Northern Ireland Assembly, 5 May 2009

306 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

During the sitting on Tuesday 28 April, Mr Poots, Dr McCrea and Mr Paul Maskey raised points of order that related to the convention on questions following ministerial statements. Before I refer to that convention, I will address a number of issues.

I have considered the remarks that were made to the Deputy Speaker by the Members concerned, and I must tell the House that I am disappointed by the manner and the nature of the challenges to which the Deputy Speaker was subjected. Let the House be in no doubt — I place a clear warning on the record today — that challenges to the authority and impartiality of the Chair will not be tolerated under any circumstances. If Members have any doubt about the seriousness of the matter, I refer them to page 220 of ‘Erskine May’.

On the matter of calling Members to speak, the authority of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers is as clear in this House as it is in other places. Members must be in no doubt that the Speaker’s decision to call or decline to call a Member to speak is not open to challenge. Those matters are also dealt with on page 220 of ‘Erskine May’ and could not be any clearer. Points of order of that nature will be considered a direct challenge to the authority of the Chair and will not be permitted.

On 26 January this year, I reminded the House that references should not be made to the Clerks of the Assembly. In relation to the remarks in question that were made by Mr Poots and Dr McCrea, I again remind the House of that ruling.

Turning to the convention on questions following ministerial statements, I would simply draw Members’ attention to pages 34 and 35 of the ‘Assembly Companion’, where it is set out in very clear terms. Those terms should address the points raised by Members last Tuesday. I ask Members to study the companion, to reflect on all my remarks made today in the House, and, in particular, to bear in mind that the decision on whether or not to call a Member to speak rests at all times with the Chair.

I caution the House that I do not intend to take points of order on any of the matters on which I have ruled this morning. If Members wish to raise points of order on any of the rulings that I made this morning, I will be extremely happy to talk to them outside the Chamber. If Members want to raise other points of order on the rulings that I made this morning, I will be happy to talk to them outside the Chamber as well. I hope that this morning I have made myself absolutely clear on the authority and impartiality of the Chair.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, on a point of order —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have made it absolutely clear that I am not taking any points of order on the issue on which I ruled this morning. If a Member has a genuine point of order on another issue, I am happy to take it.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on the British-Irish Council environment sectoral format meeting.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am tempted to ask for a point of order, Mr Speaker, on your last ruling before I make this statement, but I will desist.

Mr Speaker, in compliance with the requirements of section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and on behalf of Minister Murphy and myself, I wish to make the following report on the ninth meeting of the British-Irish Council environment sectoral format meeting that was hosted by the Jersey Government in Mont Orgueil castle, Jersey, on 17 April 2009. The report has been agreed with Minister Conor Murphy, who also attended.

The UK Government were represented by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister for Sustainable Development and Energy Innovation and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, who chaired the meeting. I was accompanied by Conor Murphy MP MLA, Minister for Regional Development, to represent the Northern Ireland Executive. The Irish Government were represented by Michael Kitt TD, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Jersey was represented by Senator Freddie Cohen, Minister for Planning and Environment. Guernsey was represented by Deputy Peter Sirett, Minister for the Environment Department. The Welsh Assembly Government were represented by Jane Davidson, AM, Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing. Scottish Ministers were represented by Stewart Stevenson MSP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change; and the Isle of Man by John Shimmin MHK, Minister for Local Government and Environment.

Ministers reflected briefly on the creation of a new BIC work stream, which will focus on energy. Ministers understood the need to ensure that the two work streams remained separate entities — marine energy and grid infrastructure — but recognised the need for each work stream to be kept abreast of developments in the other so that impacts and synergies could be identified. Professor John Mitchell from the Met Office Hadley Centre gave a presentation updating the group on current climate change science.

The group was also given an update on the UK climate projections ahead of this summer’s launch of the sixth generation of climate scenarios. The remainder of the discussion focused on what the group could do collectively to support the adaptation programme and how Administrations could best use the data to support their own programmes on adaptation. Member Administrations agreed that there should be a workshop on climate change in the autumn.

Ireland indicated that officials from the Irish and Manx Governments are close to completing a revised joint paper on Sellafield and radioactive waste. That paper will address current operations at Sellafield, their safety, the final disposal of radioactive waste and the control of environmental discharges. It is expected that the paper will be ready for discussion at the next ministerial-level meeting.

Members considered update papers on the Fishing for Litter initiative and from the subgroup on integrated coastal zone management. It was agreed that marine will be the theme for the 2010 ministerial meeting. To that end, Ministers were provided with a paper setting out where Administrations were able to work together on marine issues in the past. The paper put marine issues into context and reflected on the mechanisms for outputs. The group discussed how best to work together over the next 12 months and agreed a set of actions that will be reviewed in 2010 as part of the work plan for that ministerial meeting. Ministers also discussed and agreed the themes for the 2011 and 2012 meetings, which will be waste and biodiversity respectively.

The meeting concluded that the adaptation work programme will continue and that further updates will be given next year. There will be a review of the work programme on marine to include a progress report on Fishing for Litter. Ireland will submit the joint discussion paper on Sellafield and radioactive waste, and there will be a paper on waste that will outline areas for co-operation in preparation for a waste-themed event in 2011.

Finally, Ministers welcomed and noted the tenth ministerial meeting of the BIC, which will take place in London in 2010.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he clarify whether MLAs, particularly those from the east coast, will have an opportunity to provide input into the discussion document on Sellafield?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As the Member will know, power stations and the disposal of nuclear waste are reserved matters. However, the Department of the Environment provides input into the monitoring of radioactive waste and is responsible for legislating and regulating on matters relating to the management of radioactive waste, which includes participation in the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme. Therefore, MLAs have opportunities to provide input through questions and debates in the Assembly and through issues raised at the Committee for the Environment, where departmental officials are brought along to talk about the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme. The programme was initiated by the UK Government in 2001. I appreciate what the Member is saying because I know that this is an issue in his constituency. The Department’s participation in the programme recognises Northern Ireland’s interests in ensuring that the most appropriate and safest way forward to deal with the UK’s legacy of higher activity and long-lived nuclear waste is identified.

The Department has an input into the Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report, which is published annually and contains input from all of the environment agencies across the United Kingdom. In order to produce that report, the eating habits of 800 people who live in Northern Ireland are monitored and the level of radioactivity in their food is measured. To date, those surveys have shown that less than 0·5% of the radioactivity that people receive comes from sources in the Irish Sea. In fact, 50% of the radioactivity to which we are subjected comes from household items. Extensive monitoring, to which the Department has input, is ongoing, and, of course, Members can contribute to that input through activities in the Assembly

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister referred to the new work programme that will focus primarily on energy. In light of the UK Government’s target that all energy — the main uses of which are electricity, space heating and transport — should come from renewable sources by 2020, will the Minister outline any plans that his Department has to increase radically the amount of renewable energy generation to be used for space heating and transport by then?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

My Department is not responsible for either transport or space heating, and I do not wish to delve into matters for which the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development are responsible. However, there are two elements in the Department of the Environment’s role in meeting our renewable energy obligations.

First, the Department has a role to play in planning for wind energy generation. Given the planning applications that we have already received under PPS 18, we are well ahead of our target, and the applications that have already been granted will enable us to meet the targets that have been set for 2012.

Secondly, and this matter was touched on in the BIC meeting, the Department has a role to play in offshore energy generation, whether through wind or tidal power. The Member will be aware that under the UK’s Marine and Coastal Access Bill and the Northern Ireland marine Bill, which will be brought forward to the Assembly [Interruption.] we will consider how planning policies can be put in place to ensure that there is a framework that allows the development of those sources of renewable energy. Although it is not my Department’s responsibility — it is DETI’s responsibility here — there is considerable scope for harnessing the power of the sea and offshore wind, and my Department is responsible for developing the planning policies that will enable that to happen.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind Members to check that their mobile phones are switched off or are at least in silent mode.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I continue the point on climate change. The Minister’s statement referred to the fact that much of the discussion at the BIC meeting focused on support for the adaptation programme. Can he inform the House whether the other Administrations mentioned remediation and cutting carbon emissions, or was that his viewpoint on the matter?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If the Member had listened to my statement, he would have heard that it was agreed by me and the Minister for Regional Development; it is not my personal take on the BIC meeting. Furthermore, I do not think that the Member would expect any statement from me to the Assembly simply to reflect my personal opinion. Indeed, at the end of my statement, I summarised the points made and agreed by Ministers: the meeting concluded that the adaptation programme will continue and that further updates will be given next year. There will be a review of the work programme on marine, as agreed at the meeting. Ireland will submit a paper for joint discussion on Sellafield, and there will be a paper on waste that outlines areas for co-operation. Those were the issues that were discussed and the agreements that were made.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the Minister’s statement. In the light of the announcement that there will be a workshop on climate change in the autumn, what input will the Minister commit to make on behalf of the North of Ireland and the Assembly? Go raibh maith agat.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The terms under which the workshop will work have not yet been agreed. However, I will receive relevant briefings and papers from my departmental officials. Given that it is a workshop, I am not sure whether there will be any requirement for the Executive to agree those papers — I think that it is only the papers for the British-Irish Council meeting that the Executive agree. Considering that we are not yet aware of the agenda for that workshop, I cannot give a conclusive answer to the Member as to what Northern Ireland’s input will be.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

In his statement, the Minister mentioned different forms of energy and the importance of having a suitable infrastructure. During the discussion, was there wide recognition of the importance of developing an electricity infrastructure so that renewable energy generation could be developed? Was electricity production, which is a significant issue, discussed in detail and recognised? Furthermore, were the opportunities for tidal power that exist around the Northern Ireland coastline discussed?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is right. All Administrations — not only those in the United Kingdom, but that in the Irish Republic — need to look at the importance of having a suitable infrastructure. That matter was discussed. This is another area in which there is probably an overlap between the Department of the Environment and DETI, but discussions were held on the key issue of having a grid infrastructure that could link up the various renewable energy projects — tidal projects in Scotland or wind-power projects off the coast of England and Wales or, eventually, that of Northern Ireland — so that we could have better opportunities to use renewable energy.

The Member will know that one of my concerns about the reliance on wind energy has been and continues to be its requirement for a considerable back-up of conventional energy. That is because the wind may be blowing in one place but not where the energy is needed. Therefore, a strong grid infrastructure is required so that we can tap into renewable energy that might have been generated in other parts of the United Kingdom, including offshore in other parts of the United Kingdom.

During the discussion on the issue, the point was made that such an infrastructure will not come cheaply. The investment in the grid infrastructure will be quite expensive, and that will be reflected in energy prices.

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

Given that the Minister’s statement is light in content and considering that the meeting took place on the beautiful island of Jersey, did he have an opportunity to wander around the island and pick up some good ideas on how we can clean up our environment and protect our listed buildings — that is, buildings of architectural merit that get knocked down?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not sure what relevance that question has to the statement. However, we had an opportunity to see round the island. I am glad that the Member asked that question, because it gives me the opportunity to put on record that the Jersey Government were hospitable and that they treated us well. One morning, we left the hotel to go to the castle where the meeting was being held.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

As one does.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As one does, of course. We were driven in Daimler motor cars around the perimeter of the island. I enjoyed that part.

I always like to exchange views on climate change and global warming, so I sought out the professor from the Met Office, who is originally from Downpatrick. I had the good fortune to travel in the car with him and the Environment Minister from the Welsh Assembly Government, and we had an extensive discussion on the impact of carbon on climate change. I must say that the irony of driving around Jersey in a car that does about eight miles to the gallon talking about carbon output and climate change seemed to be lost on my two travelling companions. Nevertheless, it was an enjoyable experience.

The Member may be interested to know that one of the issues that we discussed was what could be done to address the big problem of sea litter. The Welsh Minister contends that it is a bigger problem for her than it is for us because the tidal movements are such that a great deal of sea litter is carried onto Welsh beaches. The beaches in Jersey were impeccable, although I must emphasise that I saw them from afar; I did not get the opportunity to walk on them. Of course, although we try to deal with sea litter, once it comes ashore it becomes the responsibility of local councils. Indeed, in some places, it can be a considerable problem.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that he wishes to make a statement on the position of the swine flu outbreak.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I will provide a further update on the influenza AH1N1 virus, or swine flu as it is more commonly known. Since my statement to the Assembly last week, there has been a number of new developments of which I would like to make Members aware. Many countries have confirmed cases of the swine flu virus, but outside Mexico and the United States the numbers of affected individuals remain low. As a consequence, the World Health Organization pandemic alert level remains at level 5. That indicates the increasing likelihood of a pandemic, but does not indicate, I must stress, that one is inevitable.

In the UK, 27 cases have now been confirmed, and in the Republic of Ireland one case has been confirmed. In Northern Ireland, there are no confirmed cases, and test results are pending for four individuals.

The lack of information and the uncertainty about the situation in Mexico makes it difficult to establish exactly what the impact of the virus will be. During previous pandemics, such as the Spanish flu in 1918, it appears that the rate of infection abated over the summer, with an increase in cases over the winter. The lower summer rate of infection was also true of the Asian flu and Hong Kong flu in the 1950s and 1960s. We must, therefore, be on our guard and prepare for a potential further wave of the swine flu virus in the autumn, which may be more widespread.

It is also important that we use our stock of antiviral drugs carefully so that the public will be protected during the winter months. Preparations are under way, for example, to increase our stockpiles of antiviral drugs, and I will return to that issue in a moment.

We must take some reassurance from the fact that, to date, anyone who has contracted the virus outside Mexico has had a relatively mild flu, similar to the seasonal flu. In addition, it appears that swine flu responds well to treatment with antiviral drugs, and, in fact, some patients have recovered without antiviral treatment.

That does not mean that we will be complacent. No one can say for certain how the virus may change or if the situation will worsen. We have been planning for a potential pandemic for a number of years, and this country remains among one of the best prepared in the world.

My officials and staff in the Public Health Agency and the health and social care sector have been working tirelessly over the past week to ensure that there is robust surveillance and appropriate testing of individuals at risk. They have also put measures in place to ensure the immediate availability of antiviral medications to those who may need them. However, I reassure Members that we have no confirmed cases and are well prepared for any cases that may emerge.

I will now set out some of the measures that I have put in place. With regard to the production of a vaccine, the four UK Health Departments have sleeping contracts in place with manufacturers. That arrangement reserves our place in the global queue should production of a pandemic-specific vaccine become necessary. The contracts ensure that manufacturers reserve production capacity for the UK should a vaccine be needed. Given that it will take several months before a vaccine becomes available, we will, in the interim, need to ensure that we have adequate supplies of the antiviral medication that is proving effective in treating the virus.

We have a stock of antiviral drugs that will cover half the population, and steps are in place to increase that stock so that there will be sufficient antivirals to treat up to 80% of the population. No previous pandemic has been known to affect more than one third of the population. We have placed supplies of the antiviral medications in hospitals and in GP out-of-hours centres. In addition, measures are in place to ensure that an adequate supply of antiviral medication will be available in community pharmacies.

We know that the complications of influenza, particularly pneumonia, may require treatment with antibiotics. Although it is expected that antibiotics will be needed for only a small proportion of individuals who may develop swine flu, it is important that there are adequate supplies, and work is, therefore, under way to increase supplies of antibiotics.

The helpline that we set up in Northern Ireland has played a most important role in providing advice to anyone who has concerns. Since it was established last Thursday, around 800 people have called the helpline on 0800 0514 142. Information on swine flu is also available from the UK swine flu information line on 0800 1 513 513.

In addition to the range of measures that I have outlined, I emphasise once again the most important message, which is that members of the Northern Ireland public should follow good hygiene practices. Those include regular hand washing, using a clean tissue to cover mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing, and remaining at home if people develop flu-like symptoms. Those are simple, highly effective steps that every individual can take and that will make a difference. That is why those messages have been reinforced in advertisements running on television and radio. A leaflet providing further advice and information for the public will be delivered to homes across Northern Ireland from the end of this week.

I continue to receive full and detailed briefings on the situation as it develops. I also have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues in other UK Administrations and in the Republic of Ireland. That has included daily meetings of COBRA, which is activated only in cases of national emergency or crisis, or during events abroad that have major implications for the UK. Those meetings, which I attend, are chaired by Alan Johnston, Secretary of State for Health in England, and the Health Ministers for Wales and Scotland participate also.

I assure Members that this issue is being taken seriously by Governments, not just in Northern Ireland but across the world. Internationally, the World Health Organization is taking the lead in providing advice and information on the ever-changing situation. At national level, the situation is being managed through COBRA and the four home countries. Locally, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Public Health Agency and the health and social care service are in the lead. Daily updates on the situation are issued to the media and to all Assembly Members. I will, of course, report again to the Assembly if there are significant changes in the current situation. In the meantime, Members can remain assured that we have the necessary capability to respond to the swine flu virus. The Health Service is well prepared, and I thank staff in the service for the commitment, support and dedication that they have demonstrated in the face of a potential pandemic.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement to the House and for coming to the Committee last Thursday to brief members. The Minister referred to four cases here and said that the results of those are pending. When are those test results due?

I would also like to ask the Minister about the use of the antiviral drug Tamiflu. In a previous statement, and at the Committee, the Minister told us that the flu is susceptible to treatment by that drug. He said that we have a sufficient stock of the drug and referred to the need to use that stock very carefully.

I had understood that the drug was given only to people who have flu-like symptoms and who may have been in contact with an infected person. However, over the weekend, there were media reports about a confirmed case of the flu at a school in London. The school was closed as a result, and reports suggested that the 1,200 children at the school had all been treated with the Tamiflu antiviral drug as a precaution. Will the Minister clarify whether that drug has preventative qualities or whether it can be used only to treat symptoms?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The preventative measure comes from a vaccine that is yet to be developed. Isolation of the virus seed will allow the manufacturers to proceed with the development of that vaccine. Discussions in that regard are ongoing between COBRA and the manufacturers.

It is true that we need to be careful with our stocks of Tamiflu and other antiviral drugs. The stock is enough to cover 50% of the population, and that will rise to 80% cover. However, we are still using the regular supply of antiviral drugs and are not yet dipping into the stock. If an individual tests positive for the flu, all the contacts that that individual might have made are treated with the antiviral drugs. That is done in an effort to contain the spread of the virus, because the UK is in a containment phase.

Four tests are being run in Northern Ireland, and such tests have been negative to date. The first response has been to issue Tamiflu to those people suspected of carrying the flu and to take specimens for testing. I cannot give an exact time frame for when the results of the four tests will come through, but it will be as soon as possible.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. I note that he is giving daily updates to the media. The public will also be kept informed by the leaflets that will be delivered to every household, by adverts in newspapers, and so forth. Can the Minister assure the House that there is a co-ordinated and clearly recognised link between his Department and local media outlets so that accurate, up-to-date and factual information will be readily available to the general public in Northern Ireland? That will ensure that needless anxiety is avoided and that the focused response to the threat is clearly understood by everyone.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Yes; I can give that assurance. We have made every effort to keep everyone as well informed as possible. Public awareness and knowledge is a key defence in this situation. There are messages about hand hygiene and respiratory hygiene: people are being told to keep washing their hands, to use a tissue if they cough or sneeze, and to cough it, bin it and destroy it. Those messages are a very effective part of the containment phase. We will continue to brief the media on a daily basis and to share those briefings with Assembly Members. I continually seek to provide updates when we have specific information to provide.

The battle is ongoing. The Spanish flu outbreak arrived during the spring in the form of mild flu symptoms. It abated during the summer and returned at its most destructive in the winter; that was its pattern. I am not saying that it will be the same with swine flu. Spanish flu was an avian virus, and swine flu is a mixture of avian, human and swine elements. However, it could follow the same pattern, and we are planning for that eventuality. We plan for the worst and hope for the best. We must do that, because come the autumn, we may be facing the second wave of the virus.

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

I also thank the Minister for his update on the situation — it is much appreciated. I also thank him for all his hard work and that of colleagues in anticipation of the arrival of swine flu. The work on the vaccine is also very welcome. As the Minister said, who knows what will happen? The vaccine may be needed later.

What is the reaction of the Minister and his colleagues to the World Health Organization’s statement that it is not, at present, considering a move to level 6, which is pandemic status?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The response is international, national and local. The World Health Organization is responsible for the international response. It took us from level 3 to level 5 rapidly, and we have set responses as each of those levels is reached.

The important message that the World Health Organization gave is that, as yet, there will be no move to the pandemic level, which is level 6. However, that should not be interpreted to mean that we should be complacent. We must continue our preparations and be on our guard. Level 5 means that a pandemic is likely, but not inevitable. That is the current situation. The world’s best expert scientists and virologists cannot be certain in their predictions. We deal only with probabilities and likelihoods.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I also thank the Minister for his update to the Assembly on the situation with swine flu.

I have heard that we may be able to improve upon measures that were taken at our seaports and airports with the distribution of information leaflets and precautions. Will the Minister respond to that, so that visitors, on arrival in Northern Ireland, may be reminded of the dangers?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I take Kieran McCarthy’s point, and we have been responding to those concerns since early last week. For example, I was with Public Health Agency staff at Belfast International Airport who leafleted the passengers who were coming off planes. That is a standard practice that also happens at George Best Belfast City Airport. I thank the management of both airports for their help and co-operation.

The same precaution is taken at seaports, where leaflets are distributed. It is an important precaution to take, just in case folk who arrive here do not understand the situation.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The precautions against swine flu carry serious financial implications. Has the Minister discussed them with the Executive to secure the necessary resources? What is the shelf life of the vaccine?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The shelf life of the vaccine is limited to one year because the virus mutates annually. That is certainly the case with the annual flu vaccine. Every year, we distribute hundreds of thousands of units of the flu vaccine. Any that are not used are destroyed, because the virus mutates. Viruses are very intelligent organisms and they mutate constantly and, therefore, vaccines must change.

As to the financial implications, the cost of purchasing the vaccine — when it is available — will be considerable for Northern Ireland. I do not want to put a figure on that today. Stockpiling antiviral drugs and antibiotics will also cost a great deal. Furthermore, the effort that we put into leafleting and expanding public awareness through advertising and the provision of information will result in extraordinary expenditure that has not been anticipated.

However, none of that matters as long as we are prepared properly and are ready for a pandemic, should it hit us. It is important that we do everything possible to ensure that the population does not come to harm.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Like other Members, I thank the Minister for his swift action in bringing the issue to the House and to the Health Committee. In fact, he has moved so fast that he might quickly earn a reputation as the ‘Action Man’ for the health, welfare and good of the community in Northern Ireland.

Given that we are facing an epidemic, because people in other parts of the world are already suffering from swine flu, how will the Budget be affected if extra expenditure is being used to protect people?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Preparations are well under way. I do not want to put a figure on it; however, our share of the national budget for vaccines will have to be met. I have seen the figures, and considerable sums of money are involved in preparing a vaccine for UK-wide distribution. Our Barnett formula share will be considerable. The costs for the other measures are only estimates at the moment. There will be budget implications, but I do not want to get into that. My officials are having ongoing discussions with the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) officials.

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

I also congratulate the Minister. I am sure that his performance in respect of the swine flu outbreak must have accounted for his high rating in the ‘Rate Your Minister’ feature in today’s ‘The Irish News’.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that complacency is a problem. Even this morning, I note that the DUP has not asked one question in the Assembly. What does the Minister propose to do over the next few months to ensure that complacency does not creep in and that, in fact, we reap the rewards in the autumn, as some people have predicted?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Complacency is one of our enemies in this process. There is a sudden scare, then nothing appears to be of serious consequence and people get complacent. However, we are always warning people not to be complacent about this issue. I have outlined the simple measures that the general public can take, such as hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene and self isolation at home if one has flu-like symptoms. Those are the key messages, and it is important to repeat those messages. I have to make sure that the health and social care system in Northern Ireland, for which I am responsible, is not complacent and that I keep this threat uppermost in our minds, because of the inherent danger of the population coming to harm if this outbreak of swine flu follows a Spanish-flu-type pattern.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like other Members, I thank the Minister for his statement. I also take this opportunity to commend the Minister and his officials for their handling of the issue to date and their daily updates to MLAs. It is useful that the Minister’s Department can use Members as a conduit for providing information.

The Minister said that there may be an increase in the number of swine flu cases over the winter, given the recent patterns of major outbreaks of flu. Has the Minister considered increasing the number of people who are entitled to get the normal flu jab this winter to ensure that at least normal flu viruses are kept at bay and to prevent confusion between normal flu and swine flu? Given that cases of swine flu have been confirmed in England and Scotland and that one case has been confirmed on this island, is it inevitable that swine flu will hit here, and are we prepared for that?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The vaccine for the normal annual flu viruses will be issued again this autumn. Sometimes, the uptake by people for whom the vaccine is procured is disappointing. I expect, and hope, that the uptake this year will show a gain and be much stronger.

Looking ahead, I think that there is a threat of complacency and as is often the case, of appearing to wait for something to happen. Swine flu contains the inherent threat that it may follow the pattern of other viruses. If it does so, I hope that the benefits of all the measures that we have put in place will be demonstrated to everyone.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I do not have a question. However, as I have the Floor, I commend the Minister and his officials on their actions. Go raibh maith agat.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Today marks his third appearance in the House within a week, and he also attended a meeting of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Will the Minister pledge that he, the Department and staff throughout the Health Service will continue to make swine flu their number one priority and not allow themselves to be distracted by others in the House who may wish to sidetrack them? Will the focus remain on keeping people in Northern Ireland safe and on the work in which the Minister is involved nationally?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I assure the Member that swine flu is the number one priority. Whatever I may wish, the response of the World Health Organization means that I have no choice but to make it so and to work as one of the four home nations through COBRA. Swine flu is regarded as a national challenge, a national peril and a national threat. I will ensure that Northern Ireland is fully engaged and locked into the response.

Private Members’ Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Social Development to make access to employment and support allowance easier for vulnerable claimants who have difficulty in understanding the complexities of the benefit and are unable to obtain the relevant information required to claim.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is important that I explain employment and support allowance to give the House a flavour of the complexities of the benefit.

Employment and support allowance could be described as a pre-emptive strike for the rest of the welfare reform Bill that is due to be introduced soon. It is a benefit for people who are incapable of work because of ill health and/or disability. From 27 October 2008, employment and support allowance replaced incapacity benefit for new claimants and the severe disability allowance and income support paid on the basis of an incapacity for work.

The two types of employment and support allowance are contributory and income related. Many of the rules of entitlement to the contributory employment and support allowance are similar to those that applied to incapacity benefit. The income-related employment and support allowance is paid to people who meet the general conditions of entitlement to employment and support allowance but do not meet those for the contributory allowance. The income-related allowance is also paid to people who are entitled to the contributory employment and support allowance and are on a low income. Such people are, therefore, entitled to both contributory and income-related employment and support allowance.

The means test for the income-related employment and support allowance is similar to that for income support. A person who claims employment and support allowance will receive it for an initial 13-week period, during which a work capability assessment will be carried out to determine what should happen subsequently. That has replaced the personal capability assessment as the method of assessing eligibility for incapacity benefit.

A doctor from medical support services will carry out the work capability assessment. I have spoken to a number of people already who have gone through that assessment. They found it to be even more humiliating than the previous assessment. I spoke to one lady who told me that when she went to the examination, she was asked to undress and told to put on a gown. However, the only things that were tested were her reflexes. That is hardly a comprehensive assessment of her condition, which she has had for many years.

The work capability assessment is supposed to be made up of three separate assessments. The first is the limited capability for work assessment. One aspect of that is that those who are entitled to the high-rate care component of disability living allowance (DLA) are not automatically exempt. However, it is generally accepted, as it was in the past, by the Social Security Agency that those particular people are quite disabled, otherwise — and presumably — they would not be getting high-rate disability living allowance.

The second assessment is the limited capability for work-related activity assessment. People in that category will be identified as taking part in some form of work-related activity. The third assessment is the work-focused health-related assessment. Through that assessment, additional information is collected about the things that a person can do, despite their condition.

Following the three assessments is the ubiquitous work-focused interview. Unless a person is terminally ill or has a serious medical condition, they are expected to participate in an initial work-focused interview at which a personal adviser will discuss work prospects.

I will ask this question, just as I have asked it several times before without getting an adequate answer: what type of training will those personal advisers have received to allow them to deal with vulnerable people with particular medical conditions and, in many cases, complex mental-health issues? In the North, 43·3% of incapacity benefit claimants suffer from a mental or behavioural disorder. Yet, with the introduction of employment and support allowance, along with its complexities, those people are targeted, and they are the ones who are finding the benefit most difficult to access.

I have been dealing with benefits for approximately 35 years, and I have heard all the platitudes that Governments issue when they introduce changes. We are told continually that claimants will be better off and better treated and that everything will be simplified. To date, that has never happened. Benefits get more complex, sanctions are introduced, and money saving appears to be the main objective.

For people to claim employment and support allowance, they have to complete a form that is approximately 60 pages long. It is almost impossible to access the employment and support allowance branch within a reasonable time. I once spent over 30 minutes trying to get in touch with people in that branch. Indeed, if someone is lucky enough to make contact, staff do not seem able to explain what the benefit is about. In one case, someone who had £20 credit on their mobile phone rang the branch, ended up paying £17 for the call, and was left with £3 credit on their phone.

By definition, people who claim employment and support allowance are vulnerable already because of physical and mental-health issues. The Minister must address the administration of employment and support allowance. Obviously, it is parity legislation; we cannot necessarily change the law, but we can certainly change how it is administered and improve on that. The Minister needs to send out the message to people that we are on their side. The benefit must become user friendly and not be just another cynical attempt to dissuade people who are entitled to the benefit from claiming. The introduction of one universal benefit seems inevitable. If that happens, we can only hope that it will be easier to understand — and much easier to access — than the employment and support allowance. Go raibh maith agat.

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

As Mickey Brady said, and as Members know, the employment and support allowance was introduced in October 2008 as a replacement for incapacity benefit. It is a good idea in theory. People with an illness or a disability and who want to work should be given as much support as possible in getting a job. People are better off when they are employed, and not just financially; their health, general well-being and self confidence are better.

However, no one can dispute the fact that employment and support allowance is, as Mickey Brady said, a complex benefit. I am concerned that vulnerable people may not be receiving employment and support allowance or other benefits to which they are entitled.

It is fair to say that there have been a few teething problems with the system, especially with the call centres and the availability of forms. Those problems have not been unique to Northern Ireland; Britain has faced the same problems. The main reason for the problems in the system is the fact that the number of enquiries about employment and support allowance has been much higher than had been expected.

Those issues have not been ignored by the Minister; the opposite has been the case. As soon as the Social Security Agency became aware of the problems with the forms, many new forms were sent out to the employment and support allowance centre and social security offices. People can also now download the necessary paperwork from the Department’s website. Furthermore, many new call centre staff have been recruited and trained, and the whole telephone process has been reviewed. Things have got much better, and we expect performances to continue to improve.

The Minister cannot be accused of ignoring the problem. In fact, she has done her best to solve the problem, and the situation with the call centres and the forms really is getting better. Of course, not everyone is comfortable using the phone or the Internet. Claimants for employment and support allowance get access to a trained personal adviser, a person who they can meet face to face. They can also bring someone with them to act on their behalf. If they need personal advice, they can get it from a real person. Vulnerable people need that, and they must get it.

I shall finish with a few words of support for the employment and support allowance call centre staff and social security staff in general. The introduction of employment and support allowance was a difficult time for them. They were often snowed under with their amount of work. It was not easy, and they did their best under the circumstances. It is clear that more staff and more training are needed, and, if that is what is required to get the benefit to the people who need it, the Minister will provide that. As those measures are rolled out, I have no doubt that the situation will continue to improve in the near future.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I am fully aware that there have been some teething problems with the implementation of employment and support allowance. I have some sympathy with those who believe the process to be too lengthy and over-complicated, particularly when one reads about a 50-page ESA1 application form.

We must not lose sight of the reasons why the new allowance was introduced, and we must not give in to knee-jerk reactions because all is not working out perfectly from day one. Employment and support allowance is a step in the right direction. It is designed to enable those who want and are able to work to get back into work. That will benefit not only individuals, but the economy as a whole.

In Northern Ireland, we have to be responsible to our fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom and to play fair. In comparison with Great Britain, Northern Ireland has a large proportion of people who are in receipt of incapacity benefit, and our economic productivity is relatively poor. That partially explains why our average regional income is among the lowest of the UK regions. According to an article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, even when the local economy was doing well a year ago, a further 40,000 people would have been in the labour force if we had had parity with Great Britain.

There is clearly a problem with regard to the number of people who are in receipt of incapacity benefit, and the suspicion has to be that too many people are receiving benefits to which they are not entitled.

It would be irresponsible of me not to mention the ongoing problem of benefit fraud. Although it is important that people who are entitled to benefits receive their full entitlement in as straightforward a manner as possible, the fact cannot be ignored that certain members of society seek to cheat the system. Adequate checks and balances must be put in place to ensure that it is as difficult as possible for those people who wish to defraud taxpayers to do so, while ensuring that people who are genuinely entitled to benefits are not deterred from applying for them.

It is thanks to unscrupulous and deceitful people that checks and balances are necessary. If the benefits system is too lightly regulated, the likelihood is that scarce resources will be taken up by people who are not entitled to them. On the other hand, if the system is too complicated, there is danger that people who are genuinely entitled to benefits, particularly the most vulnerable, may be discouraged from applying. Obviously, a balance must be struck, particularly during the current economic climate when the number of job losses has meant that increasing numbers of people require benefits.

Finally, as employment and support allowance is a UK-wide benefit, any changes that are implemented in Northern Ireland would have implications for parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Such a move, however well-intentioned it might be, would lead Northern Ireland down a dangerous road. The Ulster Unionist Party is extremely reluctant to support any measure that might turn out to be the thin end of the wedge in respect of disadvantaging Northern Ireland’s people.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

With 2·6 million of the UK population on incapacity benefit, I agree that reform of the system is needed. However, it is important to bear in mind that the emphasis of change should be to enable people to return to work and to provide adequate support and help for them to do so.

Recent research shows clearly that work is beneficial for disabled people, the majority of whom want to work. Work raises disabled people’s self-esteem, offers discipline and makes them less isolated and better integrated into society.

During the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of people were put on incapacity benefit in order to keep unemployment figures down. Many of them got caught in the benefit trap and have become dependent on the state, which is not what they want. Of people who receive incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, 40% have mental-health problems. Their conditions fluctuate; they have good days and bad days.

It is important, therefore, that they receive the right level of support and are not forced to attend interviews or to go to work. Their personal advisers need adequate training. I am aware that the Minister is looking at that issue. It is important that advisers have the right level of understanding and sensitivity to work with individuals who have mental-health problems.

Lack of skills, rather than disability alone, is often the barrier to people’s return to work. Adequate training is, therefore, extremely important to enable them to gain new skills and qualifications and to become employable. Recently, the Committee visited the Cedar Foundation and saw the good work that it does to train or retrain people, to help them to overcome their disabilities, and to break down barriers so that they can obtain meaningful jobs in society.

The entire benefits system is complicated, not just employment and support allowance. Older people and young people, not only those with disabilities, miss out on claiming. Therefore, it is important that information is available at the right time. A straightforward application process is the key to helping people obtain work and leave the benefits system. I support the motion.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to raise some issues that have been brought to my attention by my constituents. Several Members have already mentioned the issue of phones, and a number of Assembly questions relate to the cost of phone calls and the length of time taken to answer phones. I have spoken to someone who knows about those matters. The equality impact assessment (EQIA) of the strategic business review contains evidence of attempts to address those problems, and I commend the Minister and her officials for that. However, it is important to see how those attempts work out.

The EQIA mentions that it is difficult for people from rural locations to travel to Belfast, where the administration of employment and support allowance is centralised. Those people travel to their local office, but what happens when they arrive there? Can they use the phone? Is there a dedicated employee to whom they can speak? I have been told that people who use phones in those offices do not have adequate privacy. Who takes time to attend to the “vulnerable claimants” to whom the motion refers? Can employees leave their own work to help them?

In a question for oral answer, Jim Shannon said that, in his experience, it took approximately 52 minutes for someone to answer the phone. The EQIA attempts to address some, but not all, of those issues. Moreover, Mr Molloy asked a question for written answer about unanswered calls, and I was surprised at the Minister for Social Development’s response. Approximately 15,000 calls were unanswered between October 2008 and January 2009. Has that issue been addressed? If not, it is important to do so, given that the motion calls on the Minister to improve access to benefits for vulnerable claimants who have difficulty understanding the complexities of the matter.

Another issue that has been raised with me is the duplication of sick certificates or, as they are known, sick notes. What is happening with that situation? Do the certificates go somewhere? Are they not being properly logged? Why have vulnerable people been asked to submit a second certificate? That issue must be addressed.

It has been brought to my attention that, when a phone is answered, the person who answers does not always know what he or she is talking about. Training may be required. I have been told that it sounds as though the employee is reading from a computer screen. Although we have to move on, and modernisation is the name of the game at this stage, where face-to-face engagement does not exist, training is, perhaps, necessary in order to help vulnerable claimants. Go raibh maith agat.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the motion. Claire McGill and other Members have talked about vulnerable people. Anybody who has worked in the benefits system over the years will know that it can be confusing and that changes can be difficult to understand. Therefore, claimants, at times, become traumatised and distressed when a new system is introduced.

Employment and support allowance is a new benefit with a new access system, and, as with any new benefit and system, there will be teething problems.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

When pension credits were introduced, there were teething problems, and it took the Social Security Agency in Derry, in the Member’s own constituency, at least three years to get its act together. Does the Member accept that that is a reasonable time frame in which to fix teething problems?

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I know only too well what happened in Derry when pension credits were introduced, and we hope that that will not be the case with the introduction of employment and support allowance. I am sure that the Minister will ensure that that does not happen.

During discussions with groups representing people with disabilities in my constituency, it became clear that there has been a positive engagement between the Social Security Agency and representative groups about problems in accessing employment and support allowance and that the agency is now dealing appropriately and effectively with many of those problems. That interaction and co-operation is needed and is most welcome.

I will outline some of the current concerns that were brought to my attention, which centre on clients with learning disabilities. The first concern is about the use of the telephone system, because people with comprehension or communication difficulties are at a disadvantage when using the telephone. Such people should be clearly directed to advocacy organisations or properly trained Social Security Agency representatives who can deal with their cases in the most effective and diligent way. That course of action requires a high level of insight and sensitivity from Social Security Agency staff. It is important that correct guidance and help is given in every case.

The second concern that was raised with me is that people with learning disabilities are not necessarily sick and may not have, or need, a medical report; indeed, they may not even be able to obtain a medical report. The form solicits information about physical or mental-health problems, not learning disabilities. Perhaps the form should have a section that deals specifically with learning disabilities, where supporting information could be requested from education or social work sources rather than medical sources.

The third concern is that there is a problem for people with disabilities who want to work but are worried that they will be transferred from employment and support allowance to jobseeker’s allowance. In many cases, people with disabilities are at a disadvantage when it comes to finding a job, particularly in the current economic climate, and they should not be put through the rigours of the jobseeker’s allowance system. I do not think that the Department or agency intends that they should be disadvantaged, but claimants, particularly those with disabilities, who want to enter employment through the Pathways to Work route need to be reassured that they will not be placed on the jobseeker’s allowance route. That route is appropriate for non-disabled people but inappropriate for people with disabilities.

As some Members mentioned, people have encountered problems with phone lines. In recent weeks, however, the problems seem to have been solved. Will the Minister outline the reasons for the initial problems and what actions have been taken to solve them?

Members referred to several problems, and Mr Brady raised the issue of pension credits. I sincerely hope that those people with a range of disabilities across a wide spectrum — whether mental-health problems, physical problems or learning disabilities — will not have to face the crisis that occurred in the city of Derry. Although the office or agency may be based in the city, it must represent every constituent across Northern Ireland who needs access to employment and support allowance. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that effectively.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion was tabled because of Members’ ongoing experiences of speaking to people who have made claims for this new benefit. Sinn Féin Members, and Members from all political parties, have asked questions about the introduction of employment and support allowance and the impact that it will have, and is already having, on the most vulnerable people in society who receive social security benefits.

The British Government have proclaimed that the new benefit is a major step forward that will shape the payment of benefits in the future. However, that raises many questions about why it has been introduced in the first place. We have been told that there will be winners, but we have not been told how many losers there will be when the new benefit is introduced.

In fact, many people believe that this is just the beginning of what will become a universal benefit, replacing most, if not all, benefits. It is a matter of great concern that most people believe that the introduction of employment and support allowance has more to do with reducing the number of people who receive incapacity benefit — some 100,000 people across the North — rather than providing a better service, which was the stated reason for its introduction.

Neither has the impact of 30 years of conflict on communities in the North been taken into consideration. As a result, large numbers of people are still suffering from various levels of mental illness, severe stress and depression. In the past, we have highlighted the question of the ability of a customer’s personal adviser to be able to deal with different degrees of mental illness. We have argued that those advisers are not equipped to handle people who fall into that category.

I also understand that people who claim this benefit will be asked to attend medical centres for a 75-minute to 90-minute assessment of what type of work they may be able to carry out. Mickey Brady dealt with some of those issues. Such assessments will be carried out by specially trained medical doctors, according to the available information. However, most GPs do not have the necessary training to assess people who are suffering from mental illness. It takes someone with psychiatric training to deal with such cases.

The Parkinson’s Disease Society has also voiced concern that, as is the case with people who have mental-health problems, people with visible impairments or with fluctuating conditions that are not recognised are likely to be worst affected by the proposals. If an assessor incorrectly classes a person as having the more manageable symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, the stress of attending work-focused interviews can exacerbate the illness and can result in the condition being misunderstood and wrongly classed as manageable.

The Parkinson’s Disease Society, along with the Autistic Society and Macmillan Cancer Support, have expressed a number of concerns and difficulties that they believe can have an impact on claimants. In March 2008 my colleague Mickey Brady asked the Minister for Social Development:

“to detail the training programmes that have been put in place for staff involved in interviewing people with mental health problems”.

In a written answer on 11 April 2008, the Minister responded, stating that:

“A two-day training programme will be delivered to all staff who will deal with Employment and Support Allowance customers”.

She went on to state that that would include:

“a session on health and disability.”

If that is the level of training that staff will receive, it calls into question their ability to deal with people who have mental-health problems. I must ask the Minister whether she has taken those concerns on board, and if so, what steps her Department has taken to implement the necessary safeguards to ensure that people are not penalised because of their disabilities or different forms of mental illness.

It has been stated that eight out of 10 people who were questioned about attitudes to work said that they would prefer to work rather than be on benefits.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In view of some of Mr Armstrong’s disparaging remarks about people who claim benefit, does the Member accept that the Social Security Agency lost more money last year as a result of clerical errors than it did from alleged fraud?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member will have an extra minute in which to speak.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member is right. He has raised the issue on more than one occasion during meetings of the Committee for Social Development.

People have said that they prefer to work rather than being on benefit — of course they would say that. If a benefits office official asks a claimant whether he or she wants to work, the answer must be yes, or the claimant risks losing the benefit. If a claimant is asked whether he or she is able or capable to work, the answer will be different. The Minister told us that there had been a few teething problems, but that the Department is on course to rectify them. Perhaps that is what her senior officials are telling her, but it does not reflect what is happening. Staff morale is low because they are not equipped to deal with the changes.

Several people came to my constituency surgery last Friday seeking assistance with claims for employment and support allowance, having been advised to go to their local Sinn Féin office by Social Security Agency (SSA) staff. The explanation for that was that the Social Security Agency office did not have the phones to allow them to make a claim. Two people were on the phone in my constituency office for 45 minutes trying to make a claim for employment and support allowance. That is becoming a regular occurrence, because no free phones exist in the local SSA offices and people have nowhere else to go.

Furthermore, many people can apply for employment and support allowance only after their eligibility for income support ceases and it can take between three and four weeks to finalise a claim. The only option left to those people is to apply to their local Social Security Agency office for a crisis loan. That can be very distressing, especially when people are ill or are suffering from mental illness and given that they are only applying for the benefit in the first place due to illness.

On 12 December 2008, I asked a question about the British Telecom (BT) telephone line that people are being asked to use to make their claims. I raised my concern that many people are not connected to BT and use either another provider or their mobile phones. When those people ring the claim line, they are kept waiting for upwards of 45 minutes.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is up.

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

I thank the Members who have contributed to today’s discussion. I welcome the opportunity to update Members on the progress made in introducing employment and support allowance and to explain the service that the employment and support allowance centre is providing to all customers, particularly vulnerable customers.

The Social Security Agency introduced the new allowance at the end of October 2008. Employment and support allowance is an integrated contributory and income-related allowance for anyone who is claiming benefit on the basis of a health condition or disability that affects their ability to work. It provides a financial and work-related support structure, and it replaced incapacity benefits for new claimants from 27 October 2008.

Employment and support allowance focuses on how people can be helped into work. The allowance does not assume automatically that a person who has a significant health condition or disability is incapable of working. Entitlement is based on the effects that a condition has on a person’s capacity to work rather than on diagnosis.

It is estimated that over £15 million more will be paid to people receiving employment and support allowance in the next five years compared with what has been paid in Northern Ireland through incapacity benefits. This is not about saving money, as some Members have said. Many of those who will benefit from the additional money are the most vulnerable customers, who will be almost £17 a week better off under employment and support allowance than they would have been under incapacity benefit.

The principle of employment and support allowance is that everyone should have the opportunity to work and that disabled people and people with a health condition should get the help they need to engage in appropriate work if they are able to do so. The allowance focuses on what people can do rather than what they cannot do.

It is clear that Members are passionate about protecting those who are most vulnerable in society. I share those concerns and recognise the need to ensure that those people receive the necessary support to access services, and that they are dealt with sensitively. I assure Members that I recognise the need for the vulnerable in our society to access services, including advice on employment and support allowance, and that those people are dealt with in a sensitive manner regardless of their condition.

It is clear that many who claim benefits are vulnerable people, and that includes those with learning disabilities or mental health conditions. It is important to give them the support, advice and guidance that they need. When Social Security Agency officials were planning to introduce employment and support allowance to Northern Ireland, paramount in their thinking was that vulnerable customers would require additional assistance. Therefore, although the most efficient method for making a claim for employment and support allowance is via the telephone, it was recognised that some vulnerable customers may require the support and reassurance that can be provided by face-to-face contact.

Prior to the introduction of employment and support allowance, officials consulted widely with stakeholders, including political parties, customer representative advice groups and those representing section 75 minority groups. Feedback showed the overwhelming consensus to be that customers should be provided with choices as to which method of claiming best met their individual needs. Although the provision of a telephone-based claims service is undoubtedly an improvement to our services, it does not suit everyone. I instructed officials to ensure that claim forms were available in jobs and benefits offices, social security offices, and in the wider voluntary and political-advice sector.

Therefore a range of those forms was circulated to advice centres and to all MP and MLA constituency offices, if they wanted them. In addition, a dedicated telephone line is available for MPs and MLAs who have cases that they want addressed immediately. For the more technically minded, claim forms can be downloaded from the Department’s website.

The outcome is that employment and support allowance customers have more application channels than were available to those who claimed the old incapacity benefit. In March this year, 79% of callers to the employment and support allowance centre who were seeking to make a claim chose to use the telephony route rather than to request a form. It is clear, therefore, that the telephony channel has proved to be very popular with many people.

However, recognising that using the telephone is not suitable for everyone, the Social Security Agency has alternative arrangements in place. Customers can receive assistance to complete a claim form in their local jobs and benefits social security office or at advice centres across Northern Ireland. When employment and support allowance telephony agents become aware that a customer needs help to make a claim — for example, someone who may have a learning disability — they can arrange for an urgent appointment with staff at the customer’s nearest jobs and benefits social security office. Customers can also appoint a representative to act on their behalf when applying by telephone or clerically.

Customers can arrange for employment and support allowance staff to telephone them at a convenient time. The member of staff will then assist them over the telephone as they complete a clerical claim form in their own home. A textphone service is available for customers who have speech or hearing difficulties, and an interpreter service is available on the telephone or at face-to-face appointments for those whose first language is not English.

I understand the concerns that some Members have, particularly where the most vulnerable in society are concerned. The Social Security Agency has recognised the need for the employment and support allowance centre staff to be trained in how best to handle their contact with vulnerable customers. At the request of the agency, Disability Action provided awareness training for employment and support allowance staff, which helped them to see the process from the perspective of a vulnerable customer. The training also helped to identify ways in which the benefit’s complexity could be explained and how staff could best assist customers who may require additional support.

In order to provide further assistance to make access to employment and support allowance easier and to improve understanding of the new benefit, my Department has implemented an outreach programme to promote the services that the employment and support allowance centre provides and to educate audiences on the telephone claim-taking process. Through that programme, the employment and support allowance centre has supported customer representatives further on the claim-taking process. That ensures that representative groups for vulnerable customers are kept informed fully of all information that is relevant to their client groups. In addition, material is tailored to cater for the particular needs of individual groups.

The Department also has a facility to ensure that vulnerable customers who have mental health issues or learning difficulties have fully understood the requirement to take part in a medical examination and work-focused interview. Those issues were raised by Pat Ramsey and Fra McCann. I should explain that, in normal circumstances, when customers do not attend their medical examinations or work-focused interviews, their benefits may be reduced or discontinued. However, in the case of vulnerable customers who have mental health issues or learning difficulties, a member of the agency’s staff will visit them at home to explain their rights and obligations and to ensure that they understand the implications of non-attendance. If Members have specific cases that they feel have not been investigated fully, perhaps they will let me know, and I will ensure that officials attend to them as quickly as possible. However, the facility safeguards those customers from being unnecessarily penalised, and none of us wants that to happen.

The new employment and support allowance telephony service is part of the Department’s commitment to ensuring that customers experience the most accurate and efficient claims process. The facility to make an application by telephone helps customers to get their money sooner by cutting out postal and processing delays.

There is no doubt that such a major change to the benefits system has been challenging. When I visited the centre in January, I saw at first hand the dedication and commitment of managers and staff to supporting people through the employment and support allowance claim-making process, and I was very impressed by what I saw. As is the position in Britain, the call volumes for employment and support allowance in Northern Ireland have been significantly higher than anticipated at the initial planning stage. Pat Ramsey asked about the reason for that. To address that issue, the Social Security Agency has implemented a telephony-management and process-management plan. Some 18 additional staff were recruited in January and February, and I can further advise the House that another 46 staff joined the employment and support allowance centre between February and April.

Mickey Brady, Fra McCann and Pat Ramsey mentioned the approach to people with learning disabilities. The arrangements for people with learning disabilities are similar to those for other benefits. In the majority of cases, their claims are made via third-party advocates. Social Security Agency staff do not prejudge callers. If difficulties arise during a telephone call, staff will advise that it may be appropriate to have a face-to-face meeting in a local office or to arrange a home visit. It is worth noting that staff at the employment and support allowance centre have had no complaints in respect of customers with learning disabilities. Any possible transfer of customers with learning disabilities from employment and support allowance to jobseekers allowance is a matter for the Department for Employment and Learning. People who are assessed as having severe disabilities will fall into the support group and be exempt from the work capability assessment.

Mickey Brady said that people feel humiliated by the medical examination and consider it worse than previous medical examinations. The agency’s disability analysts, who perform the work capability assessments, are experienced medical practitioners who have a background in general practice, so they are medically qualified to carry out those assessments. Mr Brady also raised the issue of the cost to customers who use mobile phones. Staff at the employment and support allowance centre always offer callers the opportunity of being phoned back, which prevents customers from running up large phone bills. If Members know of any instances when customers have not been offered that opportunity, I ask them to let me know.

Claire McGill raised the issue of unanswered calls. In a very thoughtful contribution, she differed from her colleagues by thanking employment and support allowance staff for their very good work in recent months. Their level of performance has improved substantially, and it is set to improve further as new staff who are currently being trained return and consolidate their skills.

I wish to praise employment and support allowance centre staff for the progress that they have made. I reassure Members that the SSA has in place robust processes and systems to meet the needs of all but particularly those of our most vulnerable customers. Our overriding aim is to ensure that those customers are supported in understanding the complexities of employment and support allowance, and that they are provided with the relevant information, including the number of ways to claim employment and support allowance, so that no vulnerable customer is prevented from receiving the support to which they are rightfully entitled.

I like to think that two of the Sinn Féin Members who spoke during the debate — Fra McCann and Mr Brady — are not trying to sacrifice the vulnerability of certain people through political point-scoring, because that serves no purpose, and it definitely does not assist people who are suffering from disabilities, who are vulnerable and need all our help and assistance at this time.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Mickey Brady for proposing the motion. I remind the Minister that she is not that important in comparison with the needs of people who are disabled or vulnerable. Every Member has the prerogative to raise concerns. For accuracy’s sake, the Hansard report should be checked. I heard Mickey Brady say clearly that the introduction of the employment and support allowance was extremely complex and very challenging to staff. On the basis of his experience, which, he assured Members, amounted to more than 30 years, he detailed the efforts that have been made to smooth the transition and pointed out that, to date, they have failed.

Mr Brady’s concerns were reflected by a few other Members. Issues about the work-focused interview were also raised by Pat Ramsey and Fra McCann. It is worth noting that, as Anna Lo explained at length, many vulnerable people who have disabilities and who face ill-health challenges want to work. However, their physical, emotional and mental capacity renders them unable to do so. To that end, everyone — apart from Billy Armstrong, whose remarks I will come to later — recognises that there is a difference between people who want to work and those who cannot. The motion provides the opportunity to outline our concerns about how to make the transition to employment and support allowance smoother.

There have been difficulties in that transition. For example, the many questions that have been asked and points that have been made in the debate indicate that there were not enough staff. Time will tell whether that has been corrected. There were massive problems with the provision of phone lines. Thomas Burns has assured Members that the form has been reduced from 60 pages to something much smaller —

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

Fifty-nine.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK, Thomas, to 59 pages. However, the new approach adopted by the Minister after she listened to people will make the claims process smoother and less stressful. That is something that most Members who spoke in the debate want too.

Billy Armstrong’s remarks were nothing short of disgraceful. It may be every Member’s prerogative to say what he or she wants to say, and many Members have exercised that right since May 2007, but Mr Armstrong’s Thatcherite approach — to regard people on benefits as spongers — is remarkable. I am more convinced than ever that Billy and perhaps the rest of the Ulster Unionist Party would not know a vulnerable person from a dipped soda. I will say no more about what Mr Armstrong said in the debate. We will check the Hansard report for the accuracy of his remarks.

Mr Brady intervened to point out that more money was lost through clerical error than in benefit fraud. That is something to which we should all pay attention.

Claire McGill spoke about the issue of the phones. Claire, Anna Lo, Fra McCann, Pat Ramsey, Thomas Burns and Mickey Brady voiced their concern for vulnerable people presenting themselves at a benefits office. I urge Members to walk through that whole journey. Those people may not be able to use email; they may have numeracy and literacy issues that prevent them from filling in forms or explaining their problems to already-overstretched staff in a local office; and maybe they cannot take up the offer to use a phone.

I am delighted that disability awareness training has been given to support staff who process claims. That is not a slight on staff. We know the stress that staff have experienced and continue to experience. We also know the stress that the independent advice sector has experienced as a result of the introduction of this benefit. From chatting to other Members, I know that people who cannot get an appointment quickly enough are coming into constituency offices.

I invite the Minister to circulate those figures again, because that would be helpful. I do not know enough about such cases myself; I must lift the phone and make two or three calls to find out what the craic is.

The issue is that some claimants are being offered crisis loans. However, the very term “crisis loan” creates a crisis because people feel that they are getting into debt. That is particularly the case for older people. When people imagine a crisis and debt, they walk away. What happens as a result? People go without benefit.

The work-focused interview was another issue that was raised. Many of us have enough experience, albeit at different levels, to know about certain issues, and I know from my experience that a lot of months ago, a wee veiled threat was made against people who have mental health problems in particular and who have missed their hospital appointments to see consultants. No one in this place made that threat, because, despite what I said about Billy earlier, a lot more sense than that is spoken here. People on programmes such as ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’ suggested that those who miss their interview should be struck off. That is ridiculous, because the people concerned are very vulnerable.

The same is happening in this instance by default. People who miss their work-focused interview may lose their benefit. They are penalised automatically until the reason that the interview did not take place is established. Sometimes that can happen a week or so later, with the result that there will be a gap in benefit. The benefit will be backdated because that is the law, but we need to take on board the journey of stress that has occurred.

I am glad that the Minister has taken on board some of the concerns that all members of the Committee for Social Development raised. Indeed, the volume of questions about the introduction of the benefit indicated that Members across the North have had clients — perhaps people who work in the independent advice sector — come to them and tell them of their experiences. I am also glad that the Minister now supports the employment and support allowance, despite having voted against it in the Hain Assembly. However, that was then, and this is now.

The reason for the motion is that anything additional that can be done to help vulnerable people should be done. We are really interested in seeing the smooth transition of this benefit. We are also really keen to ensure that staff who work in the offices and in the independent advice sector receive additional support. The process should be made simpler and easier for people who try to access the benefit because the baseline is that people who are ill or are dependent on benefits are caught in the poverty trap and may be experiencing physical, emotional and mental difficulties. The last thing that those people need is additional pressure.

I thank Mickey Brady and my colleagues for proposing the motion. I assume that the House will give the motion its full support. I commend the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Social Development to make access to employment and support allowance easier for vulnerable claimants who have difficulty in understanding the complexities of the benefit and are unable to obtain the relevant information required to claim.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. Rather than begin the next item of business, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.18 pm.

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

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly regrets that the Deloitte Report ‘Research into the financial cost of the Northern Ireland divide’, commissioned by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in 2006 has not been acted upon; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the potential to tackle both the direct and embedded costs of division are addressed within the current, and future, spending frameworks, and that the opportunities to provide shared and integrated goods, services and facilities are fully realised.

At this time of economic recession, many MLAs and Ministers are rightly seized with the need to find efficiency savings in Government and throughout public expenditure. Indeed, it is interesting to note the increased speculation about the potential for savings from changes to the institutions, whether from rationalising the number of Departments or from cutting back on the number of MLAs. Those measures are, of course, worthy, and the Alliance Party has long been committed to reforms in those areas.

The claimed potential savings of £50 million only really scratch the surface of the inefficiencies in our society, and, even then, the scale of what is claimed will emerge not only through direct savings, but through more efficient and effective joined-up government that must address the underlying costs that people incur when engaging with the Government. Anyone who is serious about finding efficiency savings in Northern Ireland cannot afford to avoid addressing the huge costs involved with the fallacious attempt to manage a divided society, rather than attempting to build a genuine shared future.

The Alliance Party has regularly talked about the cost of division to Northern Ireland, which is in the region of £1 billion each year. Those costs are apparent in at least four respects. First, there are the direct costs of policing riots, other civil disturbances and parades; the policing resources that are required as a result of security threats; and the costs to a wide range of agencies of repairing damaged buildings and facilities.

Secondly, there are the indirect costs of providing duplicate goods, facilities and services, either explicitly or implicitly, for separate sections of the community. Those include schools, GP surgeries, job centres, community centres, leisure centres, and even bus stops. Indeed, those costs are not just borne by the public sector, but by the private sector.

Thirdly, and related to the second aspect, there are many hidden factors associated with division that impact on the cost environment to which Departments and agencies must respond.

Finally, there are the lost-opportunity costs to inward investment and tourism. Although the Northern Ireland economy has performed better in recent years, it is still performing well below its potential capacity. Division also has implications for our labour market.

The figure of £1 billion a year and the wider theme of the costs of division have not just been made up by the Alliance Party. It is a major structural problem that has been recognised by academics and many other commentators in our society.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Perhaps the Member would agree that the First Minister acknowledged the problem when he said that the task is large, but that that is no reason for us not to try to tackle it and that it is important to do so?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Indeed, and I acknowledge the fact that the First Minister recognised the problem when he was the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but, sadly, that has not been reflected in formal Government policy, whether that be in the Programme for Government or the Budget.

Within Government circles, the theme was perhaps first explored, in January 2002, by Jeremy Harbison in the background paper that he provided to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), which was intended to be the precursor for the new policy on community relations and which, in effect, became ‘A Shared Future’. In March 2005, ‘A Shared Future’ was finally published under direct rule, and we must ask ourselves why every progressive community-relations action has happened under direct rule, rather than devolution. Perhaps that debate is for another day.

However, that document recognised that there was a strong financial and economic imperative to building a shared future, and it declared that the notion of “separate but equal” was unsustainable. Subsequently, within the first of the triennial action plans that arose from ‘A Shared Future’, OFMDFM commissioned a piece of research into the cost of the divide, and that led to the Deloitte report, which was finalised in April 2007 — just before the restoration of devolution.

I do not want to spend too much time looking backwards, but it is a matter of regret that, under devolution, OFMDFM has disowned the Deloitte report. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister dragged its feet over the publication of the report, and it took a freedom of information request from the Alliance Party to force OFMDFM’s hand on it becoming public.

The big headline that came out of the Deloitte report was that the cost of division was, potentially, as high as £1·5 billion each year. Regardless of whether the cost is £1 billion, £1·5 billion or something smaller, it is a major distortion in Northern Ireland’s Budget. When we talk about the departmental expenditure limits of the Budget, we are talking of only £8 billion, so one can see that this is a massive distortion. It is not a theme in the Programme for Government or the Budget. That type of situation would not be sustainable at the best of times, but in the worst of times, such as in this recession, and with the Treasury’s financial tightening looming, there is a major imperative to get on and to start tackling the problem.

I am the first to accept that the Deloitte report is not perfect, but, at the least, it should be used to inform the conversation and to signpost further work on the road ahead. Deloitte worked out its figure of £1·5 billion on a crude comparison between public expenditure on social and economic needs in Northern Ireland and that of Wales. On a policy-by-policy area, the individual analysis did not add up to £1·5 billion. The report was good at identifying the direct costs of dealing with a divided society and the opportunity costs in lost investment and tourism. However, it was weaker in calculating the costs associated with the duplication of goods, facilities and services, and the cost pressures that build up from divisions.

No one will argue that £1 billion can be released in one spending round or across several rounds. The distortions may well take a generation to be unravelled fully, but it is critical that we make a start, and it is critical that we do so today. Considering the enormity of the current economic and financial pressures, that start needs to be within the current Budget framework as well as within the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

I want to highlight a few examples of where work can begin. Over the next two years, the Northern Ireland Executive have to produce another £123 million in efficiency savings. It may be tempting for the Executive to use the additional £116 million that they will receive as consequentials of the Barnett formula arising out of last month’s Budget. However, those additional resources are supposed to be used for boosting our economy through investing in training and employment, the green economy and social housing. The Alliance Party believes that the Executive now have the opportunity to seek to address that £123 million in efficiency savings by beginning to address the cost of division.

Next week, the Alliance Party will publish its own paper on how savings can be generated by tackling division and segregation in our society. It will not be easy, and, at times, we will have to invest in order to save. We will have to invest in new shared services and facilities before we can wind up the old ways of doing things, but, again, we must make a start. It may not be a case merely of cutting out expenditure, but of addressing the underlying cost pressures that many Departments and agencies are facing up to.

The biggest cost pressure arising from duplication arises in education. Northern Ireland pays a premium of as much as £300 million each year to have a sector-based education system. No one is suggesting that we move to a one-size-fits-all system, but difficult decisions will have to be made with respect to the rationalisation of the school estate. Sharing and collaboration between schools and sectors will have to be pursued more rigorously. Integrated education should be viewed at the apex of a range of options for sharing rather than, as now, as a further fragmentation of an already fragmented system. Integrated education is the financially sustainable way forward for schools.

Issues of duplication must be faced up to by the Departments of Health, Social Development and Employment and Learning. With regard to pressures on Departments’ cost environments, DSD faces problems with dealing with the inefficiencies of a segregated social housing system and the opportunity costs of blighted land. DETI faces pressures in having to invest in selective financial assistance which is disproportionate with those of neighbouring jurisdictions in order to attract inward investment.

The Alliance Party recognises that a significant element of the cost of division that was identified by the Deloitte report comes from policing and justice. There are perfectly rational reasons for that, given the present circumstances. In the longer term, however, those differentials will have to be narrowed, in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. At the moment, additional cost pressures will first have be met and addressed as we move — I hope — to a devolved system.

The SDLP amendment deletes the motion’s reference to addressing the “direct and embedded” costs of division. Although the amendment mentions investment in new shared facilities, which we welcome, it ducks the structural problems that exist in the system at present. That issue was not addressed in the SDLP’s recent discussion document, in which that party claimed that a potential £400 million of new money could be found. Therefore, I am not sure exactly what that party hopes to achieve, but I will be interested to hear what its Members have to say.

I urge the Assembly to support the motion, which deals with an extremely serious topic. Northern Ireland can no longer afford to live with the current distortion of public expenditure, and we must make a start on sorting that out.

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

I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “Executive” and insert

“to ensure that the opportunity to provide shared and integrated goods, services and facilities is fully realised to promote a shared and better future; calls on the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to revise the Programme for Government to take account of these matters and to publish without further delay the strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration; and further calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to revise the Budget accordingly.”

I welcome the attendance of junior Minister Donaldson. The cost of division cannot be measured solely in social and economic terms. As we in Northern Ireland know only too well, the cost of division has been lost and broken lives, so building a shared and better future for all our people must be a priority for the Assembly and its Executive. Indeed, the Programme for Government 2008-2011 states:

“Working together we can build a shared and better future for all — a society which is at ease with itself and where everyone shares and enjoys the benefits of this new opportunity. This is our commitment to you.”

Two years on from the restoration of devolution, how have the Executive measured up? The Deloitte report on the cost of division was effectively binned by Sinn Féin, whose Members refused to allow it to be discussed at the OFMDFM Committee for the flimsiest of excuses — that it was commissioned under direct rule and, therefore, has no standing today. The lifetime opport­unities strategy was adopted somewhat belatedly by OFMDFM in December 2008, after several months of rubbishing it. Despite the existence of their eight special advisers, neither the DUP nor Sinn Féin could come up with any new creative thinking, so the strategy was adopted.

In proposing the motion, Dr Farry outlined the costs of division, and those segregation costs are huge. Opportunities have been lost. The Deloitte report stated that the financial cost of what was described as a “major structural problem” was almost £1 billion. The SDLP amendment calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to revise the Budget and the Programme for Government, not only to look at the cost of division in building a shared and better future, but to take account of the global economic constraints and financial difficulties that we all face.

Elsewhere, Governments are bringing forward emergency Budgets and revised Programmes for Government, but not this Executive. The Finance Minister obstinately refuses to bring forward a new Budget or to have a debate on the Programme for Government, which was developed in very different economic circumstances to those in which we are living.

We already know the fate of the land sales upon which much of the Budget was predicated. We also know that Workplace 2010 has been put on hold, if not binned. Therefore, the financial circumstances are quite different now. It is right that a Budget should be revisited and a new Programme for Government developed at a time when the health, education and housing budgets are under pressure to meet the needs of those who are most disadvantaged and marginalised in our community.

Dr Farry spoke about the cost of division in respect of education, and he mentioned integrated education in particular. Although integrated education has its supporters, any suggestion that it might cure all ills is either touchingly naive or indicates a lack of ideas. Teaching our children that we should not hate one community because it is seen to come from the other side and that we should not be sectarian does not fall only on the shoulders of teachers; it is a parental responsibility. Education starts in the home and must be continued throughout the community and society.

Tackling the root cause of division — sectarianism — needs leadership from the top. At different times over the past two years, we have been told by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that it would be bringing forward a strategy on cohesion, sharing and integration. In late 2008, junior Minister Kelly told the House that such a strategy would be brought forward before the Halloween recess, but that did not happen. Perhaps junior Minister Donaldson will have better news for us today. We have been told that it will be published shortly, it is on the timetable and the shared and better future strategy is in the Programme for Government, but we are not being told how it will be delivered.

The SDLP amendment calls for leadership, a revised Budget, and for the Executive to give that leadership in publishing the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy. We are told that that strategy not only deals with sectarianism but with all forms of hate crime, and race crime in particular. In Belfast in recent weeks, we have seen the outworkings of those who attack people who have come to Northern Ireland to build a better future for their families. Many of those families have had their windows broken and have been forced out of some areas. Surely we all want to condemn and tackle such activities.

The SDLP’s Minister, Margaret Ritchie, has stated on every occasion on which she has had the opportunity that it is the SDLP’s desire, and her mission, to tackle and improve living conditions for all and, in particular, to build a better and shared future through shared housing and through the means at her disposal in the community and voluntary unit. One can contrast only what Margaret Ritchie has said and done with what has been said by junior Minister Kelly and by the First Minister and deputy first Minister: very fine words but very little action.

I will refer to another Margaret, one who is not often praised — if ever — by members of the nationalist community. Margaret Thatcher once said:

“If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.”

Perhaps that is the critical difference between Margaret Ritchie and other members of the Executive. [Interruption.]

Listen to the words; do not shoot the messenger. Perhaps that is a message that Sinn Féin and others would do well to listen to. Just because someone for whom they have little regard or respect delivers a message does not make that message any less valid. Margaret Ritchie has shown that she is able to tackle the SDLP’s aspirations in working for a better society and community for all.

I am somewhat disappointed by the attendance across the Chamber. No doubt those Members are engaged in other activities, perhaps promoting a message for the European election. I have carefully read the messages that some parties are publishing in their election literature: we will fight for the unionist people; we are going to Europe for a unionist voice. I am telling Members that the SDLP will go to Europe for all the people of Northern Ireland because when the party is in Europe, everybody wins.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht inniu.

I welcome the debate because it is about time that we had a conversation in the Chamber about the division of Ireland. The Deloitte report refers to costs incurred due to the unnecessary provision of services for communities that live side by side but do not integrate. What about the cost of dividing our country? What about the cost of duplicating almost every public service on a small island containing fewer than seven million people? What about the cost of running two health services? What about the cost of running two education systems? What about the cost of running two police services?

What about the human cost to cancer patients in the South’s border counties who have to make daily trips to Dublin because the cruelty of partition prevents them from receiving treatment a few miles up the road in the North? What about the victim of domestic violence in Letterkenny who was unable to get a bed in her local refuge and was prevented from accessing one in Derry because a legal anomaly of partition meant that her ex-partner could prevent her from crossing what is called the border? Those are the real costs of division in Ireland.

The Alliance Party calls on the Executive to ensure that the potential to address both the direct and embedded cost of division is fully realised in the current and future spending frameworks. I ask the Alliance Party to clarify whether it recognises the cost of partition as one of those embedded costs of division that need to be dealt with.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Although I do not recognise the relevance of what the Member is saying in the context of the debate, I assure her that my party has always been clear in recognising that the division of Ireland creates inefficiencies in social and economic issues. That is why there are North/South structures in place, which are trying to find solutions that meet the needs of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Does the Member accept that even if there were a united Ireland, there would still be a divided society in what we call Northern Ireland and what she calls the Six Counties, and that there would still be the need for a community relations policy to deal with divisions between people of different identities?

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It is typical of you to say that you do not recognise the relevance of what I am saying. Indeed, the nationalist and republican people believe that you do not care about their views. Perhaps you do not recognise the division that was carefully fostered by an alien Government either.

Although we support partition being resolved, we do not believe that the Deloitte report will assist in that. The report on the cost of division, referred to in the motion, was commissioned under direct rule. It is not an OFMDFM report — it is a Peter Hain report — and in 2007, OFMDFM said that it would:

“not form the basis of future policy development”. [Official Report, Bound Volume 25, pWA189, col 2].

The Deloitte report is everything that it was expected to be. It was commissioned as part of a calculated campaign to dilute the equality agenda, which is something to which the Alliance Party seldom refers. The people responsible for delivering equality have attempted to frustrate, delay and, ultimately, overturn it. The report was designed to elevate community relations to a position above the Government’s primary obligation to fulfil its equality agenda, and its conclusions were expected to validate the Northern Ireland Office’s flawed policy document, ‘A Shared Future’. We all want a shared and better future that is based on equality and human rights.

The Deloitte report was aimed at framing future policy on a different basis than is set out in the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews review and enshrined in law. The report fails in every way. It fails to disentangle any cost of division from the cost of the conflict or the cost of partition, discrimination and disadvantage. The report’s claim that division costs up to £1·5 billion simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, even the authors of the report admit that they cannot stand over that final figure. Partition costs more than £3 billion if one counts the costs of duplicating all the services that I have mentioned.

The report’s political commentary is partisan throughout and fails to acknowledge the British state’s role as central protagonist in the conflict. It refuses to acknowledge that, for generations, structural discrim­ination and inequality were the benchmarks against which Government policy was framed and administered by British direct rule and unionist elites. However, that is the part of the motion that the SDLP seeks to retain along with the call for a revised Programme for Government and Budget.

To start off by calling for such a revision in the context of a flawed report is wrong-headed, and, therefore, Sinn Féin will not support the amendment. Mrs Kelly, who moved the amendment, called on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to revise the Budget because it was predicated on receipts from land sales. However, the leader of the SDLP, Mark Durkan, when he spoke about the £400 million that could be redistributed among Executive Ministers, said that there should be land sales to raise that sum. Sinn Féin will not support the motion or the amendment.

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

Will the Member please bring her remarks to a close?

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat.

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

Question Time will commence at 2.30 pm. I suggest that Members take their ease until that time. This debate will continue after Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

office of the first minister and deputy first minister

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what steps it has taken to secure childcare places provided by Playboard. (AQO 2586/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We recognise the importance of good childcare provision and have been working closely with other Departments to seek a long-term resolution to the current difficulties. In the interim, we intend to seek Executive approval for the reallocation of OFMDFM resources in the June monitoring round. Subject to Executive agreement, we will provide funding to Playboard to allow after-school clubs to continue to operate until August 2009.

The ministerial subcommittee on children and young people identified childcare as an urgent priority and established a cross-departmental subgroup to produce a report that will identify options for further provision to the ministerial subcommittee. The initial report of the subgroup will be presented to relevant Ministers shortly. Continued funding for the Playboard projects is an interim approach pending a longer-term outcome from the work of the subgroup.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the deputy First Minister for his useful answer. I take on board the facts that initial funding is available to secure some childcare places in 2009, that that is only an interim arrangement and that there will be further options.

The deputy First Minister mentioned the issue of the availability of affordable childcare places. Does he agree that, were those places to be made available, they would have a major impact on addressing child poverty? Go raibh maith agat.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation commissioned research to examine the issues of childcare and child poverty. Although it is not a simple matter to project the effect that childcare improvements could have on reducing child poverty, the data suggest that childcare reforms could play a useful role in moving a substantial number of children out of poverty. The upper-bound estimates suggest that childcare reforms could lift out of poverty as many as half of the children who are in it today. The lower-bound estimates suggest that childcare reforms could move out of poverty one sixth of the children in it.

Those estimates are based on the current British model of childcare, which is more advanced than ours. Therefore, the reforms might have an even greater impact here. Combating child poverty is a complex undertaking, and childcare is only one of many essential elements in an anti-poverty strategy. However, we agree that it is critically important.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Has the level of investment that is needed for the number of childcare places that are required been assessed, and what plans does OFMDFM have to meet those needs? I was disappointed to hear the deputy First Minister’s reply that the ministerial subgroup report will be presented shortly. I want to know a definite date for that.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I stated, we intend to seek Executive approval for the reallocation of OFMDFM resources in the June monitoring round. Subject to Executive agreement, we will provide funding to Playboard to allow after-schools clubs to continue to operate until August 2009. Obviously, work is ongoing to identify whether further moneys will be available. We are very committed to doing whatever we can to deal with the issue, because Playboard does important work for the development of children and young people’s play here.

Since Playboard’s inception in 1985, it has campaigned, lobbied, raised awareness and developed partnerships to put play on the agenda of policy makers and resource providers. Therefore, Playboard has particular expertise in the provision of play and childcare for school-age children.

At present, Playboard funds 52 after-schools projects, 23 of which are in areas classified as rural. The remaining 29 projects are in urban areas. Seventeen of the projects are based in neighbourhood renewal areas. The projects are capable of offering 1,300 registered places, and, therefore, they account for 20% of the provision of after-school club places here. A total of 196 staff are employed in those projects.

The play and leisure policy, which received Executive approval at the end of 2008, will help to deliver the aims of the 10-year strategy for children and young people. Our aim is to improve the play and leisure provision for all children and young people of nought-to-18 years of age. We are drafting the implementation plans. In doing so, we work closely with our many partners in the voluntary and community sector and the statutory sector, and we draw on their expertise and experience in the field.

In recognition of the diverse needs of different age groups, we plan to implement separate plans for nought- to 11-year-olds and 12- to 18-year-olds. Work on those plans has just begun, with a view to the implementation plans being agreed by autumn 2009. The development of the plans will inform the future level of required funding. All that will have to be studied before any decisions can be taken.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The funding for PlayBoard is a short-term measure. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must work with the Department of Education to resolve the issue of funding for after-school activities for school-age children. Has any progress been made on that issue?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The ministerial subcommittee on children and young people has carried out work that is a vital part of facing up to the issues that the Member identified. In September 2008, at a meeting of that subcommittee, it was agreed to undertake a specific exercise to consider the potential for increasing childcare provision. It was further agreed that such work should be linked to that of the subgroup on child poverty. A report that identifies various options has been submitted to the ministerial subcommittee, and I understand that a meeting of relevant Ministers has been arranged for 28 May 2009 to discuss it.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what discussions it has had with the Minister of Education in relation to a possible failure to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office. (AQO 2587/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No such discussions have taken place, as there is no acceptance of a breach of the Pledge of Office. The Member will be aware that, if he genuinely believes that a failure to observe the terms of the Pledge of Office has occurred, it is open to him to seek the support of at least 29 other Members in tabling a motion to be considered and resolved by the Assembly.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the deputy First Minister not agree that the Minister of Education has failed to adhere to the Pledge of Office, which requires her: “to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly”?

Specifically, the Assembly passed an Ulster Unionist Party motion on the extension of the 11-plus for three years until a replacement could be introduced. Does the deputy First Minister not agree that the Minister’s failure to support that motion constitutes a breach of the Pledge of Office?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I made clear in my answer, I do not consider that the Minister of Education has breached the Pledge of Office.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline the Executive’s consideration of any proposals by the Minister of Education on post-primary transfer?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is a matter of public record that, at a meeting of the Executive on 17 January 2008, the Minister of Education submitted a draft Executive paper on post-primary transfer arrangements. It was agreed to defer the consideration of that paper and schedule a dedicated meeting of the Executive to address it. The arrangements for the Executive’s consideration of the paper were raised at a number of subsequent meetings. The Minister of Education submitted a draft Executive paper on post-primary transfer reform to a meeting of the Executive on 15 May 2008, at which there was a detailed discussion of a process that could be put in place to consider that paper. However, the Executive did not consider the content of the paper.

On 27 January 2009, the Minister of Education circulated a draft Executive paper on the arrangements for post-primary transfer, but it was not discussed at an Executive meeting on 29 January 2009. On 2 February 2009, the Minister of Education made a statement to the Assembly, in which she announced that guidelines for post-primary would be out for public consultation until 27 April 2009. We await the Minister’s response to that consultation, which has now ended. The Assembly will, undoubtedly, hear her views shortly.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister if it has had any discussions with the Northern Ireland Childminding Association in relation to its initiative to provide childcare. (AQO 2588/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As part of work that was commissioned by the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people on the future of childcare provision, the head of research in OFMDFM and the director of the Northern Ireland Childminding Association have met on two occasions. They discussed the work of the association and the relevance of its research to the development of future policy. Those meetings proved helpful in highlighting issues that are of concern to the association, including, as highlighted by its research, the falling numbers of childminders, workforce planning and professionalism. The ministerial subcommittee on children and young people will be considering those issues at its next meeting, as it takes forward work on child-minding. As I have said, that meeting will take place on 28 May.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his response. Obviously, the issues that the Northern Ireland Childminding Association has brought to the attention of the First Minister and deputy First Minister have been acknowledged. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the childminder start-up package is vitally important to provide extra childcare facilities with childminders who have public-liability insurance and a first-aid certificate? Does he agree that that there must be a promotion and recruitment campaign, more accessible training opportunities, and, therefore, more childminders?

Can the deputy First Minister assure the Assembly that all those issues will be taken on board in the meetings that are taking place? Does he agree that the Northern Ireland Childminding Association needs to be commended for its initiative?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I agree with the Member, and I commend the child-minding group. It is not for me to pre-empt the decision of the Executive. However, the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people is aware of the potential of the proposal to improve the situation, and will be considering how best to support its objectives of improving access to child-minding services. The association’s literature on the subject does not include a figure. However, it suggests that there needs to be five childminder advisers, the administrative support necessary for the provision of start-up grants to new childminders, and the promotion of that initiative. The association proposed that each start-up grant be £400. Potentially, depending on the cost of the advisers and administrative support, that could add around 350 childminders to the association’s existing pool of 3,500 members.

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

I want to push the Minister a bit further. He said that there is meant to be a report to the subcommittee by 28 May. Can he say definitively when the subcommittee will conclude its deliberations, when Ministers will take decisions, and when the Executive will sign off on whatever proposals might be forthcoming? Mr Shannon made some very good points about the NICMA’s proposals. If the deputy First Minister has not had the opportunity to read that association’s documentation, I ask him to do so. Its budget line of £300,000 a year for three years would create many new child-minding places at a time when there is a severe reduction in places.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am very sympathetic to the case put by the Member. The ministerial subcommittee on children and young people has tasked the child poverty subgroup with producing a paper outlining the historical policy context and research evidence, and to set out a range of policy options on the delivery of childcare provision.

The working group met periodically between November 2008 and March 2009. Its terms of reference for a strategic business case on childcare were to set out the background of childcare; to set out the key strategic policies and how they relate to the childcare agenda; to establish the need for childcare provision; to define objectives for future childcare provision and set out any constraints; to identify a suitable range of policy options on the delivery of childcare provision; to assess the monetary costs and benefits of each shortlisted option; to assess the risks associated with each shortlisted option; to weigh up any non-monetary costs and benefits; to assess the balance between options and present the prepared option; and to consider the arrangements for funding, management, monitoring and post-implementation evaluation.

As the Member indicated, a paper on the background of strategic policy, the needs and objectives for childcare provision, and a range of policy options for the delivery of childcare provision will be considered at the ministerial subcommittee’s next meeting.

That will happen on 28 May, and we will be as anxious as anyone else to see the issue progressed in a fashion that will please the Childminding Association.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Does the deputy First Minister accept that, although some welcome action has been taken on the support of childcare facilities, the general lack of sufficient childcare facilities seriously hampers mothers who are seeking employment and who wish to get back to work? Does he agree that the matter, therefore, embraces issues of equality and anti-poverty?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I concede that we must all do more and that the challenges are obvious. Through the establishment of the Executive ministerial committee and the subgroup, we have shown that we are seriously tackling those issues, which are a concern to the community. It is vital that we liberate people in households to ensure that they can access employment, particularly during the economic downturn. I agree with the Member; there are huge challenges. We can do more, and we are striving to do more. We will see what the discussions on 28 May produce.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Agus ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire.

I thank the Minister for his answers, and I thank Members, including my colleague Sue Ramsey and also Mr Shannon, for the focus that they have placed on childcare provision.

Can the deputy First Minister clear up exactly where after-school provision fits into the equation? I know that the meeting on 28 May will look at the general issues, but organisations such as the Camowen Partnership in mid-Tyrone, which has excellent provision in Carrickmore, Sixmilecross and Loughmacrory, are anxious and uncertain about their future and are not sure where they fit in. Should they turn to DARD, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Education or the Department for Employment and Learning? Therefore, OFMDFM is challenged to provide an answer about who is responsible for provision.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that that group will be very pleased to have been mentioned on the Floor of the Assembly.

I have no doubt that the discussions on 28 May will deal with all those issues. There has been an historical context to the issue, and, in many ways, people could allege that there has been a great deal of buck passing. The challenge for the subgroup and the Executive subcommittee is to remove any ambiguity about which Department will deal with that important area in future.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what discussions it has had with the Minister of the Environment in relation to a possible failure to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office. (AQO 2589/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I refer the Member to the answer that I gave earlier to the Member for South Down Mr McCallister. My comments then are equally applicable to this question.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Do the deputy First Minister’s views on climate change most closely resemble those of the Minister of the Environment? Furthermore, is he satisfied that his Department has taken all reasonable steps —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The convention in the House has been that — as far as possible — a Member should not read out a supplementary question.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Is the deputy First Minister satisfied that his Department has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the commitments of the Programme for Government are being met by the Department of the Environment?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The issue of breaching the ministerial code has been raised in the past. The First Minister and I have no power to determine whether the ministerial code has been breached. It is open to Members, including the Member who asked the question, to move a motion on the grounds that a Minister has failed to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office. Such a motion can be brought to exclude a Minister from office, to reduce a Minister’s salary or to censure a Minister. It is for the Assembly to consider and, where it agrees, to pass a resolution.

That is the only way to deal the matter. Breaches of the ministerial code, which is a statutory document, could also be determined as a matter of law.

My attitude on the causes of climate change is probably more in tune with the First Minister’s than it is with the Minister of the Environment’s. However, the Environment Minister is entitled to his opinion and to express it. He has expressed his opinion on climate change, and queries about that opinion should be taken up with him. He is responsible for climate change policy. His Department has established the Climate Change Impacts Partnership with business, non-governmental organisations, the voluntary sector and other parts of Government, and it continues to work with other Administrations to inform public policy.

Therefore, although people contemplate citing the Environment Minister’s view that stronger evidence of climate change must be established, it is clear that the commitments, actions and targets to tackle the problem of climate change in the Programme for Government are supported by all Departments, including the Department of the Environment.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The deputy First Minister has already answered part of my question. Will he clarify the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s powers and, indeed, procedures relating to perceived breaches of the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have made it clear that the power to sanction or deal with any Minister whom the Assembly believes to have breached the ministerial code resides in the House. On that matter, the House is all powerful. Every Member knows and understands the procedure that must be carried out: principally, that any Member who seeks to exclude or sanction a Minister must have the support of 29 other Members in order to bring the matter to the Floor of the House for debate, discussion and decision. That is the process. It is the Assembly, and not the Executive, that is all powerful in that regard.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail any discussions it has had in relation to the definition of a “victim of the troubles”. (AQO 2592/09)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As we stated in 2008, during the debate on the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill, it is our intention that any alteration to the legislative definition of a victim should be discussed by victims and survivors first. They will be able to do so in the victims’ forum when it is established. That remains our intention. We understand that the Commission for Victims and Survivors is developing its work on the establishment of the forum and should be in a position to say more about it soon.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. However, will he confirm that he disagrees with my party’s position that combatants and terrorists, whether they are traitors or not, cannot be treated in the same way as real victims? Has he reached a joint decision on the matter with the First Minister?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I are in agreement on the next step regarding victims. When the victims’ forum, which will be made up of relevant people, is established it will have its own discussion on the matter and will, undoubtedly, inform us of the outcome of its deliberations. It will then be a matter for the First Minister and me to consider that outcome.

I understand that, there is risk and danger that political parties will attempt to use victims for political point scoring over one another, particularly in the context of an upcoming election. That is a big mistake; it does a grave disservice to all victims, and it does nothing to allay people’s concerns about what is laid out in legislation. Of course, it is based on clear legislation that was put in place by direct rule Ministers.

The establishment of the victims’ commissioners has created a changing and evolving situation. Those people are charged with the responsibility to carry out important work on behalf of victims, and they are doing an excellent job at the moment. Part of their work is to establish a victims’ forum, which the Department has asked to offer its views on the matter that the Member raised. Thereafter, we will consider those views and attempt to take the process forward.

I challenge everybody in the House to recognise the importance of not using the issue as a political football. We all know and understand that there is a lot of hurt on all sides of the community. Nearly 4,000 people lost their lives in the conflict. They came from all sections of the community — the British Army, the IRA, loyalist groups and innocent civilians. Any attempt to create a circumstance that further exacerbates existing difficulties is a big mistake.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response, which has, to some extent, answered my question. Does he agree that those who lost loved ones, or were injured, in the conflict share the same sense of loss and pain regardless of the circumstances? Go raibh maith agat.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Every person who was lost as a result of the conflict represented a huge loss to their family and created huge pain and trauma for those families. All those families suffered. Regardless of what label people attempt to place on them, that fact is that all those people were hurt.

For example, Gerard Donaghy was a member of the junior IRA, Fianna Éireann, who was murdered on Bloody Sunday by the British Parachute Regiment. Where does he fit into the process? I use him as only one example. Did his family even know that he was a member of the junior IRA? He was very young at the time. Do we tell those people that they will not be treated with respect and that they are regarded as not worthy? This process represents a real challenge for us all.

At the weekend, Mickey Bradley, who was shot by the British Army on Bloody Sunday, died suddenly. He lived all his life with pain and disability, hobbling around the streets of Derry on crutches and sticks. For a long time, he campaigned for justice for those who lost their lives. His approach included the fact that Gerard Donaghy, along with all the other people who lost their lives, was an innocent marcher on the day. This is a difficult issue, and there is a lot of pain out there. We must be sensible about how we go forward. I appeal to people not to use the issue, particularly in the context of an election, as a point-scoring exercise, because that does a grave disservice to all victims.

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

I notice that the deputy First Minister used very selective examples of victims. People outside the Chamber are listening carefully to what he has to say on this matter, none less than the families of Patsy Gillespie and Frank O’Hegarty. One of them was made into a human bomb, and the other was promised a safe passage on his return to Derry only to be found dead within a short time frame, much to the regret of his mother and father.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must ask a question.

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

The First Minister and deputy First Minister are determined that the forum, once it is established, will provide the definition of “victim”. If that is the case, and if they are determined that the issue will not become a political football, why is the DUP introducing amending legislation on the definition of “victim”?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Before the Member contemplates asking another question on such matters, she should get her facts right. Some of her “facts” are absolutely wrong. Before she asks a question, she needs to know what she is talking about. What she has said is totally wrong.

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

It is in the election literature.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No; she obviously read those stories in newspapers. However, the reality is that she is wrong. I selected Gerard Donaghy as an example because the Ulster Unionist Party asked whether someone such as him — someone who was marching with citizens on the streets of Derry and who was shot dead by the British Army — should be considered an innocent victim.

The decision on the outcome of the work of the forum will fall to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. We will obviously have to and are quite willing to listen to views expressed by the members of the forum. However, the final decision will be taken by us, and, I hope, it will be taken in agreement.

environment

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment what correspondence he has had with Friends of the Earth and other environmental NGOs, and if he has any plans to meet with them. (AQO 2606/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have corresponded with Friends of the Earth on one occasion since I came into office. The subject of that correspondence was human rights issues and third-party rights of appeal in connection with my Department’s planning reform proposals. I have no plans to meet representatives of Friends of the Earth. I have also corresponded with a number of other NGOs that represent the environment and heritage sectors. I have met some of those organisations and have attended many events to which I have been invited. I currently have meetings planned with the Quarry Products Association, the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the RSPB, and Northern Ireland Environment Link. I will be happy to provide a breakdown of that information should the Member wish to see it.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas don Aire as a fhreagra. I wonder whether the Minister might think it useful to meet groups such as Friends of the Earth about his position, which he has stated with much confidence. I am sure that that group would perhaps help to enlighten him. Perhaps at the end of that meeting — we never know — they could call themselves “Friends of Sammy Wilson”. Last week, I heard the First Minister respond to a question on climate change. Perhaps the Minister should meet the First Minister, who might give him some ideas on climate change.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Friends of the Earth has never asked to meet me. It has written to me on one occasion, and I replied. However, I held a reception for NGOs at Stormont, which went down very well with about 30 different groups that attended. However, I was snubbed by Friends of the Earth. That group was invited but refused to attend. If the Member is so concerned about my meeting Friends of the Earth, my door is always open. I have even invited that group to sup with me in this Building, but it refused to do so. Therefore, if we have not had an exchange of views, it has only itself to blame.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has referred to some of the events that he has hosted for NGOs. Although Friends of the Earth did not turn up to those events, could the Minister detail to the House the purpose of those events and what came out of them?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The purpose of the event to which I invited Friends of the Earth and other NGOs was simply to meet them and to explain the work, issues and challenges that the Department faces. That was a very profitable meeting, which took place at the beginning of my period as Minister. As a result, I received many invitations to meet NGOs on site and to see the work that they are doing.

If the Speaker would indulge me, I could go through the scores of opportunities that I have had to meet on site with NGOs. However, I am not going to do that, because I realise that a lot of Members want to ask questions. Only last week I was in the Member for Foyle’s constituency with one of the NGOs to plant a tree as part of work that the Woodland Trust is doing at Ervey Wood.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Did you hug it?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I did not hug the tree, but I dug the hole for it and I planted it. I will go back to ensure that it is growing well. That was a very interesting experience, because the Woodland Trust has been given a substantial sum of money from the Department to purchase land to extend the forest, and it is now in line to obtain a huge lottery grant, which will, I hope, enable the whole of the Faughan Valley eventually to be planted with woodland species. That will help towards achieving the target of increasing biodiversity and extending woodland cover in Northern Ireland.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister list the NGOs he has met that support his views on climate change?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am amazed at the obsession that people in the Assembly have with climate change. When I meet the RSPB, the Mourne Heritage Trust, the Woodland Trust or the Ulster Wildlife Trust, I speak to them about the work that is important to them. I do not seek to impose my views on climate change on those groups, and I do not find that they share some Members’ obsession with climate change. The groups want to speak to me about the practical projects that they are undertaking on the ground and of which they are, quite rightly, proud.

On all occasions I have found the meetings to be very instructive and the people I have met to be very courteous in the way in which they have received me. I see how much good work is being done by many of those groups, supported, in many instances, by my Department and by other Departments in the Executive.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the current level of human resources in the Planning Service. (AQO 2607/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The agency has 867 staff, of whom 489 are professional planners, and there are 63 vacancies. The economic downturn has resulted in reductions in the number of planning applications and income to the Planning Service. The agency continues to closely monitor its staffing in relation to its workload.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for a very interesting response. I declare that, although other Members have been reported as having an obsession with the Minister, I am not one of them.

The Minister advised me in January that work on a character study for the Sandy Bay area of Larne had been shelved because of competing priorities and resource problems. Given the downturn in the number of planning applications that divisional planning offices have to process at the moment and the continuing threats to the character of that area of Larne, will the Minister redeploy staff and instruct his officials to finalise that study and use it to inform decisions on the ground?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before the Minister speaks, I must say to Members — it has been the case at Question Time for some time — that they should not read out supplementary questions. If it happens in the future, I intend to move on.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not read out the answer in case you give me the same instructions, Mr Speaker. First, although there has been an economic downturn, the Planning Service is committed to doing a number of things: reducing processing times, which, of course, requires more staff; and reducing the backlog of planning applications, which stood at around 18,000 and has been reduced to around 14,000, although I could be corrected on that. Of course, there are other competing priorities, including work on planning policy statements, area plans, etc.

I will bear in mind what the Member has said. I recall that I made a commitment that we would try to resolve some of those issues, and we will see what can be done. Given the economic downturn, I have left a large number of vacancies unfilled, because it is important to live within the budget that has been allocated to the Department. The economic downturn could cost the Planning Service up to £7·7 million, which would create a huge hole in the resources available.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that the “Friends of Sammy Wilson” will not be another NGO that we have to look forward to.

In light of the media speculation last week about a 20% increase in fees for planning applications, is it not appropriate to redirect some staff? I know that we have to try to keep the skilled and experienced staff who work in the Planning Service. However, in the light of the proposed increases over the next couple of weeks, will there be any opportunities to redirect staff to areas of the Department where there are gaps, such as enforcement and area planning or where junior case officers are currently being employed? Go raibh maith agat.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Members from all sides of the House ask me why staff are not being used for all sorts of purposes, but I will address some of the issues that the Member mentioned. He has lobbied me, for example, to ensure that PPS 21 applications are processed. In that instance, there was a huge backlog of approximately 1,800 planning applications to deal with, and resources had to go into that. Other Members have lobbied me about the backlog of general applications in some divisional offices, of which Craigavon is a good example. We put extra resources into those divisional offices and brought the backlog down very quickly in response to the issues that the Member mentioned.

We are currently unable to carry out strategic environmental assessments because of challenges that have been made against area plans. Planning will have to be devolved to councils before we have a mechanism that allows us to proceed with judicial reviews. Given the challenges to area plans, work on them, although it may be useful, may not be the best use of resources. We are targeting additional resources at enforcement, at reducing the backlog of applications and at meeting the Programme for Government requirements for processing times, and we are making good progress on those fronts. The Planning Service moves resources around when matters have to be addressed, and, when it does so, it has proved that it can get results.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Service delivery is a theme that has been raised today. Will the Minister assure me that the Planning Service is taking positive action to ensure that staffing shortfalls do not affect service delivery?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is exactly what we have been doing. There has been some criticism, but one reason that we increased planning fees was to ensure that resources are available to us.

I will take this opportunity to assure the House about those increases, because some Members have been unfairly critical. The Department has looked for efficiencies, such as reducing overtime and leaving vacancies in promotion programmes. It has also sought, through the first increase in planning fees for four years, to obtain additional resources. All that is designed to ensure that we have a Planning Service that can deliver on planning applications, which are essential for economic growth in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, as several concerned Members said, we must ensure that we do not hand over to councils, if we get to that point in 2011, a Planning Service that is under-resourced.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Ford is not in his place to ask question 3.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment what proposals he will bring forward to expedite planning enforcement procedures, particularly where residents have to suffer detrimental circumstances while an issue is being addressed over a lengthy period. (AQO 2609/09

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have no plans at present to introduce new legislative procedures on enforcement. In 2003 and 2006, changes to legislation introduced new powers and strengthened the Depart­ment’s existing enforcement powers in line with the remainder of the UK. New measures included increases in the level of fines for offences; the ability to serve a breach-of-condition notice to streamline enforcement procedures for breaches of conditions; and temporary stand-alone stop powers to halt a breach of planning control for up to 28 days as soon as a breach is identified without first having to issue an enforcement notice. However, enforcement by its very nature can often be a lengthy and complex process. Although the Planning Service can work to internal timescales, it is largely at the final stages that delays occur. It is largely outside the control of the Department because, when there is an appeal against an enforcement notice, the timescale for the hearing of the appeal and reporting on it might be lengthy. That is an issue for the Planning Appeals Commission, not the Planning Service. Similarly, when court action has been taken, the Department depends on the courts to bring cases forward and make judgements on them.

The current legislation does not allow offenders to reopen arguments in court on the planning merits of the case. When those arguments have been dealt with by an enforcement appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission and when an appeal is pending, it is not possible to proceed with summons action.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his very thorough answer. I understand that he is bringing forward planning reform proposals. Will he consider making it a criminal offence for people to proceed with a development before receiving planning permission to do so?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am glad that the Member has raised the issue. I would love to have the planning reform proposals out in the open. Had I been able to do that, I think that she would have been pleasantly surprised.

I will give away some secrets. One of the planning reform proposals is to consult about the criminalisation of breaches of planning applications. It is one thing for people to take a chance, but, if they think that they are going to get a criminal record, they may not take that chance.

In certain circumstances, criminalisation will not apply; rather, it will depend on how serious the breach was. That is one of the proposals that is coming forward in the planning reform. Once the party opposite finally gets its head round those proposals, they can then go out for consultation. The information that I am getting from all those involved in the planning process — applicants, objectors and various groups — is that they wish to see those proposals out for consultation and implemented as quickly as possible.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Is the Minister aware of the perception among the general public that planning enforcement in Northern Ireland is weak and inconsistently applied? Will he assure the House that the review of the Planning Service will strengthen the powers of the enforcement officers? Finally, has the Minister seen the BBC1 programme ‘The Planners are Coming’, which paints a picture of much stricter enforcement of planning laws in England?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Unlike the Member, I unfortunately do not have the time to sit and watch television, so I have not seen the programme to which he referred. I am sure that since the Member has the time to watch television — I do not know if it is daytime, night-time or what kind of television programme that is — he can inform me what actions are taken by planners.

I am aware that there are criticisms about enforcement. Some of them are occasionally unfair, but I take enforcement seriously. There is no point in having planning laws if people feel that they can breach them with impunity. An enforcement strategy has been drafted and will be published in the near future. I look forward to the response to that.

The strategy will identify revised enforcement priorities so that resources are put into resolving the most serious breaches in which rules and regulations are flouted, and it will limit resources used in pursuing minor breaches, thereby causing no harm to immunity. For example, a high-priority case will involve the demolition of a listed building or a comprised development that may adversely affect or destroy a site of nature conservation. We will, therefore, be seeking ways to establish priorities. However, I repeat the point that I made to the Member for South Belfast Ms Lo: the ineffective part of enforcement is very often when it leaves the hands of the Planning Service. When people make an appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission, enforcement has to stop, of course, for the duration of that appeal. That can take some time, and then it appears as if someone has been able to get away with breaching planning law without any immediate action being taken. Also, if a case goes to court, again, enforcement action has to stop.

Therefore, yes, there are occasions when the Planning Service could, perhaps, be more proactive. However, Members must also understand that the divisional planning offices sometimes feel frustrated, because they cannot make progress when matters are taken out of their hands.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

In that case, will the Minister indicate whether there are priorities for enforcement in the Planning Service?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are priorities at present. Where there is an immediate threat to a building or where there is a development that will have a disproportionate impact on an area, one would expect enforcement officers to act fairly quickly. I have seen instances and Members have drawn instances to my attention in which enforcement action has been quickly taken.

It is a case, first of all, of the planning breach being identified, and, secondly, of deciding what resources are available to deal with it. Breaches can sometimes occur, for example, at holiday times, when it is not immediately possible to bring the Planning Service into the picture and take action. That is one of the reasons why, in my answer to the Member for South Belfast, Ms Lo, I indicated that on such occasions criminalising the offence might be the ultimate deterrent in order that people do not feel that they can chance their arm in a holiday period to get away with a breach of planning control.

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

I urge the Minister to take whatever action is necessary, including criminalisation of those who ride roughshod through planning. I also raise the possibility of third-party appeals, about which people scream at me day and daily. There was a blatant, high-profile case in Newcastle during the summer. I thank my colleague from South Belfast, Ms Lo, for raising the issue of planning enforcement procedures, because day and daily in south Belfast there are planning breaches. The conservation area there has almost become a bit of a joke, because only the decent, honest people observe it. I urge the Minister that not only developers who breach planning controls but architects who draw up false plans in order to get around ―

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to come to the question.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the Minister has got my point.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that I got about three questions out of that, so the Member got good value. The first question I have already answered: the planning reform proposals will contain a proposal to make breach of planning control a criminal offence.

I am not so sure that even the example that the Member gave would have been dealt with by a third-party appeal. However, one thing that I want to achieve through the planning reform proposals is to speed up the planning process, while not losing the accountability and local input that should exist. The planning reform proposals have a better way of getting the views of local people, which is by front-loading the consultation process so that, when a developer goes into a community and before they submit a planning application, they must first show who they have consulted, what they have consulted on, the responses to those consultations and what action they have taken. A lot of controversial development proposals could be defused if all of that was done first of all. Once the planning application is submitted with that type of information, then and only then will it be processed, and it should be processed much more quickly. That is a much better remedy than third-party appeals, which are legalistic, tend to favour those who can spend money on consultants and barristers and do not necessarily give the outcome at the end of the day but only slow the process.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment to give his assessment of the effectiveness of Statutory Rule No.482 Water Abstraction and Impoundment (Licensing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 which came into operation on 1 February 2007. (AQO 2610/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Water Abstraction and Impoundment (Licensing) Regulations provide an effective risk-based authorisation process to control and regulate water abstraction and impoundment activities. That is quite a mouthful.

Since the introduction of the regulations in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has issued licences to control more than 90% of water abstracted from the natural environment. That is making a valuable contribution to the protection of our natural water resources.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but he should be aware that I have tabled a number of questions for written answer on the matter. Will he outline in detail the difference between his Department giving authorisation and his Department issuing a licence for the abstraction of water? Does he have any plans to amend the legislation, as it strikes me that it is toothless?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The regulations are there to meet the water framework directive and the habitats directive. We are considering plans to introduce a charging scheme for the issue of licences, and we are considering who will be subject to the regulations. The regulations will deal with people who abstract large amounts of water from aquifers. Those people will be public and private abstractors who take more than 20 cubic metres of water per day. They will be subject to the regulations, and they will require a licence.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Does the Minister believe that enforcement of the regulations will be effective, and is it being given the appropriate resources? What is the level of compliance with the regulations from the various stakeholders?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I said, more than 90% of people who extract water are controlled by licensing. Therefore, the licensing regime covers the vast majority of people who extract water. When people apply for a licence, we become aware of who is extracting the water and of any breaches of the regulations. If breaches are reported, we can readily identify who is involved and take action accordingly.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Minister accept that, if water extraction were unregulated, it could endanger fish life and other ecosystems and natural habitats that he spoke about, particularly during dry summers?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Some people think that it is just water, but the water framework directive ensures that the examples that the Member outlined are protected. As he pointed out, the extraction of water, especially from aquifers, can have an impact on the environment. The whole idea was to try to ensure that there was no unregulated abstraction to the point where there was damage to the environment.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment what consideration his Department gives to fuel economy and the road tax bracket when purchasing new vehicles. (AQO 2611/09)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

When purchasing new vehicles, my Department considers what vehicles meet the demand of the businesses for which they are required. If several vehicles are identified as being suitable, the Department will consider and take into account, as one would expect, the fuel economy of those vehicles.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but, in a previous answer, he indicated that his Department had 10 vehicles in tax band F, including eight Shogun Sports no less, which are not renowned for their fuel economy. Has the Minister of the Environment set an example by disposing of his own 4x4, which is an environmentally unfriendly vehicle?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am glad that we have got to this question. I was hoping that we would get to it. The Member continually goes on about the vehicles that the Department uses, but, if he had actually thought about his question, he might have considered that it might not have been a wise question to ask. Is the Member really suggesting that the Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, which usually purchases vehicles to take people over rough terrain into mountains to follow river courses, should employ electric cars or solar-powered cars?

The Department uses 4x4 vehicles because they are most suitable for the terrain in which the officers must work. Indeed, when I look across the valley from my house to the Member’s farm, I do not see electric tractors driving up and down the fields. I do not see environmentally friendly, small vehicles. That is because, in order to spray fertiliser on fields and to go through muddy fields, he needs a big, diesel tractor with a huge engine, which emits lots of CO2. Therefore, if Mr Beggs can choose a suitable vehicle for those jobs, my Department is equally entitled to choose a vehicle that is suitable for its purposes. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Finance and personnel

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his assessment of the procurement opportunities for firms in Northern Ireland in relation to contracts associated with the 2012 Olympic Games in London. (AQO 2626/09)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

After the Minister of the Environment’s answers, I am tempted just to say, “Try to follow that”, but I will proceed with the answer to this question.

I visited the Olympic Park site last month to see at first hand the procurement opportunities available to Northern Ireland firms to bid for contracts associated with the London 2012 Olympic Games. Those games give our local companies a tremendous opportunity to bid for valuable contracts.

I met John Armitt, the chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), who confirmed that many opportunities are available from contractors that have already been appointed by the ODA and from its supply chains. I strongly urge all local firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for supply-chain contracts by using the CompeteFor web portal that was launched in Northern Ireland by Invest Northern Ireland.

In addition to bidding for contracts using the CompeteFor service, local companies can use the eSourcing NI tendering system that was launched by my Department’s Central Procurement Directorate. Three Northern Ireland companies have already won work with the ODA, which proves that local firms have the expertise and capability to challenge for and win work beyond Northern Ireland’s shores.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that the Minister agrees that opportunities, some of which he outlined, exist for businesses in Northern Ireland to benefit from any procurement that comes from the 2012 Olympics. Will he tell the House the extent to which Invest Northern Ireland has been involved in promoting procurement opportunities connected with the Olympics?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The CompeteFor web portal was launched by Invest NI, the trade division of which has carried out activities with local companies. In my former capacity as the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I attended a conference in 2008 about work that was being done through Invest Northern Ireland to encourage local companies to investigate Olympics-related procurement opportunities.

Invest Northern Ireland also organised five seminars in October and November 2008 at which training was provided that enabled 96 companies to develop a professional tendering approach for 2012 contracts. I understand that 27 companies were taken to the Olympic Park to receive presentations from main contractors and supply-chain specialists. I know that Invest NI planned to launch a dedicated, Olympics-related page on its website.

Therefore, a lot of work is being done in relation to opportunities available through the Olympic project in London. It is important to ensure our local companies are given whatever support is available so that they can take advantage of that tremendous expenditure.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he inform the House whether indigenous businesses now enjoy more success because of the steps that he and other Ministers have introduced to open up the procurement process? Will he set out some of the details?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I presume that the Member’s question relates to the overall situation, not just the Olympic Games. As he will be aware, work has been done through the procurement task group, which was set up recently and has met regularly. I think that a report will come forward this week at the procurement board meeting. That very significant piece of work has been undertaken by Central Procurement Directorate and by representatives from industry and small and medium-sized enterprises. It has resulted in a great deal of consensus about how procurement should move forward. The Construction Employers Federation and representatives of industry and business have engaged positively in that work and are optimistic about its outcomes, and they confirmed that when I met them recently.

Since our announcement, in December 2008, about efforts to ensure that no money would be lost as a result of legal issues in relation to frameworks, we have been able to ensure that £400 million worth of contracts came to market without being held up in legal disputes.

As I have said to the House previously, it is important to note the measures to assist local firms to avail themselves of procurement opportunities, including the introduction of the electronic procurement portal, eSourcing NI, and other work. Over 95% of public-sector construction works in Northern Ireland are now awarded to local firms, the majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. Historically, that figure is about 60% in Scotland and about 50% in Wales. That is very positive news for small and medium-sized enterprises and for the construction industry in Northern Ireland.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Further to the Minister’s answer, does he agree that a huge opportunity was missed — in relation to legacy issues as well as the construction industry and the creation of jobs — by not going ahead with the multi-sports stadium at the Maze site? Will the Minister explain what direct benefit will come to Northern Ireland as a result of the Olympic Games in London?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I have already indicated the tremendous amount of significant work that has been done to provide local companies and firms with opportunities to bid for work in relation to the Olympic Games. As I mentioned, a number of companies have already won work. I hope that other companies will win more contracts as a result of that work.

The Member referred to one particular project. He should bear it in mind that, as part of the delivery of the investment strategy, 30% more was spent in the last financial year on helping and supporting the construction industry in Northern Ireland than was spent in the previous year. That is £1·6 million in gross expenditure. Despite the downturn, that is a very significant increase in the amount of activity in relation to capital expenditure in Northern Ireland. It provides much-needed support to large and small construction companies. That is a major improvement on the situation the year before.

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

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if, in light of financial pressures on Government Departments, he will abolish the Senior Civil Service Bonus Scheme. (AQO 2627/09)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

My officials are currently preparing options for this year’s Senior Civil Service pay award for consideration. Therefore, I have not yet made any decisions regarding any element of the Senior Civil Service pay award for 2009, including non-consolidated bonus payments.

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

I welcome the news that options are under preparation. This issue has had a high profile for some time.

Bearing in mind that permanent secretaries in England no longer receive bonuses, that the Minister’s own permanent secretary recently gave evidence to the Committee for Finance and Personnel to the effect that he is largely in agreement with arguments for the removal of Senior Civil Service bonus payments, and that, in a meeting on 22 April 2009, the head of the Civil Service advised the SDLP that he largely disagrees with those arguments, what is the Minister’s opinion on bonus payments to senior civil servants?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Options are under consideration, and we will make decisions in due course. The Member mentioned the fact that permanent secretaries in Whitehall are voluntarily waiving bonus payments for 2009. Due to grading differences between permanent secretaries in Great Britain and those in Northern Ireland, the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is the only person at an equivalent grade to that group. Bonus payments will remain part of the Senior Civil Service pay award for 2009 in England, Scotland and Wales. Nevertheless, the Member raised a number of points, and I will certainly consider all those matters in due course. It should be said that the overall Senior Civil Service pay bill in Northern Ireland is falling as a result of its reduced size, from a peak of 237 senior civil servants in 2005 to the present figure of 209. Nevertheless, this is a subject for discussion and debate, and, in the coming weeks, I will look carefully at all options.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Understandably and rightly, there is a focus on the cost of the Civil Service, particularly the cost of bonuses to senior civil servants. Given that there is much talk about that matter, will the Minister outline the actual cost of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and, more importantly, how that cost compares with other regions in the United Kingdom?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

It is important to view bonuses and the Civil Service pay bill in perspective. In fact, the Senior Civil Service in Northern Ireland is proportionally smaller than that in England, Scotland or Wales. I had some research carried out on the subject and, in the past 12 years, the size of the Senior Civil Service in Britain has generally increased, whereas its size in Northern Ireland has gone down. However, we must investigate what more we can do to achieve efficiencies and value for money.

In March 2008, the total Senior Civil Service pay bill was approximately £13·2 million. In 2006, that bill was £14 million. There is an issue not only with bonuses but with respect to the generally high public-sector wages that are paid at a senior level, and we must consider that matter carefully as we go forward.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As the Minister said, there is public concern about the high level of pay for senior civil servants. In line with the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s suggestion, will the Minister consider a comprehensive review of the salary structure, including bonuses, of the Senior Civil Service, which comprises some 200 people?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

As I said, the figure is 209. Options for 2009 are being prepared, and I will carefully consider the submissions when they are made. However, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt that work today. Nevertheless, I am aware of the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s and Members’ views on those matters and, in the days to come, we will carefully consider them before reaching a decision.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his assessment of how the Chancellor’s efficiency savings of £5 billion in 2009-2010 and further efficiency savings of an additional £10 billion from 2011-2012 will impact on the Northern Ireland block grant. (AQO 2628/09)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not announced plans for efficiency savings of £5 billion in 2009-2010.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I have written in my notes that I will thank the Minister for his answer, so I suppose that I had better see that through and thank him for whatever it was that he said. Perhaps I will try to ask the question in another way. Given the recent national Budget announcement, will the Minister indicate what additional impact the decrease in GDP from 3·1% to only 1·3% by 2013-14 will have here? Can he say that the steps that he is taking now will ensure that by 2013-14, when he is no longer in office, there will be a viable strategy in place to cope with the severe financial restraints and cutbacks that will be kicking in for some time in the future, as I hope he recognises?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I answered the main question as I did because the Member asked me for my assessment of how the Chancellor’s efficiency savings of £5 billion in 2009-2010 and further efficiency savings of an additional £10 billion will impact on the Northern Ireland block grant. I simply said that the Chancellor did not announce efficiency savings in 2009-2010; the Member was wrong. Furthermore, the Chancellor did not announce additional savings of £10 billion for 2011-12.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Just answer the question.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am entitled to point out inaccuracies. Perhaps that is a fault of putting down a question — [Interruption.]

The Member asked a question, and now he does not want to hear the answer. That is part of the problem, because the Member submitted his question before the Chancellor announced his Budget.

The Chancellor announced efficiency savings for 2010-11, and they were offset by additional Barnett formula consequentials of £116 million over this year and next year. The Executive will not receive a funding allocation for the period beyond 2010-11 until after the next UK spending review. Therefore, we do not yet know what the block grant position will be, and we can only make those decisions in the context of the outcome of the UK comprehensive spending review. I know that that fact will not impact too greatly on some Members, but it is a fact.

As the Chancellor announced and as we know, there is a downward trend in public expenditure growth. The Member will be all too aware of that because, I suspect, his party colleagues at Westminster will have told him that their plans for public expenditure in Northern Ireland are draconian. I did some research, and I found out where the £5 billion —

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

What about answering the supplementary?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I warn the Member not to speak from a seated position.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I discovered from where the £5 billion in 2009-2010 came. It did not come from the Chancellor; it was proposed by the spokesman of the Member’s party in Westminster.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

The Minister did not answer my supplementary question, so what is the point of asking one?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will not get involved in the toing and froing over what figures in the British Budget are correct or incorrect, but it is clear that we are facing a major economic downturn. The figures that were published by the EU are actually worse than those forecast by the British and Irish Governments. I accept that the next comprehensive spending review has not been set out, but, as part of our forward planning and financial and fiscal planning, will the Minister examine the possibility of the Executive taking on more fiscal freedom?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I recognise the code. The call for more fiscal freedom is, usually, a call for tax-raising powers. The Member should spell out in more detail what he means by fiscal freedom. Our position as an open, regional economy that is part of the United Kingdom can barely be compared with the Irish Republic, for instance, in the euro zone. There is no doubt that being part of the United Kingdom in the current situation has proved to be immeasurably beneficial and helpful to Northern Ireland. These days, we do not hear any talk about the Celtic tiger, and we do not hear anyone say that Northern Ireland should be linked to the Irish Republic as a member of the euro zone — or in any other sense. Therefore, those who talk about fiscal freedom from the United Kingdom must be honest and admit that they are really saying that people in Northern Ireland should have to pay more in tax and charges than they currently pay under the British Exchequer.

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

I think that everyone accepts that from 2011 onwards there will be heavy cuts in the Northern Ireland block grant. What adjustment will the Minister make to budgetary allocations in the current CSR period to align with present needs and prepare for the future?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member talks about what might happen from 2011 onwards. We must wait to find out the outcome of the UK spending review to know what the block grant will be. As far as the current CSR is concerned, we know the position up until 2011. Despite predictions that there were to be £600 million in efficiency cuts over the current CSR period, we now know the figure for Northern Ireland for the next two years: £123 million, offset by £116 million in extra Barnett consequentials.

What happens after that will depend on the outcome of the UK-wide comprehensive spending review, and we do not know what the figures will be. Indeed, nobody knows what they will be; Whitehall Departments do not know what they will be. As I said, we know that both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party at Westminster are saying that public expenditure will generally be very constrained. However, until we know what the block grant will be, we cannot set out our spending plans.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that, rather than make savings that impact adversely on front line services, savings would best be made by cutting back on unnecessary bureaucracy? Mr McNarry’s time might be better spent having a word in the Health Minister’s ear about that.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. There is a need for efficiency savings to ensure that front line services are protected and improved at the cost of bureaucracy. That is why I and a number of colleagues welcome the efficiency review that has now been set up to look at the structures of government. Suggestions have been made, not least by us, about cutting the number of Government Departments, which would release £50 million a year into front line services. Those suggestions should be considered immediately. We could do that during the current CSR period, if parties are willing to consider what could be done with less bureaucracy, less government and fewer Departments in Northern Ireland.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will take steps to combat the under-representation of women in the senior Civil Service and in professional and specialist grades. (AQO 2629/09)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Steps have been taken and will continue to be taken to address identified under-representation in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Across the NICS as a whole, the percentage of female staff at grade 5 and above has increased steadily from 16·8% in 2003 to 27·4% in 2008. To attract as wide an applicant pool as possible, the Civil Service makes extensive use of open recruitment to fill senior posts and those at professional and specialist grades. Where appropriate, job vacancies are advertised in specialist and professional publications and promoted at careers events in universities and at job fairs. Again, where appropriate, recruitment advertisements include a statement welcoming applications from under-represented groups, including females. However, appointments are, of course, based on merit.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the decentral­isation of departmental offices and functions will assist women who wish to advance their careers while having a work/life balance? Obviously, I have a particular interest in the decentralisation of functions to Foyle and the north-west.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The decentralisation of Government services and depart­mental staff is the subject of the Bain Report, and there is a paper on that before the Executive that, I hope, will be discussed shortly.

I am not convinced that providing enhanced oppor­tunities for females will significantly help to combat the under-representation. However, it is important to stress that the Civil Service is committed to balanced employment across genders, and, as I cited in my previous answer, significant improvements have been made with regard to the figures from 2003 to the present day. Officials are undertaking an in-depth analysis of the gender composition of all grades and disciplines across the service, and it is hoped that the results of that analysis will be available in the next few months. We will then be in a position to consider further what action can be taken to address areas of under-representation in general.