The policy drivers for tackling poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation already exist in OFMDFM. That is its specific duty. Therefore, my party does not consider clause 2 to be a power grab, but rather an attempt to deal with the failure of all Departments to co-ordinate on the delivery of a cohesive agenda.

During the past few weeks, I have acknowledged repeatedly, both in the Committee and in debates in the Chamber, that there are major difficulties in delivery with regard to those issues because functional responsibility often rests with other Departments or multiple Departments, which leads to tensions between them on issues, such as those to which Mrs Kelly referred — childcare for school-aged children, for example. That gives rise to significant problems.

Martina Anderson rightly referred to the fact that the matter was discussed by the Committee and that it recommended that it should be highlighted. However, she failed to understand or convey the subtlety of that discussion. It is quite right that the Committee recognised the potential need for financial levers for the delivery of considered cross-cutting themes. However, it did not agree that clause 2 was the right mechanism by which to do that.

In fact, junior Minister Donaldson and junior Minister Kelly tried repeatedly to convince the Committee that no additional levers are required and that the status quo is sufficient. The Committee was not convinced. Subsequently, it stated in its report that those levers might be necessary. I recognise the need for OFMDFM controls of those cross-cutting themes. My query is whether they might also be needed for many other cross-cutting themes — community relations, equality and sustainability, for example.

My party’s consistent position is that clause 2 is not unsound in principle. It welcomes the fact that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have attempted to tackle that capacity gap. However, it wants to ensure that the entire range of cross-cutting themes is considered fully for inclusion in such a clause and that the entire range of potential levers that can be exerted by OFMDFM and other Departments is considered. That is why my party called for that particular clause to be taken back and be subject to a full Committee Stage.

That is a subtle difference in the positions of the different parties.

I will now speak about the amendments in group 2. Amendment No 4 is largely a repetition of last week’s debate, and the point has already been made. We have no principled objection to amendment No 4, and we have already put on record our position that the Executive should act jointly. However, in the context of what has already been debated at Consideration Stage, we are not sure that amendment No 4 adds anything of substance. At Consideration Stage, my main concern was that those Ministers whose parties do not form a majority in the Executive would have precious little protection. The insertion of “Executive” into the Bill does not give those Ministers any additional protection; that is unfortunate, but it is fact.

We are not in favour of amendment No 5. We have recognised that OFMDFM already has a responsibility for cross-cutting themes, so we do not accept that exceptional circumstances must be proven for OFMDFM to be able to act on issues of social exclusion, deprivation and patterns of need. Indeed, that would be a reduction in the powers held by OFMDFM.

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

I seek clarification from the Member. There ought to be a proper process in which an annual Budget is driven by a Programme for Government, and that Programme for Government should be revised and produced annually as a new document. The Programme for Government is the responsibility of OFMDFM in consultation with all other departmental Ministers. Given all that, what circumstance exists that could not be called exceptional, other than the annual Programme for Government? Does the Member not have concerns that a rejection of amendment No 5 would be an opportunity for parties in OFMDFM to act on matters that are not exceptional and that ought to be properly dealt with in the Programme for Government?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The difficulty with the Member’s proposition is his statement of where these things ought to be rightly dealt with. Social exclusion, deprivation, poverty, and so on ought to be rightly dealt with by OFMDFM; that is the current situation. The issue with the Programme for Government is that, when Ministers sign off on the Budget and the Programme for Government and are not supported by their parties, or when Ministers sign off on an overall Programme for Government but do not give sufficient budgetary priority to its cross-cutting themes, there can be problems that are not tackled.

One example of that is poverty and social exclusion. It is already a priority for the Executive, but that has not led to the Health Minister and the Education Minister coming together and making a decision on who will provide school-age childcare. If OFMDFM intervention is required to make that happen, frankly, so be it. That is exactly the kind of circumstance that is not unforeseen but that needs to be tackled. It is also a valid circumstance where OFMDFM — in order to meet its departmental responsibilities — needs to have some way of making other parties in Government work together to achieve objectives, if they have chosen not to do that.

I do not believe that there is a need for exceptional circumstance to be proved, therefore, because that would represent a reduction in OFMDFM’s current responsibilities. Furthermore, in the preface to my detailed consideration of the amendments, I acknowledged that there are flaws in the current arrangements with regard to cross-cutting issues, so I do not support amendment No 5.

The insertion of “unforeseen” in amendment No 6 is a change of the circumstances. We must accept that OFMDFM has a responsibility for tackling the issues that are referred to in clause 2. Those issues do not have to be unforeseen or exceptional for OFMDFM to act on them. Indeed, to the contrary, OFMDFM should be tackling those issues as a matter of routine. It would have been better if we had been able to write into the Bill that OFMDFM would act in direct co-operation with the individual Ministers whose Departments are affected.

The Alliance Party moved that amendment last week, but it was not supported. Acceptance of that amendment would have led to better collaboration and an enhanced Bill. Amendment No 6 does not go any way towards achieving that end and simply removes some responsibility from OFMDFM.

Amendment No 7 aims to delete the phrase “for any other reason unsatisfactory” from clause 2(1)(b). I understand and sympathise with the motivation for the amendment, but the Alliance Party and I are unsure about supporting it for two reasons. There may be reasons, other than those that are stated in the Bill, why mechanisms are unsatisfactory. The Bill states that those reasons should be ineffective or inadequate. I highlighted that matter in my response to Mr O’Loan’s intervention. For example, an individual Department with responsibility for delivering on a particular issue might not give that issue as high a priority as OFMDFM considers necessary. There might be circumstances where such issues are not prioritised. For example, issues such as school-age childcare and acute care might compete for attention in the health budget, and huge tensions could arise about which matter is more important. OFMDFM might have a particular view on that situation, and, therefore, it is important to recognise that unspecified circumstances might arise.

My second reason for having reservations about the amendment is that it is, essentially, negated by clause 4(5), which states:

“Financial assistance may be provided under this Act even though other powers to provide financial assistance exist.”

Therefore, clause 4(5) completely undercuts any attempt to ensure that the provision applies in exceptional circumstances only. Unless clause 4(5) is deleted, the amendment will not have any effect on the provisions of the Bill. However, the Alliance Party is sympathetic to the motivation of the Members who tabled the amendment.

The Alliance Party opposes amendment No 8. Last week, we highlighted the material difference between the urgency of the measures outlined in clause 1 and clause 2. Clause 1 deals with exceptional circumstances in which an immediate response is required, whereas clause 2 deals with a different, less immediate set of circumstances. The First Minister and deputy First Minister conveyed that message previously. Therefore, regulations could, reasonably, be made and a scheme could be brought to the House within three months.

If the circumstances are exceptional and urgent intervention is necessary, three months seems to be a reasonable time period. However, the wording of clause 2 does not require it to be an emergency, and, therefore, six months seems to be a reasonable period. Six months could permit more complete consideration of measures and could, perhaps, lead to more robust and considered mechanisms than would be created in emergency circumstances.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that the issues provided for in clause 2 could be recurring, and that the Assembly might have to deal with them on several occasions during its lifetime?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes. However, that does not affect my argument. If six months are available in which to address the issue, regulations will, potentially, be more robust and considered than those that have been established within three months, as would be the case in an emergency. However, no one wants to treat every incident as an emergency, because that would lead to poorly considered action.

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

Could it not be argued that clause 2 should be omitted from the Bill? That would allow a six-month consultation period under accelerated passage.

Is it also the case that many schemes cannot be introduced because of the failure of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to agree the financial situation — for example, the delivery and implementation of the Peace III fund?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

To some degree, the Member is reading my mind, because during last week’s debate, I made a point about clause 2 being omitted, but the time for that argument has passed. I stated then that it would be appropriate for fuller consideration to be given to the issue. Clause 2 is more substantive and complex than clause 1, and accelerated passage is an action taken in haste that will be repented at leisure — but we are where we are. However, it is a very flawed argument to then say that because of that precedent, everything should be done in haste. I would rather that six months were available to consider the regulations that are established under clause 2, as I am on record as saying that I would rather have had a proper Committee Stage to consider clause 2 in its entirety.

I have no principled objection to amendment No 9, which states that the relevant Department will notify the appropriate Committee of any designation; however, given that that will happen in any case, I am not sure what the amendment adds to the Bill. It does not particularly concern me, because the motivation behind the amendment is quite reasonable. Implicit in the amendment is the assumption that only one Department will be involved in the delivery of cross-cutting themes. That is quite flawed: two, three, four or even more Departments could be involved in the delivery of cross-cutting themes. One Department or a number of Departments could be involved, which is not made fully clear in the amendment.

As with amendment No 2, the Alliance Party understands the principle of amendment No 10, and some clarification has been provided on the wording. However, I want to put on record that the wording of the amendment is ambiguous. It mentions two Departments, stating:

“Regulations made under this section, if made by a department other than the Department of Finance and Personnel, require the approval of that department.”

The amendment is ambiguous about the Department to which it refers — the Department making the regulations or the Department of Finance and Personnel. I accept Mrs Kelly’s and Mr O’Loan’s reassurances that the Assembly Bill Office is content that that refers to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

One particular issue that relates to amendment No 10 does not apply to amendment No 2. Amendment No 2 deals with largely unforeseen and exceptional circumstances in which it is likely that additional moneys that have not been budgeted for would have to be taken into a central fund and used for emergency circumstances, whether through a monitoring round or another mechanism. It is implicit in clause 2 that the issue concerns how money is organised within existing budgets. Therefore, I am not sure that the argument for consulting DFP with regard to clause 2 is as strong as the argument for consulting DFP with regard to clause 1. However, I have no strong objection to the amendment, other than having an issue with the ambiguity of the wording.

The Alliance Party is content with amendment No 11 and has no difficulty with it in principle. However — not surprisingly — the party believes that amendment No 13 handles the issue of reporting back to the House more effectively, because more than one Department could be involved, and reporting directly to the Assembly in that circumstance is a much better way to ensure that all Members are apprised of the full extent of activity under the Bill. There would be nothing to preclude a Committee from calling for a report from the relevant Department about the detailed contribution that that Department is making under any scheme, but an annual report to the Assembly — which could subsequently trigger those reports — would be a more coherent way to handle that reporting rather than each Department producing separate reports. I suspect that it would also be a more comprehensive report for Members, who may have concerns that what is presented to their Committee does not give them the full flavour of what is being done under the powers of the Bill.

I hope that it is now clear where the Alliance Party stands on the amendments and the reasoning behind that position. The party will not support amendment Nos 5 to 8, and it queries how the remainder of the amendments will make a difference to the operation of the Bill.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I oppose amendment Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7. It is regrettable that we are, once again, considering amendments that fail to offer any positive contributions to the Bill.

Amendment No 4 would require the Executive Committee to agree to any determination under clause 2 by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. However, that amendment is not required as such agreement is already required under the current ministerial code. To make things more specific to the Bill, a draft amendment to the ministerial code has been proposed. Executive approval has been gained, but that amendment will be subject to the approval of the Assembly once the Financial Assistance Bill has been enacted. Therefore, amendment No 4 is unnecessary and should not be supported.

I welcome the fact that the Alliance Party has listened to the First Minister and now considers his views as the rest of us do. Amendment No 5 would result in an additional requirement that would restrict clause 2 to exceptional circumstances. As a result, the clause would become a more restrictive version of clause 1. It would also prevent the Bill from being of any benefit in tackling poverty situations that are not considered to arise from exceptional circumstances.

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

I thank the Member for giving way, which is something of a breakthrough for Members — with the exception of Jim Shannon — on some Benches. Will the Member outline when he thinks that poverty, social exclusion and deprivation will not be features of our society and why the clause would not apply to exceptional circumstances? Surely the Executive and the Assembly have a role to tackle those issues on an ongoing, routine and daily basis?

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Member knows that the role of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is to scrutinise any functions of that office. I will know exceptional circumstances when they occur. [Laughter.]

If the Member does not know exceptional circumstances, I am sure that her constituents will be the first to tell her.

Amendment No 6 would result in an additional requirement, which would add a further restriction to clause 2 by limiting the exercise of powers to situations that are considered to be unforeseen. The purpose of clause 2 is to allow action to be taken to tackle poverty when current funding arrangements are unsatisfactory. However, that may still be necessary in situations that are not considered to be unforeseen.

Amendment No 7 has the potential to restrict the ability to take action to tackle poverty under clause 2 by removing “for any other reason unsatisfactory” from the list of grounds for intervening — even when the arrangements that are in place to provide financial assistance are unsatisfactory. It is important to retain the widest possible powers to intervene when existing arrangements for tackling poverty are unsatisfactory; they simply cannot be cut.

The amendments in group 2 demonstrate that some people in this House are intent on playing politics with poverty. That is why there is no substance in any of those amendments, and I call on the House to reject them.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. As Question Time will commence at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. This debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be the deputy First Minister.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind Members that if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they must rise in their place; otherwise, they will not be called. Even those Members whose names are on the list that I have at the Table must rise in their place.

office of the First Minister and Deputy first minister

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

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to report on the review of the British-Irish Council. (AQO 1860/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In July 2007, at a summit meeting in Belfast, Ministers tasked the secretariat of the British-Irish Council (BIC), in consultation with member Administrations, to undertake a strategic review of the Council. The review’s aim was to ensure that the Council operate in the most efficient and effective manner in delivering its work programmes, working methods and support arrangements, including those for a standing secretariat. Ministers considered interim reports from the summit meetings in Dublin and Edinburgh that were held in February 2008 and September 2008 respectively.

Those reports were informed by papers prepared by the secretariat and the participating Administrations, and focused on three main strands: support arrangements, work programmes, and working methods. The strategic review of the BIC is likely to feature on the agenda for the forthcoming summit in Cardiff. A statement to update Members on the outcome of discussions will be made to the Assembly after that meeting.

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

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer, and I look forward to reading the report.

I refer the deputy First Minister to the Hansard report of 21 October 2008, when the First Minister said:

“east-west relationships must catch up with the existing North/South structures … the east-west relationships are catching up.” — [Official Report, Vol 34, No 4, p162, col 1].

Is the deputy First Minister not concerned that implicit in that statement is the danger that, as east-west relationships catch up, North/South relationships slow down? Given the ongoing review of the BIC, is he not concerned that at the same time as all that work on east-west arrangements is ongoing, those responsible for the review of the further expansion of North/South implementation and co-operation have not spent even one day considering how to expand North/South arrangements? Does that not give rise to deep concern about what is really happening?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am concerned only with the proper outworking of the institutions that were established under the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement. Officials from the BIC are working flat out to ensure that the examination and review of all those institutions is conducted in a manner that will result in their working effectively for all the people whom we represent. Many Governments are involved in the British-Irish Council.

Similarly, I want the good work that the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) does to continue. The First Minister and I, accompanied by eight additional Ministers, attended the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in Derry last Friday. We were keen to meet the Taoiseach and 12 of his Ministers who came from Dublin to attend. The responsibility for conducting the reviews of the BIC and the North/South Ministerial Council has been given to officials.

It is important that we who are in Government ensure that the outcome of those reviews is that the institutions work effectively in the interests of all the people whom we represent. It is not a matter of there being a competition between east-west and North/South; rather, it is about ensuring that officials and Ministers in those two important institutions carry out their responsibilities for the benefit of everyone.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the deputy First Minister outline the timetable for the review of the meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council, as provided for in the St Andrews Agreement?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The provision in the St Andrews Agreement is for a review group to report its recommendations to the North/South Ministerial Council. The group’s remit was to examine objectively the efficiency and value for money of existing implementation bodies, and the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation in the NSMC from which mutual benefit would be derived. It was also tasked with having an input into the work on the identification of a suitable substitute for the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

The review group consists of senior officials and an advisory panel of four expert advisers; two appointed by the Executive and two appointed by the Irish Government.

At its plenary meeting last week, the NSMC welcomed progress by the review group and noted that the expert advisers have completed their report on the efficiency and value for money of the existing implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland. The NSMC has requested that the review group, in consultation with the relevant sponsor Departments and Ministers, consider the recommendations made by the expert advisers and submit a report to the next NSMC plenary meeting. The NSMC requested the review group to complete work on its remaining terms of reference and to submit proposals to an NSMC plenary meeting before the end of this year.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The British-Irish Council is important in that it brings together the constituent parts of the British Isles and is, therefore, something that we support. One of the failures of the Belfast Agreement was that it did not give sufficient emphasis to the British-Irish Council. With reference to the deputy First Minister’s statement that a report will be forthcoming at the next meeting in Cardiff, will he tell us the date of that meeting and how soon afterwards we might be able to see the recommendations being implemented?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the exact date, but I believe that it will take place in February.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what have been the practical outcomes of the meetings which took place in September 2008 between the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the energy sector and regulator. (AQO 1862/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I had informative meetings with representatives of the energy sector and the Utilities Regulator as part of a series of cost-of-living meetings held with stakeholder groups, including the banks, the construction industry, the social and voluntary sectors, business groups and trade unions during the autumn and the early part of the winter last year to gather information on the impact of the economic downturn on local, social and economic interests.

The meetings with the energy sector also helped us to gain a better understanding of the local energy market and the regulation process, and informed us of what actions we, as First Minister and deputy First Minister, could take to help local householders and businesses to deal with increasing energy costs. The meetings also gave a clear signal of the importance that we attach to ensuring that local energy prices are fairly and transparently set in accordance with the current legislative and regulatory framework.

Energy costs are a significant element of local households’ budgets, and are a particular challenge for the most disadvantaged households. In recognition of that, the Executive announced in December their intention to provide £150 to support the most vulnerable households. We have also moved to put in place the Financial Assistance Bill, which will enable us to act quickly.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) has primary responsibility for energy policy. Our meetings reinforced and supported the review of last year’s price rises called for by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. We welcomed the correction of prices announced by the Utility Regulator on 15 December, and we plan further meetings with some of the energy companies to explore further how they can contribute to easing the burden of energy costs on local consumers and businesses.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his comprehensive reply. What plans does OFMDFM have to reduce Northern Ireland’s dependence on one energy source for electricity generation, bearing in mind the emerging gas cartel?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are all challenged by the difficulties that have arisen recently. Those challenges and difficulties affect not only us in this part of the world, but most Governments in western Europe. We face real challenges. Many Departments, including the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, are facing up to the problem of how they can put processes in place that will lessen our dependency on some delivery mechanisms. Recent events, such as the economic downturn and fluctuating prices in gas and fuel, represent real challenges for us as we move forward.

Everybody in Government — the Departments, the Executive as a whole, and, I believe, in the Assembly — is continually focusing attention on how we can ensure that we put in place sustainable mechanisms to enable us to become less dependent on a fuel supply that all sorts of factors can affect. Such situations can include different wars in different parts of the world to whatever whim a particular Government have to increase prices. For example, we witnessed the recent difficulty between Russia and the Ukraine and how that can affect not only their relationship but everyone in western Europe.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

An essential element of our energy future is the security of our supply, and I know that the British-Irish Council has added a work stream on energy. Can the deputy First Minister tell the House what efforts have been made through the British-Irish Council to achieve a goal of better grid connectivity, which has been outlined in our investment strategy?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

At the British-Irish Council meetings, very serious discussions were held on the economic downturn and on the fact that we are absolutely dependent on fuel for energy. To deal with the problems associated with recent rises in energy prices, the Executive have given £15 million to help the most vulnerable people, who are most affected by fuel poverty, and that means that more than 100,000 households on pension credit and income support will receive £150.

Some £21 million is already committed to the warm homes scheme. DETI will work with the regulator’s office to explore whether scope is available for regulatory action to be taken for those living in fuel poverty, taking account of the interests of all energy customers, including businesses. The Housing Executive is investigating the potential for its acting as a broker to procure discounted energy for its tenants.

From our perspective, we are moving forward. As many Members will know, DETI published an energy-strategy document in 2004, titled the ‘Strategic Energy Framework’. After a review of that framework last year, and in light of the change in world focus towards tackling the threat of climate change as well as addressing concerns around security of supply and economic development, DETI secured the agreement of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment that a new energy framework should be developed.

As a first step in the process, DETI undertook a scoping consultation, which was aimed at engaging the key energy stakeholders and garnering their views on our energy future over the next 10 years. The consultation officially closed on 8 January 2009. Feedback from the scoping paper and a number of energy-related workshops, engagement with other key Departments and the recent independent review of the energy price-setting process will inform, develop and shape a revised strategic energy framework for 2009. The draft framework will be brought before the Committee and the Executive for approval, before it is issued for full public consultation, probably in the spring.

The challenges that the economic downturn and energy issues pose exercised all the Governments represented at the British-Irish Council meeting. Given the way in which the economic fortunes of all those Governments have changed over the past number of months — indeed, over the past 12 months — it is incumbent on all of us to work in a spirit of co-operation in order to ensure that we can meet the challenges of energy delivery and security.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Speaker, I apologise for arriving late to Question Time, and I also apologise to the deputy First Minister.

My question is connected to the rise in fuel prices. What can the Executive do to monitor or review the current regulatory energy framework? Are there any proposals to review the regulatory system?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The relevant legislation is the Energy Order 2003 and the Electricity Order 1992, which govern the behaviour of the energy companies that operate under licences provided by that legislation.

The licence will specify, among other things, the allowed profit levels of price-regulated companies and the extent of costs that can be passed back to consumers in prices. The energy regulator’s role is to check that companies are operating and setting prices in accordance with the terms of their licences.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is undertaking consultation on a long-term strategic energy framework that will consider how to reduce energy costs, build competitive and sustainable energy markets, and increase use of renewable energy. That new framework will also consider changes to the regulatory energy framework recommended in the recent energy price review.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Executive’s position on safeguarding children. (AQO 1863/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Child protection and safeguarding children is a key priority for us all. Last year, we re-established the Bichard co-ordination group, which is overseeing the implementation of the Bichard recommendations here, particularly the establishment of the safeguarding vulnerable groups scheme.

OFMDFM has co-ordinated a cross-departmental safeguarding policy statement that binds and integrates existing measures on safeguarding children with new actions and policies. The junior Ministers will discuss that issue with the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister this week, and it is due to be considered by the Executive next month. In addition, the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people has identified safeguarding as a key priority. A cross-departmental subgroup led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has developed work that is focused, in the short term, on the Byron Review into Internet Safety. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety sits on the British Council for Child Internet Safety, and officials from several Departments will be involved in the council’s working groups.

The junior Ministers met NIO Minister Paul Goggins late last year to discuss how to improve the management of sex offenders who prey on the young and vulnerable on both sides of the border. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is making progress on cross-border child protection measures, which is also a live issue for the North/South Ministerial Council. Indeed, it was discussed at its meeting last Friday.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. I am pleased that the issue of child protection was on the agenda at the latest North/South Ministerial Council meeting. Given the recent case reported in the media about predators — for whom there can be no hiding place — will the Minister confirm that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety attended the North/South Ministerial Council meeting and addressed it on this topic, and outline any issues that he proposes to bring forward?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Child protection was discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. Unfortunately, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was not able to attend.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. However, can he say whether any of the Executive’s child-safety programmes have been, or are likely to be, delayed by the now-admitted £1 million black hole in the Budget?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I take issue with the Member’s last comment. Quite clearly, important targets are in place. Ministers, in particular junior Ministers in the Executive, are working hard to ensure that children are protected in the way that they deserve to be protected. From our perspective, it is very important to move forward in a way that will see all children protected. The ministerial subcommittee on children and young people was established in January 2008, and is chaired by the junior Ministers. The subcommittee has identified six key priorities, and established cross-departmental subgroups to develop those issues.

A holistic approach is being taken to child poverty that involves a comprehensive early-years strategy that focuses on the development and well-being of each child, including affordable access to high-quality early years provision for families in urban and rural areas of disadvantage and poverty, and provision for vulnerable young people, including those in care settings, those engaged in antisocial behaviour, and those in contact with the criminal justice system.

Other key areas include the promotion of good mental health and early intervention in addressing mental-health issues as they arise; providing care for children with autism, learning, physical and sensory disabilities, including respite and community provision; safeguarding, including support for parents, families and carers; provision for children with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools, including transition to adulthood and the provision of appropriate health and social care intervention; and the provision of school buses, road-safety and transport issues.

The subgroups identified a small number of key priorities on which to focus, and they will report back at the next meeting of the ministerial subcommittee. It has also been recognised that childcare is an immediate priority, and an additional subgroup, which is linked to the subgroup on child poverty, is focusing specifically on that cross-cutting theme. Therefore, much work is being done, and we are determined to ensure that we meet the needs of our young people.

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

Has the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister carried out any analysis of the impact that ending Executive funds for children and young people would have? How does he intend to co-ordinate with the NIO on reserved and excepted matters on safeguarding children?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Executive have made it clear that we believe that all Departments have a responsibility for providing on the issues that the Member outlined. We have placed responsibility on all Departments to ensure that there is delivery on those important issues. I think that that is the sensible way to proceed. However, we all recognise that particular challenges affect young people and that we are duty-bound at all stages of our processes to review continually how we meet the needs of our young people.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

6. : To ask the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what consideration it has given to revising the Programme for Government in light of the global economic downturn. (AQO 1865/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Executive are committed to the ongoing review of the Programme for Government so that we may take account of changing circumstances and to ensure that we are focused clearly on addressing key challenges. Indeed, the measures that we announced on 15 December 2008 to address the economic downturn are very much part of the ongoing review of our priorities and targets.

From the outset of the Programme for Government, we made the economy our top priority. That was underpinned by our commitment to target resources and efforts towards those with the greatest objective need. Although the economic context has changed remarkably over the past year, that prioritisation and focus has become ever more relevant and valid — it will be much more challenging for the Executive to deliver on what were always ambitious targets. However, during these difficult times, it is more important than ever that we provide clear leadership and that we work together to deliver on the commitments in our Programme for Government.

The welfare of local people is our primary concern. The Executive are committed to doing all that they can to tackle disadvantage and inequality and to support and protect local people and businesses from the worst effects of the current economic downturn. We have made the credit crunch a standing item of Executive business, and we introduced the Financial Assistance Bill, which will enable us to react quickly to emerging problems.

Addressing the economic downturn is the top priority of all the institutions. It was discussed at the plenary session of the North/South Ministerial Council last Friday, and the First Minister and I will raise it at the upcoming meeting of the British-Irish Council. In addition, the First Minister and I have written to Gordon Brown seeking an urgent meeting to press the case that local depositors in the Presbyterian Mutual Society be protected from the consequences of the society’s current financial difficulties. We also plan to meet the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Peter Mandelson, in the coming weeks to ensure that local businesses receive every possible assistance to weather the economic storm.

Today’s news of redundancies at the Ulster Bank and NACCO Materials Handling Group in Craigavon further underlines the local impact of the global conditions. Our thoughts are with all the workers — and their families — who are affected by those announcements. Rest assured that the Executive will do everything in their power to help those who face unemployment and to help our economy to withstand the difficult current economic conditions.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Has he studied the responses of Governments elsewhere on these islands and further afield? For example, the new deal announced by the Obama Administration covers issues such as social housing and investment in energy efficiency and renewables. Does he share the assessment of many that the scale of the response in Northern Ireland pales into insignificance when compared with that of other Governments? Does he also share the concern that we are being left behind because of the Executive’s inability to respond sufficiently?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not accept that we are being left behind. We all recognise that there is a very challenging situation worldwide. Indeed, many other Governments are struggling in much worse circumstances than ours. A new American President has just come into office, and many people throughout the Western World will be very interested to see whether the initiatives that he takes to address the dire economic situation in the United States will have a stabilising effect on the economy there, and also, by extension, on economies in the Western World. Therefore, there are many difficulties and challenges. Like other Administrations, the Executive are continually facing those challenges and taking important decisions to try to weather the very difficult economic storm.

We cannot lose our nerve. A key word that is constantly used is “confidence”; if we simply lie down, we will fail the people whom we represent. We must recognise that we are going to face challenging economic circumstances over the next 12 to 18 months, or possibly even longer. It is interesting to note the absolute failure of many people to predict more than a year ago that the situation would be as disastrous as it appears to be. Equally, even in the midst of the difficulties, it appears that there are very few experts out there who can point to how long the difficult situation will last, but I know that it will not last forever — it will pass. In the meantime, we must weather the economic storm.

The Executive have taken important decisions to assist people who are facing problems, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We constantly have to review the situation to see what more we can do, but every Member knows that we are doing that in the context of a very tight fiscal situation, constrained by the Barnett formula. Like other Administrations, we are tied to the allocations that we receive.

When we put together our Programme for Government and our Budget, we did so in the context of trying to ensure that we manage as best we can across a range of Departments. However, within all that, individual challenges present themselves. For example, we, and many others, appear to be facing rising levels of unemployment, and we must see how we can meet those challenges. It will mean constantly reviewing our Programme for Government. However, as we said at the time, it was not written in tablets of stone. We must recognise that we have to meet the needs of people, and we can best do that by working together collectively as an Executive to ensure that we deliver.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

In light of current economic conditions, will the deputy First Minister confirm that the Executive were correct to make the economy their number one priority?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We were correct to make the economy our number one driver, because we all know and understand fully that if we are to have an impact on people’s standards of living, we must ensure that we have an economy that is vibrant and that delivers for the people whom we represent.

Even now, in the midst of worldwide economic gloom, it is still important that we, as an Executive, recognise the importance of building the economy in a way that will deliver for the people whom we represent. People are enduring great hardship as a result of rising energy costs, food prices and unemployment levels, so there is a real challenge for us. However, we can put in place programmes and processes that will impact on the difficulties in a way that will be beneficial to the people whom we represent.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We will now have a quick supplementary question from David Burnside.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

I will be quicker with my question than the deputy First Minister was with his long-winded statement. The deputy First Minister made only one specific point in his three long-winded answers to the question and the supplementary questions. He referred to the Presbyterian Mutual Society. In their representations to the British Prime Minister, will he and the First Minister, if need be —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I gave the Member an opportunity to ask only a short supplementary.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

Will he ask the Prime Minister to nationalise the Presbyterian Mutual Society so that the interests of its customers can be looked after?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Just before the deputy First Minister answers, when I said that I would allow a short supplementary question, I meant a short supplementary question. That is why I gave the Member the opportunity in the first place. The Member may not catch my eye for a supplementary question in future.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is obvious that many people who invested in the Presbyterian Mutual Society are facing a difficult situation. The Executive are sympathetic to their plight at this time, and we believe that Gordon Brown and the British Government must recognise their responsibility to ensure that those people do not incur losses to what, for many, are their life savings.

Environment

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on the John Lewis planning proposal, considering the comparison between it and the IKEA site at Holywood Exchange in Belfast. (AQO 1881/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given that there is no application from John Lewis for a planning proposal at present, I will have to try to read the Member’s mind. Since he is here more often than the previous Member who spoke, that will be easy to do.

I assume that the Member is referring to the application that was made by Sprucefield Centre Ltd. That application is undergoing the statutory consultation. A request for further environmental information was lodged with the applicant on 2 December 2008. That information has not yet been provided, but I hope that it will be made available soon.

The stage 1 retail report that followed the BMAP inquiry must also be taken into consideration, and the Planning Appeals Commission indicated to me that it hopes to be in a position to provide that report some time in early 2009. I interpret that as meaning some time this month, so time is running out. The Planning Service will report to me shortly thereafter.

The application is not, of course, directly comparable with that which was made for IKEA, given the differences in the scale and nature of the retailing that is proposed and the locations of each site with reference to the statutory development plans.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer, given that the question was slightly wrong.

Given the fact that planning permission for IKEA was approved within about eight months, what assurance can the Minister give us that the application in the name of Sprucefield Centre Ltd will proceed with all speed? Is he minded to recommend a public inquiry?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I want to see that application proceed with all speed. The Member and others will know that I have said to the Planning Service that we ought to try to put applications — especially those that are for important economic developments — through the system within the six-month period on which we have made promises.

On the matter of a public inquiry, given that it is my responsibility and role to consider all the evidence that the Planning Service will present to me in its report, the Member knows that I would not prejudge the issue, and I will wait until that report comes. However, I assure the Member that I have asked the Planning Service to bring the report to me as soon as possible after it has the information from the Planning Appeals Commission and from the applicant on the environmental statement. I will make a quick decision on that application because I understand how important it is.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Further to that answer, does the Minister recognise that he may have a conflict of interest, given that the final decision rests with him, but that unlike his predecessors, he has chosen to remain a member of Belfast City Council’s town planning committee? Given that we all want John Lewis to come here quickly, would it not be safer for him to recognise that and take steps to regularise his position?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

During a debate last week, the Member admitted that I am capable of exercising independence in making decisions. Given that he gave my independence a glowing reference, I am sure that he will rest easy in the knowledge that I will consider all the facts that are presented to me and that I will assess them objectively.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Every day, we hear about job losses and the dire circumstances that the economy is in. Given that that company wants to invest tens of millions of pounds in Northern Ireland and create around 1,500 jobs, will the Minister assure the House that the planning decision will be expedited?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I hope that I have already given that assurance. However, I express one caveat. The speed with which I can make that decision does not rest totally in my hands or in the hands of the Planning Service. The Department is waiting for a response from the Planning Appeals Commission, which, as the Member knows, is independent of my Department. I have asked my officials for a report as soon as they receive that information, so that I can make a decision. I am aware of the importance of outside investment to Northern Ireland and the role that that can play in creating jobs at a time when the recession is causing difficulties.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment what actions will be taken to deal with levels of inherited council indebtedness after 2011. (AQO 1882/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Matters relating to local government finance are being addressed by policy development panel C, which reports regularly to the strategic leadership board. It is recognised that council indebtedness is one of the more significant issues and that it will require careful examination. When options have been further developed by the panel, recommendations will be presented to the strategic leadership board for consideration.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline the actions that his Department would take if a dispute in relation to borrowing were to emerge among councils in the new district council areas?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Department has already tried to anticipate that, and it has already issued guidelines to councils to try to ensure that they do not take on any unnecessary new borrowing before the new councils are set up. The finance Bill, which will, I hope, come before the Assembly in the spring of 2009 will lay down further restrictions. For example, any new borrowing by councils will have to be agreed by the transition committees of the councils that are to amalgamate. Disputes will arise. However, if the arrangements for the new councils are to work, it is important that transition committees work together and see themselves not as separate councils for the future, but as new corporate entities.

Disputes that cannot be resolved can be referred to me for resolution. I say that with great reluctance, because I hope that I will not have to do that. If that were to happen too frequently, the new councils would face a bleak future.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he spoken to his Executive colleagues to ensure that enough resources are available to implement the functions that are to be transferred to the councils? Would he support the Minister for Regional Development if he were to seek additional funding to bring the rural roads network up to standard?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I expend enough effort trying to get money for my own Department’s functions without having to lobby for others. I am sure that the Minister for Regional Development is perfectly capable of lobbying for his own funds; I will lobby for my own Department.

As for resources for setting up the new councils, I know that councils, councillors and council officials will need to do extra work in the transition period. Therefore, £150,000 will be made available each year to each council to set up transition committees, staff them and make the necessary arrangements. Additional funding bids will be made to the Department of Finance and Personnel for the extra moneys that will be needed for the amalgamation of councils and for setting up new ones. Whether they will be successful will depend on whether we make a strong enough business case for extra money for the rationalisation.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I return to the question of indebtedness. Does the Minister accept that there has been a failure to regulate local government debt effectively? By how much has local government debt increased since 2007?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The debt incurred by local government amounts to £376·6 million. Since 2007, there has been no huge increase. I do not have the figure to hand; I am not a walking encyclopaedia. I will write to the Member with that information. However, I understand that the increase is marginal. This year, £30 million of local government debt will be repaid.

We must closely monitor the issue of local government debt. It would be unfair for councils that have been prudent to find their ratepayers burdened with debt from councils that have been on a spending binge. Through the guidelines that have been produced and the additional powers in the Finance Bill, we can stop councils from spending in a profligate way.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment what progress has been made in reducing the backlog of planning applications. (AQO 1883/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Very good progress has been made in reducing the number of live planning applications. Although the number of applications received this year has decreased by 27% compared to the same time last year, almost 18,000 applications have been processed to decision or withdrawal over the same period. As a result, the number of live applications at various stages of processing has been reduced to approximately 14,500.

Not only is the number of applications live in the system decreasing; the processing times, which relate to targets set in the Programme for Government, continue to show a month-by-month improvement. public service agreement targets for processing 70% of intermediate applications were met in November.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his response. He and other Members know that we are currently going through a difficult economic period. Some businesses, albeit a small number, want nevertheless to expand. Can the Minister assure us that, if businesses approach his planning officials, some form of fast-tracking can be offered so that they can create more employment?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There have been massive improvements in the time that it takes for planning applications to be dealt with. All Members of the Assembly who sit on councils know that, by the end of February, a streamlining process should be in place in all council areas.

In the pilot area in Londonderry, the results have been quite startling. The processing times for minor applications have been reduced from 89 working days to 28 working days. We are now focusing on improving times for intermediate applications. Of course, we have already seen some of the benefits of fast-tracking applications. Although there is an onus on the Planning Service to deal with applications quickly, there is also an onus on applicants not to submit rubbish planning applications that require much work from planning officials to bring them up to the required standard.

As a result of pre-application discussions, proper applications are submitted with all of the relevant information. We are meeting our target of dealing with major applications in six months. That has been the case for those applications that I already mentioned — the Enniskillen project, the Titanic signature project, the IKEA project — and a number of other applications. Meeting that target has been a big improvement, and it means that builders can get on the ground and start to employ people much more quickly.

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

It takes up to two years for wind-farm applications to go through the planning process. Given the renewable obligations for that important source of energy and the massive amounts of money that companies pay for their applications, will the Minister tell the House whether those applicants will see the time spent considering their applications reduced?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am amazed at that question. The one thing that Members ought to do before asking a question is to carry out a bit of research to ensure that they do not leave themselves open to an easy put-down. If the Member had done his research, he would have found that the Planning Service has been so effective that it has already approved a sufficient number of wind-farm applications to meet the target that the Assembly and the Executive have set for renewable-energy production for 2012. Indeed, once those other applications have been processed — even if it takes two years — they should enable us to meet the target that has been set for 2020.

Perhaps the Member should have examined the facts, before he spoke about how inadequate the Planning Service has been in dealing with those applications. If he had done so, he would have known that we are ahead of the game. We are dealing with those applications seriously and processing them quickly. Whether applicants then build those wind farms is another matter. At least, the Planning Service and planning officers are doing the job with which they have been tasked.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A Cheann Comhairle, I hope that my question does not amaze the Minister too much. Does the Minister see any merit in asking divisional planning managers to institute annual meetings and seminars with local planning agents, architects and advisers? That would ensure better communication and more efficient use of Planning Service resources.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

To a certain extent, divisional planning officers already do much of that work. For example, the Planning Service is currently touring Northern Ireland explaining to agents and architects the background to planning policy statement (PPS) 21 and how applications will be dealt with, so that they are clear about which applications are likely to be successful and which are not. I mentioned earlier the issue of streamlining. Before streamlining is introduced in any area, divisional planning managers will explain the process to architects and agents.

When the process was introduced in Londonderry, some of the agents and architects were so surprised that they got responses back within four weeks that they thought that the wrong planning applications had been returned. Therefore, there has been an attempt to try to explain that process.

With regard to applications, especially the major applications — as mentioned by the Member for Upper Bann — agents and architects are encouraged to come in and talk about their application before they submit it so that they are aware of the information that is required. Therefore, a lot of consultation happens already. On the matter of individual planning applications, I am encouraging planning officers to talk to agents and applicants rather than allowing things to drift and applications to rest for a long time.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Planning Service recently received £2 million in additional funds during the monitoring rounds, as a result of the reduced fees that it has received. Will the Minister state the number of applications that had been expected but not received, and how that lesser number of applications has contributed to the reduction in the backlog? Given the increased cost burden of the Planning Service, largely as a result of the lack of work that is going through because of the reduction in the number of applications, does the Minister have any proposals to reduce costs in his Department?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The number of applications received by the Planning Service has fallen quite dramatically. In the last briefing that I received, I was given figures for November 2008 that showed that applications were down by approximately 40%, which is a sizeable reduction in the Planning Service’s income.

The staffing of the Planning Service depends upon its income from fees, thereby resulting in some relation between its staffing level and its workload, which I believe is the right way of doing things. However, that very quick reduction in the number of applications means that it is difficult to respond by reducing the number of officers employed. Furthermore, we hoped that the reduction in the number of applications would allow us to reduce the number of live applications in the system and to clear that backlog.

A number of things can be done to try to find ways of funding the services. Although my Department received £2 million from the Department of Finance and Personnel, it did not simply go to the Finance Minister with a begging bowl — it found approximately £3 million in its own budget to help with the shortfall.

Other things can be done also, and I have spoken to officials about measures that might be taken. I do not want to outline those at present because, until we have looked at what savings they might produce — it would be wrong of me to do so. However, I assure the Member that I am aware of the drop in income from fees, which amounts to approximately £6·5 million, the impact that that is likely to have on the resources available to the Planning Service, and the need — emphasised by the many questions about it that have been asked today — to make sure that we keep the staffing complement in the Planning Service to deal with applications as they come in.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment what discussions he has had with Planning Service in relation to the interpretation of planning policy. (AQO 1884/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have regular meetings with officials to discuss planning policy, as part of my role in making the final decision on article 31 planning applications, and in relation to issues that are raised by elected representatives and members of the public regarding specific cases or general policy queries.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the Minister state where he stands if there are court proceedings against his Department with regard to planning applications in Waringstown in my constituency of Upper Bann? To be fair to the Minister, he did not hold the position of Minister of the Environment at the time when that decision was made.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If a court case is taken against the Department on any planning application, the Department must first go to the court to explain why that decision was taken. Very often, the courts are not interested in whether the right planning decision was made; they are interested more in whether the proper process was followed. If the proper process has not been followed, any applicant or objector should have the right to appeal to the court to ensure that a planning application is dealt with in a proper way.

I do not have a specific role in that, except that I am the Minister of the Department from which officials will go along to justify the actions that were taken.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister will be very aware that there is increasing concern that the planning system, and indeed planning policy as expressed through planning policy statements, is not flexible enough to ensure that all potential economic development can be approved. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that developers and planning officials can create a better understanding and relationship in order to process applications?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I believe that the planning system and other parts of Government have an important role to play in economic development in Northern Ireland. Although we, in the Assembly, are continually looking at how the public purse can deal with some of the economic issues and problems that beset society, there are massive amounts of private investment tied up in planning applications in my Department. I accept that there have been criticisms of the ability of the planning system to deal with the economic implications of some planning applications, and whether it gives proper weight to economic considerations. Members are aware that I have commented on that.

I have asked officials to look at how we can give greater weight to economic considerations when it comes to dealing with planning applications; whether through a quick revision or addenda to PPS 1, which outlines the principles of planning policy, or through a ministerial statement in which we give guidance to planning officers so that they can confidently give greater weight to economic considerations. I am exploring that with my officials. Given the current situation, the planning system ought to play its role in ensuring that economic development is permitted in Northern Ireland.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister tell us if there has been any further work on the preparation and interpretation of draft PPS 21 by the independent working group?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The members of the independent working group have been appointed. From memory, it has to report with recommendations by the end of May 2009. During the intervening period, the group will take evidence from a wide range of people, and if the Member has got any views that he wishes to express to the group, I welcome that.

I am aware that many people expressed fears that draft PPS 21 was too restrictive: indeed, members of Mr Bradley’s party claimed that that was the case. We have now had three council meetings in which recommendations on the backlog have been taken forward. Of the applications that have been taken forward to councils, 37% of the previously refused applications have now been approved. I think that that indicates that the balance is right; the fact that a substantial number of applications, which were rejected under PPS 14, are now covered by draft PPS 21. That is good news for the rural economy, because building those houses will generate work for many small builders in rural areas.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment for an update on Planning Policy Statement 15. (AQO 1885/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Planning Policy Statement 15, which concerns planning and flood risk, was introduced in June 2006 and continues to provide effective and robust policy guidance on planning applications where the risk of flooding may be a consideration.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his brief answer; however, I am sure that he would argue that it contained all of the detail.

Members of the Planning Service who look at individual applications have raised a point with me on a number of occasions about the level at which they get useful information from Water Service, the Rivers Agency and others, that would help them make determinations about flooding.

Does the Minister have a view on the level of co-operation that is ongoing between those different services, and as to how that could be improved?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Just before Christmas, I announced the launching of the Northern Ireland flood map, which gives a strategic picture of where the flooding risks are. That was welcomed by the Planning Service, and should be a valuable tool when it comes to considering planning applications. Historical data is available from NI Water which, again, should be of use to the Planning Service. That is supplemented by the information that public representatives and local people can provide.

Roads Service and NI Water should be capable of providing the additional information required around particular instances of flooding, which are sometimes caused by inadequate drainage or other problems. Whether that information is provided on every occasion, I cannot say. My concern is that those organisations are consulted by the Department — which they are. As to whether that information is provided quickly, I think that that is for other Departments to answer.

Finance and Personnel

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

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how he is going to deliver the construction projects affected by his announcement of the abandonment of the frameworks process. (AQO 1900/09)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

In my statement to the Assembly on 15 December 2008, I announced that no construction project would be stopped due to the legal challenges about the use of framework agreements by the Central Procurement Directorate and the Department of Education. I announced that those projects, worth a total value of £115 million, which were scheduled to be delivered by framework agreements, would go to the marketplace on a project-by-project basis before the end of the financial year. Those projects include the South Eastern Regional College in Bangor, at £10 million, and 10 schools, ranging in value from just under £2 million to over £11 million, as is the case at Magherafelt High School.

The recently established construction industry forum procurement task group will focus on ensuring that all those projects move forward into the marketplace. In order that the construction industry can plan for the deal flow, Departments have, through the procurement task group, provided the construction industry group with a comprehensive list of all projects that are to be advertised before the end of the financial year, or are already at various stages of the procurement process.

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

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will all the projects scheduled to go forward in this financial year do so? If not, what will be the position around the finance that has already been allocated for those projects that might be delayed as a result of the problem around the frameworks process?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. The projects that were to be delivered using frameworks are all at various stages of the procurement process, and no projects have been stopped due to the legal challenges. Departments have indicated that over 60 projects, with an aggregate value of around £400 million, are either to be advertised before the end of the financial year, or are already at various stages of the procurement process.

We have ensured that no projects will be stopped as a result of the framework challenges. Within the overall expenditure of £1·5 billion for the current year, it is not expected that a significant amount will be delayed or postponed. However, if some projects, for whatever other reasons, are subject to a delay, those will be carried forward into next year, and will be a matter for the Departments to manage.

I do not envisage that as a major problem in the context of expenditure of £1·5 billion. The measures that my Department announced in December 2008 will ensure that procurement of projects will not be held up significantly.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Will the Minister consider an urgent review of procurement policy in order to support and encourage local construction companies to compete for public contracts?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am pleased to inform the House that during the past 12 months, all of the Central Procurement Directorate’s (CPD) construction-works contracts have been awarded to local construction firms. I have instructed CPD to provide a report on the position of all central procurement exercises. That is encouraging.

While I have the opportunity to do so, I must also congratulate local construction firms from Northern Ireland for having recently won contract work in Scotland, which is a tremendous boost to the local economy and workforce. That is testimony to the quality of the work of Northern Ireland’s construction firms.

Government clients are required to advertise publicly all construction procurement opportunities that are estimated to exceed £30,000 for construction work and £5,000 for construction-related services. Centres of procurement expertise recognise the importance of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to the economy and encourage consortia where appropriate. Those details should reassure the Member and the House.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for expanding on how the issue is being dealt with locally. Given the fact that SMEs make up the largest sector of industry in Northern Ireland, will the Minister explain the arrangements that are in place to ensure that SMEs have the opportunity to bid for projects that are scheduled to go to the market before the end of the current financial year?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member has highlighted an issue that has been raised many times, and which I have taken firmly on board. As I have already indicated, all construction work that has been allocated by the Central Procurement Directorate during the past 12 months has gone to local construction firms.

I have already mentioned the requirement to advertise publicly all construction procurement opportunities. I must add that a Construction Industry Forum sustainability task group has developed proposals for promoting equality and sustainable development through sustainable procurement in construction. Those proposals, which, since December 2008, are included in all new public-sector construction contracts, require main contractors to publish opportunities in their supply chain on their websites or, where appropriate, in the local press.

In addition, the Construction Industry Forum procurement task group will consider how to further maximise the opportunities for small- and medium-sized enterprises to bid for and benefit from public-sector construction contracts.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to report on the outcome of his Budget stocktake exercise. (AQO 1902/09)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

In March 2008, the Executive agreed to conduct a strategic stocktake of the expenditure plans of Northern Ireland Departments for the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-2011. The objective of that exercise was not to propose recommendations in respect of a reallocation of resources, but to set the context for subsequent in-year monitoring processes in light of emerging pressures and the expected level of available resources.

Following Executive discussion on 15 January 2009, I made a statement to the Assembly on 20 January on the outcome of the strategic stocktake exercise. In summary, the level of resources that are available to the Executive during the next two years is expected to be lower than when the Budget was agreed in January 2008. That reflects deterioration in the public-expenditure position of most industrialised economies. It means that emerging pressures can be accommodated only from a reduction in existing budgets, an increase in efficiency-savings targets for Departments, or the reduced requirements that are normally declared as part of the in-year monitoring process.

Although Departments have identified a broad range of issues in their response to the strategic stocktake, the two main issues that face the Executive in 2009-10 are the lost income from the deferral of the introduction of domestic water charges, and the cost of the Northern Ireland Civil Service equal pay claim.

Those pressures are also expected to have implications into 2010-11, when the Executive will be faced with the prospect of a reduction in the block grant from the Treasury as a result of the announcement in the pre-Budget report to increase the level of efficiency savings.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he assure me and the House that all the Assembly’s Statutory Committees will be involved in the process?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am not quite sure what the Member means by “involved in the process”. If he is referring to the in-year monitoring exercises, those will follow the normal course of events and procedures. The Assembly Committees will be briefed on departmental responsibilities, and they will no doubt discuss those matters and interrogate officials and Ministers.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. What progress have Departments made to ensure that the level of accumulated underpsend will be kept to a minimum by the end of the year? Go raibh maith agat.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

That is an important question and one to which we rightly return regularly when discussing these matters. It is important that we are not left with significant levels of underspend in Departments at the end of the financial year. All such money is returned to the Treasury, and, since easy access to end-year flexibility no longer exists, it is lost to the Executive. At a time of economic difficulties and pressures, particularly in the construction industry, it is important that that money is rolled out as planned.

Departments tell me that they intend to spend the capital investment allocations that they have been given, and I look forward to hearing about good progress in that regard. In 2007-08, reduced requirements and underpsend were £400 million in current and £334 million in capital. That is more than £700 million last year alone, which puts some of last week’s press headlines into context.

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

Given the huge changes in needs and available finance since last year, is the Minister not under a duty to the public and the Assembly to give more than a survey of the financial landscape? What answers is he providing to meet the needs of the present time?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member is aware of the situation from previous discussions, and he will no doubt have been briefed by his Minister, who agreed to this process in the Executive. Indeed, when this matter was mentioned at the Committee at which he was present on 2 April 2008, he raised no objections whatsoever, and he acquiesced.

This is a sensible overview of where things are likely to move over the next two years. It is clear that the real pressures concern the possibility of the pre-Budget report efficiencies from Whitehall, a pressure that will come to bear in 2010-11. In London, the Opposition and the Government are vying over who can make the greatest cuts to public expenditure rates of increase. Therefore, it will be difficult for Northern Ireland, other Whitehall departments and other devolved Administrations. In that context, I had a useful discussion last week with the Finance Ministers of Scotland and Wales in which we agreed a joint approach to the Treasury in relation to these important matters that impact on our Budgets.

Growing the economy was made the priority in the Programme for Government and the Budget, and that has been entirely vindicated and validated by events. Indeed, we have allocated over £1·5 billion in capital investment, which is 40% more than in 2006-07 and more than double the £670 million that was allocated in 2003-04. The building of schools, hospitals, houses and other major capital projects is proceeding, and £1·8 billion will be spent next year. That shows what the Executive are doing to help the economy.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to provide an update on preparations for the 2011 Census. (AQO 1903/09)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The next census is planned for 27 March 2011. There has already been formal consultation on the topic content, and users are being kept informed of current thinking through, for example, the Northern Ireland Statistic and Research Agency’s website and information days. The Office for National Statistics conducted a census test in 2007, and a rehearsal is planned for autumn 2009. Proposals for the 2011 census are expected to be published soon. Moreover, a census Order and census regulations will be laid in 2010 and will provide the opportunity for full legislative scrutiny.