Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 March 2010

316 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we proceed to today’s business, I will refer briefly to some points of order that were raised during last week’s sittings. I remind the House that, in the past, I have encouraged Members to raise matters of concern with me outside the Chamber rather than on the Floor of the House.

Over the past number of weeks, there has been an abuse of points of order in the House to the point where Members are using them to have debates on points of order. Rather than raising issues through points of order in the House, Members would be better off talking to me outside the Chamber, because they would achieve so much more.

I also caution Members not to seek to use points of order to start debates on points of order either with me or with other Members. I have already spoken to some of the Members who raised points of order last week, and I intend to speak to others today or tomorrow.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I warn the Member not to raise any point of order that he has already raised in the House. I have given the Member quite a bit of latitude. I have had two face-to-face meetings with him, and I have allowed him to raise the same point of order on at least four occasions. If it is a totally different point of order, I am happy to take it, provided that it is a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that, beyond the matter that I have raised on four separate occasions, I raised a separate point of order last week with you in relation to the comment made by a Member who referred to the “stigma” in relation to applicants to the PSNI. I invited you to make a ruling on that matter because it impacted not necessarily on Members but on —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I made a very clear ruling on 24 November 2009 that we needed to move away from examining specific words that are used in the Chamber, because, when it comes to unparliamentary language, it means different things to different Members. On 24 November 2009, my ruling was absolutely clear. Members might believe that that is a weakening of my position; I assure them that it is not. I assure Members who still believe that they can cross the line that they will be dealt with, albeit in a different way, in the hope that we can bring dignity to the House.

The Member should not go there. I had a discussion with him and Mr McDevitt this morning about a range of issues and how I intend to deal with them in the future. I have sympathy with what the Member has said to me privately this morning and with his comments in the House. However, I ask the Member and the whole House to allow me to develop this issue.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Some Members might yawn in relation to the authority and integrity of the House; that is a reflection on them. This morning’s conversations were about comments that Members have made about other Members. This is about —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member is coming very close to challenging my authority and ruling on the issue. I ask the Member to reflect on and be careful about what he is saying. I will not take any further points of order on the issue, and I will now move on.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 8 March 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 8 March 2010.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As the motion has been agreed, today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm, if required.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I note that the House was in enthusiastic form this morning for that first vote.

The North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) met in special EU programmes sectoral format in Dublin on 17 February 2010. The Council last met in that format in September 2009. The Government of the Republic of Ireland were represented by Finance Minister, Brian Lenihan, who chaired the meeting. I represented the Northern Ireland Executive and was accompanied by the Social Development Minister, Margaret Ritchie.

Mr Pat Colgan, chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), provided an update on the progress of its work since September 2008. He advised that the Peace II and INTERREG IIIa programmes, which relate to the 2000-06 EU funding period, are now in the final stages of closure. SEUPB remains confident that both programmes will earn all the relevant EU receipts.

Mr Colgan advised us of the progress of the current Peace III programme and the cross-border INTERREG IVa programme. Since 2007, both programmes have been receiving and assessing funding applications from throughout their respective eligible areas. Mr Colgan reported that both programmes were performing well. Between them, the two programmes have approved 139 projects, representing funding of around €265 million. He reported that in 2009 Peace III had spent €21 million and INTERREG IVa had spent €16 million, both comfortably above the relevant EU spending targets. As a result of that expenditure, neither programme will have any of its budget deducted by Brussels.

The Council noted SEUPB’s progress on a number of issues relating to the Peace III and INTERREG IV programmes. Peace III projects included efforts to ensure that the needs of victims and survivors of the terrorist campaign are properly addressed. The Peace III theme of acknowledging and dealing with the past has a particular focus on victims and survivors. To date, it has approved 55 projects, representing €23 million in funding. Ministers emphasised how important it is that that work continues over the remaining years of the programme and that the direct focus on victims and survivors is maintained.

Ministers also agreed that it is essential that both communities participate in the Peace III programme, and they noted and welcomed the work that SEUPB is doing to encourage applications from the Protestant community. Research expected towards the end of this year will provide the first indication of community participation in the Peace III programme. The Council noted that implementation of the local peace and reconciliation action plans has begun.

The Council noted that concerns raised by the five local authority-based groups regarding the approval of their multiannual plans for INTERREG IVa are being addressed. Pat Colgan reported to us that individual projects based on the plans are being progressed through the INTERREG programme selection procedures. There are 63 such projects across the five groups. Each will need to demonstrate its relevance to the agreed INTERREG aims and objectives and to demonstrate value for money in exactly the same way as any other application for INTERREG funding. It was reported that nine projects that were submitted by the groups have already been approved for INTERREG funding and that a further 37 remained under assessment. According to SEUPB’s indicative timetable, all 37 should have their decision — either way — by July. The remaining 17 projects have so far submitted too little information to allow assessment to begin.

Ministers noted the following key activities and priorities for SEUPB in 2010: the management and delivery of the 2007-2013 Peace III and INTERREG programmes, ensuring that all targets are achieved; ensuring that SEUPB services are delivered efficiently; supporting North/South engagement with the EU-funded transnational and inter-regional programmes; and ensuring a successful closure of the Peace II and INTERREG IIIa programmes.

The Council noted that SEUPB had applied efficiency savings of £262,000 in the 2010 budget. In addition to those savings, SEUPB will reduce EU programme running costs, mostly for technical assistance, by €2·4 million in 2009 and 2010 and €3·1million for 2011-15. Those savings will enable higher expenditure on projects.

The Council approved the 2010 business plan of the SEUPB and recommended a budget provision for administration costs of £2·254 million and EU programme expenditure of £67·659 million. The Council aims to meet again in special EU programmes sectoral format in October 2010.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He mentioned the previous under-representation of applications from the unionist community. I appreciate that an evaluation of measures taken will be carried out at a later stage, but will the Minister outline what proactive measures have been taken to encourage and facilitate greater representation from the unionist community and to increase the number of applications from it?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Quite an amount of work has been done. As I said in the statement, we will not know how effective that has been until the evaluation of the work has been carried out. There has been direct contact with, for example, the Orange Order and institutions therein and with community associations that are representative of and exclusively in the unionist community. I visited some of the projects that received funding, and we hope to see an end to the under-representation of the Protestant community in the applications.

One of the problems has been that fewer applications have been received from groups in the unionist community than from the nationalist community. As a result, fewer applications are going through. That is where the under-representation has occurred. We have been working with those groups. There has been direct contact with them, and I have received good feedback from some of the groups that feel that they got a sympathetic hearing and that they received good advice and guidance on the projects that they are applying for. At the end of the day, they have to meet the criteria. The more capacity there is in the unionist/Protestant community, the more effective that work will be.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware that the five partnerships raised concerns about INTERREG IVa funding. Will he assure the House that those five partnerships will still receive the €60 million for the multi-area plans that they submitted to INTERREG IVa?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There was some difficulty with the five local authority partnerships. The first action that we took was to make some changes to the application process so that the selection criteria are clearer. The selection criteria have not changed, but we provided clarification on the information that needs to be provided in support of the applications to enable them to be processed.

Nine applications worth €5·5 million have been received by the steering committee in respect of which approval has been given and letters of offer issued. There are 37 applications in the system on which we hope and expect a decision to be made by July 2010. That does not mean that a positive decision will be made on them, but they will be assessed by July. There are 17 applications for which insufficient information has been provided and on which no assessment or final decision can be made.

There is no guarantee that all 63 projects will succeed. However, we are happy that we are working apace to ensure that the money is spent and spent on time and that the help and clarification that may not have been there at the start is now available to the groups.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council. I thank the Minister for his timely report. Is he aware that the multiagency plans suffered significant delay largely because of the board’s changing advice to the various councils? Five local authority-based partnerships expressed no confidence in the programmes body. Is the Minister satisfied that enough has been done to restore the confidence of the local authorities involved?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The multiannual plans that the local authority-based groups developed were agreed some time ago. There may have been a misunderstanding that the multiannual plans were all that was needed, but they provided too little detail to allow funding decisions to be made. That is one of the reasons why we have now given clarification and explained the process, what has to be done and what information has to accompany the applications so that they can be processed.

That message seems to have got through because, as I said to the Chairperson of the Committee, we have approved nine applications worth £5·5 million, and there are others in the pipeline that we should approve by July 2010. I hope that that is an indication that the local authority-based groups now understand and are doing what has to be done. We are determined to process applications as quickly as possible.

I met two local authority-based groups and got an understanding of the difficulties that they face and their misapprehensions about the multiannual plans. I hope that the issue has been sorted out. However, it is a complex area, and we do not want to give any money back. If Members are aware of any difficulties, I want to hear about them so that we can keep on top of the matter.

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

INTERREG IVa, which is overseen by the Department, is progressing well. Having said that, I do not overlook the concerns that were expressed by the local authority-based groups, and I am hopeful that they are being addressed properly. Officials from the SEUPB present themselves extremely well when they come before the Committee, and they give me a lot of confidence about how the programmes are being operated. Departmental officials, who also come before the Committee, also engage well with the programmes. Given the success of INTERREG IVa, does the Minister, when reading from a wider script, feel that there are lessons to be learned about the immense benefits that the adoption of an inter-regional approach can bring for our economy and public service delivery?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have never made any secret of my belief that, because we share a land boundary with the Irish Republic, it makes sense to co-operate, where possible, to bring about a better use of resources. Any Finance Minister would want to achieve the best value for money and avoid duplication. Of course, where possible, we should marry plans on one side of the border with those on the other side of the border to avoid costly delays and so on.

Some of the programmes illustrate that sensible co-operation can lead to a better delivery of service. I am not saying that that is true all the time or that INTERREG IVa always represents the best method of delivery, because there may well be other ways in which that can be done. However, any sensible person would want plans to be married so that we do not have unnecessary overlap.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I commend the Minister for fitting in the NSMC meeting in Dublin, given all the long Budget debates that we had in the Chamber in February. Does the Minister agree that the real way in which we test the success of the programmes is not by the amount or efficiency of spend but by the impact of the schemes on the ground? Similarly, the quality of the projects will not be best measured by examining what side of the community they come from. If we are genuinely addressing good relations, the projects, by definition, will embrace both the Protestant and the Catholic sections of the community.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me take the Member’s last point first. It is important that the money is spent as the Member describes within the theme that is designed to produce a greater understanding. It is valuable to spend it in that way.

I visited the headquarters of the Orange Order, which has benefited from some of this money for educational projects. Two points emerged from that meeting. First, a significant number of Catholic schools are invited to visit and to have explained to them the Order’s background and what the Order is about. That is designed to try to destroy some of the myths that there are around the Orange Order and a whole lot of things associated with the unionist community. If that bears fruit, some of the contention around what many unionists see as a cultural event but what — as a result, sometimes, of the activities of mischievous people — is seen in the nationalist community as a bit of political coat-trailing will abate. The money will have been well spent, for it will have an impact on the security situation and on community relations. The Orange Order is to be commended for its work, as is SEUPB for the way that it has financed that. I use that as an illustration, but there are many other examples and that is just one that I am familiar with from conversations that I have had in the last couple of weeks.

The other point that the Member made related to impact on local communities. One of the changes in this funding is that we are now going for larger projects, some of which will have a more lasting impact and leave a legacy. People sometimes look back at INTERREG IIIa and Peace II and ask what has been their long-term effect. I am probably off script here, but I do not mind. Some of the money could perhaps have been spent more wisely and made a greater impact. Members are concerned about delays or what they perceive as delays. However, they must accept that, when we target larger, more complicated projects, a lot more work is involved in getting them processed and assessed. There is an up-front cost in that but, in the long term, the benefits are greater.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What is being done to help the 17 groups that submitted too little information?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

In all cases where groups have submitted too little information, they are made aware of what information is outstanding. They are told what has to be done to enable the projects to progress. In some cases, the reason why too little information has been sent is that the outstanding information is not there, and the projects may fail at the end of the day. However, it is not a case of our sending the application back and saying, “Tough. There is not enough information here”. It is explained to them what additional information is needed and what is needed for the process. Hopefully, then, they will come back. For some of the 37 applications that are currently being assessed, some additional information was required. That was supplied, and they are now being processed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. My question follows on from Adrian’s. We must wait until July to discover how many of the 37 applications being processed and evaluated will succeed. The Minister referred to efficiency savings and technical support: will they have a detrimental impact on applications that have not come up to scratch or not satisfied the criteria?

A matter of more serious concern was not reflected in the statement, but I would be surprised if it did not arise during the sectoral meeting. Projects have had to be withdrawn not because they do not satisfy the criteria or are unable to draw down the European money but because they could not access, in the current economic downturn, the necessary matching funding. Has there been any discussion on how to address that problem? The tentacles of the recession affect all sorts of programmes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Technical assistance efficiency savings between now and 2015 should amount to £5 million, all of which will be poured into new projects. We identified superfluous technical assistance, which means that savings can be made that will not harm efficiency. The Member is right that there is no point in making savings only to find that projects cannot go ahead. We believe that administrative savings can be made, and extra money can be ploughed into projects.

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

The Member raised the issue of the financial difficulties in the Irish Republic, where some Departments had spent their full capital allocation, resulting in moratoriums being placed on projects. Peace III funding is offered to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, so there are cross-border elements. If match funding cannot be found, a project cannot go ahead.

After discussions with Minister Lenihan, my understanding is that priority for new capital allocations will be given to projects that are already in the system. When capital allocations are made to departmental budgets next year, priority will be given to projects that are in the system or are required to meet international commitments. Rather than projects being halted, they will probably be delayed until those capital allocations are made in the next financial year.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I declare my membership of the Committee of the Regions and an SEUPB funding body.

I welcome the Minister’s positive statement. Will he join me in welcoming the good stewardship that means that there has been no reduction in finance from Brussels and that, at a time of unparalleled recession in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is receiving direct finance? Will he ensure that his statement underlines the fact that the direct focus on victims and survivors, who have suffered so much, is maintained and, if possible, enhanced? Given that the evidence base shows a lower application rate from the Protestant community, will the Minister ensure that SEUPB officials continue to encourage applications from the Protestant community and that they monitor the effectiveness of that encouragement?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have to take that boy aside and tell him that he is allowed only one question, not three, on ministerial statements. I will try to answer all three questions.

We still need to evaluate whether the efforts that have been made so far have been effective. At the very least, more applications are being made, more help is being given and more attention is being paid to the under-represented section of the community. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be, but the SEUPB has not pulled back. The Minister for Finance in the Irish Republic, Brian Lenihan, supports the issue as much as I do. At the meeting, he emphasised that he wants a more even spread of money. The pressure comes not only from the unionist side but from the Irish Republic.

The Member’s second question was on victims and survivors. I should have the figures some­where in my big black book of answers. However, I will write to the Member with the precise figure. Peace III money places an emphasis on victims and survivors, and that will continue.

With regard to money’s not being returned to Europe, there have been discussions about the N+2 targets for Peace III and INTERREG IVa. Given that other parts of the EU were not meeting some of the targets, there was discussion about whether they should be relaxed. We are meeting those targets, so that does not apply to us. Therefore, there is no danger of money being lost or sent back to Brussels. If anything, consideration is being given to changing the targets because other Administrations have failed to spend the money. However, we are well on target.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the Minister said, Members should ask one question.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I would love to ask the Minister many questions, but I have just one. I declare an interest as a member of Antrim Borough Council, which is part of the North East Partnership.

I am concerned that the advice and guidelines keep changing. I know that the Minister said that things are more complex, but will he consider some form of fast-tracking or dynamism to get the applications that were mentioned in the statement processed before the end of July, or will we have to wait until then?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Some things have happened already. Perhaps I did not make myself clear: the deadline for the receipt of the 37 applications is between now and the end of July. The steering committee will process some applications before July, but the deadline to have all 37 processed is the end of July. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear about that.

I am interested in what the Member said. I know that people say that Members of the Assembly should not be members of local councils; however, the Member illustrated a very important issue in bringing to the Assembly some knowledge of what happens at local level. If there is still some confusion about what is required, especially for the local authority groups, I would like to hear from the Member. As I said, I listened to two of the groups concerned, and we sought to make the criteria and the selection process much clearer to them. If there is still contradictory advice, changing rules or changing selection criteria, I would be more than happy to speak to the Member or to receive a delegation from his council or the group of councils in which he is involved so that we can ensure that there is no misunderstanding.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Returning to the issue that his party colleague Mr Bell raised, will the Minister provide to Members or lodge in the Assembly Library the details of the 55 projects that have been approved under the theme of acknowledging and dealing with the past? When it comes to funding those 55 projects and addressing that theme, is the Minister satisfied that the overall balance of that funding among groups, organisations, communities, and victims and survivors is appropriate?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I am sure the Member knows, I do not have the details either in my head or in my papers of all the projects that have been funded. However, there should be transparency in the matter, so I am more than happy to provide that information. I suspect that the Member was alluding to the amount of money that goes to ex-prisoner groups as opposed to victims’ groups. We should not forget that prisoners’ groups qualify under all three themes. Before I took up my position, I was unhappy that the rules that were set perhaps favoured groups that many people thought should not get such favourable treatment. Indeed, now that I am in the post, I remain unhappy with that situation.

However, the rules have been established, and applications must be processed on the basis of those rules. I think that we can supply information on the balance of the groups that have applied, the groups that have been successful and the total amounts of money awarded.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have received notification from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Finance Minister were to move from his position on the Front Bench, I would start, but with your permission —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister may regret chasing me from my seat so quickly if he is looking for money. [Laughter.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are not looking for his money on this occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I wish to make a statement about the draft clean neighbourhoods and environment Bill, which I issued for public consultation on 1 March. I am delighted to have received Executive clearance to proceed with the draft Bill, and I appreciate the many supportive comments that I have received from ministerial colleagues in respect of it.

It is very important to understand the magnitude of the draft clean neighbourhoods and environment Bill. It is about much more than the individual elements of the Bill, important though those elements are. It is about more than litter, graffiti, fly-posting, noise, nuisance or dog litter. Although those issues and others addressed in the Bill merit our attention, taken together, they have a cumulative impact on people and communities that goes far beyond tidy streets.

First and foremost, the Bill is about promoting quality of life by taking care of the environment. Clean neighbourhoods are healthier, safer and happier neighbourhoods. Litter, noise, nuisance vehicles and vandalism attract antisocial behaviour, crime, long-term illness and all of the social problems that have a high cost for communities, the ratepayer and the taxpayer. That is the context in which the Bill’s purpose must be seen and welcomed.

Since the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 was introduced by the UK Government in England and Wales in May of that year, my Department has been receiving calls from many quarters about the introduction of corresponding legislation in Northern Ireland. MLAs, MPs, district councils, Tidy Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), the chief environmental health officers’ group and other interested parties have called for the introduction of clean neighbourhoods legislation in Northern Ireland.

Until now, we have been unable to respond positively to those calls because of resource pressures. However, following a review, and despite the challenging financial circumstances that we face across the Executive, I have made a point of finding the necessary staff resources to look at the issue. We must now consider the task of how, with the support of appropriate legislation, we can help district councils in Northern Ireland to deal more effectively with a range of problems associated with local environmental quality.

My view, informed by representations from the local government sector in particular, is that we should aim to provide councils here with broadly the same powers that their counterparts in England and Wales have under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Those powers are important, because they will enable councils to tackle the issues directly and because they will allow them to do so in a more streamlined and less resource-intensive way. Used properly, the powers proposed in the draft Bill should cut red tape and enable councils to do more with their resources to make a serious impact on the full range of issues addressed in the Bill.

The Bill will address the following issues: litter of all forms, including, for example, chewing gum litter that blights the appearance of the footpaths in our towns and cities; cigarettes and other litter that is casually cast aside; illegal fly-posting and graffiti, which degrade local environments; and irresponsible dog ownership and dog-fouling, which further degrade our public spaces and, at best, present an unpleasant hazard for young and old alike. There are other, no less important issues that affect the quality of life in our local neighbourhoods, such as noise levels, nuisance or abandoned vehicles and problems caused by poorly directed domestic artificial lighting.

The Bill deals with all those matters, which is why I say that it is important. It deals with a wide range of local environmental quality issues, and, as a complete package, it is a significant piece of legislation. However, before seeking to introduce the Bill in the Assembly, I am consulting on the detailed proposals to ensure that they address our local circumstances properly. I am grateful to the Environment Committee, which has already expressed its support for the Bill, for its encouragement to make progress quickly.

In fact, I am not aware of any opposition to the legislation, which is not surprising. No one wants to live in a neighbourhood that is affected by a poor-quality local environment. Good local environments reduce antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. They attract more investment and have a positive impact on our health, well-being, confidence and civic pride, and they help to promote tourism.

I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland will accept that the Bill, which is designed to improve the appearance of local neighbourhoods and enhance our quality of life, is necessary and long overdue. That is because despite district councils’ excellent endeavours to tackle the problems and despite ongoing campaigns that are designed to encourage those who create the problems to change their ways, those problems cost Northern Ireland councils millions of pounds to clean up.

Just last month, for example, I joined a local group of dedicated conservation volunteers and Tidy Northern Ireland to see for myself the incredible extent of the littering problem in a particular open space; a space that is by no means unique. What should have been a beautiful and scenic open space for the local community to enjoy was completely spoiled by excessive littering. Plastic bags, paper bags, broken glass, empty bottles, used nappies and crisp packets were clearly visible. In a very short time, we collected more than 30 black bin bags of litter. One could come up with all kinds of reasons and excuses for that, but the bottom line is that that sort of mess is not good enough. People have a right to expect more care and consideration from others in their community.

In this statement, I cannot cover every detail of the draft Bill. As Members will appreciate, the legislation is sizeable and complex, and it contains detailed amendments to several pieces of existing legislation, such as the Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994. However, I shall summarise the draft Bill’s key provisions.

As I said, for many people in Northern Ireland, litter continues to be a major concern. If left unchecked, litter in all its forms — such as chewing gum, cigarette butts, fast food, drink containers and wrapping paper — is an eyesore that leads to dirty streets and unhealthy and unsightly local environments. The Bill will strengthen existing law to enable district councils to deal more effectively with litter problems. The Bill will amend the offence of dropping litter in a lake, pond or watercourse; strengthen provisions to deal with people who fail to provide their name and address; give councils new powers to require businesses and individuals to clear litter from their land; strengthen existing powers for councils to require local businesses to help to clear up litter that they generate; and enable councils to restrict the distribution of flyers, handouts and pamphlets, which can end up as litter.

Fly-posting and graffiti are visual signs of neglect and degradation in a local environment. Therefore, to enable district councils to deal more effectively with fly-posting and graffiti, the Bill will strengthen existing law to give councils the ability to issue fixed-penalty notices to graffiti and fly-posting offenders; enable councils to serve defacement removal notices in respect of graffiti and fly-posting; make it an offence to sell spray paint to children; and make it harder for the beneficiaries of fly-posting to evade prosecution.

Irresponsible dog ownership gives rise to complaints from the public, and dog fouling contributes to the spread of harmful infections. The Bill will introduce new arrangements for controlling dogs by replacing the local by-law system with a system that is more streamlined, straightforward and easier for district councils to operate. It will replace dog by-laws with a new, simplified system of dog control Orders, which will enable councils to deal with dog fouling; ban dogs from designated areas; require dogs to be kept on a lead; and restrict the number of dogs that can be walked by one person.

Noise is a form of nuisance that the public still regard as a major problem. The Bill will give district councils new powers to deal with audible intruder alarms, and it will extend the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 relating to noise from private premises to cover noise from licensed premises. Those provisions are designed to deal with noise nuisance problems that are caused by false alarms when keyholders are away and deal with the owners of licensed premises who ignore warnings to reduce excessive noise.

The existing statutory nuisance law is 131 years old and, despite its having been amended from time to time, the definition of what may be considered a statutory nuisance and the enforcement powers that are available to district councils have not kept pace with developments in statutory nuisance legislation applying outside Northern Ireland. The Bill will update the archaic law on statutory nuisance by bringing it into line with that which applies in England and Wales, as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

Fixed-penalty notices are a simple and visible way in which to deal with environmental offences. If used properly, they provide an effective deterrent and avoid the cost of court action. At present, fixed-penalty notices can be issued for littering and dog-fouling offences and also for some noise-violation offences. The draft Bill makes greater use of fixed-penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution and gives councils the flexibility, subject to upper and lower limits, to set their own fixed rates. The draft Bill’s proposals extend the use of fixed-penalty notices for offences relating to nuisance and abandoned vehicles, litter controls, other dog controls and additional noise controls.

Back alleys and entries can attract a range of antisocial and environmental problems that reduce the quality of life in our local neighbourhoods. They can be magnets for litter, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles and graffiti. They can increase the risk of domestic burglary and provide cover for those engaged in drug dealing, and, as a result, they can make the lives of local residents a misery. The Bill will contain proposals to make the existing procedure for closing off nuisance back alleys more effective. The Bill will contain amendments to the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 to give effect to gating order provisions. The Bill will give councils new powers, with the Department for Regional Development’s approval, to make gating orders to deal with problem alleyways. The Minister for Regional Development has policy responsibility for the legislation and agrees with the proposals.

The Bill will give councils new powers to deal with businesses that sell or repair cars on the road. Such parked vehicles can be a nuisance. They can reduce parking opportunities and cause pollution; for example, where oil has spilled or leaked. Two new offences will be created: offering for sale two or more vehicles; and repairing a vehicle on the road as part of a business. Abandoned cars degrade streets and can become targets for antisocial behaviour and arson. The Bill will give councils the power to remove abandoned cars from streets immediately.

Abandoned trolleys can be a visible problem and a hazard, and when dumped in watercourses, they can cause a range of problems that may harm wildlife. The Bill will give councils the power to recover the costs of retrieving abandoned shopping trolleys from the trolleys’ owners.

The draft Bill increases the maximum fine, from £30,000 to £50,000, on summary conviction that may be provided for in regulations made under pollution prevention and control provisions in the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. That will enable maximum fines on summary conviction in the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 — concerning, for example, contravention of the requirement for a permit to operate an installation or mobile plant; failure to comply with, or to contravene, a condition of a permit; and failure to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice or a suspension notice — to be brought into line with the equivalent maximum fines for illegal waste activity that are set out in the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, in order to ensure consistency. The increase to £50,000 will also bring the level of fine into line with that which applies in England and Wales.

As Minister of the Environment, I deal with many large-scale environmental issues daily. Major challenges, such as waste management, air quality, climate change, water quality, marine planning and built heritage are all very important, and my Department’s work is rightly targeted at alleviating major environmental concerns in those areas. However, it is clear to me, through my work as a local councillor, and more so since I became Minister of the Environment, how important the state and appearance of our local neighbourhoods and public spaces are to most people in Northern Ireland.

People want to live in areas that are clean and safe, and free from antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. That is people’s number one priority, and it must also be ours. Therefore, I am sure that Members will agree that the draft Bill is a very welcome development and will wish to see it enacted as quickly as possible to help bring about cleaner neighbourhoods for all our local communities.

The consultation period runs from 1 March to 23 April, and the consultation document may be viewed on, and downloaded from, the Department of the Environment website.

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

If it is the guidance of the Chair that I need to declare an interest as a member of a local council, I hereby declare. The Minister is right: this will be welcomed across the 26 council areas. In fact, my party colleague Alasdair McDonnell was going to bring it forward as a private Member’s Bill, and he is grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this legislation.

What are the timescales for the implementation of the amendments that relate to alley-gating? Will they be carried out in parallel? The Minister is right in saying that alley-gating is a major concern. Alleyways are a haven for antisocial behaviour, and there is an increased risk of domestic burglaries for people who live close to alley gates. Members of the community are also concerned about the proliferation of illegal flags flying from lampposts, and about kerb painting. Will the Minister, in consultation with the Regional Development Minister, bring forward any amendments in relation to those eyesores?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A number of orders have been made by the Department for Regional Development (DRD) as a result of the Belfast alley-gating pilot project. An independent evaluation of that scheme indicated that it has been effective in addressing crime, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour in those areas, and that it has led to increased requests for alley-gating to be extended to other areas. However, the existing regime for making gating orders has proved to be cumbersome, and it is felt that a more streamlined approach is required. It was also felt that responsibility for making gating orders would be better placed with local government, rather than central government, although it is proposed that district councils will need the approval of DRD to make or vary a gating order. That is positive news on that issue.

The Bill is similar to what has been produced in England and Wales. I suspect that flags, the painting of kerbs and so forth are not such issues there, so I look forward to seeing what the Committee brings forward on those issues.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I join other Members in welcoming the proposals; the Bill will be of great benefit to people across Northern Ireland. Will the Bill be self-sufficient with regard to costings, or will it end up with a certain level of charge? I know that the consultation is due to run until 23 April, but what does the Minister see as being the timescale for the legislation itself?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are a number of ways of dealing with costs. Litter is a district council issue, as is the legislation that deals with dog fouling, etc. What we are doing is enhancing the powers of councils to ensure that they can carry out that work more effectively. A lot of these powers have already been vested in local authorities. A number of the issues that have been mentioned today are issues on which councils have a degree of discretion in how their money is spent. It is important that the fines that are levied go back to local authorities. If councils set up an effective and tough regime, they will, therefore, benefit in two ways. First, they will have considerably cleaner neighbourhoods, which I think the local community will appreciate; and secondly, they will bring in a degree of income from those individuals who will not learn and who will not co-operate in keeping their areas as clean as they should.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Before I call the next Member, I remind Members that they are to ask a question on the Minister’s statement, not to make another statement.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Is it the intention of the Bill to provide resources to residents’ groups or local community groups to assist them in keeping their neighbourhoods clean and tidy? There is a case and a need for alley-gating, but some alleys are walkways, and there does not seem to be proper consultation in that respect; consultation is, generally, held in specific areas. Is there any provision to expand the consultation in relation to alley-gating?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have indicated that litter is the responsibility of local authorities.

It is up to local authorities to identify best practice schemes to ensure that local neighbourhoods are kept clean and tidy and to institute a regime in which people who do not co-operate are punished.

Giving local authorities the powers to deal with and to introduce alley-gating, in consultation with DRD, brings the matter to a much more local level. Local councillors are generally far more accountable in dealing with such issues and identifying a community’s needs than — with no disrespect — a Roads Service official.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I, too, declare an interest as a local councillor. I welcome the Minister’s decision to overturn his predecessors’ decision not to progress with this legislation. Will he advise the House why it has taken five years since the legislation was introduced successfully in England for it to be introduced in Northern Ireland? Why has it taken so long for it to be prioritised here and for the necessary resources and commitment to be found to introduce it?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Of course, during a number of those years, there was direct rule. When this Assembly came into being, Ministers had to bring forward various pressing issues. Considerable work was done on planning reform, for example. Does the Member suggest that a clean neighbourhoods and environment Bill is more important than planning reform, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill or PPS 21? I am not saying that it is less important. However, I am not sure whether the Member is saying that it is more important.

Ministers have to prioritise a wide range of issues. When I came into office, I looked at this issue and was aware that there was considerable pressure to bring it forward. I decided that I would find the necessary resources to do so. It is not as though other Ministers decided not to do that; resources were not available to do it. I decided to identify and take resources from other areas to allow that to happen.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s comprehensive and progressive statement. I want to ask him specifically about graffiti and fly-posting, which are the scourge of my Strangford constituency. Will he assure the House that those measures will be effective and that their effectiveness will be monitored in order to ensure that the blight of graffiti and fly-posting in Strangford is brought to an end?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

District councils indicate that existing legislation needs to be strengthened. I propose to do that by giving councils power to issue fixed-penalty notices in respect of certain fly-posting and graffiti offences, to issue defacement removal notices and to recover costs from the person on whom a notice is served. I propose to make it an offence to sell aerosol spray paint to a person who is under 16 years of age. Other changes that are being made enable councils to seek the removal of illegally displayed posters or placards by the people who displayed them or caused them to be displayed and make it easier for councils to remove posters or placards if necessary and to recover the cost of doing so.

One problem with the current legislation is that, if an advertisement for a certain nightclub, circus or event is illegally displayed, a council must prove that that person had given his or her approval for that advertisement to be displayed in the first instance. It is easy for people to get out of that. As a result of the new legislation, the burden of proof will change considerably. Individuals will have to prove that they took all reasonable measures to ensure that they did not act in defiance of the legislation. That could, potentially, have huge impact, particularly on the fly-posting that is often seen on our streets.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I declare that I am a member of Ards Borough Council.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also declare an interest as a member of Ballymoney Borough Council. I welcome the proposals on fly-posting. Fly-posting for concerts and other major social events is a common problem in my community. Does the Minister believe that there are alternative, affordable ways in which some organisations that are currently involved in fly-posting could advertise events publicly without degrading an area or making it look untidy?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am surprised that an old boy like me should have to educate someone who is relatively young on the opportunities that are available in communication nowadays — for example, various websites, such as Facebook, Twitter and so on. There are huge opportunities to spread the message, particularly for concerts and such events.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his state­ment, which I welcome. I declare an interest as a councillor in the south Antrim area. Like others, I long to see a tidier Northern Ireland. If I may make one little statement, I congratulate everyone who has helped to pick up litter throughout Northern Ireland, whether they are members of the public, councillors or Ministers.

How will the Bill deal with councils that have to work together? For example, rubbish from various council areas gathers at the south Antrim corner of Lough Neagh and will need to be dealt with jointly. How will that be managed and financed?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That ties in with my vision for local government in the future: there must be greater collaboration among local councils. There must be greater connectivity among councils, and they must work together in the best and wider interests of the public. That might involve cost-saving measures by councils to ensure that rates are kept low or ensuring that the environment in which we live is kept in the pristine condition that the public want. We will seek to encourage, persuade, cajole and, on occasions, legislate for that.

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

I thank the Minister for getting us this far. I am concerned about a range of these issues, and I congratulate him on what he has done. The Minister mentioned nuisance parking and abandoned vehicles. I am worried that “abandoned vehicles” refers only to vehicles on the roads. I am just as concerned about vehicles abandoned adjacent to a road, near a road or on a public space other than a road. It is important that abandoned vehicles are not allowed to be left on any public space.

Secondly, if I might indulge myself, the Minister made no mention of hedges. High hedges and wide hedges are a serious issue. As a holy — or religious — person, I hate nothing more than the slap of a wet branch as I make my way to church on a Sunday morning. I believe that it is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that that problem is avoided.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I return the Member’s tribute. He was one of those who pressed this issue and sought to have the legislation introduced. It is good to see that the Assembly can work on a cross-party and a cross-community basis and that it is not as dysfunctional as some people make it out to be. We can work and co-operate with one another in the best interests of the public of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I pay tribute to Dr McDonnell for bringing this matter to my attention and for urging me to bring forward measures. That is one of the reasons why we are where we are today.

The requirement to give notice to the occupier of the land on which a vehicle has been abandoned will be removed. That will include private roads that pass through housing estates that are managed by registered social landlords as well as other housing estates, and it will, effectively, enable vehicles to be removed immediately from any road to which the public have access. When an abandoned vehicle is fit only for destruction, a district council will no longer be required to affix a notice to the vehicle prior to its removal, such as a van in Custom House Square, and will be able to remove it immediately.

The rules on the disposal of abandoned vehicles will be simplified. Councils will no longer have to wait for the vehicle licence to expire before disposing of the vehicle. Abandoned vehicles that are fit only for destruction can be destroyed immediately, and vehicles that do not display a licence or number plate can be disposed of immediately. In all other cases, district councils will have to try to find the owner. If they are unable to find the owner or if the owner does not collect the vehicle within seven days of being contacted, it can be disposed of.

Similar amendments will be made to the road traffic regulations, which give powers to constables and the Department for Regional Development (DRD) to deal with abandoned vehicles. The aim of those changes is to provide a more efficient way to clear abandoned vehicles from streets and reduce the instances of antisocial behaviour, such as vandalism and arson, which such vehicles can attract. This will also reduce the additional storage costs incurred by district councils while waiting for the expiration of the licence; where a vehicle is fit only for destruction; or where the owner cannot be traced or has chosen not to collect it.

As regards nuisance hedges, if the Member is saying that hedges are growing over the footpaths where he walks, that matter can be dealt with by the DRD. If a hedge is growing over a footway or road, the DRD has the powers to instruct the owner of the hedge to cut it back. The high hedges legislation is separate and is going through the House. We are bringing forward that new legislation because the community in Northern Ireland wants it to be introduced. We are doing that in the community’s best interests.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I fully support and welcome the statement that the Minister has made. I think he will agree that, although his is the lead Department, this is a cross-departmental issue. He has just mentioned the DRD. Does he agree that education has an important role to play in that youngsters coming through the school system should be educated not to be litter louts when they grow up?

I wish to make two points; I know that the Minister could not have included them all in the statement. It is going to be difficult for councils to —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member must ask a question.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

— to catch the people who drive along in their car and fire out a bag full of stuff from a fast food outlet. The litter lying along our foreshores is also a disgrace. When the legislation is implemented — I do not know when that will be — will the Minister be able to monitor whether the position has been greatly enhanced six months or a year later by the legislation that we all welcome this morning?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Unless Big Brother is at every telegraph pole, we will not catch every individual who tosses litter out of their car. Nonetheless, community responsibility should mean that, when people see someone throwing litter out of a car, they should take the car number and pass it on to the local authorities and allow them to deal with it. These individuals are despoiling our countryside and should be punished for doing so.

The Member is right to say that it needs to be instilled in our young people from the earliest age that it is wrong to drop litter, throw litter out of cars or spit chewing gum out on the streets. All those things detract from the environment that they and, at some point, their children will grow up in and take away from the healthy well-being and the good environment that young people need to grow up in. Education needs to continue. Our job is to enhance the legislation to deal with the people who refuse to be educated.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I congratulate the Minister on bringing the consultation forward. There is no doubt that since he has become Minister his priority has been to bring forward legislation that deals with local issues. As regards fly-posting, posters are placed by church-based and charity-based organisations. Will those organisations be given a time exemption to remove their posters after an event, rather than having them removed as soon as they go up?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We want to stop fly-posters going up all over the place. We want to stop posters being pasted to telegraph poles and bridges, where a lot of vehicles pass, and then abandoned. If people want to advertise particular events in a responsible way, I want my Department and other Departments to co-operate with them. Some people are pasting up posters in a most irresponsible way and are leaving the mess for someone else to clean up. That is wholly unacceptable.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

As other Members have done, I welcome the Minister’s statement. What financial implications does he envisage? Undoubtedly, those will be quite significant for local authorities. Does he expect that local authorities will have to absorb the costs, or will extra provision be made? Does the Minister anticipate that the Bill will require local authorities to be proactive in fulfilling their new commitments, or will that be a reactive requirement?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is in the interests of local government to be proactive. At some point, we could consider creating an index that would show how clean an area is and identify the local authorities across Northern Ireland that are being proactive in dealing with litter, deposits of chewing gum on the streets and graffiti. Such a measure would show up the councils that are not being as proactive as they should be.

I have discussed with Minister Ritchie and Minister Wilson the potential for introducing business improvement districts (BIDs). BID funding would be attractive to local authorities, particularly in the townscapes. Local businesses would pay a modest supplement to their rates, but, in return, they would get a considerably cleaner and graffiti-free environment. That could bring additional money to local authorities. Additional money will come through higher fines and, hopefully, the easier enforcement of those fines. I do not expect that the resource that is being asked of councils will be particularly cost-intensive. Where it is properly implemented, it will be hugely beneficial to local authorities at a modest cost.

Committee Business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As with similar motions, the motion on Statutory Committee membership will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Mr PJ Bradley replace Mr Patsy McGlone as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. — [Mr P Ramsey.]

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the findings of the Savills report; calls on the Minister for Social Development to ensure equity in the delivery of new social housing and the maintenance of existing Housing Executive stock; and further calls on the Minister to limit the reduction in funding for Housing Executive maintenance contractors, in view of the adverse economic situation.

At the Committee’s meeting of 25 February 2009, it was agreed that this motion on the Savills report should be tabled for debate in the House. It is only the second Social Development Committee motion of the current mandate, and, similar to our motion of June 2009, it reflects the Committee’s concerns about maintaining and improving social housing.

The challenges that the Department for Social Development faces in funding social housing have been well set out by the Minister and by others on a number of occasions. Although that is important, recent debate on the subject has been characterised by some as tired and the arguments as rather worn. The Committee, therefore, noted with great interest the findings of the Savills report, which the Minister referenced during her response to the Committee motion on 22 June 2009. The Committee looked forward to the publication of the Savills report as a way of injecting new ideas and reinvigorating the necessary and important debate on social housing.

The Committee was disappointed that the Department did not make the Savills report available despite repeated requests. However, I am pleased to say that, after further correspondence, the Department subsequently agreed to bring the Savills report to the Committee. The Committee for Social Development is, therefore, happy to have the opportunity of this debate to air many important questions in the House.

Some Members may ask what the Savills report is about — it is not to be confused with something else that bears the name “Saville” — so I will tell the House about it briefly. The Savills report refers to the housing stock that the Housing Executive owns. The report was based on a large sample — some 9,000 — of Housing Executive homes, which is equivalent to about 10% of the overall stock that the Housing Executive possesses. Savills found that the housing stock was generally of very good quality. In fact, in the round, the Housing Executive stock probably represents the best social housing that Savills has reviewed in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is estimated that around 17% of Housing Executive homes do not meet the decent homes standard. In comparison with the housing stock of other social landlords, that is a remarkable claim and one that is worthy of note by the House. That said, members of the Committee took issue with that part of the report. Members highlighted examples of homes in their constituencies that were in severe disrepair and said that they found it difficult to reconcile those with the report’s findings. However, the Committee will give that issue further serious consideration and will feed back more detail on it to the Department shortly.

The Savills report suggested that the Housing Executive had achieved a quality of stock maintenance that exceeded even the decent homes plus standard and that it had done so while keeping procurement costs at levels that compared well when benchmarked with the rest of the UK. Notwithstanding the Committee’s concerns that I mentioned earlier, that is an achievement that deserves much praise.

Savills further characterised the Housing Executive stock by identifying groups of properties that required significantly more maintenance and improvement than was currently provided by the single-element works that Egan contractors have undertaken. That characterisation showed that the difference between improvement costs and rental income was quite significant. It also illustrated how pockets of housing that amounted to several thousand so-called poor- and very poor-performing homes will certainly need significant improvements now or in the not too distant future.

The Committee recognises that there are, of course, major social housing budget challenges in respect of capital works for existing stock and building new homes. The Committee, therefore, calls on the Minister to address those challenges as equitably as she can. The Committee has spent a lot of time considering the equitable distribution of new homes built under the social housing development programme. It is, of course, vital that fairness and equality be maintained in the allocation process for new and existing homes. Additionally, the Committee suggested that there must be equity in the balance that is struck between capital improvements and the development of new homes.

Savills’ findings, of which there were many, may be interpreted in many different ways. It is possible that the proposed curtailment of Housing Executive capital works may disadvantage certain communities. A departmental investment strategy that is entirely weighted towards new social housing may not benefit those communities. The issue of equity is complex and does not appear to have been considered by Savills. The Committee believes that further study is required on the equality implications of the Savills report, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point today.

Having spoken about information, quality and equity, I turn to the issue of money, to which we tend to revert at some stage in debates such as this. How big are the proposed reductions to capital expenditure for poorer Housing Executive stock? The Savills report appears to suggest that a reduction of some £40 million should be made immediately. In light of that figure, the House can expect to hear today from Members from across Northern Ireland who are worried about delayed or cancelled Housing Executive capital works projects in their area. From Dunclug to New Lodge and from Bangor to Banbridge, the message of concern will be the same. Those projects can have a hugely favourable impact by helping communities to rebuild and regenerate areas and turn them around. Aside from the impact on tenants living in poorer accommodation, a reduction of around £40 million in capital works expenditure will surely have a detrimental effect on the construction industry in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Department estimates that every £1 million of investment protects 30 jobs in the construction industry, including its suppliers. Therefore, even using the Department’s figures, the suggested cutbacks could endanger perhaps as many as 1,200 jobs.

The Committee recognises that many of these difficult decisions reflect the loss of capital receipts owing to the contraction of the housing market. Nonetheless, the Committee urges the Minister to reconsider the significant changes to the Housing Executive capital works budget so as to limit the ill effects for tenants in run-down estates and the impact on our beleaguered construction industry.

The Savills report included suggestions relating to above-inflation increases in Housing Executive rents over a sustained period. The Committee considered proposals for the establishment of an independent body, free from political interference, to set fair social rents and other related charges. The Committee believes that further study is required on that so as to ensure that any rent regime does not disadvantage the working poor. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Minister’s proposed review of social rents and invite her to set out the relevant terms of reference for that today.

The Committee was deeply disappointed by the Department’s apparent initial reluctance to share the Savills report and the Ford report with the Committee. The latter document would facilitate an informed debate on the contentious issue of social rent convergence. I again repeat the Committee’s long-standing request that the Ford report be placed in the public domain to allow for scrutiny by the Committee and debate in the House.

I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions and, in particular, the Minister’s response to the debate.

I take one hat off and put my DUP MLA hat on. The DUP, as a party, wants to underline its belief in the need for equity and balance in the funding of social housing newbuild and capital maintenance works, including the works that I have outlined. We echo the Committee’s view that sensitivity and sympathy must be shown to the construction industry in the handling of any curtailment of funding for capital works programmes. From experiences in our constituencies, we all know just how difficult the downturn has been in Northern Ireland, in particular for the construction industry. Indeed, one reason why Northern Ireland has suffered is the impact that there has been on the construction industry.

I stress the issue of equality and, if there is a curtailment of funding for capital works programmes, the need for a proper assessment of precisely where that will hit. Looking at the extracts from the Savills report that deal with poor- and very poor-performing houses, Members will quickly come to the conclusion that, although the list includes housing in all parts of Northern Ireland with no favour one way or the other, the majority of homes listed are in what may be deemed Protestant, unionist or loyalist areas.

As others call for a fair and equitable distribution of social housing newbuild, I call on the Minister to be mindful and careful in dealing with any possible curtailment of funding and precisely where that will impact hardest. Some of the houses listed are in areas that I know which are run-down and in need of urgent regeneration. Perhaps my colleagues will be better able to speak from personal experience about areas that they know. Although there may be a need for significant investment, we cannot allow those areas to continue to degrade in the way that they have in the past. I urge the Minister to be careful in considering where and upon whom the impact of curtailment of funding would be most severe.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

On behalf of the DUP, I have no qualms in supporting the motion.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In September 2008, the Department commissioned Savills to undertake a stock condition survey of Housing Executive housing stock and to provide information on its maintenance investment strategy and asset planning. The objectives were to support strategic planning for Housing Executive stock; to enable the best use of resources in effecting the repair, maintenance and improvement of Housing Executive stock; to provide information to enable the achievement of the decent homes standard within a future five-year business plan; and to inform the evaluation of maintenance and improvement planning in Housing Executive stock over a 30-year term.

The report includes a comparison of Housing Executive stock with the decent homes plus standard, which is defined as a house complying with statutory minimum requirements; being in a reasonable state of repair; having reasonably modern facilities; having a reasonable degree of thermal comfort; and having its kitchens and bathrooms replaced when required.

The social rented sector in the North comprises approximately 114,400 dwellings, 90,000 of which are owned and managed by the Housing Executive. Savills surveyed a representative sample of 10% of the existing Housing Executive stock across different property types, ages and locations, and its report concluded that the quality of the Housing Executive’s stock was very good and was among the best that it had inspected. The Minister, for her part, stated that the report will allow her:

“to direct capital and revenue resources to ensure we get the best value regarding the repair, maintenance and improvement of the homes.”

However, the survey also found that approximately 17% of Housing Executive stock failed the decent homes plus standard. The most significant reason for failure was thermal inefficiency, which is directly attributable to inefficient heating systems. Interestingly, we are to have a debate later on the proposed introduction of a boiler scrappage scheme, which could have some impact on that finding.

The secret of maintaining existing housing stock to a proper level is planned and effective maintenance. Savills recommended that the Housing Executive adopts a 30-year business plan model, which should be associated with the costs of meeting and maintaining properties to the decent homes plus standard. According to Savills, expenditure should be relatively low during the next five years because of the good condition of the existing housing stock, but will increase as time goes on and the housing stock gets older. If the Housing Executive continues to maintain its housing stock properly, overall costs will logically decrease. The report suggests that the Executive should focus on areas that must be maintained and not necessarily on multi-element improvements. However, disabled facilities, such as ramps, must not be jeopardised in that plan. The reduction in expenditure will also have an impact on the existing Egan framework partnership contracts, and will inevitably impact on jobs in the construction industry as it is reliant on work from the Housing Executive.

There must be some reservations to the Savills report. It suggests raising NIHE rents, which will impact on those low-income households that rely on social housing. Also, the report must not be used as an excuse for cutting essential maintenance but should be utilised for the purpose of maintaining homes to an existing standard, and those standards must not be allowed to fall. Equality in the delivery of social housing and maintenance should be the key.

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

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Savills report and on other issues mentioned in the motion. I am sure that all Members will agree that those are very important matters.

As was previously stated, the findings of the Savills report were presented to the Committee for Social Development in February. The Chair­person of the Committee and others outlined those findings very well to the House today, and I will not spend too much time going over the fine detail of the report. However, it is worth stating that the report concludes:

“The NIHE stock is by far the best quality housing stock that we have inspected. NIHE has maintained the stock to a high standard and the work undertaken has been completed to a high quality.”

That is quite a good report in anyone’s book, and we should pay tribute to the Minister for Social Development, her predecessors and the Housing Executive for their dedication and hard work. We should also be grateful that so much money and hard work has been invested in maintaining our public housing stock.

Some shortfalls were highlighted in the report, the main one being that a sizeable minority of 17% of houses fell below the decent homes plus standard, which was mainly as a result of poor heating or insulation. Every Member would agree that the warm homes scheme is the proper way to address that issue and that it has done a good job so far. Some Members have been critical of that scheme in recent debates, but it is a scheme that the Minister and I support 100%.

The main substance of the motion highlights the issue of newbuild housing versus maintenance and repairs. The Assembly has had many debates on that issue in various forms. In an ideal world, we would build new houses and upgrade the existing stock to the highest possible standard. However, as the money is simply not available for everything, newbuild housing is the priority. We have debated the matter countless times, and newbuild social housing is one of the best ways to give the local economy and the construction industry the help that they need.

The experts do not state that the best way to kick-start the economy and lift us out of recession is to install kitchens, paint fences, plant trees or build roads. Although there is no doubt that winning contracts for such work helps local firms, newbuild social housing is the best way forward. All Members have seen the report for themselves and have read that newbuild housing achieves better value for money and a greater economic multiplying effect, so it must be the priority. If anything, the Savills report adds further weight to that argument. The report states that the majority of public housing stock is in “excellent” condition.

I do not suggest that all maintenance, upgrades and repairs should stop. Many houses still require such work, on which DSD spends millions and millions of pounds each year. However, I repeat that the time is right to prioritise newbuilds. I accept that such an approach would have a negative impact on the Egan contractors, but they know that, in any one year, there is no guarantee of a certain volume of work. However, people who live in Housing Executive houses should know that money will always be available for home maintenance on which, this year alone, some £170 million was spent.

I say to those DUP Members who spoke today that, in recent days in the House and in the media, the Finance Minister, Mr Wilson, issued a public challenge to the Minister for Social Development.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

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

He challenged her to read, review and carefully evaluate all the evidence and advice that is received to ensure that value for money is achieved and no resources are wasted. That is exactly what the Minister for Social Development is doing.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

It is worth highlighting two statistics from the Savills report: some 17% of Housing Executive stock, which equates to about 15,000 homes, fall below the decent homes plus standard, and 31,500 homes in the Housing Executive stock cost more to maintain than is made from their rental income. The figure of 31,500 represents a massive proportion of that stock, and, in the long term, that must be investigated by the Minister and the Executive. It is not sustainable, or at least it should not be considered as such, because it is a huge drain on the Department’s resources and affects the ability of the Housing Executive to reduce housing pressure.

I support the principles that people should have decent homes and resources should be available to contractors to enable them to get homes up to the standard required. A strategic examination of the stock is required, with a view to finding a new way to fix it. However, the problem that is faced at every turn is a lack of money.

The Assembly is superb at pointing out the problems and demanding action by a Minister or a Department. We are great at highlighting problems and saying that something must be done, but we are, unfortunately, not as good at coming up with workable solutions. All Ministers in the Executive would say that with more resources, in the form of money to throw at problems or more staff, they could tackle the problems that face their Departments. As we all know, in the current economic climate, more money is not forthcoming, and, therefore, what is required is a redoubling of efforts to ensure that the scarce and precious resources are deployed as effectively as possible. That will require a strategic look at the public finances, with a view to solving the problems that we face in that area.

There is a problem with the Housing Executive stock. However, there is also a problem with the public finances, which restricts the ability of the Minister to achieve what we want, and no doubt what she wants, in the short term.

However, the problem is not a short-term one; it is a long-term one that requires a radical solution. I hope that the Minister is considering how she might solve the problem, because doing so would go a long way to achieving efficiency savings in her Department. Although those savings might not be made in the CSR period, they are savings that the Department could be required to make.

The waste in DSD that the report highlights is not the Minister’s fault, but it would be to her long-term credit if she could do something about it. That, more than the much needed additional funding, is perhaps a more realistic prospect.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I support the motion and welcome the report.

The Savills stock condition survey was the first independent survey undertaken in Northern Ireland to assess requirements for maintenance investment and asset planning in social housing in light of budget restrictions that the Department will face over the coming years. I commend the Department for taking on that initiative as part of its forward planning.

The report found that Housing Executive homes are in a better condition than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. The report stated that our housing stock was:

“by far the best quality housing stock that we have inspected.”

That is something that we should be proud of, and I commend the Housing Executive for that excellent achievement. The quality of our housing stock is obviously a result of properly resourcing maintenance work.

The total cost of maintaining all 90,000 Housing Executive properties over the next 30 years is estimated to be £5·1 million; £1,887 each year for every property. The survey estimated that only 15,000 Housing Executive homes did not comply with the decent homes plus standard; about 11,000 of those homes failed due to inefficient heating systems. During an evidence session to the Committee, I was pleased that since the report’s publication, thousands of central-heating upgrades or replacements had been undertaken in Housing Executive homes.

In previous years, the Housing Executive spent about £200 million on property maintenance. In the current financial year, that has come down to about £170 million. The Savills report stated that that could come down to about £134 million if the Housing Executive focuses on areas that need to be maintained rather than carrying out multi-element improvement work, as was done in the past.

If the Housing Executive adopts the proposed cost profile, as recommended, there will be an impact on the existing Egan framework, as the Egan contractors are heavily reliant on Housing Executive work to sustain their businesses. Withdrawing a proportion of that work could affect the viability of many contractors, particularly during the economic downturn. The Housing Executive faces a difficult balancing act.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There have been a number of debates on the Egan contracts in the Chamber. During the course of those debates, we found out that there are also hundreds of other small contractors who employ three and four people and who rely heavily on maintenance contracts to survive. Any reduction in those contracts, whether they are for the replacement of kitchens or something else, will have a detrimental effect on many communities. Does the Member agree?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member has another minute in which to speak.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I agree with the Member and thank him for his intervention.

As I said, the Minister faces a difficult balancing act, as does the Department, which faces a shortfall of £100 million or more per annum over the next few years. However, it is important to bear in mind that we cannot be complacent with our well-maintained stock for ever. Adequate maintenance of the housing stock will save us money in the long run and will enable us to avoid the necessity of knocking down properties and rebuilding them, which is what we are seeing in the Village area of south Belfast now.

Instead of cutting expenditure, we perhaps need to consider increasing our income to maintain the same level of output. Savills found that since 2007, rent levels in proportion to earnings in Northern Ireland have fallen behind those in the rest of the UK. He estimated that the maintenance costs for around 31,000 Housing Executive homes, which is one third of our stock, will exceed the rental income over a 30-year period. It is clear that that is not sustainable. We need an independent body that has no political influence to set a realistic level for social rent in Northern Ireland that is in line with that in Britain. Over 80% of rent is paid by the Treasury through housing benefits anyway, and, therefore, the proposal will not negatively impact on the majority of our tenants.

The report also indicated that the Housing Executive undertakes environmental and security works, such as ground maintenance and fencing, that are considered to be outside its landlord functions and that are the responsibility of local authorities in Great Britain. We should take up Savills’s recommendation to agree with other bodies a joint funding mechanism to share the costs.

Savills highlighted the difficulties with the Housing Executive’s redevelopment of properties. Those difficulties are due partly to interface issues. That is further evidence of the cost of division, and we can only hope that, under the new community relations strategy —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member’s time is up.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

— and the strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration, the Department will have a strategic direction —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

— in tackling housing segregation in Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion.

I admit that I have a number of concerns about the Savills report. If we are to meet the decent homes standards, the report estimates that we need to spend about £157 million a year over the next 30 years. That spend is against the current estimate of £200 million a year. When I look at the existing maintenance budget but then see an estimated reduction of more than £40 million, I must admit that I have difficulty working out where we will find the necessary balance between newbuilds and maintenance. Other Members talked about how essential newbuilds are. I do not disagree with that assertion, but we must find the balance between newbuilds and maintenance of existing housing stock.

I have taken the Minister to see a number of projects in Lagan Valley, one of which, the Dales flats, does not even meet health and safety maintenance requirements. She knows about that situation, and, in fairness to her, she found some maintenance budgets to try to deal with some of the more critical health and safety issues that exist there. However, not all those problems have been dealt with. I have taken that up with the Minister, and she knows about the problems. Therefore, I am struggling with the concept that reducing the budget by another £40 million a year will deal with such issues. I find that situation inconceivable, and it will lead only to further reduction to the existing housing stock. If we fail to maintain that stock, it will fall into disrepair and the number of newbuilds will increase. In the end, that is counterproductive.

Furthermore, I took the Minister to visit some pensioners’ bungalows in Hillhall that have been waiting almost seven years for a major maintenance scheme. In fact, the Minister was taken to a bungalow in which the kitchen ceiling had fallen in. It had been that way for over a year, because the maintenance budget was not available to repair it.

That is why I am struggling with the idea that, by the wave of some magic wand, reducing the existing maintenance budget will allow us to continue to maintain our existing housing stock to the decent homes standard. The Savills report is all well and good. It looked at a 10% sample of the existing housing stock, but that is like looking at 10% of anything — where did it look for that 10% sample? I do not have the answer to that, nor am I accusing Savills of picking and choosing the areas that it looked at. Did it look at the worst examples or the best examples? I do not know.

The figures in the report say that 17% of homes — some 15,000 — do not comply with the decent homes standard, and that 11,000 of those homes failed to meet that standard because of inefficient heating systems. Should we believe that a £40 million reduction in the maintenance budget will deal with that? Are we really condemning the people who live in those homes to wait for another three, four or five years? If we fully implement the recommendations of the Savills report, those people will have to live for 11 to 15 years with what they have already got. I do not believe that the Minister or any member of the Committee wants that. However, I struggle with the concept that reducing a budget does not have an impact on existing maintenance schemes. I believe that such a reduction will, unfortunately, have a detrimental effect.

I have looked at some of the figures in the report, and unfortunately, there is an area that the Minister will need to look at. It is clear that almost 70% of the areas in which maintenance performance was poorest were in unionist areas. Those are the areas that will feel the most detrimental effect of any reduction in the maintenance budget.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is an equality issue there that must be looked at and addressed. I support the motion.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tacaím leis an rún seo inniu.

I support the motion, which asks the Assembly to note the findings of the Savills Report. The motion is timely, and I hope that the Minister for Social Development will take its sentiments on board.

I will outline a number of serious aspects of the report that must be addressed because of possible grave consequences for the maintenance of housing stock in the medium to long term. No matter how one tries to dress up the report, it will have far-reaching implications for Housing Executive tenants, many of whom live in homes that are situated in the most deprived areas of the North.

The report points out that it surveyed 10% of the existing housing stock against the decent homes plus standard and found that, in comparison with other jurisdictions, our social housing stock was well maintained by the Housing Executive. It goes on to say that 15,000 homes, or 17% of the stock, did not comply with the decent homes standard, 11,000 of which failed because of inefficient heating systems.

One has to ask what the real purpose of the report was. It says that Housing Executive stock is of a good standard, but it recommends that we cut back across a whole range of environmental, security and maintenance programmes, and that huge savings could be made if we went down that road. I believe that the Minister intends to move ahead with the report’s recommendations regardless of the consequences. I say that on the back of a question that I put to departmental officials at a Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago.

How can the changes that are recommended in the Savills report be implemented, given the detrimental effect that they could have on what remains of the social housing stock? The report says that the average rent here is £51·89 a week, which is lower than in other jurisdictions, and goes on to say that rents should be increased over a number of years. That would raise a considerable amount of financial resources. What the report fails to take into account, however, is that, on average, people here are on lower wages but have to pay more for their fuel, travel and insurance, and for a range of household items.

Under the heading of low value units and high maintenance costs, the report states that 31,500 homes have a negative worth because of the cost of maintenance over rental income over a 30-year period. The report states that 10% are very poor, and goes on to mention poor performers in housing. It mentions Ballymena, Craigavon, Belfast, Derry, Carrickfergus, Larne and Coleraine. Those areas already suffer the worst social deprivation.

The report touches on the Housing Executive’s maintenance of amenity land, grounds and trees, saying that it is excessive. However, that programme is essential in ensuring that land does not become overgrown and that trees do not grow out of control.

The report also targets disabled adaptation, and states that costs are much higher, especially for one-bedroom bungalows, than in other jurisdictions. If the Minister is to implement the recommendations in the report, she must spell out what the impact will be on adaptations, whether unit costs will be reduced and what that will do to the quality of work.

We in Sinn Féin have serious concerns. It does not matter that we do things better than in other places. We should be proud of the fact that we provide good housing and that we have a good policy of maintaining that stock. Any departure from that, based on a report that compares what happens in other jurisdictions with the way that we do things here, is a backwards step.

Can the Minister tell us how many people will lose their jobs in the maintenance sector? Egan contractors employ over 1,000 people, not to mention the suppliers and shops that depend on their spend. Hundreds of small builders employ several thousand people, and they have told us that any reduction in work levels will hit them hard. We could be storing up trouble for the future if there is a reduction in the level to which multi-element improvements are carried out. Thousands of people could be out of work if the Minister pushes through the recommendations.

There must be a breathing space in which to work out the medium- to long-term impact that the implementation of the report would have on the quality of housing. The British Chancellor has called for more investment in housing stock as a way of creating employment and keeping our housing to a good standard, but we seem to be going in the other direction.

Many people are waiting for the Minister to answer the questions that I have outlined. Their livelihoods depend on it, as does the future of our housing stock. To take up one of Simon’s points, one of the bywords that we often use is equality.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Money must be allocated according to need. To do otherwise is to store up trouble for the future, especially in the maintenance or the provision of housing.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member’s time is up.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

One of the other myths is that most people would say that there are more people employed in maintenance than in social rebuild.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I support the motion. Demand for modern, purpose-built, suitable social housing is on the increase. We must meet that demand in order to provide housing fit for the twenty-first century. However, that does not necessarily mean building new houses. I was concerned to read in the Savills report that 17% of the current housing stock, out of a sample of 10%, did not conform to the decent homes standard. Before my colleague Mr Craig gets ahead of me, I will mention that there are pensioners’ bungalows in the Bloomfield estate that have been in need of repair for 10 years. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

The report found that 12% of the housing stock has insufficient heating systems. That statistic is worrying, and it is relevant given that we will debate a boiler scrappage scheme later today. It also raises questions about the Department, given that it operates the warm homes scheme, which seeks to combat fuel poverty. Heating inefficiencies are directly linked to fuel poverty as they raise the costs of heating one’s home. We must remember that people in social housing have been granted homes because they are in poverty or have a need, be it medical or other.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

The Savills report argues that the cost of maintaining the current housing stock for the next 30 years will be much lower than was previously expected. How accurate can that assessment be? I am concerned about the proposal to use the tendering process to gain value-for-money benefits. Are we to see the Department squeeze contractors for everything that they have got? In other words, get them to do more work for less money. Contractors are struggling because the Minister has not provided them with the necessary financial guarantees. That is not good enough for any business. They have to plan for the future, especially with regards to staff. I would not want to see anyone lose their job in the current climate, particularly because of financial mismanagement. A Department should not be responsible for that.

The report lacks a detailed breakdown and assessment of current housing stock.

The report involves a sample of 10%, which I feel is not representative. Some 17% of houses were found not to meet the decent homes standard, but what is the real figure? Could it be much higher?

I also have questions about the decent homes standard. I note that the Housing Executive strives to work to standards above those that are established. However, what if those standards change? We always strive to raise housing standards, so it is likely that the bar will be raised over the next 30 years. Surely that will have an impact on costs.

I support the need for new houses, and I accept that a considerable number of houses need to be replaced, because maintenance costs will outweigh newbuild costs. Having said that, many houses are in need of maintenance. However, the Department is loath to carry out the work and, instead, focuses on newbuilds for the sake of them. I am concerned that that approach is linked to the Minister’s policy of promoting shared housing.

We must watch costs, because the budget is tight. We must not forget about people who live in houses that are not up to scratch. As is stated in the motion, there must be equity in the newbuild and maintenance budgets. One cannot fix something just by buying a new one, nor is it always cost-effective to do so. I commend the motion to the House and make known my concerns about the Savills report. The Minister’s Department may use it to reduce funding for maintaining existing Housing Executive stock.

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

I thank Members who have contributed to the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to, and clarify, some of the issues that have been raised. I will try to address all the points that Members raised. I assure them that I will study the Hansard report, and if I find that I have left any questions unanswered, I will write directly to the Member concerned.

There can be no Member who, by now, is not aware of the shortfall that the housing budget suffered as a result of the land and property market’s collapse. With so much of my budget predicated on land and property sales, it was inevitable that the downturn in the market would have a more savage impact on housing than on elsewhere. I have been asked to find further savings of more than £30 million from my budget next year. If I am to continue to protect vulnerable people and those in greatest need, it is vital that I have reliable and up-to-date information on how best I can do it. That is precisely why I commissioned the Savills report.

Savills undertook the work between November 2008 and March 2009. With the support of the Housing Executive, it visited more than 9,000 homes and analysed data for all 90,000-plus homes that were in Housing Executive ownership at the time. The survey is the most comprehensive of its kind ever to be undertaken on Housing Executive stock. The conclusions reached, and the recommendations made, provide a detailed evidence base on which I, and future Ministers with responsibility for housing, can make informed decisions.

As an aside, Members may be interested to note the conclusion that Housing Executive stock was by far the best-quality housing stock in Britain and Northern Ireland that Savills had ever inspected. The maintenance standard that the Housing Executive adopted is well above the decent homes plus standard. Only 17% of the stock failed that standard, and the majority of those properties failed only because of the lack of an efficient heating system.

The motion calls on me to ensure equity in our newbuild and maintenance programmes. I often hear suggestions that, as Minister, I am focused only on the newbuild programme, to the detriment of other programmes. That is absolute nonsense, and it ignores reality. In the past five years, we have spent £975 million on maintaining the existing stock. In that time, only £686 million was spent on building new homes. This year alone, we will spend more on maintenance than on newbuilds. I have not stopped our maintenance programmes: far from it.

I make no apology for wanting to increase our housing stock. I am proud that we will build more new homes this year than at any time in the past decade. It is a fact that, today, almost 40,000 people are waiting for social housing. The latest housing needs assessment from the Housing Executive suggests the requirement to build 3,000 new homes per year to meet housing need. At the same time, the quality of the housing stock has never been better.

Informed choices need to be made. There is the need to know that every pound spent makes the biggest possible impact on those in greatest need. That is why the fact can no longer be ignored that, although we have a housing stock that we can be proud of, there are record numbers of people on waiting lists. Over the past five years, there has not been equity in how the various housing programmes have been funded, and that is why there is now an imbalance that must be addressed.

The fact must not be lost sight of that my resources are intended, first and foremost, to help those in greatest housing need: I fear sometimes that Members might not grasp that. Whether my budget is focused on newbuild or maintenance, it generates work across the construction industry. The motion may have Members believing that only investment in maintenance helps the beleaguered construction industry. That is clearly not the case. Professor Mike Smyth of the University of Ulster produced a report last June that evaluated the case for public investment in social housing. He noted that this was a particularly good time to increase investment in the social housing development programme, given the falling costs of acquiring materials, labour and, most importantly, land. Members with a genuine interest in the work of the wider construction industry, rather than in that of a few firms, will take comfort in that report and realise that my resources are already indirectly supporting the industry, irrespective of the programmes chosen for prioritisation.

Let me touch on some of the other issues mentioned. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development referred to dwelling unfitness. The preliminary findings of the house condition survey for 2009 will be made available on the Housing Executive’s website next week. Some interesting statistics have been compiled by that survey. In 2009, the total dwelling stock was approximately 740,000. That represents a net increase of 35,000 since 2006 and the high number of dwelling completions at the height of the housing boom.

Interestingly, the rate of dwelling unfitness has continued to decline. In 2009, it stood at 2·4%, compared to 3·4% in 2006 and 4·9% in 2001. The 2009 dwelling unfitness rates for social housing were 0·1% and 0·2% for the Housing Executive and the housing associations respectively. I ask Members to place this debate in that context. It demonstrates that we have been tackling the issue of dwelling unfitness and we have the best quality social housing stock in the Housing Executive sector in these islands.

Simon Hamilton also raised the issue that the reduction in the Housing Executive capital works will have a detrimental impact on minority communities. The Savills report does not recommend a complete halt to all capital works; rather, it suggests that the full multi-element works, where front door to back door replacements are carried out, should be replaced by elemental improvements to kitchens, windows and bathrooms. Those should be replaced when they reach the end of their useful life.

Simon also raised the issue of the terms of reference for the review of rent setting or rent convergence. That is still under consideration, and I will bring the report, on completion and following evaluation, to the Committee for its consideration.

Mickey Brady asked whether the reductions in expenditure will affect Egan contractors. It will not affect them. Savills recommended that there be an expansion of the Egan-type contractors to make efficiencies. Billy Armstrong said that we should take a strategic look at how maintenance is carried out. The report recommends a new asset management strategy to best-plan for future maintenance of the Housing Executive stock.

That should address Mr Armstrong’s concerns. Anna Lo raised the issue of a reduction in work for Egan contractors if the budgets are reduced. That is not the case.

Jonathan Craig raised the issue of what property Savills looked at. The Savills survey was based on a representative sample of all house types in a broad geographical area, and the 10% sample is considered by the Department for Communities and Local Government to be sufficiently robust. If one takes on board other recent samples, that is broadly representative of the number of houses or people that are usually sampled in opinion polling. Mr Craig also mentioned Dales Flats and Hillhall, which I was happy to visit and saw examples of the work.

Fra McCann raised the issue of the impact of the recommendations on disabled adaptations. My officials are working with colleagues in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to improve the systems for adaptations. However, the Savills report does not suggest or recommend a reduction in adaptations; it just says that it should be researched further, and that is what we are doing. Other issues were raised about environmental works in estates and on amenity lands. The Savills report raises concern about the £10 million annual cost of ground maintenance. I share that concern, but we are looking at all those issues in the round.

I thank Members for their contributions and for providing us with a platform to debate the very real challenges that we now face in delivering housing in Northern Ireland. I trust that the Committee for Social Development, which brought the motion, will be reassured to learn that my scarce resources are being targeted at those in greatest housing need, and I am sure that they would want it no other way.

The Savills report presents us, for the first time, with a clear picture of what we need to invest in, and when, if we are to maintain the quality of our housing stock. Together with Mike Smith’s report, it allows us to look more closely at those housing programmes that have, perhaps, not been as fully funded as they needed to be. The report is to help to bring about that better balance in the allocation of funding, notwithstanding the housing budget constraints, over which no one in the House or Northern Ireland has any control. However, we now have the chance in the years ahead to redress that problem and provide for those most in need.

Finally, if nothing else today, we can dispel the myth that there is no money to maintain homes. There will always be a budget to maintain homes, and this year alone it will be almost £170 million.

I suppose that being a Minister is about making decisions, and sometimes they are difficult decisions. Those decisions are always easier when they are informed by reality, an evidence base and research. The Savills report now provides that reality. I made the report available to members of the Committee for Social Development, and I have placed a copy in the Assembly Library so that all Members can acquaint themselves with its findings. I would have appreciated more Members being in the House for the debate, because such reports are informative, but they also have far-reaching long-term implications. Naturally, I am anxious to get the views of all Members.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

On behalf of the Committee for Social Development, I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and, in particular, the Minister for her answers.

Much of the Savills report shows the Housing Executive in a positive and, indeed debatably, commendable light. I hope that the House will agree that, regardless of the controversial nature of some of its findings, the report has injected the social housing debate with a much-needed fresh impetus.

The challenges that face the Department for Social Development in respect of the funding of social housing, both for newbuilds and capital works improvements, have been well set out by Members. The Social Development Committee has previously brought issues of concern relating to Egan contractors before the House. Today, however, our focus was on social houses that need more than a modest investment and on estates that require significant capital expenditure.

Everyone accepts that the decisions that flowed from the collapse of the property market were never going to be easy or welcomed universally. The Committee cannot provide the answers today, but this debate has set out some guiding principles, the first of which is one of transparency. The ramifications of significant changes in housing policy, be they related to rent convergence or capital expenditure profiles, should be debated and scrutinised by the Committee. The outworking of decisions about where money is or is not spent must be demonstrably equitable, and cannot, through error or omission, disadvantage parts of our community. Where substantial housing policy changes are to be made, primary consideration must be given to tenants, and then to the impact on the construction industry and the wider economy.

Today’s debate was characterised by many insightful and forthright contributions. I will take a little time to remind the House of the key thoughts of the Members who spoke. Mickey Brady highlighted the possible adverse impact on tenants and contactors of the proposed reductions to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive maintenance and improvement works. Thomas Burns spoke about the aspects of the Savills report that highlighted the achievement of the decent homes standard in a large percentage of Housing Executive homes. He also identified the benefits of new social house-building for the local economy and indicated that that should be a priority for the Department.

Billy Armstrong called for a strategic review of housing planning and the effective use of existing resources. He also identified longer term issues that related to public finance. Anna Lo commended the Department for commissioning the report and for its achievements in respect of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive’s stock quality to date. She highlighted fears about the impact of the proposed reductions in expenditure for Egan contractors and others, and warned the House of the danger of complacency with regard to the Housing Executive stock quality. She also called for an independent body to set social rents and for a new funding mechanism for other housing costs.

Jonathan Craig spoke about the balance between newbuild and maintenance in social housing, and the danger of further disrepair in the social housing sector. He questioned the findings of the report and indicated his difficulty in reconciling the Savills report’s recommendations with the impact on Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants. Like other Members, he raised the question of equality in respect of the strategic housing decisions. He also gave some examples of areas of concern in his constituency.

Fra McCann questioned the report’s recommendations on raising social rents and the impact that that would have on deprived areas in Northern Ireland. He called for the Minister to continue the Housing Executive’s maintenance policy, particularly the multi-element improvements, at least until equality consideration was undertaken. Alex Easton highlighted disrepair issues in his constituency. He spoke about how the adverse economic impact of the proposed reductions in expenditure would affect contractors. He suggested that equality was important in respect of the balance between newbuild and maintenance.

I thank the Minister for her response. She reminded the House of the background to the financial difficulties that face social housing in Northern Ireland. She also pointed out that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has adopted a maintenance standard that is well above that in the rest of the UK.

She further advised Members of the breakdown in spend between newbuild and maintenance and how she intended to address what she deems existing inequities. The Minister told the House of the benefit of newbuild to the construction industry, and detailed the general reduction in unfitness levels in the social housing stock. She said that she would advise the Committee of the outcome of the rent review being conducted by her Department.

The Minister refuted that Egan contractors would be adversely affected and defended the statistical basis of the Savills report. She highlighted that her Department is also to review environmental and grounds maintenance costs and concluded that the Savills report would create an opportunity to deliver future funding allocations to housing based on better evidence.

It has been a very good debate, during which Members spoke about or touched upon most of the issues of concern. I commend the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the findings of the Savills report; calls on the Minister for Social Development to ensure equity in the delivery of new social housing and the maintenance of existing Housing Executive stock; and further calls on the Minister to limit the reduction in funding for Housing Executive maintenance contractors, in view of the adverse economic situation.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until then.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety which hospitals with maternity units will exceed capacity limitations as a result of the planned maternity closures at hospitals such as Lagan Valley; and for his assessment of any possible health and safety implications for patients. (AQO 879/10)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Safe, sustainable maternity services are a top priority for my Department. It is precisely because of the need to ensure safe services that the obstetrics unit at Lagan Valley Hospital will close. Work is already under way to ensure that any hospital affected by the withdrawal of obstetric services from Lagan Valley Hospital will have the extra capacity to meet any increase in demand.

I recently invested £4·2 million in maternity services at the Royal and £3·5 million at Craigavon Area Hospital. A community midwifery unit has opened in Downpatrick, and there will be a midwifery-led unit in place in Lagan Valley Hospital before the withdrawal of obstetric services. I also have plans to increase maternity capacity at the Ulster Hospital.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an freagra sin. I welcome the Minister’s answer. In the Developing Better Services document, the trust stated that people from Lisburn who need to avail of maternity services will travel to the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald. However, there is a view held by many, in particular the Royal College of Nursing, that that will not happen and that most women travelling from Lisburn will go to Craigavon Area Hospital or to the Royal Jubilee Maternity Service. Given that those hospitals are under increasing pressure, does the Minister accept that they will not have the capacity to deliver a quality maternity service?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As far as capacity is concerned, the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust operates Lagan Valley Hospital, and expectant mums in that trust area will go to that hospital. I also anticipate that they will avail of Craigavon Area Hospital and the Royal Jubilee Maternity Service, which is why, as I said in my previous answer, I have invested in maternity services at those hospitals to address the point that Mr Butler makes.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

From answers to questions a number of months ago it was clear that there was a lack of capacity of around 700 births, and I know that the birth rate in Lagan Valley Hospital is 1,200 at present. Will the Minister give us some assurances that the new midwifery-led unit will be in open and in place before any reduction in numbers takes place in Lagan Valley Hospital, which would cause a major issue around capacity in the whole South Eastern Trust region?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As I said in my previous answer, there will be a midwifery-led unit in place in Lagan Valley Hospital before the withdrawal of obstetric services. That is my intention, and we will go forward with that. There is capacity in the entire system, but getting the capacity to match the demand is always an issue, particularly with the dramatic rise in the birth rate over the past number of years. However, there is still spare capacity in the system to deal with demand, particularly following the investment that I referred to today, as well as the new midwifery units at Downe Hospital and at Lagan Valley Hospital.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Minister agree that further investment is needed in the maternity units due to the increase in demand for our hospitals’ maternity services? Is there any reason why the health budget should be cut, as advocated by the DUP and Sinn Féin, when finances are needed?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I can only make the argument that the health budget should not be cut, and I have made that argument repeatedly, particularly because demand has risen so dramatically over the past few years, not just in maternity services but in services generally.

At the weekend, I listened to the president of Sinn Féin say at his party’s ard-fheis that Sinn Féin would not accept cuts to the Health Service, or words to that effect. There was an irony to those remarks, bearing in mind the stance of Sinn Féin in the Chamber.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

In light of the further pressure that the current budget will place on maternity services, will the Minister explain to the House how he can stand over the payment of £11 million in bonuses to consultants, including obstetric consultants, this year? Will he follow the lead of his Scottish counterpart in seeking to have that controversial consultants’ bonus scheme suspended until the economic situation improves?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have never regarded that award as controversial; it is viewed as controversial by some who have a desire for consultants’ pay to be cut. I note that Mr McDevitt has talked along those lines on a number of occasions, as he did at a Health Committee meeting, where he spoke about cutting low pay and ensuring that low-paid workers would see a pay freeze.

The merit award is for exceptional personal contributions made by individual doctors who show commitment to achieving the delivery of high-quality care and continuous improvement of the health and social care service. It also helps to ensure that Northern Ireland remains competitive in the international consultant labour market. A consultant in Northern Ireland could double his or her salary by moving to a job south of the border or in Scotland. One paediatrician is currently doing that, and, recently, we lost a consultant from Altnagelvin Area Hospital to the Irish Republic. Consultants can quadruple their salary if they go to the United States. The awards are for the best performers in the consultancy teams. We have some of the best doctors in Europe. Our service depends on them, and we must do what we can to hold on to them and to benefit from their knowledge, skills and experience.

A recent review of the scheme found that the recognition and reward of the achievements of the consultant workforce continues to be appropriate. Scotland has a different merit award system, and, since it has a larger workforce, its merit award scheme is more expensive. Our scheme costs less than 0·3% of the relevant budget.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what his Department is doing to improve health centre facilities in Carrickfergus and Larne. (AQO 880/10)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

In November 2008, I announced a significant capital investment of £175 million to improve health and social care services and facilities in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. That investment will enable key projects to be taken forward, including new health and care centres for Larne and Carrickfergus. The Northern Trust is developing business cases for new health and care centres, and they are due to be submitted to my Department later in the year.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his response. Is he aware that Carrickfergus Borough Council has spent millions of pounds on a new leisure centre in Carrickfergus and that Larne Borough Council is spending a substantial amount of money on its recreational facilities? When does the Minister hope that work on those projects will commence?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

In the investment strategy for Northern Ireland, as it stands, I have allowed for new health and care centres in Larne and Carrickfergus. I am not in a position to announce the date on which that work will commence. Much will depend on announcements about the money, capital and resource available to my Department. We are also developing a health and care centre in Ballymena, which is also in the Northern Trust. There are, therefore, three important primary care developments planned for the Northern Trust area, among others. Much depends on capital and resource. I hope to be in a position to make a definitive date known, as far as I can.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest as a co-author of the health village concept in Carrickfergus. We have received a good interagency response. We have also received a good response from the Minister. Will the Minister and the Department initiate further talks on that joined-up and innovative way to deliver related aspects of well-being in Carrickfergus? Perhaps, they will stumble upon some of the extra resources that are required.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

In pursuit of that development, I met Mr Hilditch at Carrickfergus Borough Council. I also met other Members, such as Mr Neeson and Mr Ken Robinson. It is a good idea to form a brigade of units, such as leisure facilities, libraries and health-and-care centres. In particular, I look to the Grove Wellbeing Centre on the York Road in Belfast, which is the result of work between the Belfast Trust, Belfast City Council and the library authority. There are savings on the cost of site acquisition and build. The centre fosters good working and symbiotic relationships between staff and people who visit it. It all works together. I am keen to do that in Carrickfergus, as I am keen to do it in other places. That is very much part of the calculation.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his positive comments about health provision in Carrickfergus and Larne. I want to draw his attention to the third element of the East Antrim constituency, Newtownabbey, where people feel somewhat neglected because they have lost certain facilities from Whiteabbey Hospital. Will the Minister tell the House what facilities will be brought to the Whiteabbey/Newtownabbey area that will enhance its health provision?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr Ken Robinson will be aware that the Department has plans for a health-and-care centre to take forward primary care provision on the Whiteabbey Hospital site, as well as other plans for Whiteabbey.

We are moving towards the Developing Better Services model. That will require changes on a number of hospital sites, rather than closures. I hope to be able to announce some exciting changes for Whiteabbey, which are part of planning that is going forward. The Whiteabbey and Newtownabbey area has certainly not been overlooked. I consider it to be another key area for development.

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

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if and when he will launch a review into the response of his Department and the Health Service to the swine flu outbreak. (AQO 881/10)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Northern Ireland has been one of the best prepared countries in the world. My Department’s response has been proportionate, appropriate and robust. That has been part of a UK-wide response to the pandemic. At all times, Health Ministers have collectively based decisions on the best scientific advice from national expert groups. I have already commenced a review of Northern Ireland’s pandemic response. The review’s findings will contribute to wider assessment of the overall UK response proposals, which are currently under consideration.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer, in which he referred to a review. Does he agree that there is a need to co-ordinate a regional response to epidemics, such as swine flu, given that his Department holds a considerable stockpile of unused vaccines?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The pandemic response was very much a UK-wide response. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland operated on the best scientific advice that was available from the World Health Organization, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. I have set out a number of steps that were taken as we progressed through treatment into containment, such as strategies for communications, surge capacity, hospitals, community services, critical care, equipment, vaccines and so on.

It is important that the response is reviewed because that is not the last pandemic that Northern Ireland will see. The swine flu virus is still circulating. There is still a possibility of a third wave of infection. It is also anticipated that swine flu will make up the bulk of the seasonal flu virus in 2010 and in some years to come. Therefore, the virus will stay with us.

Northern Ireland got its share of vaccines according to the UK-wide order. At present, the bulk of those vaccines is with primary care providers and trusts. The vaccination programme continues. It is important that a strategic reserve is kept in Northern Ireland and in the UK.

The reviews that I am announcing for Northern Ireland and the review that I anticipate being announced in due course for the UK as a whole will better inform us all.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I listened carefully to what the Minister said when he was cross-examined about the £11 million bonuses. I understand that the Minister recently made a statement in which he said that he had overestimated the swine flu vaccine to the tune of £61 million. Will he give an undertaking to the House that when he carries out the review that he spoke of he will also carry out a financial review? Does he accept that he made a gross overestimation in this financial year? Will he assure the House that that will not be repeated?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

No doubt, the benefit of hindsight is a key entry requirement for the House of Lords. The health and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland are foremost in my mind. All the way through the pandemic, we followed every piece of advice that we were given on swine flu. We began with estimates from epidemiologists, who made particular estimates on our ability to cope. The £61 million was an estimate. However, that estimate came down, and, before moneys were ever allocated, it was well down. Indeed, there is a long story to be told about the money for swine flu. I am quite sure that the review will take that story on board and have a good look at it and that individuals in the Executive who deal with finance will not come out of it particularly well.

The review will be as wide-ranging as I can make it, because this is not the last pandemic that Northern Ireland will see, and it will certainly not be the last worldwide pandemic that we will have to deal with. The lessons that we learned in dealing with the pandemic will be important. However, a key element was getting the vaccine in place while the swine flu was surging, because that had a strong effect on reducing the surge.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if he can provide an assurance that there will be long-term investment in podiatry services despite public spending cuts. (AQO 882/10)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am fully committed to providing a high-quality, safe and effective Health Service for the population of Northern Ireland. However, it is proposed to cut my budget by £92 million, which is more than the total £76 million budget for new services. I can give no assurances about long-term investment in podiatry or other services at this stage. The current financial uncertainty requires creative thinking, and, therefore, all services in health and social care will be required to ensure an effective use of services that maximises outcomes and provides value for money. In that regard, podiatry services are no different to any other service, and trusts will need to ensure that the services that they provide are targeted at those who need them most.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I partly thank the Minister for his answer. Some very good work is ongoing in health centres etc on diseases such as diabetes and on podiatry services and the preventative measures that they provide. Does the Minister agree that spending money on preventative medicine reduces the burden on the main health budget at a later stage?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I could have written Mr Spratt’s comment about spending money on preventative medicine. Clearly, he has been reading and listening to what I have been saying in here for the past three years. The need to press down on demand on the Health Service is about working upstream rather than always working downstream, which is about prevention. That is why I decided to set up the Public Health Agency, the establish­ment of which the DUP decided to oppose. Indeed, it was the only party in the House to do so. However, I agree with the Member’s sentiments about allied health. Podiatry, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dietetics and so on all have a significant role to play in ensuring that we keep people out of hospital.

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

The question refers to cuts in public spending. I understand that the Minister has not yet briefed the Committee on his plans to address the reduction in his budget for next year. Will he care to outline his plans on this occasion? To what extent does he feel that he can address the pressures on his budget through efficiency savings without reducing front line services in any way?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am sure that Mr O’Loan is aware that we have several hundred lines of service in health and social care, and all of that has to be carefully balanced to maintain, as far as possible, a service that addresses the needs of the population of Northern Ireland. However, currently, because there is not enough money available, we are providing health and social care according to budget, money and resource, rather than according to need. I recall that Mr O’Loan was one of those who voted for those cuts and those efficiencies.

We are in a situation that is largely created by a rise in demand and the inability of the House to see a way forward to meet that demand. Therefore, we have a Health Service that is not entirely meeting need, so I have to make very careful decisions. I will make the plans known in due course, but I hope that I will not be listening to a chorus of people telling me that I should not be doing something or other, when the very people who will make up that chorus will be those who engineered the situation in the first place.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the fairness of the application and appeal process, known as “control of entry”, for inclusion on the pharmaceutical list. (AQO 883/10)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

My Department has been contacted on several occasions recently by pharmacists aggrieved at the refusal of their application to join the pharmaceutical list and the failure of their appeal to the national appeal panel. I am aware that officials in England and Wales have looked at the issue of control of entry and have made changes to the application process. A review is planned in Scotland. My officials will look at the issue as part of the development of a new contract for community pharmacy.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he has been slated for previous answers, but it is to be welcomed that his officials are looking at what is happening in England and Scotland. I have also raised concerns indirectly with the Minister’s office about that issue, and there is genuine concern about the involvement of people on that list. I welcome the fact that the Minister is considering the possibility of a review. If possible, will he tell the House whether he will do that and, perhaps, give a timescale for it? There is genuine concern about that matter in constituencies.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Pharmacy is clearly an important area because of the cost of the drugs budget. The issue is that the bulk of the drugs budget goes through community pharmacy, so I am looking at procurement and the provision of generic drugs. The Member will be aware that the percentage of generic drugs used here has risen in the last three years from 43% to 64%. We are rapidly catching up on England, where 59% of drugs were generic at the time when it was 43% here. The percentage there is now 68%, so we have a wee bit to go, but we can catch up, and that will make major savings.

There are other savings to be made in relation to procurement, and I am considering that. On the key point that the Member makes, which relates to control of entry, one of the issues is that, pro rata, there are far more pharmacies here than in England, Scotland or Wales. In fact, we have 524 pharmacies; working roughly on a benchmark with England, Scotland or Wales that number would be around 340 or 350. We have an oversupply and overprovision, so the people who are carrying out control of entry are clearly looking at that and wondering about the need. That does not actually address the central issue for the Member, which is that community pharmacies should be placed in areas of disadvantage where there is need. That is all part of the mix as far as I am concerned.

Community pharmacy plays an important role in prevention, which relates to Mr Spratt’s point earlier. I am looking at that issue very closely.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister’s response to that question was very positive. In relation to the control of entry and drug procurement, we are all keen that savings be made through drug procurement. Those savings could, in turn, be used to ensure that some other drugs that are not currently available are made available. Can the Minister assure us that the savings that will be made will be used for other drugs, such as the cancer drugs?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr Shannon makes a good point. Drugs that generate important advances in the treatment of conditions are coming on the market constantly, and I invest and have been investing in that, year on year. Part of my resources for new service developments for the coming financial year, budget cuts permitting, is for new drugs. I am always looking to make savings, and I will continue to do so. However, one issue that arises is resistance in the industry, and I have to be able to work with the industry and take it with me as far as possible.

Although significant savings have been made to the drugs budget and significant advances have been made in the use of generic medicines, much more progress can be made. I shall continue to do my best to make that progress, because every penny that we save in that area will, as Mr Shannon said, be made available for important new drug treatments on the market.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what discussions he or his Department has had with British ministerial counterparts in relation to the operation of and access to the family restoration fund, announced by the Prime Minister on Wednesday 24 February 2010. (AQO 885/10)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The family restoration fund will benefit child migrants from the whole of the UK. Discussions are taking place among officials from the Northern Ireland Office, my Department and the Department of Health in London on how the fund will operate. The detail has not yet been finalised.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answer. As the details are worked through, I encourage him to take account not only of the needs of the people who went to Australia and elsewhere and who know that they are child migrants but of those of the many people who were left here in all-too-abusive care who believe that their siblings and friends were transported. Those people have been trying to make enquiries but have been told that information and records are not available. Will those people also be able to seek assistance and support through the family restoration fund?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr Durkan’s question indicates that he is aware that the family restoration fund was announced by the Prime Minister on 24 February. I had no advance knowledge of the detail of the fund, and I am asking questions to find out how it will affect Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The fund will support travel and other costs for former migrants who wish to be reunited with their families.

When I examined the statistics and the background, I was shocked to learn the number of children who were involved in the process over 150 years. We will obviously be considering the more recent cases. Between 1947 and 1967, between 7,000 and 10,000 children were sent to Australia from the UK. Before that, Canada was the main reception country, but the Canadian Government stopped and banned the practice through an Order in Council in 1925.

Between 1938 and 1956, Catholic agencies sent a total of 1,109 children from the UK to Australia, 103 of whom are known to have come from Catholic agencies in Northern Ireland. The detail is as sparse as that. I am also aware that a number of other voluntary agencies, such as Dr Barnardo’s, played a role.

It is a question of tracking down the families of migrant children and trying to make a connection. It seems that it will prove quite a stretch for £6 million to deal with the numbers concerned.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I apologise for being late, but I have had a last-minute thought. The Minister mentioned the years between 1947 and 1967, and I know that a Government were in this Building during that period. The statistics may be somewhere in Northern Ireland, so the buck may not need to be passed to Westminster.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr McCarthy has had a last-minute thought on passing the buck. It is a serious issue, and I am not aware of any records outside of, perhaps, the Public Record Office. All of that must be considered, and we have to determine how best to find the information, particularly by using the organisations that dispatched the children. Those organisations will be the first port of call.

It is very difficult. I think that the onus is on the migrant children who are seeking to come back rather than on us, because some of those affected might not be interest in coming back. The process is complex and is at a very early stage.

Regional Development

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the long-term investment plan for NI Water, given that its existing strategic business plan ends this month. (AQO 892/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Northern Ireland Water’s (NIW) investment plan for the next three years has been developed in light of draft ministerial guidance that I consulted on last spring. That was informed by research on customers’ views conducted by the Consumer Council. The key themes of the research were: improving service quality for customers; meeting EU obligations; promoting sustainability; and delivering efficiency. The priorities for investment have been agreed with stakeholders in the water sector, including the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and the Consumer Council. NIW issued a draft business plan in June 2008 setting out its plans and the costs involved. That has been scrutinised by the Utility Regulator, which issued its recommendations last month. I am considering those recommendations, and I will put my proposals to the Executive shortly.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I appreciate the Minister’s reply. The existing NIW business plan states that the objective for the period ending this month was to build a business that delivers efficient, sustainable water and waste water services for its customers. However, does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland Water’s billing systems were not up to scratch during that period? Does he intend to monitor the business more closely in the next period to achieve a service that is fit for purpose? If so, does he expect to see an immediate improvement?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I agree with the Member that there were difficulties with the billing system. The information systems that NIW inherited from the Water Service contained difficulties that became apparent during the course of that business plan. I scrutinise closely the operations and workings of NIW, as an entity, and I intend to do so to ensure that it continues to improve. There have been improvements since that error was discovered, but we need to continue to strive for further improvements across all aspects of its functions.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin agus as an cheann eile.

Has the Minister received the independent report examining governance issues within NIW?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I received the report last week. It brought to light a number of serious issues, and I am considering its recommendations. I have been in consultation with officials from NIW and the Department about the report, and I will take a decision on its recommendations in the near future.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

It is important that we have some idea about NIW’s long-term investment plan. There has been long-term investment in my constituency of Strangford, and yet NIW has not returned to fix the roads and to finish the system as it should have done. Will the Minister, therefore, assure the House that NIW’s long-term investment extends to a monitoring system that ensures that it actually finishes the work that it starts?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I would have been surprised if the Member had not raised an issue relating to Ards.

There is a statutory requirement on the water company and all utilities to restore roads to the state in which they found them. A recent Public Accounts Committee report on the issue contained a series of recommendations with which the Department agreed, and I expect that scrutiny of that type of work will improve accordingly. Although a requirement already existed, the Public Accounts Committee felt that that needed to be tightened up substantially, and the Department intends to do that.

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

Given that Northern Ireland Water will have £527 million to spend on capital expenditure schemes over the next three years, will the Minister tell us whether he will take steps to amend and widen the procurement framework for contracts in order to provide greater opportunities for Northern Ireland companies to participate and, indeed, for their employees to have more stability and security in their jobs?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The general sense in the Executive, not just in my Department, is that we must ensure that public money spent by the Executive, particularly on capital projects, is used to maximise the benefit for the local economy. Certainly, in any of my discussions with NIW, I have repeated that advice. I asked NIW to invite in all the contractors that are on its books, big and small, to ensure that they are fully au fait with how procurement will operate and fully informed of all the information necessary, so that they can bid for work and be quite sure that they stand as good a chance as anyone of getting it. It is not just a matter for NIW. All Departments and government agencies that spend public money must try to maximise the benefit for the local economy, particularly in these difficult times.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an estimate of the total cost of repairing potholes caused by the recent bad weather. (AQO 893/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service has advised that a repeated freezing and thawing cycle, as experienced during the recent spell of cold weather, has a damaging effect on the roads network, causing carriageway to split and potholes to form. Due to the size of the roads network, it may be some time before assessments are completed and the full extent of the damage and cost of carrying out repairs is known. Additionally, as it would not be practical to diagnose every individual failure that led to the formation of the indentified potholes, one cannot say with any certainty whether they were caused by the recent bad weather or by other factors. For those reasons, an estimated total cost of repairing the potholes caused by the recent cold spell cannot be provided.

However, I can confirm that, since the beginning of January, additional funding of approximately £16·6 million has been allocated to Roads Service divisions. That money will be used to progress predetermined programmes of work targeting the worst roads and to deal with the effects of the recent cold spell.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The Minister will probably agree with the rest of us that the greatest frost damage this year, caused by an exceptional winter, has been to minor and rural roads. Therefore, can he confirm that he will allow Roads Service to give some priority to those minor roads?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We attempted to get additional money, and have received approximately £16·6 million. That will be allocated fairly across Roads Service divisions and applied on the basis of which roads have been most damaged and need the most attention. I have stated many times in the Chamber, and the Member will be aware, that the budget for structural maintenance is not sufficient and, therefore, the roads are more susceptible. However, we accept that this was an exceptionally cold winter — the most protracted cold spell since 1981 — and one which caused a substantial amount of damage to the roads. Nonetheless, it is recognised that there is not enough money in structural maintenance and that means that, in spells of weather such as this, the roads get a particular pounding.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was interested in the Minister’s reply concerning the severe winter. Is the Minister prepared to commission a report in relation to roads in the Dungannon, Aughnacloy and Caledon area, which have suffered severely as a result of the construction of the A4? Heavy vehicles, which would not normally use those roads, are using the roads, and they are in a deplorable condition. Can the Minister give assurances that he will carry out a survey of that area to ascertain the damage that has been caused?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I advise the Member that a broader report was commissioned on structural maintenance and the effect on the roads of the shortfall in structural maintenance. I recommend that the Member take the opportunity to study that report, which was conducted by Professor Snaith. In relation to the roads that the Member mentioned, I have the opportunity this week to visit that project and I will certainly take up with Roads Service managers the matters that he raised.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister said that he needs additional money for the roads structural maintenance budget. How does he go about trying to secure additional funding for that very necessary project? Will he encourage the divisional Roads Service managers to carry out a PR initiative aimed at explaining what people should do when they come across potholes? They should not just ring elected representatives; they should ring Roads Service directly. I would like that to be said. Give out the phone numbers, please.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department commissioned the Snaith review of structural maintenance funding, which underlined what Roads Service, the Department and I had been saying for some time. Based on 2009 prices, it is estimated that £108 million will be required for structural maintenance this year. Roads Service has received only £85 million, which equates to a shortfall of £23 million for 2009-2010 alone. The Snaith review reinforced the message that more money is required for investment in structural maintenance here, but Roads Service and the Department are competing with other Departments’ very worthy demands for Executive resources for areas such as education and health. The Department bats as best as it can to secure the money that is required, and I have said in the House on many occasions that the single biggest asset owned by the Executive is the roads network and that it needs investment.

Information is available to the public, and I can ensure that it is made more prominent. However, the telephone numbers of Roads Service divisional offices are quite easily available to the public. I accept that the Member would prefer that Roads Service managers were bothered about potholes rather than him, and I will ensure that people are made aware of that.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Minister clarify whether roads are being repaired well enough? We have had a really bad winter, and we will probably have more bad winters in the future. Therefore, should we review how we repair roads so that they stay in good condition when we have such appalling weather?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Again, I recommend the Snaith review to the Member. It provides evidence that it is necessary for some repair work to be carried out on our roads so that they do not become dangerous or a hazard for drivers. However, the resources are not there to carry out all the longer-term repairs that are needed and the roads are suffering as a result. The patching work that is carried out is necessary because the safety of the travelling public is paramount. However, it does not do the job of addressing the long-term interests of the roads structure.

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

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the expenditure for the current winter gritting programme for rural roads. (AQO 894/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service has advised that it is unable to provide specific details of expenditure on rural roads but that the overall expenditure on the current winter service programme up to 31 January 2010 was £5·1 million. Some 67,123 tons of salt were used up to 31 January 2010, of which 8,677 were targeted at secondary salting of roads in the vicinity of the 46 rural schools that were identified as being most affected by the winter weather conditions, as well as at filling salt boxes and replenishing grit supplies.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I note the answers that he gave to questions from Mr Lunn, Mr McElduff and other Members. Does the Minister agree that the ever-increasing severity of our winter weather means that some level of preparation should be undertaken to deal with the worst long-term scenarios, which are more likely to occur in the winters ahead?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is not always easy to predict the winters that we get. This winter was the coldest since 1981, but previous winters were not as bad. We suffered more from heavy rain and flooding than from freezing conditions.

Roads Service was probably better prepared than any other service across these islands. It was the only service that did not get into a panic over salt supplies; it had a full stock. There was an early cold spell around October when some of the salt was used, but Roads Service topped up its supplies and kept a regular supply coming from the salt mines in Carrickfergus. Roads Service was alone among roads service operators across these islands, in either Ireland or Britain, in being well prepared. It had adequate supplies of salt while others were running short. As I said when I answered the Member’s initial question, not only did it salt the main road network but it put a substantial amount of salt on secondary routes and in and around the schools that we identified last year as having difficulties in the cold weather and which had to close as a result.

Just like with structural maintenance, Departments argue and bid for as much money as possible and compete with other Executive demands on a range of other issues. As the Member will know, the Minister from his party has focused on the need for more money to be allocated for social housing. All Departments argue for money so that they have better resources to help them to prepare for whatever situations they face. Roads Service did a very good job this year with the resources that it had.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister assure the House that if there is a continual cold spell, the weather worsens or next year turns out to be as bad as this year, Roads Service will work with local councils to ensure that grit is available to local communities, particularly those in a rural setting?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The issue of replenishing grit piles and salt boxes can be tackled through elected representatives or by rural communities and Roads Service. Local councils do not necessarily need to be involved. Roads Service is willing to work with all local representatives and councils to ensure a proper supply of grit and salt.

I suggest to the Member that the best option is to identify the location of grit piles and salt boxes in the summer and to ensure that Roads Service comes out to replenish them. People often report, in the middle of a cold spell, that it is impossible to drive up a particular road, but it is also impossible to drive up that road to replenish a grit pile. People should ensure that the key work is done before the winter by identifying problem areas and talking to their local divisional managers to ensure that grit piles and salt boxes are topped up. There are about 4,500 grit piles across rural areas, and Roads Service is willing to ensure that local communities can use them.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister intend to use local farmers to clear blocked roads during adverse weather conditions?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On occasions, a provision has been used for local farmers to clear snow from blocked roads. If that is the provision to which the Member refers, it is ongoing, and some farmers are engaged on an as-needed basis. The question has been raised of whether farmers could be involved in gritting, and I discussed that with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and officials from both Departments. Our conclusion was that the best option, for a range of reasons, was for Roads Service to continue its operation of the gritting service. The arrangement will continue whereby local farmers become involved in clearing roads that have become blocked by snow.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development whether he plans to extend the 20 mph speed limit pilot project that is in place outside school premises. (AQO 895/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In September 2008, Roads Service introduced part-time 20 mph speed limit pilot projects at two rural schools. In September 2009, a further pilot project at an urban school was added. Roads Service has been monitoring the pilot projects over the school year and is finalising its report on the findings to date. I expect that the board of Roads Service will consider the final report in the near future.

Roads Service is also reviewing its speed management policy, and it is expected that the details of that review, which includes the use of variable speed limits at schools, will be published shortly. Should it be decided to extend the initiative beyond the pilot projects, each site will be considered on its merits, and appropriate criteria will be developed to determine the priorities. In the current financial climate, any possible future implementation of such a programme will depend on the availability of additional capital funding.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister’s response to my question. I have a specific concern about schools that sit on the periphery of rural towns and thus are neither in the country­side nor within a built-up conurbation. Will he include such schools in his deliberations? How much has he allocated to the project?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The first of the two ongoing studies is the pilot project on the use of variable signs. Those signs activate at particular times, such as when children arrive at or leave school, and they can be switched off in the school holidays. The pilot runs at two locations in the northern division of Roads Service, one of which is an urban area. The initial findings have been extremely positive, as the signs have reduced the speed of passing vehicles. I expect the confirmed results to lead to requests from other schools in urban and urban/rural settings for similar projects. That will depend on the availability of funding. The results of the speed management survey, which also examines speed management outside primary schools, should be published soon.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Minister will know that the chance of being killed when hit by a car travelling at 30 mph is about one in five. That reduces to one in 40 when hit by a car travelling at 20 mph. Does the Minister agree that it is time for a serious region-wide conversation about extending the 20 mph speed limit to all urban residential streets?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That conversation is ongoing. As I said, I hope to publish the final policy document within the next month and I am quite happy to hear the views of elected representatives on it. The draft speed management policy is based on guidance produced by the Department for Transport and the regional Administrations. That guidance was subject to public consultation in 2009 and, based on the comments submitted, received considerable support. The new policy will also contain the latest thinking on encouraging a greater take-up of 20 mph limits and zones in residential areas.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development why the public consultation on the preferred routes for the Belfast rapid transit system is being deferred until after the primary legislation has completed its Assembly stages. (AQO 896/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My Department sought advice from a number of sources, including the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Departmental Solicitor’s Office, on the timelines for the proposed rapid-transit legislation. Those discussions identified the need for accurate timetabling of legislation to enable it to be delivered within the mandate of this Assembly. In addition, there was a possibility of confusion arising if the public were also being consulted on the details of route alignment options during the enabling legislation process.

As a result, my Department decided not to engage with the public on route options until early 2011. That will also allow greater detail on route options to be made available to the public during the consultation phase. Belfast rapid transit is a key priority in the Programme for Government and in the investment strategy, and it is the subject of an important commitment from me and the Department.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed, because there seems to be some slippage. I hope that that does not reflect commitment to the rapid-transit project. When the legislation comes to the Assembly, will it include route options beyond the three that we have already?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I assure Members that there has been no slippage. The reason why we have held back the consultation on route options is so as not to confuse people. The legislation coming before the Assembly is enabling legislation, and it does not specify routes. It does not even specify Belfast. The legislation will enable the roll-out of rapid transit anywhere in the North.

A number of route options are being looked at as part of the three pilot schemes. Further work to be done prior to the consultation will allow for greater information to be provided on the pros and cons of each of the route options.

As I said, the scheme is a priority for me. It is a key part of the Programme for Government and a priority for the Department. I do not see there being any slippage.

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

Will the Minister assure the House that it will be possible for the routes selected for the scheme to be easily upgraded, so that they can serve commuter towns outside Belfast in the future?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The pilot routes that we are looking at will serve the Belfast area. They will not serve rural areas or other towns. The enabling legislation that is being brought forward applies to anywhere. It is not location specific.

If the Member had looked at the report by Atkins and the follow-up publications, he would have seen that three route options are being looked at specifically as part of the pilot scheme, which will be developed in the first instance.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development how many pothole-related claims were made against Roads Service in 2008-09 and 2009-2010 to date; and the total compensation paid during each period. (AQO 897/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In 2008-09, my Department’s central claims unit received 1,472 pothole-related claims. The figure for 2009-2010, up to 26 February 2010, is 1,530. In 2008-09, £371,979.66 was paid in compensation for pothole-related claims. The corresponding figure for 2009-2010, up to the end of February 2010, is £382,295.83. As it takes a minimum of a few months to investigate and conclude compensation claims, the amount of compensation paid in any year will not relate solely to claims received in that year.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that my question was the second one that he received about potholes today, and given the high level of pothole-related claims and the quantity of money paid out over the past number of years, what roll-out has there been by Roads Service of the Jetpatcher vehicle, which is immensely popular in Great Britain, not just because it fills in potholes very quickly but because it is cost-effective?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The jet-patching vehicle is used extensively here, and, as I said in response to earlier questions on structural maintenance, an additional £16∙6 million has been allocated to that area since January. However, that money, which has been allocated across the divisions, still does not bring us to the level that is required for structural maintenance this year. Roads Service, the Department and I continue to argue that we need the required funds for structural maintenance to ensure that we not only patch the roads but repair their full structure. Some of the methods that are used to keep the roads safe are effective in the immediate term. However, in the longer term, ongoing structural damage will cause even greater problems.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Is the Minister satisfied with the speed with which Roads Service carries out repairs, and is there scope for contracting more small firms to assist with the work?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am sure that areas for improvement can be found in any service. However, few organisations can take receipt of £16 million in January, spread it across their divisions on a need basis and spend it before the end of the financial year. Roads Service is used to spending properly the money that it receives, and it responds as quickly as it can.

The Member will know — as all Members, whether they represent rural or urban constituencies, will know — that this year’s cold spell has had a very severe effect on roads. Demand on Roads Service to fix roads has been high, and it approaches that on a priority basis. It found that it has enough resources at its disposal to spend that money.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Minister assure the House that the £16 million that we have heard so much about this afternoon will be used to fill in the massive number of potholes in rural areas? I raised that matter with Sammy Wilson last week, and he was doubtful whether the money will be spent on such repairs.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Perhaps he was hopeful rather than doubtful because he wants the money back. However, from the information that I have received, I understand that Roads Service fully intends to use the money for that purpose. Roads Service has experience of receiving money that other Departments have not spent late in the financial year, and it has always been good at ensuring that that money is spread equitably across all divisions and put to use very quickly on roads. I have no doubt that, were it available, much more money could be spent on roads. However, the intention is, based on any evidence that I have seen to date, that Roads Service will spend the money that was made available in the December monitoring round.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

8. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an outline of progress on residential parking schemes. (AQO 899/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I had intended to take questions 7 and 8 together. Nonetheless, my response will cover both eventualities.

First, I will provide an update on the progress of residential parking schemes in general. Members will be aware that I amended the policy on the introduction of residents’ parking schemes to address residents’ concerns during the first phase of residents’ parking schemes in Belfast. However, following the most recent public consultation exercise, those schemes have again failed to obtain the support required to allow them to be implemented.

In response to that and to subsequent requests from elected representatives for further consideration, I have decided to re-engage with the local community in three areas, namely Barrack Street, the Markets East and the Markets West. Officials from Roads Service will have further meetings with community representatives to discuss the issue and to gauge the likely support for our proposals. If the response is positive and the community representatives agree to promote the benefits of the scheme actively, I will instruct Roads Service to resurvey the residents to confirm whether support is sufficient with a view to finalising details and implementing the schemes.

In addition, I have asked officials to begin to engage with residents in the lower Malone and Stranmillis areas of Belfast with the intention of developing schemes. Following meetings with residents and representatives from Queen’s University, my Department has established a joint group to consider parking management in the lower Malone area. The group will soon produce a short report that sets out a range of options. There are plans to pilot similar schemes in other towns, and a consultation exercise has just been successfully completed on a proposal for a scheme in the Bogside area of Derry, and details are being finalised in preparation for the necessary legislative procedures.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister will be aware that some people who have been through the pilots and consultations find them convoluted. However, people who have a clear demand for such schemes are particularly frustrated, not least, as the Minister is well aware, those in Aberfoyle Crescent and Aberfoyle Crescent South in Derry and in Clarence Avenue and Lawrence Hill.

Can the Minister give the people in those areas any hope that his Department will move to accede to their reasonable demands, given the pressures that they face?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My colleague beside me, and others in Derry, have raised the issue of the Aberfoyle residents on a number of occasions, and I am aware of it. The Member will know that the situation there is different from that in which all-day commuter parking prevents people from parking outside their own houses. In Aberfoyle and in some parts of the lower Malone area of Belfast, people have driveways, so it is not the case that they cannot park outside their homes. The difficulty lies in getting access to and from their homes, which is the case in and around the Magee campus. I have assured the people there, and the elected representatives who have written to me, that when the pilot scheme is launched in the Bogside, we can look clearly and more urgently at the situation in Aberfoyle, and at the report on a similar problem in the lower Malone area relating to parking at Queen’s University. That situation does not prevent people from parking outside their own doors, but it creates hazards and difficulties for people who have driveways to park in. There may be lessons from that situation that can be applied in the Magee area.

Private Members’ Business

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Local Government (Disqualification) (Amendment) Bill [NIA 7/09] be agreed.

In accordance with Standing Order 32, I would like to outline the general principles of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to end the practice of dual mandates between the Assembly and local district councils. Dual mandates occur when an individual holds more than one level of elected public office at the same time. The Bill will disqualify any individual who is elected, appointed or otherwise selected as a local councillor from holding the position of MLA. The Bill will come into effect at the next local district elections after Royal Assent is granted. According to the calendar, that will be the local elections anticipated in 2011.

It is important to note that the Bill does not create any new prohibitions on candidacy. It will not prevent an individual from standing for a local council and the Assembly at the same time, if, for example, local and Assembly elections were to be held on the same day. Although that form of spreading the odds, as it were, was distasteful to some who responded to the public consultation on the Bill, most felt that creating a prohibition to stand limited choice and the principles of political participation. If a sitting councillor stands for, and is elected to, the Assembly, or vice versa, when local and Assembly elections are held on different dates, that individual will be disqualified from holding the local council seat.

That is the extent of the legislation. I know that, customarily, Members are given four weeks to familiarise themselves with new legislation. It is my sincere hope that it did not take as long to read through the three clauses that comprise the Bill. Its brevity speaks to its effectiveness, and it says exactly what it will do.

The original proposal for the legislation contained two additional provisions: one would have changed the way in which vacant seats are filled in local councils outside an election to mirror the arrangements that are in place for the Assembly; the other would have created a body to co-ordinate the work of local and regional government. The provisions for local council vacancies would have permitted political parties to co-opt another party member into a council seat if that seat were made vacant by the departure of a party member. That course of action would prevent costly by-elections, ensure that the make-up of local councils reflected the mandates given by the voters on the day of the election, and give political parties the opportunity to prepare new individuals for the work of government. However, that was deemed to be an excepted matter and that proposal was subsequently removed. Nonetheless, I am pleased to see that that issue is being addressed.

Following the consultation on filling vacancies in local councils, Minister Paul Goggins recently laid a Bill at Westminster that will alter the manner in which vacancies in local councils are filled to match the arrangements that are in place in the Assembly. It is hoped that that will be completed by the end of March.

The final provision of the original proposal, the co-ordination body, was designed to ensure effective communication, complementary efforts, and shared visions and agenda between local and regional government, particularly if the review of public administration is to be realised and councils are to be given enhanced responsibilities. Such systems are used in a number of countries, including Wales and Australia, where dual mandates are not the norm. It would also address the assertion that there are benefits in efficiency and information flow when the same people are MLAs and local councillors. However, efficiencies should not have to rely on individual personalities and capabilities; they should be systemic. Any value in that arrangement is outweighed by larger more serious problems that occur when the flow of information and access to government are limited to a small, narrow pool of individuals.

The wording in the proposed Bill about the co-ordination body was ultimately removed when the Environment Minister informed me of his intention to bring proposals to the Executive to create such a body. I look forward to seeing that progress.

The rationale behind the Bill is simple but compelling. The legislation is about making the principles of good governance part not only of the rules but of the dominant culture of politics in Northern Ireland. That means making inclusion, transparency and accountability part of the daily operating principles of our governing structures and promoting regulations that ensure that decisions that are made by elected officials are taken with the needs and interests of the public first. It means ensuring that this nascent Assembly strives to achieve the gold standard for good governance and public representation, even when it is personally inconvenient or uncomfortable for those elected to the House. This is a post-conflict Government, and instilling the highest values in all that we do is paramount not just to having peace but to keeping it.

Northern Ireland has the worst record in the UK and one of the worst in Europe on dual mandates. Out of 108 Members of the Assembly, 67 hold mandates as local councillors. That equates to 62% — the vast majority. That is a problem. Having power, decision-making and public representation concentrated among the same limited number of people is preventing the growth of a culture of inclusion, transparency and openness. Rather than working to bring new people in, we are striving to maintain a system that keeps new people out. That has been the dominant political culture in Northern Ireland for decades. Ending dual mandates has the potential to bring at least 67 new voices into our government structures, give or take what actually happens with the review of public administration. It will force us, the political parties, which are meant to be a mechanism for public expression, to work harder at reaching out to the public, to do a better job appealing to and involving more people, and to present the work of elected government as worthwhile and valuable.

There is an opportunity to bring in under-represented voices with new recruits. Of the 67 Members holding dual mandates, 55 are men. That is to say that 88% of dual mandates between the Assembly and local government are held by men. That highlights the startlingly low number of women in the House, despite the leadership of women in every other aspect of our society. The end of dual mandates would create an opportunity for all parties to bring women into decision-making positions. The same is true for young people, those with disabilities, members of minority ethnic communities and those from disadvantaged social and economic backgrounds. All those groups make real contributions to our communities every day, but are sadly under-represented in our elected bodies.

When government more accurately reflects the make-up of its population, it delivers better policy, more accountable governance and engenders higher levels of public confidence. Confidence is a key component of this legislation. Public sentiment towards the Assembly sometimes fluctuates between frustration and fury. This body is too often perceived as bickering, ineffective and self-interested. I hope that those Members of the Assembly who are genuinely concerned with public confidence will see the Bill as an opportunity to demonstrate that the Assembly puts the interests of people first and that Assembly Members are willing to make what may seem like personal sacrifices in the name of better, more transparent and participatory government.

There is also the issue of conflict of interest, which could potentially become even more of a concern if the review of public administration comes into effect and councils are given enhanced responsibilities. It is a fact that different levels of government make decisions about each other. Indeed, there have been prime examples of potential conflicts of interest in the past year in particular. Members of the Assembly took on ministerial portfolios and retained their seats as local councillors. They went on to be involved in decisions that undeniably violated standards for transparency in government decision-making.

If councils are given enhanced responsibilities under the changes proposed in the review of public administration (RPA), it will be much more difficult to make the case that the roles of MLA and councillor are complementary rather than conflicting. That was clear in the responses to the public consultation on the Bill. The members of the public who responded do not see the roles of councillor and MLA as complementary. Rather, they see one individual taking both roles as excessive and unwarranted. Local councillors also raised concerns and indicated their support for an end to dual mandates. One councillor stated that, on a number of occasions, he or she had worked diligently on an initiative to benefit the local area only to have those efforts derailed by MLAs who are also councillors working to a different agenda.

The consultation solicited the opinions of more than 140 organisations and individuals on the matter of dual mandates. All responses favoured an end to the practice, and only one objection was raised by a local council. That concern is that the legislation should not create barriers or restrictions that make it difficult for elected officials to move from local government to regional government to national government, and so on. The idea is that local government can, of course, provide upcoming politicians and political leaders with important experience of how governance works. I am sensitive and sympathetic to that argument, and the Bill has been intentionally constructed so as not to diminish or inhibit the importance of local government as a training ground or stepping stone to higher office.

The single consultation response in opposition to the proposal suggests that ending dual mandates should be done voluntarily by political parties; I could not agree more. That is what happened in Scotland, Wales and many other societies in which dual mandates are aberrant, and that should be the case in Northern Ireland as well. However, we see little meaningful progress towards the achievement of a voluntary end to dual mandates.

All the parties in the Chamber have put on record that they favour an end to dual mandates, and most have held that position for some time. However, little has happened to make it a reality. I welcome the small steps that have been taken recently, but the deadline for full implementation keeps moving, or parties seem to take a step forward in ending dual mandates only to take a big step backwards. Therefore, an achievable reform remains merely aspirational, and our pace towards political maturity remains painfully slow. Legislating for the change will create a firm deadline for parties to work to. It will make the change irreversible and set an important, permanent standard and principle for our democracy.

Outside the consultation, others have argued that although they see a case for the prohibition of dual mandates between the Assembly and Westminster because both are full-time jobs, they find the case for ending dual mandates that concern the Assembly and local councils less compelling. Those jobs are viewed as complementary, and the workload at council level is regarded as decidedly part-time.

Allow me to make it clear: although elected Members may see a difference between those two levels of government, the public do not. The consultation found no perception of difference between those levels of government and a strong sense that individuals who have been selected for the privilege of public office should focus fully on doing that job well no matter what, rather than seeking to use the position to amass further power, as that can give the appearance that individuals are working harder for personal gain than for the representation of the public.

The consultation also indicates that the public believes that a higher standard of conduct is required when a person holds public office and is in receipt of public money; that it is not appropriate for one person to draw multiple salaries as an elected official; and that there is a degree of unfairness in elected officials holding more than one elected position at a time when many of those whom they represent are losing or struggling to hold on to the only job that they have.

Let me be clear that the perceived problem is with dual mandates, or holding more than one elected position, and not with double-jobbing whereby a person may hold an elected position as well another job that may also be supported by public funds, such as a doctor or a teacher. The difference in those cases of drawing two salaries from the public purse — for example, someone who is a doctor or a teacher and a local councillor, as distinct from someone who is an MLA and a councillor — is partially one of perception. The voters know what a doctor or a teacher does on the job. They know how such individuals earn their money and what they do to earn it. They understand the contribution that those professionals make to society, the essential nature of their work and how to hold them to account if they have a problem or complaint with their work. The same is not true of elected officials. Ask anyone on the street what an MLA or councillor does all day, and you will be hard pressed to get a positive answer. The dominant image involves attending receptions, making speeches, and that is about all.

Ask voters what can be done if they have a problem with, or a complaint against, an elected official and you will encounter an immense level of frustration and, possibly, a few adjectives unfit for children’s ears. Whether or not that perception is accurate, voters consider most elected officials to be less effective, less essential and less accountable than their doctor or teacher. When it comes to good governance, perception is important. Voters perceive a real conflict with dual mandates, and, therefore, there is one.

The other problem is the concentration of power and decision-making in the hands of a few, at a time when we need new people with good ideas to refresh and revitalise our political institutions and leadership. We tend to overvalue experience in that assessment, and want to keep or reward people who have been involved in politics for a long time. Many politicians and political leaders deserve accolades for their courage and involvement over the years, but let us not pretend that all experience is valuable, or that experience has always meant that positive contributions are made.

I have also heard proponents of the status quo argue that the voters elect the folks with dual mandates and that, therefore, the voters do not mind. The logic is that if the voters did not want those people to be elected, they would not vote for them. That suggestion is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Political parties, not voters, select who will be on the ballot paper on election day, and whom the voters get to select. The parties then appeal to the voters, in the name of party loyalty, to support their candidates on the ticket. The parties put forward the double-dippers, not the voters, and the parties lobby the voters to support the double-dippers. In such a situation, do voters have a genuine freedom of choice?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

No. You are up next.

Dissenting opinions are the exception. I have received extensive expressions of support for this legislation, not only through the public consultation but from Members, and I am grateful for that.

I have discussed the mechanisms for implementation in detail with several Members. Some suggested the addition of a waiting period or a period of grace after an election to allow an individual who may have been elected to both the Assembly and to local office to decide which seat he or she will take up, and to allow the party to decide whom to co-opt into the vacant seat. I am sympathetic to that idea, and it was considered in the early stages of drafting the Bill. However, it was not incorporated because it will add complexities and delays to newly elected bodies when they start their work. I believe that Northern Ireland’s political parties have the strategic capacity to plan for those decisions well in advance of election day.

Another Member expressed the concern that parties will intentionally place high-profile individuals on the ballot for local elections for the sole purpose of increasing the party’s vote and that they will then allow that person to be disqualified to co-opt a lesser-known individual on to that seat. Indeed, that is a possibility, and any system, if it is approached with cynicism, is open to abuse. However, voters would also be aware that any individual who is in receipt of a dual mandate will have to surrender one of those seats, and voters may have a sense of what is coming before they cast their votes.

Some responses to the proposed legislation were a bit more disconcerting. More than one Member argued that it is necessary to retain dual mandates as a form of employment insurance in case the Assembly collapses. That is troubling on a number of levels. For the past few years, as the economic downturn has hit, thousands of our citizens have been made redundant without such a luxury as employment insurance. If the Assembly falls, or if an election is lost, Members should find themselves in exactly the same situation as any member of the public who is faced with redundancy. That argument also has an impact on public confidence, in that if Members are not confident about the continuation of the Assembly, how can we expect the public to have confidence in it? Ending dual mandates is an indication of our confidence that the Assembly is here to stay.

I thank Members for their time and for their consideration of the Bill. I hope that its implications and intentions are compelling and convincing and that they match the system of values that they feel should be in place in Northern Ireland politics. I am grateful to those members of the Assembly secretariat who have been extraordinarily helpful throughout the process, which began in December 2008. I am also grateful to those Members who have been supportive of the Bill and of the process of political growth and maturation to which the Assembly strives to make a real contribution.

I also offer gratitude to those politicians who have dedicated years to public service even in the darkest and most desperate times. Let us ensure that the experience of the past few decades and the contributions that those individuals made are used as lessons in moving forward.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council and as a vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association. However, I will not make my remarks in either capacity.

The Member who proposed the legislation congratulated the work that councillors have done over the years, and I echo those comments. Her remarks are true of councillors of all parties in the Chamber. There was virtually no money at all involved in being in local government, particularly in the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s, so for many years, people became involved for reasons other than financial reward. Even at present, the public responsibility that comes with being involved with local government is not particularly well paid. Many councillors acted more out of a sense of service and for no real remuneration. We should also remember that elected representatives from across the political divide, particularly councillors, were on the front line of democracy at the height of the Troubles. Indeed, members from different parties paid the supreme sacrifice, being murdered during the Troubles. Therefore, we need to put this issue into context and ensure that we do not treat it lightly.

I also thank the Member for consulting with each party about the proposed legislation. We had a productive session, if not one in which we necessarily saw eye to eye. However, the Member had a useful exchange of views with our party and with other parties, and we thank her for taking the time to speak to the parties.

I understand, at least in theory, some of the thinking behind examining the real issue of public confidence in the system. The Member peppered much of what she said with statements about public perception. We need to move beyond perception and towards reality. It is not simply a question of how we deal with issues of public confidence or perceptions of roles; rather, we must ensure that we offer leadership and that we do the right thing. Although the DUP has sympathy with the Bill’s general thrust, we have a number of reservations, which I will outline.

I have a philosophical difficulty with the legislation. The Member does not support the argument that it is up to the people to decide whom their representatives will be. She said that people do not have a fair chance to vote for whom they want to represent them. I reject that analysis. Parties should voluntarily tackle the issue of double-jobbing, because they decide who runs for them and where. The public then determine whether candidates are right for particular areas. Similarly, I have a philosophical problem with term limits in America, where there is a cut-off point after which people are not entitled to run again. Ultimately, it is up to the people to choose.

The Member told us that the public, because they are given the choice of voting only for the particular incumbent, who happens to be an MLA, do not really have a fair choice. The larger parties provide a slate of candidates for whom people have the opportunity to vote. I acknowledge that the smaller parties may be an exception. Nine times out of 10 or more, however, people vote for the person whom they believe to have the most experience.

There are occasions when incumbency can be a major detraction. I suspect that Mr Farry will speak about that later. I am old enough to remember a time in North Down — I think that it was in 1989 — when the council was very unpopular, owing to decisions that it had made. On that occasion, people voted with their feet. As a result of a backlash against the council, parties chose new candidates ahead of councillors who had served for a number of terms. Fundamentally, however, people judge whether to back incumbents or MLAs. Equally, they can decide that they want to see a fresh face or to elect someone who is unencumbered by the pressures of being an MLA. That is a choice for the electorate to make. People are not stupid.

The Member mentioned voluntary movement by parties. There has been a certain level of voluntary movement, although it has been quite slow. The DUP is committed to reducing the number of its MLAs who are also councillors. Sammy Wilson recently stood down from Belfast City Council and Peter Robinson from Castlereagh Borough Council.

Up until now, co-options in this proportional representation (PR) system have been possible only when the council unanimously agrees to them, so political parties have been able to try to gain an advantage by forcing a by-election. All parties have probably been guilty of attempting that at some stage, and I do not claim sainthood on behalf of my party. Fortunately, however, there has been greater movement away from doing that. When Peter O’Hagan, the distinguished Lisburn councillor, died, a co-option was agreed. In the past, however, we have not always been so fortunate. Parties may have restricted some of their senior members from standing down from councils because of the threat of a resulting by-election.

As was indicated, it was originally intended that the Bill would allow co-option. Fortunately, events have somewhat overtaken that, and the British Government are progressing legislation that will mean that, by the end of the month, co-option will become automatic. That will provide some reassurance for parties to move some of their representatives out of local government, because, to use Lisburn as an example — a council area that, I think, at one point, had only one nationalist seat — parties will be less tempted to take advantage of that situation for their own party political ends.

The public perception of dual mandates was mentioned, and I also have reservations about that. Whatever arguments and time frame are used, comparing MPs with MLAs — clearly two full-time and, to some extent, overlapping and complementary jobs — is not the same as comparing MLAs with councillors. I can speak if not from a unique perspective in the House then a slightly unusual one, in that I served purely as an MLA for some seven years. For five years, I have served as an MLA and a councillor, whereas most Members of the House tend to be councillors when they are first elected to the House to serve a dual purpose. Personal experience has shown me that there is a high level of complementarity and that the two posts marry.

My being a councillor at the same time as being an MLA has been an advantage to me in giving me a wider perspective. That cuts both ways. In North Down Borough Council, five of the 25 councillors are MLAs. That means that the MLAs can bring a useful central government perspective to the council chamber. It also means that, in reflecting local concerns and issues, I freely admit that, as a councillor, I am much better informed as an MLA than I previously was. On that basis, I am able to convey attitudes from the council to the Assembly. My perspectives from the council and the Assembly have been advantageous to me in my wider local government work, as, I suspect, they have been to others.

I question the idea that the Bill’s sponsor may have had at least one disgruntled councillor complain about MLAs having different agendas and so on. However, the idea that some brilliant local initiative can be stymied by MLAs’ being members of a particular council does not hold water. No council in Northern Ireland has a majority of MLA members. In every case, councillors who are MLAs are in the minority. Therefore, the idea that MLAs can veto council matters simply does not add up.

I have reservations about the distinction that is drawn between the public purse and dual mandates. Anyone who has served in local government will know that all councillors, unless retired, have other jobs. The sponsor of the Bill may not have that perspective because, to the best of my knowledge, she has never served in local government, so the advantages of doing so may be lost to her. However, it is a financial necessity for all councillors to have other jobs. I find it a little bit odd for someone to say that one can be a councillor and a doctor or a councillor and a teacher, but one cannot be a councillor and a professional politician. That proposition seems illogical.

There are also practical reservations. Mention was made, for example, of a situation where council and Assembly elections take place at the same time. If, on election to the Assembly, a person automatically lost his or her council seat, there would be certain practical implications which must be looked at in a wider context.

Under the RPA process, which achieved cross-party agreement among all five major parties, at the first council meeting after an election responsibilities and key positions will be allocated, probably through d’Hondt or another form of proportionality, according to party strength. If people are automatically removed from council seats, there would be two unforeseen circumstances. First, do we weaken that party by one seat on the council? The first council meeting after an election will probably take place before any co-option, albeit compulsory, has taken place. There are practical difficulties with that.

Secondly, unlike the present situation, whereby in the next few months in the run-up to the RPA a number of councillors will vacate their seats to make way for others, if, on the same day, people vote for someone who is running as an MLA and as a councillor — this will create a dilemma for a lot of individuals who are not in secure seats — they may elect Joe Bloggs on a Thursday only to find that, within a month, he is replaced by another councillor. That is another practical difficulty. This is where the exploration between the parties has to happen, and perhaps this is a vehicle that can be used so that this is progressed by agreement between the parties as to the best way forward.

I am not claiming any particular special knowledge, but I do not foresee the conflict of interest and friction that the proposer of the motion suggested will exist in 2011. In my 12 years in the Assembly, that has not been my experience. As part of the RPA process, severance arrangements will be put in place for the many long-serving councillors who will be leaving office. Under this Bill, in 2011 we will all be stripping out all 67 councillors who are also MLAs.

There will be additional powers for councils but also a high level of cultural change because of the division of responsibilities between parties but also because, to take one example, when planning comes to councils, instead of all of us who are on councils throwing rocks at the planners and using it as a vehicle to object to particular things, we will become judge, jury and executioner. That is going to be a huge cultural change, and there needs to be a high level of capacity building. In 2011, will we simply remove everyone who has served in the Assembly, along with a wide range of serving councillors who have been there for many years? On any council, the best team is a blend of youth and experience.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

Yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I hear Mr Simpson saying yes. I am not sure whether he counts himself as youthful or experienced. I think that he was claiming both. I suspect that, in politics, the older one gets, the higher one tends to raise the bar of what counts as youthful.

I want to see new blood coming into councils, but I want that to be balanced. That is the best way to bring people on, and the present system affords us the opportunity to do that. The challenge, therefore, under RPA, is to balance bringing in new talent with retaining people who have a degree of experience in local government.

The DUP has a range of reservations about how the Bill is drafted. Consequently, we have a degree of scepticism about it. However, we will see whether the Bill can be improved and worked on. Therefore, if the Bill passes its Second Stage today, we will work proactively on whatever Committee is charged with dealing with it. From that perspective, although we have major reservations about the Bill, which we have highlighted, we believe that it indicates some level of motivation to rebuild public confidence. Consequently, although we have a lot of scepticism towards the Bill, we will not divide the House. If the Bill passes this stage, we look forward to working in Committee to see whether something can be salvaged from it that will benefit our democracy in Northern Ireland.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the principles of the Bill. The Bill is short and contains only three clauses, but its implementation and outworkings will lead to proper, transparent representation in public office and should instil confidence in local communities and the general public.

Mr Weir talked about public perception, but he knows the reality. Irrespective of how people try to cover over the issue of MLAs being local councillors — the work of a councillor is presented as a part-time job — some people still see them as two jobs. A lot of people, especially in the construction industry, do not have a job, and in relation to the whole debacle —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I would like the Member to explain whether he is saying that he is opposed to double mandates or to double-jobbing, because, in my book, there is a fundamental difference. We listened to the proposer of the motion state that she was opposed to double mandates. She was not opposed, for example, to a doctor also being a councillor, but she voiced great opposition to an MLA being a councillor. However, those of us who have been sitting on councils — some since the early 1970s — always had another job. In fact, at that time, there was no remuneration for councillors. Furthermore, those were the bad old days when we were going through a horrendous period in the history of this Province. Indeed, at that time it was not popular for someone even to put their name forward for election, and I suspect that all parties had that difficulty. Therefore, some of what has been said smacks a bit of jumping on the bandwagon. Perhaps it is more popular to be in politics now than it was then. Should some recognition not be given to that?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

For clarification, I am talking about mandates. I am responding to what Mr Weir said. We are talking about representing the public and leading from the front. I have spoken about the perception that is out there, and that is the point that I am trying to get across. We recognise the good work that local councils have done in the past; I am not arguing about that. The key point that I want to make is about public perception.

Sinn Féin supported the recommendation under the review of public administration that a Member of the Assembly cannot stand for election under the proposed new council structures, and we believe that it is a matter for individual parties to regulate on the issue of dual mandates. My party has already taken steps to support the ending of dual mandates. Sinn Féin has seen a number of local councillors — myself included, I am pleased to point out — who have been co-opted out of local councils to give someone else that opportunity.

In most cases, the Bill will remove the issue of conflict of interest, which, at present, may be inhibiting the decision-making process, and, therefore, impacting on local ratepayers and local communities, whether people want to recognise that or not. It would address the present situation in which a Minister who is a local councillor is legislating on planning, the review of public administration and all other aspects of their ministerial role and then sitting on a local council making a decision as part of a corporate council, which may be contrary to policy or to that ministerial role. Therefore, there can be conflicts of interest. Members should not fail to recognise that

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Does the Member agree that, in the argument over a potential conflict of interest, there is a difference between someone who is both a Minister and councillor and someone who is both a Member and a councillor, where the position is a lot less acute? From a practical point of view, it is difficult to find many cases of conflict of interest on that basis. Does the Member agree that there will be occasions when conflicts of interest arise in councils? I have been present when a person has declared a conflict of interest. An example occurred recently in my council when a potential grant for a primary school of which I am a governor was debated. I declared an interest and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion. Such conflicts of interest will be taken care of by a mandatory code of conduct, which will be put in place as part of the review of public administration. Its objective will be to ensure that councillors will not have conflicts of interest.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I accept the Member’s point. However, Mr Weir will be aware that, if we are legislating for the planning process to be part of local councils, for example, the Minister will have made that decision based on a recommendation from his Department. If, when the new responsibilities are being rolled out in council, the Minister is sitting as a councillor, it will not do for him merely to declare an interest and walk out of the room.